Is the UCI tide turning ............

biker_joe

McQuaid must be feeling the pressure !!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-acknowledges-accepting-armstrong-donation-a-mistake


Joe

Lumen

He said in that Irish radio interview that the payment was made in 2005, in direct refutation of the Landis allegation about 2001/02.

Now apparently he has "embarrassingly admitted that despite promising the $100,000 in April of 2002, Armstrong only paid up in 2005 after the UCI sent him a reminder of payment.".

Weasel.

Chips Lovell

That's a serious about face by McQuaid. He's gone from essentially saying Landis is a liar to announcing that these accusations are going to be taken seriously.

The UCI's credibility is begining to look shot and it's not like it was very strong in the first place. If all of this pans out, then it's going to need a serious house cleaning.

petethedrummer

I don't think there's any room left under the carpet for this scandal.

Junior

This indicates McQuaid might know right from wrong, I don't believe he does, he only seems to know which way the wind blows in the court of public opinion.

blorg

He also jumped in to misreprent Landis regarding the "2002" Tour de Suisse UCI bribe allegation.

The entire media sucked that one up while it is clear if you actually read the email that Landis is reporting that he was TOLD of this in 2002, not that it occured in 2002.

Landis wrote:

2002: [...] Mr Armstrong was not witness to the extraction but he and I had lengthy discussions about it on our training rides during which time he also explained to me the evolution of EPO testing and how transfusions were now necessary due to the inconvenience of the new test. He also divulged to me at that time that in the first year that the EPO test was used he had been told by Mr Ferrari, who had access to the new test, that he should not use EPO anymore but he did not believe Mr Farrari and continued to use it. He later, while winning the Tour de Swiss, the month before the Tour de France, tested positive for EPO at which point he and Mr Bruyneel flew to the UCI headquarters and made a financial agreement with Mr. Vrubrugen to keep the positive test hidden.

Tonto I think was the first to notice this on this forum. The email reads clearly enough to me yet the media has lapped up the line from Armstrong and the UCI that Landis claimed Armstrong did this in 2002. Complete misdirection.

penexpers

Realistically, the only way for the UCI to regain any credibility is to disband and reform.

Chips Lovell

Junior wrote: »

This indicates McQuaid might know right from wrong, I don't believe he does, he only seems to know which way the wind blows in the court of public opinion.

This is my main fear about the UCI, that they are not serious about cleaning up the sport and instead only do something if public opinion demands it of them.

Junior

el tonto wrote: »

This is my main fear about the UCI, that they are not serious about cleaning up the sport and instead only do something if public opinion demands it of them.

It's exactly my fear as well, they are seen to be doing justice rather than actually doing justice. Fer instance yer honour, McQuaid calls out Landis on the timing of his allegations, UCI pull three riders, one a Giro favourite only a few days before the Giro.

Landis is outrightly branded a liar without due justice or investigation, McQuaid brands Pellozitti a cheat due to suspect blood values which only 3 of the 9 man committee agree on, again seen to be doing the right thing rather than actually doing it. Yet he says nothing on Frei and his admissions, because it could call into question the validity of the whole blood passport program.

We are at a crossover point where we are still going to be getting returning dopers, so we need to do more to make either them prove their status with the public, plus we need to get over this they never should be allowed back in, we don’t work in a world of black and white, we have a culture ingrained in cycling that’s slow to change, once we’ve moved on from this point in a few years then they can look at increasing penalties on first time offenders etc so that they are effectively banned for life.

1 – A large scale on bans, stretching from a couple of months to five years for first offence, a five year ban for someone who’s 29/30 which should be their prime puts them out of the game for good I’d think ?

2- Analysis – Everybody that is caught doping needs to sit down with a specialist and do a full debrief on how/why/how much they were doing, if we are to learn more on the poachers. We need to some poachers to turn game keeper, if they don’t co-operate with the anaylsis of what they’ve done, it’s an extra 6 months

3 – Rehab – These people have committed an offence against everyone else in the Peleton, banning them serves to change their attitude not one bit, bar maybe the fact that next time they’ll be more careful next time to get caught. If they agree to their ban, and they want to return to cycling they need to work thru a rehab program set out by a Doctor, psychotherapist and they also need to do some work such as travelling to schools, working with cycling clubs to educate people. They need to see the error in their ways and be lead along the right path. Again if you don’t submit to it, it’s an extra 6 months

4- Therapy – For years Dopers were seen as the lower end of the scale of riders, they were never the big guns they were the little guy that needed to take something to survive and to make the few quid to get thru, but that changed with EPO as we all well know, it turned midfield rides into winners, which bred a new doper, who’s talent wouldn’t allow him to win at all costs but dope made that next step possible. Take Ricco as an example, he’s an arrogant self centred bollix, who’s only gratification is winning, he saw nothing wrong in what he did, the way he cheated us all out of a true spectacle that is a clean win on the TdF, in my eyes he dopes because he wants to win that much, he will take any given chance to win. This isn’t good, this is where a doper needs to get this looked at, this mental attitude needs to be change that to win it’s ok to dope. It isn’t, and never was, you cheat yourself and us if you do. I don’t know what form this will take but it’s something that needs to be looked at to help change that mental attitude. Again if you don’t submit to it, it’s an extra 6 months

Am I barking up the wrong tree to thing these simple things are possible to be done in cycling ?

I think the UCI is an organisation needs a full clear out as well from top to bottom, idiotic rules like restricting 1 competitor per event in the olympics is so retarded it's not funny, these are the same idiots that are in charge of the anti doping policies we want implemented.

Bluefoam

I notice he mentions that landis is under investigation for his remarks, but no mention of Armstrong or others being investigated

irishmotorist

Who does McQuaid answer to...or is it anybody? For such an about turn in his comments, I don't believe that it's because he's realised the error of his attitude. I can only think that somebody who can pull his strings told him to change the view. Could it be the anti-doping organisations who may have told him that it was more serious than just a case of calling the looney van for Landis and waiting for the story to disappear?

ROK ON

Throwing this one out here. Why not incentivise whistle-blowers. Could be complete immunity to a ban on full pay etc.
The whistle-blower must name names that are worthwhile, ie DS, doctors, road captains, trainers, dealers, labs whatever.

petethedrummer

ROK ON wrote: »

Throwing this one out here. Why not incentivise whistle-blowers. Could be complete immunity to a ban on full pay etc.
The whistle-blower must name names that are worthwhile, ie DS, doctors, road captains, trainers, dealers, labs whatever.

Floyd has already though about it.

From: floyd landis
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 10:23 AM
To: Andrew Messick; Eric at Bahi Foundation; Brent Kay
Subject: Opportunities

Hey Andrew,
Thanks for facilitating the meeting with USADA, I met with them on Tuesday in LA but kept the other riders anonymous for the moment because I'm trying to negotiate amnesty for the guys that want to clear their conscience but I did admit to what I've done and offered to help make the testing better with my knowledge............snip

nonameguy

I know this is really going to stir the s**t. I have no problem with professional athletes using drugs for whatever sport they are competing in. And before all the sanctimonious twats start getting all indignant, just remember it's the public that have put the athletes under pressure to use drugs. We want records broken, we want our favourite to win. So how do you think that makes the competitor feel. Pro athletes are at the top. Drugs are a way of competing better and if they all do it, how is that cheating? You would expect anyone paid to do a job to use the best tools or resorces available to make sure the work was done to the highest standards, so why not athletes? We don't need bans and sanctions, what is needed is regulation with acceptable limits and monitoring. Discuss that!

Lumen

@nonameguy: the "let them dope" argument is trotted out regularly (I may have even raised it once) but it doesn't stack up.

Would you want your children involved in a sport where they're effectively forced to take very unhealthy drugs to compete? These drugs aren't just banned because they're performance enhancing, they can cause serious long term health problems.

At what stage should the drugs start? When they turn pro? When they reach puberty?

Madness.

Orizio

el tonto wrote: »

The UCI's credibility is begining to look shot

Beginning?

Hermy

el tonto wrote: »

This is my main fear about the UCI, that they are not serious about cleaning up the sport and instead only do something if public opinion demands it of them.

But isn't that the way with all political institutions.
God, he [McQuaid] would be right at home in the Dail.

petethedrummer

nonameguy wrote: »

We want records broken, we want our favourite to win.

Thats a bit of a generalisation.

nonameguy wrote: »

So how do you think that makes the competitor feel. Pro athletes are at the top. Drugs are a way of competing better and if they all do it, how is that cheating?

Some athletes work out exclusive deals with the top doping doctors to get the best treatment. It costs alot of money for a good medical program, so there's no fairness in that.

nonameguy wrote: »

You would expect anyone paid to do a job to use the best tools or resorces available to make sure the work was done to the highest standards, so why not athletes?

Should it be the case where athletes are given the green light to use:

Clenbuterol - which has been banned for human use by the FDA (its for horses with breathing difficulties),
HGH - which promotes chin, skull and foot growth and which was extracted from cadavers in the 80s and used by body builders.
Autologous blood transfusions - which involves the athlete donating several litres of blood at a time, spinning it in a centrifuge, storing it at correct temperatures to avoid clotting, then re-infusing it close to race time.
Blood transfusions from others - having the added risk of infection if not properly screened.
Any non-FDA approved drug that athletes are told will give them a performance edge once they stay with in the parameters.

Something about that makes me feel uneasy and thats not even taking into consideration what happens when you go crazy on the juice.

nonameguy wrote: »

We don't need bans and sanctions, what is needed is regulation with acceptable limits and monitoring. Discuss that!

That is essentially what the Bio Passport is.

I would entirely disagree with your viewpoint, but sure there's no harm in talking it through.

nonameguy

@Lumen:- at puberty is just being facetious. Of course, when they turn pro, thats why I mentioned regulation and monitoring. As for long term damage......nothings shown up yet. Things have come a long way since poor Tommy Simpson died, when the attitude would have been, if this much can do this then what can two or three times the amount do. And dont use the children arguement, its up to us as parents to watch over them. During 5 years of athletics my son only managed to get 1 redbull down his neck. A warning was given which was heeded.
@petethedrummer:- fair enough.

Things have come a long way in the past 30 years.

Lumen

nonameguy wrote: »

As for long term damage......nothings shown up yet.

EPO, HGH and testosterone (to pick three common ones) all significantly increase cancer risks. These are known risk factors from proper clinical trials.

You can't just screw around with the human endocrine system without side effects.

nonameguy

.
@petethedrummer:- fair enough. Things have come a long way in the past 30 years though. As I said before REGULATION AND MONITORING is the only way drug use can be curtailed. And this will only happen when the sporting bodies genuinely care about athletes health and welfare and not the sponsor's image. Never took EPO so I cant comment on that

petethedrummer

nonameguy wrote: »

@petethedrummer:- fair enough. Things have come a long way in the past 30 years though. As I said before REGULATION AND MONITORING is the only way drug use can be curtailed. And this will only happen when the sporting bodies genuinely care about athletes health and welfare and not the sponsor's image. Never took EPO so I cant comment on that

I know what you're saying and we're eventually gonna end up with roughly the same position, that all the authorities can do is try to minimize doping so noone dies and its as level a playing field as possible. But why say its ok to dope once you're within limits? That gives athletes license to try all sorts of unapproved drugs and dodgy medical procedures once they stay within parameters.

I've been fairly interested in doping in sports since as a 10 year old I saw my hero for that week Ben Johnson being done. Its fairly mental what people will do in order to win. Such as the urine in the condom up the bum trick, Pollentier's home made urinary system, the act of transfusing blood and taking so much epo your heart rate monitor is connected to an alarm so you don't die in your sleep.

Murph100

McQuaid should be made step down, he is beyond pathetic, he is an embarrassment to this country, just like the clowns in the Dáil. :mad:

Bluefoam

nonameguy wrote: »

@Lumen:- at puberty is just being facetious. Of course, when they turn pro, thats why I mentioned regulation and monitoring. As for long term damage......nothings shown up yet. Things have come a long way since poor Tommy Simpson died, when the attitude would have been, if this much can do this then what can two or three times the amount do. And dont use the children arguement, its up to us as parents to watch over them. During 5 years of athletics my son only managed to get 1 redbull down his neck. A warning was given which was heeded.
@petethedrummer:- fair enough. Things have come a long way in the past 30 years.

I knew a guy who was captain of his senior cup rugby team. He was taking 'stuff' given to him by his coach & turned extremely violent....

TinyExplosions

nonameguy wrote: »

what is needed is regulation with acceptable limits and monitoring. Discuss that!

That is essentially what the 50% haematocrit level is in cycling at the moment. The biggest problem with the regulation argument is that you still need testing to ensure that people aren't going over the regulated limit, which leads you back to the same situation we're in now... in my view it'd be easier to say "any HGH, EPO etc" in your blood is not allowed, rather than having to figure out acceptable levels for each rider based on their individual bloodwork.

The only way allowing doping in any shape or form to exist would be to just stop testing completely and give everyone carte blanche to do as they please, which would most likely lead to a lot more deaths of athletes

Lumen

TinyExplosions wrote: »

in my view it'd be easier to say "any HGH, EPO etc" in your blood is not allowed, rather than having to figure out acceptable levels for each rider based on their individual bloodwork.

The 50% level excludes riders with higher levels from competing, but is not taken as proof of doping. Neither is a suspicious passport, AIUI. The blood values are used to target a rider for further tests. In theory, once you're on the hit list you have to go clean because they test you so often.

stuf

from http://www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/epo.html

NEJM is the New England Journal of Medicine

Ref(1) – Tainted Glory – Doping and Athletic Performance. Noakes, TD. NEJM. 351:9. Aug.26. 2004

Why is EPO dangerous?
The reason that EPO, and transfusion blood doping, is dangerous is because of increased blood viscosity. Basically, whole blood consists of red blood cells and plasma (water, proteins, etc.). The percentage of whole blood that is occupied by the red blood cells is referred to as, the hematocrit. A low hematocrit means dilute (thin) blood, and a high hematocrit mean concentrated (thick) blood. Above a certain hematocrit level whole blood can sludge and clog capillaries. If this happens in the brain it results in a stroke. In the heart, a heart attack. Unfortunately, this has happened to several elite athletes who have used EPO.

EPO use is especially dangerous to athletes who exercise over prolonged periods. A well-conditioned endurance athlete is more dehydration resistant than a sedentary individual. The body accomplishes this by several methods, but one key component is to “hold on” to more water at rest. Circulating whole blood is one location in which this occurs and, thus, can function as a water reservoir. During demanding exercise, as fluid losses mount, water is shifted out of the blood stream (hematocrit rises). If one is already starting with an artificially elevated hematocrit then you can begin to see the problem -- it is a short trip to the critical “sludge zone”.

Additional dangers of EPO include sudden death during sleep, which has killed approximately 18 pro cyclists in the past fifteen years, and the development of antibodies directed against EPO. In this later circumstance the individual develops anemia as a result of the body’s reaction against repeated EPO injections.

Lumen

It's also dangerous to drink ten litres of orange juice.

biker_joe

"Additional dangers of EPO include sudden death during sleep, which has killed approximately 18 pro cyclists in the past fifteen years, and the development of antibodies directed against EPO. In this later circumstance the individual develops anemia as a result of the body’s reaction against repeated EPO injections."

Should n't that read .....
"In this later circumstance the individual develops Amnesia as a result of the body’s reaction against repeated EPO injections." :eek:

Billy Whizz

Lumen wrote: »

The 50% level excludes riders with higher levels from competing, but is not taken as proof of doping. Neither is a suspicious passport, AIUI. The blood values are used to target a rider for further tests. In theory, once you're on the hit list you have to go clean because they test you so often.

Some riders have naturally occuring haematocrit levels above 50% and so frequently come in at "illegal" levels.

Lumen

Billy Whizz wrote: »

Some riders have naturally occuring haematocrit levels above 50% and so frequently come in at "illegal" levels.

OK, but...

RobFowl wrote: »

I see alot of blood results including elite cylists and have never (yes never) seen one abouve 46%.

Billy Whizz

Sorry, I suppose the sarcasm didn't come across...

ROK ON

In several blood test undertaken this year my hct varies between 46 and 49%. I asked my GP about this and he said it was not unusual.
I am a fat lazy bast*rd that goes out of my way to avoid exertion.

blorg

TinyExplosions wrote: »

in my view it'd be easier to say "any HGH, EPO etc" in your blood is not allowed, rather than having to figure out acceptable levels for each rider based on their individual bloodwork.

I think the problem is that some blood doping is effectively undetectable so all they have to go on is the haematocrit levels. There is no accepted test for autologous transfusions for example.

leftism

nonameguy wrote: »

I know this is really going to stir the s**t. I have no problem with professional athletes using drugs for whatever sport they are competing in. And before all the sanctimonious twats start getting all indignant, just remember it's the public that have put the athletes under pressure to use drugs. We want records broken, we want our favourite to win. So how do you think that makes the competitor feel. Pro athletes are at the top. Drugs are a way of competing better and if they all do it, how is that cheating? You would expect anyone paid to do a job to use the best tools or resorces available to make sure the work was done to the highest standards, so why not athletes? We don't need bans and sanctions, what is needed is regulation with acceptable limits and monitoring. Discuss that!

Argue that one with Tom Simpson's relatives. Or Pantani's for that matter. Or my ex-coach who is now looking for a kidney transplant because of the amount of crap the doctors were giving him before the Soviet system came down...

Drugs r bad mkay?

Orizio

nonameguy wrote: »

I know this is really going to stir the s**t. I have no problem with professional athletes using drugs for whatever sport they are competing in. And before all the sanctimonious twats start getting all indignant, just remember it's the public that have put the athletes under pressure to use drugs. We want records broken, we want our favourite to win. So how do you think that makes the competitor feel. Pro athletes are at the top. Drugs are a way of competing better and if they all do it, how is that cheating? You would expect anyone paid to do a job to use the best tools or resorces available to make sure the work was done to the highest standards, so why not athletes? We don't need bans and sanctions, what is needed is regulation with acceptable limits and monitoring. Discuss that!

Because (A) drugs do short term and long term physical and mental damage and (B) different cyclists would react differently to drugs, so even if they were all given the same amount of the same drug legally the performance effects would be different. Plus, people could and would still dope illegally to get an edge.

So, nothing would change - other then the cyclists health and life expectancy.

bbosco

Lumen wrote: »

It's also dangerous to drink ten litres of orange juice.

Not really an apt comparison. You'd probably have puked most of the OJ back up by the time you got the 3rd litre.

Wibbs

Orizio wrote: »

Because (A) drugs do short term and long term physical and mental damage and (B) different cyclists would react differently to drugs, so even if they were all given the same amount of the same drug legally the performance effects would be different. Plus, people could and would still dope illegally to get an edge.

So, nothing would change - other then the cyclists health and life expectancy.

Very much so. From what Ive read on the subject and indeed what a couple of people have told me about steroid use, the effects and results can vary wildly. The same drug regimen on two athletes could have wildly different effects on performance. It so depends on the individual. I have high testosterone to the degree I required tests as they were concerned it might be a pitutary problem and I'm positively scrawny, couldnt grow a full beard until into my 20's and couldnt follow one of those guys up the alp d huez no matter what training I had at my peak. The same levels taken by someone with average test would likely bulk them up. It's so variable.

bbosco wrote: »

Not really an apt comparison. You'd probably have puked most of the OJ back up by the time you got the 3rd litre.

I think Lumen is referring to the time a certain Dr Ferrari claimed that EPO was no dangerous than drinking 10 litres of OJ.

bbosco

Wibbs wrote: »

I think Lumen is referring to the time a certain Dr Ferrari claimed that EPO was no dangerous than drinking 10 litres of OJ.

Ah of course.

Slideshowbob

More Bike Pure sceptics ..........

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=7857&page=2

Junior

Slideshowbob wrote: »

More Bike Pure sceptics ..........

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=7857&page=2

Anything and everything on that forum should be taken with a large pinch of salt, but I do agree with your questions, I'm not sure on them either .. I think they fall between every stool..

RobFowl

Junior wrote: »

Anything and everything on that forum should be taken with a large pinch of salt, but I do agree with your questions, I'm not sure on them either .. I think they fall between every stool..

Strangely I agree with both Junior and Bob but at the same time disagree....

As I see it for years all comment on doping was avoided and a code of silence was observed. Bike Pure for all its faults has helped make it "cool" to be seen to be anti doping and o proclaim it publically.

Personally I doubt that all those with the bikepure bands etc are clean but it has helped open the topic and bring it into the mainstream.

Junior

RobFowl wrote: »

Strangely I agree with both Junior and Bob but at the same time disagree....

As I see it for years all comment on doping was avoided and a code of silence was observed. Bike Pure for all its faults has helped make it "cool" to be seen to be anti doping and o proclaim it publically.

Personally I doubt that all those with the bikepure bands etc are clean but it has helped open the topic and bring it into the mainstream.

splinters in yer arse much ?

I think yes, your right anything that highlights an anti doping stance is 'good' however just because you have a 'good' message doesn't mean people can't disagree over the delivery method.

I've read their Cyclesport 2.0 Proposal and while some sound good, others sound like tripe a thirteen year old at a beauty pageant would trot out. "i want world peace and to help the starving babies in.." Type stuff

Having these goals in noble and great, but there's no Cyclesport 2.0 Implementation plan, i.e. what they are going to do to get these goals fulfilled. Also as Bob has alluded to, it's registered as a charity, but there's no transparency from them, what do they do, is this their job, where are the funds going to etc.

ROK ON

Can I take this recent discussion on BikePure in a tangental direction.

Have there been allegations regarding Dan Martin that people are aware of. If so can someone direct me to sources.
The forum implies that something is not quite right about Martin.

RobFowl

ROK ON wrote: »

Can I take this recent discussion on BikePure in a tangental direction.

Have there been allegations regarding Dan Martin that people are aware of. If so can someone direct me to sources.
The forum implies that something is not quite right about Martin.

Nothing at all re Dan Martin

Lumen

Junior wrote: »

Anything and everything on that forum should be taken with a large pinch of salt

It is nonethleless depressing reading, particularly the stuff about the impossibility of winning the TdF clean.

I haven't felt this negative in ages. Wiggins hasn't twittered since before the Landis story broke, which is unusual for him (although he's obviously been busy in the Giro).

Maybe I should move these posts off the RAS thread. Any suggestions for where they should go?

RobFowl

Lumen wrote: »

It is nonethleless depressing reading, particularly the stuff about the impossibility of winning the TdF clean.

I haven't felt this negative in ages. Wiggins hasn't twittered since before the Landis story broke, which is unusual for him (although he's obviously been busy in the Giro).

Maybe I should move these posts off the RAS thread. Any suggestions for where they should go?

Tedious doping discussions! (not being serious)

Junior

ROK ON wrote: »

Can I take this recent discussion on BikePure in a tangental direction.

Have there been allegations regarding Dan Martin that people are aware of. If so can someone direct me to sources.
The forum implies that something is not quite right about Martin.

I've heard a nasty rumour he's Ginger, now that's completely unacceptable.

ROK ON

Lumen wrote: »

It is nonethleless depressing reading, particularly the stuff about the impossibility of winning the TdF clean.

I haven't felt this negative in ages. Wiggins hasn't twittered since before the Landis story broke, which is unusual for him (although he's obviously been busy in the Giro).

Maybe I should move these posts off the RAS thread. Any suggestions for where they should go?

Depressing.
Gilbert doesn't do the TDF for this precise reason.
Interesting point on wiggo. A lot of folk have been quiet in twitland since Landis.

Put on the Landis thread?

Slideshowbob

Lumen wrote: »

It is nonethleless depressing reading, particularly the stuff about the impossibility of winning the TdF clean.

I haven't felt this negative in ages. Wiggins hasn't twittered since before the Landis story broke, which is unusual for him (although he's obviously been busy in the Giro).

Maybe I should move these posts off the RAS thread. Any suggestions for where they should go?

Start a new thread ?? call it 'The Merits of Bike Pure' ??

Lumen

I've moved the last page or so of posts off the Ras thread on to here as they weren't really relevant.