UCI Spitting their dummy.

[Chef_Vodnik]

UCI blacklisting of Germany continues, manifesting itself this time in the MTB discipline, with the Offenberg world cup event (twice recently voted as best stop on the world cup circuit) suddenly left out of the world cup schedule for 2012;

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/offenburg-organizers-disappointed-about-2012-world-cup-omission

The organizer seems incredulous. Being on the MTB end of things, I wonder if he understands this is likely backlash from the conflict between German media and UCI on the road side? The UCI will make up whatever excuse sounds convenient, of course.

Okay, now that is REALLY ridiculous.

 

[andy1234]

Assuming you aren't taking the ****. That is just ****ed up. You're just as much of an enabler as Riis, Ferrari or McQuaid if that's your attitude.

Because other sports don't crackdown, cycling shouldn't crackdown. Because other sports sweep it under the carpet it is ok for cycling to sweep it under the carpet???

Cycling is the Amy Winehouse of sports. If you can't recognise that then there is not much hope for either you or cycling. With fans like that, the sport doesn't need any enemies.

With fans like you, who believe that cycling is the Amy Winehouse of sports, you're right, it doesn't need enemies.

I want completely clean cycling, but it's no more realistic for cycling than any other sport.
I concentrate on what can be changed , rather than constantly *****ing about a problem that is present in most professional sports.

You concentrate on the negative aspects of cycling if that works for you though.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Fans, like you who bury their head in the sand and live in denial about the problems and who try to transfer the blame to others and play the victim are exactly the reason why the sport is so ****ed up.

You are Bjarne Riis, Hog and McQuaid's wet dream of a fan.

You don't want clean cycling you want a happy clappy cult where we pretend there is nothing wrong and when there is a problem it is someone else's fault.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

With fans like you, who believe that cycling is the Amy Winehouse of sports, you're right, it doesn't need enemies.

I want completely clean cycling, but it's no more realistic for cycling than any other sport.
I concentrate on what can be changed , rather than constantly *****ing about a problem that is present in most professional sports.

You concentrate on the negative aspects of cycling if that works for you though.

To the blue, ignoring something will not change it.

To the highlighted that seems at odds with your earlier post:

This

Professional SPORT is awash with doping.
When other sports are subjected to the same level of scrutiny that pro cycling is, I will support full and frank discussion of it's problems in the media.

Untill cycling is competing on a level playing field with Football, Tennis and Swimming in terms of transparency, I'm happy to sweep the problems under the carpet the same way they do.

 

[Scatto]

I'm with the Germans

 

[Elagabalus]

Susan. Spalco, et al Are ARD/ZDF actually showing the race while discussing doping issues or are they going to a round table format with various talking heads saying the same thing over and over and then showing 5 min. of the day's racing? Because that would get old very quick ...

 

[andy1234]

Fans, like you who bury their head in the sand and live in denial about the problems and who try to transfer the blame to others and play the victim are exactly the reason why the sport is so ****ed up.

You are Bjarne Riis, Hog and McQuaid's wet dream of a fan.

You don't want clean cycling you want a happy clappy cult where we pretend there is nothing wrong and when there is a problem it is someone else's fault.

And you, like many depressive types, see the negative in most situations rather than the positive. Your reality is the opposite of happy clappy.

Thankfully, most peoples reality sits somewhere in between.

 

[spalco]

No, they did/do show the race, just with extremely unenthusiastic commentary.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

You keep on drinking the McQuaid kool aid and passing the buck.

With fans like you the sport will never change because it won't have to. No matter what **** the riders serve up and no matter how hard they take the **** out of your gullibility you'll still come back for more.

Thank god that ARD have the balls to be critical and also the balls to run stories like Dertie's failed test. I've no doubt that if the story had been leaked to CN then it would have been well and truly buried.

 

[andy1234]

You keep on drinking the McQuaid kool aid and passing the buck.

With fans like you the sport will never change because it won't have to. No matter what **** the riders serve up and no matter how hard they take the **** out of your gullibility you'll still come back for more.

Thank god that ARD have the balls to be critical and also the balls to run stories like Dertie's failed test. I've no doubt that if the story had been leaked to CN then it would have been well and truly buried.

Try not to take what goes on in cycling so personally.
Nobody is taking the **** out of you.

I hope the sport changes into what you hope it should be.

Meanwhile, I will continue with it for what it actually is.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

You're the one who was crying about hypocrisy not me. You were the one playing the victim, not me. If anyone took it personally its you not me.

 

[ShawnB]

You're the one who was crying about hypocrisy not me. You were the one playing the victim, not me. If anyone took it personally its you not me.

Yeah, this other guy that you're talking about: Sounds like a real tone-deaf whiner.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[mightymac12]

You're the one who was crying about hypocrisy not me. You were the one playing the victim, not me. If anyone took it personally its you not me.

+1

Some people have no use of rhetoric. Discussions like these tend to bring out the best and worst of people. I enjoy the consistency in logic by some.

 

[D-Queued]

No, they did/do show the race, just with extremely unenthusiastic commentary.

... and we have MTV...

Good for them. If this is true, then I don't understand the raised concern about the 85-90% 'doping' commentary.

Only if you believe the UCI that doping is limited to 1% of the peloton (and apparently to all of the amateur riders in Spain, Andorre, etc.) would this be a concern.

If cycling doesn't want doping to be the headline, then cycling - i.e. the UCI - should fix that and stop pretending. Otherwise, all coverage must be considered good coverage.

Social Media is the new version of the stockade (stealing an image from this morning's news). As such, the more the UCI pretends, denies, and shelters (aka aiding and abetting), the more this issue will last forever in this forum and elsewhere.

The UCI is perpetuating their own lingering death.

Dave.

 

[andy1234]

Yeah, this other guy that you're talking about: Sounds like a real tone-deaf whiner.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Tone deaf?
Have we started singing about doping now?
****wit.

 

[pmcg76]

In amongst all this screaming and shouting, it would be nice to see some actual constructive dialogue about what is happening.

If all media take the same approach as the German's, what do people envisage happening to cycling?

Will the UCI suddenly get serious, whatever that means. Do people believe that doping will ever be eradicated from the sport entirely. As long as there is doping and that's all the media are interested in, nobody will care.

Lets say for example, if the figure for doping was truly 5% and the media still chose to focus on that small figure, it would still seem like doping is a huge problem and people would still not care. As it is the Germans focus on doping yet how do they know how widespread the problem is in the sport. Is it based on positive test results, proof of doping or just rumours. What?

Even if WADA took over complete control of testing tomorrow, would doping suddenly stop? I would imagine there would be even more doping stories for the German media to get their claws into thus worsening the situation.

If WADA did take control of the anti-doping situation and there were no positive tests for the next two years, would people then believe the sport is clean or like people on here just say the dopers got more sophisticated.

How can a sport ever prove it is clean? what would a clean sport look like? I mean you have guys on here screaming doper at the mere sight of a rider attacking in a race so how the **** could anything appease people like that.

I think it is more likely that the sport would truly die, no sponsors, no races, no Tour. The sport would become so irrelevant that it would die for a long, long time if not forever. Meanwhile all other sports would continue on there merry way with the exact same problems as cycling without being exposed.

I am not defending the UCI because they are very much complicit in the mess but I also dont believe that making doping the sole focus will necessarily fix the problem either.

Instead of the hysteria and screaming, I would like posters to explain how they see the sport changing by taking the approach of the German media.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

That's not really what this thread is about.

It seems to me that you want to silence any criticism of the sport as according to you, criticism only serves to damage the sport.

As it is we have a gutless, compliant, fawning english language media that consistently upholds omerta by providing a platform for the UCI bull**** about 'cleaning up the sport', for Millar to spout ******** about how Dertie must be clean because he is so consistent and for regular attacks on Landis, Hamilton etc. ARD as one of the few media outlets that is critical, is being denied interviews. What does that tell you about i) the UCI's ability to take criticism and ii) its commitment to cleaning up the sport.

Actually, the failure to take on board criticism and to respond pro-actively to criticism is what will kill the sport. Critical coverage won't kill the sport, sweeping it under the carpet will do.

As I've noted, this is more to do with a concerted effort by the UCI to 'control the message' by threats and punishments for anyone who strays off message. The kind of paranoid, thin-skinned attitude I'd expect from a tinpot dictatorship.

 

[sniper]

That's not really what this thread is about.

It seems to me that you want to silence any criticism of the sport as according to you, criticism only serves to damage the sport.

As it is we have a gutless, compliant, fawning english language media that consistently upholds omerta by providing a platform for the UCI bull**** about 'cleaning up the sport', for Millar to spout ******** about how Dertie must be clean because he is so consistent and for regular attacks on Landis, Hamilton etc. ARD as one of the few media outlets that is critical, is being denied interviews. What does that tell you about i) the UCI's ability to take criticism and ii) its commitment to cleaning up the sport.

Actually, the failure to take on board criticism and to respond pro-actively to criticism is what will kill the sport. Critical coverage won't kill the sport, sweeping it under the carpet will do.

As I've noted, this is more to do with a concerted effort by the UCI to 'control the message' by threats and punishments for anyone who strays off message. The kind of paranoid, thin-skinned attitude I'd expect from a tinpot dictatorship.

a big fat plus-friggin-one

 

[pmcg76]

That's not really what this thread is about.

It seems to me that you want to silence any criticism of the sport as according to you, criticism only serves to damage the sport.

As it is we have a gutless, compliant, fawning english language media that consistently upholds omerta by providing a platform for the UCI bull**** about 'cleaning up the sport', for Millar to spout ******** about how Dertie must be clean because he is so consistent and for regular attacks on Landis, Hamilton etc. ARD as one of the few media outlets that is critical, is being denied interviews. What does that tell you about i) the UCI's ability to take criticism and ii) its commitment to cleaning up the sport.

Actually, the failure to take on board criticism and to respond pro-actively to criticism is what will kill the sport. Critical coverage won't kill the sport, sweeping it under the carpet will do.

As I've noted, this is more to do with a concerted effort by the UCI to 'control the message' by threats and punishments for anyone who strays off message. The kind of paranoid, thin-skinned attitude I'd expect from a tinpot dictatorship.

I think my question is totally relevant to this thread, people are criticising the UCI for their approach which I agree is childish. However, posters including yourself are critical of other forms of media and their pandering attitudes and are advocating they take an approach akin to the German TV channels. I am merely asking what people think would happen to the sport if all media outlets took the same approach. How would it benefit the sport and if it is detrimental, what will happen?

Or is this like Youtube or whatever were you have people saying Xx group/singer is crap without offering any alternatives of their own which can be analysed and critiqued.

 

[andy1234]

That's not really what this thread is about.

It seems to me that you want to silence any criticism of the sport as according to you, criticism only serves to damage the sport.

As it is we have a gutless, compliant, fawning english language media that consistently upholds omerta by providing a platform for the UCI bull**** about 'cleaning up the sport', for Millar to spout ******** about how Dertie must be clean because he is so consistent and for regular attacks on Landis, Hamilton etc. ARD as one of the few media outlets that is critical, is being denied interviews. What does that tell you about i) the UCI's ability to take criticism and ii) its commitment to cleaning up the sport.

Actually, the failure to take on board criticism and to respond pro-actively to criticism is what will kill the sport. Critical coverage won't kill the sport, sweeping it under the carpet will do.

As I've noted, this is more to do with a concerted effort by the UCI to 'control the message' by threats and punishments for anyone who strays off message. The kind of paranoid, thin-skinned attitude I'd expect from a tinpot dictatorship.

You are big on criticism and short on practical answers.

Criticise all you like, but unless you provide an alternative solution to stopping doping in sport, its counts for ****.

So come on, how should doping be stopped?

 

[Velodude]

The reason why the UCI, in my opinion, will not grant interviews to the German TV networks broadcasting (for the last time) the 2011 TdF is because the doping issue of Lance Armstrong has rattled the inner sanctum of the UCI to its core on any issue relating to doping.

The UCI's stumbling performance of explaining the LA previously covert gifts of $25,000 (2002) and $100,000 (2005) to the UCI has been comically inconsistent and lacking credibility.

Such behaviour gives rise to suspicion the amounts could be bribes by LA to the UCI or a person(s) to cover up a 2001 positive and produce the biased and flawed 2006 Vrijman Report into the 1999 "B" samples analysis exposure by L'Equipe.

The US Federal investigation of LA will have those transactions in their cross hairs as payment of bribes outside the USA is a breach of US law.

The UCI rules of good governance stipulate that the UCI maintains transparency and that all information is available to any person on a justified request.

Pat McQuaid recently stated as a justification for accepting LA's donations:

“Having said that the UCI is not a rich organisation and we have many demands from around the world for demands for support and material. We will listen to anyone who can help us."

After reviewing the UCI's 2009 audited financial statements I would disagree.

The UCI is flush with funds as it receives the contributions from Federations more than a year in advance and a substantial IOC payment after each Olympics to be applied over 4 years.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

If you want solutions then why not start a 'what is to be done?' and channel your inner Chernyshevsky so I'm not going to answer it here.

Needless to say, I suspect that only good things in terms of cleaning up the sport would result from more critical coverage. And we might finally move away from the hushed, fawning reverence with which riders and administrators are currently treated by fans and the media.

Cycling won't change until there is a financial imperative to change - and as far as I am concerned that will only come when sponsors, media etc threaten to pull out unless the sport cleans up. That will only come as awareness of the rottenness of the sport is spread, and that will only come with more critical coverage.

For as long as the media is hand in glove with the UCI in upholding omerta and duping gullible fans into thinking that only a minority dope and that there is no corruption in the sport, then there will never be any change.

The old 'if you are critical the whole thing will be destroyed' and playing on the fears of the worst case scenario is employed by ancien regime after ancien regime to silence criticism.

 

[D-Queued]

You are big on criticism and short on practical answers.

Criticise all you like, but unless you provide an alternative solution to stopping doping in sport, its counts for ****.

So come on, how should doping be stopped?

You proposed we sweep it under the carpet.

That only makes for a dusty carpet.

If you want to get rid of the dust, get rid of the carpets.

Same theory/practice refined over decades in manufacturing. Expose the problems by getting rid of the buffers.

Boiled frog: heat up the water slowly results in a boiled frog. Throw the frog in boiling water, and it jumps.

We need to bring the water to a boil. These German media organizations are helping. If you want to get rid of doping, give them some fuel for their fire.

Dave.

 

[Mambo95]

Boiled frog: heat up the water slowly results in a boiled frog. Throw the frog in boiling water, and it jumps.

The problem is that this isn't what happens. A frog thrown into boiling water dies pretty quickly. The one in the slowly heated water gets out when it feels like it (unless you take its brain out).

So in your straight into the boiling water idea, you just end up with a dead frog and nobody is happy except a small minority on the Frog Clinic frog who clap their hands in childish glee.
With the steady rising of the heat, the faster the better, some will ignore it, some will point out the boiling, but eventually, the frog will notice there's a major problem and change it's situation.

Either way the frog isn't going to want to talk with the person who turned on the hob.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

In amongst all this screaming and shouting, it would be nice to see some actual constructive dialogue about what is happening.

Good questions - To preface, you appear to be talking about ARD solely discussing doping (as opposed to them stopping coverage of the sport).

If all media take the same approach as the German's, what do people envisage happening to cycling?

If all the media went this route it would start to have an effect on sponsors coming in to the sport, so the first to react would be the teams.

Will the UCI suddenly get serious, whatever that means. Do people believe that doping will ever be eradicated from the sport entirely. As long as there is doping and that's all the media are interested in, nobody will care.

If the UCI were 'serious', they would hand over anti-doping to a separate party - I cannot envisage them ever doing that voluntarily, so the answer is no.

However could force IOC/WADA to step in and remove the UCI's power.

Lets say for example, if the figure for doping was truly 5% and the media still chose to focus on that small figure, it would still seem like doping is a huge problem and people would still not care. As it is the Germans focus on doping yet how do they know how widespread the problem is in the sport. Is it based on positive test results, proof of doping or just rumours. What?

Even if WADA took over complete control of testing tomorrow, would doping suddenly stop? I would imagine there would be even more doping stories for the German media to get their claws into thus worsening the situation.

If WADA did take control of the anti-doping situation and there were no positive tests for the next two years, would people then believe the sport is clean or like people on here just say the dopers got more sophisticated.

How can a sport ever prove it is clean? what would a clean sport look like? I mean you have guys on here screaming doper at the mere sight of a rider attacking in a race so how the **** could anything appease people like that.

All good questions but I have highlighted the point they all revolve around.

The only way is outside independent anti-doping that is pro-active.
Cyclings problem is that it talks a good game - but then inevitably a big scandal surfaces that exposes the lie.

To the blue- much the same, just slower and at the end of a 3 week race just a handful of riders not on their hands and knees.

I think it is more likely that the sport would truly die, no sponsors, no races, no Tour. The sport would become so irrelevant that it would die for a long, long time if not forever. Meanwhile all other sports would continue on there merry way with the exact same problems as cycling without being exposed.

I don't like associating cycling with 'death' - its only a sport.
But to answer your point - the sport will never die.
The Pro part would struggle but I actually think it is not far away from that anyway in the public perception.

I am not defending the UCI because they are very much complicit in the mess but I also dont believe that making doping the sole focus will necessarily fix the problem either.

Remember there are media that rely on the sport - so in reality it is not that it is going to stop having coverage - but for the sport to thrive it needs the MSM involvement, networks to show the sport etc which is almost where the sport is at now.

Instead of the hysteria and screaming, ]I would like posters to explain how they see the sport changing by taking the approach of the German media.

To summarize - Cycling is an activity used for transport.
So it is something that almost everyone has done and as man is competitive - everyone will have tried beating their friends to school etc - it is a sport that should be easy for people to follow and understand.
Yet the sport has little traction outside mainland Europe even when cycling as a leisure activity and a mode of city transport is on the rise.

The sole reason for the Pro side (which trickles down to grassroots) being stagnant is the sporting authorities (the UCI) sitting on their hands and not tackling its doping problem.