Restoring credibility?
Cycling’s credibility issue needs a proper solution.
Although Sky is in the spotlight right now, it clearly affects all professional teams going forward and will not go away until some method has been devised to restore the confidence of the majority.
There have already been some very intelligent posts on this subject and of course there are some who have a very negative opinion both on Sky and the rest of the peloton.
What I hope this thread will allow is a positive, constructive discussion about how credibility could ultimately be restored. It would be especially interesting to understand of those that are convinced the peloton is still doping, what, if anything would convince them otherwise.
I know this forum is monitored by most English speaking teams, so who knows, we might collectively dream up something useful sat behind our desks.
The problems as stated by DB (and others) is that Sky cannot release performance data into the public domain, because:
a. It opens up the data for misinterpretation and thus will be self defeating
b. It may reveal a legitimate competitive advantage to other teams
I personally think these are legitimate concerns. What DB is suggesting is a embedding a WADA or other similar credible individual into the team which is a laudable idea, but then who pays for it? Teams already pay a levy to the UCI.
Sky obviously have the means but cannot, as it creates a very obvious conflict.
This also needs to be a solution that all teams accept else no one is going to believe in it. Also not all teams will have the cash resources , so it is unlikely there will be consensus to contribute further to such a scheme.
But then whose problem really is it to solve? Who created the problem, teams or individuals? We all know cheating has been prevalent in the tour since it started.
What role should the UCI play in this (as it is clearly their mandate) given their inability to deal with this problem for decades, for whatever reason.
Of course cycling is not alone. There are many sports that need to do some soul searching on PEDs but cycling is always their welcome “whipping boy” media distraction. I can’t wait for that to change.
So what realistically could be done to restore credibility to the fans that all professionally teams would accept?
Although Sky is in the spotlight right now, it clearly affects all professional teams going forward and will not go away until some method has been devised to restore the confidence of the majority.
There have already been some very intelligent posts on this subject and of course there are some who have a very negative opinion both on Sky and the rest of the peloton.
What I hope this thread will allow is a positive, constructive discussion about how credibility could ultimately be restored. It would be especially interesting to understand of those that are convinced the peloton is still doping, what, if anything would convince them otherwise.
I know this forum is monitored by most English speaking teams, so who knows, we might collectively dream up something useful sat behind our desks.
The problems as stated by DB (and others) is that Sky cannot release performance data into the public domain, because:
a. It opens up the data for misinterpretation and thus will be self defeating
b. It may reveal a legitimate competitive advantage to other teams
I personally think these are legitimate concerns. What DB is suggesting is a embedding a WADA or other similar credible individual into the team which is a laudable idea, but then who pays for it? Teams already pay a levy to the UCI.
Sky obviously have the means but cannot, as it creates a very obvious conflict.
This also needs to be a solution that all teams accept else no one is going to believe in it. Also not all teams will have the cash resources , so it is unlikely there will be consensus to contribute further to such a scheme.
But then whose problem really is it to solve? Who created the problem, teams or individuals? We all know cheating has been prevalent in the tour since it started.
What role should the UCI play in this (as it is clearly their mandate) given their inability to deal with this problem for decades, for whatever reason.
Of course cycling is not alone. There are many sports that need to do some soul searching on PEDs but cycling is always their welcome “whipping boy” media distraction. I can’t wait for that to change.
So what realistically could be done to restore credibility to the fans that all professionally teams would accept?
aztecboy
0
Comments
-
How much would it cost really? To employ an 'expert' you are saying maybe £50,000 in salary? Paid to the UCI of course. I'm sure most Pro teams could afford that. Even if it's only for those competing in Grand Tours.0
-
This is something I've thought about before. From a medical perspective, what concerns me is how the testing programme can keep up with the abuses of new medicines and medical products. I'd quite like to see a whistle blowing hotline and a completely independent testing authority. I really don't know how this would work in practice, and I recognise that independent testing would cause a poo storm, but I think in order for there to be true credibility, we need some massive changes.0
-
markhewitt1978 wrote:How much would it cost really? To employ an 'expert' you are saying maybe £50,000 in salary? Paid to the UCI of course. I'm sure most Pro teams could afford that. Even if it's only for those competing in Grand Tours.
£50,000 is probably a wild underestimate for salary, then you have to add on costs for travel, accommodation, administration etc. I wouldn't even like to guess, but lots of money if we're talking deep embedding on a near permanent basis.
Practicality though: where to embed your expert, what if a team has two training camps in different places at same time? Or are in several races (this happens frequently), or even only have an official training camp for a week or two per year?
An open door drop-in policy would maybe make sense though, access all areas pass.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
The burden of enforcing drug policies and rebuilding cycling's credibility lies with the UCI, not with Sky or the other teams.
If the UCI has to pay - literally, financially - to fund teams' in their quest to maintain clean cycling, so be it. Maybe the cheque they cashed from Armstrong could cover it for a year or two.
I appreciate Sky's input but it should not be the team's responsibility to prove their cleanliness to the public. They are clearly only stepping up because they feel there is zero support or input from the UCI, which is roughly about right.0 -
So we're practically looking at more than one expert per-team, basic starting salary I'd say minimum £60,000 (more like £75,000 - £80,000 if we're talking real experts) each per year. Add in the fact that you'll be asking them to spend large parts of their time away from home so add another £15,000 - £20,000 as an incentive and a way to off-set multiple tax issues and then consider that they will need to be fed, accommodated etc and you're looking at this costing a minimum of around £200,000 per team and that is a conservative estimate.Correlation is not causation.0
-
Above The Cows wrote:So we're practically looking at more than one expert per-team, basic starting salary I'd say minimum £60,000 (more like £75,000 - £80,000 if we're talking real experts) each per year. Add in the fact that you'll be asking them to spend large parts of their time away from home so add another £15,000 - £20,000 as an incentive and a way to off-set multiple tax issues and then consider that they will need to be fed, accommodated etc and you're looking at this costing a minimum of around £200,000 per team and that is a conservative estimate.
When the bike supplier, for example, is coughing up close to 1 million euros to supply the bikes and privilage of doing so even to a pro conti team I think the extra 200k could be found, especially if it is partly funded by the UCI.0 -
inseine wrote:Above The Cows wrote:So we're practically looking at more than one expert per-team, basic starting salary I'd say minimum £60,000 (more like £75,000 - £80,000 if we're talking real experts) each per year. Add in the fact that you'll be asking them to spend large parts of their time away from home so add another £15,000 - £20,000 as an incentive and a way to off-set multiple tax issues and then consider that they will need to be fed, accommodated etc and you're looking at this costing a minimum of around £200,000 per team and that is a conservative estimate.
When the bike supplier, for example, is coughing up close to 1 million euros to supply the bikes and privilage of doing so even to a pro conti team I think the extra 200k could be found, especially if it is partly funded by the UCI.
I don't disagree, I'm just suggesting that it won't be a very cheap thing to do.Correlation is not causation.0 -
It's very simple
1) Appoint David Millar as Head of the UCI Anti-Doping and give him power over the top bod on doping matters
2) Instant life ban on first offence
3) Create an amnesty for previous results as of now
4) Allow the ability to retro test any sample as of now, with life bans for those found positive
5) Instant wiping of any guilty rider's palmares, all of it
6) Team ban for 6 months from every event for any rider found guilty
7) A clause in the rider's contract stating that they owe the team the 6 month's lost revenue should they be found guilty
9) Ban Spanish, American and Italian riders anyway just to make sure0 -
Joelsim wrote:It's very simple
1) Appoint David Millar as Head of the UCI Anti-Doping and give him power over the top bod on doping matters
2) Instant life ban on first offence
3) Create an amnesty for previous results as of now
4) Allow the ability to retro test any sample as of now, with life bans for those found positive
5) Instant wiping of any guilty rider's palmares, all of it
6) Team ban for 6 months from every event for any rider found guilty
7) A clause in the rider's contract stating that they owe the team the 6 month's lost revenue should they be found guilty
9) Ban Spanish, American and Italian riders anyway just to make sure
Number 9 might work, the rest are a little far-fetched.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Whatever happens, time is required. As someone on the "are sky dopers" thread - thanks to armstrong (and, if we're honest, before) we simply don't know what clean pro cycling looks like.
Whilst in theory it shouldn't come down to the teams, in reality I suspect it will have to - they have more knowledge of each other than the UCI could ever have. That means both safeguarding riders (and teams) that do their best to oust dopers from their ranks whilst making the idea of riding for a team with a reputation pretty unattractive to new riders. But I'm not sure how you'd do that fairly.
Anonymous hotline? The chances of it really being "anonymous" are I expect slim - these things get out. Compensate riders fired from a juiced team for whistleblowing? How do you separate that from someone who knows their contract is unlikely to be renewed and fits up a team mate first?
On the other side, could the UCI make more of an effort to investigate a team with a known doper (if a fellow rider or director doesn't blow the whislte - you don't want to give anyone an incentive to not report suspect people). Or could that simply end up encouraging a focus on plausible deniability, or even worse a "we're all in this together" approach?0 -
Whilst I agree that performance data should be made available I don't think it will be that big of a factor in anti-doping.
What I think will and probably does already make a big difference is retroactive testing. In the past everyone knew it was fairly easy to avoid detection for EPO, blood doping etc. so the risk was worth taking. Hopefully now the risks are much greater.0 -
Nothing and I mean absolutely nothing will restore credibility with the likes of the twaliban or the clinic clowns.
I don't think normal people worry about the current credibility of cycling, they know its a process and there will always be someone who cheats.
Since the Armstrong issue the press have listened to the twaliban thinking they are the fans of cycling. Twitter is full of ego maniacs with no life and for some reason the press see it as the voice of normal people.
Credibility will be restored when we talk about the racing and the press ask about the racing and doping takes a back seat.0 -
Well it will be very interesting to see whether the release of Froome's data to L'Equipe will dampen the fire or pour fuel on it. L'Equipe must have had to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement that involved their first born.
I don't think that this is the solution to the question of this thread. It may get L'Equipe to say "We now believe" but are L'Equipe really going to become the police for all the pro teams?
Unless DB has a master plan with this action (and he usually does), I feel this may only be a sticking plaster.
I am a little too long in the tooth to know who the clinic clowns and the twaliban actually are (but can probably guess).
But what we need is a solution which will bore them enough they will go any haunt some other sport.aztecboy0 -
To the OP.
Watching the wildly cheering crowds on todays stage kind of makes me think that while you may desire or have need for "restoring credibility", the crowds looked more than happy with the state of things.
Your "restore the confidence of the majority" seemed pretty ridiculous today, in view of all the screaming fans.
I'm thinking that this is something you want and or need, for whatever reason. Maybe you shouldn't assume that because you want this that the world(or majority) will simply nod their heads yes and follow along. This is your issue and not, by any means, everyone elses.0 -
The mentalness of the TDF means we're (and I say we as a people watching the race) are questioning Froome's performance while at the same cheering convicted dopers Contador and Valverde to chase him down and win stages.
It's ludicrous, and shows the best and worst of the sport. Come the Vuelta, everything will be back to normal, same as every year0 -
Joelsim wrote:It's very simple
1) Appoint David Millar as Head of the UCI Anti-Doping and give him power over the top bod on doping matters
2) Instant life ban on first offence
3) Create an amnesty for previous results as of now
4) Allow the ability to retro test any sample as of now, with life bans for those found positive
5) Instant wiping of any guilty rider's palmares, all of it
6) Team ban for 6 months from every event for any rider found guilty
7) A clause in the rider's contract stating that they owe the team the 6 month's lost revenue should they be found guilty
9) Ban Spanish, American and Italian riders anyway just to make sure
2 through to 6 I actually agree with. These can all be done and would demonstrate zero-tolerance. If you don't want drugs in sport you've got to have zero tolerance, and there's no reason not to, as it's absolutely nothing for any clean rider to worry about whatsoever.
It's the tolerance issue that's the easiest to address/enforce and get harsh on.0 -
Also, declaring TUEs and them being approved by an independent doctor/team, notes of prescribed dosages. Daily signings declaring any dosages taken.0
-
To the dude citing David Millar as a good idea ... He only started his crusade after getting caught with the sweetie wrappers in his pocket ... If an American or European rider was coming out with his rhetoric they would be laughed out the park ...
The UCI make profit each year ... Mainly by sending the teams on a wild goose chase around the world's shitholes ... They could/should not be left in charge of the sport ... A commercial sport doesn't need the governing body to survive (Pat isn't riding km's or being tested to make sure he's not cheating) ... Too much self interest for anything to be done about it though ...0 -
Sensible words Dennis. It's an illustration that the vast majority, while not wanting doping, also don't give a toss about the minute details or feel the need for a rider with no black mark to his name against to justify himself.dennisn wrote:To the OP.
Watching the wildly cheering crowds on todays stage kind of makes me think that while you may desire or have need for "restoring credibility", the crowds looked more than happy with the state of things.
Your "restore the confidence of the majority" seemed pretty ridiculous today, in view of all the screaming fans.
I'm thinking that this is something you want and or need, for whatever reason. Maybe you shouldn't assume that because you want this that the world(or majority) will simply nod their heads yes and follow along. This is your issue and not, by any means, everyone elses.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
Sensible words Dennis. It's an illustration that the vast majority, while not wanting doping, also don't give a toss about the minute details or feel the need for a rider with no black mark to his name against to justify himself.dennisn wrote:To the OP.
Watching the wildly cheering crowds on todays stage kind of makes me think that while you may desire or have need for "restoring credibility", the crowds looked more than happy with the state of things.
Your "restore the confidence of the majority" seemed pretty ridiculous today, in view of all the screaming fans.
I'm thinking that this is something you want and or need, for whatever reason. Maybe you shouldn't assume that because you want this that the world(or majority) will simply nod their heads yes and follow along. This is your issue and not, by any means, everyone elses.
Though I'd guess they probably weren't the ones booing the yellow jersey today.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
As Iain says - that's just pantomime. They're going to boo someone regardless.No tA Doctor wrote:Though I'd guess they probably weren't the ones booing the yellow jersey today.Twitter: @RichN950 -
It can't be done.
Having just spent 20 minutes in the clinic and looking around twitter, it can't be done. There is absolutely nothing that will convince those people. And they make the most noise.
Summary:Froome pretended to be tired today, and his taking an energy gel was evidence of his and Sky's willingness to cheat. Brailsford's offer to give power data to WADA "stinks to the sky"; he brought up their willingness to release TUEs because he knew it was unenforceable; he sought out Grappe because he knew he'd cover up Froome's dodgy data. The only people that can be trusted are Ricco and Vayer.
How can you fight against that?0 -
Turfle wrote:It can't be done.
Having just spent 20 minutes in the clinic and looking around twitter, it can't be done. There is absolutely nothing that will convince those people. And they make the most noise.
Summary:Froome pretended to be tired today, and his taking an energy gel was evidence of his and Sky's willingness to cheat. Brailsford's offer to give power data to WADA "stinks to the sky"; he brought up their willingness to release TUEs because he knew it was unenforceable; he sought out Grappe because he knew he'd cover up Froome's dodgy data. The only people that can be trusted are Ricco and Vayer.
How can you fight against that?
You cant. The best you can hope for is that The Asylum goes back to being a refuge for the nutters, rather than their operations room. Sky will probably have managed to quieten the media, leaving just a few idiots roaming twitter. Previously people were starting to take them seriously, or at least shoddy journalists with an eye for a headline were copy pasting their crap. For most of the world their contact with the sport is a highlights package or a newspaper back page, that's where the damage was being done.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
