Great blog by Vaughters

Talk about competitive road cycling in all its forms
Richmond Racer
Posts: 8475
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 17:11 pm

Re: Great blog by Vaughters

Postby Richmond Racer » Mon Feb 11, 2013 09:36 am

Much as I think more money does need to do into testing and research, I'd vote for:

-stronger and more wide-reaching powers to the AD agencies
-strong arm of the law
-doping being made a crime in every country
-the new amendments to the WADA code of 4 years instead of 2 being rolled out (would prefer 2014 rather than 2015)
-no back-dating of bans
-hitting teams hard with financial penalties and loss of points
- a long period during which riders returning from bans cannot be offered contracts by any teams with UCI licence - ProTour/ProConti or Conti (Conti teams often snap up dodgy riders, only transferring the problem lower down the food chain)
- a change of the recent UCI policy that prevents people with bans since 2011 being allowed to work as DSs etc for teams - I'd like this extended further back than 2011

Squirrelpie
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:46 am

Re: Great blog by Vaughters

Postby Squirrelpie » Mon Feb 11, 2013 09:52 am

Vaughters is correct but independent testing should be funded by all sports.
Top division football alone could easily provide enough funding without detriment to their own business's.
The anti-doping authority (of the country providing the race in question) should administer the testing.
All the agencies should have members of other countries anti-doping agencies working within them to reduce the the chance of any anti-doping agencies protecting nationals of their own country. .
An anti-doping authority only has one agenda and that's to find the cheats to protect the clean athletes.
If all sports contributed more money then there would be better testing and more agents to carry out the tests, so all sports then get regular quality testing not just cycling.

The WADA and the IOC has to put pressure on the big money sports to get the funding and to get those sports to take on board proper anti-doping testing. Cyclists are not the cause of doping products within sport like the media present. Cycling has very little income and was rather pitiful as a professional sport until more recent times.
The sports with the large wages and large paying fan-bases have been and are funding the research of designer performance enhancers. These performance enhancers are just trickling over to cycling by the so called doctors.

Its time the world woke up and saw what the truth is.

Yes cycling has always had cheats but that's the same in all walks of life including other sports.
The only reason cycling has this reputation is that it has the best anti-doping program and the cycling in general does not have the money to cover it up, just look at operation puerto.

User avatar
Macaloon
Posts: 5503
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 09:38 am

Re: Great blog by Vaughters

Postby Macaloon » Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:25 am

The big advantage of this proposal is that it addresses the future & lances the UCI corruption boil without burning the whole thing down, or relying on magical thinking (TRC). The most serious allegation against the UCI is that they connived with selected riders to evade doping controls. Assuming effective implementation, an independent testing body solves this. Another knock against testers in general is that smart docs and committed 'athletes' will always stay ahead of protocols: much more difficult if the testers have 10X the budget of richest cheats.

More funding would be great, but think Sepp Blatter wants independent oversight over his fiefdom? Maybe better to start small and expand later if successful.

I'm uncomfortably positive about this. (In same way as reading Bill McKibben explains practical measures to avoid cooking our kids. *Grabs satchel of milqetoast and heads for yoghurt weavers sanctuary.)
...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.

Squirrelpie
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:46 am

Re: Great blog by Vaughters

Postby Squirrelpie » Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:14 am

Blood passport is to be implemented in the FIFA world cup 2014.

A great start to some but looks more like posturing to the media. Blood passport takes a long time to introduce as they need to build a profile for each athlete, so introducing it to national teams at the world cup will only (most likely) result in no suspected cases. Introducing it now at club level however....

The good thing today is that the media are finally (but slowly) catching on and asking questions about the opinions on doping to athletes.

edhornby
Posts: 1765
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 09:37 am

Re: Great blog by Vaughters

Postby edhornby » Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:16 am

why not have all individuals agreeing an antidoping contract directly with the world tour? you agree personally to the independant testing and if you are caught then you are booted out of the world tour by the world tour

world tour signs contract to us the independant testers and acts on their findings

neatly sidesteps the team swapping issue because it's at the individual level
means the current shenanigans about the ban handed out by the national authority and going to CAS is avoided - that bit can happen after or alongside (or as a result of) your world tour ban
you can still go and ride with the national setup if they want you to or if a proconti team want you so there are no restraint of trade issues [EDIT:] I don't want doping anywhere but a world tour contract couldn't cover the national etc so it would still be the responsibility of the UCI to resolve this - or replicate the contract for the procontinental ?
Last edited by edhornby on Mon Feb 11, 2013 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I get paid to make other people suffer on my wheel, how good is that"
--Jens Voight

User avatar
Rick Chasey
Lives Here
Posts: 28544
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 15:34 pm

Re: Great blog by Vaughters

Postby Rick Chasey » Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:25 am

As the Aussie scandal shows doping IS linked to crime so the solution is straightforward.

Force every professional sports team, regardless of sport pay 5% of total expenditure to fighting doping and cheating. Make that a state run thing. 1/3 goes to testing the other goes into criminal policing of sports cheating.

Make it very criminal.

That'll be most effective.

User avatar
Rick Chasey
Lives Here
Posts: 28544
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 15:34 pm

Re: Great blog by Vaughters

Postby Rick Chasey » Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:26 am

All the biggest sports busts come from police impetus.

User avatar
Yellow Peril
Posts: 4401
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 08:41 am

Re: Great blog by Vaughters

Postby Yellow Peril » Mon Feb 11, 2013 19:12 pm

The problem with contracts is the lack of strict liability. Criminalisation is probably the best way forward but it generally comes with a standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt instead of the balance of probabilities in civil cases. Criminality also raises human rights issues which are a guilty persons best friend.

What would help is a no quibble enforcement of strict liability and acceptance of that by the riders. Remember the fuss and palaver in steakgate? Bertie tested positive and should have been banned straight off. The whole charade undermined the proces and enforcement of sanctions.

User avatar
iainf72
Posts: 15160
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Great blog by Vaughters

Postby iainf72 » Mon Feb 11, 2013 19:21 pm

Richmond Racer wrote:- a long period during which riders returning from bans cannot be offered contracts by any teams with UCI licence - ProTour/ProConti or Conti (Conti teams often snap up dodgy riders, only transferring the problem lower down the food chain)


You're punishing them twice then, which you can't do. Effectively you're talking about a longer ban.

And punishments aren't going to be part of any meaningful solution.
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.

Garry H
Posts: 2153
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 20:45 pm

Re: Great blog by Vaughters

Postby Garry H » Mon Feb 11, 2013 19:33 pm

iainf72 wrote:
Richmond Racer wrote:- a long period during which riders returning from bans cannot be offered contracts by any teams with UCI licence - ProTour/ProConti or Conti (Conti teams often snap up dodgy riders, only transferring the problem lower down the food chain)


You're punishing them twice then, which you can't do. Effectively you're talking about a longer ban.

And punishments aren't going to be part of any meaningful solution.


Agree with the first sentence, but what about making any doper returning from a ban inelligible for any points during their first season back?

Surely the punishment has to form part of any meaningful solution...

User avatar
No tA Doctor
Posts: 5483
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 11:37 am
Contact:

Re: Great blog by Vaughters

Postby No tA Doctor » Mon Feb 11, 2013 20:12 pm

Garry H wrote:
iainf72 wrote:
Richmond Racer wrote:- a long period during which riders returning from bans cannot be offered contracts by any teams with UCI licence - ProTour/ProConti or Conti (Conti teams often snap up dodgy riders, only transferring the problem lower down the food chain)


You're punishing them twice then, which you can't do. Effectively you're talking about a longer ban.

And punishments aren't going to be part of any meaningful solution.


Agree with the first sentence, but what about making any doper returning from a ban inelligible for any points during their first season back?

Surely the punishment has to form part of any meaningful solution...


As fans we might like punishments, but they aren't actually deterrents.

In the 90s young cyclists were dying from EPO abuse, but they didn't stop doping. That's pretty much the biggest punishment I can think of. Fact is, they don't think they'll get caught, like teenagers racing a souped up car don't think they'll ever crash. It's something that happens to other people.

Edit: I do quite like the idea of a points penalty for riders returning from bans though. Say they only earn half points for a couple of seasons, then 75% for the rest of their careers. That's could be an incentive for teams to try and hire clean riders.
“Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

@DrHeadgear

Steve Abraham's attempt at the year record

User avatar
EKIMIKE
Posts: 2209
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 16:19 pm

Re: Great blog by Vaughters

Postby EKIMIKE » Mon Feb 11, 2013 20:20 pm

Well, seems like there are several different things being talking about different things here. Vaughters is talking about drug testing. Some of the discussion here is about punishment for doping. Two entirely different things.

Punishment entails a focus on the drugs supply itself. In which case perhaps something ex-ante (before the event, prevention) rather than ex-post (after the event, punishment) would be better. Tightening up the outward supply lines of big pharma my be the way to go. Strict accounting of supply would make identifying black market trade easier in theory. At the moment it seems fairly liberal and lacking in regulation. That story about Amgen and Johnson & Johnson is a good example. It's quite a high ideal but if you're going to find the funding for something like this, big pharma isn't a bad shout (the level of funding is hardly profit destroying). Think of it as a 'polluter pays' initiative.

Maybe? Like I said though, it's a high ideal. Doubt it would ever happen.

At any rate it beats criminalisation considering the jurisdictional nightmare that is international sport. Or international law for anything for that matter.

User avatar
EKIMIKE
Posts: 2209
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 16:19 pm

Re: Great blog by Vaughters

Postby EKIMIKE » Mon Feb 11, 2013 20:26 pm

Also forgot to mention, testing would still require a prominent position.

You could look at it from the perspective that if you get big pharma onside in terms of supply then you're more likely to get them onside for testing, particularly developing tests. That would be massive. Afterall, that is where the knowledge is.

deejay
Posts: 2958
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 17:47 pm

Re: Great blog by Vaughters

Postby deejay » Mon Feb 11, 2013 21:16 pm

RichN95 wrote:
(Can you guess what I do for a living?)
Patent Examiner is the correct answer.
Where do you do that. ?
In Holborn, London perhaps, or has it moved to Wales now. ?

I was very close in the Cycling World to Dixie Dean of the Bec CC and he did the same job at Holborn.
He taught me a lot about Handicapping and Timekeeping.
I'll get my coat.

User avatar
RichN95
Posts: 15965
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 00:36 am

Re: Great blog by Vaughters

Postby RichN95 » Mon Feb 11, 2013 21:24 pm

deejay wrote:
RichN95 wrote:
(Can you guess what I do for a living?)
Patent Examiner is the correct answer.
Where do you do that. ?
In Holborn, London perhaps, or has it moved to Wales now. ?

It moved to Newport over twenty years ago.
Twitter: @RichN95

micron
Posts: 1834
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 16:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Great blog by Vaughters

Postby micron » Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:58 am

The UCI attempted to implement a 2 year ban from teams signing riders returning from a suspension - as iainf points out, it wasn't compliant with WADA code. Instead, perhaps, a probationary period where riders submit to additional testing?

I don't think Vaughters abandons the 'magical thinking' of TRC in this piece at all - as a long time and very vocal supporter of a T&R process, why would he? He embeds the idea of 'truth' at the core of his plans to move the sport forward. Question is, how do you get at the 'truth'?

User avatar
Macaloon
Posts: 5503
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 09:38 am

Re: Great blog by Vaughters

Postby Macaloon » Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:35 pm

micron wrote:I don't think Vaughters abandons the 'magical thinking' of TRC in this piece at all ...


Team Independent Test Squad is surely completely decoupled from any TRC. It's a practical means to free today's riders from today's compromised testing regime, and its' sketchy administrators. Meanwhile, completely in parallel, those who can handle the truth can have at it. The rest of us can enjoy the racing with slightly more confidence.
...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.

micron
Posts: 1834
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 16:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Great blog by Vaughters

Postby micron » Tue Feb 12, 2013 13:00 pm

Of course independent testing is uncoupled from TRC - he's outlining the road map for what happens after that process. He seems to be as committed to it as ever though, of course it's not a) a magic bullet b) infallible and c) the devile most certainly in the details (though the USADA draft outline plan was simple enough to implement). Personally, I'd like to see the anti doping fund being contributed to by all sports - let tennis and football and all the rest contribute to paying for the testing innovations a much poorer sport, owning up to its past, have instituted.

User avatar
Yellow Peril
Posts: 4401
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 08:41 am

Re: Great blog by Vaughters

Postby Yellow Peril » Tue Feb 12, 2013 18:56 pm

EKIMIKE wrote:Well, seems like there are several different things being talking about different things here. Vaughters is talking about drug testing. Some of the discussion here is about punishment for doping. Two entirely different things.

Punishment entails a focus on the drugs supply itself. In which case perhaps something ex-ante (before the event, prevention) rather than ex-post (after the event, punishment) would be better. Tightening up the outward supply lines of big pharma my be the way to go. Strict accounting of supply would make identifying black market trade easier in theory. At the moment it seems fairly liberal and lacking in regulation. That story about Amgen and Johnson & Johnson is a good example. It's quite a high ideal but if you're going to find the funding for something like this, big pharma isn't a bad shout (the level of funding is hardly profit destroying). Think of it as a 'polluter pays' initiative.

Maybe? Like I said though, it's a high ideal. Doubt it would ever happen.

I can't agree with this Ekimike. If I manufacture something that is say a licensed cure for cancer and it also turns out it is a PED I don't see why I should be held accountable if a person or persons unknown get their hands on it and use it as such.

Who is at fault in that situation If however I start knocking it out like lucozade then I would accept som eform of accountability. Big Pharma should not necessarily be held accountable for the actions of others, there has to be a reasonable level of culpability. The end users are grown ups and capable of distinguishing between right and wrong.

At any rate it beats criminalisation considering the jurisdictional nightmare that is international sport. Or international law for anything for that matter.

User avatar
Dave_1
Posts: 9319
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 16:04 pm

Re: Great blog by Vaughters

Postby Dave_1 » Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:09 am

JV1973 is the real JV I take it...if so saying some noteworthy stuff down in the clinic. Anyone had a look? e.g.




Originally Posted by JV1973
I play the long game. The slow, uncool, uninspired and sometimes hated, long game. Someday that story will be told in its entirety.
I wish, too, I could just hit the gates of Aigle with a bazooka. Trust me.


________________________________________


#3402
Today, 05:35 JV1973 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 460

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galic Ho, When did either Wiggins or Cadel win the Dauphine twice? They've both won it once, the same year they won the Tour. Cadel tried numerous times to win to no avail. It wasn't through lack of trying on his behalf. More likely that Valverde wasn't there to deny him AGAIN. Edit: my bad...I thought Evans won it in 2011. Your point stands Blackcat. But I was referring to the years before either won a GT. Pre 2011. But it doesn't matter.

Agree on the other part though. Doesn't need to go as hard as he did because of the family side. I think all of BMC had an easy 2012, but more so because of team orders stemming from USADA's work. They had funded Floyd for years hadn't they? Is BMC's team license in the States or Europe?
ahhhh....Phonak... home of "I didn't know he was transfusing himself during the Tour...while I was directing/managing."

If I ever say "I didn't know!" please, look up my address and come and shoot me. I will make sure legal repercussions are minimized.

Thanks, JV



Return to “Pro Race”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cneifion, ContrelaMontre, Dabber, DeadCalm, Graeme_S, Grantmk, Mercia Man, RichN95, Ridgerider, RonB, zebulebu and 27 guests