Pat McQuaid strikes back

dennisn

Patrick1.0 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

So now the thinking is that pretty much everyone is using completely undetectable drugs which will be detectable in a year or so but by then the undetectable drug making companies will have a new undetectable one for everyone to replace the previous undetectable one which, of course, has now become detectable or undetectable, I can't remember which?? Hmmmmm, makes sense to me.

Dennis Noward

It's all hypothetical, Dennis. More than anything else, it's the sentiment of an organised hunt which is prepared to test in the present and indeed go back into the past and bust drug cheats. If we want a cleaner pro peloton surely this is what has to happen?

Makes sense but I believe you have you have your words mixed up and a spelling error.
Surely it's "witch hunt" and not "hunt which"??????
Proper English you know.

Dennis Noward

mididoctors

donrhummy wrote:

It sucks, but to constantly go back and retest the old samples every year that a new test comes out makes the sport a joke, and makes it impossible to ever declare a winner.

yes... which is why it will work!.. no win unless it stands the test of time

micron

It's all hypothetical, Dennis. More than anything else, it's the sentiment of an organised hunt which is prepared to test in the present and indeed go back into the past and bust drug cheats. If we want a cleaner pro peloton surely this is what has to happen?

would you therefore agree that Armstrong should take the lead and authorise testing of his old samples - to add validity to the process?

Patrick1.0

micron wrote:

It's all hypothetical, Dennis. More than anything else, it's the sentiment of an organised hunt which is prepared to test in the present and indeed go back into the past and bust drug cheats. If we want a cleaner pro peloton surely this is what has to happen?

would you therefore agree that Armstrong should take the lead and authorise testing of his old samples - to add validity to the process?

Well, in normal circumstances, yes I would agree with that. But considering the fact there was an independent investigation - however reliable or unreliable you think it was - which reported that the samples had not been kept properly, it would be very difficult to prove anything by testing them again.

In that case, it's just never going to happen but I think Armstrong should and will be held to the exact same procedures as every other rider. I do not think his duty reaches beyond that.

dennisn

mididoctors wrote:

donrhummy wrote:

It sucks, but to constantly go back and retest the old samples every year that a new test comes out makes the sport a joke, and makes it impossible to ever declare a winner.

yes... which is why it will work!.. no win unless it stands the test of time

Wow, how long will they have to stand? It's not good on the arches of the feet.
What kind of questions are on the "test of time"? Multiple choice, essay?
How much time do you have to complete the "test of time"?
Do you really have to stand while taking the test?

Dennis Noward

mididoctors

dennisn wrote:

Wow, how long will they have to stand?

as long as chemistry and storage permits

imagine if in ten years time you can look back on a decade of winners you have real confidence in

what is that worth?

I'm really curious to see a bread and water tour... what does it look like?

have we ever seen one?

or something close?.. i doubt it

I think we are seeing something closer

dennisn

mididoctors wrote:

dennisn wrote:

imagine if in ten years time you can look back on a decade of winners you have real confidence in
what is that worth?

To be honest and not to sound like an ass, but I don't really care who the last 10
winners were and I doubt that I will care 10 years done the road. I don't worship these guys, so "what is it worth"? It's just not something I dwell on or care about. The only way I can think to explain it is to ask the question "What possible difference would, who won the Tour, make in my life?".

Dennis Noward

Kléber

Dennis, sometimes pro cycling isn't always about you and your thoughts.

dennisn

Kléber wrote:

Dennis, sometimes pro cycling isn't always about you and your thoughts.

Well, he did ask "what's it worth". :? :?

Dennis Noward

Patrick1.0

dennisn wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

dennisn wrote:

imagine if in ten years time you can look back on a decade of winners you have real confidence in
what is that worth?

To be honest and not to sound like an ass, but I don't really care who the last 10
winners were and I doubt that I will care 10 years done the road. I don't worship these guys, so "what is it worth"? It's just not something I dwell on or care about. The only way I can think to explain it is to ask the question "What possible difference would, who won the Tour, make in my life?".

Dennis Noward

You only need to listen to somebody like Greg Lemond to see what it means to a lot of us.

Nobody has to care, Dennis. If you drive by a guy lying half dead in a ditch, you don't have to care.

aarw

Kléber wrote:

Surely if someone broke the rules and there's a way of catching them for it, they should be nabbed, not left in peace.

If a murder took place 10 or 20 years ago and new DNA techniques now allow the criminal to be tried in court, they should be used, no? Why should this be different for sport?

because a win is celebrated and a murder, well, isn't....

If we did keep going back and restesting, could we really celebrate the winner of a race? come the end of July you'd be thinking yeah, good win Carlos, but you have to wait until next year before all the retests are done and then we'll confirm you as the winner.

how come armstrong gets the choice if he wants his past samples re-tested or not? just curious.

Kléber

Wealth is often celebrated too. If someone was feted for his jet-set lifestyle but managed to fund this by burgling you, how would you feel if the police said "nah, three months have gone since you reported the loss, any new evidence is inadmissible, time to let sleeping dogs like", how would you feel?

Several honest riders have lost out on stage wins and podium places because of the doping cheats. They've been robbed. The UCI should be trying to find the correct winners, not sweeping problems under the carpet or seeking to protect cheats.

mididoctors

dennisn wrote:

Kléber wrote:

Dennis, sometimes pro cycling isn't always about you and your thoughts.

Well, he did ask "what's it worth". :? :?

Dennis Noward

then what you are saying is it doesn't matter if some dope or not

your position is you don't mind...

back in the early mid nineties I thought in a similar way too...but i changed my mind.

and not just from some ethical POV...

aarw

Kléber wrote:

Wealth is often celebrated too. If someone was feted for his jet-set lifestyle but managed to fund this by burgling you, how would you feel if the police said "nah, three months have gone since you reported the loss, any new evidence is inadmissible, time to let sleeping dogs like", how would you feel?

Several honest riders have lost out on stage wins and podium places because of the doping cheats. They've been robbed. The UCI should be trying to find the correct winners, not sweeping problems under the carpet or seeking to protect cheats.

do you actually get to watch pro cycling with any enjoyment?

LangerDan

I think McQuaid did consider retrospective testing but found he was looking down the barrel of a very big and messy gun.

1) 2008 is generally accepted as being cleaner, yet there has been no shortage of high-profile catches. If FvPs figure of 50% is anywhere near accurate, the figures for the last few years must be frightening.

2) I would imagine that not all ProTour-level events have retained blood and urine samples for all riders. You then have the issue of Rider A getting caught and riders B,C and D escaping simply because they happened to ride, say, the Giro rather than the Tour. Plus you may have the thorny issue of not having samples for the riders who finished a stage or a classification behind a doped rider and thus being unable to verify if they were clean.

3) I have an increasing suspicion that CERA is not a 2008 problem. Phase 3 Clinical trial material would have been available for some time before regulatory approval was given.


The Big Mac could have been looking at a very significant number of positives from last year - possible even to the extent of threatening the continuation of any meaningful sponsorship in the sport.

However he should fork out for some half-decent press officer, if nothing else. Every time he opens his mouth these days it seems to be only to change feet.

Kléber

aarw wrote:

do you actually get to watch pro cycling with any enjoyment?

Of course, but I'd get a lot more if I knew guys were taking less risks with their health and that the riders who play by the rules had a fair chance.

jimmythecuckoo

McQuaid is a chump with no credibilitiy... a lot like the sport he represents.

The UCI is a toothless organisation seemingly pandering to those who choose to cheat and offering them protection and annonymity.

This is a scandal. Do the cycling world a favour and resign now. Or have the guts to tackle the problem head on and say that if we could re-test Merckx's samples we would and if we found something in them that was banned, we would go and get his trophies back.

leguape

Kléber wrote:

Wealth is often celebrated too. If someone was feted for his jet-set lifestyle but managed to fund this by burgling you, how would you feel if the police said "nah, three months have gone since you reported the loss, any new evidence is inadmissible, time to let sleeping dogs like", how would you feel?

Several honest riders have lost out on stage wins and podium places because of the doping cheats. They've been robbed. The UCI should be trying to find the correct winners, not sweeping problems under the carpet or seeking to protect cheats.

And in the future several honest riders will have to spend their careers with every victory as suspect as those of every rider they do manage to catch in the limited window of opportunity.

In which case, every race has to test every rider at every sign on. It's the only way it's going to work.

I don't want Denis Menchov being confirmed as third knowing that his placings mean he's likely to have stood in front of the tester's pot less frequently than Carlos or Cadel. I'm willing to bet there's riders for whom the testing record is so incomplete as to be worthless.

I think I can see McQuaid's point and it's not about covering up the past so much as accepting the past and moving on. If we can accept that Merckx, Anquetil, Coppi and everyone else doped in some form and not scratch them, we should at least retain the same level of respect for the modern riders.

It's about as worthwhile retroactively testing arbitrary periods in the sport because they can as it is to try and get the Mexico 1986 results changed because the replay shows Maradonna mugged Shilton.

Here's a hypothetical: In eight years time Carlos Sastre turns up a non-negative for some substance that wasn't even on the radar four years from now. Carlos is fat and retired, has invested wisely. paying back the TDF prize money and having his name scratched is going to be pocket change to the guy.

Simply saying "we might catch you in future" isn't helping the situation. It's about as much of a deterrent as saying "by getting into this car you risk death" on the side of every motor vehicle.

Kléber

I partly agree leguape but the head of the UCI shouldn't be saying "we're not going to bother", he should be saying the UCI's doing all it can to catch cheats and will support any moves to test and review past samples.

No one is saying nab Sastre in 8 years' time, simply test the samples from this year to start with. At the very least it could get data on who has been doing what and build up intelligence on the riders to monitor for 2009.

This is also partly a PR war and McQuaid keeps putting his foot in it. When the head of a sport that's closely associated with doping says "we don't want to catch the cheats", it sends an awful message out.

aarw

good post legaupe.

i love the idea of 'the needle of god' that won the tour...

cougie

Without reading through all 4 pages so far - I can see McQuaids point.

Fair enough to retest the samples for this years Tour - thats useful and a massive deterrent for the rest of the season/ next year.

If we were to go through last years samples then christ knows what we will find. We could wipe out the GT winners and most of the podium. Then do you hand it down to someone who hasnt tested positive - maybe because they werent tested ?

You can only go so far back without making a complet mockery of the sport.

Are other sports using these tests too ? Triathlon ? Athletics ? Football ? Or is it just cycling thats trying to do the right thing ?

I'd like to see what happens from the tests from the Olympics.

Patrick1.0

I don't understand why people are so concerned about wiping out most of the peloton. You can't tackle doping seriously if you only want to catch so many cheats a year. You need to catch whoever and whenever.

If the testers end up catching half the peloton, then so be it, that's a brilliant thing.

cougie

What you dont want to do is to wipe out the sport too.

Cycling is already having a tough time - handle it wrongly and you wont get any sponsors touching it with a barge pole. They dont read the websites like fans do - they will just see how dirty and corrupt the sport is based on the headlines.
And invest their money in 'clean' sports - like footy or baseball or something.

The past is gone. Lets catch the current cheats.

cougie

What you dont want to do is to wipe out the sport too.

Cycling is already having a tough time - handle it wrongly and you wont get any sponsors touching it with a barge pole. They dont read the websites like fans do - they will just see how dirty and corrupt the sport is based on the headlines.
And invest their money in 'clean' sports - like footy or baseball or something.

The past is gone. Lets catch the current cheats.

Patrick1.0

cougie wrote:

What you dont want to do is to wipe out the sport too.

Cycling is already having a tough time - handle it wrongly and you wont get any sponsors touching it with a barge pole. They dont read the websites like fans do - they will just see how dirty and corrupt the sport is based on the headlines.
And invest their money in 'clean' sports - like footy or baseball or something.

The past is gone. Lets catch the current cheats.

If the sponsors don't touch it, that's good too because then we can start again. At some point, we're going to have to realise how dirty the sport is and has been. How are you going to strike the balance of catching the cheats and not destroying the sport to some degree?

LangerDan

Patrick1.0 wrote:

I don't understand why people are so concerned about wiping out most of the peloton. You can't tackle doping seriously if you only want to catch so many cheats a year. You need to catch whoever and whenever.

If the testers end up catching half the peloton, then so be it, that's a brilliant thing.

Thats fine but a scandal of that magnitude would mean that no sponsor would touch the sport with a barge pole. Even if they did, they'd soon see a massive decline in TV audiences (assuming other countries didn't follow the German lead and stop coverage altogether).

You don't actually need to catch them all (though it would be nice). You need the riders to believe (it doesn't have to be true - belief is sufficient) that there is a high risk of detection and have more stringent penalites. Once you alter the risk vs. reward, the incentive to dope tends to disappear.

aarw

Patrick1.0 wrote:

cougie wrote:

What you dont want to do is to wipe out the sport too.

Cycling is already having a tough time - handle it wrongly and you wont get any sponsors touching it with a barge pole. They dont read the websites like fans do - they will just see how dirty and corrupt the sport is based on the headlines.
And invest their money in 'clean' sports - like footy or baseball or something.

The past is gone. Lets catch the current cheats.

If the sponsors don't touch it, that's good too because then we can start again. At some point, we're going to have to realise how dirty the sport is and has been. How are you going to strike the balance of catching the cheats and not destroying the sport to some degree?

i think that's what mcquiad is trying to do.

if the spnsor's don't touch it, then it will no longer be a professional sport. end of.

calvjones

Some might argue that the sponsorship model, almost unique to cycling is a central part of the problem. The separation between the professional team and the money means that a sponsor can walk away if there's trouble relatively clean - I'm sure T-Mobile's sales suffered not a jot after the '06 revelations or any others. This gives sponsors an incentive to look the other way re. doping.

With other team sports, the money is intimately tied to the team so there's somewhat more incentive to keep it clean - although the 1990s Juve shows this is no panacea

I think it may be to tear it all down.

mididoctors2

leguape wrote:

And in the future several honest riders will have to spend their careers with every victory as suspect as those of every rider they do manage to catch in the limited window of opportunity.

yes they would.. until we have confidence in what we are looking at but who's fault is that... besides they still ain't credible under the present regime because we still think everyone is doped...

think about it

either we have confidence in the result sheet or we don't

if you were a honest winner what would you prefer....? being lumped in with all the dopers for 10 years or forever because we are never going to know?

think about boardman.... I suspect his cache is going rise in time

In which case, every race has to test every rider at every sign on. It's the only way it's going to work.

you only need to up the rate until it becomes more likely your going to get caught than not..


these logistical arguments have merit in saying all this is going to be a pain to enforce but to claim its impossible are unworkable is questionable

1)how do you know until you have tried

2)the blanket testing has taking place in major tours

I don't want Denis Menchov being confirmed as third knowing that his placings mean he's likely to have stood in front of the tester's pot less frequently than Carlos or Cadel. I'm willing to bet there's riders for whom the testing record is so incomplete as to be worthless.

menchov getting on the podium now is almost worthless anyway..he needed to be clean on the podium then.. you need the system to work

it doesn't

if you want a clean podium then we are going to have to pay the price and its a harsh one...

I think I can see McQuaid's point and it's not about covering up the past so much as accepting the past and moving on.

it is exactly about covering up the past.. there is no moving on until we accept and know where we are and have been

If we can accept that Merckx, Anquetil, Coppi and everyone else doped in some form and not scratch them, we should at least retain the same level of respect for the modern riders.

I think trying to balance respect for the history of sport with changing its internal culture are not mutually incompatible... it is unpleasant to taint ALL of cycling history as a drug powered sport that took doping to the center of its culture.... but that is the truth of it

i know, you know , everyone knows...

I for one will not disrespect the past for what it was just because the sport changes

if retrospective testing becomes a norm some "start" date is preferable which is were we are now... from when?

hence all the arguments because the retrospective testing culture is going to impact careers and riding "styles"

in essence there is no good time to start other than "soon as possible".. people are going to be upset;fans, riders, sponsors organisers..etc well that's tough

but the sooner its the norm the sooner a more stable future we will have... I want this sh1t sorted once and for all and I don't care how upsetting it is.. get it done

It's about as worthwhile retroactively testing arbitrary periods in the sport because they can as it is to try and get the Mexico 1986 results changed because the replay shows Maradonna mugged Shilton.

bad refs are part of football... drugs are part of cycling... if want to change that you need to change that

some people are asking for video replays at football now (i'm against it) but the notion of retroactively is not absent... just the time frame

stopping drug taking needs a wider time-frame because detection methods for new doping methods is not retroactively doable with a video replay

Here's a hypothetical: In eight years time Carlos Sastre turns up a non-negative for some substance that wasn't even on the radar four years from now. Carlos is fat and retired, has invested wisely. paying back the TDF prize money and having his name scratched is going to be pocket change to the guy.

lets say that's correct and happens would he gain more from then on being caught or not... how much more would he have got away with it had there being no retroactive positive?....

no even in these worst case hypothetical scenarios the optional what if of retroactive testing still yields better justice and more of a deterrent..

imagine this.. HYPOTHETICAL if armstrong tests positive for samples from his latter tours.. Will Lance have got away with it even if he is in pocket after all the law cases and scandal...

no he is damaged goods... what sort of signal does that send..

would he be worth more or less without the positives?

or how about he is retested for transfusions or whatever and found negative..how much stronger is his legacy

Simply saying "we might catch you in future" isn't helping the situation. It's about as much of a deterrent as saying "by getting into this car you risk death" on the side of every motor vehicle.

if that was true why are people against it?

even you?

think about it...what is your motivation to protect the past...

respect for the sport and riders..yes?

what does that mean?


HOWEVER there is an argument that too dramatic a split will destroy the sport

hence retroactive testing but only starting from X so everyone can "adjust!" their "training"

when... ?

I used to be really angry that the media was destroying the sport..picking on cycling rather than other sports..not seeing the reality of pro level sport where this drug taking was a accepted norm that produced a quality spectacle for the viewing public

"the're pros, they know what they are doing"

that was 1998 ...i got over it

mididoctors2

LangerDan wrote:

The Big Mac could have been looking at a very significant number of positives from last year - possible even to the extent of threatening the continuation of any meaningful sponsorship in the sport.

then who is he protecting? if he knew the scale of the problem and did nothing?

one of the problems is the riders and teams don't "get it"...

we as spectators are ahead of the game and see it clearer in some aspects...

what we need to do is adjust to what sort of spectacle we expect to see

is the race doable unassisted?

there's a question.... what sort of event would it be...

are Garmin 100% clean?..