"Change Cycling Now"

ddraver

So some people have set up a group to campaign(?) for change in cycling

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13397 ... group.aspx

Opinions?

Some interesting peeps involved, Walsh, Kimmage, Vaughters, Vroomen, LeMond .They ve also added a fans voice in the shape of - http://www.cyclingfansvoice.org/ which involves one of the velocast pair and...erm...festinagirl)

Not sure about this to be honest....

ddraver

More info on the fans stuff on their twitter page - https://twitter.com/cyclingfansvoic

which is concerning in itself...How exactly is festina girl going to campaign for Transparency without even telling us who she is?!?!?

RichN95.

The Coalition of the Self-Righteous would have been a better title.

You'll get a load of idealistic proposals which are largely impractical in real life and mostly legally untenable. But as they'll never have to put them in to practice they're free to say what the hell they like. (A bit like the LibDems before Clegg decided he'd actually like to get involved)
But it'll largely be a session of back-slapping and self-congratulation. And a few dopers lecturing clean athletes.

As for the self-appointed fans voice - well it's not the voice of the majority that's for sure. Certainly not me.

BillyMansell

Whilst I would applaud any effort to change the status quo, there has to be an initiative from the current pro and continental amateur riders as historically these are the ones who have been groomed and conditioned to see doping as acceptable. Some then go on to ascend the upper echelons of the sport with a mindset of such abuse that pervades their practice despite the public message they may portray.

A bottom up initiative among riders that embraces a sea change is what's required but I fear the incumbent top echelons will seek a tokenistic gesture to appease protest groups but won't tackle the grooming of young riders that embeds beliefs that winning at any cost is acceptable.

TMR

Create a fully independent testing body. Make the punishment for the confirmed use of PEDs a life ban.

The end.

RichN95.

The Mad Rapper wrote:

Create a fully independent testing body. Make the punishment for the confirmed use of PEDs a life ban.

The end.

WADA won't let you do either of them. Look what they did to BOA's Olympic ban.

Start again.

Richmond Racer

RichN95 wrote:

The Coalition of the Self-Righteous would have been a better title.

You'll get a load of idealistic proposals which are largely impractical in real life and mostly legally untenable. But as they'll never have to put them in to practice they're free to say what the hell they like. (A bit like the LibDems before Clegg decided he'd actually like to get involved)
But it'll largely be a session of back-slapping and self-congratulation. And a few dopers lecturing clean athletes.

As for the self-appointed fans voice - well it's not the voice of the majority that's for sure. Certainly not me.

Yep. I had big doubts anyway but when I saw that Emma O'Reilly's lined up for their press conference on Monday, that's just confirmed things for me. WTF does she have to do with the future of cycling? No, its just about 'look what we did to bring down Lance, the Grand Poobah (sp?) of doping'

Then the absolute final straw was that self-righteous viscious tweeter...

Enough already. File under WASTE OF TIME

TMR

RichN95 wrote:

WADA won't let you do either of them. Look what they did to BOA's Olympic ban.

Start again.

How are they instituted? From where do they gain their legitimacy? I don't see why an independent body couldn't or shouldn't exist; particularly if the existing bodies aren't joined up and are ineffectual.

Abdoujaparov

That cycling fans voice thing looks like it was written by a seven year old with a long career in local government.

oneof1982

Yes. Should be dismissed out of hand. Much better to press for change by hiding behind an avatar and posting on bike radar.

Abdoujaparov

oneof1982 wrote:

Yes. Should be dismissed out of hand. Much better to press for change by hiding behind an avatar and posting on bike radar.

Yeah, don't get me wrong - I've just signed up. Yes please to change.

andy_wrx

Bruyneel is against it and calling them 'douches'
http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/ro ... ganisation

So do we think it's a good thing or a bad thing now then ?

ddraver

^^+1, I hope it works, but I'm concerned that it may become a sideshow that the UCI can easily brush away.

Kind of feel like the UCI is Sauron and the one ring is the status quo. Both are looking for each other, both "want to be found"*. The UCI is desperate for things no to change so any opposing sides need to be extremely well organised or they ll be too easy to dismiss.

Cyclismas are a good example, any good stuff is ignored becasue it's too easy to point to all the rubbish they ve produced and just say the whole thing is irrelevant.

Bruyneel is already having a crack, if they make one or two mistakes, it ll be easy for others to follow...

*think I might have breathed to deeply past that coffee shop...

oneof1982

Bottom line is we are all (most anyway) writing on here on various threads calling for change. Here is a group, for good or bad, standing up with the makings of a manifesto. There is also a fans element to this, again, we can be cynical, but if they didn't have it we'd be moaning about that.

All great change happens when someone sticks their head above the parapet. In this case, those sticking their heads up are those that have rocked the foundations.

More power to their elbow, and I'll add my (real) name to their (our) cause.

RichN95.

andy_wrx wrote:

So do we think it's a good thing or a bad thing now then ?

It's not a question of good or bad. I just question their motives and ability to actually come up with anything useful. These aren't people who are strongly involved in cycling (Vaughters and Bugno have only been invited as team and rider representatives). They are on the fringes. Aggrieved idealists who have no idea the practiclities of running a sport. They will come with ideas which may sound great on paper but will have scant regard for legality, logistics and finance or the conflicting interests of half a dozen interested parties.

When the Armstrong affair was in the national news, Walsh (who is more of the more reasonable ones) was on Radio 5 and they asked him what he would have done with US Postal in the UCI's position. He said he would have looked at their HCT numbers, said this isn't right and thrown them out of the sport. Dictatorial, illegal and the start of lawsuits that would have bankrupted the sport. That's the level they will pitch this at. They may come up with some good ideas - but I won't hold my breath with this lot.

And if you want to have a meeting, just get on with it. Don't send out press releases calling it a 'summit'. It makes you look pompous.

oneof1982

RichN95 wrote:

[ I just question their motives and ability to actually come up with anything useful. These aren't people who are strongly involved in cycling (Vaughters and Bugno have only been invited as team and rider representatives). They are on the fringes. Aggrieved idealists who have no idea the practiclities of running a sport.

Three times TdF winner Le Mond. On the firnges? He is one of the great clean names of the sport. If they are the aggeived idealists who have no idea, I'd still take them ahead of Fat Pat and his cronies anyday.

There are no greater defenders of the status quo than those who would have us do nothing.

RichN95.

oneof1982 wrote:

Three times TdF winner Le Mond. On the firnges? He is one of the great clean names of the sport. If they are the aggeived idealists who have no idea, I'd still take them ahead of Fat Pat and his cronies anyday.

There are no greater defenders of the status quo than those who would have us do nothing.

And what position does LeMond hold in the sport other than ex-pro?

When Armstrong was winning his last Tour, Kimmage was writing off the career of a young talented clean rider called Gilbert, Wiggins was barely trying on the road, focussing on the track and Vaughters was starting up a small team committed to clean cycling.

Now Gilbert is world champion, Wiggins has won the Tour and Vaughters' team has won the Giro.

Something has clearly changed. Who made that happen? It certain wasn't down to LeMond, Fuller and Festinagirl.

oneof1982

RichN95 wrote:

oneof1982 wrote:

Three times TdF winner Le Mond. On the firnges? He is one of the great clean names of the sport. If they are the aggeived idealists who have no idea, I'd still take them ahead of Fat Pat and his cronies anyday.

There are no greater defenders of the status quo than those who would have us do nothing.

And what position does LeMond hold in the sport other than ex-pro?

When Armstrong was winning his last Tour, Kimmage was writing off the career of a young talented clean rider called Gilbert, Wiggins was barely trying on the road, focussing on the track and Vaughters was starting up a small team committed to clean cycling.

Now Gilbert is world champion, Wiggins has won the Tour and Vaughters' team has won the Giro.

Something has clearly changed. Who made that happen? It certain wasn't down to LeMond, Fuller and Festinagirl.

So has Pat gone? Did I miss that?

LeicesterLad

No pleasing some people thats for sure.

'dope, dope dope, dirtie Bertie, Piti, Vino, sport ruined doping dope Armstrong cheating b*stards,

Oh wait, whats that, some people calling for a change and want to stamp out doping - F*cking arse'ole pompous b*astards, who the f*ck are they anyway'.

And Rich

And if you want to have a meeting, just get on with it. Don't send out press releases calling it a 'summit'. It makes you look pompous.

I think the idea of calling press conferences is probably to get it out there, get the media to take notice, help pile a bit more pressure on Pat and co, no? Lets just let them sit in a little room behind closed doors where nobody can hear about it, support it, get behind the campaign and actually make it work. :roll:

I'm sorry the whole thing involves your arch enemy Kimmage, but surely anything like this is good for the sport, and the more publicity the better.

ddraver

Trouble is LL, while I have no problem with the DS's and the doctors and the team managers etc being there, I don't understand why an ex-soigneur and a loud-mouth off of twitter (which, lets be blunt, is literally all we know about her at present) are there too.

Which fan are they representing? Mfin? Me? You? Frenchie? The drunk Basque guy on the Tourmalet? The YAnk in the Borat Mankini on the Alpe? All have an equal claim to cycling...

disgruntledgoat

Isn't the danger with something like this that it just turns into a circle jerk?

"You're so against doping!"

"No you are!"

"Oh but you're better!"

Why not invite the UCI, or Brian Cookson or somebody already involved with the governance of cycling in at least as a sounding board. And what good does inviting an anonymous loudmouth who's only involvement in the sport is libelling it's practitioners achieve? Who does she represent?

Another political organisation waiting to happen and as a gentleman at Atlanta airport once said to my brother "Sheeeeeet, what do we need more politicians for?"

LeicesterLad

ddraver wrote:

Trouble is LL, while I have no problem with the DS's and the doctors and the team managers etc being there, I don't understand why an ex-soigneur and a loud-mouth off of twitter (which, lets be blunt, is literally all we know about her at present) are there too.

Which fan are they representing? Mfin? Me? You? Frenchie? The drunk Basque guy on the Tourmalet? The YAnk in the Borat Mankini on the Alpe? All have an equal claim to cycling...

Thats all very well and I agree there are some interesting selections in there, but surely it comes down to nothing more than 'something is better than nothing'.

ddraver

No that's true - but the trouble is if we, who (mostly) wnt to see the sport cleaned up, can so easily dismiss members as irrelevant then it does nt take much for the UCI to label the whole bunch as "whingers" and ignore them...

Richmond Racer

I'm too distracted by the fact that LL's changed his avatar to add my twoppennoth (again)

disgruntledgoat

What is stopping any one of those people working through their respective federations to gain a position of influence? That's surely the way to effect genuine change. Or would that take too long?

ocdupalais

disgruntledgoat wrote:

What is stopping any one of those people working through their respective federations to gain a position of influence? That's surely the way to effect genuine change. Or would that take too long?

Greg Lemond getting a look-in at the heavily Thom Weisel-influenced* USA Cycling?


mwah ha ha...



*it's been linked before, but I never tire of looking at this...http://velorooms.com/files/ArmstrongBusinessConnections.pdf

BillyMansell

ddraver wrote:

Trouble is LL, while I have no problem with the DS's and the doctors and the team managers etc being there, I don't understand why an ex-soigneur and a loud-mouth off of twitter (which, lets be blunt, is literally all we know about her at present) are there too.

Which fan are they representing? Mfin? Me? You? Frenchie? The drunk Basque guy on the Tourmalet? The YAnk in the Borat Mankini on the Alpe? All have an equal claim to cycling...

As long as you focus on personalities or personal histories you'll always fnd reasons to dislike people and exclude them from the campaign.

I work with people with a diverse range of mental health problems and pesonality disorders to have a voice and change the services they receive. Despite being maligned by society they have a lived experience of a mental health condition or personality disorder that is the very reason to include them in the discussions, plus people are more than one dimensional and have skills, abilities and interests that help campaigning and change easier.

Similarly, people who've worked and lived in the doped up world of cycling have that lived experience and is the very reason to involve them in the campaign for change. Put aside your judgemental attitude of the individuals and focus on what talents and abilities they can bring to the party. This may not be the right vehicle so design a better one rather than being dismissive of this first attempt.

I don't always agree with LL but on this I do; I see no value in such nihilistic and self-destructive navel gazing from Pro Race to a campaign for change.

iainf72

The Mad Rapper wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

WADA won't let you do either of them. Look what they did to BOA's Olympic ban.

Start again.

How are they instituted? From where do they gain their legitimacy? I don't see why an independent body couldn't or shouldn't exist; particularly if the existing bodies aren't joined up and are ineffectual.

They were formed the IOC. And UNESCO provide the international "law" basis for it. So all countries sign up to a UNESCO convention which basically gives WADA their power.

I think it was Howman who said recently that yes, maybe an independent pan-sport testing is a good thing, but there isn't a way of doing it.

ddraver

BillyMansell wrote:

Put aside your judgemental attitude of the individuals and focus on what talents and abilities they can bring to the party. This may not be the right vehicle so design a better one rather than being dismissive of this first attempt.

I don't always agree with LL but on this I do; I see no value in such nihilistic and self-destructive navel gazing from Pro Race to a campaign for change.

We don't need so much of the judgemental attitude from you either thanks, I believe I ve made my points clearly, fairly, here and to festina girl and velocast.

I'm afraid you ll have to tell me what an ex soigneur and a Nobody (her choice) from twitter can bring to the discussion. I can see why Velocast are they as they provide even handed, balanced discussions of Cycling even when they actually feel very strongly one way or the other on the particular issue. If they are the BBC, Festina Girl is the Daily Mail. Worse, she is there ot campaign for transparency from UCI, Teams and others witout even providing her real name. Simply, that's too easy a place for people that something to hide, to hide behind themselves.

I hope the CCN campaign works, but to be honest I don't see how a fans voice can possibly work, or why it is necessary. I can't think of another sport with such a voice...I can only see it as a stick to beat people with real power to change the sport with.

disgruntledgoat

BillyMansell wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Trouble is LL, while I have no problem with the DS's and the doctors and the team managers etc being there, I don't understand why an ex-soigneur and a loud-mouth off of twitter (which, lets be blunt, is literally all we know about her at present) are there too.

Which fan are they representing? Mfin? Me? You? Frenchie? The drunk Basque guy on the Tourmalet? The YAnk in the Borat Mankini on the Alpe? All have an equal claim to cycling...

As long as you focus on personalities or personal histories you'll always fnd reasons to dislike people and exclude them from the campaign.

I work with people with a diverse range of mental health problems and pesonality disorders to have a voice and change the services they receive. Despite being maligned by society they have a lived experience of a mental health condition or personality disorder that is the very reason to include them in the discussions, plus people are more than one dimensional and have skills, abilities and interests that help campaigning and change easier.

Similarly, people who've worked and lived in the doped up world of cycling have that lived experience and is the very reason to involve them in the campaign for change. Put aside your judgemental attitude of the individuals and focus on what talents and abilities they can bring to the party. This may not be the right vehicle so design a better one rather than being dismissive of this first attempt.

I don't always agree with LL but on this I do; I see no value in such nihilistic and self-destructive navel gazing from Pro Race to a campaign for change.

My suspicion though is that is more about continuing to keep Ashenden et al in the public eye and giving a wider, more "insider" platform to the anonymous libellers on Twitter than about effecting genuine change.

BillyMansell

ddraver wrote:

BillyMansell wrote:

Put aside your judgemental attitude of the individuals and focus on what talents and abilities they can bring to the party. This may not be the right vehicle so design a better one rather than being dismissive of this first attempt.

I don't always agree with LL but on this I do; I see no value in such nihilistic and self-destructive navel gazing from Pro Race to a campaign for change.

We don't need so much of the judgemental attitude from you either thanks, I believe I ve made my points clearly, fairly, here and to festina girl and velocast.

It's interesting that you like to judge others but don't like being judged yourself, but for clarification I was responding to your judgemental comments of people's personalities and not of the people per se. If your defence against people commenting on what you say (and not you as a person) is to accuse them of being judgemental then you'll have real problems in holding any conversation.

I'm afraid you ll have to tell me what an ex soigneur and a Nobody (her choice) from twitter can bring to the discussion. I can see why Velocast are they as they provide even handed, balanced discussions of Cycling even when they actually feel very strongly one way or the other on the particular issue. If they are the BBC, Festina Girl is the Daily Mail. Worse, she is there ot campaign for transparency from UCI, Teams and others witout even providing her real name. Simply, that's too easy a place for people that something to hide, to hide behind themselves.

Again. you're attacking the person rather than what they bring to the table, and there's a certain irony in attacking people for anonymity on the internet. From my experience people often begin by bringing their own agenda to the table but they often leave or are subsumed by the greater good as long as the organisation has good leadership.

I hope the CCN campaign works, but to be honest I don't see how a fans voice can possibly work, or why it is necessary. I can't think of another sport with such a voice...I can only see it as a stick to beat people with real power to change the sport with.

So what's the alternative? I saw the grooming of the top ranks of continental amateurs back in the early '90s into drug taking which is why I advocate a bottom up approach. If nations and teams pursue clean cycling and the whistleblowing on drug taking to an organisation outside of cycling (e.g. WADA) then it sends a clear message to the top echelons of cycling that it's not acceptable.