UCI putting their foot in it

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
joe_papp said:
McQuaid is in an unenviable position. I believe that, given the choice, he would prefer a clean cycling to an oxygenated one, and yet surely you must understand that he doesn't want to replace dope-fueled cycling and preferential treatment with a culture of perpetual investigation and the discrediting of past results? The UCI is naturally going to be a million times better at looking out for the economic interests of the sport than they are at genuinely fighting doping (because everyone there knows that to adopt the attitude that some of the radical anti-dopers suggest - perpetual investigation into the past - would be to sign the death warrant for pro cycling as an income-generator).

Cycling does do more than any sport I can think of to fight doping - it just also has the most long-standing and deeply-entrenched tradition and culture of doping.

Yeah...there's really a simple answer for that one...
As far as I see it, there is a pretty simple answer, and that is to fundamentally change the infrastructure which has those in a position to benefit from being in charge of testing and sanctioning riders, i.e. the federations and UCI. Both parties need to be completely divorced from the process. As long as the existing conflict of interest to which you just alluded continues to exist, there will be no long-term solution.

But that means ceding a bit piece of territory and relinquishing control. And that's where McQuaid and Verbruggen have shown incredibly poor judgement, IMO. Their priority seems to be maintaining control at the expense of the sport. I get that, though. To get into a position like that, I guess you have to believe that you know better than everyone else. It's time for them to understand that they don't.
 
joe_papp said:
McQuaid is in an unenviable position. I believe that, given the choice, he would prefer a clean cycling to an oxygenated one, and yet surely you must understand that he doesn't want to replace dope-fueled cycling and preferential treatment with a culture of perpetual investigation and the discrediting of past results? The UCI is naturally going to be a million times better at looking out for the economic interests of the sport than they are at genuinely fighting doping (because everyone there knows that to adopt the attitude that some of the radical anti-dopers suggest - perpetual investigation into the past - would be to sign the death warrant for pro cycling as an income-generator).

Cycling does do more than any sport I can think of to fight doping - it just also has the most long-standing and deeply-entrenched tradition and culture of doping.

Yeah...there's really a simple answer for that one...
Thanks Joe. Appreciate your thoughts here, but excuse me for wanting to argue with them.

If Pat & Hein did not have the multiple decades, literally, of overt actions to underplay doping and undermine efforts to deal with it, I might agree with you more.

Yet, as the above citations underscore, they have so hampered anti-doping efforts it is all but impossible to believe that it has not been an overt strategy.

The only way to put cycling's past behind us (or them) is to finally admit what is going on. You only have to admit the truth once, and it will set the sport free. You get haunted by the past when you to fail to come clean about it.

So long as they enable doping and suppress facing reality, they guarantee a future of more doping. Enablement, overt or otherwise, is how you create a scenario of perpetual investigation and the discrediting of past results.

To suggest that only 1% dope is, as the good French judge pointed out ten years ago, ridiculous. And, it guarantees that 98% will dope as the message is clearly one of impunity.

I would think you would take offense to the fact that Hein and Pat appear to be saying, 'Good thing Joe Papp got busted. There is our 1% for that year taken care of. Now we don't have to worry about anyone looking too close at why there were no positives when we had exclusivity on testing at the Tour'.

Does Pat really want to put cycling's doping history behind him, or does he want to turn professional cycling into the doping version of the movie Groundhog Day?

The fish always rots from the head.

Cycling will continue with tainted results, with scandal after scandal until somebody actually provides leadership in the sport.

Dave.

P.S. I strongly disagree with you that cycling does more than any other sport. Cycling has a big doping problem. That problem has gone on for decades with a consistent 'only 1% dope' message from cycling's leadership. Hein and Pat believe that it is only a 1% problem. Any other sport that thinks they could have more than a 1% problem is automatically doing more than cycling EVER HAS!
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Can we keep this thread to 'UCI examples of putting their foot in the mouth', which DQ has been excellently contributing too.

There is another thread for Landis, McQ and Hein.

Mod can these last few posts be moved to the relevant thread so that this one doesn't get derailed, not that the above are 'derailers'.

Cheers.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
131313 said:
As far as I see it, there is a pretty simple answer, and that is to fundamentally change the infrastructure which has those in a position to benefit from being in charge of testing and sanctioning riders, i.e. the federations and UCI. Both parties need to be completely divorced from the process. As long as the existing conflict of interest to which you just alluded continues to exist, there will be no long-term solution. But that means ceding a bit piece of territory and relinquishing control. And that's where McQuaid and Verbruggen have shown incredibly poor judgement, IMO. Their priority seems to be maintaining control at the expense of the sport. I get that, though. To get into a position like that, I guess you have to believe that you know better than everyone else. It's time for them to understand that they don't.
You get strong agreement from this camp and USA Cycling in particular has much to answer for several generations of US cyclists.
If a purge of the past is not productive then at least a separatation of the bad actors from the future is essential. As for McQuaid wanting a "cleaner" sport as some have suggested, his history of sports promotion and current nepotism would lead me to conclude just the opposite. The truly profitable promoter profits no matter who wins or loses but wins the most when they have a vested interest in the outcome. Moreover his credibility is never likely to return if it existed; it's time for totally new representation.
 
More Verbruggen favoritism

In 2003, the UCI sent an 80 page document to WADA outlining their objections to the Code.

These objections boiled down to two issues - both of which are all about control. The UCI wanted to maintain control over who had the authority to test cyclists, and if there were a positive, have the authority over how long a suspension would be.

Fundamentally, this means that the UCI wanted to keep full control.

These two issues are:

1. Harmonization

...which ultimately boils down to the fact that the UCI doesn't want any other body (e.g. a National ADA) being empowered to conduct out of competition tests...

2. Sanctions

Mr. Verbruggen: "Now, my second objection has always been the sanctions. I am not against sanctions. I’m surely not. But these sanctions are unfair for our athletes. It is because they made a mistake, but the WADA have put in two years minimum [as a sanction]. And the two years minimum – I’m not against a minimum ... I’m against the two years minimum.

What we know about Hein's version of sanctions is derived from the Festina case. The UCI rolled back the bans in the Festina case so that the sanctioned riders could participate in the '99 Tour.

The rationale for reducing the bans was comical - and underscores Hein's favoritism.

The softening of the penalties will allow the riders to be ready for next year's Tour de France. For these riders, 90 percent of the season is the Tour de France, Hein Verbruggen said yesterday …

In other words, the Festina riders can go ahead like nothing happened, and prepare and participate in the Tour. They would not miss anything important.

He might as well have told them to stand in the corner for ten minutes.

Dave.
 
Pat McQuaid, admitted liar; shows favoritism

Great quote from Pat McQuaid that in one fell swoop confirms preferential treatment for Contador and exposes his proclivity for outright lies.

“What happened was when we got the report of the positive case, we discussed it with WADA, and decided to contact the athlete for an opinion for his reasoning on how it got into his system. There’s a provision in the rules that allows that.

(Sure, there is a provision in the rules, but why has it only ever been invoked for Contador? Unavoidable conclusion: blatant favoritism)

We decided we needed more time to study it to decide if we were going to pursue it or not.

(Can you say positive test? If not, then what about, umm, favoritism?)

In the meantime, we told the athlete what was going on, that we were going to study this, to examine whether his argument that it came from steak was valid or not.

(When did the argument about the steak come out?)

We agreed we’ll say nothing and keep it confidential during that process. Then I got a call from German television who said they had information that someone had tested positive for clenbuterol but they didn’t know who it was. I said I didn’t know what they were talking about,

(Ok, Pat, you are talking to the press and telling them what a liar you are. Are you ok? Did you ever hear of the expression 'no comment'? Or, do you prefer the outright lies?)

but then we discussed it with WADA, and we decided if it was going to be leaked in the media, it was better to put out a press release.”

(When we decided it was going to be leaked to the media? You decided that? Are you sure you wanted to let everyone know?)


Pat, you may want to check, but I think you just torpedoed your own credibility.

Dave.
 
Best ever example of McQuaid favoritism

Whether you love or loathe Armstrong, it is difficult not to appreciate the complete polar opposite approaches to the Landis confession:

Fahey said: "WADA is aware of the serious allegations made by Mr. Landis. We are very interested in learning more about this matter and we will liaise with the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and any other authorities with appropriate jurisdiction to get to the heart of the issues raised. WADA looks forward to these further investigations and enquiries by those responsible.

"Generally speaking, WADA encourages everyone with knowledge of banned practices in sport, including athletes who were caught cheating and who denied the evidence for years, to be forthcoming in disclosing the information they may have to the proper authorities. This will further contribute to clean sport and strengthen existing anti-doping programs for the good of clean athletes worldwide."

(In other words, WADA has anticipated this type of eventuality and has a policy, will work with other agencies, and adheres to its policy independent of content, sport or individuals involved)

UCI President Pat McQuaid told the Associated Press that Landis' allegations were "scandalous and mischievous."

(The UCI, meanwhile, starts the harrassment engine)



Ok, so WADA says we have received new information and will consider it.

Pat, on the other hand, immediately tries to shoot the messenger with absolutely NO intent of investigating the claims. Landis' claims of favoritism confirmed in an instant.

This sounds like the broken record of Hein denying that the Armstrong release forms had come from the UCI. Deny, deny, deny right up to the point that Pound gave him the copies.

Favoritism is alive and well within the UCI. Nothing like confirming the Landis accusations in the very first public statement on the matter.

Dave.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Well DQ you have contributed immensely to this thread. Fantastic stuff. I hope someone emails the link to Landis.
 
Benotti69 said:
Well DQ you have contributed immensely to this thread. Fantastic stuff. I hope someone emails the link to Landis.
Thanks!

And, in the hopes of encouraging other contributors to the thread, I think this post deserves a mention here:

Race Radio said:
Don't forget that 2 weeks ago McQuaid threatened the teams with the release of the BioPassport data if they did not stop hassling him
Being capricious about the release of test data does appear to be consistent with 'favoritism'.

You obviously cannot trust Pat to be involved in any way with anti-doping.

Dave.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
D-Queued said:
Thanks!

And, in the hopes of encouraging other contributors to the thread, I think this post deserves a mention here:

Originally Posted by Race Radio
Don't forget that 2 weeks ago McQuaid threatened the teams with the release of the BioPassport data if they did not stop hassling him


Being capricious about the release of test data does appear to be consistent with 'favoritism'.

You obviously cannot trust Pat to be involved in any way with anti-doping.

Dave.
And now Pat's complaining that a newspaper beat him to it. So much for blackmail currency, Pat. You are getting deeply into territory you can't back out of.
 
1% To 2% of the Field Dopes

Pat and Hein use some variation of "1% or 2% of the Pros dope" when they try to minimize the presence doping.

Yet, taking the list they send to the biggest stage race on the calendar verbatim, 7-10% are very likely doping in JUST ONE RACE.

Another situation where their PR campaign has no basis in reality.
 
Oldman said:
And now Pat's complaining that a newspaper beat him to it. So much for blackmail currency, Pat. You are getting deeply into territory you can't back out of.
You may be missing the elegance of this lie. The list prepared for the TdF, is:

-Only for one race.
-Likely influenced by the secret popularity contest they run at the UCI.
-Influenced by protecting what's left of the UCI's reputation.

If Pat went the nuclear option and let all his data go unedited, yet anonymous, then my guess is it would have been even worse damage to what passes for a doping campaign.

This way he can let the misinformation pass as fact. See? Pretty nice, right?
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
You may be missing the elegance of this lie. The list prepared for the TdF, is:

-Only for one race.
-Likely influenced by the secret popularity contest they run at the UCI.
-Influenced by protecting what's left of the UCI's reputation.

If Pat went the nuclear option and let all his data go unedited, yet anonymous, then my guess is it would have been even worse damage to what passes for a doping campaign.

This way he can let the misinformation pass as fact. See? Pretty nice, right?
Damn, he's totally diabolical! Not only did he not depreciate his asset, he managed to make it worth more! But it does mean he never expected to get a dime from Menchov or Popo, doesn't it?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
DirtyWorks said:
Pat and Hein use some variation of "1% or 2% of the Pros dope" when they try to minimize the presence doping.

Yet, taking the list they send to the biggest stage race on the calendar verbatim, 7-10% are very likely doping in JUST ONE RACE.

Another situation where their PR campaign has no basis in reality.
well if we take the list as an example of doping in the peloton, those in the 0,1 + 2 list are 'clean', the others have 'suspicions' about, that is a lot of riders for 1 event and not 1% or 2% more like nearly 50%.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Another broken agreement

UCI-USADA testing agreement for AToC collapses
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=6541750

USADA chief executive officer Travis Tygart confirmed that negotiations broke down late this week. The Tour of California announced in February that USADA would conduct both pre-competition and in-race testing.
The agreement was confirmed in writing in February and announced by both USADA and race organizers, who held a teleconference with reporters to discuss details. But in recent days, the UCI reneged on the in-race portion of the agreement, telling USADA that it would allow the U.S. agency to collect samples but would not permit USADA to conduct targeted testing or receive copies of test results.
Or as Floyd would put it:
USADA was supposed to supply the "c**k watchers" and nothing more.
http://twitter.com/#!/GreyManrod/status/69211570575638529
"This is another example of the UCI being unwilling to play ball with its constituents and partners," said Jonathan Vaughters
UCI spokesman Enrico Carpani said he could not provide any further detail about why the agreement collapsed. :rolleyes:
 
Granville57 said:
UCI-USADA testing agreement for AToC collapses
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=6541750

USADA chief executive officer Travis Tygart confirmed that negotiations broke down late this week. The Tour of California announced in February that USADA would conduct both pre-competition and in-race testing.
...
Given that they had to negotiate at all, clearly stillborn.

Negotiate? What is there to negotiate?

'If we let you test these guys, then you have to promise not to test those guys'

Dave.
 
Oldman said:
And now Pat's complaining that a newspaper beat him to it. So much for blackmail currency, Pat. You are getting deeply into territory you can't back out of.
Just go one step further, it'll come to you. :)

Pat threatens to release the data, soon after the data is released...Pat acts angry...
 
There is just so many stinking goo pooring out of the UCI, it almost seems like they are trying to give an information overload. How to make a case against them and ever be complete? There is too there to even summarizein a one hour slideshow!
The PR spin could be "we are a respectable and large organisation, our detractors will try and turn any story to suit their agenda, holding on to every stro".
 
Cannot stop the comedy

Pat McQuaid writes open letter to riders over l’Equipe’s publication of the “Index of Suspicion”

Pat's official statement:

"I frankly find it difficult to share their surprise and indignation ... the passport data are no evidence of (anything) what(so)ever"

All that money, all those 'tests', all that PR, and the Passport officially isn't worth the paper it is printed on. No evidence of anything.

Bullet meet foot.

"UCI will continue to take every measure possible to protect clean athletes" (And, if they aren't clean, we can always give somebody a 0)

Dave.
 
D-Queued said:
Pat McQuaid writes open letter to riders over l’Equipe’s publication of the “Index of Suspicion”

Pat's official statement:

"I frankly find it difficult to share their surprise and indignation ... the passport data are no evidence of (anything) what(so)ever"

All that money, all those 'tests', all that PR, and the Passport officially isn't worth the paper it is printed on. No evidence of anything.
Wow, you cut out nearly 140 words from the text of McQuaid's letter in order to string those two phrases together and completely misrepresent the text. WTF?

"Once again I understand the discontent of the riders and their entourage about the leak, which I also consider as completely unacceptable, but I frankly find it difficult to share their surprise and indignation at the content of the document where it is also taking into account the data of the blood passport. Team managers – you will be well aware of the programme to which you have largely contributed the financing. Riders – you are the only individuals able to access, at any time, all the analysis results of your profile, as recorded in your biological passport.

I have introduced these issues into the discussion because I am increasingly convinced that the basis for the success of an innovative programme such as the biological passport is the individual responsibility of each rider and the collective responsibility of each team.

So riders and teams must not be indignant at the blood passport being used to the maximum of its possibilities, bearing in mind that at the stage of the priority list the passport data are no evidence of whatever (which is the reason why the document is confidential).


Our objective has never been to create lists of suspects, but rather to provide ourselves with the most effective tool possible to optimise our resources - which are not unlimited - as well as to ensure the effectiveness of our approach. The battle against doping has, for a long time, been a priority for the UCI, even to the extent that it could sometimes be considered to be over emphasised in our sport. Yet it must be admitted that the reality of the situation does not allow us to act otherwise..."


That's the most ambitious bit of selective-editing I think I've ever seen.
 
joe_papp said:
Wow, you cut out nearly 140 words from the text of McQuaid's letter in order to string those two phrases together and completely misrepresent the text. WTF?

...

That's the most ambitious bit of selective-editing I think I've ever seen.
And, I provided a link to the source.

Joe, I can assure you that I have done even more ambitious selective editing. Thus, if you follow my posts, I will provide you with even better examples than this.

From what I can observe, there was a LOT of waffling in that 'official' statement.

That statement would almost certainly have been prepared by UCI communications staffers, reviewed by Pat himself, and almost certainly received input from counsel.

Given that they would have gone over every word, and every inch, KNOWING full well that:

• The press
• Various directly affected stakeholders including teams and managers,
• All of the cycling NSO's,
• Leaderhsip at other sport NSOs and ISOs,
• The IOC,
• WADA,
• The current FDA/FBI/DOJ investigation,
• Floyd’s defense attorney (who could well counter-sue)
• All of the doping and anti-doping experts,
• The entire cycling community and
• Others with a peripheral interest

would be going over it with a microscope. And, if they (UCI) didn’t go over this carefully then are even more fully culpable for its interpretation.

The Passport system has been exposed through a leak that almost certainly originated within the UCI itself. We have precedence for this.

Moreover, the utility of the Passport has already been under criticism from the WADA IO report last summer.

Everything that Pat is going to say about the Passport system is going to be intensely and intimately criticized. ESPECIALLY after Pat himself recently threatened to release the information!!!

I did not lift anything out of context. In fact, I even provided readability edits to the passages.

But, if you want to shoot this messenger go ahead. How about if you and I agree to disagree?

Dave.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
The latest letter from Pat has plenty of FAIL, as usual.

"In addition, management of the UCI anti-doping and legal departments are reviewing the security procedures put in place to guarantee the confidentiality of information in order to check if and where they might be improved."

No shit. Given cycling's history, addressing corruption is as important to anti-doping as the science. Anything that links riders names to data increases the opportunity for corruption. It's not obvious how someone could misuse the information on the list, but that's irrelevant. With determination and creativity, the possibility of someone finding a new way to exploit new information is always there. (There are numerous examples of riders figuring out how to influence what happens to their samples. These range from a friendly chat with the collector, to a rider providing their ID to lab staff and organizing some special treatment. Ressiot's identification of who certain 1999 samples belonged to is another example of how any available information can be used to connect dots in unintended ways.)

The basic operating principles of the anti-doping system must include:
1) Take every practicable measure to limit the occasions where riders names are directly connected with any data.
2) Ensure any information that connects riders names with the data is tightly controlled and cannot fall into the wrong hands.

This current leak indicates a serious failure on both counts. Pat might think the leak reflects on riders and teams worse than it reflects on the UCI. In fact, it demonstrates why doping is still rampant in cycling and who is responsible.

"I have introduced these issues into the discussion because I am increasingly convinced that the basis for the success of an innovative programme such as the biological passport is the individual responsibility of each rider and the collective responsibility of each team. '...' The battle against doping has, for a long time, been a priority for the UCI, even to the extent that it could sometimes be considered to be over emphasised in our sport. Yet it must be admitted that the reality of the situation does not allow us to act otherwise."

It must also be admitted that reality of the corruption situation necessitates "over-emphasizing" anti-corruption measures too. The reality does not allow you to act otherwise Pat, yet you persist in doing so. Don't try to pass the buck to riders and teams until you address that glaring failure.:mad:

Minor quibbles:

"This priority list is drawn up on the basis of different elements that may be useful to identify priorities when conducting a testing programme on a group of 200 riders: it is not possible to test all of them ten times, so a list of priorities has to be established based upon a number of indications and not upon coincidence or discretion. Such indications are: the raw data of the haematological profile in the blood passport (so without taking into account whichever explanation for such data), the circumstance whether the rider has been tested recently and how often, sporting considerations (results, ranking, race programme, ambition, objectives). Bringing all this information together allowed the creation of the list."

Pat expects us to believe there is an objective algorithm that's used to incorporate ambition and objectives into the index of suspicion, without recourse to discretion. FAIL.

"I write to you following last week’s regrettable disclosure of confidential information in the French daily newspaper l’Equipe'...'"

Does that mean Pat doesn't regret it yet? ;)

"I can confirm that the International Cycling Union is taking steps in order to open a judicial enquiry into the source of this leak, without further delay."

What delay has there been so far and what caused the delay?

What an idiot. He doesn't even seem able to identify anyone competent to proofread his outbursts. FFS.
 
So riders and teams must not be indignant at the blood passport being used to the maximum of its possibilities, bearing in mind that at the stage of the priority list the passport data are no evidence of whatever (which is the reason why the document is confidential).
This is very poor English on McQuaid’s part. I can only guess he means “no evidence of any doping whatsoever”. But beyond the fact that this interpretation is inconsistent with his earlier statement that the list is based to some extent on blood values, why, if it is no evidence of doping, does this necessitate confidentiality? If it were evidence of doping, it wouldn’t need to be confidential?

Let me try re-writing this for you, Pat:

Since several factors other than blood abnormalities determine any rider’s ranking on this index, one should not presume that the higher the number, the more likely a rider is to have doped. It’s precisely because those unfamiliar with our program will make this inaccurate conclusion that the list needs to be confidential.
 
D-Queued said:
But, if you want to shoot this messenger go ahead. How about if you and I agree to disagree?

Dave.
I'm not sure what we're going to disagree about since I was simply commenting on how ambitious it is to cut out 140 words and string two phrases together to come up with what would then appear to be a quote by the president of the UCI in which he seems to say that the biopass isn't evidence of doping.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY