Who?
Ugh. One doper in a hopelessly corrupt sport telling another hopelessly corrupt sport to clean it up.
Maybe he can hold an "EPO Cheats Out" sign with Radcliffe.
Cycling isn't clean by any means, but these days, compared to track and field it is as pure as the driven snow.
Witchcraft wrote:
Who?
Some scrawny British cyclist who biked a couple thousand miles around France recently talking about some scrawny British runner who likes to run 25 laps around the track.
..... wrote:
Witchcraft wrote:Who?
Some scrawny British cyclist who biked a couple thousand miles around France recently talking about some scrawny British runner who likes to run 25 laps around the track.
No way this active chemo patient looking MFer is clean. Cyclists are lean. This guy landed here in a flying saucer.
According to the BBC, the UCI spends almost £6 million on anti-doping testing annually – much of that funded by teams under the terms of their licences – while the IAAF spends £1.3 million.
"It is going to have to invest a lot more heavily in anti-doping," said Froome. "That would be a step in the right direction.
"I believe some things have changed quite substantially [for cycling] since the dark ages of 10 to 15 years ago when the sport was really dirty," he continued.
"The testing has really evolved and the UCI has now implemented 24-hour testing. I have every confidence that the system now really works."
No wonder we are miles behind, 4x less funding..
wr potential wrote:
According to the BBC, the UCI spends almost £6 million on anti-doping testing annually – much of that funded by teams under the terms of their licences – while the IAAF spends £1.3 million.
"It is going to have to invest a lot more heavily in anti-doping," said Froome. "That would be a step in the right direction.
"I believe some things have changed quite substantially [for cycling] since the dark ages of 10 to 15 years ago when the sport was really dirty," he continued.
"The testing has really evolved and the UCI has now implemented 24-hour testing. I have every confidence that the system now really works."
No wonder we are miles behind, 4x less funding..
Yes, but somehow both sports ran approximately the same number of tests last year. And came up with near identical ratios of positives - 1.01% dirty in athletics v. 0.983% in cycling...
wr potential wrote:
According to the BBC, the UCI spends almost £6 million on anti-doping testing annually – much of that funded by teams under the terms of their licences – while the IAAF spends £1.3 million.
"It is going to have to invest a lot more heavily in anti-doping," said Froome. "That would be a step in the right direction.
"I believe some things have changed quite substantially [for cycling] since the dark ages of 10 to 15 years ago when the sport was really dirty," he continued.
"The testing has really evolved and the UCI has now implemented 24-hour testing. I have every confidence that the system now really works."
No wonder we are miles behind, 4x less funding..
Most of the Antidoping funding in pro cycling come from the pro teams, if athletics does the same thing and begin to take money from Nike, what will people say ?
Athletics are already taking money for testing from Abbott World Marathon Majors
They should take funds from the accounts of convicted dopers. Shobukhova should be good for a million or so, Paula more if they would just go after her...
No wonder we are miles behind, 4x less funding..
Yes, but somehow both sports ran approximately the same number of tests last year. And came up with near identical ratios of positives - 1.01% dirty in athletics v. 0.983% in cycling...
That sounds like something from one of IAAF's press releases.
According to WADA:
Urine/blood samples analysed in 2014:
UCI: 9483
IAAF: 3841
Blood samples for the biological passport program in 2014:
UCI: 5828
IAAF: 922
WADA's doping testing figures for 2014:
https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wada_2014_anti-doping-testing-figures_full-report_en.pdfToday IAAF had to admit more money is being spent on anti-doping in cycling than in athletics, and that some of the stuff they've said in earlier statemets were wrong and offensive, or as they put it: "To help avoid these comments being misunderstood or misinterpreted, and to also avoid giving offence were none was intended", IAAF basically sent out a statement listing up UCI's anti-doping budget, on a Sunday. Pwnd.
IAAF statement on UCI commitment to the fight against doping
In the past few weeks, the IAAF has made significant efforts to correct erroneous and misleading information with respect to its commitment to the fight against doping in athletics, disseminated mainly by some sections of the British media.
The IAAF therefore felt obliged on Friday 14 August, following continuous and persistent comparisons between athletics and cycling – and specifically the IAAF and cycling’s world governing body, the UCI – and the continual misrepresentation in the media of the IAAF answers, to make comments about the financial contributions of both organisations in the fight against doping
To help avoid these comments being misunderstood or misinterpreted, and to also avoid giving offence were none was intended, we wish to elaborate on Friday’s comments and state that the UCI and IAAF anti-doping structures are different and fair comparisons are almost impossible to make.
Since 2008, the UCI has mandated the independent Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation (CADF) to plan and carry out anti-doping in cycling. It is the very nature of the CADF to be not only funded by the UCI, but also by its stakeholders (riders, teams and race organisers). As a consequence, the 2014 annual budget of the CADF was CHF 6.25M and the UCI spent a further CHF 1.2M on results management and the pursuit of cases. This is excluding the one-off CHF 2.25M the UCI spent on the Cycling Independent Reform Commission (CIRC) whose role was to investigate doping in cycling and make recommendations for future policy.
One thing that should be stated clearly is that the IAAF and UCI both play a leading role in the fight against doping and this is acknowledged by the entire sporting movement and the World Anti-Doping Agency.
Under the presidency of Brian Cookson the UCI should be commended for the impressive efforts which have been made to put in place a robust and transparent anti-doping system in cycling.
We regret the attempt by a selected group of media to set Athletics against Cycling, since the IAAF has the greatest respect for the work being done by the UCI in the field of anti-doping.
We wish to reiterate that there is strong collaboration between the two organisations in areas of experience sharing, trend-mapping and general anti-doping intelligence.
We also strongly believe that these two international federations are leaders in the field and should be held up as an example to others in the fight for Clean Sport.
IAAF