UCI IC 2

Talk about competitive road cycling in all its forms
User avatar
iainf72
Posts: 15162
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:59 pm

UCI IC 2

Postby iainf72 » Tue Feb 11, 2014 15:57 pm

They really may as well have put the money it's costing in a suitcase and thrown it in the river for all the use it's going to be.

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDe ... LangId%3D1
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.

User avatar
TheBigBean
Posts: 3086
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 14:42 pm

Re: UCI IC 2

Postby TheBigBean » Tue Feb 11, 2014 16:01 pm

Not a fan then?

Richmond Racer
Posts: 8475
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 17:11 pm

Re: UCI IC 2

Postby Richmond Racer » Tue Feb 11, 2014 17:43 pm

I'm with Iain.

UCI should give me the 3m instead to buy a place I saw in Deia this morning. I'll promise to sponsor a local amateur team and it'll do more good for cycling's future than this.

User avatar
Above The Cows
Posts: 7133
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:37 pm

Re: UCI IC 2

Postby Above The Cows » Tue Feb 11, 2014 18:47 pm

Deia? That place has crazy prices. Madness. Beautiful place don't get me wrong but crazy house prices!

Sorry totally off-topic Spanish property price whinge.

Hey but if the UCI won't front you the money RR, you could always set up some sort of support fund for someone or other on PayPal.
Correlation is not causation.

"He's not the new Merckx, he's just a very talented cyclist!"

Richmond Racer
Posts: 8475
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 17:11 pm

Re: UCI IC 2

Postby Richmond Racer » Tue Feb 11, 2014 19:44 pm

Above The Cows wrote:Deia? That place has crazy prices. Madness. Beautiful place don't get me wrong but crazy house prices!

Sorry totally off-topic Spanish property price whinge.

Hey but if the UCI won't front you the money RR, you could always set up some sort of support fund for someone or other on PayPal.



Hmmm...*strokes chin in deep thinking manner*

User avatar
RichN95
Posts: 15982
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 00:36 am

Re: UCI IC 2

Postby RichN95 » Tue Feb 11, 2014 19:53 pm

Whose idea was all this in the first place? Who actually asked for it?
Twitter: @RichN95

Gethinceri
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 19:06 pm

Re: UCI IC 2

Postby Gethinceri » Tue Feb 11, 2014 20:09 pm

^ anybody to whom this applies I guess:
The CIRC will have the authority to propose reduced sanctions to any License Holder [e.g. riders, officials, agents, organisers, team staff etc] who admit to Anti-Doping Rules Violations [ADRVs]

User avatar
TakeTheHighRoad
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:14 am

Re: UCI IC 2

Postby TakeTheHighRoad » Tue Feb 11, 2014 21:29 pm

Gethinceri wrote:^ anybody to whom this applies I guess:
The CIRC will have the authority to propose reduced sanctions to any License Holder [e.g. riders, officials, agents, organisers, team staff etc] who admit to Anti-Doping Rules Violations [ADRVs]


So you can stay in blissful anonymity and keep your comfy job commentating/presenting/DSing/whatever else without being banned, or tarnish your reputation by naming names, all for a reduced ban?

I know which one I'd choose
My Men 2016 - Cav, Swifty, Tomekke, Valv, Eddy Bos, Spartacus, Styby, Nibbles, G.

User avatar
TheBigBean
Posts: 3086
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 14:42 pm

Re: UCI IC 2

Postby TheBigBean » Tue Feb 11, 2014 22:21 pm

I think it needs to be done for two reasons:
1. The greatest deterrent to doping is the fear of being caught. It doesn't matter when the person is caught.
2. They might actually find something that relates to high level officials or high profile individuals that will improve the sport.

User avatar
RichN95
Posts: 15982
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 00:36 am

Re: UCI IC 2

Postby RichN95 » Tue Feb 11, 2014 22:31 pm

TheBigBean wrote:I think it needs to be done for two reasons:
1. The greatest deterrent to doping is the fear of being caught. It doesn't matter when the person is caught.
2. They might actually find something that relates to high level officials or high profile individuals that will improve the sport.

But:
1. This is unlikely to catch anyone. They would be better of spending half the $3m on retroactive testing and holding the other half for similar testing in future. They'll catch more people that way than asking people to own up.
and
2. They'll get more information from leveraging people caught due to my point 1.

This sort of reminds be of when police forces have a gun amnesty. They always seem to get an array of antique muskets and rifles from middle-class couples and not many semi-automatics from drug dealers.
Twitter: @RichN95

User avatar
TheBigBean
Posts: 3086
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 14:42 pm

Re: UCI IC 2

Postby TheBigBean » Tue Feb 11, 2014 22:45 pm

Valid points Rich and I'm all for retroactive testing. That would also be better than lobbing the money in a river.

Taking your analogy one step further, I think the idea (in this case) is to find out who supplied the middle class couples the guns. They are more likely to do this by offering an amnesty.

Take for example Kloden*. He should be given two indirect choices: tell the truth as part of the amnesty or risk the truth materialising when everyone else uses the amnesty. Clearly the game theory approach would be for no riders to talk, but I'm confident they are not game theorists. Maybe you need to throw in some retroactive tests just to up the fear levels.

*For the purposes of this I'm assuming he doped. He hasn't failed...

User avatar
Joelsim
Posts: 5374
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 23:25 pm
Contact:

Re: UCI IC 2

Postby Joelsim » Tue Feb 11, 2014 23:00 pm

They should have a total amnesty. Draw a line, learn and move forward. They were (mostly) all at it, no-one's fault, just the way it has been. And IMO there is still much to be done.

There is absolutely no point in penalising people for the past when it was so totally ingrained in the culture.

Penalise people from this point on. Big time.
My men 2016: Kung, Meintjes, MA Lopez, Betancur, A Yates, S Yates, Gaviria, Taaramae. Bonus: Teunissen

www.catsittersw17.co.uk

User avatar
RichN95
Posts: 15982
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 00:36 am

Re: UCI IC 2

Postby RichN95 » Tue Feb 11, 2014 23:18 pm

TheBigBean wrote:Valid points Rich and I'm all for retroactive testing. That would also be better than lobbing the money in a river.

Taking your analogy one step further, I think the idea (in this case) is to find out who supplied the middle class couples the guns. They are more likely to do this by offering an amnesty.

Take for example Kloden*. He should be given two indirect choices: tell the truth as part of the amnesty or risk the truth materialising when everyone else uses the amnesty. Clearly the game theory approach would be for no riders to talk, but I'm confident they are not game theorists. Maybe you need to throw in some retroactive tests just to up the fear levels.

Yeah, I've said before that this process would be helped by the announcement of retroactive testing (even if it's a bluff). But as it is there's no leverage. Dopers have been dealing with risk of being exposed all along. They'll keep with the risk, even if they've long since quit using. (And Kloden's a bad example, Pantani will talk before he does)

And as for my gun amnesty analogy - it wasn't meant to be taken too far. I just remember seeing pictures like this and thinking they don't look like the sort of guns I see gangs use in the movies:

Image
Twitter: @RichN95

User avatar
RichN95
Posts: 15982
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 00:36 am

Re: UCI IC 2

Postby RichN95 » Tue Feb 11, 2014 23:22 pm

One thing I hope from CIRC is that Flecha, de Gendt, Poels, Hoogerland and Westra all testify.

I've always wanted to see CIRC du Vacansoleil
Last edited by RichN95 on Wed Feb 12, 2014 13:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Twitter: @RichN95

User avatar
Crankbrother
Posts: 1678
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 21:42 pm

Re: UCI IC 2

Postby Crankbrother » Tue Feb 11, 2014 23:26 pm

Retro testing creates a very un-level playing field for past champions ...

Not every winner is able to be tested due to there being no samples to test, so riders like Hinault, Big-Mig and Lemond (I use Lemond as an example because he raced against, and bested, self confessed dopers) can live without fear of losing titles, regardless of what may or may not have been going on ...

Also, not every federation treats doping offences the same ...

User avatar
RichN95
Posts: 15982
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 00:36 am

Re: UCI IC 2

Postby RichN95 » Tue Feb 11, 2014 23:33 pm

Crankbrother wrote:Retro testing creates a very un-level playing field for past champions ...

Not every winner is able to be tested due to there being no samples to test, so riders like Hinault, Big-Mig and Lemond (I use Lemond as an example because he raced against, and bested, self confessed dopers) can live without fear of losing titles, regardless of what may or may not have been going on ...

They're all outside the statute of limitations (by at least a decade). I don't think they're going to be getting a pro contract any time soon. They're a job for historians.
Twitter: @RichN95

User avatar
Crankbrother
Posts: 1678
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 21:42 pm

Re: UCI IC 2

Postby Crankbrother » Tue Feb 11, 2014 23:38 pm

Yet we had stories of positives from the '99 Tour ... Mud sticks ... It would be nice to see some of the past champions wash some of it from their glass houses ...

User avatar
RichN95
Posts: 15982
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 00:36 am

Re: UCI IC 2

Postby RichN95 » Wed Feb 12, 2014 00:07 am

Crankbrother wrote:Yet we had stories of positives from the '99 Tour ... Mud sticks ... It would be nice to see some of the past champions wash some of it from their glass houses ...

Like who?
Twitter: @RichN95

User avatar
knedlicky
Posts: 2571
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 08:43 am

Re: UCI IC 2

Postby knedlicky » Wed Feb 12, 2014 00:54 am

It seems very naïve to me - they want people to voluntarily step forward out of the blue to grass on others, and probably denounce themselves too (in return for a vague hint - not even a promise - that they may get reduced sentences).

Perhaps if they also promised some the budgetted 3 million to beanspillers ….

Anyway, if “members of the CIRC will operate on a completely independent basis” and
“investigations will be on a strictly confidential basis” (quotes from the press release), why are they at all even mentioning sanctions for those who admit doping?

And then there’s the matter of proving that what these 'crown witnesses' relate is true.

Richmond Racer
Posts: 8475
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 17:11 pm

Re: UCI IC 2

Postby Richmond Racer » Wed Feb 12, 2014 01:07 am

Witness statements would have to be corroborated. If you have witness A claiming that witness B did naughties eg administered doping products to other riders, but witness B denies, it's just 1 person's word against another. And no 'conviction'.

Mind you, this could all be a windfall for lawyers. I'd better start looking up websites offering law degrees from the University of Nowheresville, for just $7,999 plus p&p

If i had left the sport and had done naughties, I'd keep shtum. If I'd stayed in the sport, I'd still keep shtum.
I'd totally take the risk on being outed by several people and it sticking, rather than out myself.


Return to “Pro Race”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bobmcstuff, djhermer, tforonda and 17 guests