CIRC report

iainf72

Suprisingly few leaks so far

What we do know

- Ricco and Peipoli testified
- Hein V has seen it, doesn't seem overly worried although he takes a bit of a beating
- Makarov gave his McQuaid dossier to CIRC

kfinlay

Am I right in thinking the UCI are going to publicize it's findings it the next day or so?

The_Boy

Froome spoke to them.

I'm sure The Other Place were exercised by this.

argyllflyer

The_Boy wrote:

Froome spoke to them.

I'm sure The Other Place were exercised by this.

There were two schools of thought that I noted among those regailed in tin foil helmets:

1. Because Froome spoke to CIRC, the report will be worthless.

2. Before it was announced by Froome that he had spoken to CIRC, the view was that any published report would be worthless in his absence.

joelsim

kfinlay wrote:

Am I right in thinking the UCI are going to publicize it's findings it the next day or so?

Yes, early tomorrow morning.

The_Boy

argyllflyer wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

Froome spoke to them.

I'm sure The Other Place were exercised by this.

There were two schools of thought that I noted among those regailed in tin foil helmets:

1. Because Froome spoke to CIRC, the report will be worthless.

2. Before it was announced by Froome that he had spoken to CIRC, the view was that any published report would be worthless in his absence.

But that doesn't make sense. If it was worthless in his absence, but worthless because...Hang on. No.

*breathes*

That's better.

kfinlay

Joelsim wrote:

kfinlay wrote:

Am I right in thinking the UCI are going to publicize it's findings it the next day or so?

Yes, early tomorrow morning.

cheers

iainf72

Friebe says the man in the pub, who's seen it, says it's very underwhelming.

tailwindhome

My favourite criticism of the report is that it only deals with the past.

frenchfighter

Well its a good thing there were very little leaks.

Leaks exist when man is corrupted and lacks morals.

joelsim

Here are some leaks. Still rife now by the looks of things, as expected.

Many riders still up to no good.
Testing largely pointless.
Passport setting parameters and in effect allowing doping within limits.
Surprise, surprise.

https://twitter.com/Digger_forum

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

Here are some leaks. Still rife now by the looks of things, as expected.

Many riders still up to no good.
Testing largely pointless.
Passport setting parameters and in effect allowing doping within limits.
Surprise, surprise.

https://twitter.com/Digger_forum

Have you got a source which isn't utterly mental? Getting his opinion on it is about as valid as getting an opinion on the Chilcot report from a bloke at the local squat.

Edit: You can read it here: http://www.cyclisme-dopage.com/actualit ... report.pdf

thomthom

Highlights
http://theraceradio.com/circ-report/

The Verdict
An expensive exercise in telling us what we knew? Yes. Pat McQuaid started an inquest and shut it down only for Brian Cookson to make it a solemn election pledge with beaucoup budget.

There’s something CIRC-ular as old stories are repeated. If we knew the past was rotten now it’s UCI-approved rather than the stuff of op-eds and online forums. It’s one thing to read the UCI should have stopped Lance Armstrong in 1999 in a newspaper or on a blog, it’s another when it’s signed off in a formal report.

There’s little that’s juicy. Don’t imagine a sizzling steak, the CIRC’s meaty report is somewhere between well-done and carbonized. Rather than serving saucy info a lot of the report reheats old dishes and is peppered with footnotes from cyclingnews.com and other news sources as it builds the story of the UCI and anti-doping over the past 20 years, as if the commission spent weeks on the web to collate a pricey précis of the past. Despite the CIRC lamenting loose financial controls we don’t know what the CIRC’s cost, reports say $3 million.

There are revelations here and there but the bulk is confirmation: the UCI wasn’t bribed to cover-up positive tests but it ignored suspicious tests; on Lance Armstrong the governing body was too carried away with the marketing but the Texan wasn’t alone, other star riders got special treatment. If UCI’s management wasn’t financially corrupt it was managerially suspect with few checks and balances to stop abuses of power. As for today, the belief is doping continues whether it’s gaming the bio passport, abusing TUEs and so on.

The recommendations are necessary but not sufficient. Public acknowledgement that some riders are gaming the bio passport is saying that some major riders are doping and will reignite suspicions. Meanwhile the CIRC has shone a spotlight on the peloton’s hypochondria as some guzzle pills like force-fed geese but it’s wrong, as is the abuse of TUEs. The UCI should adopt the MPCC’s rest rule for those using cortisone, the one that stopped Chris Horner riding the 2014 Vuelta.

Closer to home, will Brian Cookson tackle Igor Makarov? The Russian sidestepped the CIRC and if he can’t co-operate fully with the UCI’s own report, will the rest of the management committee have faith in him?

Finally some will moan the report isn’t racey enough but remember it was meant to look at the past, to investigate the causes of doping with a view to making recommendations for the future rather than tail and trail today’s riders. Is there another sport that would have commissioned this, can you imagine tennis, athletics or soccer asking for a CIRC? Cycling was the first to see its stars perp-walked by police and rousted by reasoned decisions, now it’s asking why it happened. The past 20 years of cycling have been chaotic with a confused governing central but not causal to this. Now it’s up to the UCI to shape the future of the sport. Time will tell if it’s up to the job.

Inrng

RichN95.

My review is that if a reasonably decent undergraduate wrote his thesis on doping in cycling this is what you would get. And he/she would get a 2.1 as it's well researched and a solid piece of work but doesn't have the originality or insight required for a first.

curium

The fact that so little of this report is 'news' illustrates how poor the UCI are/were at covering up the unsavoury aspects of cycling.

We knew everything but without official acknowledgement how could we expect any change?

It will be interesting to see if Vinokorov & Riise can continue in high-level roles in World Tour teams, perhaps the rules don't exist for the UCI to act in this regard?

Finally I'm curious as to whether Wiggo was asked to talk to CIRC given they spoke with Froome.

mamba80

Shows why some riders who have received lengthy bans are peed off, though they are of course guilty as charged, the guys running the sport have ultimate responsibility, they take the huge salaries and they are the ones who should be punished for their failures, the culture in any organisation comes form the top.

I also think that we the fans should shoulder responsibility, surely after Festina, no one really thought these feats of endeavour were genuine?

but somehow, what ever the scandal, these chaps just seem to move on, into even higher paid positions.

redvision

curium wrote:

The fact that so little of this report is 'news' illustrates how poor the UCI are/were at covering up the unsavoury aspects of cycling.

Well in fairness, so much has come out since the Armstrong Oprah interview that i think everyone knew pretty much what to expect from the Circ report.

After reading through it i think all i have really learnt is that Armstrong will probably have his ban reduced and, arguably more worryingly, there is still a culture of doping in the sport. What does that say for the biological passport?

iainf72

redvision wrote:

After reading through it i think all i have really learnt is that Armstrong will probably have his ban reduced and, arguably more worryingly, there is still a culture of doping in the sport. What does that say for the biological passport?

There isn't any indication Armstrong will get his ban reduced. His testimony was heavily lawyered so didn't give them much

You may as well have got Joelsim to testify and Richn95 - get both ends of the spectrum.

If Ricco said 90% were doping would we take it seriously?

Rodrego Hernandez

The man who brought down Armstrong approached CIRC and was turned down. Of course, why would they want to hear from Floyd Landis? The report would have been much worse had they listened to someone with his experiences.

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

There isn't any indication Armstrong will get his ban reduced. His testimony was heavily lawyered so didn't give them much

You may as well have got Joelsim to testify and Richn95 - get both ends of the spectrum.

If Ricco said 90% were doping would we take it seriously?

It doesn't matter who said 90%. That another person said 20% should tell you that nobody has a clue. It merely illustrates the worthlessness of a single person's unsupported individual opinion.
Another bit says 'TUEs are being abused' - so where are the figures to support it? - did they ask the UCI for them?
There's even a mention of Gas6 - which doesn't even exist as a usuable product.

ginsterdrz

"They also suggest that the CADF look into the use of substances that are not prohibited. The report states that there is a wide-spread use of anti-depressants in the peloton, as well as Tramadol, caffeine tablets, Viagra or Cialis, and tranquilizers at night. The combined effect, they suspect, could be contributing to crashes in the races."

How do you ride whilst.....excited?!?

ginsterdrz

And who is this? :

"The Commission was told of a team below the UCI WorldTour recently involved in doping. It was claimed that the team manager and sports director brought a nutritionist into the team who advised a selected group of riders within the team on a doping programme. The instructions were to administer 1000 ml of EPO Zeta every second day after 11pm at night, and alternate in the winter with HGH and Lutrelef, a hormone. Their haematocrit levels were to be tested every third day, and amounts of EPO Zeta reduced to 500 ml as the season approached. The nutritionist owned a gym, through which substances were procured from Eastern Europe. It was further explained that the team manager was also a senior person in a prominent anti-doping movement, and had later on introduced strong anti-doping clauses in the team contracts, including the imposition of significant fines for anyone caught doping."

RichN95.

Ginsterdrz wrote:

And who is this? :

"The Commission was told of a team below the UCI WorldTour recently involved in doping. It was claimed that the team manager and sports director brought a nutritionist into the team who advised a selected group of riders within the team on a doping programme. The instructions were to administer 1000 ml of EPO Zeta every second day after 11pm at night, and alternate in the winter with HGH and Lutrelef, a hormone. Their haematocrit levels were to be tested every third day, and amounts of EPO Zeta reduced to 500 ml as the season approached. The nutritionist owned a gym, through which substances were procured from Eastern Europe. It was further explained that the team manager was also a senior person in a prominent anti-doping movement, and had later on introduced strong anti-doping clauses in the team contracts, including the imposition of significant fines for anyone caught doping."

Gianni Savio would fit the bill. CONI tried to ban him for four years. That he's on the management board of MPCC shows you all you need to know about their actual credibility.

term1te

"1000 ml of EPO Zeta every second day after 11pm at night" one litre? Seems an awful lot. My understanding is that it normally comes in syringes of less than 1ml volume. No wonder they went to micro-dosing.

CCalculus

Ginsterdrz wrote:

And who is this? :

"The Commission was told of a team below the UCI WorldTour recently involved in doping. It was claimed that the team manager and sports director brought a nutritionist into the team who advised a selected group of riders within the team on a doping programme. The instructions were to administer 1000 ml of EPO Zeta every second day after 11pm at night, and alternate in the winter with HGH and Lutrelef, a hormone. Their haematocrit levels were to be tested every third day, and amounts of EPO Zeta reduced to 500 ml as the season approached. The nutritionist owned a gym, through which substances were procured from Eastern Europe. It was further explained that the team manager was also a senior person in a prominent anti-doping movement, and had later on introduced strong anti-doping clauses in the team contracts, including the imposition of significant fines for anyone caught doping."

Probably Androni Giocattoli and therefore Savio:

Anti-doping clauses and fines - http://www.cyclingquotes.com/news/andro ... ng_policy/

Androni is also a member of the MPCC ('prominent anti-doping movement').

RichN95.

Term1te wrote:

"1000 ml of EPO Zeta every second day after 11pm at night" one litre? Seems an awful lot. My understanding is that it normally comes in syringes of less than 1ml volume. No wonder they went to micro-dosing.

That will be an error - there are a few in the report. In reality, 1000ml of EPO would kill you.

joelsim

What seems to be clear, as expected, is that like it or not there is still a substantial doping problem in cycling but the benefits are smaller, and at least now there are some clean athletes. (Clean is subjective).

And there are still plenty of ways to get round the passport and the testing. And that the main doctors are also still very much involved. All as previously discussed. It will be interesting to see what the UCI does now. To my mind Cookson will do the best he can but anti-doping will always be a couple of steps behind.

iainf72

Ginsterdrz wrote:

"They also suggest that the CADF look into the use of substances that are not prohibited. The report states that there is a wide-spread use of anti-depressants in the peloton, as well as Tramadol, caffeine tablets, Viagra or Cialis, and tranquilizers at night. The combined effect, they suspect, could be contributing to crashes in the races."

How do you ride whilst.....excited?!?

You'd have to be aroused first and I doubt that happens much when racing.

calvjones

Ginsterdrz wrote:

"They also suggest that the CADF look into the use of substances that are not prohibited. The report states that there is a wide-spread use of anti-depressants in the peloton, as well as Tramadol, caffeine tablets, Viagra or Cialis, and tranquilizers at night. The combined effect, they suspect, could be contributing to crashes in the races."

How do you ride whilst.....excited?!?

Gingerly.

above_the_cows

RichN95 wrote:

My review is that if a reasonably decent undergraduate wrote his thesis on doping in cycling this is what you would get. And he/she would get a 2.1 as it's well researched and a solid piece of work but doesn't have the originality or insight required for a first.

That was going to be my review, although it is pretty long for an undergraduate thesis. The one thing that I find vaguely interesting are the acknowledged 'limits' of the ABP. That it isn't a 'technical' solve all solution, and that like anything it cannot be used in isolation but that there needs to be a shift to a more qualitative approach.

For me this is interesting for purely intellectual reasons as well as that a shift to a more qualitative approach would or could make it harder to prosecute/prove doping/and could move prosecution of doping to take on a more mainstream judicial form of practice.

Mad_Malx

calvjones wrote:

Ginsterdrz wrote:

"They also suggest that the CADF look into the use of substances that are not prohibited. The report states that there is a wide-spread use of anti-depressants in the peloton, as well as Tramadol, caffeine tablets, Viagra or Cialis, and tranquilizers at night. The combined effect, they suspect, could be contributing to crashes in the races."

How do you ride whilst.....excited?!?

Gingerly.

Dilates the pulmonary blood vessels (as well as others) - possibly increasing lung blood flow & hence oxygenation. I'm not sure how much difference this would make in a healthy individual.