UCI IC 2

iainf72

They really may as well have put the money it's costing in a suitcase and thrown it in the river for all the use it's going to be.

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDe ... LangId%3D1

TheBigBean

Not a fan then?

Richmond Racer

I'm with Iain.

UCI should give me the 3m instead to buy a place I saw in Deia this morning. I'll promise to sponsor a local amateur team and it'll do more good for cycling's future than this.

above_the_cows

Deia? That place has crazy prices. Madness. Beautiful place don't get me wrong but crazy house prices!

Sorry totally off-topic Spanish property price whinge.

Hey but if the UCI won't front you the money RR, you could always set up some sort of support fund for someone or other on PayPal.

Richmond Racer

Above The Cows wrote:

Deia? That place has crazy prices. Madness. Beautiful place don't get me wrong but crazy house prices!

Sorry totally off-topic Spanish property price whinge.

Hey but if the UCI won't front you the money RR, you could always set up some sort of support fund for someone or other on PayPal.

Hmmm...*strokes chin in deep thinking manner*

RichN95.

Whose idea was all this in the first place? Who actually asked for it?

gethinceri

^ anybody to whom this applies I guess:
The CIRC will have the authority to propose reduced sanctions to any License Holder [e.g. riders, officials, agents, organisers, team staff etc] who admit to Anti-Doping Rules Violations [ADRVs]

takethehighroad

Gethinceri wrote:

^ anybody to whom this applies I guess:
The CIRC will have the authority to propose reduced sanctions to any License Holder [e.g. riders, officials, agents, organisers, team staff etc] who admit to Anti-Doping Rules Violations [ADRVs]

So you can stay in blissful anonymity and keep your comfy job commentating/presenting/DSing/whatever else without being banned, or tarnish your reputation by naming names, all for a reduced ban?

I know which one I'd choose

TheBigBean

I think it needs to be done for two reasons:
1. The greatest deterrent to doping is the fear of being caught. It doesn't matter when the person is caught.
2. They might actually find something that relates to high level officials or high profile individuals that will improve the sport.

RichN95.

TheBigBean wrote:

I think it needs to be done for two reasons:
1. The greatest deterrent to doping is the fear of being caught. It doesn't matter when the person is caught.
2. They might actually find something that relates to high level officials or high profile individuals that will improve the sport.

But:
1. This is unlikely to catch anyone. They would be better of spending half the $3m on retroactive testing and holding the other half for similar testing in future. They'll catch more people that way than asking people to own up.
and
2. They'll get more information from leveraging people caught due to my point 1.

This sort of reminds be of when police forces have a gun amnesty. They always seem to get an array of antique muskets and rifles from middle-class couples and not many semi-automatics from drug dealers.

TheBigBean

Valid points Rich and I'm all for retroactive testing. That would also be better than lobbing the money in a river.

Taking your analogy one step further, I think the idea (in this case) is to find out who supplied the middle class couples the guns. They are more likely to do this by offering an amnesty.

Take for example Kloden*. He should be given two indirect choices: tell the truth as part of the amnesty or risk the truth materialising when everyone else uses the amnesty. Clearly the game theory approach would be for no riders to talk, but I'm confident they are not game theorists. Maybe you need to throw in some retroactive tests just to up the fear levels.

*For the purposes of this I'm assuming he doped. He hasn't failed...

joelsim

They should have a total amnesty. Draw a line, learn and move forward. They were (mostly) all at it, no-one's fault, just the way it has been. And IMO there is still much to be done.

There is absolutely no point in penalising people for the past when it was so totally ingrained in the culture.

Penalise people from this point on. Big time.

RichN95.

TheBigBean wrote:

Valid points Rich and I'm all for retroactive testing. That would also be better than lobbing the money in a river.

Taking your analogy one step further, I think the idea (in this case) is to find out who supplied the middle class couples the guns. They are more likely to do this by offering an amnesty.

Take for example Kloden*. He should be given two indirect choices: tell the truth as part of the amnesty or risk the truth materialising when everyone else uses the amnesty. Clearly the game theory approach would be for no riders to talk, but I'm confident they are not game theorists. Maybe you need to throw in some retroactive tests just to up the fear levels.

Yeah, I've said before that this process would be helped by the announcement of retroactive testing (even if it's a bluff). But as it is there's no leverage. Dopers have been dealing with risk of being exposed all along. They'll keep with the risk, even if they've long since quit using. (And Kloden's a bad example, Pantani will talk before he does)

And as for my gun amnesty analogy - it wasn't meant to be taken too far. I just remember seeing pictures like this and thinking they don't look like the sort of guns I see gangs use in the movies:

RichN95.

One thing I hope from CIRC is that Flecha, de Gendt, Poels, Hoogerland and Westra all testify.

I've always wanted to see CIRC du Vacansoleil

Crankbrother

Retro testing creates a very un-level playing field for past champions ...

Not every winner is able to be tested due to there being no samples to test, so riders like Hinault, Big-Mig and Lemond (I use Lemond as an example because he raced against, and bested, self confessed dopers) can live without fear of losing titles, regardless of what may or may not have been going on ...

Also, not every federation treats doping offences the same ...

RichN95.

Crankbrother wrote:

Retro testing creates a very un-level playing field for past champions ...

Not every winner is able to be tested due to there being no samples to test, so riders like Hinault, Big-Mig and Lemond (I use Lemond as an example because he raced against, and bested, self confessed dopers) can live without fear of losing titles, regardless of what may or may not have been going on ...

They're all outside the statute of limitations (by at least a decade). I don't think they're going to be getting a pro contract any time soon. They're a job for historians.

Crankbrother

Yet we had stories of positives from the '99 Tour ... Mud sticks ... It would be nice to see some of the past champions wash some of it from their glass houses ...

RichN95.

Crankbrother wrote:

Yet we had stories of positives from the '99 Tour ... Mud sticks ... It would be nice to see some of the past champions wash some of it from their glass houses ...

Like who?

knedlicky

It seems very naïve to me - they want people to voluntarily step forward out of the blue to grass on others, and probably denounce themselves too (in return for a vague hint - not even a promise - that they may get reduced sentences).

Perhaps if they also promised some the budgetted 3 million to beanspillers ….

Anyway, if “members of the CIRC will operate on a completely independent basis” and
“investigations will be on a strictly confidential basis” (quotes from the press release), why are they at all even mentioning sanctions for those who admit doping?

And then there’s the matter of proving that what these 'crown witnesses' relate is true.

Richmond Racer

Witness statements would have to be corroborated. If you have witness A claiming that witness B did naughties eg administered doping products to other riders, but witness B denies, it's just 1 person's word against another. And no 'conviction'.

Mind you, this could all be a windfall for lawyers. I'd better start looking up websites offering law degrees from the University of Nowheresville, for just $7,999 plus p&p

If i had left the sport and had done naughties, I'd keep shtum. If I'd stayed in the sport, I'd still keep shtum.
I'd totally take the risk on being outed by several people and it sticking, rather than out myself.

Crankbrother

RichN95 wrote:

Crankbrother wrote:

Yet we had stories of positives from the '99 Tour ... Mud sticks ... It would be nice to see some of the past champions wash some of it from their glass houses ...

Like who?

Apologies, it was 1998 (was too tired/lazy to check that last night) ... and Stuart O'Grady is currently standing in the corner facing the wall ...

iainf72

They should be spending the money on the UCI anti-doping helpline

Add a financial incentive to shopping people currently doping. 100K for a tip that leads to a conviction or something.

I still don't know why anyone would want to talk to the CIRC.

Pross

RichN95 wrote:

One thing I hope from CIRC is that Flecha, de Gendt, Poels, Hoogerland and Westra all testify.

I've always wanted to see CIRC du Vacansoleil

There, do you feel better now?

iainf72

Pretty good take on the CIRC in the latest Humans Invent podcast

Macaloon

^ Excellent bit. Very strong points about the unfairness to the current generation riding clean, riding through the fallout of serial sh1tstorms.

ddraver

In contrast to "the other podcast" who are pretending to think it's a terrible idea having spent the last 2 years clamouring for all sorts of Truth & Reconciliation

Macaloon

ddraver wrote:

In contrast to "the other podcast" who are pretending to think it's a terrible idea having spent the last 2 years clamouring for all sorts of Truth & Reconciliation

By contrast, do you mean agreement. Nobody on the HI podcast thought it was a good idea citing many of the reasons discussed here. A new one for me was each new 'revelation' unfairly tarnishing the reputations of the younger generation of riders.

Overall it was a fantastic nuanced discussion of the doping issue.

ddraver

You ve got your cycling podcasts crossed I was on about the Scottish one

iainf72

Macaloon wrote:

ddraver wrote:

In contrast to "the other podcast" who are pretending to think it's a terrible idea having spent the last 2 years clamouring for all sorts of Truth & Reconciliation

By contrast, do you mean agreement. Nobody on the HI podcast thought it was a good idea citing many of the reasons discussed here. A new one for me was each new 'revelation' unfairly tarnishing the reputations of the younger generation of riders.

Overall it was a fantastic nuanced discussion of the doping issue.

I think it shows that proper journalists can express things properly / and think about their position.

At the same time though, I think if you have a podcast, you're effectively a journalist, just most of them a rubbish journalists.

rick_chasey

Anyone else going to the live podcast on the 5 th?

iainf72

Rick Chasey wrote:

Anyone else going to the live podcast on the 5 th?

With my hair, I'm scared of being in the same general space as Friebe