Dick Pound doubts cycling new clean image

inseine

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/pound-on-the-tour-de-france-i-dont-believe-what-i-see

But al least cycling is cleaner than curling...........(seriously, what drugs are curlers on?)

Pross

Pound, like Kimmage, needs cycling to be dirty to remain relevant. Of course there will still be dopers and probably a significant proportion but I'd be surprised if it isn't cleaner.

inseine

Pross wrote:

Pound, like Kimmage, needs cycling to be dirty to remain relevant. Of course there will still be dopers and probably a significant proportion but I'd be surprised if it isn't cleaner.

He's been right in the past, he's right now about the UCI and the guy seems to be in semi retirement so i'm not sure he needs the sport to be dirty quite as much as some. I hope he's wrong BTW.

BenderRodriguez

Unfortunately, Pound is almost certainly right.

Doping might have moved on from injecting "800 ml of packed cells" to micro dosing and micro transfusions, but is is doubtless still very effective and new products and methods are being developed all the time. In any case, as plenty of riders have pointed out, including Tyler Hamilton, the tests can easily be circumvented. It is still almost certainly the case that a clean rider cannot beat a doped one, and unless everyone is now clean, which I find hard to believe, it seems likely that many, most, or even all those who are winning are still doping. What's more, the riders are, at least on occasion, climbing as fast in the 'old days' of 58% haemocrit levels and all the rest. Also, it seems that the UCI is still playing its old game of 'managing' dope testing in order to avoid embarrassing positives. For example:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15146/Tygart-blasts-UCI-over-refusal-to-let-USADA-do-tests-at-the-USA-Pro-Cycling-Challenge-and-other-top-events.aspx

Perhaps most of all doping has been a central part of the culture of pro cycling for over 100 years, and it would take a positive firestorm to change that culture. There have been plenty of scandals over the years, such as Festina, and yet these changed absolutely nothing. Probably the only way to eliminate doping would be to 'burn down' the sport and rebuild it from the ground up. Seeing that this hasn't happened, most likely things are, more or less, continuing as they ever have done, even if the PR is a little more canny these days.

yorkshireraw

Pross wrote:

Pound, like Kimmage, needs cycling to be dirty to remain relevant. Of course there will still be dopers and probably a significant proportion but I'd be surprised if it isn't cleaner.

As he says - 'I won't watch it' - therefore how can he comment on what the current peloton is doing performance-wise and potentially behind the scenes if he isn't actually viewing the sport itself?
A bit like Kimmage in fact....

BenderRodriguez

inseine wrote:

(seriously, what drugs are curlers on?)

Beta blockers?

Richmond Racer

inseine wrote:

Pross wrote:

Pound, like Kimmage, needs cycling to be dirty to remain relevant. Of course there will still be dopers and probably a significant proportion but I'd be surprised if it isn't cleaner.

He's been right in the past, he's right now about the UCI and the guy seems to be in semi retirement so i'm not sure he needs the sport to be dirty quite as much as some. I hope he's wrong BTW.

Pound is a relentless self-promotor. Always has been, always will be. If he's out of the spotlight for more than a few months,- he'll give a big interview - you can set your clock by it. He hates McQuaid and Verbruggen (and fair play to him for that) but he also hates the head honcho of every sport going. He doubts swimming, athletics...and ludo and tiddlywinks no doubt.

He doubts the Tour - not that he's been, mind - I doubt he's ever visited the race. Nor met with any team managers. Or any cyclists for that matter. No, he doubts it because he absolutely detests McQuaid and Verbruggen

BenderRodriguez

YorkshireRaw wrote:

As he says - 'I won't watch it' - therefore how can he comment on what the current peloton is doing performance-wise

I think that is simply rhetoric, meaning 'I can't get enthused about what I see'. Clearly he does actually watch it. Otherwise how could he say "As an event, I don't believe what I see"?

Richmond Racer

BenderRodriguez wrote:

YorkshireRaw wrote:

As he says - 'I won't watch it' - therefore how can he comment on what the current peloton is doing performance-wise

I think that is simply rhetoric, meaning 'I can't get enthused about what I see'. Clearly he does actually watch it. Otherwise how could he say "As an event, I don't believe what I see"?

My point entirely

iainf72

Wait - The tests don't work, but now the fact the UCI aren't doing these tests that don't work is a news story?

ocdupalais

Thanks for kicking things off so early in the week, Bender.

Here's what I'd just been reading elsewhere, which seems apposite ...

An introduction to Delusional Disorder Syndrome

"Delusional disorder is characterized by the presence of non-bizarre delusions which have persisted for at least since the Fetina thing. Non-bizarre delusions typically are beliefs of something occurring  in a person’s life, or pro cycling, which is not out of the realm of possibility. For example, the person may believe their significant other is cheating on them,  that someone close to them is about to die, a friend is really a  government agent, everyone's doping, etc. All of these situations could be true or possible, but the person suffering from this disorder knows them not to be (e.g., through fact checking, third-person confirmation, etc.)."
Dr John Grohol, PsychCental.com*



*some words may have been added to the original

RichN95.

Basically Pound is saying that WADA, under his leadership, made absolutely sod all difference. And he's generally right. They have been very adept at criticising others while making do effort to help and studiously avoiding doing anything useful.

Pound tended to use WADA (which he founded) as a vehicle to wage his personal feuds - particularly against Verbrugeen who took his position at the IOC overseeing TV rights - but also as retribution for his part in the Ben Johnson scandal (he personally defended him and invented the 'USA spiked me excuse'), an event which ultimately cost him his chance at the IOC Presidency (he had been Samaranch's protege)

He needs to leave the stage every bit as much as Verbruggen. WADA stands for We Aren't Doing Anything

hangeron

Every time a story involving this bloke pops up I just think "what an unfortunate name"

TheBigBean

The messenger may not be everyone's cup of tea, but the message has merit: sports governing bodies don't do enough.

yorkshireraw

TheBigBean wrote:

The messenger may not be everyone's cup of tea, but the message has merit: sports governing bodies don't do enough.

This does have merit - all governing bodies can always do more. Let's at least give cycling (the sport in general, rather than UCI etc) credit for leading the way - no needle policy, Bio passport, actually testing a shed load (whether they are effective or not), and banning some big names.

As for Bender's assertion that 'a doped rider will always beat a clean one' - so many elements (holes) in that view I don't know where to start. I do know that I could take all the gear under the sun and I wouldn't beat any pro riders.

BenderRodriguez

YorkshireRaw wrote:

As for Bender's assertion that 'a doped rider will always beat a clean one' - so many elements (holes) in that view I don't know where to start. I do know that I could take all the gear under the sun and I wouldn't beat any pro riders.

Of course, but I would have thought that it was clear that we are talking about riders at the top level here. So, to be more specific, take 30 riders all of whom have the ability to finish in the top 10 of the Tour, dope any one using the current state of the art methods, and that rider will almost certainly be able to beat the other 29.

This point has been covered many, many times from many different angles, from the inability of riders like Lemond to compete against lesser riders once Epo came on the scene, to the fact that at the top level the difference between first and 30th is no more than a couple of percent, and yet doping can give a rider another 5% or more.

RichN95.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Of course, but I would have thought that it was clear that we are talking about riders at the top level here. So, to be more specific, take 30 riders all of whom have the ability to finish in the top 10 of the Tour, dope any one using the current state of the art methods, and that rider will almost certainly be able to beat the other 29.

This point has been covered many, many times from many different angles, from the inability of riders like Lemond to compete against lesser riders once Epo came on the scene, to the fact that at the top level the difference between first and 30th is no more than a couple of percent, and yet doping can give a rider another 5% or more.

It's not the 90s anymore. The tests these days are reasonably good, so the free for all of days gone by has disappeared. No-one is boosting their red blood cell count by several percentage points.

In the Tour, Froome was tested 20 times - morning and evening. Now it may well be possible to beat those tests, but to do so the amount of doping needs to be fairly low level. So low that the gains are probably minimal and more designed at keeping a natural level going for longer rather than giving big advancements. Such doping is certainly beatable by a clean rider.

dynamicbrick

This is like cycling's own version of Whack-a-Discredited-Mole - give it three weeks and Armstrong will resurface in some way, then by mid September McQuaid will be tirelessly promoting how he beat the dopists single handedly. The problem is that as long as the cycling press feel the need to trundle along to the press conferences these guys give, they'll keep banging their particular drum.

Interesting that Curling is now dirtier than cycling - although the sweeping is fairly quick, can't really see how doping is going to improve things as it's broadly a skill game? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-We7Z6gVwQg If anything, that's a supremely positive message - a sport of supreme sustained physical exertion is now cleaner than one involving sweeping 30 yards of ice on and off for 2 hours.

seanoconn

dynamicbrick wrote:

Interesting that Curling is now dirtier than cycling - although the sweeping is fairly quick, can't really see how doping is going to improve things as it's broadly a skill game?

Most likely recreational drugs as there is probably little else to do in areas where curling is popular.

Although drugs that relax and give confidence are beneficial in slower skill games.

Dorset_Boy

Although I think Pound is right that too many governing bodies continue to bury their heads, I think he's being unfair on the current peloton.
Didn't a teenage American girl knock 6 seconds off a world record last week? Now that is unbelievable.
Also interesting to see in the Sunday Times a feature on the junior Wimbledon winner saying that tennis authorities don't taking doping seriously.

Richmond Racer

Ah. Lil' Pete not impressed with Pound, by the look of his Twitter feed

Basically just manages to refrain from signing off his tweet with a :P

RichN95.

The problem with analysing all these stats and comparing sport to sport is that it doesn't tell us who is being tested - and by that I mean what number of tests are done at the various levels.

Cycling had about 250 positives in 2012. How many of them were cyclists at World Tour or Pro Conti level? A dozen maybe? So the vast majority are from amateur or semi pro levels - chumps who thought they weren't going to be tested.

There's a big difference to the way testing is done at World Tour level than at local level, which means that stats on their own tell a false story.

Richmond Racer

and meanwhile.....after announcing 9 bans last week, the Turkish Athletics fed have just announced a further 31 new bans - all 2 year jobs...

but dont worry, Dick, today's cycling and the Tour are the sourcing of all doping evil, obvs

joelsim

All could be cured with an amnesty and lifetime bans for future offences.

The sooner the stock 2 year ban is increased, the better.

And yes, I am pretty sure that there is still widespread doping in the peloton (and other sports).

Time will tell.

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

All could be cured with an amnesty and lifetime bans for future offences.

That won't make any difference.

Sod all people will come forward for an amnesty with no incentive - and you can't retrofit punishments. And a lifetime ban for a first offence (if WADA somehow allowed it) will get overturned in the courts the first time it is challenged.

Richmond Racer

The new iteration of the WADA code's going up for approval in Nov at a WADA conference.

If approved, maximum suspension term for 1st offences are increased to 4 years from 2. It also widens the sanctioning net beyond athletes, to coaches and other support staff.

If approved, it'll come into effect in 2015.

BenderRodriguez

RichN95 wrote:

It's not the 90s anymore. The tests these days are reasonably good, so the free for all of days gone by has disappeared. No-one is boosting their red blood cell count by several percentage points.

In the Tour, Froome was tested 20 times - morning and evening. Now it may well be possible to beat those tests, but to do so the amount of doping needs to be fairly low level. So low that the gains are probably minimal and more designed at keeping a natural level going for longer rather than giving big advancements. Such doping is certainly beatable by a clean rider.

And how about all the 'new generation' doping methods that are quite capable of giving 'old school' boosts to performance, and yet don't even have an approved test yet? AICAR for example.

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/04/the-new-epo-gw1516-aicar-and-their-use-in-cycling/

Then there is the problems that the UCI doesn't seem to be all that determined to catch people.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15146/Tygart-blasts-UCI-over-refusal-to-let-USADA-do-tests-at-the-USA-Pro-Cycling-Challenge-and-other-top-events.aspx

Richmond Racer

BenderRodriguez wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

It's not the 90s anymore. The tests these days are reasonably good, so the free for all of days gone by has disappeared. No-one is boosting their red blood cell count by several percentage points.

In the Tour, Froome was tested 20 times - morning and evening. Now it may well be possible to beat those tests, but to do so the amount of doping needs to be fairly low level. So low that the gains are probably minimal and more designed at keeping a natural level going for longer rather than giving big advancements. Such doping is certainly beatable by a clean rider.

And how about all the 'new generation' doping methods that are quite capable of giving 'old school' boosts to performance, and yet don't even have an approved test yet? AICAR for example.

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/04/the-new-epo-gw1516-aicar-and-their-use-in-cycling/

Then there is the problems that the UCI doesn't seem to be all that determined to catch people.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15146/Tygart-blasts-UCI-over-refusal-to-let-USADA-do-tests-at-the-USA-Pro-Cycling-Challenge-and-other-top-events.aspx

A test is out there for AICAR
http://inrng.com/2013/01/sunday-shorts-16/

RichN95.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

And how about all the 'new generation' doping methods that are quite capable of giving 'old school' boosts to performance, and yet don't even have an approved test yet? AICAR for example.

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/04/the-new-epo-gw1516-aicar-and-their-use-in-cycling/

Then there is the problems that the UCI doesn't seem to be all that determined to catch people.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15146/Tygart-blasts-UCI-over-refusal-to-let-USADA-do-tests-at-the-USA-Pro-Cycling-Challenge-and-other-top-events.aspx

AICAR's great if you're a mouse. Not so good if you're a human. There's little evidence that it has any effect on humans.

As for Tygart, he's just trying to get a bit of attention - maybe for his own reasons, maybe to get more funding. Half of the riders at that event are under USADA's jurisdiction anyway - but USADA only did one in competition blood test in the whole of 2012 and never seem to have caught anyone of note in any sport - so why should they be trusted. It's just political willy waving.

Richmond Racer

RichN95 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

All could be cured with an amnesty and lifetime bans for future offences.

That won't make any difference.

Sod all people will come forward for an amnesty with no incentive - and you can't retrofit punishments. And a lifetime ban for a first offence (if WADA somehow allowed it) will get overturned in the courts the first time it is challenged.

Agree - off to the Court of Human Rights on the basis of the athlete being permanently denied of the ability to make a living etc etc

BenderRodriguez

Richmond Racer wrote:

A test is out there for AICAR

http://inrng.com/2013/01/sunday-shorts-16/

Sure, it's 'out there' but has it been approved by WADA and are the labs equipped to test for it? Just look how long it took for the test for Epo to be approved after it was first developed.

Bottom line is, the dopers always seem to be one step ahead of the testers.