Triathlon and the CIRC Report

We have been mentioning about the lack of supervision on Human Rights on the part of the International Triathlon Union.  “The Right to Compete” has been violated by the FMTRI when they have the “Marcas Mínimas” as a requirement to represent Mexico in international competitions.  Similar problems encounter the International Cycling Union now that the CIRC REPORT was published:

An independent report has heavily criticized the International Cycling Union (UCI) for its handling of the Lance Armstrong doping scandal. The 227-page report also said doping remains an ongoing problem in the sport.

Cycling continues to struggle with widespread doping, that's the bottom line of a new report from the Cycling Independent Reform Commission.

In a bid to investigate how the sport was lost due to doping scandals through the 1990s and 2000s, the CIRC was set up last January, and has now heavily criticized the sport's leadership throughout that era.

Former UCI presidents, Hein Verbruggen and Pat McQuaid, were condemned for their behaviour towards cycling's most famous doper, Lance Armstrong. However the pair were cleared of the allegation that the former seven-time Tour de France winner paid bribes to cover up any positive testing, or independed reports.

"The UCI exempted Lance Armstrong from rules, failed to target test him despite the suspicions, and publicly supported him against allegations of doping," the report said.

Pat McQuaid was president of the UCI from 2006 to 2013

US Anti-Doping Agency chief Travis Tygart says he is ready to assist in pursuing prosecution of the former cycling chiefs accused in the new report.

"USADA will work with the current UCI leadership to obtain the evidence of this sordid incident to ensure that all anti-doping rule violations related to this conduct are fully investigated and prosecuted, where possible," said Tygart.

Opened up to scrutiny

A total of 174 anti-doping experts, officials, riders and other interested parties were interviewed in the 3 million euro ($3.3 million) report. CIRC Chairman Dr Dick Marty, a former Swiss prosecutor and two vice-chairs, German anti-doping expert Professor Ulrich Haas and expert investigator Peter Nicholson, compiled the document.

"Very few, if any sports, have opened themselves up to this level of independent scrutiny and while the CIRC report on the past is hard to read for those of us who love our sport, I do believe that cycling will emerge better and stronger from it," current UCI president Brian Cookson said Monday.

However, as well as damning the sport's past, the report also uncovered ongoing issues with doping in the sport. "The CIRC considers that a culture of doping in cycling continues to exist, albeit attitudes have started to change," it said.

One "respected" witness estimated that around 90 percent of riders are doping, while "three to four" top teams have a widespread reputation for cheating. Many are apparently using micro doses to avoid detection, giving small performance gains. Under that method, riders can take a micro drug dose in the evening and expect to test negative again by 6 am the next morning, the report said.

apc/al (AFP, dpa, Reuters)

But, what is the person involved says about it?:

Verbruggen’s full statement is below.

I have studied the CIRC report and I am satisfied that it confirms what I have always said: that there have never been any cover-ups, complicity or corruption in the Lance Armstrong case (or, indeed, in any other doping cases), nor did Armstrong make any payments relating to the Vrijman Report. The wild conspiracy theories and accusations have all been properly debunked once and for all. I am pleased that this report confirms my complete innocence concerning these accusations which have been levelled [sic] at me in the past.

Where the report becomes more subjective, however, it also becomes more contradictory. The CIRC’s main criticism in its analysis of the UCI’s anti-doping policy is that the “policies put in place to combat doping during my presidency were inadequate”. That is a rather cheap shot from people who today have the benefit of 25 years of hindsight.

The CIRC omits to mention that I took over the UCI presidency in November 1991, when the UCI was virtually non-existent and had no financial means whatsoever. This meant the whole federation had to be started from scratch, including its anti-doping activities. As a result, the necessary professionalization of the UCI’s anti-doping work could only be started as of 1992 – and we had to work with the technology that existed at the time. For the CIRC to pronounce judgment concerning the “adequacy” or otherwise of the start of our battle against doping, without taking these prevailing circumstances into account, is, I believe, unfair.

Looking back, I am still firmly of the conviction that, given the financial and staff constraints the UCI had at the time, we couldn’t have done anything much differently. Indeed the CIRC acknowledges that, at the time, the UCI was one of the best federations in terms of its anti-doping policy. Also the anti-doping policy was reported, discussed and approved regularly at the meetings of the UCI management committee and also at the UCI congress where also the current UCI president was a delegate for many years.

The CIRC, in saying that I was too close to Armstrong when there was strong reasons to suspect him of doping and that “UCI failed to target test him despite the suspicions”, is being rather blinkered and one-sided in its condemnation. It pointedly fails to mention that WADA only tested Armstrong three times in 10 years and that USADA performed far worse than the UCI in its testing of Armstrong. This was all information that the CIRC had in its possession.

In this respect, I am grateful that the CIRC report vindicates what I have said from the very beginning: “the CIRC is not suggesting that UCI leadership knowingly or deliberately allowed doping and high-profile dopers to continue within the sport knowing or suspecting them still to be doping.” This was one of the main allegations against me and the UCI.

The CIRC’s description of my presidency as “autocratic without appropriate checks and balances” is a caricature based on the opinions of five people who, for a variety of reasons, had personal grudges against me. I would gladly have provided the CIRC with a list of 50 to 100 people who have worked with me as President of their Boards, Commissions, etc. and who would definitely not recognize the extremely one-sided picture that has been painted of me.

Finally, I am happy to note that, at the end of the chapter about the Vrijman report, on pages 189-191, the Commission’s President Dick Marty expresses an ‘additional opinion’ concerning the breaches of medical confidentiality at the request of WADA; the targeting of Armstrong in a context of conflicts with WADA, the French NADO and ASO; targeted leaks to the media; etc. He concludes that “the affair gave rise to genuine feelings of unease especially when taking into account the serious conflicts that at that time existed between UCI and WADA (at least at executive level)”. My concern is why the two other members of the CIRC did not wish to join President Marty in signing off this part of the report concerning WADA in particular.

Read more at http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/03/news/circ-report-statement-hein-verbruggen_362509#1YArUX1112QGZ58B.99

This is an old matter:  If John F Kennedy would be the USA president in today´s ethics, he would be in a lot of trouble.  It is not that ethics is different, but we take into account many other things.  Human rights for females, children, gays and lesbians are not the same for good of bad in today’s ethics.  As a doctor, I was trained not to make jokes in general, because I could get into multiple problems.  Europeans are more liberal about human rights and ethics as well as Canadians, but the WASP ethics governs over the International Unions and sooner or later “justice” will come; Armstrong was caught by the USADA, not the WADA or the UCI.  ARMSTRONG WAS RIGHT: HE WAS THE BEST OF THE CHEATERS.  And, as the report says, the doping culture still exists in cycling and it contaminated triathlon as well.  ITU!  Are you doing enough for keeping the sport clean as well as watching after Human Rights from National Federations?  Nope.  Don’t cry baby in the future!