CIRC report

[LegendRider]

Executive summary:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/03/news/circ-report-executive-summary_362351

Link to full report:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/03/news/circ-report-full-text_362430

[pbarry]

Thanks for posting. VN cut to the heart of things. The NYTimes has their version:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/09/sports/cycling/cycling-union-ignored-doping-and-protected-lance-armstrong-commission-finds.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

[bcroslin]

Inrng has a more detailed piece up that gets to many of the details of the report

http://inrng.com/2015/03/the-circ-report/

[bluesea]

CIRC recommends retroactive testing, survey of doping


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/circ-recommends-retroactive-testing-survey-of-doping

[Tony T]

WSJ version:

Cycling Leaders Let Doping, Armstrong Flourish, Report Says (http://www.wsj.com/articles/cycling-leaders-let-doping-armstrong-flourish-report-says-1425863081?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_lifestyle)

“One respected cycling professional felt that even today, 90% of the peloton was doping,” the report said.“

Did't read the report, who was the source of this quote?

[choke]

WSJ version:

Cycling Leaders Let Doping, Armstrong Flourish, Report Says (http://www.wsj.com/articles/cycling-leaders-let-doping-armstrong-flourish-report-says-1425863081?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_lifestyle)

“One respected cycling professional felt that even today, 90% of the peloton was doping,” the report said.“

Did't read the report, who was the source of this quote?The report didn't identify the source.

[Tony T]

The report didn't identify the source.

Well, so much for transparency :)

[pbarry]

WSJ version:

Cycling Leaders Let Doping, Armstrong Flourish, Report Says (http://www.wsj.com/articles/cycling-leaders-let-doping-armstrong-flourish-report-says-1425863081?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_lifestyle)

“One respected cycling professional felt that even today, 90% of the peloton was doping,” the report said.“

Did't read the report, who was the source of this quote?

How many links does one need to bother to click on/read one, assuming you have any interest in the topic? :beer:

[bikingshearer]

The most surprising thing to me was that the report did not find that Hein Verbruggen was not out-and-out corrupt.

It says he was far too concerned for cycling's image and not nearly concerned enough about rooting out the problem. It says he was dictatorial. It says he allowed UCI to be far too cozy with Lance and far too willing to work with Lance to make the press believe things were much cleaner than they really were. It says, almost in so many words, that Verbruggen was and remains a major league dick. None of this is the least bit surprising.

But they did not find that the UCI allowed Lance to buy his way out of doping charges. That, I must confess, surprised me.

I used to think Verbruggen needed to be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail. The CIRC report has changed my mind; we can leave out the rail part.

[Bruce K]

I am pretty sure most of us aren't surprised by the report on the pro side of racing.

I guess I am a little surprised at how pervasive the doping claims are on the localized amateur side. Sad to think that it's more than just a couple of a-holes on Sunday morning at the local cross/crit/TT/etc. who are doing stuff to win at all costs.

BK

[FastforaSlowGuy]

I am pretty sure most of us aren't surprised by the report on the pro side of racing.

I guess I am a little surprised at how pervasive the doping claims are on the localized amateur side. Sad to think that it's more than just a couple of a-holes on Sunday morning at the local cross/crit/TT/etc. who are doing stuff to win at all costs.

BK

^^ This. I think some of the amateur stuff is further complicated by the explosion of "anti-aging" hormone therapies. Even if guys are doping to retain the vigor of their 20s, rather than to win the local office park crit, they're still doping.

[Wesley37]

Salient point

... Millar, who reckons 25 past or present riders [presumably excluding those now in team management roles, listed separately] appeared before the panel, noted that only 16 agreed for their names to be disclosed, with only one – Chris Froome – currently racing.

He asked: “So who did they interview in order to gauge the state of the modern peloton? Because the majority of those published interviewees left the sport due to a doping ban never to return.

“Aren’t these exactly the type of people who suffer from ‘the “false consensus effect” where athletes with a history of drug use overestimate the prevalence of drug use among other athletes’ that the report talks of?”

The report was unable to pin down the extent of doping within today’s peloton, with interviewees giving figures that varied widely between 20 and 90 per cent of riders – the latter from a “respected cycling professional” (the wording suggest not necessarily a professional cyclist).

http://road.cc/content/news/145107-lance-armstrong-and-david-millar-react-circ-report