CIRC report

TheBigBean

iainf72 wrote:

As Vaughters said, it's a pity people are ignoring the large amount of progress which the report points out

It is clear that much progress has been made. The simple existence of the report was unlikely under the previous adminstration - do you now think that Cookson's election was a positive?

The problem is that the default message that comes out of most people's mouths is that doping is a thing of the past. When evidence is found that is contrary to this, other people then point it out.

So, yes, lots of progress in reducing blood manipulation, but there are many more ways to skin a cat.

sherer

Paulie W wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

As Vaughters said, it's a pity people are ignoring the large amount of progress which the report points out

+1

This is a strong narrative throughout but has been lost in much of the reporting. Figures like the 90% are manna to characters like Joelsim who sees this as vindication of their everyone is still doping stance when actually there is much more solid 'evidence' in the report to support the view that the benefits of doping are increasingly less palpable and therefore the rationale for doing so is gradually being eroded

it would have been better to leave out random statements by cyclists with no data to back it up.

ddraver

My last report has been raked across the coals by the client so I'm on shaky ground but I agree with this -

Brendan gallagher @gallagherbren
CIRC interview 1 current rider but then highlight 1 anonymous "cycling professional" who claims 90 per cent of peloton doping.V shoddy work

Good convo between him and Dimspace at the mo too - https://twitter.com/gallagherbren/statu ... 2450255872

above_the_cows

ddraver wrote:

My last report has been raked acrodd the coals by the client so I'm on shaky ground but I agree with this -

Brendan gallagher @gallagherbren
CIRC interview 1 current rider but then highlight 1 anonymous "cycling professional" who claims 90 per cent of peloton doping.V shoddy work

Good convo between him and Dimspace at the mo too - https://twitter.com/gallagherbren/statu ... 2450255872

Yep. Poor methodology that.

Zerotails99

The riders may not be abusing epo and blood doping but they still take huge amounts of legal drugs and stimulants. They are also abusing the TUE. So there is still advantage to be had by secret pharmaceutics.

Riders can't ride bikes or use equipment that can't be purchased from the shops. But no requirement for any athletes in any sport to make public the drugs and stimulants they take.

RichN95.

Zerotails99 wrote:

The riders may not be abusing epo and blood doping but they still take huge amounts of legal drugs and stimulants. They are also abusing the TUE. So there is still advantage to be had by secret pharmaceutics.

How many TUEs were issued to World Tour teams in 2014 (or any recent year)?

And as for taking legal drugs - well they're legal. All that actually matters is the law. In life I can guarantee that you do something that I morally object to and and that I do something that you find morally objectionable. But if they're not illegal it's irrelevant.

tailwindhome

Does the report make any recommendations?

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

Does the report make any recommendations?

Yes. You can read them for yourself of course, but the jist of them is:

1. UCI works more closely with governments/national agencies to ensure they have the best tools for the job
2. Convicted doctors should be subject to professional disciplinary action
3. 'Public shaming' should stop. Basically this means half-investigated cases being leaked to the press
4. 'Prevelance studies' should be conducted to identify particular problem areas (i.e. countries or teams etc)
5. A move towards a move intelligence lead testing strategy
6. Possible use of night time testing in specific cases
7. More re-testing of samples
8. Setting up an independent whistleblowers desk
9. Pursue individuals as soon as suspicions are raised.

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Does the report make any recommendations?

Yes. You can read them for yourself of course, but the jist of them is:

1. UCI works more closely with governments/national agencies to ensure they have the best tools for the job
2. Convicted doctors should be subject to professional charges
3. 'Public shaming' should stop. Basically this means half-investigated cases being leaked to the press
4. 'Prevelance studies' should be conducted to identify particular problem areas (i.e. countries or teams etc)
5. A move towards a move intelligence lead testing strategy
6. Possible use of night time testing in specific cases
7. More re-testing of samples
8. Setting up an independent whistleblowers desk
9. Pursue individuals as soon as suspicions are raised.

Cheers, stuck at work so appreciate the summary.

above_the_cows

Yes. Pages 211-223 are recommendations.

The main ones are these:

RECOMMENDATIONS
The Commission refers readers to the full Recommendations section of the Report.
However, some key recommendations include:
1. Primary responsibility for controlling doping in sport lies with the sporting world.
Only subsidiary responsibility lies with governments. The CIRC recommends that
UCI works closely with governments/national authorities that make their
investigative tools available to the fight against doping and that, together with
other stakeholders, it urges other governments to have these tools in place and
work towards closer cooperation with sports bodies on criminal matters in antidoping.
2. In addition to serving any sport sanction, doctors who are found guilty of an antidoping
rule violation should be investigated to determine whether they are fit to
continue their general medical practice. Anti-doping bodies should have an
obligation to inform the doctor’s professional regulatory body that he has been
sanctioned for a sport violation so that the regulatory body may open an
investigation against the doctor.
3. The CIRC has observed that “public shaming” is frequently used to put pressure
on other stakeholders. In particular, allegations that are not fully investigated or
not investigated at all are put into the public domain by anti-doping organisations.
Such conduct should not be employed. It infringes on fundamental rights, leads to
a waste of resources and undermines the credibility of the fight against doping. In
the same way that WADA-accredited laboratories are bound by a duty of
confidentiality, the same principle should apply to anti-doping organisations in
respect of allegations.
4. The CIRC recommends that “prevalence studies” of doping in different countries,
teams, levels (including amateur) and disciplines, should be undertaken by
UCI/CADF to establish the level of doping in those different populations; this
would enable UCI/CADF to define better how to deploy resources and support an
effective anti-doping strategy. All the statistical data from testing should be
integrated into these studies.
5. UCI/CADF should move to a qualitative rather than quantitative testing plan and
collect and integrate all available information. At present, CADF concentrates
solely on testing. There must also be a focus on non-analytical means of
establishing anti-doping rule violations. The CIRC recommends that intelligenceled
testing and broader, non-analytical investigations should target individual
riders and support staff when most likely to be engaged in doping activities,
particularly in out-of-competition time periods.
6. The no testing window from 11pm to 6am helps riders who micro-dose to avoid
being caught. The CIRC is conscious of the principle of proportionality but the
absence of night-time testing is a weakness in the current system and needs to be
addressed. UCI/CADF should make more use of the exception contained in Article
5.2 of the 2015 UCI Anti-Doping Rules (“serious and specific suspicion that the Rider
may be engaged in doping”) to test at night-time.
7. Re-testing should be an integral part of the testing programme. A coherent retesting
strategy should be developed that is systematic and regularly undertaken,
with additional tests when new science is available, and well publicised.
Retrospective sample testing is perhaps as great a disincentive to riders as today’s
testing is, even more so for the more successful riders. A sample given by a rider
should have a mandatory re-testing programme attached to it.
8. CIRC recommends that in order to encourage people to come forward with
information, UCI should set up an independent whistleblower desk. UCI should
also proactively make full use of substantial assistance provisions (every athlete
who is sanctioned should be approached to enquire whether he is interested in
providing substantial assistance).
9. The most effective way of cleaning up the sport is to pursue individuals through
investigations as soon as a suspicion is raised. UCI/CADF should make efforts to
investigate those individuals that it believes were involved in doping in the past,
observing the principles of due process, and make full use of the extended statute
of limitations.

Pross

So just for clarity to someone to busy (lazy!) to read the report in full is 90% a figure that has been used for both the proportion of the existing peloton still doping and the percentage of TUE that are apparently not genuine?

RichN95.

Pross wrote:

So just for clarity to someone to busy (lazy!) to read the report in full is 90% a figure that has been used for both the proportion of the existing peloton still doping and the percentage of TUE that are apparently not genuine?

When asked to convey an unsubstantiated high proportion, 90% of people pick 90%

iainf72

TheBigBean wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

As Vaughters said, it's a pity people are ignoring the large amount of progress which the report points out

It is clear that much progress has been made. The simple existence of the report was unlikely under the previous adminstration - do you now think that Cookson's election was a positive?

Most of the progress was made under the previous regime. That huge leap forward was made on McQuaid's watch. The Armstrong stuff really skews it though.

mm1

Re. the whistleblower's hotline, didn't Pat try that and no one called?

above_the_cows

Pross wrote:

So just for clarity to someone to busy (lazy!) to read the report in full is 90% a figure that has been used for both the proportion of the existing peloton still doping and the percentage of TUE that are apparently not genuine?

90% is one unnamed rider's estimate as to the amount of EPO stolen from Italian hospital pharmacies. p.40
90% is one unnamed rider's opinion as to the number of riders still doping. p. 56.
90% is one unnamed rider's opinion in regards to the number of TUEs used for PED purposes p.61

This evidence given by one rider to the CIRC was brought to you by the number 90.

takethehighroad

Pross wrote:

So just for clarity to someone to busy (lazy!) to read the report in full is 90% a figure that has been used for both the proportion of the existing peloton still doping and the percentage of TUE that are apparently not genuine?

As you'd expect, inrng does a good job summarizing

http://inrng.com/2015/03/the-circ-report/

frisbee

So basically 90% of the time riders dope every time?

joelsim

No. One person said 90% and one person said 20%. There are also other numbers in the report, but my summary would be that doping is still commonplace in the peloton. At neither of the levels mentioned above.

Clearly it is cleaner now than 10 years ago, but clearly there is still a significant problem with bending the rules and still a significant problem with breaking the rules.

iainf72

Joelsim wrote:

No. One person said 90% and one person said 20%. There are also other numbers in the report, but my summary would be that doping is still commonplace in the peloton. At neither of the levels mentioned above.

But that was your position before, and if the report had said there was practically no doping, you would've thought it was wrong. CIRC is not going to change peoples positions.

I'm sure we all love the irony of the CIRC saying that rider shaming must stop, but their report earns headlines on the BBC saying 90% of riders doping.

iainf72

Who do we like for the 90% person?

It'll be someone we're pretty confident is a doper, but probably hasn't been nabbed.

joelsim

iainf72 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

No. One person said 90% and one person said 20%. There are also other numbers in the report, but my summary would be that doping is still commonplace in the peloton. At neither of the levels mentioned above.

But that was your position before, and if the report had said there was practically no doping, you would've thought it was wrong. CIRC is not going to change peoples positions.

I'm sure we all love the irony of the CIRC saying that rider shaming must stop, but their report earns headlines on the BBC saying 90% of riders doping.

That wasn't my position before at all. My position is that there is still widespread doping.

iainf72

Joelsim wrote:

That wasn't my position before at all. My position is that there is still widespread doping.

That's what I meant. Your position before the report was there is widespread doping.

disgruntledgoat

Joelsim wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

No. One person said 90% and one person said 20%. There are also other numbers in the report, but my summary would be that doping is still commonplace in the peloton. At neither of the levels mentioned above.

But that was your position before, and if the report had said there was practically no doping, you would've thought it7 was wrong. CIRC is not going to change peoples positions.

I'm sure we all love the irony of saying that rider shaming must stop, but their report earns headlines on the BBC saying 90% of riders doping.

That wasn't my position before at all. My position is that there is still widespread doping.

So people who spend their entire professional lives around cycling admit they essentially have no clue as to the scale of the problem but you know better? How?

joelsim

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

No. One person said 90% and one person said 20%. There are also other numbers in the report, but my summary would be that doping is still commonplace in the peloton. At neither of the levels mentioned above.

But that was your position before, and if the report had said there was practically no doping, you would've thought it7 was wrong. CIRC is not going to change peoples positions.

I'm sure we all love the irony of saying that rider shaming must stop, but their report earns headlines on the BBC saying 90% of riders doping.

That wasn't my position before at all. My position is that there is still widespread doping.

So people who spend their entire professional lives around cycling admit they essentially have no clue as to the scale of the problem but you know better? How?

I don't. But there is still a widespread problem.

disgruntledgoat

My edited highlights:

I found the differing definitions of “clean” to be grimly amusing and the idea of “middle aged businessmen doping to win masters titles” and pros unwilling to ride Gran Fondos due to the juiced pace at the front depressing and hilarious in equal measures.

If Joe Papp told me the sky was blue I'd check out the window

Office politics will always be with us

Anonymous

Joelsim wrote:

but my summary would be that doping is still commonplace in the peloton.

Of course it is. It would never be anything else would it? If the report had published hard facts saying only 3 people in the whole sport are doping you'd have still twisted that in to meaning everyone is.

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

So people who spend their entire professional lives around cycling admit they essentially have no clue as to the scale of the problem but you know better? How?

I don't. But there is still a widespread problem.

Yet you still feel you can offer up 'facts' that they are unable to.

joelsim

sjmclean wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

but my summary would be that doping is still commonplace in the peloton.

Of course it is. It would never be anything else would it? If the report had published hard facts saying only 3 people in the whole sport are doping you'd have still twisted that in to meaning everyone is.

Correct. But I would happily take a bet that the main protagonists, which is what really matters, is where the most doping occurs. There are athletes like Pinot who I believe is clean, losing very slightly against those who aren't. We all know who they are.

joelsim

RichN95 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

So people who spend their entire professional lives around cycling admit they essentially have no clue as to the scale of the problem but you know better? How?

I don't. But there is still a widespread problem.

Yet you still feel you can offer up 'facts' that they are unable to.

I'm not offering up facts Rich. You are one of the main people who thinks that doping is a thing of the past. It isn't.

disgruntledgoat

Joelsim wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

No. One person said 90% and one person said 20%. There are also other numbers in the report, but my summary would be that doping is still commonplace in the peloton. At neither of the levels mentioned above.

But that was your position before, and if the report had said there was practically no doping, you would've thought it7 was wrong. CIRC is not going to change peoples positions.

I'm sure we all love the irony of saying that rider shaming must stop, but their report earns headlines on the BBC saying 90% of riders doping.

That wasn't my position before at all. My position is that there is still widespread doping.

So people who spend their entire professional lives around cycling admit they essentially have no clue as to the scale of the problem but you know better? How?

I don't. But there is still a widespread problem.

You assert that between 20% and 90% of the proffesional pelotpn (my assumption as to the level you are referring to) are doping, but the only evidence you have for this that you didn't have yesterday is anonymised quotes from somebody (somebody who may be Joe Papp for gods sake).

The picture we glean from the report is that this world is filled with rumoiur and nobody knows what their team mates are up to half the time so I repeat, how do yo know the true figure is between 20 and 90%? Surely it couldn't be that you've cherry picked 2 numbers from a 200 page paper to reinforce an opinion you already hold...