The Cycling Independent Reform Commission (CIRC) Report leaves unanswered questions

Yesterday morning, the first comprehensive report into cycling’s failings of the past was unveiled and one year’s work, by three people, who conducted 174 interviews, was condensed into 228 chilling pages, writes Brian Canty.

Most pages, and I read them all, resembled something like a crime thriller but in the end, we’re none the wiser as who to blame for the scandals the sport has endured for the past two decades or so.

Many pointed to former president Pat McQuaid as one of the chief culprits, but when the testimony was delivered, well, we still didn’t know who to blame.

Indeed, McQuaid and his predecessor Hein Verbruggen believe they’re exonerated of any wrongdoing because of the findings.

“The report completely clears me of any corruption, any wrongdoing, or any complicity in doping, and for me that’s very, very important,” McQuaid told Morning Ireland yesterday.

“I never gave any riders any particular favours. They were all tested, they’re all tested by the anti-doping people. They were all in the biological passport when I introduced the passport,” he added.

Not so fast.

The Cycling Independent Reform Commission (CIRC) report uncovered how disgraced doper Lance Armstrong received favourable treatment from the UCI which was spearheaded by McQuaid and the UCI contravened their own rules by allowing the American return to the sport sooner than permitted.

Oh, and lest not forget the curious case of the Tour Down Under and the Tour of Ireland from 2009.

“On the morning Pat McQuaid told UCI staff he had changed his mind and decided to let Lance Armstrong participate in the Tour Down Under, that same evening Armstrong told McQuaid he had decided to participate in the Tour of Ireland,” read the report.

The CIRC stopped short of calling the latter a sweet deal but it looks too co-incidental to be anything but.

Irrespective of whether that’s the case, it was never the mandate of the report to point fingers or name names.

Anyone who came forward with evidence on what went on had a right to protect their identity. It’s no surprise that the majority did that, including most of the riders.

That’s a depressing fact and ex-doper turned anti-doping campaigner David Millar lamented it.

“By my calculations they interviewed 25 riders/former riders,” he said yesterday.

“16 of these allowed their name to be published in the report. The other nine preferring to remain confidential, as is their right. Of the 16 names published only one is a current professional cyclist: Chris Froome.”

It begs the question, who was interviewed to gauge how clean today’s peloton is?

Aside from that the report painted an ugly picture of gross inadequacies on behalf of the sport’s governing body across a range of issues, many cover-ups, some conflicts of interest and inept leadership.

And that was only the past. There was little to suggest the future would be different.

The report is frustrating in some ways because for starters, we don’t know what was said, for the most part.

We can read the CIRC’s conclusions, but cannot see most of the sources from which they were drawn. This makes it impossible to judge the validity of claims, beyond mere trust in those who compiled the report.

The biggest problem facing the peloton is doping but when a “respected” rider claims 90% of them are still offending it it’s hardly a rosy outlook.

But later on, another said that figure is closer to 20%. So who do we believe? We don’t know the name of either rider.

What we do know is that cycling’s doping days are not behind it – and they never will be. As long as there are big contracts at stake and doctors willing to facilitate doping it will always exist. At least 69 different doctors between 1985 and 2014 assisted in the doping of riders with a large percentage of doctors working with different teams.

The report claims “three well-known “doping doctors” have been involved with 19 or 20 teams, and two of them were mentioned in 22 and 15 incidents over 16 and 18 years respectively. Another doctor has been involved in eight doping incidents over six years.

That’s grim detail but so much more is needed; the report does not name any specific riders, teams, doctors, or facilitators of doping, so it’s difficult to gauge the true gravity of the malaise.

The final 12 pages of the report outlines recommendations – and this is where a chink of light emerges. Some are common sense, more are unlikely, others preposterous.

One recommendation suggests “Doctors who are guilty of anti-doping rule violations should be investigated”. That hardly needed saying.

The same goes for the idea “the UCI should set up an independent whistleblower desk.”

But maybe the suggestion that “all teams and riders should be subject to the same testing and at a high standard” would be the best place to start?

The sport, the fans and its riders deserve at least that.