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

What should UCI delegates be asked (a standard letter)

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
gree0232 said:
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.
Do you think it is just a coincidence that 8 riders were busted for failed drug tests at 2008 TDF when the UCI had nothing to do with testing?
Was 2009 with the UCI back on the job really proof that we have seen the "end of doping" as Pat so famously prattled on about?
Would we have ever heard about Clentador's positive if the info had not been leaked before UCI got a chance to figure out how to make it go away?
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
gree0232 said:
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.
The figures I quoted are from the IO report of the Tour and are correct - as it gives a breakdown of exactly what tests were done.

The UCI say 13,000 tests but do little to explain what tests were actually done.

This is the IO report breakdown of the tests prior to and during the Tour:
Pre Tour:
Urine 768.
Blood 127.
Tests done for the Biological Passport only 993.

Then of the 664 dope tests done:
Blood tests -HGH only 33
Blood Test - Biological Passport only 124
Blood Test - CERA only 32
Blood Test - HBT 26

Urine - Standard test 65
Urine - Standard test + EPO 144
Urine - IRMS 30
Urine - other 12.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Paraphernalia said:
Interesting. Where did you get those figures?



Do we know all the circumstances that surrounded that?

Unfortunately it seems the biopassport is such an inherently subjective field that there is not a sound legal basis for it. It seems to be a big stumbling block.
There was no legal problem - it was a UCI management decision:
This person said antidoping officials are particularly concerned about the status of five professional riders who were flagged for doping in December but have not yet been sanctioned by the UCI. The riders, whose names are known only to the UCI, were determined to be doping by an independent committee of nine scientists and experts that was appointed by the UCI to review data from blood and urine tests.

Paraphernalia said:
Do you think the UCI is any more corrupt than most sporting organisations? Every sports body in the world seems to have an element of corruption to it, especially how they treats the bigger stars in their sports. I don't think the UCI is worse than the average.

Even outside of sport it is often the case that someone in a position of authority will apply the rules selectively and break guidelines to help people they like. I guess it's human nature so you can never really stamp it out.
Has every other sport the reputation of cycling?
I do not care about other sports or if they are corrupt or not.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Do you think it is just a coincidence that 8 riders were busted for failed drug tests at 2008 TDF when the UCI had nothing to do with testing?
Was 2009 with the UCI back on the job really proof that we have seen the "end of doping" as Pat so famously prattled on about?
Would we have ever heard about Clentador's positive if the info had not been leaked before UCI got a chance to figure out how to make it go away?
You mean the same type of testing that produces two positives (Schumacher, Rebellin) in ONE day of road racing in the Olympics? That testing regime?

Are we supposed to ignore ALL the other positive dope tests in favor of conspiracy theories?

Are we supposed to write a grass roots campaign to write all the National Federations and tell them that they suck because on what happened DURING ONE RACE in 2008?

I am going to appeal to the mods on this one: There are plenty of threads here on this forum for angry, disgruntled posters to spout off with conspiracy theory and innuendo. Please go there and let those who want to talk about methodogies free from personal attacks and innuendo laced accasuations alone.

Seriously, if we start a massive letter writing campaign of angry rants, not only will the various agencies ignore us, but, when the source of the attack is traced back to cyclingnews, I am sure there will be some angry letters set in the reverse toward cyclingnews and its editors for facilitating that 'grassroots' effort.

How about we focus on what CAN Be done, rather than playing who shot John or who sucks more for a change?

Ergo, if you think the UCI et al. suck, and just want to say that, how about you leave just ONE thread alone and allow an adult discussion to take place that is free from accusation and innuendo? Just one.

It appears to be possible elsewhere, why not here?
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
There was no legal problem - it was a


Has every other sport the reputation of cycling?
I do not care about other sports or if they are corrupt or not.
Doc,

You do realize human beings work at the UCI? You do realize that have professionals in charge of the anti-doping programs?

You do realize that on any given day, the VAST MAJORITY of the PEOPLE working in the UCI, do not wake up and start their days with the thought, "How can I screw over the sport and its fans today? How can I facilitate doping today?"

Dial it down. This thread should be about constructive problem solving, not castigation and blame. Could you please give that process a chance? Just once?
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
gree0232 said:
You mean the same type of testing that produces two positives (Schumacher, Rebellin) in ONE day of road racing in the Olympics? That testing regime?

Are we supposed to ignore ALL the other positive dope tests in favor of conspiracy theories?

Are we supposed to write a grass roots campaign to write all the National Federations and tell them that they suck because on what happened DURING ONE RACE in 2008?

I am going to appeal to the mods on this one: There are plenty of threads here on this forum for angry, disgruntled posters to spout off with conspiracy theory and innuendo. Please go there and let those who want to talk about methodogies free from personal attacks and innuendo laced accasuations alone.

Seriously, if we start a massive letter writing campaign of angry rants, not only will the various agencies ignore us, but, when the source of the attack is traced back to cyclingnews, I am sure there will be some angry letters set in the reverse toward cyclingnews and its editors for facilitating that 'grassroots' effort.

How about we focus on what CAN Be done, rather than playing who shot John or who sucks more for a change?

Ergo, if you think the UCI et al. suck, and just want to say that, how about you leave just ONE thread alone and allow an adult discussion to take place that is free from accusation and innuendo? Just one.

It appears to be possible elsewhere, why not here?
So then, you do work for the UCI eh?
What are you so afraid of?
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
gree0232 said:
You mean the same type of testing that produces two positives (Schumacher, Rebellin) in ONE day of road racing in the Olympics? That testing regime?

Are we supposed to ignore ALL the other positive dope tests in favor of conspiracy theories?

Are we supposed to write a grass roots campaign to write all the National Federations and tell them that they suck because on what happened DURING ONE RACE in 2008?

I am going to appeal to the mods on this one: There are plenty of threads here on this forum for angry, disgruntled posters to spout off with conspiracy theory and innuendo. Please go there and let those who want to talk about methodogies free from personal attacks and innuendo laced accasuations alone.

Seriously, if we start a massive letter writing campaign of angry rants, not only will the various agencies ignore us, but, when the source of the attack is traced back to cyclingnews, I am sure there will be some angry letters set in the reverse toward cyclingnews and its editors for facilitating that 'grassroots' effort.

How about we focus on what CAN Be done, rather than playing who shot John or who sucks more for a change?

Ergo, if you think the UCI et al. suck, and just want to say that, how about you leave just ONE thread alone and allow an adult discussion to take place that is free from accusation and innuendo? Just one.

It appears to be possible elsewhere, why not here?
Rebellin & Schumacher were caught by the IOC - not the UCI.

But its a good example - the UCI were offered the chance to retest the Giro '08 samples for CERA and yet the UCI refused that offer.


Again - the only person who has keeps saying the UCI suck is you.

I believe they are incompetent and possibly corrupt - if they are not why not have an independent investigation to restore their credibility?
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
So then, you do work for the UCI eh?
What are you so afraid of?
'Fans' like you, who are apparently incapable of constructive problem solving. Or who think flaming people as you have just done, will result in even a single rider being sanctioned, a single corrupt organization sanctioned, or a single process improved in actual anti-doping for the betterment of the sport - that some us actually enjoy and want to see expand and get even better.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Rebellin & Schumacher were caught by the IOC - not the UCI.

But its a good example - the UCI were offered the chance to retest the Giro '08 samples for CERA and yet the UCI refused that offer.


Again - the only person who has keeps saying the UCI suck is you.

I believe they are incompetent and possibly corrupt - if they are not why not have an independent investigation to restore their credibility?
Well, I am done playing with the trolls today.

A few fans have successfully hijacked this thread, and it appears to be all about castigation and blame, and not being wrong at any point based on minutia. Apparently, the UCI has never caught a single rider with a positive test and has done nothing.

Ergo, we should start a letter writing campaign to do .... say what Floyd is saying and not offer a single bit of constructive criticism because the sky is falling.

I hope the trolls enjoy their finger pointing and inability to be constructive, but I am done. And I will certainy not be part of a process of blind and absolutely enraged rants any further.

It is clear that adult discussion of anti-doping methodology and constructive efforts is pointless.

May others fair better than I have against the accusers and serial fault finders.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
gree0232 said:
Doc,

You do realize human beings work at the UCI? You do realize that have professionals in charge of the anti-doping programs?

You do realize that on any given day, the VAST MAJORITY of the PEOPLE working in the UCI, do not wake up and start their days with the thought, "How can I screw over the sport and its fans today? How can I facilitate doping today?"

Dial it down. This thread should be about constructive problem solving, not castigation and blame. Could you please give that process a chance? Just once?
I gave the process a chance after Festina in 98.
I gave the process a chance after Puerto in 06.
I gave the process a chance after Vino & Rasmussen in 2007.
I gave the process a chance after Tour 08.

I gave the process a chance because they said the Biological Passport was on the way and going to clean up the sport.

Why would I trust the Pat McQuaid when he lied all last year and there is little change in the sport.
You do realize a rider nearly died at the weekend from doping and he was not caught by the UCI.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
gree0232 said:
Well, I am done playing with the trolls today.

A few fans have successfully hijacked this thread, and it appears to be all about castigation and blame, and not being wrong at any point based on minutia. Apparently, the UCI has never caught a single rider with a positive test and has done nothing.

Ergo, we should start a letter writing campaign to do .... say what Floyd is saying and not offer a single bit of constructive criticism because the sky is falling.

I hope the trolls enjoy their finger pointing and inability to be constructive, but I am done. And I will certainy not be part of a process of blind and absolutely enraged rants any further.

It is clear that adult discussion of anti-doping methodology and constructive efforts is pointless.

May others fair better than I have against the accusers and serial fault finders.
Really - you appeared to attempt to hijack a thread by repeating that there is a "grassroots" movement getting ready to send a letter that "the UCI suck".

The only thread that I have seen discussing getting in contact with the UCI says no such thing - so don't be suprised when you get a reaction for deliberatly flaming and baiting people, which is known as trolling.

I for one have provided links and stats to counteract your arguement - which you appear to ignore.

If you wish to discuss any issue in cycling in an objective and open manner than I would be happy to hear it - but as I suspected with your OP that was never your intention.
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
Paraphernalia said:
I don't think it's a question of lying, it's just a moving target that it's hard for any ruling federation to keep up with. That's been the history from day one.

That's why I think Landis may have a point.
I disagree. I and others would argue the entire point of the biopassport is to have the appearance of keeping up with the latest doping regimen. There is already ample evidence testing targets are not blindly chosen. There is evidence WADA's efforts are restrained and sometimes totally confounded by the UCI.

There is also the fundamental conflict of interest in an organization that enriches its owners based on the success of the sport and enforces doping. There is already overwhelming evidence they will not enforce positives equally.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Paraphernalia said:
That's what I am saying. We don't know the details, it's just a media report quoting an unnamed source.

We can see with the Pellizotti case there does seem to be a problem with certainty surrounding the prosecutions on biopassport numbers alone.

I didn't think those testing numbers sounded right.

I'm sorry to hear that.
It was pulled by the UCI management.

The UCI does not have authority to pick and choose who to sanction.

Paraphernalia said:
I don't think it's a question of lying, it's just a moving target that it's hard for any ruling federation to keep up with. That's been the history from day one.

That's why I think Landis may have a point.
What is aa moving target?? Honesty?

If so Pat has a crap aim.
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
gree0232 said:
'Fans' like you, who are apparently incapable of constructive problem solving. Or who think flaming people as you have just done, will result in even a single rider being sanctioned, a single corrupt organization sanctioned, or a single process improved in actual anti-doping for the betterment of the sport - that some us actually enjoy and want to see expand and get even better.
I did not "flame" you in the hope that that action would influence the fight against doping, I "flamed" you simply because your obtuse nature and obstructionist posts become annoying after awhile.:rolleyes:
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Paraphernalia said:
The UCI will likely have to make a huge payout to Pellizotti who is suing them for lost earnings and damage to reputation. I think that's what the UCI will be thinking about. It turns out they could have dozens of cases like this they have to payout every year because nobody is going to uphold bans based on subjectivity. Can't you see their point of view?
Firstly - the decison not to pursue those riders was before Pellizotti was cleared by CONI.

Pellizottis case has to go to CAS so you cannot even suggest that its "likely" he will get a large payout.


So, no I cannot see the UCIs point of view as the information came from their medical experts.
If, as you are suggetsing that the UCI can refuse to pursue likely doping cases because they might be sued then it shows that they can be manipulated )threatened, bribed etc) and are not doing their job.
 
Oct 25, 2010
2,965
2
0
Just build a new ship. It will take you less time. And probably less money. And you'll get the ship you want.



Or, if you're really attached to this particular ship (the UCI), I suppose you can always choose to rehab it.

 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Paraphernalia said:
I agree that, like most organizations, there is an element of corruption and rule bending to the UCI. It's very difficult to completely take politics out of organizations. It's part of human nature. People will always apply rules selectively depending on their own views of how things should be.
Thats the second time you have suggested "most organizations" are corrupt or bend rules.

Besides soccer I cannot think of any sport with as bad a reputation as cycling or with flagrant conflict of interest like the UCI.

Can you show another sporting federation that show all the following:
the Presidents brother is an event organizer.
the Presidents son is an athlete manager/agent.
accept donations from athletes of anti-doping.
are accused of hiding positives.


It is for the very reasons you suggest that the UCI should be independently investigated and held to account.
 
Oct 25, 2010
2,965
2
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Thats the second time you have suggested "most organizations" are corrupt or bend rules.

Besides soccer I cannot think of any sport with as bad a reputation as cycling or with flagrant conflict of interest like the UCI.

Can you show another sporting federation that show all the following:
the Presidents brother is an event organizer.
the Presidents son is an athlete manager/agent.
accept donations from athletes of anti-doping.
are accused of hiding positives.


It is for the very reasons you suggest that the UCI should be independently investigated and held to account.
Most other sports leagues are privately owned, and fully self-contained with no misunderstanding on transparency (none is promised...nor expected). The UCI is "supposed" to be a representative system. Either I know how Egyptians feel today, or I have an idea what a central world government would feel like.

I'm truly surprised that someone doesn't seize upon the business opportunity that clearly exists right now. The UCI is functioning so poorly, it's like a huge beacon saying "Compete with me, please!"
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Paraphernalia said:
Name me a sport that has as tough anti doping rules as cycling? The reason cycling has a bad reputation compared to most sports is because most sports are not as hard as cycling, therefore people playing them have less reason to dope, therefore the governing bodies do not have as tough anti doping rules. It's the sport, not the governing body, that creates the doping culture. Doping was routine in cycling long before other sports due to the nature of events like the Tour de france. But even given this, if you look at athletics, football, cricket, etc they all have their own issues with corruption and favouritism. It's not something that is limited to sport either - it could be business, charity or even an internet forum.
Well you said other organizations are as bad as the UCI - why is it that you cannot produce them?


"Name me a sport that has as tough anti doping rules as cycling".....
Thats easy - all sports that adopt the WADA code.

Don't confuse the numbers that the UCI spout as 'anti-doping'. The UCI could do 13 million tests and it would make little difference as it has been shown that many get preferential treatment and the UCI does not follow its own rules.

Also most positives and sanctions come through other agencies (Police, AFLD,CONI etc) than through testing and the reason cycling has a bad reputation is because its athletes keep getting caught.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Paraphernalia said:
The international Olympic committee. The Jamaican athletics association. The international cricket council. That's three. Most football associations. If you look into the financial links of most football associations, their favoritism, their inconsistent appliance of the rules, their links to agents and club owners, it's all completely corrupt.
All the examples you give are everyday occurrences in one sport, one federation - the UCI. (corruption, bribery, nepotism, favoritism, financial, appliance of rules etc)

Name one International Federation (Jamaican Athletics?? Ah,hello = RFEC?) that can incorporate everything that the UCI does?

Also you do realize that Hein Verbruggen was a top dog at the IOC - I hope you are not suggesting he is corrupt and open to

Paraphernalia said:
I don't think that is true. Cyclists have to give their whereabouts for every day of the year. New tests for drugs are often first used in cycling before other sports, and they at least monitor hematocrit levels. The situation is not perfect at all - as I say I think there is corruption in it - but it's better than the testing system in most sports. Can you name me a specific sport that you believe has a better anti doping system than cycling?
Whereabouts - cycling is not the only sport that provides that, is in most sports of the WADA code.


The reason why new tests are done on cyclists first is they are usually the ones using it first and moreso its just a PR exercise to show how tough the UCI is on cycling.

CERA? The AFLD introduced that (guess what happened) and when offered the chance to retest the Giro samples the UCI said no.

The Biological Passport was hailed by the UCI - you have already mentioned the Pellizotti case and I mentioned the riders that the UCI will not pursue - the Bio Passport is a toothless cub.

I don't know how you can say there is corruption in one sentance and then say that the 'testing system' is better than "most sports".
 
Paraphernalia said:
...
I don't think that is true. Cyclists have to give their whereabouts for every day of the year. New tests for drugs are often first used in cycling before other sports, and they at least monitor hematocrit levels. The situation is not perfect at all - as I say I think there is corruption in it - but it's better than the testing system in most sports. Can you name me a specific sport that you believe has a better anti doping system than cycling?
Whereabouts is standard WADA policy - for any sport that wants to remain part of the IOC.

As for a better anti-doping system, are you kidding? The UCI has the best anti-doping system. They can beat a doping case whenever they want, and will throw anyone under the bus with 50 pg of Clen if they cross the line.

Can you imagine if the UCI actually tested high risk cyclists on the passport system?

The UCI... one of the last international sport federations to include an anti-doping link on their home page.

Dave.
 
Jul 11, 2010
174
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 would be me. Thanks for understanding. :)

Doping free cycling. A great goal, but is it even possible? The tests are many and frequent. Yet cycling is rife with doping. The first question the governing bodies need to be asked is:

"Why do you keep touting the current testing and monitoring system when anyone can see that it's an abject failure? Are the tests designed to detect doping, or are they merely designed to give cycling credibility while doping is allowed to run rampant?"

If there is one outcome of confronting the governing organizations, it should be an admission that the current regimen of doping tests is a doping IQ test rather than a doping detection test.

Secondly, "What testing and monitoring scheme *will* work? Anything?"

Finally, "If there is nothing that can be proposed and implemented that will work, are you willing to permit the doping to go out into the open and keep records of riders' health, so that future riders can look at the statistics and at least understand the short and long term health risks of what they're about to embark upon?"

If cycling can't rid itself of doping, it should at the very least shoot for informed consent by the participants.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS