# So how would you clean up pro racing?



## Peter91 (23 May 2011)

sorry if this is the wrong section, i'm still a bit new
There's been lots of talk on here about doping in cycling and how tests don't work, people can take micro doses, bribing officials etc etc, and it's rather put me off watching the tours. But how would you actually clean up the sport? Imagine for example you're in-charge of the TdF, how do you make sure all the riders are clean?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 May 2011)

I wouldn't. I'd bring them all together in a large marquee and say "Well chaps, seeing as you are all at it like knives, from today, anything goes. Dope away. Nay bother. We've lost the battle and the war. If you want to kill yourself, go ahead, after all it will sell cycling magazines and newspapers and TV adverts if you do and make me even more millions of € than it does today."


----------



## yello (23 May 2011)

Theoretically, it could end in an instant. IF everyone stopped doping, but I suspect that's the only way it'd ever stop completely.

Because, practically, I suspect doping will never go away. It will only ever become a more manageable problem. Almost by default, tests are behind doping practice (you can only test for something you know exists) so testing is always destined to be somewhat of a catch-up game. That is why the blood passport, despite it's faults, is a way forward. Imho at least.

The same applies to other sports btw. It's not just cyclists that dope. Cycling just has more of a reputation for it and, I think, is one of the more active sports (vocally at least) in doing something about it.


----------



## oliglynn (23 May 2011)

GregCollins said:


> I wouldn't. I'd bring them all together in a large marquee and say "Well chaps, seeing as you are all at it like knives, from today, anything goes. Dope away. Nay bother. We've lost the battle and the war. If you want to kill yourself, go ahead, after all it will sell cycling magazines and newspapers and TV adverts if you do and make me even more millions of € than it does today."




Hah - great idea! I mean, they do say that any publicity is good publicity... 

I think it'd be a lot more fun watching an unashamed vein popping drug-fuelled frenzy of a tour, with on-the-go blood transfusions, riders ODing on steroids and going postal, crazy podium celebrations and debauched night-time antics inbetween stages!


----------



## philipbh (23 May 2011)

GregCollins said:


> I wouldn't. I'd bring them all together in a large marquee and say "Well chaps, seeing as you are all at it like knives, from today, anything goes. Dope away. Nay bother. We've lost the battle and the war. If you want to kill yourself, go ahead, after all it will sell cycling magazines and newspapers and TV adverts if you do and make me even more millions of € than it does today."




The argument against [see Dick Pound, former president of WADA, quoted in Whittle (2009) ] is that it would affect the sport lower down the ranks with "the abandonment of all ethical and moral responsibility"

He suggests that 14 / 15 year olds entering the sport would be hoovering up industrial quantities of PED's in the search of fame and fortune and / or their parents would suggest they took up other sports that didn't require tacit mandatory use of PED's

Surely (?) the answer would be to have a tougher testing regime and if caught receive an instant lifetime ban - assuming the evidence was categorical vs circumstantial


----------



## Peter91 (23 May 2011)

> Dick Pound


----------



## philipbh (23 May 2011)

Peter91 said:


>



Ironic he should campaign against self abuse


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 May 2011)

philipbh said:


> The argument against [see Dick Pound, former president of WADA, quoted in Whittle (2009) ] is that it would affect the sport lower down the ranks with "the abandonment of all ethical and moral responsibility"
> 
> He suggests that 14 / 15 year olds entering the sport would be hoovering up industrial quantities of PED's in the search of fame and fortune and / or their parents would suggest they took up other sports that didn't require tacit mandatory use of PED's



Putting aside the protection of minors and other vulnerable people, does professional sport have ethical and moral responsibilities, over and above legal ones, towards society? I'm not sure it does, and if it does it is doing a lousy job of living up to them.


----------



## philipbh (23 May 2011)

GregCollins said:


> Putting aside the protection of minors and other vulnerable people, does professional sport have ethical and moral responsibilities, over and above legal ones, towards society? I'm not sure it does, and if it does it is doing a lousy job of living up to them.



Insofar as sports people are used as / become role models - then I would say that it does.

(Super injunctions aside)


----------



## Flying_Monkey (23 May 2011)

Unfortunately we can't 'put aside' the question of minors and the vulnerable, because that's the starting point and the baseline for the culture of professional sport.

You have to start as you mean to go on.

I think the biological passport is a good development. It's not perfect yet, and one reason we see it still being abused and not working as well as it will is because the generational shift that should occur with its use over time has not yet taken place. Many cyclists in the upper echelons of the sport already had an unrealistic biological baseline, and younger riders who were not able to abuse the system when young should gradually change this culture over time.


----------



## yello (23 May 2011)

GregCollins said:


> does professional sport have ethical and moral responsibilities, over and above legal ones, towards society?



As much as any ethical or moral organisation does, yes, I'd say sports do to. But that's dangerously close to a catch 22 statement. And it is a loaded question. 

The nature of the ethical and moral is that they are, in some sense, ethically and morally defined. That is, nothing definitive, nothing statute like and so open to conjecture. It is a very simple cop out for any organisation for say that they have no such responsibility because, in fact or by law, they don't. Nothing codified in detail and to the letter. Just a general public expectation.

Business organisations do operate much more freely from such degrees of expectation and perhaps with a higher degree of literal rule following in respect to matters ethical and moral. That is to say, one is not stunned if XYZ Inc. acts in a manner that some would consider unethical, so long as it's not illegal. Disgusted perhaps but not overly surprised. 

Professional sport operates in a kind of twilight zone methinks. The general public thinks 'sport', with all of the associated notions of fair play etc that that encompasses. Whereas the organisation itself, and to some extent the athletes, thinks in terms of business. 

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps punters should not expect Corinthian values from the business of sport.


----------



## oldroadman (23 May 2011)

Start from the premise that professional sport is a business, which it is. We want it clean. Cycling is prepared to wash dirty linen very publicly, and the peloton is probably cleaner now than for decades. Just keep the testing and bio-passport going.
Then maybe look at the governance of sports where they "don't have a problem" and check for the big brushes. That's for sweeping things under the carpet, because it's bad for business for people to find out x player in y big money/profile sport that has lots of TV time has been "at it". 
Then look at examples, when certain footy players get into fights in nightclubs in the early hours, during their season, what are the doing there? Professional athletes? Never mind, the press report it as letting off steam. One interesting thing, Ryan Giggs has lasted a very long time in a tough position, and looked after himself quite well. No real excesses. I don't hear anyone even suggest he has done anything wrong. But a long career rider who carries on well gets all the knowing comments - from the unknowing.

Overall, I think cycling is suffering for doing the right thing. We seem to be great at beating ourselves up about it as well. Others will follow, one day.


----------



## Will1985 (23 May 2011)

Automatic life bans from all professional sport would be a good start, including future involvement as coach/manager which the UCI are already planning - the risk of a permanent loss of an athlete's livelihood must surely be a disincentive to doping. This would obviously require more cooperation between sports federations.

Unfortunately we'll always have those who blame their positives on dodgy meals, but to that I say ban all Spaniards from sport  This leads me onto my next point - national federations should not be responsible for deciding the fate of dopers as each can be a law unto themselves; if the UCI took control, all riders would theoretically have exactly the same sanctions (compare the similar circumstances of Contador and Li).

Pharmaceutical companies could also do more to help the authorities develop tests even before a product is released, as Roche supposedly did with Micera. Perhaps the next step is to add specific tracers to the compounds which would show up as foreign metabolites. Nobody wants negative publicity surrounding a drug which has greater benefits to patients. It wouldn't be surprising however if PED production is beginning to go underground in which case the authorities will never win.

Note also that doping is growing in the domestic peloton where testing is far less common. Not necessarily in this country but there have been testimonies over the last few years that it is rife in the US and Italy....no doubt many other countries too.


----------



## montage (23 May 2011)

Whilst I can see the benefits of a permanent ban, I'm a huge supported of second chances - David Millar is a great example.

I'd say initial ban prolonged, large fine, and then possibly some sort of ban from CTT teams for a couple of years. If caught again then lifetime ban.

Where does doping currently stand about being criminal? A couple of years in jail could sort them out


----------



## Flying_Monkey (23 May 2011)

montage said:


> Whilst I can see the benefits of a permanent ban, I'm a huge supported of second chances - David Millar is a great example.
> 
> I'd say initial ban prolonged, large fine, and then possibly some sort of ban from CTT teams for a couple of years. If caught again then lifetime ban.



+1. Otherwise there's no room for learning from mistakes which is one of the most important things in life.


----------



## Smokin Joe (23 May 2011)

GregCollins said:


> I wouldn't. I'd bring them all together in a large marquee and say "Well chaps, seeing as you are all at it like knives, from today, anything goes. Dope away. Nay bother. We've lost the battle and the war. If you want to kill yourself, go ahead, after all it will sell cycling magazines and newspapers and TV adverts if you do and make me even more millions of € than it does today."


And end up like the old Eastern Bloc countries where children as young as nine who showed a talent for sport were put on a doping programme, often without their knowledge. The consequences for them in later life were often catastrophic.


----------



## totallyfixed (23 May 2011)

Sack the current members of the UCI who have the backbone of an amoeba and morals of politicians.
Much longer bans with [as pointed out by OP] lifetime ban for second offence.
Doping offences to be ruled on in a much shorter time scale.
Stop employing dodgy Director Sportifs 
Shoot anyone else who is an Armstrong fan boy.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 May 2011)

Put Jeff Novitzky in charge?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/sports/baseball/30novitzky.html 

According to Matt Seaton, he's now investigating cycling.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/may/23/lance-armstrong-tyler-hamilton


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 May 2011)

philipbh said:


> Insofar as sports people are used as / become role models - then I would say that it does.
> 
> (Super injunctions aside)



misuse as role models more like. why is a professional sports person any better a role model than a professional banker/chef/lawyer/politician?

Society chooses its role models to reflect its aspirations... largely I fear to do with money and fame these days.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 May 2011)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Unfortunately we can't 'put aside' the question of minors and the vulnerable, because that's the starting point and the baseline for the culture of professional sport.
> 
> You have to start as you mean to go on.



How so is that the starting point? vulnerable adults and minors are rarely professional sports people ime.


----------



## yello (24 May 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> According to Matt Seaton, he's now investigating cycling.
> http://www.guardian....-tyler-hamilton



Sorry, where does he say that? 

I read he says he's investigating Armstrong which, in my point of view, is not _quite_ correct. The FDA's investigation _includes_ Armstrong but the remit is broader. It's more about the misuse of US public funds to buy drugs. That is, specifically, the USPS team of which Armstrong was a member. Okay, that statement deliberately underplays Armstrong's roll but you get the drift! I'm not aware the the FDA's (or Novitsky's) remit has broadened to US cycling let alone cycling in general. 

I certainly can't see that the USFDA would have any authority over world cycling or the UCI... but it'd be interesting if they did! Novitsky is, by all accounts, an extraordinarily diligent investigator!


----------



## philipbh (24 May 2011)

GregCollins said:


> Why is a professional sports person any better a role model than a professional banker/chef/lawyer/politician?



I would say the role is traditional and based on visibility of the individual 

In this "celebrity age" - anyone can be one I suppose (good or bad)


----------



## biking_fox (24 May 2011)

> One interesting thing, _Ryan Giggs_ has lasted a very long time in a tough position, and looked after himself quite well. No real excesses. I don't hear anyone even suggest he has done anything wrong



hahahahhahahaha 

I do hope that was deliberate. If it wasn't then you need to read Hansard, Twitter or google. Or even the BBC today.



Life bans. It is the only way. If you're caught you're out. Make the punishment so harsh that people won't cheat. But a culture of testing and the bio-passports is a good way to go.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 May 2011)

Smokin Joe said:


> And end up like the old Eastern Bloc countries where children as young as nine who showed a talent for sport were put on a doping programme, often without their knowledge. The consequences for them in later life were often catastrophic.



I'm not sure how deregulating the use of pharmacutical technology in professional sport leads immediately to child abuse in liberal democracies but each to their own.

and if you think the amateurs, the wannabees and the up and coming ain't stuffing themselves full of, or doing, stuff likely to have catastrophic consequences in later life then.....


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 May 2011)

biking_fox said:


> Life bans. It is the only way. If you're caught you're out. Make the punishment so harsh that people won't cheat. But a culture of testing and the bio-passports is a good way to go.



Is David Millar clean these days?


----------



## Ludwig (24 May 2011)

If we all stopped watching cycle races in protest whether it is at the roadside or on TV they would soon clean up their act.


----------



## rich p (24 May 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> Put Jeff Novitzky in charge?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.c...30novitzky.html
> 
> ...



Keep up Dell! Novitsky has been investigating Armstrong and USP for almost a year!


----------



## dellzeqq (24 May 2011)

rich p said:


> Keep up Dell! Novitsky has been investigating Armstrong and USP for almost a year!


whoops!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (24 May 2011)

GregCollins said:


> How so is that the starting point? vulnerable adults and minors are rarely professional sports people ime.



I didn't think it was that difficult to understand. Minors and those in positions where they can be taken advantage of by older coaches and teammates are the base of the sport - they are where the future professionals come from. If you start by creating a culture where doping is totally unacceptable then this can feed foward. The problem now is that we have older riders and coaches who basically got away with it, and these are the people bringing on the younger riders.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 May 2011)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I didn't think it was that difficult to understand. Minors and those in positions where they can be taken advantage of by older coaches and teammates are the base of the sport - they are where the future professionals come from. If you start by *creating a culture where doping is totally unacceptable* then this can feed foward. The problem now is that we have older riders and coaches who basically got away with it, and these are the people bringing on the younger riders.



impossible to achieve I think. 

sports people, especially professional sports people, will always try to cheat, especially when vast amounts of spoils go to the victors, and the 'guards' are, at best, enfeebled and, at worse, actively collude with the cheats.

amateurs/juniors/minors in other sports often play within different rules/laws, often designed to mitigate the risk they are exposed to by their very taking part. why can't cycling be the same?


----------



## Adasta (24 May 2011)

Could the limits of what are considering "illegal amounts" of banned substance in the body not just be raised? To something like 1g or 2g or some other "reasonable" amount? It seems odd to penalise people on infinitesimally small amounts of some substance or other being present in their bodies.


----------



## philipbh (25 May 2011)

GregCollins said:


> amateurs/juniors/minors in other sports often play within different rules/laws, often designed to mitigate the risk they are exposed to by their very taking part. why can't cycling be the same?



So you would advocate allowing only Robinson's Barley water in the bidons of the amateur and prescribe the electric juice for pro use only?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 May 2011)

philipbh said:


> So you would advocate allowing only Robinson's Barley water in the bidons of the amateur and prescribe the electric juice for pro use only?



More or less yes. But honestly I would not have a huge problem with amateur adults using technology to give themselves an edge if they choose so to do provided minors are protected. I'm pretty sure some do anyway!


----------



## philipbh (25 May 2011)

GregCollins said:


> More or less yes. But honestly I would not have a huge problem with amateur adults using technology to give themselves an edge if they choose so to do provided minors are protected. I'm pretty sure some do anyway!



Which brings us to the Hein Verbruggen solution he was advocating c. 1997 - safe limits ( as Adasta alluded to above)


----------



## Will1985 (26 May 2011)

Adasta said:


> Could the limits of what are considering "illegal amounts" of banned substance in the body not just be raised? To something like 1g or 2g or some other "reasonable" amount? It seems odd to penalise people on infinitesimally small amounts of some substance or other being present in their bodies.


Maybe for some things yes, but there are also other metabolites of drugs which do not occur naturally in the human body, so the limits should be zero. If athletes have a beef with that they should pay attention to what enters their body


----------



## yello (26 May 2011)

Will1985 said:


> If athletes have a beef with that they should pay attention to what enters their body



Easier said then done. To be fair, they can't know with 100% certainty, they take a great deal on trust. They are cyclists after all; not nutritionists or chemists or biologists... or whoever knows these things!

But I would say that zero is a number too. Why set the 'acceptable quantity at 1 thingy per thingy (or whatever) when that has to be measured too. That is, what happens if someone gets an infinitesimally small amount above 1?

I think if you adopt 'zero tolerance' testing then you have to accept the possibility of punishing the innocent. Maybe that's acceptable though. Dunno, I feel uneasy about it but maybe needs must.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (26 May 2011)

yello said:


> Easier said then done. To be fair, they can't know with 100% certainty, they take a great deal on trust. They are cyclists after all; not nutritionists or chemists or biologists... or whoever knows these things!
> 
> But I would say that zero is a number too. Why set the 'acceptable quantity at 1 thingy per thingy (or whatever) when that has to be measured too. That is, what happens if someone gets an infinitesimally small amount above 1?
> 
> I think if you adopt 'zero tolerance' testing then you have to accept the possibility of punishing the innocent. Maybe that's acceptable though. Dunno, I feel uneasy about it but maybe needs must.



This is why starting early with the biological passport (and improving it), and using this as a basis for health-based decisions, is better than 'zero tolerance' testing.


----------



## yello (26 May 2011)

I'm a big fan of the biological passport. I do think it's the way to go.


----------



## philipbh (26 May 2011)

Flying_Monkey said:


> This is why starting early with the biological passport (and improving it), and using this as a basis for health-based decisions, is better than 'zero tolerance' testing.



Really ?

There is no natural background level of Clenbutarol - presence of it blood / urine samples if evidence (if not proof) of irregularities - if not prescribed for its normal therapeutic use

Surely, there must be a balance between abnormal levels of natural phenomena (e.g. haematocrit) and any level of abnormal substance detection?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (26 May 2011)

philipbh said:


> Really ?
> 
> There is no natural background level of Clenbutarol - presence of it blood / urine samples if evidence (if not proof) of irregularities - if not prescribed for its normal therapeutic use
> 
> Surely, there must be a balance between abnormal levels of natural phenomena (e.g. haematocrit) and any level of abnormal substance detection?



So, logically, the biological passport level of clenbutarol would be 'zero'. That's not the same as an overall zero tolerance approach. The other thing is that many drugs do not have tests that directly detect the substance in question, but detect breakdown products and effects, many of which can also be 'natural'. So the biological passport approach makes the best overall sense. Of course you need to test to acquire readings to compare to the passport, so I am not suggesting 'no testing'.


----------



## philipbh (27 May 2011)

For the benefit of the group - here is an extract from Herbie Sykes new book Maglia Rosa - his views on the Italian approach / general doping in cycling

http://rouleurmagazine.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/600/


----------



## david k (27 May 2011)

GregCollins said:


> I wouldn't. I'd bring them all together in a large marquee and say "Well chaps, seeing as you are all at it like knives, from today, anything goes. Dope away. Nay bother. We've lost the battle and the war. If you want to kill yourself, go ahead, after all it will sell cycling magazines and newspapers and TV adverts if you do and make me even more millions of € than it does today."



yeh agree, at least its an even playing field

could then dvertise a clean tour for the rest, over time theyd all move over


----------



## david k (27 May 2011)

they do it in body building


----------



## Smokin Joe (27 May 2011)

david k said:


> yeh agree, at least its an even playing field
> 
> could then dvertise a clean tour for the rest, over time theyd all move over


Are you serious, two TdF each year, one for dopers and one for clean riders?

Think it through properly and you will see how ridiculous the idea is.


----------



## philipbh (27 May 2011)

Smokin Joe said:


> Are you serious, two TdF each year, one for dopers and one for clean riders?



No need for two - just the one 

Formula 1 had a two tier system for a season or two - Turbo Charged and Normally Aspirated competing on the same track

(just kidding of course, it would never work)


----------



## dellzeqq (27 May 2011)

at times like these it's worth reminding ourselves that however crap the UCI is.........

it's not FIFA http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/27052011/58/world-cup-fifa-opens-blatter-probe.html


----------



## Flying_Monkey (27 May 2011)

david k said:


> they do it in body building



Pick a serious sport for comparison, why don't you...


----------



## rich p (27 May 2011)

david k said:


> they do it in body building


----------



## Ludwig (28 May 2011)

Bike racing is almost spotlessly clean, very stricktly tested and it is almost impossible to get away with things with increasing surveilance, dna and foresic science. You can see crimes being solved many decades later due to the minutest dna evidence and that is no different in cycling. 
I believe bike racing is much cleaner and has an honour and integrity that you don't get in many other sports.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 May 2011)

UCI don't seem to agree, given they maintain an index of suspiscion


----------



## Noodley (28 May 2011)

Well, I would not let this twonk go into management for a start:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/di-luca-three-or-four-more-years-before-turning-to-team-management


----------



## BJH (28 May 2011)

Short of having a japanese keirin school style approach with the UCI presiding over hotels, doctors, chefs and food used ( which would mean teams going to the TdF would probably having bookings in a hotel in Hungary owned by a UCI committee member and a waiter acting as team doctor) it will never go away completely.

It looks like they have plenty enough initiatives in place, now they need to make them stick. 

A ban should be a ban, period involved has to be more financially hurtful than what the rider might make by having some big wins by cheating.
To come back they have to name all names - not allowed to hide.
No rider who has ever been banned allowed in team management.
Reduce the term that UCI leaders are allowed in power for, US Presidents can serve more than 2 terms.

They would do me for starters.


----------



## Scruffmonster (1 Jun 2011)

Hit the sponsors. Bans the team sponsors for a set period and have them indelibly linked to the drugs. You think that any company is going to drop masses of cash into a team that does not promote it's product in a positive light?

A switch of tact would be needed. Every official news source would need to read 'Saxo Bank drug cheat Contador banned from Tour', rather than omit the team name as it so often does now. Get that sponsor name front and centre.

I guarantee that the next round of negotiations would be something like;

"We'll pay £xx,xxx,xxx.xx up front, and the remaining 50% will be paid incrementally year on year for 5 years on the condition of no failed drug tests"

The teams need to be taking the stance on this. At the minute it's ass backwards. Teams need to be enforcing laws, not evading them. Make it in their interests to and they will.

If a team is 100% transparent it sends out a message. First up, they may 'lose out' for a few seasons as they will be running clean, but the team sponsor will be happy, if anything paying *more* to back a team, safe in the knowledge that it's reputation, and (due to the above financial clauses) financial interests are safer.

Over time this would surely send a message to young cyclists coming through the ranks that sure, they could go faster and dope their way to a pro team, but that they also have another route.

This change of tact could bring about a change in the sport. Riders coming through aspiring to be on a clean team, a clean team being rewarded financially for getting it's house in order, and ultimately, everyone sh1t scared of stepping out of line as they could lose their principle sponsor.

I know measures are being taken, some teams are already going above and beyond the call of duty, but the moment you hit the money, link them to drugs, ban sponsors for a set period... then things would get traction.

It would represent a sort of Panopticon of cleanliness.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (1 Jun 2011)

Scruffmonster said:


> It would represent a sort of Panopticon of cleanliness.



Well, the Panopticon is more like it has been, with the concentration on monitoring riders, whereabouts requirements, testing when you least expect it etc. But in practice, panopticism doesn't work, even in the situations of confinement that Jeremy Bentham originally proposed. So doing something indirect like hitting the sponsors, or bypassing any concerns about riders behaving better and just going straight for what their bodies tell us (biological passports) are both ideas that have come up to supplement the panoptic surveillance measures.


----------



## Smokin Joe (1 Jun 2011)

Scruffmonster said:


> Hit the sponsors. Bans the team sponsors for a set period and have them indelibly linked to the drugs. You think that any company is going to drop masses of cash into a team that does not promote it's product in a positive light?


You'd end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater doing that. Cycling needs sponsors more than sponsors need cycling, there are plenty of other sports with prime time TV coverage who would happily grab any available sponsor with open arms.

I think you also mis-understand the root of the doping culture in cycling. I'm sure that commercial organisations like US Postal, Discovery and every other sponsor who puts money into a team for a financial return wouldn't touch one where they knew organised doping was taking place, the bad publicity would undo any gain from their considerable outlay. The problem is that when Scruffmonster Industries or Smoking Joe PLC decide to sponsor a cycling team they have to hire experienced professionals to organise and run it for them, it is not a job the average Human Resources Department could handle. And as the experienced professionals are steeped in the doping culture they bring it in with them, and I doubt very much whether they boast about it to the Board of Directors of the sponsoring enterprise.

The problem is purely a cycling one, and it is the riders and ex-riders who are still involved in the sport who are the cause of it, no-one else.


----------



## Scruffmonster (1 Jun 2011)

Smokin Joe said:


> You'd end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater doing that. Cycling needs sponsors more than sponsors need cycling, there are plenty of other sports with prime time TV coverage who would happily grab any available sponsor with open arms.
> 
> I think you also mis-understand the root of the doping culture in cycling. I'm sure that commercial organisations like US Postal, Discovery and every other sponsor who puts money into a team for a financial return wouldn't touch one where they knew organised doping was taking place, the bad publicity would undo any gain from their considerable outlay. The problem is that when Scruffmonster Industries or Smoking Joe PLC decide to sponsor a cycling team they have to hire experienced professionals to organise and run it for them, it is not a job the average Human Resources Department could handle. And as the experienced professionals are steeped in the doping culture they bring it in with them, and I doubt very much whether they boast about it to the Board of Directors of the sponsoring enterprise.
> 
> The problem is purely a cycling one, and it is the riders and ex-riders who are still involved in the sport who are the cause of it, no-one else.



Therein lies my point. Cycling _needs _sponsors. Sponsors do not need cycling. If you put teams in a position whereby they will lose money/the ability to participate by allowing, endorsing and supporting a doping culture within their team, they would be more inclined to do something about it.

At the moment, riders are (barely) punished individually, team bosses run teams however they like and the cycle is never stopped.

If you lost 30% of teams from the peloton over a 5 year period, new teams would start up, that void would be filled as you would still have an abundance of riding talent coming through. Coming through clean, looking to ride for a clean team.

Clean teams would start to become a majority, not a minority, doping would become a black mark, riders would be empowered to make the right decision, or at least have a viable alternative to the wrong decision.

Testing is not a deterrent, bans are not a deterrent, they've been tried for so long. They're not working.

It wouldn't take long to reverse the tide. You just need to make the system police itself. As a team director, if you are forced to stake the future survival of your team on your riders practices, you'll start paying attention. You'll ask what that syringe was in the toilet and why the team cook is injecting the fillet steak. If you started seeing the latest talent signing to a team with a better drugs policy you'd get your own house in order. You'd stop zarking cheating basically.


----------



## Will1985 (1 Jun 2011)

Looks like the Italians have assumed the stance of the BOC to prevent dopers from representing their country, but have taken it a step further by banning them from riding in the national championships.

It probably isn't much of a deterrent to some people though.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (2 Jun 2011)

Denial and feelings of victimization are big problems here too: Ricco is still claiming that his hospitalization was simply kidney failure that could have happened to anyone... as opposed to anyone trying to tranfuse doped blood that they'd kept in their fridge for a month!


----------



## raindog (3 Jun 2011)

Don't know if this fits exactly in here, but it's quite interesting. Cervelo's Gerard Vroomen.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vroomen-on-doping-the-media-basso-and-schleck


----------



## oldroadman (4 Jun 2011)

Scruffmonster said:


> Hit the sponsors. Bans the team sponsors for a set period and have them indelibly linked to the drugs. You think that any company is going to drop masses of cash into a team that does not promote it's product in a positive light?
> 
> A switch of tact would be needed. Every official news source would need to read 'Saxo Bank drug cheat Contador banned from Tour', rather than omit the team name as it so often does now. Get that sponsor name front and centre.
> 
> ...




Utterly the wrong target. Teams are NOT run by sponsors, but by management companies who contract to the sponsors. Riders contract to the management company. The target to go for is the management company (e.g. Riis Cycling, Tailwind Sports, not of course implying anything about them, but simply as examples of companies that have run teams under all sorts of sponsor names). If the management company and it's senior directors were banned for a period, plus heavy financial penalties, then just maybe things would start to change. But always remember when the rewards are big enough, chancers will always be there, trying to beat the system.

Re: the comment "sponsors will come along to fill the void". They won't, there is a very competitive world out there and banning sponsors will simply drive their money elsewhere, possibly into far less regulated sports. Is that what you want? I think not, as it will simply cause a reduction in teams and some riders/managers will take even more desperate measures to get a slice of what money is still left!


----------



## Smokin Joe (4 Jun 2011)

The only effective anti-doping measures are those where the rider has a better than evens chance of getting found out. Increased penalties are ineffective because if athletes are willing to risk their lives by ingesting chemicals they know can cause early death the threat of a ban for however long is not going to stop them.

Criminals in all walks of life have always weighed up the risk of getting caught rather than the consequences of being caught.


----------



## Noodley (4 Jun 2011)

Interesting article here:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vroomen-on-doping-the-media-basso-and-schleck


----------



## Smokin Joe (5 Jun 2011)

[QUOTE 1405593"]
L*ifetime bans, for a first offence. 1 appeal, it must be delivered in 3 minutes. After that, the guilty rider is handed down a lifetime ban from all sport. No sportives, no 5 a-side for the office team, nothing.*

Whenever this comes up, Millar is held up as an example of how people can change and how he deserved a second chance. Yet, the very same people witter on and on how Lance is a cheating so and so! Armstrong has never tested positive or served a ban, Millar has. He should no longer be riding and earning a living from cycling or any sport.

However, back in the real world, it can never be cleaned up. There will always be people searching for that tiny advantage, chemicals, friction free skinsuits, aerobars. It used to be amphetamines and a couple of brandys. The only hope is catch the occasional doper, and chuck them out forever. At least it'll be one less.

It's depressing really, when I speak to some of my colleagues and friends about cycling, they generally know two things, Lance Armstrong and lots of drug use 
[/quote]
Legally impossible to enforce.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (5 Jun 2011)

[QUOTE 1405593"]
Whenever this comes up, Millar is held up as an example of how people can change and how he deserved a second chance. Yet, the very same people witter on and on how Lance is a cheating so and so! Armstrong has never tested positive or served a ban, Millar has. He should no longer be riding and earning a living from cycling or any sport.
[/quote]

It's pretty obvious why. It's because Armstrong has blatantly got away with it, and has been basically laughing at his accusers. Millar on the other hand, got caught, admitted it, did his time, and more importantly than anything else admitted he was wrong and has done an awful lot since to bring attention to the problem. 

Armstrong is precisely the reason why concentrating on punishment misses the point entirely.


----------



## rich p (7 Jun 2011)

I suspect that the eye-witness evidence of his peers, the masses of circumstantial evidence along with the positive tests will carry more weight than FM's 'investigation'!

For what it's worth, I have read masses of evidence over the last many years which persuaded me that Armstrong was guilty of doping. It doesn't have to convince a court of law but it was enough for me to lose faith in him. The weight of evidence is such that it seems to me that those who believe him to be clean will never been convinced or will say that it was forgiveable since they were all at it.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Jun 2011)

rich p said:


> I suspect that the eye-witness evidence of his peers, the masses of circumstantial evidence along with the positive tests will carry more weight than FM's 'investigation'!
> 
> For what it's worth, I have read masses of evidence over the last many years which persuaded me that Armstrong was guilty of doping. It doesn't have to convince a court of law but it was enough for me to lose faith in him. The weight of evidence is such that it seems to me that those who believe him to be clean will never been convinced or will say that it was forgiveable since they were all at it.




I'm with rich p on this nowadays. It just took me a lot longer to get there.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (7 Jun 2011)

[QUOTE 1405597"]
So FM, lay it on the line, show the world your evidence and make millions.
[/quote]

Don't be ridiculous.


----------



## rich p (7 Jun 2011)

[QUOTE 1405602"]
Just to clarify, if they charge him, and he is found to have been at it, I will be at the head of the queue calling for him to be stripped of his titles, heavily fined and be banned from entering any sporting event, ever, anywhere. Zero tolerance should be set at absolute zero.

If you get caught, and cough to it after, tough. You've been caught, tell us all you know, then get lost.
[/quote]

Yes, but our vote doesn't actually count so we are free to speculate. 

I agree that LA is innocent until proven guilty as far as the authorities are concerned and that is as it should be. I have, however, read all the 'evidence' and come to a conclusion that satisfies me.

Have you read it all and are still undecided as to his guilt?

Incidentally, does your zero tolerance approach include Contador for the positive clenbuterol or Armstrong's positive when he was given a post facto sicknote for cortisone?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Jun 2011)

[QUOTE 1405601"]
FM, don't get all tetchy. I am not being ridiculous, merely pointing out that if the UCI, ASO, WADA or you had enough evidence, then Armstrong would be stripped of his titles before you could say maillot jeune. Let's face it, enough people want to show him up as a fraud, but they can't get the eveidence. So he hasn't been charged because no-one has enough credible evidence to bring the charges.

Unfortunately then, as things stand, and as much as you, Rich, Greg and others may not like it, Mr Armstrong remains an innocent multiple tour winner, and Mr Millar remains a lying, cheating performance enhancing low-life.

I am no particular fan of Armstrong, but I do find it baffling that Millar is held up as a beacon of proberty and worthy of a second chance, when Landis, Vinokourov, Hamilton et al are figures of ridicule, despite giving the authorities a damn site more to go on than Millar has ever done.
[/quote]

David Millar appeals to a certain anglo-saxon sense of fair play. and cycling is not short on hypocrisy. and when the current crop of brit stars are found to have a taint about them, as some of them surely will, nothing provable beyond reasonable doubt for sure but......, what will we all say then?


----------



## Smokin Joe (7 Jun 2011)

[QUOTE 1405601"]

Unfortunately then, as things stand, and as much as you, Rich, Greg and others may not like it, Mr Armstrong remains an innocent multiple tour winner, and Mr Millar remains a lying, cheating performance enhancing low-life.

[/quote]
So what's your take on Armstrong's 1999 samples which were found to contain evidence of EPO use when tested using techniques not available then?


----------



## BJH (20 Jun 2011)

[QUOTE 1405601"]
FM, don't get all tetchy. I am not being ridiculous, merely pointing out that if the UCI, ASO, WADA or you had enough evidence, then Armstrong would be stripped of his titles before you could say maillot jeune. Let's face it, enough people want to show him up as a fraud, but they can't get the eveidence. So he hasn't been charged because no-one has enough credible evidence to bring the charges.

Unfortunately then, as things stand, and as much as you, Rich, Greg and others may not like it, Mr Armstrong remains an innocent multiple tour winner, and Mr Millar remains a lying, cheating performance enhancing low-life.

I am no particular fan of Armstrong, but I do find it baffling that Millar is held up as a beacon of proberty and worthy of a second chance, when Landis, Vinokourov, Hamilton et al are figures of ridicule, despite giving the authorities a damn site more to go on than Millar has ever done.
[/quote]

Without wishing to come across as a major conspiracy theorist, I don't think it is in the interests of the UCI to see LA found guilty. When this finally blows open, it could be enough to cause serious harm to the sport, effectively destroying a large part of the official history. Would the UCI really like to see that while explaining some questions about why they accepted money from him and just why were LA and JB meeting the head of a testing lab to ask about procedures.

On Millar - I sympathise with your position. I don't think he has done enough. His performances now in the twighlight of his career have been really good. What concerns me is attitude described by Paul Kimmage - it doesn't come across as someone who is willing to tell all.

For Landis and Hamilton - yes, they are convicted liars. But just because your a convicted liar, does not mean that you never tell the truth. I don't believe that an impending book deal has led either of them to say what they are saying now. We are talking here about 2 former team mates who have testified to a grand jury under oath and are very aware of the consequences.

My guess is that just like Jack warner resigning from FIFA today which means all charges are dropped, the UCI would love to sweep all of this under the carpet. I don't think they can. LA has already given evidence in court to deny doping to win the case against the insurance company many years ago. With a million dollars at stake, they must also be watching like vultures at the moment, so this is going to run right up until it explodes!


----------



## Noodley (30 Jun 2011)

I was just having a read of the team rosters ahead of the TdeF and must say I was surprised at how many known supporters of doping or ex-dopers were still on the management side of the teams. Until that changes then I'm afraid we'll always have it - I know people can change (Madiot for example) but the majority of those still in the sport have shown litle evidence of this.


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Jun 2011)

GregCollins said:


> David Millar appeals to a certain anglo-saxon sense of fair play. and cycling is not short on hypocrisy. and when the current crop of brit stars are found to have a taint about them, as some of them surely will, nothing provable beyond reasonable doubt for sure but......, what will we all say then?


I guress that we'll say that it's sad, but that the law is the law. 

I wonder what Greg Lemond is thinking now? He said Armstrong was dirty back in 2001, and endured all kinds of grief as a result.


----------

