Vaughters confirms Zabriske, Vande Velde and Danielson doped in the past

Chips Lovell

On an Internet forum no less

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughters-confirms-past-doping-by-danielson-others-at-garmin

Chips Lovell

And there's more

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/weltz-denies-hamiltons-claims-of-being-usps-epo-courier

https://mobile.twitter.com/vaughters/status/243498183773257729

RobFowl

Sweet Jesus its started in earnest!

corny

Its like the domino effect. This week we'll have Hincapie, VDV and Zabriskie coming clean.:D

Don't trust Vaughters; he's a little too honest all of a sudden but he's definitely laying it out for us.

Chips Lovell

I think/hope that people are talking now because they think it's safe, that they'll be believed and that something will be done about it.

I like Vaughters' approach. By being so candid he makes everyone else who opts to remain quiet or pussy foot around the issue look kind of ridiculous.

I have no real reason to doubt his honesty at the moment. Everything he's said ties in with the rumours we've all heard and with what he's alluded to in the past.

Tea_Bag

I used to aspire to professional cycling, but the sport is a joke.

Lumen

Tea_Bag wrote: »

I used to aspire to professional cycling, but the sport is a joke.

All sports worth watching have doping problems.

morana

Lumen wrote: »

All sports worth watching have doping problems.

would have to agree with that! Just because they are not trying to catch people doesnt mean its clean!


Last Saturday had you ventured out to Sundrive you would have seen the Irish USADA out there in force at the National Track Championships. wonder if there were tests at the GAA in Croker?

Anyway the next big PR will be "Joe Bloggs who wasnt doping" now that will make news!

Chips Lovell

Saying cycling is dirtier than other major sports is daft. It's by no means perfect but it's been forced to clean up its act big time in recent years. Sadly, the sports leaders have often done that only when they've been forced to, but it's been done nonetheless.

Here's what happens when you try to introduce the kind of testing we have in cycling into other sports:
http://www.harbottle.com/hnl/pages/article_view_hnl/4787.php

hardCopy

Some movement! Now it's getting interesting.

Tea_Bag wrote: »

I used to aspire to professional cycling, but the sport is a joke.

Cycling certainly has a long history with dope, and has resisted change, but hopefully now we are beginning the process of cleaning it up.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Saying cycling is dirtier than other major sports is daft. It's by no means perfect but it's been forced to clean up its act big time in recent years. Sadly, the sports leaders have often done that only when they've been forced to, but it's been done nonetheless.

Here's what happens when you try to introduce the kind of testing we have in cycling into other sports:
http://www.harbottle.com/hnl/pages/article_view_hnl/4787.php

I have to laugh at anyone who thinks all these elite soccer players playing long into their forties are clean. See also, numerous "miraculous" recoveries from injuries at elite levels of other sports.

Beasty

hardCopy wrote: »

I have to laugh at anyone who thinks all these elite soccer players playing long into their forties are clean. See also, numerous "miraculous" recoveries from injuries at elite levels of other sports.

Let's stick to Cycling and not start throwing unsubstantiated allegations at other sports (although mentioning proven dopers in other sports is not a particular issue if relevant to the discussion in hand)

Thanks

Beasty

RobFowl

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12806/Museeuw-admits-doping-was-part-of-daily-life-when-he-raced.aspx

“We must break with the hypocrisy. The only way to come out of that murderous spiral is to tackle the constant denial, the silence that continues to haunt us.


I think it's great to see more openness and honesty coming into the debate. I do believe we can't move on as a sport until we acknowlage where we have come from...

Chips Lovell

RobFowl wrote: »

I think it's great to see more openness and honesty coming into the debate. I do believe we can't move on as a sport until we acknowlage where we have come from...

I didn't think we'd ever see something like this. I really, really hope that the UCI is looking at all this and realising that something massive has changed and that they put in place some kind of facility whereby people can come forward and be open about what they've done in the past.

manwithaplan

And people argued that there was no point going after Armstrong.

C3PO

I wonder would there be any merit in a UCI "amnesty" at this stage? Get the truth and most importantly the methods out in the open so that there can really be a fresh "clean slate" start!

Chips Lovell

C3PO wrote: »

I wonder would there be any merit in a UCI "amnesty" at this stage? Get the truth and most importantly the methods out in the open so that there can really be a fresh "clean slate" start!

I think there is. What I'd like to see is a commission set up that encourages people to come forward and tell everything they know. Not just what they did themselves, but who also was involved, whether it was managers, team mates or doctors. I'm not sure if a full amnesty is the way forward. Perhaps a six month suspension in exchange for telling the truth.

If you don't testify and it transpires you doped or if you do and don't tell everything, then a lengthy ban, from two years to life.

Bunnyhopper

I think a "truth and reconciliation" approach could be a good way to purge the sport. When people call for automatic life bans for dopers I understand the impulse, but I always feel that the experience of David Millar is a good argument against it. However, I'd be more in favour of heavy penalties if the sport gave everyone an opportunity to 'fess up, then drew a line under it all, then said - any doping after this and we'll throw the book at you.

Inquitus

C3PO wrote: »

I wonder would there be any merit in a UCI "amnesty" at this stage? Get the truth and most importantly the methods out in the open so that there can really be a fresh "clean slate" start!

We need to get rid of everyone in charge of the UCI for that to work?

RobFowl

Inquitus wrote: »

We need to get rid of everyone in charge of the UCI for that to work?

FYP !

Beasty

When something of this significance hits an organisation (be it the UCI, a Government, major corporation etc), the only way to regain any credibility is to "move-on" the people at the top of that organisation, and bring in someone from outside to run it. That's regardless of how involved or otherwise the personalities were in the underlying scandal (or indeed if they were simply allowing it to happen on their "watch"). Basically if you don't make a clean sweep of it, any action taken tends to be undermined due to lack of credibility in the individuals responsible for implementing the required action.

In many ways the fact the "Old Guard" have held on so long may actually help, in it both highlights the scale of what's gone on during their tenure, and hopefully avoids anyone coming in to sort it out being tainted with any of the recent events.

Undercover Elephant

Beasty wrote: »

When something of this significance hits an organisation (be it the UCI, a Government, major corporation etc), the only way to regain any credibility is to "move-on" the people at the top of that organisation, and bring in someone from outside to run it. That's regardless of how involved or otherwise the personalities were in the underlying scandal (or indeed if they were simply allowing it to happen on their "watch"). Basically if you don't make a clean sweep of it, any action taken tends to be undermined due to lack of credibility in the individuals responsible for implementing the required action.

Who do you suggest? Given the apparent scale of the problem, wouldn't this need people who are from outside cycling altogether? (Possibly naive but serious question.)

irishmotorist

I wonder have we reached some sort of tipping point in this? Is there a chance that we're going to get more and more of these types of confessions over the coming weeks? It's great to see some big names actually coming out now and speaking about it.

hardCopy

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

Who do you suggest? Given the apparent scale of the problem, wouldn't this need people who are from outside cycling altogether? (Possibly naive but serious question.)

Maybe at least somebody from other cycling disciplines rather than roadies?

I've no idea whether similar problems exist in BMX/MTB/Track.

Chips Lovell

What's Bob Stapleton doing these days?

le petit braquet

I'd like to think that the current stream (hopefully soon torrent) of revelations will lead to a tipping point, but back in 98 did we not think that the Festina affair was also a seminal moment? Its hard to see the UCI turkeys voting for a "truth and reconciliation" christmas unless there is some sort of coup, but it is the best way to go. The danger at the moment is that the non cycling fan public will not make the distinction between the past and present, and that the revelations will further damage whats left of the sport's reputation.

Lumen

hardCopy wrote: »

I've no idea whether similar problems exist in BMX/MTB/Track.

http://www.bmxnews.com/2010/02/interview-the-return-of-mike-kapes/

As for MTB, this is a particularly amusing one from 2004.

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/173054/is-epo-o-k

petethedrummer

Looks like the start of a push away from the UCI. Breakaway league anyone?

Edit: I also looks like the clinic has some power. JV has been goaded into these confessions by the continuous taunts on there. Sometimes I think the stories on there are pure fantasy but more and more they are ringing true.

el tel

petethedrummer wrote: »

Looks like the start of a push away from the UCI. Breakaway league anyone?

Great idea! a new non-corrupt organisation; and an Ultimate Cycling Organisation - no holds barred, full doping allowed, just very specific and arbitary restraints on the bike designs and specifications. The latter can be administered by the current UCI, they have much experience in this kind of approach.

Beasty

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

Who do you suggest? Given the apparent scale of the problem, wouldn't this need people who are from outside cycling altogether? (Possibly naive but serious question.)

Don't have any names, but imo it would need to be somone from within the sport but currently outside the UCI. There must be a number of individuals at a national level who has the ability to step up to a global role

Chips Lovell

Beasty wrote: »

...it would need to be somone from within the sport but currently outside the UCI. There must be a number of individuals at a national level who has the ability to step up to a global role

morana for president!!!!

Beasty

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

morana for president!!!!

I was tempted, but I suspect the Cycling World may want to try somone from a non-Irish speaking country next time...

... of course he could well be in the running if we can pass a motion of no confidence in the current UCI President at the CI AGM;)

Flandria

Beasty wrote: »

I was tempted, but I suspect the Cycling World may want to try somone from a non-Irish speaking country next time...

... of course he could well be in the running if we can pass a motion of no confidence in the current UCI President at the CI AGM;)

He would just end up as the big kahuna at Cycling Ireland then...

RobFowl

Lumen wrote: »

http://www.bmxnews.com/2010/02/interview-the-return-of-mike-kapes/

As for MTB, this is a particularly amusing one from 2004.

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/173054/is-epo-o-k

MTB was considered to be rife with doping in the late 90's and 00's. Thomas Frischknecht though was considered clean (as was our own Robin Seymour) and interesting to see how he went from dominating the sport to struggling then slowly back over the years.

Re the UCI, there is a new election due in 2013 and I'd not be surprised to see Pat McQuaid last until then and step down. It is time for a complete overhaul though IMO. Not sure who'd be best placed to lead it going forward though !! No one with any existing links to cycling, football, tennis, athletics, the IOC, skiinig, GAA or any major sports governing body. No bankers, developers, corporation types or politicians. No ex pro's, no journalists, no sponsors, no medics, soigneurs etc.
Maybe the Dalai Lama is free??

Hermy

RobFowl wrote: »

Re the UCI, there is a new election due in 2013 and I'd not be surprised to see Pat McWQuaid last until then and step down. It is time for a complete overhaul though IMO. Not sure who'd be best placed to lead it going forward though !! No one with any existing links to cycling, football, tennis, athletics, the IOC, skiinig, GAA or any major sports governing body. No bankers, developers, corporation types or politicians. No ex pro's, no journalists, no sponsors, no medics, soigneurs etc.
Maybe the Dalai Lama is free??

Is there actually anyone waiting in the wings? And from where is the likely candidate usually picked?

Chips Lovell

Silvio Berlusconi is out of a job.

RobFowl

Hermy wrote: »

Is there actually anyone waiting in the wings? And from where is the likely candidate usually picked?

The new president is usually one of the existing Vice Presidents (that said Presidents typically serve a long time! and there have been relatively few since the UCI was fromed (1900))

President Pat McQuaid
Vice-President Hee Wook CHO KOR
Vice-President Renato Di Rocco ITA
Vice-President Artur Lopes POR

http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI5/layout.asp?MenuId=MTI2NDU&LangId=1

Hermy

Hadn't thought of Berlusconi - seems an obvious choice.

I don't know any of the VP's. Are they friends of cancer jesus too?

Beasty

So 3 of the top 4 are Irish, Italian and Portuguese respectively - no feckin wonder the Sport is in such a state.

I believe there are a few Greek ex-prime ministers who would probably work very well alongside Berlusconi ....

Chips Lovell

I don't know that much about him, but Renato Di Rocco has made a lot of the right noises in recent years.

RobFowl

Seep Blatter is finishing with FIFA in a few years......

Beasty

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I don't know that much about him, but Renato Di Rocco has made a lot of the right noises in recent years.

Hopefully an improvement on the noises he used to make ...

petethedrummer

RobFowl wrote: »

Re the UCI, there is a new election due in 2013 and I'd not be surprised to see Pat McQuaid last until then and step down. It is time for a complete overhaul though IMO. Not sure who'd be best placed to lead it going forward though !!

They need 2 separate bodies. One to handle sponsorship and commercial activities and one to handle rules, testing and sanctions.

A certain designated percentage of the commercial body should automatically go to run the rule keeping body. Noone should be allowed sit on both committees at the same time and committee members should not be allowed move from one body to the other with out a cool off period of say 5 years.

Flandria

petethedrummer wrote: »

They need 2 separate bodies. One to handle sponsorship and commercial activities and one to handle rules, testing and sanctions.

A certain designated percentage of the commercial body should automatically go to run the rule keeping body. Noone should be allowed sit on both committees at the same time and committee members should not be allowed move from one body to the other with out a cool off period of say 5 years.

You are Anne Gripper and I claim my five pounds;)

dave_o_brien

petethedrummer wrote: »

They need 2 separate bodies. One to handle sponsorship and commercial activities and one to handle rules, testing and sanctions.

A certain designated percentage of the commercial body should automatically go to run the rule keeping body. Noone should be allowed sit on both committees at the same time and committee members should not be allowed move from one body to the other with out a cool off period of say 5 years.

Excellent suggestions; the 2 seperate bodies idea is something which is shockingly absent from many governing bodies. How the regulatory body is also supposed to be the promotional body and avoid hypocrisy is baffling.

Beasty

petethedrummer wrote: »

They need 2 separate bodies. One to handle sponsorship and commercial activities and one to handle rules, testing and sanctions.

A certain designated percentage of the commercial body should automatically go to run the rule keeping body. Noone should be allowed sit on both committees at the same time and committee members should not be allowed move from one body to the other with out a cool off period of say 5 years.

But ultimately you still need something (or someone) to sit at the very top of the organisation to deal with any conflicts etc. The commercial side could possibly be outsourced, but would still need to report into someone within the overall Governing body, and the Governing body would still need to establish (and monitor) the parameters under which the commercial side is run.

dave_o_brien

Beasty wrote: »

But ultimately you still need something (or someone) to sit at the very top of the organisation to deal with any conflicts etc. The commercial side could possibly be outsourced, but would still need to report into someone within the overall Governing body, and the Governing body would still need to establish (and monitor) the parameters under which the commercial side is run.

In the UK, the architecture profession is divided in two, with the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) looking after public relations, advertisement, promotion and looking after the interests of architects in policy matter, while the Architects Registration Board deals with licensing, registration and discipline. They are two co-operating but distinct bodies, and the division of responsibility between the two bodies has allowed for a much more effective administration than is found in many countries with only one body looking after both roles. Our own system, where the RIAI effectively looks after both aspects of the profession, could arguably be viewed as a case study for comparison with the British system. Why the same logic couldn't be applied to a professional sporting organisation is beyond me.

petethedrummer

Beasty wrote: »

But ultimately you still need something (or someone) to sit at the very top of the organisation to deal with any conflicts etc. The commercial side could possibly be outsourced, but would still need to report into someone within the overall Governing body, and the Governing body would still need to establish (and monitor) the parameters under which the commercial side is run.

True, but there needs to be some sort of independent regulator. I know it's sort of WADA and sort of the IOC but the UCI still seems to have the power to intervene and impose its own sanctions or not. And seems to keep a sort of implied blacklist of riders who are commercially damaging and who are good for sales. Can two bodies not co-exist independently to run a sport? Or does there always have to be 1 overriding committee.

OK, rather than WADA or the IOC setting down how the UCI should handle rule breaking. The UCI keep doing the commercial end and WADA directly sets the charter for the rule keeping body. The IOC stipulates that the UCI must give the Rules body the funding in order for cycling to maintain its IOC/Olympic status.

The problem is trying to find a way to separate the sanctioning from commercial activity. The two cannot be entrusted to the same body.

hardCopy

petethedrummer wrote: »

True, but there needs to be some sort of independent regulator. I know it's sort of WADA and sort of the IOC but the UCI still seems to have the power to intervene and impose its own sanctions or not. And seems to keep a sort of implied blacklist of riders who are commercially damaging and who are good for sales. Can two bodies not co-exist independently to run a sport? Or does there always have to be 1 overriding committee.

OK, rather than WADA or the IOC setting down how the UCI should handle rule breaking. The UCI keep doing the commercial end and WADA directly sets the charter for the rule keeping body. The IOC stipulates that the UCI must give the Rules body the funding in order for cycling to maintain its IOC/Olympic status.

The problem is trying to find a way to separate the sanctioning from commercial activity. The two cannot be entrusted to the same body.

Surely the simplest thing would be to give WADA and their national bodies greater powers to impose bans without the need for UCI input?

I think sponsors need to take some of the blame here too. Why aren't Armstrong's sponsors being slammed by the media for standing by a crooked drug pedalling cheat?

dave_o_brien

hardCopy wrote: »

Why aren't Armstrong's sponsors being slammed by the media for standing by a crooked drug pedalling cheat?

Simple: how were they to know? I think it would be extremely unfair to criticise them for standing by a man who was innocent, officially. It's now we can be critical. If Nike, Oakley, Trek, etc, do not distance themselves from him firmly and quickly, they should suffer from a consumer backlash.

hardCopy

dave_o_brien wrote: »

Simple: how were they to know? I think it would be extremely unfair to criticise them for standing by a man who was innocent, officially. It's now we can be critical. If Nike, Oakley, Trek, etc, do not distance themselves from him firmly and quickly, they should suffer from a consumer backlash.

I'm only talking about their support of him since USADA's decision.

"Lance has stated his innocence and has been unwavering on this position. Nike plans to continue to support Lance and the Lance Armstrong Foundation, a foundation that Lance created to serve cancer survivors," Nike said in a prepared statement.

USADA have found him guilty and he has accepted their decision, any company who stands by him now is supporting a known cheat.

dave_o_brien

hardCopy wrote: »

I'm only talking about their support of him since USADA's decision.



USADA have found him guilty and he has accepted their decision, any company who stands by him now is supporting a known cheat.

I am proud to state that I do not own anything made by Nike or Oakley (damn my Trek mtb...)! I can't believe they said that! Even if they had said something along the lines of "While obviously we are disappointed to hear about the decision made by the USADA, we continue to support the Livestrong Foundation for its continued good work in telling everyone about this obscure illness called cancer. Have you heard of it? No? We'll it's pretty serious, but with an obnoxious and stubborn personality, you can actually beat it", it would have been better.