Cycling Independent Reform Commission report tells us little we didn't already know

It was a report to look into and fully investigate all of the doping that had gone on within cycling for years. International Cycling Union (UCI) president Brian Cookson said to expect some difficult reading. When you open a can of worms, you find worms, he warned.

So I opened the Cycling Independent Reform Commission (CIRC) report with a deep intake of breath. What would we hear about current teams? Was leadership fit for purpose?

I waited to read about the doping activity of numerous riders and teams. Finally a purge and an end to cycling's bad reputation.

Instead I read that the UCI, cycling's governing body, gave Lance Armstrong favourable treatment. Didn't we already know that? There was a new president elected and a call for this inquiry as it was clear that Armstrong had been protected. How else could he have gotten away with systematic doping for years?

Then the report revealed doping was still ongoing in cycling. Yes, of course it is. Let's hear in what form.

Microdosing is mentioned in the report. Riders take tiny amounts of blood-boosting drugs to avoid detection. Well, again, that's been going on for years, as far back as Armstrong's era. Riders taking EPO, AICAR, oxygen pills. We know all that. What new drugs or new means did you discover?

Doping, which was previously systematic, is now individual, claims the report. Yes, again, did we not know this? Riders are engaging private doctors to help them. Again, we knew this.

The report claimed an omerta - or code of silence - in cycling no longer exists. So why was Chris Froome the only high-profile rider to publicly come forward and talk to the commission? No Vincenzo Nibali, no Alberto Contador, no Nairo Quintana named. Maybe they did and we didn’t find out, but it looks like hardly any current riders took part.

Out of 174 interviewees, nobody admitted involvement in doping. Only those with current sanctions came forward (with the aim of reducing their sanctions). Several people refused to be interviewed.

Cookson promised the report wouldn't be a whitewash, and it isn't - it's more a case of a splash of paint here and a splash of paint there with a big part of the wall with no paint at all.

FIFA refused to publish their Garcia report last autumn as it contained confidential and sensitive information. The cycling equivalent has been published in full (with minor redactions) because there is no sensitive information.

There is no body of evidence against individuals; there is no weighty examination of those controlling cycling now; there are no investigations of those so heavily involved in drug regimes in the 1990s or those with positive tests themselves.

Maybe it's not the fault of the report authors. What can they do if the athletes don't want to take part? But it leaves me with the feeling of, so what? What has changed? What will change? What is new? Maybe there is a whole body of private, unpublished findings which the authorities will now work on to investigate and clean up cycling. Or maybe there isn't.

At least there are some strong recommendations. Doctors who cheat in sport could get struck off; testers will test at night; there will be a whistleblowing hotline; the CIRC wants more intelligence-led testing and the restrospective testing of samples. These are all a good thing for the sport and should have been tackled a long time ago.

There is one thing that happened in the early hours of Monday morning: a lot of people heaved a huge sigh of relief. Those people will carry on with the day job. As normal.