2015 CIRC-Report – Bericht der Unabhängigen Radsport Reform Kommission
Im Zuge der Armstrong-Ermittlungen geriet die alte und aktuelle UCI-Führung unter Hein Verbruggen und Pat McQuaid immer stärker unter Korruptionsverdacht und litt unter einem starken Glaubwürdigkeitsproblem. In der Folge wurde im September 2013 Brian Cookson zum Nachfolger von Pat McQuaid gewählt.
Unter seiner Leitung erging der Auftrag die langjährigen Vorwürfe gegenüber der UCI aufzuarbeiten. Insbesondere standen Vorwürfe im Raum Doping geduldet und verschleiert zu haben.
Am 8. Januar 2014 wurde die Einberufung einer Untersuchungs-Kommission bekannt gegeben:
Dick Marty, Schweizer Politiker und ehemaligen Staatsanwalt übernahm den Vorsitz, Ullrich Haas, deutscher Jura-Professor mit CAS-Erfahrung sowie Peter Nicholson, australischer Militär-Ermittler und UN-Sachverständiger ergänzten das Gremium, das von der Französin Aurélie Merle, einer ehemaligen IOC-Angestellten unterstützt und koordiniert wird.
Am 9. März 2015 wurde der Bericht der Kommission (CIRC Cycling Independent Reform Commission) von der UCI veröffentlicht.
Hein Verbruggen reagierte, verfasste seine Gegendarstellung und droht mit einer Klage: Hein Verbruggen
CIRC-Report zum Radsport allgemein, Zitate
ELITE ROAD CYCLING
Zitat CIRC, S. 12:
The general view is that at the elite level the situation has improved, but that doping is still taking place. It was commented that doping is either less prevalent today or the nature of doping practices has changed such that the performance gains are smaller. The CIRC considers that a culture of doping in cycling continues to exist, albeit attitudes have started to change. The biggest concern today is that following the introduction of the athlete biological passport, dopers have moved on to micro-dosing in a controlled manner that keeps their blood parameters constant and enables them to avoid detection.
In contrast to the findings in previous investigations, which identified systematic doping organised by teams, at the elite level riders who dope now organise their own doping programmes with the help of third parties who are primarily outside the cycling team. At the elite level, doping programmes are generally sophisticated and therefore doctors play a key role in devising programmes that provide performance enhancement whilst minimising the risk of getting caught.
Medikamente/Substanzen – eingenommen in den letzten Jahren
„The Commission was also told by a rider of a “pills system” used during races in 2011, involving up to 30 pills daily. They were to be taken during a stage to enable better breathing, develop greater power and to help finish a stage strongly, as well as afterwards for recovery. He said team riders also took tranquilisers at night and anti-depressants in the morning. He believed some of his crashes were due to the effects of these drugs. He also stated that there was a drink given to a rider who may be able to win, which made the heart beat faster and which caused the body to burn sugars immediately.“
Zitat CIRC, S. 63/64:
The Commission has collected a long list of substances or medical products that riders are using today or have been using in the last few years.
They are listed to demonstrate the breadth and extent of drugs available to professional and amateurs alike.
– Some of the substances or methods used to enhance blood oxygen capacity or “normalise” blood values are: Aicar, Xenon gas, ozone therapy, ITPP, Gas6, Actovegin, various forms of EPO such as CERA, “Eprex”, EPO zeta, EPO Retacrit, Neorecormon, and Albumina (to normalise blood values).
– Products used to increase muscle growth and recovery (in the general classes of anabolic substances, HGH, Growth Hormone releasing peptides and Gonadotropin-releasing hormone) which have been reported include: Kryptocur, Lutrelef, Gonasi, TB-500, Glucagone, Geref, Menogon, Proviron, DecaDurabolin, Testovis, Triacana, Dynatrope, Monores, and Hypertropin.
– Others products that have been mentioned to the CIRC are: IGF-1, Kenacort and Redux.
These lists indicate the relentless flow of substances coming into the sport. It is obvious that mere rules and regulations cannot alone stem the tide; other approaches to anti-doping are also required.
Substances not on the WADA Prohibited List
The Commission also heard that riders will take a wide range of non-banned substances to create a performance-enhancing effect. For example riders seem to be taking an array of painkillers and caffeine tablets, as well as nutritional supplements. Even though these are not currently Prohibited Substances on the WADA List, the CIRC has been told that the administration of some of these substances has the sole purpose of performance enhancement. They are therefore highlighted for completeness of the range of substances that riders will take to gain an advantage. Products and substances that have been mentioned include Viagra, Cialis and various nutritional supplements and homeopathic products: Testis, Coenzyme Compositum, Spirulina, Levothyroxine, Acetylcarnitine, Levocarnitine, Fructose; Levomefolate calcium, beta-alanine, iron products, Vitamin B12 and folic acids, Omega 3, and Oxazepam. Further, Tramadol, a narcotic-like pain reliever, has been in the media recently.
The Commission was told by some that it is used widely because it is an extremely strong painkiller and is not on the banned list. Again, there was a body of opinion that if a rider needed to take the product, the rider should not be riding. It was also thought that Tramadol could cause impairment of judgement in a rider, which in turn could cause crashes.
ehemalige dopingbelastete Fahrer im Staff
Zitat CIRC S. 79f:
The Commission found a recurring theme within the sport was that doping and cheating were perpetuated in the sport because of the transfer of knowledge across teams. In the past, particularly when doping was predominantly organised by teams, the movement of riders and staff (from soigneurs, to doctors or managers) between teams was an easy way for knowledge of doping practices to spread throughout the peloton. Sometimes, these doping working relationships lasted for many years and could involve individuals working in teams or doctors outside the team. As noted above, doping is not talked about openly today and the more common issue now appears to be the return to the sport of riders who doped in the past and take up roles as directeur sportif or trainers. Many interviewees commented that they felt that it was difficult for the sport to change whilst individuals who rode in the doping era continue to have such a strong influence on the sport. This was also seen as a reason for the existence of the last remnants of the omerta, as older attitudes were to shun whistleblowers.
Underpinning this situation over many years was the moving amongst teams of “dopingdoctors”, complicit soigneurs and other doping-versed medical and team support staff. This way too, doping approaches and methods were dispersed across many, if not all teams. Some doctors sold their services to more than one team, offering different levels of packages and service. It is clear that athlete support personnel continue to play an important role in the sport. Their attitudes to doping have a strong influence on riders and therefore all possible steps to investigate and sanction team staff must be pursued. It is noticeable that with a few high profile exceptions, there has not in the past been enough focus on ADRVs by team staff. The Commission notes the new provisions in the 2015 WADA Code that are designed to put greater responsibility on support personnel, and therefore a greater onus on federations like UCI to investigate them.
die Rolle der Ärzte
Zitat CIRC S. 80f:
… At least 69 different doctors between 1985 and 2014 assisted in the doping of riders. The various investigations have revealed that many of the doctors treated a large number of riders at the same time and worked across teams. These doctors played an integral role in doping programmes. The Commission has heard that even doctors who are subject to sporting sanctions continue to work with riders today. The access to doctors with extensive knowledge of doping in the sport, and particularly doctors “specialised” in doping who seek to improve doping methods to provide greater performance benefits, continues to provide a huge threat to the sport.
The more complicated area is the role of the tea m doctor. The Commission heard from a number of doctors who had worked in cycling for some time, who explained that they felt that they were put in a difficult position. A common rationalisation for doctors who had facilitated doping was that it was necess ary, otherwise a rider would have done it himself without medical supervision (which in any event many did). The doctor felt that this could have endangered the rider’s health, and thus the doctor felt compelled to assist the rider in order to protect him. Doctors also explained that they could not report riders to the authorities as they needed to retain the trust of the riders so that the riders would come to them. Whilst it is clear that the medical obligations owed by medical professionals can place the m in conflict with their duties to the authorities, it is difficult to accept that this could justify participation in doping riders. …
die UCI und Antidoping
Zitate CIRC S. 95ff:
… The challenge presented by endemic use of EPO and the Festina scandal placed the world of cycling in a particularly delicate situation. At this time, UCI was still at the development stage and did not yet have significant human and financial resources. Further, there was no international anti-doping agency and the response to the threat suffered from a lack of coordination. It was in the interests of all parties, particularly UCI and event organisers that the star riders were able to continue to race and that there were no doping scandals. As touched upon in the chapter, Elite Road Cycling, the omerta was an important component of the doping culture within the peloton. Everyone knew it existed but no one was allowed to speak openly about it without risking to be side-lined. …
The ADC was headed originally by a lawyer, Werner Goehner. He was succeeded by the ADC’s first Vice-president, Lon (also referred to as Leon) Schattenberg (2003—2006). It is reported, however, that Werner Goehner had a health problem and that, therefore, during his presidency Lon Schattenberg was acting as de facto ADC president. Even though the ADC was composed of three members (also during Lon Schattenberg’s presidency), it was Lon Schattenberg who effectively ran the ADC. The separation originally planned between medical and anti-doping was blurred, by making a doctor the de facto head of anti-doping, as the medical approach is determined by the code of Ethics of Physicians on the protection of public health. It is reported and appears from communications on file that the other members of the ADC were only sporadically kept up-to-date on ADC matters. Lon Schattenberg would supervise the ADU and take operational decisions that the ADU then implemented. Lon Schattenberg’s influence on the ADU’s operations was therefore considerable (even though he did not reside in Switzerland). Lon Schattenberg had daily contact with the ADU staff to discuss all anti-doping matters. It is reported for example that Lon Schattenberg would decide details of the Anti-Doping programme, such as during which races riders would be tested and who would be the DCO at a specific race.
Lon Schattenberg is reported to have been involved in cycling before joining the UCI and as someone who adored the sport of cycling. He has been described by ADU/CADF staff as a pioneer in anti-doping; however due to his professional backgrou nd (occupational therapist) the focus of his work was on health concerns rather than on the disciplinary aspects of anti-doping. The idea that the athlete’s health should play the central role in the fight against doping was shared and backed by UCI leader ship. This approach has also been described as “old school” and led to a culture clash when Anne Gripper later took over the ADU in October 2006 (see below). UCI staff reported that trying to catch the cheaters amounted to a witch hunt in Lon Schattenberg’s opinion. Interviewees criticised him for effectively applying a double standard, i.e., concentrating on health aspects of doping, instead of catching the cheaters. Lon Schattenberg is also described as having a very “human” approach to anti-doping.
Another influential figure in UCI’s anti-doping activity, even though not a member of the ADC, was Philippe Verbiest, a lawyer from Belgium. Philippe Verbiest had made contact with Hein Verbruggen in the mid 1980’s and was involved in the merger of the International Amateur Cycling Federation (“FIAC”) and the International Professional Cycling Federation (“FICP”) in 1992. Before that he had revised the UCI Anti-Doping Rules (“ADR”). Philippe Verbiest worked for the UCI as an external consultant until 2013. However, this formal status does not fully capture his true position within UCI. De facto he was the uncontested head of the judicial unit/legal department of UCI. In the context of anti-doping he was mainly involved in results management and appeals. All important legal decisions in this field went through him. Furthermore, he participated in a ll of UCI’s directors’ meetings.
… the anti-doping program was an effective means of limiting the use of certain substances that were dangerous to the health of the athletes, its effectiveness was obviously limited to those products that were detectable. Therefore, the UCI established a Health Program in 1997 designed to check and safeguard the general health of the riders and also help, indirectly, in the fight against doping. The health test and themedical follow-up performed were seen as an important chance for doctors to open the discussion with the riders about all aspects of health concerns, including doping. Such interaction was seen by Lon Schattenberg and the leadership of the UCI as “the best way to fight doping”.
In order to implement the Health Program the UCI established the Sports Safety and Conditions Commission (“SSCC”). Lon Schattenberg was the first president of the SSCC and held the position until 2001. Furthermore, the UCI hired Dr Mario Zorzoli to oversee the Program. One of the main responsibilities of the SSCC was to organise and plan blood tests in order to establish certain blood parameters of the athlete. These blood tests were used to detect abnormalities in the peloton, be it health issues (e.g., extreme high concentrations of ferritin) or indications (but not clear proof) of doping. These tests formed the basis of the so-called “no-start rule” (according to which a rest period could be imposed on a rider for 15 days if certain blood parameter thresholds were exceeded). This practice of conducting health tests was also followed well after the EPO test had been introduced. Only after the refinement of the EPO tests and installing the ABP was it felt that there was no longer a need to collect this data in the context of a Health Program.
Some coordination took place between the Anti-Doping Program and the Health Program. Lon Schattenberg was head of the ADU as well as of the SSCC (and a member of the Medical Commission). He would select cyclists with suspect health test for In-competition Tests (“ICT”). On an operational level things were also coordinated informally, i.e. by the fact that, for a certain period of time, the coordinator of the ADU and the SSCC shared the same office within UCI. Some coordination also occurred through the fact that the UCI doctor participated along with the DCO in the taking of the sample. This provided a good opportunity for the exchange of information between the UCI doctor and the athlete and his/her support personnel, because the UCI doctor was, unlike the DCO, not perceived as a “prosecutor.” Information that might be relevant to doping that was obtained by the UCI doctor in the field was then passed on to the ADU. This practice was stopped at a later point in time (2012) and the taking of the samples was solely conducted under the authority of the DCOs (or Medical Inspector who was, however, not a UCI Doctor).
Recommendations / Empfehlungen, S. 14
The Commission refers readers to the full Recommendations section of the Report. However, some key recommendations include:
1. Primary responsibility for controlling doping in sport lies with the sporting world. Only subsidiary responsibility lies with governments. The CIRC recommends that UCI works closely with governments/national authorities that make their investigative tools available to the fight against doping and that, together with other stakeholders, it urges other governments to have these tools in place and work towards closer cooperation with sports bodies on criminal matters in anti-doping.
2. In addition to serving any sport sanction, doctors who are found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation should be investigated to determine whether they are fit to continue their general medical practice. Anti-doping bodies should have an obligation to inform the doctor’s professional regulatory body that he has been sanctioned for a sport violation so that the regulatory body may open an investigation against the doctor.
3. The CIRC has observed that “public shaming” is frequently used to put pressure on other stakeholders. In particular, allegations that are not fully investigated or not investigated at all are put into the public domain by anti-doping organisations. Such conduct should not be employed. It infringes on fundamental rights, leads to a waste of resources and undermines the credibility of the fight against doping. In the same way that WADA-accredited laboratories are bound by a duty of confidentiality, the same principle should apply to anti-doping organisations in respect of allegations.
4. The CIRC recommends that “prevalence studies” of doping in different countries, teams, levels (including amateur) and disciplines, should be undertaken by UCI/CADF to establish the level of doping in those different populations; this would enable UCI/CADF to define better how to deploy resources and support an effective anti-doping strategy. All the statistical data from testing should be integrated into these studies.
5. UCI/CADF should move to a qualitative rather than quantitative testing plan and collect and integrate all available information. At present, CADF concentrates 15 solely on testing. There must also be a focus on non-analytical means of establishing anti-doping rule violations. The CIRC recommends that intelligence-led testing and broader, non-analytical investigations should target individual riders and support staff when most likely to be engaged in doping activities, particularly in out-of-competition time periods.
6. The no testing window from 11pm to 6am helps riders who micro-dose to avoid being caught. The CIRC is conscious of the principle of proportionality but the absence of night-time testing is a weakness in the current system and needs to be addressed. UCI/CADF should make more use of the exception contained in Article 5.2 of the 2015 UCI Anti-Doping Rules (“serious and specific suspicion that the Rider may be engaged in doping”) to test at night-time.
7. Re-testing should be an integral part of the testing programme. A coherent re-testing strategy should be developed that is systematic and regularly undertaken, with additional tests when new science is available, and well publicised. Retrospective sample testing is perhaps as great a disincentive to riders as today’s testing is, even more so for the more successful riders. A sample given by a rider should have a mandatory re-testing programme attached to it.
8. CIRC recommends that in order to encourage people to come forward with information, UCI should set up an independent whistleblower desk. UCI should also proactively make full use of substantial assistance provisions (every athlete who is sanctioned should be approached to enquire whether he is interested in providing substantial assistance).
9. The most effective way of cleaning up the sport is to pursue individuals through investigations as soon as a suspicion is raised. UCI/CADF should make efforts to investigate those individuals that it believes were involved in doping in the past, observing the principles of due process, and make full use of the extended statute of limitations.
The Recommendations section also contains suggestions regarding UCI’s governance structures.
Cycling Independent Reform Commission appeals for testimony to assist its investigation into cycling’s past
UCI-Pressemitteilung vom 11.2.2014:
Dick Marty, Chairman of the Cycling Independent Reform Commission [CIRC] appealed today for anyone with information which could help his commission understand cycling’s doping past to come forward. The CIRC, which is based in Lausanne, was established by the UCI in January to investigate historic doping in cycling and allegations that the UCI has been involved in previous wrongdoing.
Mr Marty, a senior Swiss politician and former state prosecutor has two Vice Presidents – Ulrich Haas, a specialist in anti-doping rules and procedures and Peter Nicholson, a former military officer who specialises in criminal investigations.
Dick Marty, Chairman of the CIRC said:
“The primary purpose of our investigation is not to punish doping offenders but to learn from the past so we can help ensure a better future for cycling. We will treat all witnesses fairly and so I urge anyone in the cycling community with information that can help our investigation to come forward. We have much work to do over the coming year and I hope, with the cooperation of the cycling family, the sport has a unique opportunity to learn lessons and regain trust.”
– The main focus of the investigation shall be to determine the processes and practices in professional road cycling that allowed the culture of doping to perpetuate over a sustained period of time, in particular to discover the main providers and facilitators of doping in cycling in the period 1998-2013. Investigation into UCI past wrongdoings will also be a core part of the CIRC mandate
– The investigation’s primary objective is not to punish anti-doping offences by single riders, but rather to identify and tackle the practices and networks that have instigated and/or facilitated doping in cycling over the relevant period
– The final objective of the investigation shall be the production of a comprehensive report illustrating the causes of, and responsibility for, the doping practices that took place within the relevant period and to make targeted recommendations to the whole cycling family
– The CIRC will have the authority to propose reduced sanctions to any License Holder [e.g. riders, officials, agents, organisers, team staff etc] who admit to Anti-Doping Rules Violations [ADRVs]
– The CIRC can reduce the sanction even further if the License Holder also provides valuable information concerning other ADRVs and/or other significant anti-doping relevant circumstances. In addition, if the License holder confesses an ADRV to the CIRC, no return of prize money shall be ordered
– The CIRC’s ability to propose reduced sanctions is limited to License Holders who are not currently serving a period of ineligibility or facing disciplinary proceedings. However, on a case by case basis, the CIRC can recommend an ad hoc reduction in sanction for a License Holder who is currently serving a period of ineligibility. This proposal will have to be approved by the original sanctioning body, WADA and the UCI- The members of the CIRC will operate on a completely independent basis and will not take any instructions from the UCI
– The CIRC will conduct its investigation on a strictly confidential basis and will take all measures necessary to guarantee such confidentiality.
UCI President Brian Cookson added:
“Today marks an important step in understanding the past and restoring the credibility of our sport. The Cycling Independent Reform Commission will not only help us learn from the past, but will also play an important role in shaping our future processes and practices. I committed to this process before I was elected in September 2013 and I’m pleased to see the CIRC fully operational only a few months later. It is essential that the Commission is left to get on with its investigation on a completely independent basis and I have ensured that all the structures are in place to allow this to happen.”
The commission can be contacted at the following e-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.org
UCI Communications Services