ITV4's review of doping issues, broadcast on the TdF rest day

[suzeworld]

Did you see this programme?

What did y'all think of this three handed debate? .. Miller, Brailsford and Kimmage offering contrasting views on what the Lance era's legacy was and what the future of clean riding means ..

I thought it was interesting to get the issues summarised this way, maybe regular forum members think they'v heard it all before?

I have this weird double think about doping .. I wish they didn't do it, wish things were cleaner, and feel sad that the sport has got this spotted past and all that -- but still loving it in all its murkiness ..

Even Lance, I can get so mixed up, alternating between recalling the amazing thrill I used to get seeing him on Tour stages,and how he personally inspired me when I got my own cancer diagnosis ... and then that dreadful feeling of a personal deceit when I realised his mantra about "I'm on my bike, what are you on ... " was not actually true .. sickening ..

 

[jazzkat]

At least it's being talked about in the open more.
My feeling is that while there is big bucks some people will try to cheat. I'd love cycling to be clean, but it's got to be tackled head on with some serious consequences. Was it Brailsford or Boardman that said having it written into contracts and so could be sued, would create self policing. At least someone would be seriously hit if they broke the rules.
I think you get rid of the dark stuff if you shine light on it, keep talking about doping in the open, it can't make the past go away but it might make the future brighter.

 

[dellzeqq]

I thought it was a snappily put together presentation, bringing together very different three points of view that, despite their individual shortcomings, offered some insight. It wasn't obscure, nor was it patronising.

 

[tmesis]

I agree with the idea of writing clauses in contracts stating that the team can go after dopers for their past wages, plus damages for any reputational damage caused to the team and sponsors. If the financial risks are high, the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

 

[suzeworld]

I thought the difference between Brailsford's Zero Tolerance and Miller's rehabilitation model was interesting. Millar making the point that zero tolerance works against shining a light on it, encourages silence and that Mafia-style closed shop.

 

[oldroadman]

At least it's being talked about in the open more.
My feeling is that while there is big bucks some people will try to cheat. I'd love cycling to be clean, but it's got to be tackled head on with some serious consequences. Was it Brailsford or Boardman that said having it written into contracts and so could be sued, would create self policing. At least someone would be seriously hit if they broke the rules.
I think you get rid of the dark stuff if you shine light on it, keep talking about doping in the open, it can't make the past go away but it might make the future brighter.

Exactly. The difference with cycling is that the sport is open about the problem and working to deal with it, make it as difficult as possible for anyone to use illegal techniques. I wish all professional (and some amateur) sports took such a strong line, because as you said, big bucks = temptation. But sadly some of them simply do an ostrich impersonation and pretend that there is no problem, which of course would be the case when you are not looking for it, or adequately testing, or have a very strong ethos.

 

[smutchin]

I agree with the idea of writing clauses in contracts stating that the team can go after dopers for their past wages, plus damages for any reputational damage caused to the team and sponsors. If the financial risks are high, the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

This absolves teams of their responsibilities. Teams need to be held more accountable for the behaviour of their riders. Look at Vini Fantini - two riders caught in the Giro, but despite all kinds of dodgy rumours about the team, they essentially get off scot-free because "the riders were acting alone". Which smells very funny to me.

It's unfair on the riders too, and a retrograde step. It's always been the way in pro cycling that riders are essentially left to their own devices by the team and just told when and where to turn up and race. This is why riders like David Millar have succumbed to the pressure to dope... If teams expect a certain level of performance from their riders, but don't provide the support networks, what do the teams expect? And if you continue to only punish riders when they're caught, not the team, where's the incentive for the team to properly police them?

 

[tmesis]

This absolves teams of their responsibilities.

If the team sue the rider, and they've been complicit in the doping, the rider will surely draw on this fact to lessen/nullify the damages. If the team don't sue the rider because they're afraid of what might come out, the sponsors can sue the team. It was the legal process that finally blew open the US postal case as, when push came to shove, riders would rather admit doping that do time for perjury.

 

[smutchin]

If the team sue the rider, and they've been complicit in the doping, the rider will surely draw on this fact to lessen/nullify the damages.

I'm thinking more of cases where the team's complicity is passive - where they aren't directly facilitiating or encouraging doping but also aren't doing enough to prevent it going on within the team.

To be specific, I'm thinking of AG2R.

It's far too easy for teams to say "he was acting alone" and wash their hands of the problem.

I didn't see the programme so I don't know to what extent this matter was covered, but since David Millar was involved, I assume he talked about the Garmin philosophy of having a central team base and proper support for riders so there isn't the same temptation - or need - for Garmin riders to make the mistakes he made.

 

[smutchin]

Also, even if a team is actively complicit, they're probably sensible enough these days to do it in a way that makes it hard for riders to prove. I can't imagine any current team is overtly running a USPS-style team-sponsored doping program. And I can well believe that some riders would be stupid enough to go along with any attempts to conceal team involvement - even to the extent of signing anti-doping clauses in their contracts that explicitly absolve the team of all responsibility if they are caught.

 

[Hont]

My feeling is that while there is big bucks some people will try to cheat.

It doesn't even need that, sadly; some people will cheat just for glory. But I agree that there will always be some who try to cheat in professional sport.

 

[Cycling Dan]

They keep saying that drugs are bad but only poor news crew and journalists deal in absolutes.

 

[suzeworld]

They keep saying that drugs are bad but only poor news crew and journalists deal in absolutes.

I do not understand your point. R u saying the whole drug use issue is not black n white?

 

[Cycling Dan]

I do not understand your point. R u saying the whole drug use issue is not black n white?

Yep, it's all grey. A lot in between. It's not just black and white.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I do not understand your point. R u saying the whole drug use issue is not black n white?

The underlying issue - dope or no dope - is fairly black and white. However, the blurry bits come when you try to eradicate doping. There's the idealistic, almost black and white, approach of Sky which can reinforce the omerta. And there's the more pragmatic approach of truth and reconciliation chez Millar/Garmin, designed to bring things out in the open. The end is the same, the means are very different.