Another one (doesn't) bite the dust

[johnr]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/feedarticle/9613199

 

[festival]

It might be stating the obvious but more and more of the scum who have been caught out are only able to get back in a job with small, sometimes unknown teams.
The problem is they use it as stepping stone back to a bigger team. They cant be earning much but it brings them back into the sport until the dust has settled and they can can move up.

These small teams spend a large proportion of their time chasing after sponsors trying to keep afloat year on year, they seem to think having even a discredited 'star' will help them. I cant think of any other reason why they would do it?

We clearly cant trust the riders and there seems to be little will between the UCI, the teams, the race organisers etc to force a change.

So the authorities need to look at the problem from another angle, maybe a funding package for smaller teams a bit like how football league clubs are supported by the premier league clubs. If these teams are more stable financially then they can be more moral in their behaviour. Not ideal I know but there needs to be a change in the teams behaviour.

I would ban the cheats for life but the lawyers would have a field day.

If the pro tour teams agreed to not sign a convicted cheat for say, 5 years. the next level of teams say, 3 years and all other pro teams 2 years maybe that would stop them in their tracks.

 

[rich p]

...and Thomas Dekker may be coming back with Garmin, bizarrely.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughters-waiting-for-thomas-dekkers-physiological-data

 

[BJH]

Little bit like the disgraced footballer piece.

We get the up and coming player, looks really good in his first season - Lets call him Joey Bratton for ease.

Gets picked for England looks a real star. Sadly, he's also a sh%t head of the highest order. Fights with team mates, fights with members of the public ( even stranger when incident takes place at 3 in the morning), gobs off. You get the picture of this all round nice guy.

Because he's bad news, ends up being sold for very cheap money. New manager ( who may even have been at the highest level, even England) says he's just misunderstood, he wants to help him rebuild his career - blah blah blah blah blah blah.

What he means is, this kid is costing me buttons compared to his true value so i couldn't care less what he does wrong as long as he plays well.

And there we have it - money takes precedence over everything else. Cycling's no different.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Little bit like the disgraced footballer piece.

We get the up and coming player, looks really good in his first season - Lets call him Joey Bratton for ease.

Gets picked for England looks a real star. Sadly, he's also a sh%t head of the highest order. Fights with team mates, fights with members of the public ( even stranger when incident takes place at 3 in the morning), gobs off. You get the picture of this all round nice guy.

Because he's bad news, ends up being sold for very cheap money. New manager ( who may even have been at the highest level, even England) says he's just misunderstood, he wants to help him rebuild his career - blah blah blah blah blah blah.

What he means is, this kid is costing me buttons compared to his true value so i couldn't care less what he does wrong as long as he plays well.

And there we have it - money takes precedence over everything else. Cycling's no different.

All very cynical, but it ignores the humanity of the people involved.

Despite his start in life and the bad behaviour this led to, Joey Barton has, in fits and starts, become a better person and a better player. I am sure he's still in no way perfect, but he is undoubtedly improving.

Is there any reason to suppose that a cyclist with a genuine desire to change might not also do so? For every Ricardo Ricco, there is a David Millar.

 

[rich p]

All very cynical, but it ignores the humanity of the people involved.

Despite his start in life and the bad behaviour this led to, Joey Barton has, in fits and starts, become a better person and a better player. I am sure he's still in no way perfect, but he is undoubtedly improving.

Is there any reason to suppose that a cyclist with a genuine desire to change might not also do so? For every Ricardo Ricco, there is a David Millar.

I may be wrong but it seems to me that the only guaranteed reason to make them reconsider doping a first and indeed second time is fear of swingeing penalty and I can't think of a good reason why there shouldn't be.

If they were facing a more severe penalty they might never be tempted in the first place and they'd know the consequences.

Not directly comparable but you rarely see a false start in the 100m sprints on the track since automatic expulsion rule came in, but you get my drift.

 

[oldroadman]

I may be wrong but it seems to me that the only guaranteed reason to make them reconsider doping a first and indeed second time is fear of swingeing penalty and I can't think of a good reason why there shouldn't be.

If they were facing a more severe penalty they might never be tempted in the first place and they'd know the consequences.

Not directly comparable but you rarely see a false start in the 100m sprints on the track since automatic expulsion rule came in, but you get my drift.

Thaht iis how is should work, but the murder rate has hardly changed since hanging was abolished. Is a long sentence worse than ending your life? Does not seem to alter the statistics.
So, whatever the potential punishment, some idiots will always go the chemical route.
I agree that bigger bans should be the solution, at least 5 years for the "heavy" stuff, blood manipulation for example, and maybe 3 for stimulants (though is anyone gets caught for that, they really are stupid. Stupid - see R.Ricco.

Whatever, I think people should be given a chance, and once the ban is served allowed to return, but NEVER to first division teams, so limiting their potential income. And a second offence should mean life ban, no discussion.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Thaht iis how is should work, but the murder rate has hardly changed since hanging was abolished. Is a long sentence worse than ending your life? Does not seem to alter the statistics.
So, whatever the potential punishment, some idiots will always go the chemical route.
I agree that bigger bans should be the solution, at least 5 years for the "heavy" stuff, blood manipulation for example, and maybe 3 for stimulants (though is anyone gets caught for that, they really are stupid. Stupid - see R.Ricco.

Absolutely. We know from the evidence in criminal cases that deterrence through harsh punishment does not work, especially when the rewards are so high if you are not caught. In any case, cycling cannot even approach the severity of punishment that a criminal court could mete out so the idea of harsher punishments to deter just can't work.

The only answer I think is the improvement of the biological passport system and systematic testing, backed up by simple, cleat and standard sanctions - a ban (of x years, depending on the nature of the offence) for the first doping offence and then the chance for redemption, but a permanent ban for any second doping offence.

 

[BJH]

All very cynical, but it ignores the humanity of the people involved.

Despite his start in life and the bad behaviour this led to, Joey Barton has, in fits and starts, become a better person and a better player. I am sure he's still in no way perfect, but he is undoubtedly improving.

Is there any reason to suppose that a cyclist with a genuine desire to change might not also do so? For every Ricardo Ricco, there is a David Millar.

Has he really? He has continued to do the same things he's always done and managers will continue to "try to rehabilitate his behaviour" for the very reason i said - he's cheap relative to his ability. So he gets carried away every now and again, just high jinks for a talented star.

He's not the only one and he's certainly not rehabilitated, he's closer to the Ricco example than Millar.

My point is that cycling team managers, or football team managers display the same ability to avoid seeing the problem if they are getting the star on the cheap. I have no issue with someone getting the chance to exonerate themselves for previous behaviour.

BUT, I would also be very careful in holding up some people as examples of rehabilitation. Judge them by what they do and what they say. It might sound cynical to you, I would say more burnt too many times before rather than cynical.

Read Paul Kimmage's book - I found it very interesting.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Has he really? He has continued to do the same things he's always done and managers will continue to "try to rehabilitate his behaviour" for the very reason i said - he's cheap relative to his ability. So he gets carried away every now and again, just high jinks for a talented star.

Yes, he has improved massively. I used to live in Newcastle and I can tell you that reaction to him went from 'oh, another thug signed by the toon' to people being quite pleasantly surprised by him. Don't believe everything you read in the tabloids. I didn't say he was perfect but he's certainly, and slowly turning into someone who is a lot better than his upbringing and background would have suggested he might become.

Read Paul Kimmage's book - I found it very interesting.

I've read it and found it very interesting too, and I've also read many other 'tell all' memoirs of books featuring doping in cycling. In any case, I am sure you were not implying that I am ignorant, so what point from Kimmage's book did you think supported your case?

 

[BJH]

Re Joey Barton - only time will tell.

My original point was more aimed at the managers rather than him. In reality, managers would not give a T&^ss whether he had changed in his off the field behaviour or not, provided he played at the level he's capable of and especially so if they get him on the cheap.

I've read it and found it very interesting too, and I've also read many other 'tell all' memoirs of books featuring doping in cycling. In any case, I am sure you were not implying that I am ignorant, so what point from Kimmage's book did you think supported your case?

Absolutely no offence meant whatsoever!

My point was about DM's attitude. It's one that runs through many other cases, in which the riders say they made a mistake but don't appear to follow through with anything substantial. Another recent case has seen a reduction in the ban be granted, but the rider then proudly proclaims how he hasn't mentioned anybody else, which does not sound like full repentance.

I like DM, fantastic performances at the Worlds and Commonwealths last year. He makes a strong case for the personal redemption argument. But, I would like to see him "spit in the soup" because I can't see change ever happening in any meaningful way until they all do. I have seen a defence offered by other writers that Kimmage had no right to doorstep DM for an interview. That might be correct. But if he said what PK claims then it does not show him in a good light at all. I am not aware of him ever saying that PK misquoted him.