UCI - Cycling Independent Reform Commission ("CIRC")

Beasty

Brian Cookson has today announced the formation of the CIRC

It will be provided with a Budget by the UCI, but other than that will operate completely independent of the organisation which hopes it will report back during 2014

‘’The Independent Commission has already started preparatory work and will soon be given complete access to the files of the UCI and all the electronic data which was copied as soon as I was elected. It will also be seeking testimony from people involved in the sport or who have been involved in the past and we are in the final stages of discussions with WADA to agree how best to incentivise people to co-operate with the Independent Commission.

‘’We have agreed a budget for the Commission, which the UCI will cover in full, and we have also expressed our wish that its work be concluded this year. Other than that, the Independent Commission based in Lausanne will operate completely independently of the UCI and will organise its work as it chooses. The Commission's terms of reference will explicitly state that the Commission will act autonomously and that its members will not receive any instruction from the UCI.

"Other work well underway includes the audit of the UCI's current anti-doping activities by iNADO who are using top staff from the anti-doping organisations of Finland and Norway for this work which will conclude at the end of the month. This is completely distinct from the work of the Independent Commission and is focussed on assuring that our current operations are as good as they can be.

"In other ways the progress will be more subtle as we change the way the UCI works to make it a more transparent and modern organisation, one which people trust. My vision is simple, I want us to be the best international federation in the world, a federation that merits its beautiful and enduring sport, and I want our sport to be one in which everyone – fans, participants, media, sponsors, governments – can have the utmost trust and confidence”

Chips Lovell

Have terms of reference been published does anyone know?

godtabh

Its findings and transparency will be important

Beasty

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Have terms of reference been published does anyone know?

There are none set by the UCI - it will presumably establish it's own in due course, but I guess even then they have no obligation to publish anything. They can investigate what they like and keeping a free reign may help (so if someone says "have you checked this out?", rather than saying "it's outside the time period we are investigating" (for example), they can say -"good point, we'll have a look")

Beasty

godtabh wrote: »

Its finds and transparency will be important

Just on the transparency point, I agree it's important in the context of the process. However they may find it appropriate to conduct some investigation in private to allow them to get a better understanding of what went on - that in itself should not be considered a negative so long as they make clear that it has happened and publish their conclusions and rationale for reaching them

Chips Lovell

I guess there's upsides and downsides to an open mandate. On the one hand, they aren't limited from investigating anything. On the other, it could turn the inquiry into a never-ending saga, like the Mahon Tribunal. I guess it really depends on the commission members as to how focused they manage to keep it.

Beasty

That's down to who they have put on the Commission, and I'm guessing they have thought all that through - they have also given a steer (but not a mandate) that they are looking for something during the course of 2014, and I guess eventually any Budget will run out...

This was a mainstay of Cookson's manifesto, as was women's cycling, and I'm personally convinced he is committed to delivering on both

godtabh

Beasty wrote: »

Just on the transparency point, I agree it's important in the context of the process. However they may find it appropriate to conduct some investigation in private to allow them to get a better understanding of what went on - that in itself should not be considered a negative so long as they make clear that it has happened and publish their conclusions and rationale for reaching them

With the transparency I meant that for example how they concluded something is made clear. Some one may have doped but how they doped, who facilitated it etc etc is just as important

Lumen

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I guess there's upsides and downsides to an open mandate. On the one hand, they aren't limited from investigating anything. On the other, it could turn the inquiry into a never-ending saga, like the Mahon Tribunal

Nope.

"we have also expressed our wish that its work be concluded this year"

So if it's crap we won't have to wait very long to find out.

buffalo

Some chancer talking about the CIRC here: Dr. Conor McGrane on the UCI’s Independent Commission http://crankpunk.com/2014/01/10/dr-conor-mcgrane-on-the-ucis-independent-commission/

Chips Lovell

Some excellent points raised there by McGrane re. the grey area of legitimate drugs being over-used or used for the wrong purposes.

death1234567

can. worms. The terms of reference will hopefully just be the "disgraced cyclist lance armstrong" era. Real fans of cycling know that drug use has been widespread in the sport since the 60's (if not even earlier). The EPO/amphetimines of the mid to late 80's were proably as bad if not worse than blood doping in the 90's.

This commission needs to do some work to restore faith in the sport for sponsors and Joe public and reassure people that what they are seeing now is genuine. If they decide to root out every doper they can, it'll never end and there'll be nobody left standing and the sport will be in tatters.

Beasty

Budget SFr 3m according to Velonation

They say that's about a third of their net income for 2012, which is actually a very big chunk when you bear in mind the exceptional year they had due to the Olympics - they typically have struggled to break-even in non-Olympic years IIRC

Beasty

Terms of reference announced, including

• The main focus of the investigation shall be to determine the processes and practices in professional road cycling that allowed the culture of doping to perpetuate over a sustained period of time, in particular to discover the main providers and facilitators of doping in cycling in the period 1998-2013. Investigation into UCI past wrongdoings will also be a core part of the CIRC mandate
• The investigation’s primary objective is not to punish anti-doping offences by single riders, but rather to identify and tackle the practices and networks that have instigated and/or facilitated doping in cycling over the relevant period
• The final objective of the investigation shall be the production of a comprehensive report illustrating the causes of, and responsibility for, the doping practices that took place within the relevant period and to make targeted recommendations to the whole cycling family
• The CIRC will have the authority to propose reduced sanctions to any License Holder [e.g. riders, officials, agents, organisers, team staff etc] who admit to Anti-Doping Rules Violations [ADRVs]
• The CIRC can reduce the sanction even further if the License Holder also provides valuable information concerning other ADRVs and/or other significant anti-doping relevant circumstances. In addition, if the License holder confesses an ADRV to the CIRC, no return of prize money shall be ordered
• The CIRC’s ability to propose reduced sanctions is limited to License Holders who are not currently serving a period of ineligibility or facing disciplinary proceedings. However, on a case by case basis, the CIRC can recommend an ad hoc reduction in sanction for a License Holder who is currently serving a period of ineligibility. This proposal will have to be approved by the original sanctioning body, WADA and the UCI
• The members of the CIRC will operate on a completely independent basis and will not take any instructions from the UCI
• The CIRC will conduct its investigation on a strictly confidential basis and will take all measures necessary to guarantee such confidentiality.

12 sprocket

Beasty wrote: »

Terms of reference announced, including

Well Beasty
Heres a piece from cycling news report today "A strictly confidential"investigation, where Does that fit in with the Transparency that Brian promised. No consequences for the admitted dopers?

"The commission called for testimony in what it says will be a "strictly confidential" investigation, and offered reduced sanctions to any license holders (riders, officials, agents, organisers, team staff) who admit to anti-doping rule violations. Riders will not be asked to return prize money gained during the period of their anti-doping rule violations."

Chips Lovell

Reduced sanctions in exchange for cooperation =/= "no consequences"

Beasty

Of course it needs to be strictly confidential in its investiagtion - surely that goes without saying, and is the process adopted, quite rightly, when someone is under suspicion of doping. Only when proven are findings supposed to be made public (although the prior "regime" seemed to have some failings in that area) in order to protect the "innocent"

The important thing is what the report actually says, and it is an absurd position to adopt if you believe all the investigations must be undertaken in the public domain - that's a pretty sure-fire way of putting people off coming forward

12 sprocket

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Reduced sanctions in exchange for cooperation =/= "no consequences"

No loss of money?

12 sprocket

Beasty wrote: »

Of course it needs to be strictly confidential in its investiagtion - surely that goes without saying, and is the process adopted, quite rightly, when someone is under suspicion of doping. Only when proven are findings supposed to be made public (although the prior "regime" seemed to have some failings in that area) in order to protect the "innocent"

The important thing is what the report actually says, and it is an absurd position to adopt if you believe all the investigations must be undertaken in the public domain - that's a pretty sure-fire way of putting people off coming forward

I do remember a lot of talk about how essential transparency is and demands for transparency from a lot of the boards contributors..... ah I see now, that was before Brian became president. without full transparency there is always going to be room for doubts, mistrust and perception that things might not be as we are being told.

Beasty

The transparancy will be in process and the output. Cookson has made it absolutely clear for example that until proven details of alleged dopers should not be made public, and investigations should be undertaken in private. If it is proven then the relevant details become public. It's simple justice to protect the innocent and ensure proper due process. Despite your clear desire to find anything you can to throw at Cookson, all that's happening here is he is delivering precisely what he promised.

RobFowl

12 sprocket wrote: »

I do remember a lot of talk about how essential transparency is and demands for transparency from a lot of the boards contributors..... ah I see now, that was before Brian became president. without full transparency there is always going to be room for doubts, mistrust and perception that things might not be as we are being told.

Transparency means the report will be full, detailed and not hold back on criticising any and every fault found. Public hearings may have been thought to put off many giving evidence.
Also its the system that was in place rather than who did what specifically which needs to change.
Plenty of bad habits still going on in the Pro scene....

12 sprocket

RobFowl wrote: »

Transparency means the report will be full, detailed and not hold back on criticising any and every fault found. Public hearings may have been thought to put off many giving evidence.
Also its the system that was in place rather than who did what specifically which needs to change.
Plenty of bad habits still going on in the Pro scene....

If the interviews/hearings are confidential, then doubts can be placed on the reports by people who might wish to undermine them. If all the information that the report is based on was public knowledge it would not be possible to undermine the reports.

Beasty

I would suggest awaiting the output rather than prejudging. Only then will the "transparancy" become "clear";)

RobFowl

12 sprocket wrote: »

If the interviews/hearings are confidential, then doubts can be placed on the reports by people who might wish to undermine them. If all the information that the report is based on was public knowledge it would not be possible to undermine the reports.

I suppose we'll see in a year or so !

Henlars67

This is a complete and utter waste of time.

The past is the past. It can't be changed.

And even if hundreds came forward with information it won't be any help to the sport going forward.

Doping in sport will always be there.

The only thing I hope for is that the likes of tennis, football, rugby will soon take their heads out of the sand and start catching some of their dopers.

I'm sick of fans of other sports taking the moral high ground just because their sport has very little testing.

simonrooneyzaga

here she is! http://t.co/UUulrGQjOi

Happy reading.

Beasty

The UCI made the following statement on Friday

The Cycling Independent Reform Commission (CIRC) report has been delivered to the UCI President. The UCI will publish the report in the early hours of Monday 9 March 2015. Until then, we will not make any comment on the report.

Reedsie

There's an embargoed cycling related news-piece which will be revealed at midnight. Apparently it's pretty big news.

RobFowl

Reedsie wrote: »

There's an embargoed cycling related news-piece which will be revealed at midnight. Apparently it's pretty big news.

Nothing that wasn't already known in there

simonrooneyzaga

"some Pros no longer ride Gran Fondos because they were so competitive due to dopers" :eek:

Off to Switzerland to stock up for the An Post series...

ZiabR

90% of cyclists still doping according to the news this morning... wtf

Makes for horrible reading...

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cycling/31788505

irishrover99

Very damming but who in there right mind believes that cycling is clean now. Did Nibali really just hit peak form at the right time last year after been rubbish for 5 months previous.

Still love cycling and will watch it with/without doping

a148pro

David Walsh on Morning Ireland there and Pat McQuaid due on later apparently

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Sad to see those kind of figures but I can't say I'm shocked.

Diarmuid

I think the 90% came as an extrapolation from this

cyclingnews wrote:

The CIRC states in its report that 90 per cent of riders who are tested refuse to check the box on the form allowing their samples to be used for research purposes.

Not exactly conclusive proof but definitely worrying

Junior

It's all much to do about nothing, any 90% stat is based on testimony on Ex Riders, the only current rider to testify was Chris Froome. How are we to know it was Ricco who came out with that statement ? Also where there was evidence eg Pat - Sysmex Machine - Tour of Ireland etc no conclusions were drawn.

Inquitus

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/mar/09/doping-cycling-uci-commission-epo-worldtour

Doping almost endemic in amateur racing.

Beasty

logik wrote: »

90% of cyclists still doping according to the news this morning... wtf

Makes for horrible reading...

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cycling/31788505

One person said 90% and another said 20%. Both figures are guesses

Only got chance to read the exec summary last night but it gave the distinct impression that although there remains a long way to go it's heading in the right direction and there is certainly evidence of a cultural change. That started under McQuaid which I will certainly give him credit for. He was never going to be able to see things through though as he was too embedded in the old culture. However his tenure was probably necessary as anyone going into the job 10 years ago to try and fundamentally change things is very unlikely to have survived long.

dixiefly

Pat McQuaid on rte radio 1 now.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Even if the 90% stat is off or had been dubiously calculated all people on the cusp of breaking the pro ranks will see is "nearly all cyclists dope, therefore to make it I have to dope". This then has a knock on effect right down to amateur racing as shown on the link above. The sport is unfortunately rotten to the core.

Beasty

One thing that is conclusively stated in the exec summary is the authors believe McQaid's Swiss/Moroccan/Thai shenanigans were against UCI rules.

Diarmuid

Interesting quote

"A common response to the Commission, when asked about teams, was that probably 3 or 4 were clean, 3 or 4 were doping, and the rest were a "don’t know".

ZiabR

The report also states that doping is endemic in Amateur cycling. I know I am probably being naive but that is really worrying.

Chips Lovell

Beasty wrote: »

One person said 90% and another said 20%. Both figures are guesses

Diarmuid wrote: »

Interesting quote

What I found fascinating is that nobody really seems to know the big picture. Even speaking off the record, they don't have a clue about what's going on.

carltonleon

It does make for some shocking reading, This little piece caught my attention ...

There were other instances of collusion, notably when Armstrong returned to racing in 2009. The UCI bent its rule that an athlete had to be in the anti-doping pool for six months before competing in order to allow him to ride the Tour Down Under in Australia.

“UCI failed to apply its own rules,” states CIRC, “… sending the message rules applied differently to some athletes.”

There was, says CIRC, no direct evidence that a change of heart over the matter by McQuaid was down to Armstrong’s decision to ride the Tour of Ireland – run by McQuaid’s brother Darach, and facing financial issues – but “documents show a temporal link … in the morning Pat McQuaid told UCI staff he had decided to let Lance Armstrong participate in the Tour Down Under, and that same evening Lance Armstrong told McQuaid that he had decided to participate in the Tour of Ireland”. According to the report: “Mr Armstrong agreed to ride in the Tour of Ireland for free.”

Diarmuid

Hmmmmm

The Commission was told of a team below the UCI WorldTour recently involved in doping. It was claimed that the team manager and sports director brought a nutritionist into the team who advised a selected group of riders within the team on a doping programme. .... It was further explained that the team manager was also a senior person in a prominent anti-doping movement, and had later on introduced strong anti-doping clauses in the team contracts, including the imposition of significant fines for anyone caught doping.

I know what team springs to my mind.(not Astana)

Russman

Junior wrote: »

It's all much to do about nothing, any 90% stat is based on testimony on Ex Riders, the only current rider to testify was Chris Froome. How are we to know it was Ricco who came out with that statement ? Also where there was evidence eg Pat - Sysmex Machine - Tour of Ireland etc no conclusions were drawn.

Even if it was Ricco who said it, it doesn't necessarily mean its incorrect.

Someone said 90% so they clearly feel or felt that was/is the case. Granted someone also said 20%. Even splitting the difference would imply over half the field still doping.

Beasty

Russman wrote: »

Even if it was Ricco who said it, it doesn't necessarily mean its incorrect.

Someone said 90% so they clearly feel or felt that was/is the case. Granted someone also said 20%. Even splitting the difference would imply over half the field still doping.

The average of 2 random numbers is still a random number.

Russman

Beasty wrote: »

The average of 2 random numbers is still a random number.

Very true.

on_the_nickel

a148pro wrote: »

David Walsh on Morning Ireland there and Pat McQuaid due on later apparently

What was David saying? Championing Team Sky and saying they're working so hard to make a difference, no doubt?

RobFowl

Russman wrote: »

Someone said 90% so they clearly feel or felt that was/is the case. Granted someone also said 20%. Even splitting the difference would imply over half the field still doping.

The very nature if doping means we will never know the prevalence accurately. It's a banned activity carried out secretly and behind the scenes. Those involved know it's banned and actively try to cover their steps.
That makes these 90/20% claims fairly pointless to be perfectly honest.