CIRC report

iainf72

Joelsim wrote:

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.

I don't think Rich thinks that. I think you can compete clean now and quite a lot of riders choose to do that. Of course there is doping, always was, always will be.

But it's not 1994 - 2007 where being clean was the exception.

ocdupalais

iainf72 wrote:

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.

Oh noes - they arxed "respected cycling professional" Paul Kimmage!

joelsim

No. If it looks like a turd and smells like a turd then it probably is a turd. No smoke without fire...read the report again. On every other forum there are lots of people who agree, but if you want to, stick your fingers in your ears. I actually believe Cookson will make some inroads, but he will never beat it, it's impossible.

joelsim

iainf72 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

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.

I don't think Rich thinks that. I think you can compete clean now and quite a lot of riders choose to do that. Of course there is doping, always was, always will be.

But it's not 1994 - 2007 where being clean was the exception.

I agree Iain. But there are loopholes and when that is the case there will always be cheats. And unfortunately they are the ones who will win.

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

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.

You said that there is still a widespread problem. That is not an opinion, you have stated it as a fact. My opinion is that it's less that the past which I actually saw first hand. It will never be eliminated. But I don't know.

disgruntledgoat

Joelsim wrote:

No. If it looks like a turd and smells like a turd then it probably is a turd. No smoke without fire...read the report again. On every other forum there are lots of people who agree, but if you want to, stick your fingers in your ears. I actually believe Cookson will make some inroads, but he will never beat it, it's impossible.

I hope I'm never in front of a jury with you on it!

Judge Schneider: "Mr hutz, do you have any actual evidence?"

Lionel Hutz: "Well, we have plenty of hearsay and conjecture... Those are kinds of evidence"

rob churchill

WADA properly putting the boot in:

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has read with interest the Cycling Independent Reform Commission Report (CIRC) published today by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI). The Commission, which was established by the UCI in January 2014, completed a 13-month investigation, independent from the UCI, into “the causes of the pattern of doping that developed within cycling and allegations that implicate the UCI and other governing bodies and officials over ineffective investigation of such practices.” The Commission should be commended for their extensive investigation into the historical problems relating to the sport of cycling and for the thoroughness of their Report.

The Commission made a number of interesting observations, and included in their Report some helpful information that we at WADA will examine in greater detail as we look to enhance our support of the clean athlete globally. In relation to suggestions and recommendations in the report, WADA will:

Examine the UCI’s past failures to apply Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) effectively;
Address the need to enhance the process for allocating research funds; details of the WADA Special Research Fund will be announced in the coming days;
Continue to advance the new investigative powers permitted by the revised World Anti-Doping Code (as evidenced through the Independent Commission’s investigation into allegations of doping) and also work with the UCI to advance their own information gathering techniques;
Continue the implementation of a new Compliance process which includes a newly-appointed independent Compliance Review Committee to ensure efficient and effective anti-doping programs from all Code signatories.
The Report makes a series of recommendations concerning how cycling can address issues of governance and enhance its anti-doping efforts in the future. It acknowledges that doping continues to exist in cycling and therefore recommends that the UCI carries out prevalence studies to determine the current level of doping in cycling in different countries, teams, levels and disciplines. The Report also makes serious allegations that riders made payments to officials in order to avoid testing and/or analysis – a so called “anti-doping tax”. WADA is certain that the UCI will address these matters as soon as practicable; and, we will work closely and cooperatively with the UCI to implement the necessary changes.

The Report also makes it clear that, under its previous leadership, the UCI prioritized the protection of the heroic image of cycling and of its star athletes such as Lance Armstrong, ahead of the protection of clean cyclists and the promotion of clean sport. At the time, the UCI leadership did not hesitate to deliberately conceal the truth and attack those who raised concern about doping within their sport, including WADA. WADA invested a great deal of time and resources defending itself against what have now been proven to be completely unfounded and unjustified attacks by the then UCI leadership.

WADA is also shocked to read that the so called “Vrijman Report” which the UCI had publicly claimed to be independent ¾ was in fact partially written by the then UCI President himself with the assistance of Lance Armstrong’s legal team. This also raises questions over the ethics and values in place at the highest levels of UCI governance at the time.

Finally, WADA wishes to commend UCI’s current President, Brian Cookson, for his courage in opening up his organization, and the sport of cycling, to such a high level of independent and transparent scrutiny. I have confidence that many of the Reports’ findings will propel the sport to move beyond an unfortunate and disturbing time in its history.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2015-03/wada-director-general-statement-on-the-cycling-independent-reform-commission

ocdupalais

I think the term "widespread" can only be used in reference to doping if there is proof that that there is more doping than not doping.

Otherwise, people with an agenda might use it willy-nilly...

joelsim

RichN95 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

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.

You said that there is still a widespread problem. That is not an opinion, you have stated it as a fact. My opinion is that it's less that the past which I actually saw first hand. It will never be eliminated. But I don't know.

No-one knows for sure, but there is definitely still a smell lingering. And doping obviously is less prevalent than it was, that much appears to be clear.

joelsim

OCDuPalais wrote:

I think the term "widespread" can only be used in reference to doping if there is proof that that there is more doping than not doping.

Otherwise, people with an agenda might use it willy-nilly...

OK.

1. There are still benefits to be had
2. There are new products all the time that are undetectable
3. There is, by all accounts, abuse of 'legal' doping
4. There are loopholes and failings in testing methodology
5. The passport establishes limits that people can keep with (rather like the Hct threshold)
6. Valverde et al

disgruntledgoat

I find the idea of Fuentes operating out of SouthAmerica like Eichmann pretty chucklesome too

MartinB2444

Could someone clarify "doping". Is it using banned substances to enhance performance, or substances which aren't yet banned but for which there is good evidence to suggest are able to improve performance. Or is it using substances which nobody knows about in the hope that they might improve performance, or is it taking stuff which everyone knows about and isn't illegal e.g. caffeine, nitrates and so on. Or maybe popping a pain killer. Or is it the whole lot in which case cyclists as a group are an integral part of a doping culture.

joelsim

disgruntledgoat wrote:

I find the idea of Fuentes operating out of SouthAmerica like Eichmann pretty chucklesome too

Dani Diaz.

And this.

http://www.alpsandes.com/posts/2015/2/1 ... o-villegas

disgruntledgoat

But if the threshold within the passport is that of a normal healthy human being then what's the point in gaming it?

joelsim

MartinB2444 wrote:

Could someone clarify "doping". Is it using banned substances to enhance performance, or substances which aren't yet banned but for which there is good evidence to suggest are able to improve performance. Or is it using substances which nobody knows about in the hope that they might improve performance, or is it taking stuff which everyone knows about and isn't illegal e.g. caffeine, nitrates and so on. Or maybe popping a pain killer. Or is it the whole lot in which case cyclists as a group are an integral part of a doping culture.

Ethically all of that. But if it isn't on the list then it is theoretically fine. Rightly or wrongly.

If it is on the list then it is banned and that is breaking the rules.

joelsim

disgruntledgoat wrote:

But if the threshold within the passport is that of a normal healthy human being then what's the point in gaming it?

It isn't. In order not to 'create' a false positive the tolerance has to be set to such a high degree as to eliminate every conceivable error. Hence why we can still get Kreuziger and chumps like JTL protesting their innocence due to a bad day, a skinful etc.

joelsim

disgruntledgoat wrote:

But if the threshold within the passport is that of a normal healthy human being then what's the point in gaming it?

Suggested figures of 3-5% benefits.

blazing_saddles

rob churchill wrote:

WADA properly putting the boot in:

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has read with interest the Cycling Independent Reform Commission Report (CIRC) published today by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI). The Commission, which was established by the UCI in January 2014, completed a 13-month investigation, independent from the UCI, into “the causes of the pattern of doping that developed within cycling and allegations that implicate the UCI and other governing bodies and officials over ineffective investigation of such practices.” The Commission should be commended for their extensive investigation into the historical problems relating to the sport of cycling and for the thoroughness of their Report.

The Commission made a number of interesting observations, and included in their Report some helpful information that we at WADA will examine in greater detail as we look to enhance our support of the clean athlete globally. In relation to suggestions and recommendations in the report, WADA will:

Examine the UCI’s past failures to apply Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) effectively;
Address the need to enhance the process for allocating research funds; details of the WADA Special Research Fund will be announced in the coming days;
Continue to advance the new investigative powers permitted by the revised World Anti-Doping Code (as evidenced through the Independent Commission’s investigation into allegations of doping) and also work with the UCI to advance their own information gathering techniques;
Continue the implementation of a new Compliance process which includes a newly-appointed independent Compliance Review Committee to ensure efficient and effective anti-doping programs from all Code signatories.
The Report makes a series of recommendations concerning how cycling can address issues of governance and enhance its anti-doping efforts in the future. It acknowledges that doping continues to exist in cycling and therefore recommends that the UCI carries out prevalence studies to determine the current level of doping in cycling in different countries, teams, levels and disciplines. The Report also makes serious allegations that riders made payments to officials in order to avoid testing and/or analysis – a so called “anti-doping tax”. WADA is certain that the UCI will address these matters as soon as practicable; and, we will work closely and cooperatively with the UCI to implement the necessary changes.

The Report also makes it clear that, under its previous leadership, the UCI prioritized the protection of the heroic image of cycling and of its star athletes such as Lance Armstrong, ahead of the protection of clean cyclists and the promotion of clean sport. At the time, the UCI leadership did not hesitate to deliberately conceal the truth and attack those who raised concern about doping within their sport, including WADA. WADA invested a great deal of time and resources defending itself against what have now been proven to be completely unfounded and unjustified attacks by the then UCI leadership.

WADA is also shocked to read that the so called “Vrijman Report” which the UCI had publicly claimed to be independent ¾ was in fact partially written by the then UCI President himself with the assistance of Lance Armstrong’s legal team. This also raises questions over the ethics and values in place at the highest levels of UCI governance at the time.

Finally, WADA wishes to commend UCI’s current President, Brian Cookson, for his courage in opening up his organization, and the sport of cycling, to such a high level of independent and transparent scrutiny. I have confidence that many of the Reports’ findings will propel the sport to move beyond an unfortunate and disturbing time in its history.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2015-03/wada-director-general-statement-on-the-cycling-independent-reform-commission

Perhaps they wouldn't have been so shocked if they'd read USADA's findings two years ago, cos I'm pretty sure
the “Vrijman Report” authorship details are outlined in there.

disgruntledgoat

Joelsim wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

But if the threshold within the passport is that of a normal healthy human being then what's the point in gaming it?

It isn't. In order not to 'create' a false positive the tolerance has to be set to such a high degree as to eliminate every conceivable error.

Myunderstanding is that should a statistical model suggest against your own historical data and that of the population of the testing pool that your blood and other markers have been artificially bolstered or that you're seriously I'll, then Mr UCI will want an explanation.

Unless there about 30 bent haematologists out there with nothing else to do there's no way the whole of pro cycling can game that system.

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

OCDuPalais wrote:

I think the term "widespread" can only be used in reference to doping if there is proof that that there is more doping than not doping.

Otherwise, people with an agenda might use it willy-nilly...

OK.

1. There are still benefits to be had
2. There are new products all the time that are undetectable
3. There is, by all accounts, abuse of 'legal' doping
4. There are loopholes and failings in testing methodology
5. The passport establishes limits that people can keep with (rather like the Hct threshold)
6. Valverde et al

Counterpoints.
1. But are those benefits worth it. There is a balance to be made between gain, cost and risk
2. Are there? Actually being used for genuine gains. Aicar was invented in the 80s and it didn't work on humans then either. It's been the classics of EPO, transfusions and testosterone for over two decades now.
3. There's no such thing as legal doping. Doping by it's very definition is illegal.
4. I'm not sure what that means.
5. Maybe, but it massively reduces what someone can get away with and increases cost and risk (see point one).
6. Some dopers were genuinely really talented and would have won in a clean sport - perhaps more than they did.

Pross

Listening to Millar on Radio 5 and as usual he made some good points.

1. If you speak with riders who are doping or did previously and ask how many riders are doping now you will get a high estimate as it is how they justify their own actions.

2. More younger, current riders who weren't on the pro scene at the height of the problems should have been interviewed to get a more accurate picture of the current situation.

3. In Millar's opinion 85-90% of riders doping would have been likely at the peak. It's hard to estimate current levels but definitely a minority.

4. Millar tried to get an interview but the commission weren't very flexible to his racing programme.


I don't see any reason why Millar would under-estimate doping in the current peloton so I'm more inclined to accept his opinion than an unnamed pro. I certainly don't think cycling is clean (I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim it is) and we get regular reminders that it isn't but all you have to do is look at racing today against back then (and I don't mean individual stages chosen to make a point - have a look at how hard riders find it to repeat strong GT performances over 2 or 3 seasons for example).

I also think that despite flaws the UCI have to be applauded for going ahead with this report when it was always going to trigger a negative media response while other sports continue to bury their heads in the sand and pretend their sports are squeaky clean.

joelsim

Pross wrote:

Listening to Millar on Radio 5 and as usual he made some good points.

1. If you speak with riders who are doping or did previously and ask how many riders are doping now you will get a high estimate as it is how they justify their own actions.

2. More younger, current riders who weren't on the pro scene at the height of the problems should have been interviewed to get a more accurate picture of the current situation.

3. In Millar's opinion 85-90% of riders doping would have been likely at the peak. It's hard to estimate current levels but definitely a minority.

4. Millar tried to get an interview but the commission weren't very flexible to his racing programme.


I don't see any reason why Millar would under-estimate doping in the current peloton so I'm more inclined to accept his opinion than an unnamed pro. I certainly don't think cycling is clean (I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim it is) and we get regular reminders that it isn't but all you have to do is look at racing today against back then (and I don't mean individual stages chosen to make a point - have a look at how hard riders find it to repeat strong GT performances over 2 or 3 seasons for example).

I also think that despite flaws the UCI have to be applauded for going ahead with this report when it was always going to trigger a negative media response while other sports continue to bury their heads in the sand and pretend their sports are squeaky clean.

If you look at Millar's lack of wanting to talk, it's disappointing. The guy who runs Dopology said that he was approached and the CIRC were more than willing to go to Belgium to meet him, even though his site was based solely on what was in the public domain.

Factor in an ardent anti-doper reputation, riding for probably the cleanest team...

blazing_saddles

In other news, Lampre have announced they are keeping Diego Ulissi and dropping the MPCC. :roll:

joelsim

Blazing Saddles wrote:

In other news, Lampre have announced they are keeping Diego Ulissi and dropping the MPCC. :roll:

Yep. Always a good day to break news.

RichN95.

Blazing Saddles wrote:

In other news, Lampre have announced they are keeping Diego Ulissi and dropping the MPCC. :roll:

They'll undoubtedly get a lot of flack for that, but I think they're right to do that. They're backing someone they believe to have been guilty of carelessness rather than malice in favour of keeping an increasingly meaningless badge. Particularly when Garmin can keep employing their array of dopers due to plea bargains and technicalities.

Pross

He said he was offered (I think) Belgium or Zurich whilst he was racing elsewhere. He asked them to do Barcelona which they eventually agreed to but only offered him dates when he was racing. Surely the CIRC would have had more success interviewing riders if they'd been prepared to go where there was a large concentration of current pros, i.e. at races?

disgruntledgoat

Joelsim wrote:

Pross wrote:

Listening to Millar on Radio 5 and as usual he made some good points.

1. If you speak with riders who are doping or did previously and ask how many riders are doping now you will get a high estimate as it is how they justify their own actions.

2. More younger, current riders who weren't on the pro scene at the height of the problems should have been interviewed to get a more accurate picture of the current situation.

3. In Millar's opinion 85-90% of riders doping would have been likely at the peak. It's hard to estimate current levels but definitely a minority.

4. Millar tried to get an interview but the commission weren't very flexible to his racing programme.


I don't see any reason why Millar would under-estimate doping in the current peloton so I'm more inclined to accept his opinion than an unnamed pro. I certainly don't think cycling is clean (I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim it is) and we get regular reminders that it isn't but all you have to do is look at racing today against back then (and I don't mean individual stages chosen to make a point - have a look at how hard riders find it to repeat strong GT performances over 2 or 3 seasons for example).

I also think that despite flaws the UCI have to be applauded for going ahead with this report when it was always going to trigger a negative media response while other sports continue to bury their heads in the sand and pretend their sports are squeaky clean.

If you look at Millar's lack of wanting to talk, it's disappointing. The guy who runs Dopology said that he was approached and the CIRC were more than willing to go to Belgium to meet him, even though his site was based solely on what was in the public domain.

Factor in an ardent anti-doper reputation, riding for probably the cleanest team...

Hang on... Actual professional cyclists get told they dont have time to talk to just anybody, they can't bend to accommodate a guy who sat on the WADA athlete panel, but some dude who runs a website gets the call?

Digger and Festina Girl must be fuming

Anonymous

The part on page 70 about one or two mountain bikers already doping before they came over. Cadel? I imagine he is one of the riders unnamed.

joelsim

RichN95 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

OCDuPalais wrote:

I think the term "widespread" can only be used in reference to doping if there is proof that that there is more doping than not doping.

Otherwise, people with an agenda might use it willy-nilly...

OK.

1. There are still benefits to be had
2. There are new products all the time that are undetectable
3. There is, by all accounts, abuse of 'legal' doping
4. There are loopholes and failings in testing methodology
5. The passport establishes limits that people can keep with (rather like the Hct threshold)
6. Valverde et al

Counterpoints.
1. But are those benefits worth it. There is a balance to be made between gain, cost and risk
2. Are there? Actually being used for genuine gains. Aicar was invented in the 80s and it didn't work on humans then either. It's been the classics of EPO, transfusions and testosterone for over two decades now.
3. There's no such thing as legal doping. Doping by it's very definition is illegal.
4. I'm not sure what that means.
5. Maybe, but it massively reduces what someone can get away with and increases cost and risk (see point one).
6. Some dopers were genuinely really talented and would have won in a clean sport - perhaps more than they did.

1. When the difference is having legs for the last few metres
2. Who knows what works or doesn't. Paracetamol doesn't work with me but Iboprofen does
3. Perhaps, but there is doubt with TUEs/weight loss supplements etc
4. The upper and lower limits of the passport are such that you can play within them. Testing randomly and especially during races is almost pointless, as I have said before countless times
5. See 4 above
6. Yes they would, or maybe no they wouldn't. Who knows?

RichN95.

Pross wrote:

He said he was offered (I think) Belgium or Zurich whilst he was racing elsewhere. He asked them to do Barcelona which they eventually agreed to but only offered him dates when he was racing. Surely the CIRC would have had more success interviewing riders if they'd been prepared to go where there was a large concentration of current pros, i.e. at races?

Yeah, but to get to Girona you have to fly Ryanair.