UCI - Cycling Independent Reform Commission ("CIRC")

Russman

RobFowl wrote: »

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.

Well I wouldn't say pointless. At the very least its somewhat indicative that there is still a huge problem in cycling, as opposed to the "cycling has changed" narrative all the players have stuck to publicly for the last few years. Although I suppose its not really anything anyone didn't strongly suspect anyway.

Could the people who testified be lying ? Of course they could. Could they be just plain wrong ? Absolutely. Maybe they're just s£umbags who just want to hurt cycling .
But personally I'd be more inclined to take some grains of truth from testimony given anonymously by people who would be "in the know" so to speak, rather than the PR drivel from DSs/riders who still would have a lot to lose if found out.

death1234567

Inquitus wrote: »

Doping almost endemic in amateur racing.

:eek: I'm the Christophe Bassons of A4 racing!!!

Junior

death1234567 wrote: »

:eek: I'm the Christophe Bassons of A4 racing!!!

What ? The CIRC didn't speak to you either ?

Macy0161

Russman wrote: »

Could the people who testified be lying ? Of course they could. Could they be just plain wrong ? Absolutely. Maybe they're just s£umbags who just want to hurt cycling .
But personally I'd be more inclined to take some grains of truth from testimony given anonymously by people who would be "in the know" so to speak, rather than the PR drivel from DSs/riders who still would have a lot to lose if found out.

If you were an ex-pro, who doped, you'd probably want to believe that it was still going on as either consciously or sub-consciously, it makes what you did perhaps seem less wrong. Not saying anyone lied or wasn't telling it as it is, but just that they may be a bit of inherent bias.

From what I've read of it so far, I am more concerned about the TUE use. If you're sick enough to need a TUE, are you really well enough to race? (Or play football or do any sport).

One thing I found really depressing was Morning Ireland going from "Cycling is still full of doping" to bigging up athletics without batting an eyelid. As a pro cycling fan, it's always hard not to get drawn into a bout of whataboutery...

death1234567

Macy0161 wrote: »

If you're sick enough to need a TUE, are you really well enough to race? (Or play football or do any sport).

TUE's shouldn't be allowed but it's just one of the many, many loopholes in the system. "Developing" asthma enhances your athletic performance for example.

el tel

I haven't read the report but note the mention of doping in amateur cycling.

While I seriously doubt that anyone in Ireland would be using the likes of EPO, other PEDs - such as inhalers, tramadol*, amphetamines* are relatively easy to get (*I don't know - are they?). Which brings me to the question, is there much or any doping control at open races?

As far as inhalers go, I rarely use mine but on the occasions that I have, I have felt bloody great - being able to breathe in a way I would imgine a normal person would. Which brings me to the next question, if you are a pro with asthma or the likes, should you even be be allowed a TUE which, in effect, brings you up towards par with non-sufferers? I mean, if you are born with a condition/handicap which precludes you being a contender, should you be allowed the extra wee boost which levels the playing field? personally, I think not.

WinnyThePoo

Macy0161 wrote: »

If you were an ex-pro, who doped, you'd probably want to believe that it was still going on as either consciously or sub-consciously, it makes what you did perhaps seem less wrong. Not saying anyone lied or wasn't telling it as it is, but just that they may be a bit of inherent bias.

From what I've read of it so far, I am more concerned about the TUE use. If you're sick enough to need a TUE, are you really well enough to race? (Or play football or do any sport).

One thing I found really depressing was Morning Ireland going from "Cycling is still full of doping" to bigging up athletics without batting an eyelid. As a pro cycling fan, it's always hard not to get drawn into a bout of whataboutery...

I feel the same. it's hard not to mention other sports when your talking to people that don't follow cycling and only hear of the doping.

Still imagine if Usain Bolt tested postive:(

Chips Lovell

death1234567 wrote: »

TUE's shouldn't be allowed...

There's an element of "destroying the village to save it" in that approach.

MPFG

See this morning that the '90% of riders in cycling are doping' is quoted everywhere in the main press...

That it is based on one persons estimation is completely ignored ....
Another person said it is 20%

There are real issues re the need for night testing, need for evidence to back up testing, the use of TUES for performance enhancing , micro EPO and blood transfusion still in practice with some riders ( could be 2 or 200 ??) , insulin & corticoids widely used for weight loss and to improve performance ( could be one team?)

But 'evidence' is based on limited testimony with very few present riders taking part and alot of previous dubious individuals.

I think the report is not very good and is full of hersay and conjecture

I think if you took Astana and some Italian teams out of it then those numbers would be very different

I wouldn't accept the publication of this report in its current form without further investiagtion and evidence ...no other sport would

But in the mass media cycling is corrupt and every other sport remains untarnished

The report says nothing new and as said is evidenced by many old doping pros....but who cares ...Cycling is corrupt is all anyone wants to hear

and current pros like David Millar shoud have taken part ...where were they to give the current view point ??
Only Chris Froome is listed as having given evidence

Cycling and doping is a runaway train...even if a team is clean no one would believe it and no one wants to hear it

Macy0161

el tel wrote: »

While I seriously doubt that anyone in Ireland would be using the likes of EPO, other PEDs - such as inhalers, tramadol*, amphetamines* are relatively easy to get (*I don't know - are they?). Which brings me to the question, is there much or any doping control at open races?

Tramadol isn't actually banned. I don't compete in cycling, but do in another (100% amateur) sport. It's a condition of sports council funding that you sign up to anti doping and potential testing. We get given a booklet every year, which has common off the shelf medicines which would have you popped in competition (sudafed is one that stood out to a sinus sufferer like me!).

lennymc

death1234567 wrote: »

TUE's shouldn't be allowed but it's just one of the many, many loopholes in the system.

what about genuine cases, where, without a TUE someone would be prohibited from taking part in the sport?

C-Shore

carltonleon wrote: »

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.”

From the INRNG article:

"As for the 2009 comeback, the CIRC says Pat McQuaid wrote to Armstrong in telling him he could not start the Tour Down Under as it was too soon following the notification of his return. So Armstrong promised to race the 2009 Tour of Ireland, run by McQuaid’s brother Darach, and two days later Armstrong was allowed to ride the TDU following the unilateral decision of Pat McQuaid. The CIRC says it did not find a direct link but invites people to note that within hours of McQuaid’s “sudden U-turn” Armstrong had promised to race in Ireland. Just fancy that!"

But hasn't Pat done so much for Irish Cycling! Always the cyclist's interests at heart, never his brother's.

C-Shore

I'm not sure I'm reading between the lines too much, but the CIRC report basically says there's no evidence of bribery, but there was terrible financial management and cash was used for a lot of expenses with no paper trail.

So, they can't prove it, but they're pretty sure there was a lot of bribery.

Beasty

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

There's an element of "destroying the village to save it" in that approach.

Just an example. I have ear problems that really get me down on occasions. They also cause hearing problems. There is a steroid cream that can make things infinitely better. It's not going to enhance my performance one iota but I'm guessing it has ingredients that are on the banned list.

CramCycle

Russman wrote: »

But personally I'd be more inclined to take some grains of truth from testimony given anonymously by people who would be "in the know" so to speak, rather than the PR drivel from DSs/riders who still would have a lot to lose if found out.

Precisely, if enough people testify, its alot harder to keep up a lie than expose a truth.

el tel wrote: »

While I seriously doubt that anyone in Ireland would be using the likes of EPO, other PEDs - such as inhalers, tramadol*, amphetamines* are relatively easy to get (*I don't know - are they?). Which brings me to the question, is there much or any doping control at open races?

There are doping controls at open races, not sure how regular they are but they do happen, I have talked to people who have been tested, I wonder do they release results? the ISC would have the numbers but they definitely occur. Not sure have they released any stats on it. My brother in law was competitive at European level for athletics for years, they could turn up at your door at 6 in the morning or at your hotel the night before a race to do an on the spot check, he said it was nearly always urine tests back then, so you had to get up and have a piss or they would wait there until you were able to take a piss. Can't remember if he mentioned blood tests.

death1234567

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

There's an element of "destroying the village to save it" in that approach.

Yeah but the system is so open to exploitation that you have to do something. At the moment it doesn't function as was intended (IMO).

It's not going to enhance my performance one iota but I'm guessing it has ingredients that are on the banned list.

But those ingredients are on the banned list for a reason because they enhance performance. You can't go down the route of allowing small amounts in the system either because that just decreases the chances of a doper being caught and allows micro dosing.

Is the solution to say to people who have asthma or ear infections or whatever that you can't compete in sport? No, but the solution might be to say to them that you can compete but only up to a certain level. Once you get to professional level then you have to play the hand your dealt and can't rely on inhalers or whatever. It's unfair on the genuine cases but sadly this is where sports science has brought us. Too many unethical doctors, too many loopholes, too many exceptions.

CramCycle

death1234567 wrote: »

TUE's shouldn't be allowed but it's just one of the many, many loopholes in the system. "Developing" asthma enhances your athletic performance for example.

Are you saying I should not be allowed race? As a diabetic I have to have insulin to live, let alone participate in a sports event.

I have to submit a TUE every 8 years according to WADA, not sure when they think I will get away without Insulin but its nice to know they hold out hope.

Inquitus

CramCycle wrote: »

There are doping controls at open races, not sure how regular they are but they do happen, I have talked to people who have been tested, I wonder do they release results? the ISC would have the numbers but they definitely occur. Not sure have they released any stats on it. My brother in law was competitive at European level for athletics for years, they could turn up at your door at 6 in the morning or at your hotel the night before a race to do an on the spot check, he said it was nearly always urine tests back then, so you had to get up and have a piss or they would wait there until you were able to take a piss. Can't remember if he mentioned blood tests.

Only the Gorey 3 Day has had testing in the last few seasons as far as I am aware and that was targeted rather than the norm. I believe testing is very expensive to undertake hence it almost never happens.

Chips Lovell

I wouldn't have been able to play any sports right up into my early twenties if TUEs had been banned.

el tel

Beasty wrote: »

Just an example. I have ear problems that really get me down on occasions. They also cause hearing problems. There is a steroid cream that can make things infinitely better. It's not going to enhance my performance one iota but I'm guessing it has ingredients that are on the banned list.

Would you say your ear problems could negatively affect your performance?

If they didn't, then I think it's entirely fair that you should be allowed the appropriate treatment.

I get bouts of vertigo but riding actually makes me feel better.

Eamonnator

death1234567 wrote: »

TUE's shouldn't be allowed but it's just one of the many, many loopholes in the system. "Developing" asthma enhances your athletic performance for example.

I don't look as TUEs as loopholes. They allow athletes, who wouldn't otherwise be able to compete, to race.
My son won 5 National titles, represented Ireland at 9 World Championships, 10 European Championships and about 40 World Cup races and countless other races, domestic and international. Without TUEs, he would not have been able to race, let alone race so competitively.

Do you think it right, that diabetics, ashmathics and others should not be allowed compete at Elite level?

death1234567

CramCycle wrote: »

Are you saying I should not be allowed race? As a diabetic I have to have insulin to live, let alone participate in a sports event.

I didn't think you would need a TUE for insulin as it's not performance enhancing (AFAIK)???

Anyway I assume most people understand my general point without trawling though the entire list of banned substances and available medications for the vast variety of ailments out there. There are people who have illnesses that require treatment, hence a TUE system was developed. Inevitably this system has been exploited by people who aren't sick at all. My idea as a possible solution is to redesign the system in a way which may end up punishing athletes who have a genuine issue, chest infection, migraine, asthma, hayfever etc.

It's not perfect but how else do you prevent abuse? Perhaps implement a medical history system where you need to have been diagnosed with the condition that requires your TUE prior to a certain age (e.g. 16?). That way you can't get one for a chest infection or ear infection but if you have had chest/ear problems all you life you could still get a TUE.

Do you think it right, that diabetics, asthmatics and others should not be allowed compete at Elite level?

No I don't but like I said it's where sports science may have brought us. I don't have asthma or suffer from migraines but if I wanted to compete at an Elite level (and I had no ethics) then I'd be straight off to the nearest Dr. Fuentes/Dr. Nick rivieria to get a TUE and prescription. In a recent BBC podcast into doping in sport ~80% of the endurance athletes were listed as asthmatic. I wonder what the % is in a random sample of non-athletes.

I don't look as TUEs as loopholes. They allow athletes, who wouldn't otherwise be able to compete, to race.

You don't but plenty of others do and that's the problem (IMO). There'll always be professional athletes with no ethics, it's the nature of the beast.

Eamonnator

My son does have asthma.
So, you are saying, that he shouldn't be allowed compete?

lennymc

Why on earth would you punish people with legitimate conditions?
Team Novo Nordisk, Cian Healy, Paul Scholes and many many more. What message would that send out, especially to kids. You have a condition, so therefore you cant compete?

At the least I would have expected someone who was making such suggestions to have read the wada prohibited list before commenting. It's very easy to find.

morana

Inquitus wrote: »

Only the Gorey 3 Day has had testing in the last few seasons as far as I am aware and that was targeted rather than the norm. I believe testing is very expensive to undertake hence it almost never happens.

It wasnt targeted, CI are asked to nominate a number of races to be tested every year. The testers have been doing the same races year on year so wanted some other race and thats why they went to Gorey.

Sorry for going off topic. I havent read the report yet but will do this evening.

death1234567

Eamonnator wrote: »

My son does have asthma.
So, you are saying, that he shouldn't be allowed compete?

As per my previous post, this is my suggestion. What's yours?

death1234567 wrote: »

Perhaps implement a medical history system where you need to have been diagnosed with the condition that requires your TUE prior to a certain age (e.g. 16?). That way you can't get one for a chest infection or ear infection but if you have had chest/ear problems all you life you could still get a TUE.

CramCycle

Inquitus wrote: »

Only the Gorey 3 Day has had testing in the last few seasons as far as I am aware and that was targeted rather than the norm

This was the only race i was aware of, any reason it is targetted? and if it is known to be targetted, surely it defeats the purpose of the doping control.

Weepsie

death1234567 wrote: »

Perhaps implement a medical history system where you need to have been diagnosed with the condition that requires your TUE prior to a certain age (e.g. 16?). That way you can't get one for a chest infection or ear infection but if you have had chest/ear problems all you life you could still get a TUE.

...

There is such a thing as exercised induced asthma. Now it doesn't cause it so much as trigger it. Not everyone with asthma is aware and often it only comes to light years later.

Its not just endurance athletes, though perhaps most common, but it can happen that it develops beyond a certain age.

Maybe don't accept the diagnosis of a GP/Doc that athlete has just started seeing and have stringent list of independent doctors for second opinions

lescol

Pat McQuaid interview this morning:- http://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A20740423%3A48%3A09-03-2015%3A


Doping control has regularly attended Ras Mumhan, there was a positive test for cannabis in 2012.

lennymc

death1234567 wrote: »

Perhaps implement a medical history system where you need to have been diagnosed with the condition that requires your TUE prior to a certain age (e.g. 16?). That way you can't get one for a chest infection or ear infection but if you have had chest/ear problems all you life you could still get a TUE.

It's possible for people to develop conditions that require medication well beyond 16. it's also possible for childhood asthma to disappear over time.

A panel of dr's at the professional level should be the minimum, but, at an amateur level, where drugs can cost up to 144 a month, having to go to a number of dr's (at 50 quid a pop) for a medical or second opinion could put an awful lot of people off doing anything.

While I agree that there are abuses of the system, why should genuine sufferers have to suffer more? (I would wager that anyone with asthma would rather not have it - i know I'd certainly rather not having it) there are also a number of studies that have shown inhaled b2 agonists have limited, if any, performance enhancing effects.

Then of course, there are the diabetics. Novo Nordisk are doing amazing work in cycling and running (and triathlon, but we wont talk about them :P). It's pretty inspiring imho to see novo nordisk riders up the road in breaks at various races, competing on a professional level in-spite of the condition they live with every day.

Macy0161

I wouldn't be calling for a ban on TUE's, but there has to be more stringent control, at elite levels at least. They could start with the more short term things. No need for a pro cyclist to compete in a week long stage race, for example, with a chest infection rather than rest up, or take the treatment and not race.

King_of_Kingz

It's turned into a cover your tracks race for Verbruggen and McQuaid. The fact that Verbruggen came out this morning saying the report exonerated him from any wrong doing during the 90s is farcical and shows the arrogance of the man.

The issue of doctors and GPs is an age old one, I do think that the last couple of years has seen them tighten up on the whole issue of purposeful mis diagnosis but obviously there's always more they could be doing.

http://wp.me/p3yGUO-KP

Eamonnator

death1234567 wrote: »

As per my previous post, this is my suggestion. What's yours?

Your post was edited after I last posted.
How could I comment on a post, that hadn't at the time been posted.

bazermc

Reedsie wrote: »

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

So, whats the big news?

uphillonly

bazermc wrote: »

So, whats the big news?

Something about middle-aged cyclists having coffee stops on training rides & not fessing up to their mates. Revealed by decoding Strava files.

RobFowl

death1234567 wrote: »

TUE's shouldn't be allowed but it's just one of the many, many loopholes in the system

So diabetics shouldn't be allowed insulin???

(It does require a TUE)

Asthma can develop at any age.

Other illnesses can and do occur even if not that common.

Should sport be restricted to blond haired blue eyed ayrians??

bazermc

uphillonly wrote: »

Something about middle-aged cyclists having coffee stops on training rides & not fessing up to their mates. Revealed by decoding Strava files.

Dressed head to toe in Belkin gear?

Eamonnator

death1234567 wrote: »

I didn't think you would need a TUE for insulin as it's not performance enhancing (AFAIK)???

Anyway I assume most people understand my general point without trawling though the entire list of banned substances and available medications for the vast variety of ailments out there. There are people who have illnesses that require treatment, hence a TUE system was developed. Inevitably this system has been exploited by people who aren't sick at all. My idea as a possible solution is to redesign the system in a way which may end up punishing athletes who have a genuine issue, chest infection, migraine, asthma, hayfever etc.

It's not perfect but how else do you prevent abuse? Perhaps implement a medical history system where you need to have been diagnosed with the condition that requires your TUE prior to a certain age (e.g. 16?). That way you can't get one for a chest infection or ear infection but if you have had chest/ear problems all you life you could still get a TUE.


No I don't but like I said it's where sports science may have brought us. I don't have asthma or suffer from migraines but if I wanted to compete at an Elite level (and I had no ethics) then I'd be straight off to the nearest Dr. Fuentes/Dr. Nick rivieria to get a TUE and prescription. In a recent BBC podcast into doping in sport ~80% of the endurance athletes were listed as asthmatic. I wonder what the % is in a random sample of non-athletes.

You don't but plenty of others do and that's the problem (IMO). There'll always be professional athletes with no ethics, it's the nature of the beast.

So, you want to punish the innocent, because of the wrongdoing of the guilty.

Eamonnator

Well, Heinie is delighted with the report

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verbruggen-claims-circ-report-confirms-his-complete-innocence

"The wild conspiracy theories and accusations have all been properly debunked once and for all.

seanin4711

Eamonnator wrote: »

Well, Heinie is delighted with the report

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verbruggen-claims-circ-report-confirms-his-complete-innocence

"The wild conspiracy theories and accusations have all been properly debunked once and for all.

some back hand he has!

Borderfox

Did Heinz even read the report?

Doc07

'I didn't think you would need a TUE for insulin as it's not performance enhancing (AFAIK)???'

I know it's not the major point of debate here but just for anyone interested, insulin could be extremely performance enhancing. Depending on how it's used, it can be very anabolic and is a commonly used (and potentially dangerous) drug amongst bodybuilders at the highest level.

ROK ON

An issue with the report is that much of the evidence is not evidence in the factual sense but assertion based on individuals judgement. Now nothing necessarily wrong with that because if many of the people speaking to the report authors were ex pros that were around doping then they would be considered to be exercising expert judgement.
The downside of this is the tendency for media to highlight the sensationalist parts and extrapolate.

It is not plausible that mamils that either race and/or sportif are doping. Yes doping goes on at all levels but it is implausible in my view to suggest its widespread across amateur cycling everywhere. For well funded events with big prize money/prestige yes I accept that the tendency to cheat would be greater than average. But in this country do we really suspect our club mates, people we train with, race against, cycle with in sportives/Audax events of doping. I might be desperately naive but that is laughable.

Inquitus

ROK ON wrote: »

But in this country do we really suspect our club mates, people we train with, race against, cycle with in sportives/Audax events of doping.

Didn't you always wonder how they beat you?

CramCycle

Doc07 wrote: »

I know it's not the major point of debate here but just for anyone interested, insulin could be extremely performance enhancing.

ROK ON wrote: »

Audax events of doping.

Inquitus wrote: »

Didn't you always wonder how they beat you?

First they came for the American and I did not speak out—
Because I was not sponsored by US postal .

Then they came for the Dutch man and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an honorary vice president.

Then they came for the Irish man and I did not speak out—
Because I was a begrudger.

Then they came for me the diabetic and there was no one left to speak for me.

MPFG

What amazes me is that some people on here find it so easy to believe 90% of pros are doping but its all a mistake when it comes to their amateur friends doping... The omerta is alive and well

Beasty

I've been at the World Track Masters for the past 3 years (competing or spectating). I know of one guy from Ireland who is firmly of the view a lot of doping takes place. It seems to me though that his suspicions are centred on competitors from certain nations. Not going to name those nations but I would certainly be of the view that Ireland (together with a few others) is very much at the "right" end of this particular spectrum. It seems to me that doping may well be endemic at the amateur level within certain countries in the same way it used to be in the pro ranks (and quite a lot of those vets would have been racing at a high level in the 80s and 90s)

12 sprocket

Beasty wrote: »

I've been at the World Track Masters for the past 3 years (competing or spectating). I know of one guy from Ireland who is firmly of the view a lot of doping takes place. It seems to me though that his suspicions are centred on competitors from certain nations. Not going to name those nations but I would certainly be of the view that Ireland (together with a few others) is very much at the "right" end of this particular spectrum. It seems to me that doping may well be endemic at the amateur level within certain countries in the same way it used to be in the pro ranks (and quite a lot of those vets would have been racing at a high level in the 80s and 90s)

There's an interesting little snippet below from the CIRC report in the Culture of doping section...

"Many also stated that there is widespread mistrust in competitors’ performance. If an athlete is beaten in competition it is an easy excuse to attribute the difference in performance to doping. Sometimes however, the explanation is much more simple but difficult to accept, i.e., “you cannot make a racehorse out of a donkey”.

Russman

12 sprocket wrote: »

There's an interesting little snippet below from the CIRC report in the Culture of doping section...

"Many also stated that there is widespread mistrust in competitors’ performance. If an athlete is beaten in competition it is an easy excuse to attribute the difference in performance to doping. Sometimes however, the explanation is much more simple but difficult to accept, i.e., “you cannot make a racehorse out of a donkey”.

That's a very fair point, no doubt jealousy comes into it and to write off a defeat to someone else doping is an easy straw to grasp. But I'm sure when a rider sees a former donkey become a racehorse, his suspicions are likely to be well founded.

Hermy

irishrover99 wrote: »

Still love cycling and will watch it with/without doping

This makes no sense.
If you really love cycling than surely you despise the doping.
This ambivalence towards cheating is part of the problem and has contributed in no small way to things dragging on as they have for so long.