Why?

[the sceptic]

Can you explain the rationale behind this?
Are you suggesting that everything just move along as is? Give Pat another 4 years?

No i dont think Pat should get another 4 years. But i dont think Cookson is going to change anything either.

I guess my point was that if Froome wins the tour and avoids testing positive, and Cookson gets elected, then everything is in place for Froome to win the tour for the next 7 years like he wanted

 

[pmcg76]

Name them.

Oh c'mon, why do some posters make things up or distort things in an effort to prove that a certain rider/team/DA/journalist is doping or lying or whatever?

Why would you need to lie to try to prove someone is doping?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Where did I mention McQuaid? In the McQuaid thread of course.

No it wouldn't.

Do I think Cookson is any better? Not really. He has been a long time part of the UCI and not once put his head above the parapet. Where was his dossier in 2009 to prevent Armstrong getting back. Why was he not leaking info to journalists like Kimmage a long time ago. He is a UCI man, not a stupid as Pat but equally as corrupt no doubt.

I have always stated the obvious of UCI needs to be changed and anti doping independent. But I would make it independent and a crime to dope.

Exactly.
You didn't mention McQuaid. I asked what would satisfy you, you never mentioned him. You gave some small solutions that are rather pointless or cannot be implemented.

So, who makes anti-doping independent? The UCI, thats who.

As for Cookson - you state he is a corrupt as Pat, yet you berate him for not speaking up about Armstrong (WTF?) in 2009 at a Mgt Comm.
What info is he suppose to have to leak? And how do you know he hasnt?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Oh c'mon, why do some posters make things up or distort things in an effort to prove that a certain rider/team/DA/journalist is doping or lying or whatever?

Why would you need to lie to try to prove someone is doping?

I agree completely, but there are different posters, doing it for different reasons.

But was asking Jimmy to name the people he made a specific reference too

These people want them to be doping, are desperate for them to be doping. And this stems from Lance's legacy

..... I do not know anyone who fits that description.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No i dont think Pat should get another 4 years. But i dont think Cookson is going to change anything either.

I guess my point was that if Froome wins the tour and avoids testing positive, and Cookson gets elected, then everything is in place for Froome to win the tour for the next 7 years like he wanted

Cookson says he will make anti-doping independent of the UCI within a year.
How would he be able to protect Sky/Froome?

 

[JimmyFingers]

No i dont think Pat should get another 4 years. But i dont think Cookson is going to change anything either.

I guess my point was that if Froome wins the tour and avoids testing positive, and Cookson gets elected, then everything is in place for Froome to win the tour for the next 7 years like he wanted

You wouldn't be called the sceptic if you thought anything else.

Actually that is perhaps the fundamental difference between the two 'sides' of posters in the clinic, for wont of a better, more ambiguous catch-all, that others, with access to the same information and watching the same spectacle, come to different conclusion. And that is being prepared to wait and see, and to hope and believe the sport can change, and is changing. that hearing the stuff the riders say, and people like JV that come and take time to talk to us, and journalists like Walsh who was a major provocateur in the downfall of Lance, and also RR's recent assessment, that there is truth in it.

Keep hope alive.

Ok that is slightly cringe worthy, but it gave me a nice feeling articulating it. and no not the trolls, but posters like Vickers and ebandit and Wallace and Gromit and maybe even Ferminal on a good day

 

[pmcg76]

I agree completely, but there are different posters, doing it for different reasons.

But was asking Jimmy to name the people he made a specific reference too

..... I do not know anyone who fits that description.

And what are those reasons?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And what are those reasons?

Mainly, plain old trolling.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I agree completely, but there are different posters, doing it for different reasons.

But was asking Jimmy to name the people he made a specific reference too

..... I do not know anyone who fits that description.

Oh you meant me? No doubt you'll see a different motive in my actions and while I can think of many I'll defer from naming them because I wouldn't want to be provocative or negative. Not here for drama but decent debate

 

[pmcg76]

Mainly, plain old trolling.

So you would concur that many of those who shout loudest about doping are in fact primarily trolls??

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Oh you meant me? No doubt you'll see a different motive in my actions and while I can think of many I'll defer from naming them because I wouldn't want to be provocative or negative. Not here for drama but decent debate

If you want a debate - then name them, and let them have the right to reply.

But Jimmy, I actually don't believe they exist. Remember I mentioned bias? You are getting trolled there is usually little anti-doping motive there.

 

[Benotti69]

Exactly.
You didn't mention McQuaid. I asked what would satisfy you, you never mentioned him.

Not in this thread. I took it as a given he would be first on the gallows.

You gave some small solutions that are rather pointless or cannot be implemented.

You are entitled to your opinion.

So, who makes anti-doping independent? The UCI, thats who.

Or IOC or WADA.

As for Cookson - you state he is a corrupt as Pat, yet you berate him for not speaking up about Armstrong (WTF?) in 2009 at a Mgt Comm.
What info is he suppose to have to leak? And how do you know he hasnt?

Well let us see, who would he be likely to leak info to? Kimmage, Walsh or other? Kimmage was hardly supportive when Cookson announced he was going to run for UCI pres. Walsh has been supportive so maybe......

 

[JimmyFingers]

No, I do and not sure what you mean

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So you would concur that many of those who shout loudest about doping are in fact primarily trolls??

PMg, thats not really a question?
Some troll, some or not.

Right now, I am deliberately trying to assertion different posters motives, arguments, solutions etc

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, I do and not sure what you mean

You wrote this,
"These people want them to be doping are desperate for them to be doping. And this stems from Lance's legacy".

Who are "these people"?

 

[the sceptic]

Cookson says he will make anti-doping independent of the UCI within a year.
How would he be able to protect Sky/Froome?

If he makes that happen then kudos to him, but right now its just politics talk i think. If Pat came out and said the same would you believe him?

Who is going to create this independent body and who will fund it? Im guessing the UCI will be involved at some level and how can we be sure its independent then?

 

[pmcg76]

PMg, thats not really a question?
Some troll, some or not.

Right now, I am deliberately trying to assertion different posters motives, arguments, solutions etc

Ok then, if a poster is not trolling, why would they invent lies or distort things in an effort to accuse someone of doping?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not in this thread. I took it as a given he would be first on the gallows.

Why does he need to go? If Cookson is "as corrupt" as McQuaid,as you stated, then why not stick with Pat?

You are entitled to your opinion.

My opinions on solutions are the same as yours - exact same.

What you havent grasped is who and how its implemented. The UCI.

Or IOC or WADA.

The IOC, seriously?
WADA won't do it (in the short term) unless pushed to do so, that comes from within the UCI.

Well let us see, who would he be likely to leak info to? Kimmage, Walsh or other? Kimmage was hardly supportive when Cookson announced he was going to run for UCI pres. Walsh has been supportive so maybe......

Thats a gross misrepresentation of what Kinmage said:

Kimmage described as “encouraging” Cookson’s willingness to stand for election at this time, but also saw flaws with him as a candidate.

“He waffles a lot. He uses this term about communication to the outside world; that this is part of the real problem they (the UCI) have, an inability to communicate to the outside world. That’s the least of their problems. That is certainly an issue… but it’s way down the list.”

Kimmage said he would have preferred if Cookson had presented his manifesto at the same time as entering the race to be elected, believing it would have been easier to measure him as a candidate.

However, he said Cookson’s repeated mention of the UCI president’s office being “just down the corridor” from the association’s anti doping office captured a major problem in a nutshell.

He questioned Cookson’s tactic of trying to avoid being drawn into robust debate with McQuaid saying he needed to say publicly the sport was “a ****ing mess” and be more forthright in his comments on McQuaid and explain to people clearly what he was going to do to “sort out” cycling.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If he makes that happen then kudos to him, but right now its just politics talk i think. If Pat came out and said the same would you believe him?

Pat says its not within the rules, so he isnt going to mention it. (he is sortof right but...)

Lets forget Pat - we are discussing Cookson. If Pat goes it shows that a top guy can be removed - how could BC possibly survive if hs did not attempt to implement his public pledge?

Who is going to create this independent body and who will fund it? Im guessing the UCI will be involved at some level and how can we be sure its independent then?

I did ask the funding question on twitter to Cookson - but it probably will be the teams, same as now. Any independent ADA would have to be done with assistance of WADA.

 

[Benotti69]

Why does he need to go? If Cookson is "as corrupt" as McQuaid,as you stated, then why not stick with Pat?

Cooskon aint my choice. Give me someone like Tygart.

What you havent grasped is who and how its implemented. The UCI.

I want UCI changed from the top down. In fact I would change so much in the sport in how it is administered. 1st thing would be to move UCI HQ to Brussels and into EU.

The IOC, seriously?

They have the power to do it to IOC sports. Would they? of course not.

WADA won't do it (in the short term) unless pushed to do so, that comes from within the UCI.

No they wont either. Sports dont want to change, most accept doping as the norm. Cycling has just totally mismanaged its darkside compared to other sports. But I still want to see cycling as a majority of its particpants clean.

Thats a gross misrepresentation of what Kinmage said:

Nope not my interpretation, he sees, imo, Cookson as the lesser 'evil' for want of a better word.


Not going to spend the next 20 posts back and forthing with ya Doc. I think my position is well known, maybe not as well expressed as I would like to get across, but I aint no wordsmith. If you want me to get into pedantics call my lawyers and go through the small print with them.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ok then, if a poster is not trolling, why would they invent lies or distort things in an effort to accuse someone of doping?

Why not ask them?
Thats what I am attempting to do.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Cooskon aint my choice. Give me someone like Tygart.

Is Travis a UCI card holder? Nope, you cannot have him.

And, I would prefer to leave a guy like him sitting on the outside of all this.

Your choices are Pat or Cookson, but don't think to long about it as you don't get a vote.

I want UCI changed from the top down In fact I would change so much in the sport in how it is administered. !st thing would be to move UCI hq to Brussels and into EU.

They have the pwoer to do it to IOC sports. Would they? of course not.

So, you want Travis, and you want him to take it in to the EU?? Why not Washington? Or Beijing?

No they wont either. Sports dont want to change, most accept doping as the norm. Cycling has just totally mismanaged its darkside compared to other sports. But I still want to see cycling as a majority of its particpants clean.





Nope not my interpretation. He sees, imo, Cookson as the lesser 'evil' for want of a better word.

Not going to spend the next 20 posts back and forthing with ya Doc. I think my position is well known, maybe not as well expressed as I would like to get across, but I aint no wordsmith. If you want me to get into pedantics call my lawyers and go through the small print with them.

No - your outrage is well known, not your position.

Quite frankly I am surprised at what you have put forward so far. I am not looking for PR speak, but I would expect a consistent semi-articulate position that is achievable.

 

[Scott SoCal]

If he makes that happen then kudos to him, but right now its just politics talk i think. If Pat came out and said the same would you believe him?

Who is going to create this independent body and who will fund it? Im guessing the UCI will be involved at some level and how can we be sure its independent then?

If he makes that happen then kudos to him, but right now its just politics talk i think. If Pat came out and said the same would you believe him?

No, but if Pat did just that he'd likely be UCI prez for a while. But where has he even said he'd think about it? That's not on his radar because doing so would be self-evisceration.

Who is going to create this independent body and who will fund it?

Who funds it now?

Im guessing the UCI will be involved at some level and how can we be sure its independent then?

Sure. Enforcement of sanctions. Get them out of testing, eliminate the conflict then we will see what happens. At the very least any undue influence will be identified rather easily... unless of course the new entity is corrupt also.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Sports dont want to change, most accept doping as the norm. Cycling has just totally mismanaged its darkside compared to other sports. But I still want to see cycling as a majority of its particpants clean.

I don't think any sport accepts doping as the norm and in fact I reckon (mostly) everyone wants clean sport, this includes FIFA, FINA, IAAF and other international sporting bodies in addition to the UCI. The problem is that none of them want scandal more than clean sport, because then pressure is put on the governing elite and heads will roll. There goes their cushy million dollar salary and free travel all over the world.

The solution is that WADA in conjunction with the IOC, must take control of all anti-doping testing AND the issuing of the sanctions resulting from positive tests. WADA only has power if the sanctions are upheld or ratified by international (and then national) sporting bodies. The only way I can see that this could work is by having the IOC as a signatory that basically says if you break the rules as set out by WADA (eg: you allow a sanctioned athlete to continue competing), then you are out of the olympic games. Using the olympics is how sports will toe the line. edit: maybe that would be the most severe punishment, but before that less severe punishment could be implemented such as removing UCI accreditation of events eg: if an Australian rider is sanctioned by WADA and CA does not uphold the ban, then Tour down Under loses UCI status. If any country allows a sanctioned rider to compete then they also lose UCI accreditation for that race (just thinking out loud here).

If the banning is taken out of the hands of the UCI, IAAF etc etc then nobody at the upper end can be held accountable except WADA. I don't know how it will get to this or if it ever will, but I know for certain that there are people whom are working on it and trying to make it happen. It is a huge undertaking though and obviously requires cooperation on an international scale.

Sometimes I feel that the negativity towards change in cycling is disrespectful of those people whom have worked so hard to achieve what we've witnessed over the past 12 months (ie: Armstrong, Padua and Puerto in particular and much greater media attention and public awareness regarding doping). There are many whom have dedicated their life to anti-doping and the irony is that people like Michael Ashenden are viewed as a hero by the same who would argue that nothing has changed in cycling and therefore, you're basically implying that people like Asho have been worthless over the past 10yrs. This is wrong. Cycling is not clean, but change has occurred and it is plain to see. It is much more difficult to obtain large performance gains now than it was 5yrs ago. If you disagree because you just don't like the personality of some particular rider who is winning races, then that is being unreasonable and your opinion has zero credibility.

 

[Ripper]

It could of course be my own bias that distorts my perception, but could it also be that those speaking against the tide in this forum illicits a certain pattern of responses?

That it certainly does, albeit from a specific group of posters.

Of course, it depends on which tide. There are more rational and less rational arguments. The latter tend to get much more 'ganged up' on.

When someone decides to post the same things that have been posted over and over again, they should not really expect a different reaction.

Also worth noting - clearly some folks will not be convinced of certain riders being clean. The evidence that would be needed as proof is just not going to pop up in the real world. Combine that with the incredible performances of some (or miraculous ), and that makes it a cynical place sometimes.

But there's a lot of knowledge and truth as well.