Bye-bye, Dick....

LangerDan

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story ... d0918.html

iainf72

Hope his new business venture with Lance pans out for him.



Will WADA be run by someone who can control his mouth?

ricadus

I wonder if McQuaid has booked a November flight to Madrid?

Also 'bye-bye Guerini', who abandoned the Vuelta today and thus retired from pro-cycling.

Kléber

Maybe he could run the UCI?

sylvanus

I have to say I think he's done a great job and had a lot of courage to speak out against the sporting mafias as he has.

I've just read "Game of Shadows" on the BALCO scandal and from that its clear that cycling is from alone in being such a corrupted and faked sport. We the public really do need to demand more honesty or walk away from watching professional sport completely since so much of it has become a farcical conspiracy to dupe us, the paying public.

I hope he sees his work beginning to have results soon!

drenkrom

So that explains the camera crews in the building today! I work in the same building that houses the WADA main office in Montreal.

A few months back, I was fortunate enough to be crossing the street next to Dickey and greeted him and we started talking. When I said I was a cyclist he replied "Oh boy, I know where this is going, then!". In fact, he was aware of his media image and I think he cultivated the "attack dog" persona. In person, he gave the impression of a passionate man. This guy suffered the first complete doping humiliation when he was the representative for the Canadian Olympic delegation when Ben Johnson got caught. His initial defense of Johnson left him a professionally broken man and that is when he got passionate about doping and stopped believing the athlete's word. He admitted he put on a bit of a show for the media, as that is the only way he found that his message was being relayed at all. Even though he was publicly skeptical of cycling's efforts, he confided he was tough on the UCI because they seem to be the only federation that really wants to get its sport clean. It could then be used as an example to other sports.

That's what I gathered from our 10-minute conversation. I had a rather negative opinion of the man before the encounter but that changed afterwards. i just hope his replacement is as passionate, if a little more diplomatic.

sylvanus

i just hope his replacement is as passionate, if a little more diplomatic.

I'd regard the lack of diplomacy a key requirement of the job for all the reasons he explained to you. There are far too many senior sports admins like Verbruggen in cycling or Selig in baseball etc that have a farcically protective even dishonest attitude to doping.
We need a lot more honest and outspoken individuals who speak the embarrassing truth and call the doping spade a "****ing shovel".

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing!" - Probably Edmund Burke but definitely:
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

- Even though he said it in 1770, he might have been referring to the Disco boys or even Astana...

andyp

I'm with Sylvanus - under Dick Pound's stewardship WADA has been established as a credible leader in the fight against doping. His stomach to fight the institutionalised doping in most professional sports has been very brave.

Let's hope his replacement is as prepared to put noises out of joint.

iainf72

andyp wrote:

I'm with Sylvanus - under Dick Pound's stewardship WADA has been established as a credible leader in the fight against doping. His stomach to fight the institutionalised doping in most professional sports has been very brave.

Let's hope his replacement is as prepared to put noises out of joint.

Uh huh - How much help was the toothless tiger with Puerto?

How valuable is their accreditation when obviously guilty athletes walk because the labs can't follow guidelines?

sylvanus

AFAIK - WADA / AMA have had no direct involvement in Puerto since its a Spanish judicial case so I'm not sure how that reflects badly on them? Not sure I understand your point?

In terms of labs, there will always be some error rate hence the A and B tests and appeal process etc. Even so in, for instance, the Landis case, all the s*** his team are throwing will not change the fact hes' a doper in the eyes of the world or AFAIK in the eyes of USADA or WADA.

If you're saying that WADA and its procedures should be tougher and aim to catch more of the bad guys then sure I'd agree but its hard to blame Pound for that isn't it? He's about as hardcore as they come - the guys we need to fix are the Bruyneels, Bivers, Ferraris etc surely?

andyp

I'm sure Dick tears what is left of his hair out whenever a lab screws up. But that's not his fault is it? I'm sure that WADA investigate every time an athlete gets off and try and improve the system. The fact that the standard defence has moved away from "not me guv must've been a mistake" to "the lab screwed up" would suggest that the ability to get away with it is diminishing.

As for Puerto, when you have government protection, which appears to be the case, then it's hard for a umbrella sports organisation to have any influence.

It's easy for us to sit here and criticise but on balance I'm impressed with what WADA have done in such a short space of time. Pound must get some of the credit for that. It is worth remembering that the IOC was considered corrupt and morally bankrupt not too long ago so for one of it's initiatives to be considered a success is no small matter.

iainf72

sylvanus wrote:

AFAIK - WADA / AMA have had no direct involvement in Puerto since its a Spanish judicial case so I'm not sure how that reflects badly on them? Not sure I understand your point?

AFAIK, they tried to get involved but nothing came of it. The UCI and a Italian / German feds managed to get some documentation out of the Spaniards so why not WADA? Maybe a bigger sport told them to back off, who knows.

My issue with the labs is WADA appear to do nothing when they do fluff it. I expect, if they accreditted to be to a certain standard - If they can't meet that standard then surely they should lose their status?
And when the same mistake happens TWICE - Unforgivable.

andyp

iainf72 wrote:

My issue with the labs is WADA appear to do nothing when they do fluff it. I expect, if they accreditted to be to a certain standard - If they can't meet that standard then surely they should lose their status?
And when the same mistake happens TWICE - Unforgivable.

What do you expect them to do - remove the accreditation and pass it on to another lab? These labs aren't exactly ten a penny so it's not like there is a surfeit of them is it. They are usually funded by central government as it isn't exactly a money spinner.

iainf72

andyp wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

My issue with the labs is WADA appear to do nothing when they do fluff it. I expect, if they accreditted to be to a certain standard - If they can't meet that standard then surely they should lose their status?
And when the same mistake happens TWICE - Unforgivable.

What do you expect them to do - remove the accreditation and pass it on to another lab? These labs aren't exactly ten a penny so it's not like there is a surfeit of them is it. They are usually funded by central government as it isn't exactly a money spinner.

So you're saying WADA have no real power?

Labs should be able to get away with shoddy work because they're not money spinners and there aren't many of them?

Hmmm, and I'm to take this organisation seriously?

sylvanus

No - You're completely twisting what AndyP is saying and then attacking the twisted statement. If you going to stand up for high standards in testing (which I can understand and support) then you should argue your case with as much care and honesty as you expect from the labs.

Neither AndyP nor I is saying that either WADA, Dick Pound or the labs are perfect but that they have done a good job and represent about the best hope we have. Life is often about the art of the possible not the perfect. Attacking any attempt to improve the world as imperfect is self-evidently true. If the current situation is not good enough for you then you need to present a realistic alternative.

andyp

iainf72 wrote:

So you're saying WADA have no real power?

Labs should be able to get away with shoddy work because they're not money spinners and there aren't many of them?

Hmmm, and I'm to take this organisation seriously?

Sometimes you're devil's advocacy wears a bit thin. :roll:

I'm saying that WADA have a limited number of labs to work with. I'm sure, but not being party to this I can't confirm this to be true, that WADA work very closely with those labs that have had (very minor) issues with process to coach them in getting it right.

One final point - why do people get so irked by WADA? It's the idiots who continue to dope with impunity and are destroying the credibility of the sport who we should be having a go at. WADA are, in the grand scheme of things, one of the few good guys.

iainf72

andyp wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

I'm saying that WADA have a limited number of labs to work with. I'm sure, but not being party to this I can't confirm this to be true, that WADA work very closely with those labs that have had (very minor) issues with process to coach them in getting it right.

That's fine - If they do, they should be more transparant about it IMO. And if labs are experiencing problems around staff shortages or whatever the case is, then WADA need to be pushing to get these places properly funded.

WADA probably are the good guys, however I firmly believe Pound was not a good leader. Emotive language about doping is unneccessary and counter productive.

WADA should set the policy, make sure that policy is applied correctly and fairly. The main guy from the organisation should not be making personal statements about athletes.

drenkrom

Why should he refrain from making emotive statements? WADA has a board, it's not a dictatorial organization. Dick Pound (damn that man should've been a pornstar!) was the public figure, the one we see. Basically, he was to WADA what Mickey Mouse is to Disney. His job is to get attention. His statement about being surprised Landis wasn't raping every virgin in sight was, to say the least, undiplomatic, yet it illustrated perfectly to those uninitiated to doping just how monstruous an 11:1 T:E ratio is.

About the labs, I have no idea how a WADA lab is run, as is surely the case for most of you. The accusations of incompetence, fumbling and staff shortages always come from people representing accused athletes. Landis took this scheme to a whole new level with an intense PR campaign. And boy did it work! I've seen countless accusations of lab incompetence on this forum alone, yet no one knows what that incompetence consists of. WADA can't defend themselves in those cases, as they are a prosecuting party involved in an ongoing inquiry. It's free game for the athlete's PR guys. Whatever they say comes to be seen as the whole truth by most casual fans. And lab results are easy to attack, as the public has no friggin clue what goes on in a lab besides that there are guys with white coats and glasses there, and initiated analysts know that if there is the slightest doubt of an inconsistency, that result should be scrapped, however unlikely it may be that it was wrong.

Stop listening to the accused athletes. There are thousands of athletes being tested dozens of times every year and about a dozen pop up a positive. If there were such huge problems, wouldn't that proportion be a little different?

sylvanus

however I firmly believe Pound was not a good leader. Emotive language about doping is unneccessary and counter productive.

WADA should set the policy, make sure that policy is applied correctly and fairly. The main guy from the organisation should not be making personal statements about athletes.

Both Lance and Landis would agree with you completely and this has been the main thrust of their complaints as well as the attacks on Chatenay-Malabry.

Wouldn't it be fair of us to inquire why you support the arguments of the dopers? Is it because, like them, you'd prefer to see some parts of professional cycling remain hidden? Barry Bonds of the SF giants seems to believe the same about baseball. Perhaps Mr Pound should be discrete enough to leave the rotten heart of professional sport hidden?

I think you're trailing your cloak! :?

iainf72

sylvanus wrote:

Wouldn't it be fair of us to inquire why you support the arguments of the dopers?

Because someone takes gear doesn't neccessarily mean they're wrong on everything. I do play devils advocate a bit because I enjoy a good natured argument.

Why do WADA have these rules about how tests are performed if it isn't important? I have no problem with someone making a mistake (say, mislabelling a sample), but there is a method to correct it. All that shows is the technicians take shortcuts and if they do it there, can we be sure they don't do it everywhere. These protocols are in place to protect the ADA's AND the athlete.

It's not like you pour the wee into a machine and a big red light comes on saying positive. There are protocols to be followed etc, that's how we should get consistant results. This is why I'm very keen that A and B samples are not tested in the same lab - It removes one of the guilties arguments immediately.

Pound did the disinformation thing just as much as Landis.

Complete aside : 3 days til Landis vedict and suddenly Pound is out...Was his departure planned for yesterday or are we about to see the biggest doping case in recent years with an interesting verdict?

Kléber

Pound opened his mouth but sometimes it takes a tough sheriff to clean up the town. After all, his quote about UCI officials needing "white sticks" because they were so blind to the doping problem rang true. For too long, the UCI sat on the issue and wished it would go away, whilst Pound was harassing them.

Two wrongs don't make a right, it would have been better if both Pound and Verbruggen/McQuaid had co-operated better but supposedly the UCI officials and WADA work together well.

flattythehurdler

Iain, can I ask you, if Landis gets off on a technicality,as he may well do, will you really believe him to be innocent?

iainf72

flattythehurdler wrote:

Iain, can I ask you, if Landis gets off on a technicality,as he may well do, will you really believe him to be innocent?

What kind of technicality?

If the WADA expert decided the test results were too erratic and that indicated contamination then that's different to some other situations.

flattythehurdler

Answer the question.

iainf72

flattythehurdler wrote:

Answer the question.

What kind of technicality? Give me an example.

My answer will vary according to that.

flattythehurdler

Answer the question. If he gets off because, say, his 57 pints the night before affected the result, will you really deep down believe him innocent?

iainf72

flattythehurdler wrote:

Answer the question. If he gets off because, say, his 57 pints the night before affected the result, will you really deep down believe him innocent?

I'd be suspicious but ultimately not know.

Like everyone else. But I will happily accept whatever the verdict is.

It's so high profile that he's unlikely to get off on a trivial thing.