CIRC report

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

Classic

Kimbo tweets about only 10% of riders allowing samples to be used for testing new doping tests. Just after having a swipe at Sky / Froome

Froome tweets pic in response with his most recent form with box checked

Lolz

There was also a good response from Adam van Koeverden (an Olympic canoeist) who rightly pointed out that clean urine isn't exactly hard to come by and the idea that athlete urine is in some way special is misleading.

above_the_cows

As an aside the biopassport now includes urine data.

ddraver

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... e-ban.html

I confess I did nt read it cover to cover but....why?

Anonymous

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Classic

Kimbo tweets about only 10% of riders allowing samples to be used for testing new doping tests. Just after having a swipe at Sky / Froome

Froome tweets pic in response with his most recent form with box checked

Lolz

At least Kimmage had the balls to retweet it. That's so often Kimmages problem, his heart is in the right place but he barges in like a bull in a china shop and makes himself look foolish.

"It all ended with Lance" Kimmage needs to remember he cheated and wasn't good enough even then. BItter old mad man.

Pross

People seem to be giving the motorised bike issue credence again just because the report mentions (a) rider(s) believing it. This seems based on Ryder's bike after his crash but surely it would have been easy to seek expert opinion / analysis from a group of mechanical engineers / physicists rather than just publishing the opinion of someone who may want to believe something that explains their lack of success or own cheating? After all 90% of pro cyclists aren't intelligent and are highly superstitious so will believe anything.

frenchfighter

frenchfighter wrote:

List of people who spoke:
http://theraceradio.com/circ-participants/

An appalling low number of riders speaking out.

Along with heavyweight Froome, the greatest stage racer of this generation spoke to CIRC.

RichN95.

frenchfighter wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

List of people who spoke:
http://theraceradio.com/circ-participants/

An appalling low number of riders speaking out.

Along with heavyweight Froome, the greatest stage racer of this generation spoke to CIRC.

Dan Stevens?

ddraver

frenchfighter wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

List of people who spoke:
http://theraceradio.com/circ-participants/

An appalling low number of riders speaking out.

Along with heavyweight Froome, the greatest stage racer of this generation spoke to CIRC.

Why would you stay anonymous if you re going to announce it afterwards?!?!?

above_the_cows

So is "The Greatest Stage Racer of His Generation™" Mr 90%?

Macaloon

A chipper A Gripper responds with a resounding defence of passport and pat.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gripper-cycling-is-leading-the-world-in-the-fight-against-doping

“My working relationship with Pat was actually excellent and I’ve said this before. I strongly believe that Pat was really committed to eliminating doping from cycling. There were several occasions where he could have taken a much softer approach but he encouraged me to do what I needed to do to make sure that the anti-doping programme remained strong,” Gripper told Cyclingnews.

salsiccia1

Above The Cows wrote:

So is "The Greatest Stage Racer of His Generation™" Mr 90%?

*and the crowd roared*

RichN95.

Above The Cows wrote:

So is "The Greatest Stage Racer of His Generation™" Mr 90%?

I doubt it. He's not really that type. If it's a rider it'll be someone who got so radicalised that they can't comprehend clean cycling - a Di Luca, Ricco, Jaksche type. My money is still on attention hog Vayer though - no-one involved in cycling is more reliant on the existence/idea of doping than him.

Macaloon

RichN95 wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

So is "The Greatest Stage Racer of His Generation™" Mr 90%?

I doubt it. He's not really that type. If it's a rider it'll be someone who got so radicalised that they can't comprehend clean cycling - a Di Luca, Ricco, Jaksche type. My money is still on attention hog Vayer though - no-one involved in cycling is more reliant on the existence/idea of doping than him.

Good description. He's taken too many antioxidants.

joelsim

RichN95 wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

List of people who spoke:
http://theraceradio.com/circ-participants/

An appalling low number of riders speaking out.

Along with heavyweight Froome, the greatest stage racer of this generation spoke to CIRC.

Dan Stevens?

It is understandable given the history of whistleblowers finding it very difficult to get a new contract anywhere. Fair enough for the big stars, especially those on the verge of retirement like Bertie. The big names have the benefit of a few years' large salary and promo deals, the domestiques need to pay the bills somehow. Rightly or wrongly.

Millar has really gone down in my estimation though.

One of the interesting things is the 'much flatter' passport profiles these days. Hmm.

thomthom

Above The Cows wrote:

So is "The Greatest Stage Racer of His Generation™" Mr 90%?

What would Mr 60% have to say about that?!

Anonymous

From Froomes twitter

I have had 2 during my career RT @jknight597: @chrisfroome Are you willing to release details of all your TUEs for the last few years?

salsiccia1

This is getting ridiculous. If I was Froome, I'd have agreed but only in return for access to jknight597's medical history.

iainf72

This is quite an interesting one - Pointed out by Feargal McKay on twitter (@fmk_roi)

3 According to data made available to CIRC, a minimum of 550 TUEs were registered with UCI between
2008 and 2014, of which 368 were for riders who registered only once, nearly 90 riders registered twice,
and five registered five times or more

Lanterne_Rogue

ddraver wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

List of people who spoke:
http://theraceradio.com/circ-participants/

An appalling low number of riders speaking out.

Along with heavyweight Froome, the greatest stage racer of this generation spoke to CIRC.

Why would you stay anonymous if you re going to announce it afterwards?!?!?

I presume it's because by speaking under that condition your comments are guaranteed to be anonymous, but you can then let it be known that you contributed. Given the relative lack of content about the current state of affairs and heresay nature of the evidence presented, this is probably a sensible middle-ground to have taken.

Lanterne_Rogue

iainf72 wrote:

This is quite an interesting one - Pointed out by Feargal McKay on twitter (@fmk_roi)

3 According to data made available to CIRC, a minimum of 550 TUEs were registered with UCI between
2008 and 2014, of which 368 were for riders who registered only once, nearly 90 riders registered twice,
and five registered five times or more

A 'minimum' - how the heck can they not know?

Meanwhile, I've only got a miniscule statistical background, but that sounds to me as if it's the sort of distribution you'd expect if racing whilst ill was rare but the number of days raced is rather large. Anyone more educated dare to contribute (I want to mention the Poisson distribution, but worry you'd smell a red herring...)?

joelsim

No-one worried about the flatter profiles that are de rigeur these days then?

Bo Duke

The saddest thing is to see cycling continues to rip itself apart.

sherer

not read the whole report but it seems from reading the media the report has listened to the cyclists and then report that as fact. i.e the 90% doping figure, mechanical doping etc. Is there any evidence in the report to back up the claims, did they do any further investigation to find out if anything they were told was true ?

DeadCalm

The 90 percent figure is nonsense. By publishing that statement in the report, Circ has created an atmosphere which will allow the UCI to push through stringent anti-doping measures with little resistance from the teams and the peloton.

philbar72

DeadCalm wrote:

By publishing that statement in the report, Circ has created an atmosphere which will allow the UCI to push through stringent anti-doping measures with little resistance from the teams and the peloton.

Which has to be a good thing... Right.

iainf72

philbar72 wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

By publishing that statement in the report, Circ has created an atmosphere which will allow the UCI to push through stringent anti-doping measures with little resistance from the teams and the peloton.

Which has to be a good thing... Right.

No. not really. It doesn't recognise the considerable success so far as just sets the UCI up for further failure.

A better message would be that we've had a bit of success, we need to stay on the path but it will require a bit of sacrifice from all concerned. Make the riders feel like they're part of it rather than just bit players who don't matter.

Am I the only one who doesn't really find people not ticking "use my urine" for experiments odd? If I was a pro and clean, I wouldn't tick that box.

Macaloon

iainf72 wrote:

Am I the only one who doesn't really find people not ticking "use my urine" for experiments odd? If I was a pro and clean, I wouldn't tick that box.

No. I would give them the finger too. 'Trust me, trust my dog', as Cadel might say.

Pokerface

iainf72 wrote:

Am I the only one who doesn't really find people not ticking "use my urine" for experiments odd? If I was a pro and clean, I wouldn't tick that box.

Ticking the box isn't for experimentation.

It says:

"I consent that my sample may be used for anti-doping research by a WADA-accredited laboratory for anti-doping research of any type, provided that it can no longer be identified as my sample."

Basically they are asking to use these samples to test as they develop new tests to detect new drugs in the future. But there will never be any come-back to the rider.

So why not allow it? I always do.

The_Boy

I can see no reason not to allow the authorities to retrospectively test my piss in the unlikely event they wanted to.

iainf72

Pokerface wrote:

"I consent that my sample may be used for anti-doping research by a WADA-accredited laboratory for anti-doping research of any type, provided that it can no longer be identified as my sample."

Basically they are asking to use these samples to test as they develop new tests to detect new drugs in the future. But there will never be any come-back to the rider.

So why not allow it? I always do.

Mmmm. Better wording.

I guess it's around how much faith you have in it remaining anonymous.