• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

What should UCI delegates be asked (a standard letter)

May 11, 2009
547
0
0
You know I see a lot of talk about fans wanting to contact federations, but what I do not see, not anywhere in this thread, is what the 'fans' want changed.

So what is the plan?

Are we supposed to flood the National Federation with angry rants demanding 'more' be done to eliminate doping?

OK, well, as someone involved in a profession, and having been in contact with many professions, there is a Golden Rule about raising issues and concerns: Problems.

If you have a problem, you should also have a proposed solution.

So what is it that the 'fans' want done? What is the platform that the 'fans' are advocating? If all we are going to do is send angry letters to National Federations, we are simply going to be ignored and the contact information will become even harder to find - further removing 'fan' influence from the process.

I do not think there is a National Federation out there that is unaware of the 'fan' desire to remove doping from the sport. I am sure that they would welcome constructive recommendations that help them achieve that end.

In the abscence of an agreed upon platform, I fear all the Federations will get is angry-grams which would be unhelpful at best. So what changes do the 'fans' want? What changes or actions should they be taking? And, with enough consensus generated, approach the National Federations with framework for progress?

Just writing angry letters doesn't always go the way the people who write them seem to think - on either side:

http://cyclocosm.com/2011/02/raw-documents-the-verbruggenlandis-exchange/
 
Aug 24, 2010
100
0
0
gree0232 said:
You know I see a lot of talk about fans wanting to contact federations, but what I do not see, not anywhere in this thread, is what the 'fans' want changed.

So what is the plan?

Are we supposed to flood the National Federation with angry rants demanding 'more' be done to eliminate doping?

OK, well, as someone involved in a profession, and having been in contact with many professions, there is a Golden Rule about raising issues and concerns: Problems.

If you have a problem, you should also have a proposed solution.

So what is it that the 'fans' want done? What is the platform that the 'fans' are advocating? If all we are going to do is send angry letters to National Federations, we are simply going to be ignored and the contact information will become even harder to find - further removing 'fan' influence from the process.

I do not think there is a National Federation out there that is unaware of the 'fan' desire to remove doping from the sport. I am sure that they would welcome constructive recommendations that help them achieve that end.

In the absence of an agreed upon platform, I fear all the Federations will get is angry-grams which would be unhelpful at best. So what changes do the 'fans' want? What changes or actions should they be taking? And, with enough consensus generated, approach the National Federations with framework for progress?

Just writing angry letters doesn't always go the way the people who write them seem to think - on either side:

http://cyclocosm.com/2011/02/raw-documents-the-verbruggenlandis-exchange/
It's a good point, but we're not supposed to discuss that in this thread. The 'what would you ask McQuaid' thread is probably a little too acerbic to inform serious letter writers.

Mods, ok to start another thread, IE. what should the UCI delegates be asked?
 
mtb Dad said:
It's a good point, but we're not supposed to discuss that in this thread. The 'what would you ask McQuaid' thread is probably a little too acerbic to inform serious letter writers.

Mods, ok to start another thread, IE. what should the UCI delegates be asked?
Agreed, and perhaps mtb Dad, Texpat or another Champion could draft a sample letter to the delegates and post it - we could then critique and refine it before starting a grass roots mailing campaign.
 
Aug 24, 2010
100
0
0
Sounds good. I'll take a stab, and leave places for others to contribute their bits. Gotta warn readers, I'd like it to be strong, but respectful so it can't distract the debate from the real problems through name calling etc. And offer a way out.
 
mtb Dad said:
Sounds good. I'll take a stab, and leave places for others to contribute their bits. Gotta warn readers, I'd like it to be strong, but respectful so it can't distract the debate from the real problems through name calling etc. And offer a way out.
Thanks mtb Dad via Texpat for volunteering and of course for the well intentioned OP - I'd be glad to review and contribute.

If nothing else, it's an excellent exercise in articulating a clear vision of a better future for the sport in which all stakeholders benefit and at best, it just may kindle real change.
 
Apr 28, 2010
3,498
0
0
mtb Dad said:
It's a good point, but we're not supposed to discuss that in this thread. The 'what would you ask McQuaid' thread is probably a little too acerbic to inform serious letter writers.

Mods, ok to start another thread, IE. what should the UCI delegates be asked?
Certainly, perhaps I'll just move these posts to that other thread
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
gree0232 said:
You know I see a lot of talk about fans wanting to contact federations, but what I do not see, not anywhere in this thread, is what the 'fans' want changed.

So what is the plan?

Are we supposed to flood the National Federation with angry rants demanding 'more' be done to eliminate doping?

OK, well, as someone involved in a profession, and having been in contact with many professions, there is a Golden Rule about raising issues and concerns: Problems.

If you have a problem, you should also have a proposed solution.

So what is it that the 'fans' want done? What is the platform that the 'fans' are advocating? If all we are going to do is send angry letters to National Federations, we are simply going to be ignored and the contact information will become even harder to find - further removing 'fan' influence from the process.

I do not think there is a National Federation out there that is unaware of the 'fan' desire to remove doping from the sport. I am sure that they would welcome constructive recommendations that help them achieve that end.

In the abscence of an agreed upon platform, I fear all the Federations will get is angry-grams which would be unhelpful at best. So what changes do the 'fans' want? What changes or actions should they be taking? And, with enough consensus generated, approach the National Federations with framework for progress?

Just writing angry letters doesn't always go the way the people who write them seem to think - on either side:

http://cyclocosm.com/2011/02/raw-documents-the-verbruggenlandis-exchange/
Why do I believe you are being disingenious with your post?
I have not read anyone suggesting to write "angry letters" as you have suggested above.

While I do not agree with writing angry letters, if people are angry then who are you to suggest that they not articulate their views?


I am sure you remember I wrote an open letter to Pat McQuaid last May respectfully requesting an independent investiagtion in to the workings of the UCI - sadly a lot of the issues I raised then are still outstanding.

Dr. Maserati said:
Dear Pat,

As the cycling community is quite small I have had the opportunity to meet with you over the years. I always admired your enthusiasm for the sport and your extensive knowledge of the sport in general.

Since the revelations made this week by Floyd Landis the sport of cycling and the UCI of which you are President has come under immense scrutiny. The accusations that a positive drug test by Lance Armstrong was ignored in return for a financial settlement is deeply disturbing and a serious charge against the UCI.

In a radio interview on Friday you mentioned that Lance Armstrong had ‘donated’ $100,000 in 2005. You repeated those comments again today at the Giro d'Italia.

It seriously harms the reputation of this great sport that there still remains major discrepancies in your version of events.

At the Play The Game conference in October 2007 you said the $100,000 ‘cash’ came in to our account "in actual fact, about 15 months ago". (Audio here- second clip)
This would be approximately July 2006 - which contradicts todays statements.

More alarmingly - July 2006 is only one month after the publication of the Vrijman report which cleared Mr Armstrong of facing sanction for having EPO in 6 urine samples that were retested in 2005.

With so many discrepancies I believe it is prudent that the UCI subject itself to a full independent financial audit.
I realise that this is a costly and time consuming process but it is one that the UCI must bare if it is to restore its faith in its members and the sporting community.

In a seperate interview today former UCI member Sylvia Schenk said "the UCI was always very proud of its accounts".
This should mean that the UCI should be able to immediately release details of the transaction, UCI booking and machine purchased, before an audit gets underway.

I also believe that you need to consider your position at this point.
In the interest of the sport of cycling, I respectfully suggest you stand down or stand aside while any investigation takes place – as I believe it would effect your ability to carry out the day to day duties of President.

If you feel that you should not stand down or stand aside then it is imperative that you clearly articulate the reasons for not doing so.

It is time to move along and begin the process of rebuilding the trust and credibility of this great sport.


I seem to remember you wrote a letter to Pat also...... not many solutions here.

gree0232 said:
To the UCI President:

I think you should be lauded for the actions you have taken to clean up the sport of cycling. When you took over the sport was riddled with scandal and in the midst of a full blown doping crisis. You were trapped between extremes, and have had a very difficult time forging a succcessful path through the muck.

On one hand, you inhereite dthe legacy of Hein Verbruggen's in adaquate response to the rise of doping. The initial failure to clamp down on doping during his tenure lead directly to such scandals as the Festina affair. The lax attitude and enforcement allowed the cancer of dope to infiltrate the sport to a large extent. Reverseing a doping problem under the best of circumstances is difficult and demanding.

However, the circumstances that you began this turnaround were far from normal. **** Pound may have accurately gauged the extent of the problem in cycling, but the tactics he chose to confront that issue involved the systemic undermining of the very system necessary to combat doping. By relying on public leaks and innuendo rather than proof, **** Pound helped create an atmoshpere of accussation and witch hunt attitide toward any and all success in the sport.

Stuck in between these two extremes, you have had to forge a path ahead. This has included strengtheing and clarifying the WADA code, the creation of a whereabouts system backed up by increasingly tough and through testing, and the creation and implimentation of the biolgical passport has proven a great help in identifying and targeting likely dopers within the sport. Additionally, and with little fanfair, the biological passport just passed its first legal hurdle and has become an additional tool for sanction within the sport.

Although none of use can say that the scurge of doping will forever be beaten, it is clear that your efforts have significantly reduced the corrupting influence of this cancer on our sport.

I applaud your actions, and hope that your steadfast leadership continues into the future.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Why do I believe you are being disingenious with your post?
I have not read anyone suggesting to write "angry letters" as you have suggested above.

While I do not agree with writing angry letters, if people are angry then who are you to suggest that they not articulate their views?


I am sure you remember I wrote an open letter to Pat McQuaid last May respectfully requesting an independent investiagtion in to the workings of the UCI - sadly a lot of the issues I raised then are still outstanding.





I seem to remember you wrote a letter to Pat also...... not many solutions here.
So Doc, you are contrbuting to a grass roots compaign by attempting to slam someone who has disagreed with you whose state of mind yoru are predicting?

THAT is my concern with people writting National Federations. If you are writing National Federations because you think a poster on the cyclingnews forum is a jerk, you are not doing anything constructive at all.

My state of mind is in moving beyong acrimony and recrimination and into something tangible in terms of anti-doping that we can bring to effect policy regarding anti-doping - as a grass roots campaign.

In short, the agencies charged with governing cycling and enforcing anti-doping practices must follow a frame work of rules as the attempt to combat doping in the sport.

So, comments like "burn down cycling" will probably not be well recieved by the various agencies whose job it is to promote both cycling and fair play within the sport.

Ergo, my state of mind is asking those who nominally do little more than complain about doping (rightfully so) to challenge them to think of constructive, effective ways to combat doping in the sport.

For example, Ricco's recent alleged blood doping, now stored and administered in a home fridge of all places? What should the federations be doing about such practices? Should there be additional 'weherabouts' requirements including home/relative home searches from UCI officials to verify that dopers being given a second chance do not rescind so quickly after returning to the sport? There are obvious plusses and minus's to such a tactic.

The point is, as a grassroots campaign, you have to have an agenda that is based in consensus, and it has to fit within the framework of the sports rules and regulations. If you don't have that, and think that parsing my words and displaying them non-contextually will result in a reduction in doping within the sport - you are missing the point.

The point is to take a constructive stab at offering suggestions to the National Federations about changes in policy and practices that will effect what we all want: a dope free sport whose spectacle we can all enjoy.

One that sponsors will want to be a part of too boot.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
To cut straight to the only point you make worth discussing.........

gree0232 said:
In short, the agencies charged with governing cycling and enforcing anti-doping practices must follow a frame work of rules as the attempt to combat doping in the sport.
You're right - "they must"..... but guess what, they don't.

No where have I said that cycling must be burnt to the ground nor have I seen that articulated by anyone other than in frustration at the system (which is understandable).
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
To cut straight to the only point you make worth discussing.........



You're right - "they must"..... but guess what, they don't.

No where have I said that cycling must be burnt to the ground nor have I seen that articulated by anyone other than in frustration at the system (which is understandable).
That is what you have a grassroots campaign for Doc.

Let me show you what this discssion could possibly be like.

Systems of doping and inside information.

It is important to realize that doping is a system, and like any system it has vulnerabilities along its transitions and operations. The system of smuggling cocaine to the US and Europe is substantially similar to sporting dope. Cocoa fields grow the stuff, which is tranported to a refinery (for lack of a better term) its product placed into a distribution network, and finally sold to individual users - and there is money throughout the operation. The same goes for doping in sport, or at least substantiall similar. Pharmacutical companies produce the drugs, and either through pilferage or manufacture, the drugs go into a distribution network, where it is eventually administered to a cyclist. One additional step though, is that modern doping often requires doctor to administer properly, introducing another variable into the system.

Now combine that with inside information, which several posters on this forum claim to have. Inside information is not about being right or wrong, it is about identifying the steps in that system to so they can be exposed and closed. So, for those posters with inside information, where are cyclists going? What are they seeking to get these days in their ever present search for an edge? Where are the training centers they are going after?

Spain, until recently was a case in point, blood doping was not illegal in Spain and was terribly difficult to detect. It was a detiniation for cyclists as a result, and the lax atmosphere allowed doping with virtual impunity.

Well, spain is closed now - for all intents and purposes. So wheer are the cyclist going? Where are the areas of the world that still have lax doping laws? Should this not trigger some curiosity in the whereabouts system if cyclists are visting these countries for 'training'? As teh UCI seeks to expand the sport, should it not also be mindful of those countries with lax anti-doping laws and delay entrance into those markets until the anti-doping laws are stiffened?

And there are several other options, such as greater financial auditing of riders to track their and their teams budgets?

Perhaps the UCI, like its bike program, can offer something similar for trainers to certify that they are 'free from doping'? With rules that will cause a trainer to lose this certification if a number of riders pop hot after using ther services? Can we do the same thing for UCI approved doctors?

Which pharmacutical products are most apt for cyclists? Can we work with the companies to introduce greater controls on these medicines?

The point is, we are looing at policy changes to help the delegets get after the problem, and 10,000 brains on this forum are bound to come up with some ideas that the two dozen of so people of the federations will come not up with, but just may find useful.

That is a grassroots campaign, and what it can do.

No one wants doping in our sport. Letters devoid of constructive methods for removing doping will simply not help that desired end state.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
gree0232 said:
That is what you have a grassroots campaign for Doc.

Let me show you what this discssion could possibly be like.

Systems of doping and inside information.

<snipped for brevity>

No one wants doping in our sport. Letters devoid of constructive methods for removing doping will simply not help that desired end state.
While some of your solutions have merit you ignore that the UCI is not following its own current rules.

There is little point in any constructive debate unless those in authority are shown to work in a transparent manner and are actively trying to discharge their duty - so my point from the letter of a proper independent investigation of the UCI itself is still the first step that needs addressing.
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
While some of your solutions have merit you ignore that the UCI is not following its own current rules.

There is little point in any constructive debate unless those in authority are shown to work in a transparent manner and are actively trying to discharge their duty - so my point from the letter of a proper independent investigation of the UCI itself is still the first step that needs addressing.
Doc,
The problem I have with this approach is these investigations turn out to resemble a virgin birth. No one publicly has a single clue how anything happened. None! Pat was too busy to know anything! Hein? He's not involved at all! Plausible denials everywhere.

Skip the investigation altogether. Delegates push for holding samples for 10 years. As WADA develops new tests for the PED the peloton has been using for a few years, samples are retested. This eliminates the built-in advantage the UCI has in doping because WADA will *always* be years behind whatever is the latest PED. Pat and Hein would lose quite a bit of control over managing positives in this scenario.

I incessantly push this idea because I think the only riders left trying to dope will be the the most sociopathic cheaters, who will get caught.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Doc,
The problem I have with this approach is these investigations turn out to resemble a virgin birth. No one publicly has a single clue how anything happened. None! Pat was too busy to know anything! Hein? He's not involved at all! Plausible denials everywhere.

Skip the investigation altogether. Delegates push for holding samples for 10 years. As WADA develops new tests for the PED the peloton has been using for a few years, samples are retested. This eliminates the built-in advantage the UCI has in doping because WADA will *always* be years behind whatever is the latest PED. Pat and Hein would lose quite a bit of control over managing positives in this scenario.

I incessantly push this idea because I think the only riders left trying to dope will be the the most sociopathic cheaters, who will get caught.
No not neccessarily - Pats comments are public and recorded so any investigation would show if he was being truthful or not.

The "holding sampls for 10 years" idea is (effectively) in place.
There is no limit on how long samples can be stored but more importantly current WADA rules state that sanctions can still be applied up to 8 years after.

Again - it is the not new rules that are needed, it is that existing rules are abided by, used and enforced - we have never seen the UCI do this.
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
No not neccessarily - Pats comments are public and recorded so any investigation would show if he was being truthful or not.

The "holding sampls for 10 years" idea is (effectively) in place.
There is no limit on how long samples can be stored but more importantly current WADA rules state that sanctions can still be applied up to 8 years after.

Again - it is the not new rules that are needed, it is that existing rules are abided by, used and enforced - we have never seen the UCI do this.
Ok, that's good info.

Maybe the general approach is to eliminate any authority the UCI has in the testing process? I don't know what those rules would be, but I think it's a necessary step or two beyond your recommendation.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Ok, that's good info.

Maybe the general approach is to eliminate any authority the UCI has in the testing process? I don't know what those rules would be, but I think it's a necessary step or two beyond your recommendation.
I have been saying for the longest time that the UCI (& all sporting authorities) should not be involved in the anti-doping process.

However, that is not something they would willingly do - so no amount of 'letters' (nice or angry) would change that.
So one of the few routes open to ordinary fans (UCI license holders) is to seek transparency and accountability in the governance of the sport to restore some credibility.

An independent investigation in to the running of the sport would be the first step towards that.
 
Oct 25, 2010
2,965
2
0
This fan has nothing to say to a clump of rotten grapes. I'm gonna advocate for a whole new batch of grapes. Reform, my buttocks.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
While some of your solutions have merit you ignore that the UCI is not following its own current rules.

There is little point in any constructive debate unless those in authority are shown to work in a transparent manner and are actively trying to discharge their duty - so my point from the letter of a proper independent investigation of the UCI itself is still the first step that needs addressing.
Lets take a good hard look at what the UCI has actually done.

1. It has steadfastly increased the number of tests administered to riders, and has been steadily increasing the variety of tests conducted.

2. It has introduced targeted testing of riders that bring back suspicious readings.

3. It has introduced the biological passport process, which helps to target suspect riders.

4. It has introduced a whereabouts program to facilitate random testing, and the tracking of riders.

5. We should be mindful that the UCI is NOT a police agency. Nevertheless, it has facilitated information sharing with National Federations and the various member nation's police forces to effect search and siezure and warrant operations through Europe and North America.

Those are ALL good things, positie steps toward removging doping from the sport.

The thing is, that these programs all cost money, and the ONLY way the UCI can get funds to do this is through licensing fees. Guess what happens if teh sport cannot attract sponsors because of the atmosphere of acrimony and accusation that clouds the sport?

The the UCI has to make tough calls about what it can apply its limited manpower and budget toward confronting the doping problem in the sport.

Overall, I think it would be good for frustrated fans to realize that the UCI is currently doing more than any other sporting body in the world regading doping in its sport.

We should also be aware that starting a grassroots campaign to tell the UCI how much is sucks would neither be appreciated, nor would it be terribly effective in inducing organizational change to help remove doping from our sport.

The UCI has been making steady progress toward combating doping within the sport, with a spate of caught riders lately to attest to the veracity of the program. This is exactly what we the fans wanted the UCI to do, and they have done it and are going after even more.

Is there more that the UCI can do? Sure, and I bet they know it as well. Ergo, we can tap into the collectively frustrated brain housing group of the fans here on cycling news to come up with solutions to HELP THE UCI/WADA/National Federations catch and remove doping (which would be helpful), or we can tell them how much they suck and wait for them to figure out everything on theor own while frustrated fans throw garbage and insults at them (not terribly helpful).

Again, nothing wrong with being frustrated with doping, but how we use that frustration to effect change, or not, is what matters in a grass roots campaign.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
While some of your solutions have merit you ignore that the UCI is not following its own current rules.

There is little point in any constructive debate unless those in authority are shown to work in a transparent manner and are actively trying to discharge their duty - so my point from the letter of a proper independent investigation of the UCI itself is still the first step that needs addressing.
Lets take a good hard look at what the UCI has actually done.

1. It has steadfastly increased the number of tests administered to riders, and has been steadily increasing the variety of tests conducted.

2. It has introduced targeted testing of riders that bring back suspicious readings.

3. It has introduced the biological passport process, which helps to target suspect riders.

4. It has introduced a whereabouts program to facilitate random testing, and the tracking of riders.

5. We should be mindful that the UCI is NOT a police agency. Nevertheless, it has facilitated information sharing with National Federations and the various member nation's police forces to effect search and siezure and warrant operations through Europe and North America.

Those are ALL good things, positive steps toward removging doping from the sport.

The thing is, that these programs all cost money, and the ONLY way the UCI can get funds to do this is through licensing fees. Guess what happens if teh sport cannot attract sponsors because of the atmosphere of acrimony and accusation that clouds the sport?

The the UCI has to make tough calls about what it can apply its limited manpower and budget toward confronting the doping problem in the sport.

Overall, I think it would be good for frustrated fans to realize that the UCI is currently doing more than any other sporting body in the world regading doping in its sport.

We should also be aware that starting a grassroots campaign to tell the UCI how much is sucks would neither be appreciated, nor would it be terribly effective in inducing organizational change to help remove doping from our sport.

The UCI has been making steady progress toward combating doping within the sport, with a spate of caught riders lately to attest to the veracity of the program. This is exactly what we the fans wanted the UCI to do, and they have done it and are going after even more.

Is there more that the UCI can do? Sure, and I bet they know it as well. Ergo, we can tap into the collectively frustrated brain housing group of the fans here on cycling news to come up with solutions to HELP THE UCI/WADA/National Federations catch and remove doping (which would be helpful), or we can tell them how much they suck and wait for them to figure out everything on their own while frustrated fans throw garbage and insults at them (not terribly helpful).

Again, nothing wrong with being frustrated with doping, but how we use that frustration to effect change, or not, is what matters in a grass roots campaign.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
BotanyBay said:
This fan has nothing to say to a clump of rotten grapes. I'm gonna advocate for a whole new batch of grapes. Reform, my buttocks.
Do you think PMcQ is going to volunteer and resign? How is there going to be a new "bunch of grapes"?
 
May 20, 2010
745
0
0
gree0232 said:
Lets take a good hard look at what the UCI has actually done.

1. It has steadfastly increased the number of tests administered to riders, and has been steadily increasing the variety of tests conducted.

2. It has introduced targeted testing of riders that bring back suspicious readings.

3. It has introduced the biological passport process, which helps to target suspect riders.

4. It has introduced a whereabouts program to facilitate random testing, and the tracking of riders.

5. We should be mindful that the UCI is NOT a police agency. Nevertheless, it has facilitated information sharing with National Federations and the various member nation's police forces to effect search and siezure and warrant operations through Europe and North America.

Those are ALL good things, positie steps toward removging doping from the sport.

The thing is, that these programs all cost money, and the ONLY way the UCI can get funds to do this is through licensing fees. Guess what happens if teh sport cannot attract sponsors because of the atmosphere of acrimony and accusation that clouds the sport?

The the UCI has to make tough calls about what it can apply its limited manpower and budget toward confronting the doping problem in the sport.

Overall, I think it would be good for frustrated fans to realize that the UCI is currently doing more than any other sporting body in the world regading doping in its sport.

We should also be aware that starting a grassroots campaign to tell the UCI how much is sucks would neither be appreciated, nor would it be terribly effective in inducing organizational change to help remove doping from our sport.

The UCI has been making steady progress toward combating doping within the sport, with a spate of caught riders lately to attest to the veracity of the program. This is exactly what we the fans wanted the UCI to do, and they have done it and are going after even more.

Is there more that the UCI can do? Sure, and I bet they know it as well. Ergo, we can tap into the collectively frustrated brain housing group of the fans here on cycling news to come up with solutions to HELP THE UCI/WADA/National Federations catch and remove doping (which would be helpful), or we can tell them how much they suck and wait for them to figure out everything on theor own while frustrated fans throw garbage and insults at them (not terribly helpful).

Again, nothing wrong with being frustrated with doping, but how we use that frustration to effect change, or not, is what matters in a grass roots campaign.
Do you work for the UCI?
The defense of it you offer is preposterous. It does not even follow its own rules, allows tests to be concealed, gives some riders preferential treatment and demonstrates a level of cronyism that would make la cosa nostra proud.
They need to be shamed...publicly and relentlessly until the dirtbags are shaken out.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
TexPat said:
Do you work for the UCI?
The defense of it you offer is preposterous. It does not even follow its own rules, allows tests to be concealed, gives some riders preferential treatment and demonstrates a level of cronyism that would make la cosa nostra proud.
They need to be shamed...publicly and relentlessly until the dirtbags are shaken out.
But, I'm sure that playing nice will work. Ask Floyd.
You want to start a grass roots campaign that asks the UCI to believe everything Floyd Landis states in the unvarished truth? And that it should sanction all riders because they are ALL dopers (which is why he had to dope), and that it should dissolve itself because it hides doping positives (which is apparently facilitated by the National Federations, WADA, and the IOC - even though riders are testing positive left and right of late?)



And do you think this kind of acrimony is going to help reduce doping within the sport? What would you like the National Federations to use their influence with both the UCI and IOC to do?

The goal is pretty clear, there are clean riders in the peloton, and we need a system that is stringent enough to deter doping, and effective enough to catch those who cheat.

Like it or not, the UCI et al. are going to be part of that process.

What will help? Accusing people of working for hated agencies as if it is a smear will not help reduce doping within the sport. If that is the tactic, then the UCI is going to do what it is already doing, and essentially ignore the angry rants.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
gree0232 said:
Lets take a good hard look at what the UCI has actually done.
Let's.....

gree0232 said:
1. It has steadfastly increased the number of tests administered to riders, and has been steadily increasing the variety of tests conducted.
I would say "reluctantly" is a more appropriate word then "steadfastly".
If you read the IO report from just last year you would realize many riders received little testing.

gree0232 said:
2. It has introduced targeted testing of riders that bring back suspicious readings.
Only 10 of the 1025 samples were used for target testing - this was initiated by the AFLD not the UCI.

gree0232 said:
3. It has introduced the biological passport process, which helps to target suspect riders.
The Bio Passport was meant to sanction people.
Also the UCI decided not to pursue cases against 2 riders, even though their own medical committee said they had a case to answer.


gree0232 said:
4. It has introduced a whereabouts program to facilitate random testing, and the tracking of riders.
Not much of a deterrent if riders know when they are to be tested.

gree0232 said:
5. We should be mindful that the UCI is NOT a police agency. Nevertheless, it has facilitated information sharing with National Federations and the various member nation's police forces to effect search and siezure and warrant operations through Europe and North America.
Really? When?
Pat even said they had not been contacted by the Feds.

gree0232 said:
We should also be aware that starting a grassroots campaign to tell the UCI how much is sucks would neither be appreciated, nor would it be terribly effective in inducing organizational change to help remove doping from our sport.
Perhaps - but telling the UCI they suck is a lot nearer the truth than what you have to argue.

More importantly - I have not seen anyone suggest a campaign to say the UCI suck - just a letter to Federations asking for more transparency in what they are supposed to be doing.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
gree0232 said:
You want to start a grass roots campaign that asks the UCI to believe everything Floyd Landis states in the unvarished truth? And that it should sanction all riders because they are ALL dopers (which is why he had to dope), and that it should dissolve itself because it hides doping positives (which is apparently facilitated by the National Federations, WADA, and the IOC - even though riders are testing positive left and right of late?)


And do you think this kind of acrimony is going to help reduce doping within the sport? What would you like the National Federations to use their influence with both the UCI and IOC to do?

The goal is pretty clear, there are clean riders in the peloton, and we need a system that is stringent enough to deter doping, and effective enough to catch those who cheat.

Like it or not, the UCI et al. are going to be part of that process.

What will help? Accusing people of working for hated agencies as if it is a smear will not help reduce doping within the sport. If that is the tactic, then the UCI is going to do what it is already doing, and essentially ignore the angry rants.
This is just a complete strawman - please just answer the questions that have been raised and stop trying to derail another thread.

Certain members of UCI have been shown to be at best incompetent or at worst corrupt.

As someone who states they like evidence and due process it is strange that you do not welcome that the correct way to answer these accusations is to have an independent investigation and that it is done through the existing framework of the UCI.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Let's.....


I would say "reluctantly" is a more appropriate word then "steadfastly".
If you read the IO report from just last year you would realize many riders received little testing.


Only 10 of the 1025 samples were used for target testing - this was initiated by the AFLD not the UCI.


The Bio Passport was meant to sanction people.
Also the UCI decided not to pursue cases against 2 riders, even though their own medical committee said they had a case to answer.



Not much of a deterrent if riders know when they are to be tested.


Really? When?
Pat even said they had not been contacted by the Feds.



Perhaps - but telling the UCI they suck is a lot nearer the truth than what you have to argue.

More importantly - I have not seen anyone suggest a campaign to say the UCI suck - just a letter to Federations asking for more transparency in what they are supposed to be doing.
One, you are simple wrong.

The UCI conducted over 13,000 tests last year.

http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI1/layout.asp?MenuId=MTU2NjQ&LangId=1

That is more than order of magnitude more than you cloncluded they were testing. Additionally, they have been using targetted testing to ctah riders such as DiLuca and others.

Yet you claim they are not doing enough of it?

OK, so what you are saying is that the UCI should be doing MORE targeted testing based on what exactly?

Two, how many doping rings have been busted up in Europe and North America in the past few years, including Joe Papp's 'riders' who slowly appear to be found and sanctioned, one in France, another in Spain, one in Austria, and the Italians are working on yet another - all with athletes who travel across borders that National Police forces cannot. If you think there is no information sharing because Notvitzy has not bothered to contact the UCI, which is HIS not the UCI's perogative (and that tells us something, BTW, that he has not bothered to check into that specific allegation), means you are missing the point.

Again, where are you getting the idea that this is NOT happening? That riders are NOT being caught?

Two, it is easy to tell people how much they suck, now place yourselves in teh shoes of the UCI and attempt to solve the problem. Dissolving yourself solves nothing - it simply pushes problem solving to someone else.

So I think the fans have ONE agreed upon issue - more targeted testing of specific 'at risk' riders.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts