Wonder if they contributed to the FFF?

[thoughtforfood]

"

WADA disappointed with UCI over Landis case funding

The World Anti-Doping Agency has said it's disappointed that the International Cycling Union (UCI) has turned down a request for funding assistance from the United States Anti-Doping Agency to help its fight against disgraced cyclist Floyd Landis. USADA's request for funding comes as the case moves to the final stage of appeal today (see separate article) with the parties to appear before the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Following the UCI's refusal to offer financial assistance, WADA has stepped in and opened its coffers to the American anti-doping body. Figures of just how much financial assistance has been offered have not been confirmed, which some sources suggesting WADA will pick up the entire bill.

"It became apparent, from the way in which the matter was being defended, that further efforts had to be made to ensure that all relevant information was put before the tribunal, and that the witnesses required could be present," said WADA in a statement e-mailed to AP. "This required some assistance from WADA."

WADA added that its decision was made after the UCI refused to offer assistance. "Which was disappointing," said WADA. "Particularly as it is a case under UCI rules."

USADA took over the case as a result of the UCI rules that sees a doping case handed to the rider's national doping body after the B-Sample is found to be positive."
source: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/mar08/mar19news

I guess they don't care about doping anymore. I have an idea, maybe the UCI should experiment and drop all drug testing, and then let the ASO etc keep their's up. Then the question of whether people would watch a sport in which doping is legal vs a sport in which it isn't will be answered. I am willing to bet that I know the outcome.

 

[Crankyfeet]

The funding of anti-doping is the big challenge in the fight against doping. Nobody wants to pay the bill... and the UCI... to whom the responsiblity for 365 day testing of riders currently sits... has limited funding means. The temptation is always going to be to do a great job with words in the media... but cut costs on the ground.

WADA has a LOT more funding as far as I'm aware, than the UCI does. They are half funded by the IOC and the other half by world governments. Funding for anti-doping is the problem for UCI, hence why they tried to create their own revenue stream with the Pro Tour, and why they see ownership of TV rights (at least some) as their future.

 

[kennf]

They only have to fund it for another five days, right? I suppose there could be post-tribunal briefing. Don't know enough about the CAS procedural rules.

 

[TheDarkLord]

The funding of anti-doping is the big challenge in the fight against doping. Nobody wants to pay the bill... and the UCI... to whom the responsiblity for 365 day testing of riders currently sits... has limited funding means. The temptation is always going to be to do a great job with words in the media... but cut costs on the ground.

How much does it cost to do a test, and how does that compare with the cost of nailing FL (I really don't know the numbers involved; hence the question)? I am thinking of the Mayo case, where upon receiving inconclusive test results, UCI asked the French lab to retest the B sample and then demanded that the Spanish take action against him. But then again, with the current leadership of UCI, none of this is really surprising, is it? UCI's motto is - target the dudes whom you don't like (breaking your own rules as necessary), and protect the asses of those who have bribed you.

 

[Crankyfeet]

...UCI's motto is - target the dudes whom you don't like (breaking your own rules as necessary), and protect the asses of those who have bribed you.

Yes, yes, yes... not good scientific method there though in that thesis IMHO. The fact is, if you have a good enough dope doctor as LA did for example... you should never fail a dope test. Granted he was probably getting fed info on testing scope and random test dates by some mole in the UCI that he bribed... but it doesn't mean that the whole organization was in on the scam.

It is good that they nailed Moreni and Sink though. Those guys were real bastards... .

 

[thoughtforfood]

The funding of anti-doping is the big challenge in the fight against doping. Nobody wants to pay the bill... and the UCI... to whom the responsiblity for 365 day testing of riders currently sits... has limited funding means. The temptation is always going to be to do a great job with words in the media... but cut costs on the ground.

WADA has a LOT more funding as far as I'm aware, than the UCI does. They are half funded by the IOC and the other half by world governments. Funding for anti-doping is the problem for UCI, hence why they tried to create their own revenue stream with the Pro Tour, and why they see ownership of TV rights (at least some) as their future.

Yes, but I find it interesting that now that it is an ASO race that is in question, they are out of funds. You can think there is no connection, but I am not as forgiving.

 

[Crankyfeet]

Yes, but I find it interesting that now that it is an ASO race that is in question, they are out of funds. You can think there is no connection, but I am not as forgiving.

I find that the greatest injustice. ASO collects the millions in TV loot, while UCI are left to foot the potential million(s) dollar bill in testing and court fees if anyone turns up positive. This is the crux of the anti-doping issue. The money to pay for anti-doping IMHO should partly come out of the TV revenue, as a major motivation to have clean races comes from the TV spectator.

 

[TheDarkLord]

Yes, yes, yes... not good scientific method there though in that thesis IMHO. The fact is, if you have a good enough dope doctor as LA did for example... you should never fail a dope test. Granted he was probably getting fed info on testing scope and random test dates by some mole in the UCI that he bribed... but it doesn't mean that the whole organization was in on the scam.

It is good that they nailed Moreni and Sink though. Those guys were real bastards... .

Never claimed that this was a conclusion from the scientific method. But IMO, it is the only rational explanation about why they are going like hounds after some riders, and are being complacent about others. Also, again, when I mention UCI, I am primarily targeting the boffins at the top of its hierarchy.

 

[TheDarkLord]

I find that the greatest injustice. ASO collects the millions in TV loot, while UCI are left to foot the potential million(s) dollar bill in testing and court fees if anyone turns up positive. This is the crux of the anti-doping issue. The money to pay for anti-doping IMHO should partly come out of the TV revenue, as a major motivation to have clean races comes from the TV spectator.

Are you sure that the race sponsors do not contribute anything towards testing? If so, for once, I would agree with you here in that the race sponsors must cover a portion of the costs of testing. Then again, I'm not sure how UCI gets its money - is it primarily from the national federations?

 

[Crankyfeet]

Are you sure that the race sponsors do not contribute anything towards testing? If so, for once, I would agree with you here in that the race sponsors must cover a portion of the costs of testing. Then again, I'm not sure how UCI gets its money - is it primarily from the national federations?

I must be honest and say I am not entirely sure. If they are like most international sports administrations, they would have part of their income from bottom up National Feds, though in most sports, the governing body typically partly funds the national feds with shares of World Championship/World Cup/Olympic income. Another part of their income would come from top down shares of profits in the World Championships and Olympics, and part from sanctioning fees they receive from events held under their official sanction. Also... if they own any events themselves, they would be able to sell the TV rights and corporate packages to those events.

I would expect that ASO pays UCI a sanctioning fee for races held under UCI sanction. But the fee would not be open-ended, like the bill UCI have to pay if they find athletes (like Landis) positive and need to fund a court battle.

 

[poulidor]

UCI is world championship organiser so they have their TV rights.

 

[thoughtforfood]

I find that the greatest injustice. ASO collects the millions in TV loot, while UCI are left to foot the potential million(s) dollar bill in testing and court fees if anyone turns up positive. This is the crux of the anti-doping issue. The money to pay for anti-doping IMHO should partly come out of the TV revenue, as a major motivation to have clean races comes from the TV spectator.

Yes, but the UCI has oversight power, and can institute sanctions, therefore it is THEIR function to deal with such matters. ASO cannot, other than failing to invite someone to their races. Also, your suggestion that somehow ASO races are not footing the bill is erroneous. They paid their money to the UCI for services rendered.

Primarily because of the regulatory function of the UCI versus the ASO having no official power to conduct an inquiry etc, your point is unrealistic and outside the scope of the ASO as things presently stand. Combine that with the fact that when the 2006 TdF was sanctioned by the UCI, they were the regulatory body responsible for conducting the doping controls, and the ASO is in no way responsible for any of the current charges. Obviously, neither is UCI, however being the governing body, it is dubious that they all of a sudden want no part.

Imagine if you will the how quickly the death the UCI would happen should they initiate contracts with race organizers that required open ended charges for doping regulation.

I am not saying that ASO shouldn't bear financial responsibility, in fact they did as dictated by their contract. Should they have greater responsibility? It appears that because of the cost, yes they should. All of those things are beside my original point which is that in this case, I believe that there is definitely a political component to the refusal of the UCI to pay any more money. The TdF isn't a UCI race anymore.

edit: And maybe I should have been more clear when I posted the thread, because that was my point, though poorly made I might add.

 

[Crankyfeet]

Yes, but the UCI has oversight power, and can institute sanctions, therefore it is THEIR function to deal with such matters. ASO cannot, other than failing to invite someone to their races. Also, your suggestion that somehow ASO races are not footing the bill is erroneous. They paid their money to the UCI for services rendered.

Primarily because of the regulatory function of the UCI versus the ASO having no official power to conduct an inquiry etc, your point is unrealistic and outside the scope of the ASO as things presently stand. Combine that with the fact that when the 2006 TdF was sanctioned by the UCI, they were the regulatory body responsible for conducting the doping controls, and the ASO is in no way responsible for any of the current charges. Obviously, neither is UCI, however being the governing body, it is dubious that they all of a sudden want no part.

Imagine if you will the how quickly the death the UCI would happen should they initiate contracts with race organizers that required open ended charges for doping regulation.

I am not saying that ASO shouldn't bear financial responsibility, in fact they did as dictated by their contract. Should they have greater responsibility? It appears that because of the cost, yes they should. All of those things are beside my original point which is that in this case, I believe that there is definitely a political component to the refusal of the UCI to pay any more money. The TdF isn't a UCI race anymore.

I'm not really talking about this one instance. And you are right. TdF is now non-sanctioned. But UCI probably don't have the money... or they probably have to sacrifice some other part of the program if they are going to continue to fund the fight. They are not getting back at the ASO if WADA are having to foot the bill.

My point is that if we are going to beat doping, we (the sport of cycling) probably need to spend ten times as much money on anti-doping as we currently do. It will be impossible for the UCI to foot the increasing bill. If they raise their sanction fees, promoters, as they have already done, will just run their events outside sanctioning. Therefore riders in those events will probably face some kind of penalty, but will not be UCI tested. If we say that the UCI are bad at dope testing... are the French Federation going to be any better? Don't you think that they might also have a conflict of interest in not wanting to have scandal at the TdF? And they certainly won't be interested in doing anything more than basic testing at the actual event, which we have found in hindsight to be very limited in it's ability to catch dopers.

Yes the UCI has responsibility for dope-testing at present. And if we want this sport to be clean, we need to come up with a way that they can fund the battle tanks they need to fight it.

Just my 2c on this problem TFF. I have less knowledge of UCI's previous skullduggery than you though.

 

[thoughtforfood]

I'm not really talking about this one instance. And you are right. TdF is now non-sanctioned. But UCI probably don't have the money... or they probably have to sacrifice some other part of the program if they are going to continue to fund the fight. They are not getting back at the ASO if WADA are having to foot the bill.

My point is that if we are going to beat doping, we (the sport of cycling) probably need to spend ten times as much money on anti-doping as we currently do. It will be impossible for the UCI to foot the increasing bill. If they raise their sanction fees, promoters, as they have already done, will just run their events outside sanctioning. Therefore riders in those events will probably face some kind of penalty, but will not be UCI tested. If we say that the UCI are bad at dope testing... are the French Federation going to be any better? Don't you think that they might also have a conflict of interest in not wanting to have scandal at the TdF? And they certainly won't be interested in doing anything more than basic testing at the actual event, which we have found in hindsight to be very limited in it's ability to catch dopers.

Yes the UCI has responsibility for dope-testing at present. And if we want this sport to be clean, we need to come up with a way that they can fund the battle tanks they need to fight it.

Just my 2c on this problem TFF. I have less knowledge of UCI's previous skullduggery than you though.

Well, my ham fisted attempt to make a point that is really minor in terms of the whole situation started the whole thing. Past that, you are right, the race organizers are making the big bucks, and should have an active role in promoting the testing needed to ensure clean races.

 

[leestevens]

By the time all is said and done in the Floyd Landis doping case -- his final appeal began yesterday in New York City -- the cost could exceed $4 million. Who's footing the prosecution's half? American tax payers in large part, writes veteran sports journalist Eddie Pells in an Associated Press article. His investigation found that "a good chunk of the cost will be footed by USADA, which gets about 70 percent of its $12 million annual budget from the federal government, and the rest from the U.S. Olympic Committee. . . once again, American taxpayers will foot part of the bill." What about money raised by the Floyd Fairness Fund, established so people could donate to Landis' $2-million defense? The fund isn't a nonprofit, Pells writes, so revenue raised doesn't have to be disclosed. His article is at http://tinyurl.com/2uptz7 For a nice, concise chronology of events in the Landis case, click http://tinyurl.com/2povuv

http://www.roadbikerider.com/index.htm I found this snippet at RBR in their current issue. I hope this adds some to the conversation.