WADA 2010 tour report

[Race Radio]

stoned babble

Can someone please translate this?

 

[lean mean &green]

Congrats ! You have just discovered professional sports.
Just replace "UCI" with "all federations of all professional sports".

To be fair to cycling and UCI you should read reports about other sports, too. But don't get upset like here right now. You will possibly explode.
About the olympics or FIFA....endless list. Cycling does its best, always in mind not to bury this sport completely, but don't avoid banning big names anyway. You can't say that about other sports. Most of them just don't care.

you can look to other sports for perspective but be careful not to use them as an excuse to move the goalposts. the culture of cycling, the physical demands, and the efficacy of pharmaceuticals to alter outcomes is unique just like each of the other sports you're referring to, that's not to be forgotten and should always provide perspective too.

And, just as a reminder: It is not only the UCI who do mistakes. AFLD didn't do any tests at the french national TTs, and if I remember it right they didn't get a perfect rating too !
Keep cool. Nobody is perfect, and you'll always find something to improve. Everywhere and everytime.

What I don't really understand too, is this big trust in WADA by many posters.

People, this was set up by IOC. Just a small hint. It's all connected and dirt and corruption is everywhere.

did you read the IO report? (i read all 51 pages) when was the last time you read the code or the banned substances list? are you familiar with WADA's policies and procedures. do you even recognize my avatar? (a small hint: it's an equals sign) don't tell me WADA's corrupt based upon your gut feeling. i'm well aware of their origins which is why i'm pleasantly suprised by how they operate in such an impartial fashion, it seems to be the one organization that is functioning the way it should.

since you seem a little confused, WADA was established to correct a crisis of credibility for sports in which the IOC provides oversight. ie doping was hurting the bottom line and the IOC needed to fix things fast to save itself. WADA also works in partnership with world governments. if WADA has financial interests, they are to make sure that doping remains visible so that they remain relevant. their only responsibility, and in turn their financial interests depend simply upon being unbiased. they just published a damning report of the UCI's anti-doping strategies during the biggest event on the calendar and released it, unfiltered, to the public. really looks corrupt, doesn't it?

is corruption possible within any organization? yep! do you know what your talking about? nope!

 

[Anonymous]

Congrats ! You have just discovered professional sports.
Just replace "UCI" with "all federations of all professional sports".

Oh I realised this before. The difference this time is it is a published wada report. Countless people have told us over the years that the UCI protects riders, countless riders have said how easy it is to beat the BP. BUt this is probably the first time we have had it written down in black and white in front of us from a body respected within sport such as WADA.

 

[Cobblestoned]

The problem is I know what I am talking about, I am not confused and I don't believe in god.

I read the report. (congrats that you did it too). Rating for UCI was good. Hope you didn't miss that.
I read the code and that list every year. The other things you mentioned were not new for me.
And yes, corruption is possible within any organization.

That's life.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Oh I realised this before. The difference this time is it is a published wada report. Countless people have told us over the years that the UCI protects riders, countless riders have said how easy it is to beat the BP. BUt this is probably the first time we have had it written down in black and white in front of us from a body respected within sport such as WADA.

And where is the BIG scandal ?
It's not there. We would feel it in the media. Don't you think so ?

Wada: "UCI controls = good", but still room to improve to perfect or to nearly without loopholes

This is cycling and a bikerace.
This is not a competition for best drugtesting or building a perfect testing environment. Perhaps for the antidopingindustry.

 

[Anonymous]

And where is the BIG scandal ?
It's not there. We would feel it in the media. Don't you think so ?

Wada: "UCI controls = good", but still room to improve to perfect or to nearly without loopholes

This is cycling and a bikerace.
This is not a competition for best drugtesting or building a perfect testing environment. Perhaps for the antidopingindustry.

Because like most things the media only bother to read the first few lines, some of them dont either do that and just copy the reports from other news sources.

Remember back to the original resolution that allowed the AFLD to request WADA to make the UCI do random tests based on evidence they had. How many of the cycling websites reported that resolution accurately. One. Velonews. The rest CN included just reported that the AFLD had been denied permission to do testing at the tour. (Cn finally updated their article later to reflect the actual decision)

How many of the cycling news sources do you actually reckon have read the entire document? Naff all. They all just took the "testing generally good" headline and went with it.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Because like most things the media only bother to read the first few lines, some of them dont either do that and just copy the reports from other news sources.

Remember back to the original resolution that allowed the AFLD to request WADA to make the UCI do random tests based on evidence they had. How many of the cycling websites reported that resolution accurately. One. Velonews. The rest CN included just reported that the AFLD had been denied permission to do testing at the tour. (Cn finally updated their article later to reflect the actual decision)

How many of the cycling news sources do you actually reckon have read the entire document? Naff all. They all just took the "testing generally good" headline and went with it.

Yes, sad sometimes.
Many do or not do "reporting" like you said. Most media pointed out the flaws.
It's nearly quite and relatively balanced in Germany.
That says a lot - because its cycling.

 

[shouldawouldacoulda]

they just published a damning report of the UCI's anti-doping strategies during the biggest event on the calendar and released it, unfiltered, to the public.

You're calling it a 'damming report' others are calling it a commendable or satisfactory report. I'm confused... really what is it?

I read it, all 51 pages too. Yes, I read pages 18-20 closely. I think you've chosen to cherry-pick particular findings and recommendations and have created your own conclusions that don't align with those of the authors of this report.

I suggest you re-read the executive summary where the WADA report authors clearly state their findings, position, recommendations and conclusions of the UCI's anti-doping program.

 

[tubularglue]

Finally got around to finishing the IO/WADA release...

I only have one question. How in the h*ll do they actually catch ANYBODY?

big fish prey on small fish, and so on down the chain

 

[lean mean &green]

You're calling it a 'damming report' others are calling it a commendable or satisfactory report. I'm confused... really what is it?

I read it, all 51 pages too. Yes, I read pages 18-20 closely. I think you've chosen to cherry-pick particular findings and recommendations and have created your own conclusions that don't align with those of the authors of this report.

I suggest you re-read the executive summary where the WADA report authors clearly state their findings, position, recommendations and conclusions of the UCI's anti-doping program.

i think you're cherry picking my post that comment was made in response to another poster alleging that WADA was corrupt. at times the report is damning but on the whole i'd have to say a rating of "good" is lukewarm or very similar to "satisfactory". in other words, the report hardly suggests corruption.

 

[Anonymous]

i think you're cherry picking my post that comment was made in response to another poster alleging that WADA was corrupt. at times the report is damning but on the whole i'd have to say a rating of "good" is lukewarm or very similar to "satisfactory". in other words, the report hardly suggests corruption.

"satisfactory" of course is the accepted keyword for "BAD" when writing a employee reference.

As you say WADA are suggesting that the UCI testing is satisfactory. In other words, dont employ this person.

 

[lean mean &green]

"satisfactory" of course is the accepted keyword for "BAD" when writing a employee reference.

As you say WADA are suggesting that the UCI testing is satisfactory. In other words, dont employ this person.

ok, my word choice probably wasn't as subtle as i wanted it to be.

i think the IO report reads a little differently if you've been following this debate closely like you or i have. the UCI has tried to market itself as aggressive on doping and McQuaid has made ridiculous claims about having literally solved the problem. granted, they are unrealistic expectations most knowledgeable folks dismiss but they're clearly ringing false from the IO report. if you read it with a good understanding of doping protocols and techniques athletes use, the substances likely being used, an understanding of how easy it is to circumvent controls, and how narrow some of the testing windows are, you see obvious loopholes to be exploited by well funded and resourceful PED users. and if so, you probably aren't as accepting of the "good" rating or attach different meaning to it. ie they are doing a good job when compared to other sports in complete denial. i tend to think WADA is playing politics quite well here and has chosen softer language in an attempt to massage the UCI to go further rather than to bring about change by attacking them. is this a small dose of confirmation bias? probably

 

[shouldawouldacoulda]

i think you're cherry picking my post that comment was made in response to another poster alleging that WADA was corrupt. at times the report is damning but on the whole i'd have to say a rating of "good" is lukewarm or very similar to "satisfactory". in other words, the report hardly suggests corruption.

Yes I did cherry pick your post. And in that post you were defending WADA as a good organization that is un-biased and transparent. I'm still confused, wouldn't such an unbiased and transparent organization write a report that is clear and says what they mean?

I still think you and some of the guys here are twisting the report to mean more than it does, or more what you wish it had said.

I took the report to be complimentary of the UCI's efforts. Sure, there are flaws (big ones even) and 57 recommendations but it appears the IO's were impressed with the UCI and complimented their efforts. If they weren't why would they write this:

"The IO Team wishes to emphasise that the number of recommendations should not be viewed in any way as detracting from the IO’s conclusion that the anti-doping programme at the 2010 Tour was of a good quality."

And on page 19 - right after all those damming bullet points they say this:

"Before any conclusions are made with respect the UCI’s testing strategy the IO Team would like to reiterate that the UCI’s ABP is an excellent programme and one the UCI should be proud."

If you (and even teamSkyFans) feel different why not email Andy Parkinson and Tim Ricketts (the chairs of the IO team) and ask them if the report was disingenuous in its compliments of the UCI for political reasons? Here are their email addressess:

Andy: andy.parkinson@ukad.org or andrew.parkinson@ukad.org
Tim: tim.ricketts@irb.com

Remember too, that one of the main motivations of the mission was to mediate the dispute between the AFLD and UCI. If the UCI's ADP was truly poor wouldn't the report have recommended that the AFLD run the ADP at the Tour?

I think I've read all this thread and no one is talking about what I thought was a really important part of the report:

"this report recommends that the UCI should reinvigorate discussions regarding a Code of Conduct for ProTeams with the intention of establishing a mutually agreement Code before the next season of Grand Tours."

I would love to see the above happen and actually be followed/enforced this time.

Actually getting back to the report's exec summary it makes 3 key recommendations, that we should be discussing more here

1. Vary test distribution plans in order to reduce or remove predictability.

2. the UCI should be the default results management authority rather than delegating sanctioning process to National Federations. -- No one seems to be talking about this one either --

3. the UCI and ProTeams should agree upon a Code of Conduct for ProTeams before the next season of Grand Tours

If the UCI is so poor and corrupt why in the hell would the WADA IO's suggest the UCI be given more power and control in the Anti doping processes of cycling? (see point 2 above)

Finally, let's continue the cherry picking theme. Here are some complimentary nuggets from the IO report:

"The IO Team wishes to emphasise that the number of recommendations should not be viewed in any way as detracting from the IO’s conclusion that the anti-doping programme at the 2010 Tour was of a good quality. "

"the UCI should be congratulated on both their execution of their programme but also their willingness to adapt, modify and try new approaches throughout this Tour."

"The IO Team would like to commend the UCI for implementing an anti-doping programme of such quality. We hope that the good practices implemented at the 2010 Tour, along with the recommendations in this report, will assist in the continuous improvements"

 

[Race Radio]

In the past the UCI and WADA have had name calling contests and largely been at war. Last year thhe IOC told them to cool it and behave. They settled their lawsuits and promised not to defame each other anymore.

There is NO WAY they are going to come out a say clearly "The UCI SUCKS!" but the fact that they spent most of the report pointing out mistakes, shoddy work, and gave multiple suggestions for improvement should give a clear indication of their feelings on the matter......the UCI sucks.

 

[shouldawouldacoulda]

In the past the UCI and WADA have had name calling contests and largely been at war. Last year thhe IOC told them to cool it and behave. They settled their lawsuits and promised not to defame each other anymore.

This is certainly true - but I blame Richard Pound for that. He could have been more diplomatic in his approach. And at that time the UCI was run by HV - who was truly corrupt.

I'm not convinced McQuaid is HV's puppet. I'm also not sure he is corrupt. I'm quite sure he is incompetent. But I'd rather an incompetent boob than a corrupt one . That said, I'd prefer we didn't have to suffer McQuaid at all.

There is NO WAY they are going to come out a say clearly "The UCI SUCKS!" but the fact that they spent most of the report pointing out mistakes, shoddy work, and gave multiple suggestions for improvement should give a clear indication of their feelings on the matter......the UCI sucks.

With respect I disagree. If that is what they found that is what they would say. They didn't. They said the ADP was of good quality, but found several areas for improvement - which I'd expect from this kind of mission --bringing in experts to provide an outside opinion.

 

[lean mean &green]

Yes I did cherry pick your post. And in that post you were defending WADA as a good organization that is un-biased and transparent. I'm still confused, wouldn't such an unbiased and transparent organization write a report that is clear and says what they mean?

I still think you and some of the guys here are twisting the report to mean more than it does, or more what you wish it had said.

that's called confirmation bias, i alluded to it earlier

If you (and even teamSkyFans) feel different why not email Andy Parkinson and Tim Ricketts (the chairs of the IO team) and ask them if the report was disingenuous in its compliments of the UCI for political reasons?

how do you know i haven't already?

Actually getting back to the report's exec summary it makes 3 key recommendations, that we should be discussing more here

1. Vary test distribution plans in order to reduce or remove predictability.

2. the UCI should be the default results management authority rather than delegating sanctioning process to National Federations. -- No one seems to be talking about this one either --

3. the UCI and ProTeams should agree upon a Code of Conduct for ProTeams before the next season of Grand Tours

If the UCI is so poor and corrupt why in the hell would the WADA IO's suggest the UCI be given more power and control in the Anti doping processes of cycling? (see point 2 above)

i'd love to talk specifics, i don't mean to be rude but i doubted that very many had read the document that carefully yet given it's length and the limited time it's been available.

#1 this has been discussed, in some ways at length. the largest and most controversial component of that is late night controls. there's a poll and an entire thread devoted to it. i've stated my, probably minority, opinion quite clearly over there. essentially there needs to be more numerous and unpredictable controls. a point on which most agree so i don't know if there's that much to discuss.

#2 i "interpret" this to be a direct response to the contador situation and that WADA, as scary as it sounds, trusts the UCI more than the national (Spanish) federation. it would streamline the process and could minimize the legal wrangling over who has jurisdiction/authority and could simplify the wasteful, lengthy, and sometimes expensive appeal process.

#3 pretty uncontroversial. there should be a code of conduct and it should be mandatory that protour teams participate in it. the code of conduct used to include various stipulations/restrictions. one in particular pertaining to rider participation following a suspension become a farce. ie convicted dopers couldn't join protour teams for a few years following a suspension etc. it's obvious that it wasn't workable and was soon ignored entirely. a code of conduct with realistic and enforceable expectations needs to be re-established. a code of conduct is only as good as it's enforcement tho!

 

[Race Radio]

This is certainly true - but I blame Richard Pound for that. He could have been more diplomatic in his approach. And at that time the UCI was run by HV - who was truly corrupt.

I'm not convinced McQuaid is HV's puppet. I'm also not sure he is corrupt. I'm quite sure he is incompetent. But I'd rather an incompetent boob than a corrupt one . That said, I'd prefer we didn't have to suffer McQuaid at all.



With respect I disagree. If that is what they found that is what they would say. They didn't. They said the ADP was of good quality, but found several areas for improvement - which I'd expect from this kind of mission --bringing in experts to provide an outside opinion.

What did Pound say that was wrong?

I agree, McQuaid is nothing more then a puppet....and a stupid one at that

 

[shouldawouldacoulda]

What did Pound say that was wrong?

I agree, McQuaid is nothing more then a puppet....and a stupid one at that

Pound didn't say anything wrong. It was more the way he said it. He didn't engendered a relationship that would be collaborative between the UCI and WADA - rather he created one that was contentious.

I didn't say McQuaid was puppet I said that I did not think he was Hein's puppet. Of course he could be someone else's?

Now, reflecting on stuff Pound said, maybe it was effective. I agreed with it's content at the time, but I hated the delivery because I love cycling and cycling was taking a sh*t-kicking.

Maybe what Pound did created the changes we see today in the UCI - Verbruggen gone, a stronger stance on doping, more antidoping action. It may not be as much progress as passionate cycling fans would like to see. But I find it hard to say cycling and the UCI haven't made progress since the Verdruggen years.

 

[shouldawouldacoulda]

that's called confirmation bias, i alluded to it earlier

Agreed. And we both did it

how do you know i haven't already?

I don't. Would love to know if you have? Or you could allude to it - well maybe you just did.

i'd love to talk specifics, i don't mean to be rude but i doubted that very many had read the document that carefully yet given it's length and the limited time it's been available.

I think your posts are on balance intelligent and well thought out. Aren't we supposed to 'try' to talk specifics here?

#1 this has been discussed, in some ways at length. the largest and most controversial component of that is late night controls. there's a poll and an entire thread devoted to it. i've stated my, probably minority, opinion quite clearly over there. essentially there needs to be more numerous and unpredictable controls. a point on which most agree so i don't know if there's that much to discuss.

True and agree.

#2 i "interpret" this to be a direct response to the contador situation and that WADA, as scary as it sounds, trusts the UCI more than the national (Spanish) federation. it would streamline the process and could minimize the legal wrangling over who has jurisdiction/authority and could simplify the wasteful, lengthy, and sometimes expensive appeal process.

Agree, but I think it goes deeper than just AC. I mean the recent Diluca case is another example. The sanctions levied by National ADAs have historically been notoriously inconsistent when you look across sports and countries.

#3 pretty uncontroversial. there should be a code of conduct and it should be mandatory that protour teams participate in it. the code of conduct used to include various stipulations/restrictions. one in particular pertaining to rider participation following a suspension become a farce. ie convicted dopers couldn't join protour teams for a few years following a suspension etc. it's obvious that it wasn't workable and was soon ignored entirely. a code of conduct with realistic and enforceable expectations needs to be re-established. a code of conduct is only as good as it's enforcement tho!

AGREE! Its totally uncontroversial, yet we still don't have one. We should. The previous one was a complete flop. I've always felt that to get to the root of the doping problem in cycling you need to hold teams and Directors much more accountable. This kind of code can do just that. And I think now maybe a good time to re-enact one with more progressive directors and team owners in place across nationalities and teams. In the past I think no Directors wanted change or the French stood alone. Its a good time to act again.


OK, off to watch TV. Looking forward to catching up on this thread tomorrow.

 

[Race Radio]

Pound didn't say anything wrong. It was more the way he said it. He didn't engendered a relationship that would be collaborative between the UCI and WADA - rather he created one that was contentious.

I didn't say McQuaid was puppet I said that I did not think he was Hein's puppet. Of course he could be someone else's?

Now, reflecting on stuff Pound said, maybe it was effective. I agreed with it's content at the time, but I hated the delivery because I love cycling and cycling was taking a sh*t-kicking.

Maybe what Pound did created the changes we see today in the UCI - Verbruggen gone, a stronger stance on doping, more antidoping action. It may not be as much progress as passionate cycling fans would like to see. But I find it hard to say cycling and the UCI haven't made progress since the Verdruggen years.

It is important to understand the context of Pounds comments.

The incompetence of the UCI was the key spark for the start of WADA. The UCI fought the development of WADA aggressively from day one and was the last Fed to sign the code, a week prior to the Olympics. The fact is the UCI, Verbruggen in particular, had for years maintained an aggressive posture toward WADA and had made every political move to kill it.

Looking back at Pound's comments it is hard to see what the fuss was about. Pound was 100% correct. In retrospect the UCI's response was absurd. Screaming, crying, pointing fingers....but never actually addressing the obvious issues.

Now that there is a truce between the two entities it would be hard for WADA to come out saying the UCI sucks....but it is hard to read the report and not walk away with the feeling that the UCI is woefully inadequate at it's job.