UCI - Cycling Independent Reform Commission ("CIRC")

Russman

Hermy wrote: »

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.

But, in a lot of countries, was it not the case that doping simply wasn't regarded as "cheating", it was just something cyclists did ? For whatever reason, culture, inertia, fear, whatever.

Lumen

people wrote: »

you cannot make a racehorse out of a donkey

I think this saying (and it's converse, in the case of EPO use) is often misunderstood.

A "donkey" in pro terms is relative. It's someone who is by amateur standards an incredible cyclist but would never come close to winning a pro race or be able to make a significant impact as a domestique on a major team.

I am an actual donkey in cycling terms. There is no quality or quantity of drugs or training or elixir of youth that would enable me to compete at pro level although I might be able to make an impression on the Gorey with enough drugs, coaching and training.

CramCycle

Lumen wrote: »

I am an actual donkey in cycling terms. There is no quality or quantity of drugs or training or elixir of youth that would enable me to compete at pro level although I might be able to make an impression on the Gorey with enough drugs, coaching and training.

With enough drugs, coaching and training I might be able to get around each stage of Gorey before the Broomwagon.

el tel

Reedsie wrote: »

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

I have been up all night waiting on this...can you confirm which midnight day/month/year we're talking about? :pac:

Hermy

Russman wrote: »

But, in a lot of countries, was it not the case that doping simply wasn't regarded as "cheating", it was just something cyclists did ? For whatever reason, culture, inertia, fear, whatever.

That's my point.

Leroy42

Russman wrote: »

But, in a lot of countries, was it not the case that doping simply wasn't regarded as "cheating", it was just something cyclists did ? For whatever reason, culture, inertia, fear, whatever.

Trollix. If that was the case then why hide it? Why didn't these countries and the cyclists simply come out and admit it?

What we have seen is that there is a vast apparatus set up to avoid detection. Cash payments, using nic names, cycling without team colours etc etc etc.

The teams/cyclists would love you to think (and LA certainly is using this) that they were only doing what everybody else was doing. While this very much appears to be the case they still knew it was cheating.

Hamilton said as much. He knew he was cheating. he knew what he was doing was wrong, but they felt it was the only way to get the success they wanted. Doesn't make it right

Russman

Leroy42 wrote: »

Trollix. If that was the case then why hide it? Why didn't these countries and the cyclists simply come out and admit it?

What we have seen is that there is a vast apparatus set up to avoid detection. Cash payments, using nic names, cycling without team colours etc etc etc.

The teams/cyclists would love you to think (and LA certainly is using this) that they were only doing what everybody else was doing. While this very much appears to be the case they still knew it was cheating.

Hamilton said as much. He knew he was cheating. he knew what he was doing was wrong, but they felt it was the only way to get the success they wanted. Doesn't make it right

I'm not suggesting its right, just that over many decades it became such an ingrained part of the culture/fabric of cycling as to almost become "normal". When something is normal for long enough, people will not consider the "why" behind all the hiding and cloak & dagger stuff that went on. One big lie protected by the omerta.

Harrybelafonte

"Omertá" guys... if you're going to use clichés and buzzwords to dramatise your statements, at least spell it correctly.

Guybrush T

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

"Omertá" guys... if you're going to use clichés and buzzwords to dramatise your statements, at least spell it correctly.

Ahem: Omertà

I don't think you can have an acute accent on an a in Italian

Junior

Jut going back a few pages, I think people got bent out of shape over the TUE issue - a Singular TUE for something shouldn't be a problem for anyone to understand, however riders turning up to races with folders of TUEs are. And I think that needs to be addressed, that's more than a condition and/or a bit of illness - that should mean you are unfit to race.

I think also that what we might term amateur eg A3 and A4 doesn't necessarily tie in with what might be seen on the European Gran Fondo Scene. It is almost like an unregulated 90s pro scene, with ex-pros (e.g. Ricco), full on teams etc ..

Also this assertion that so many are doping kinda reminds me of the Sex Panther quote "They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time. " If you are a doper, you will start to move in circles where this is more and more common, so when you get into those cirlces you may think well fsck it, the whole world is doping, but no in fact it's just the circles you move in. Just because 9 out of the 10 people you know are dopers doesn't mean the other thousands that ride bikes do.

CramCycle

Junior wrote: »

I think also that what we might term amateur eg A3 and A4 doesn't necessarily tie in with what might be seen on the European Gran Fondo Scene. It is almost like an unregulated 90s pro scene, with ex-pros (e.g. Ricco), full on teams etc ..

Even outside of the ex pro scenes, there is doping at amateur level, had to google it but I had recalled doping controls being introduced at the Gran Fondo New York being a news story a few years ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/sports/cycling/doping-in-cycling-reaches-into-amateur-ranks.html

Eamonnator

And there was this guy in England a few years ago.
He was a "B" rider

http://road.cc/content/news/20965-british-cyclist-dan-staite-gets-two-year-ban-positive-epo-test

neris

below just showed up on my twitter

Richard Moore retweeted
the Inner Ring ‏@inrng 8m8 minutes ago
Lloyd Mondory (Ag2r La Mondiale) A sample shows EPO http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/uci-statement-lloyd-

http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/uci-statement-lloyd-mondory/

MPFG

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

"Omertá" guys... if you're going to use clichés and buzzwords to dramatise your statements, at least spell it correctly.

Get over yourself ....who are you the spelling police

niceonetom

MPFG wrote: »

Get over yourself ....who are you? The spelling police?

I'm more of a punctuation vigilante.

MPFG

niceonetom wrote: »

I'm more of a punctuation vigilante.

Well I only have a few seconds on this website before someone spots me (at work) ...You get it rough or you don't get it at all

Lusk_Doyle

MPFG wrote: »

me at work ...You get it rough or you don't get it at all

Kinky.

MPFG

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Kinky.

I'll ignore that

Seemingly Kimmage is doing the rounds of the radio stations ...on 2Fm now and later on off the ball to talk about CIRC

After he had a go at Nico Roche on twitter for his comments in his Indo piece today on CIRC ...starting a spat with Andrew McQuaid

dastardly00

Kimmage is on after 8pm on Off The Ball.

drogdub

dastardly00 wrote: »

Kimmage is on after 8pm on Off The Ball.

He was interviewed by Joe Molloy so it was lance, lance, lance, Pat, lance, Sky and then other stuff

12 sprocket

Cycling is leading the fight against doping http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gripper-cycling-is-leading-the-world-in-the-fight-against-doping

LuckyLloyd

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...

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

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:(

Serious question: why do you care? You'll enjoy watching the Tour either way, right? I mean at the time watching Lance Armstrong bury his opponents was simply brilliant entertainment.

Your sport is a doper sport. Embrace it. Many other sports are doper sports. Athletics, weightlifting, Baseball, American Football are all confirmed doper sports. Many more probably have rampant drug use that has yet to come out with a signature case.

Enjoy the entertainment and your own participation, what elite level cyclists do to chase the dream is their own business.

Hermy

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Serious question: why do you care? You'll enjoy watching the Tour either way, right? I mean at the time watching Lance Armstrong bury his opponents was simply brilliant entertainment.

Your sport is a doper sport. Embrace it. Many other sports are doper sports. Athletics, weightlifting, Baseball, American Football are all confirmed doper sports. Many more probably have rampant drug use that has yet to come out with a signature case.

Enjoy the entertainment and your own participation, what elite level cyclists do to chase the dream is their own business.

Doper and sport are two words that don't belong together.
I know of no sport that permits doping.
Watching Lance Armstrong get rewarded for cheating his way to the top was disgusting.

Chips Lovell

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

You'll enjoy watching the Tour either way, right?

Not me. At the height of the bad years, cycling was often bloody boring to watch. Now we've gotten a cleaner peloton, a bit of the drama has returned to the sport.

CramCycle

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Serious question: why do you care? You'll enjoy watching the Tour either way, right? I mean at the time watching Lance Armstrong bury his opponents was simply brilliant entertainment.

I care because when, terrible as it sounds, when I see a man suffer to over come his opponents, I want it top be because he worked harder, trained better, put in the hours and took the glory from his opponents, it was because he alone had the natural ability and the willingness. I in no way want it to be made easier on him than it would be on a guy who does not have the funding or backing for a proper doping programme.

Your sport is a doper sport. Embrace it. Many other sports are doper sports. Athletics, weightlifting, Baseball, American Football are all confirmed doper sports. Many more probably have rampant drug use that has yet to come out with a signature case.

It's a sport with doping in it, not a doping sport. It is probably one of the most heavily investigated and publicised sports in which doping occurs but that is it.

Enjoy the entertainment and your own participation, what elite level cyclists do to chase the dream is their own business.

What they do to influence the youth of today is our business, doping can be dangerous, it can kill, and it can have lasting physiological repercussions, some maybe good, some maybe bad. I certainly don't want to think that because some of us never protested enough, that we gave the impression to our youth that, ah shure, it's grand. Christ on a bike, even the likes of the WWF are getting with the programme on doping after the horrendously negative consequences became public knowledge in recent years (hence why many old school wrestlers either left or are not in as "peak" physical shape as they used to be I imagine).

niceonetom

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Serious question: why do you care? You'll enjoy watching the Tour either way, right? I mean at the time watching Lance Armstrong bury his opponents was simply brilliant entertainment.

Your sport is a doper sport. Embrace it. Many other sports are doper sports. Athletics, weightlifting, Baseball, American Football are all confirmed doper sports. Many more probably have rampant drug use that has yet to come out with a signature case.

Enjoy the entertainment and your own participation, what elite level cyclists do to chase the dream is their own business.

Wow. Such a lot of stupid.

Doping kills people you know. Dead. It ruins people. It filters down to every level, amateur and professional. It corrupts good people and rewards the bad. Its corrodes people's sense of fairness, of competition, of decency. It robs people unwilling to dope of the opportunity ever compete at the level their talent would otherwise allow. It puts kids in a position where they have chose between doping, now, as juniors or espoirs, or never going pro.

But hey, why not just enjoy it as entertainent, right?

ROK ON

The reason people watch sports as an entertainment in my view is to rekindle that childlike wonder - call it the Roy of the rovers effect.

No kid wants to consider that the hero is actually a cheater. No wind forward to a time when that child is an adult.

They may now suspect doping but it kills the enjoyment.

As an aside I think that money in sport does the same but that's a side issue.

Junior

Hermy wrote: »

I know of no sport that permits doping.

NFL - if only by the way they treat testing and bans.

LuckyLloyd

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Not me. At the height of the bad years, cycling was often bloody boring to watch. Now we've gotten a cleaner peloton, a bit of the drama has returned to the sport.

Not much cleaner of a peloton unfortunately.

LuckyLloyd

niceonetom wrote: »

Wow. Such a lot of stupid.

Doping kills people you know. Dead. It ruins people. It filters down to every level, amateur and professional. It corrupts good people and rewards the bad. Its corrodes people's sense of fairness, of competition, of decency. It robs people unwilling to dope of the opportunity ever compete at the level their talent would otherwise allow. It puts kids in a position where they have chose between doping, now, as juniors or espoirs, or never going pro.

But hey, why not just enjoy it as entertainent, right?

Elite sport ruins people. It was always so. Doping is not the root problem, it's just a symptom of the fierce desire to push the limits of the human body and win. I say that if you truly abhor doping you should turn your back on pro cycling. No interest = no money = less (but not none) motivation to cheat.

The halfway house of paying lip service to cleaning up a sport and assuming everyone is clean until proven otherwise at which point they can be burnt at the stake is very self defeating.

I believe there are aspects of every sport you can improve to level the playing field and certain types of cheating that you can legislate against but doping is unstoppable for it is human nature and desire that you are fighting. I've learned to stop worrying and love the bomb as it were.

Beasty

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Not much cleaner of a peloton unfortunately.

Perhaps it was starting from a low base, but I don't think many people who have been following this topic closely in recent years would share this view. Cycling has made massive strides forward in recent years. No-one is for one moment claiming the job is done, but the good news so far as I am concerned is Cycling has made and is making more of an effort than pretty much any other major sport to clean its act up

niceonetom

Sometimes an argument is just so malformed and internally inconsistent that it would be foolish to even counter it.

The voice of reason indeed.

el tel

I think right now doping in cycling is not as bad as it once was, until some time in the future when it becomes just as bad or even worse.

There must be some doping tech out there or on the horizon that isn't on any banned list, or isn't yet detectible, and without a doubt the usual kind of suspects will be all over it like a donkey on a waffle.

Beasty

el tel wrote: »

There must be some doping tech out there or on the horizon that isn't on any banned list, or isn't yet detectible, and without a doubt the usual kind of suspects will be all over it like a donkey on a waffle.

In the past it was probably relatively easy to keep a lot of stuff under wraps. I think the digital age has changed that significantly and if things do "develop" on the doping front there's a fair chance it will quickly come to the attention of someone who is going to get the relevant authorities on the case

LuckyLloyd

niceonetom wrote: »

Sometimes an argument is just so malformed and internally inconsistent that it would be foolish to even counter it.

The voice of reason indeed.

My argument is very clear and consistent. You just don't agree with it. By all means continue to dream of a dope free cycling utopia.

LuckyLloyd

Beasty wrote: »

In the past it was probably relatively easy to keep a lot of stuff under wraps. I think the digital age has changed that significantly and if things do "develop" on the doping front there's a fair chance it will quickly come to the attention of someone who is going to get the relevant authorities on the case

On what basis do you believe that?

nak

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

On what basis do you believe that?

Several pharmaceutical companies now have an agreement with WADA, where they provide notification of pipeline product that have the potential to be used as PEDs. ID tests have been developed before the product is released for sale. This is what happened with CERA and led to a good few athletes being caught.

Beasty

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

On what basis do you believe that?

The world has moved on. It was relatively easy for people to work away in secret 20-30 years ago when modern technology and communication systems were in their infancy. It is very difficult to keep a secret nowadays and the investigating authorities have far better tools to help them investigate what is going on. The biological passport is one such tool which helps highlight where cyclists have unexplained improvements in performance.

The fact that technology can now be used to scrutinise past performance (even if it's not often used to overturn results) means modern-day athletes will be more wary of taking PEDs. They now know that things may well catch up with them in due course (as has happened with Armstrong). 20+ years ago riders will have given little thought to the prospect that EPO may actually one day be detectible. Blood doping was probably going on in the 1950s, but was not even banned until 1985 when there was no testr for EPO. There was no reason at that time to even assume that a test would eventually be developed, let alone tests that could be applied retrospectively. People now know they must expect the unexpected and that nothing is certain when it comes to attempting to cover up doping. If it was still at the levels it was at in the 80s and 90s in my view a hell of a lot more people would know about it and be more open with specific allegations

Chips Lovell

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Not much cleaner of a peloton unfortunately.

We must be watching different races.

How does one love the bomb in practice? Keep dropping down the categories until you're sure nobody you're up against is on it?

LuckyLloyd

Fair enough NAK and Beasty, but judging by the consistent level of track and weightlifting violations and the continued absence of effective testing protocol in Soccer and Rugby there will continue to be channels producing banned performance enhanced substances used in sport. As such, there will be channels available to manufacture something new...

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

We must be watching different races.

How does one love the bomb in practice? Keep dropping down the categories until you're sure nobody you're up against is on it?

We might also be reading different reports?

In practice everyone knows what it takes to make it at the elite level. They also know that if you're really good you can still be at the elite level clean - you just might not get to win unless you compromise. And compromise is part of chasing the dream in every professional sport. It would be better if you didn't have to move over to the UK at 15 or 16 and forgo your leaving cert to try and be an elite professional footballer. It would be better if you could compete at the sharp end of strength / endurance sports without loading yourself full of stuff. But these are the realities and have been for a very long time.

You can still be clean. As a clean rider, securing a place in the peloton and completing the Tour de France would be a fine athletic accomplishment and probably one hell of a personal experience. Just as simply qualifying for the Olympics or playing LOI ball would be. I mean, there is no level playing field anyway. There is a disparity in resources / facilities / genetics / family stability that play into who gets their shot to begin with. Hard work is not an equal thing to begin with.

I think recreational / amateur athletes or activity participants often have a hard time accepting that they aren't playing the same game. Go out and do it as best you can so that you can really say 'wow' when you watch the best go at it onscreen. That's how you love the bomb imo.

Chips Lovell

You're trying to support your argument by making an artificial distinction between "elites" and everyone else, with elites being the only ones who dope or have to worry about doping and the only time the rest of us encounter them is when we turn on our televisions. The reality of the sport is very different.

Hermy

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

...to make it at the elite level...

If you're doping you're not 'making it.'

LuckyLloyd

Hermy wrote: »

If you're doping you're not 'making it.'

That's clearly not the case, even if it ideally would be.

Lusk_Doyle

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

That's clearly not the case, even if it ideally would be.

It clearly is the case. You're faking it. Others might not know but you do and even if you are never caught, deep down you know that you are a cnut.

You as in a doping rider and not you specifically.

Beasty

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

You as in a doping rider and not you specifically.

FFS L_D - don't get me in a panic like that again....


:pac:

Doc07

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

It clearly is the case. You're faking it. Others might not know but you do and even if you are never caught, deep down you know that you are a cnut.

You as in a doping rider and not you specifically.

Would Lance, Jan Ulrich, Marco Pantani, Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis, Jaques Anteqeil(spell?) , Tom Simpson etc not be considered to have 'made it' tonelite level of professional cycling. I'm not saying what they did was justified, far from it. I'm merely suggesting that many people would consider they had made it.

thebouldwhacker

I was a teenager in 1988 who enjoined athletics, then the Seoul Olympics came and my heroes became liars and I basically lost interest in sport.
That for me is the result of doping. Those cheats were dream thieves and liars who stole what was valuable and made ethics and principles the thing of fools. Doping has many consequences.

Lusk_Doyle

Doc07 wrote: »

Would Lance, Jan Ulrich, Marco Pantani, Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis, Jaques Anteqeil(spell?) , Tom Simpson etc not be considered to have 'made it' tonelite level of professional cycling. I'm not saying what they did was justified, far from it. I'm merely suggesting that many people would consider they had made it.

Considering that you have made it does not make it true. It is quite clear.to any observer that the methods used by the above mean that in fact, they did not make it. They faked it. Faking it is simply not making it.

morana

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Considering that you have made it does not make it true. It is quite clear.to any observer that the methods used by the above mean that in fact, they did not make it. They faked it. Faking it is simply not making it.

Lets not lie...those that have won big races are adored regardless of what they did during their careers.

Lusk_Doyle

morana wrote: »

Lets not lie...those that have won big races are adored regardless of what they did during their careers.

Agreed. However, the fact still remains. It's like cheating on an exam in school in terms of principle. Yes I got the result but I know it was ill gained. That's hollow and not real despite public perception and opinion.