Bike Pure - Are these demands realistic? - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-18-09, 23:02
joe_papp's Avatar
joe_papp joe_papp is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Posts: 1,240
Question Bike Pure - Are these demands realistic?

What do you guys think of these "demands"? I'm of mixed feelings. Some I agree with, some I don't (at least not in their present form). From BikePure... [ie, not my words/ideas!!!]

CYCLESPORT 2.0
BLUEPRINT FOR A NEW START TO BIKE RACING
Bike Pure is making an impact in the fight against doping and it is through the continued support from every member in every corner of the world that we are making steady progress. We have clearly hit a chord with cycling fans everywhere, whose wish is for doping to be eliminated from cycling.

We are compiling a blueprint for the future. A collection of proposals, which we hope once implemented, will improve cycle sport and help eradicate doping in cycle sport. These recommendations will be democratically correlated, into a finished, working document to start a new era of professional bike racing entitled: Cycle Sport 2.0

Cycle sport 2.0 is a new start for a damaged sport. Step one is accepting that there is a problem within cycling. We can either ignore it, or work to bring about change. Bike Pure is about structured repair and preserving our sport for the next generation. At the end of the 2009 season, our complete set of proposals will be formally submitted to the UCI, WADA, professional teams, race organizers and national cycling federations with the hope of bringing about change.

Everybody who has added their name in support of Bike Pure has a voice, their own ideas for an improved sport. We urge that you fill out the form below with your own affirmative, workable suggestions on how to eliminate doping from cycling and improve our sport regardless of how brief or detailed your idea. All members opinions will be taken on board and will form part of the final proposals if deemed appropriate. Please include only as much personal information as you wish.

Alternatively, you can email your own Cyclesport 2.0 suggestions to info@bikepure.org

As a starting point, we have outlined several of our own proposals below. The groundswell of support for these proposals and others through our members will give strength to our case:-

1. More stringent sanctions for offending riders, with a minimum 4 year ban and life bans for repeat offenders. It is clear that the current 2 year ban is not deterring riders from doping.

2. All testing to be carried out by an independent testing authority. This independent authority must have no affiliation with any cycling governing body, team or sponsor linked to cyclesport.

3. Life bans and sanctions for management and team personnel working with cyclists to assist doping practices.

4. Suspensions for riders should be fully implemented, regardless of geographical location and/or National Federation.

5. Doping to be seen as a criminal offence in every country.

6. Offending riders and team personnel involved in administration of doping practices and the administers/suppliers of illegal drugs punished accordingly in line with judicial law.

7. The full public disclosure of all riders' medication notes eg. Asthma remedies, Cortisone creams, Testosterone supplements etc.

8. The disclosure of all riders VO2 max measurements, so that profiles can be built up in conjunction with the impending Bio-Passport system.

9. Authorities working with previous offenders of doping to help improve the testing procedures. Former dopers, although part of the initial problem, would be able to provide information on how riders evade detection and the methods and practices involved in doping. Their reasons for doping could also be taken on board.

Bike Pure would like to thank all its members, riders, teams and media for their valued support over the last number of months. Without you we would not be where we are today.
__________________
joepa

"There is a proper dignity and proportion to be observed in the performance of every act of life"

* email me
* read my (old) blog
* visit my website
* read my (new) blog
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-18-09, 23:18
blackcat's Avatar
blackcat blackcat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,265
Default

keirin 101.

24/7 supervision intra-GT.
Starting (preferably 7 days prior, then supervised) total hemoglobin test.

No team doctors or soigneurs. ASO/RCS/Unipublic bring independent professionals, and rotate them every day.

Seed GT riders. And test them 100 times a season.

Ignore the rest of the peloton. If they know the winners are clean, and if they graduate to the elite tier, they are gonna be subject to a rigorous testing program, then more likely to ride clean.

So: test Contador, Valverde, Sastre, Armstrong, Schlecks, Evans, Kreuzigger, Wiggins, Vande Velde, Leipheimer, Gesink, Menchov, Nibali, Kloden. 100 times each a year.

Boonen, Cavendish, Bennati, Petacchi, Friere, Farrar, Haussler, Cancellara, Devolder, 50-100 times a year.

Marshal and concentrate resources. Target the top tier. If you can prevent winners only winning because they have an unsurmountable advantage via their medical program, then you can get more clean winners. More clean winners, will build the inverted momentum, when riders can accept they can win clean, and do not need to dope, to tread water. Inverted Red Queen effect.

Or I could be deluded as Friedmanites and the neo-classical trickle down theory of economics.

We know you can beat the testing, getting caught requires an error of judgement from the riders. There are enough products that will not show up.

So, the solution is altering the sociological and push factors. If the winners are clean, or less charged so clean riders can get traction, then this removes the greatest incentive to dope. So, target the function of doping, the incentives. Do it via lopping the head off the peloton, because I think it is still prevalent, the thinking that the greatest indictment on doping in 2.HC and 1.HC races (and more selective) is crossing the line first is evidence enough. (simplifying things but that is still a common held belief imo)

Target the winners.

Prevent intra-GT doping.

Get the total hemoglobin test dialed in.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-19-09, 02:01
kiwirider kiwirider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 335
Default

My (overly long) thoughts on the general topic of systems that focus solely on the riders - from something I posted elsewhere ...

I look at the situation from a combination of fan, participant, friend of professional athletes (in a range of sports) and - and sorry about this one folks - the background of my legal training.

In english based legal systems there's a concept called contributory negligence. Put simply it's about seeing all parties who are responsible for a particular harm and working out what level of responsibility each party takes.

Applying the same idea to drugs in cycling - or in fact any sport - you find what to my mind is a pretty simple answer of why the current focus only on athletes doesn't work. My simple analysis runs of responsibility runs something like:
- athletes - obvious issue of personal responsibility and choice. But even within that, there are questions about education and their perception of need and their perception of their future/post-competition prospects that need to be addressed.
- fans - unrealistic expectations of their sporting idols and expectations of constant improvements even if natural human limits are being surpassed, in part because many fans are "enthusiasts" rather than "fanatics". Examples include the expectations that GC contenders wont have a down day in a grand tour (contrast to the late 80's - early 90's) and the ever increasing speeds in a number of races.
- media - although there is a bit more press for anti-PED issues and riders supporting that movement, in general, the media is as willingly blind as many fans. Anyone who had the misfortune to sit through Versus coverage of the Tour (my first year in North America - and from here on out I'm watching French or English Eurosport on my computer) will know what I'm talking about. The media's movitation is to sell copy and advertising space. It creates icons to do that. Typically as a body it doesn't look particularly deeply at who it uses to create the profile it wants - as any number of public meltdowns of "stars" demonstrates. Combine that with what appears to be a real dearth of expert journos (in the english language media at least) and a general pre-occupation with sound bite reporting and the result is an environment where PED's are mostly quietly ignored.
- managers - ranging from turning a blind eye to complicit in PED use. I'd argue that these people have a "duty of care" to their riders. In any other employment field, employers have occupational health and safety responsibilities, why not in pro sports? Allowing or encouraging the use of PED's - which includes not having sufficient internal controls to catch abuse - is to my mind a dereliction of that duty. Jeez, even NZ rugby teams put in place programs to help their pro players build a career beyond their time at the top of their sport - if they can do it, why can't these multi-million dollar pro teams look after their riders better?
- sponsors - some just don't care how their sponsored athletes get the results. One friend (an elite sportsperson, but not a cyclist) was even encouraged by a very, very well known brand to start taking PED's if they wanted to see their sponsorship move to a higher level! In those countries where use of PED's is illegal, the corporation should to my mind be considered an accessory to a crime and directors/officers of the company should be liable for imprisonment - in the same way as they are under health and safety and environmental legislation. And again, as the athlete is a contractor to the sponsor - providing advertising services both on the "field of play" and at events - to my mind the sponsors owe the athletes a duty of care - which again comes into occupational safety.
- race/event organisers - the basic duty here is again akin to workplace safety. An event that encourages widespread PED use because of the difficulty of the course/event or an organiser who fails to provide sufficient controls of their own (irrespective of official testing) is to my mind directly analogous to a factory owner who operates machines without guards, has broken walkways, exposed wires etc. We've seen riders boycott stages and races for safety reasons - what I am talking about is an extension of the same sort of protest on the grounds of PEDs.
- organising bodies - to my mind, the role of the UCI and IOC and the various national federations is like that of a government certifying organisation. They either are - or should be - assessing and certifying events. I am not sure what criteria they assess on, but I believe that an expansion to include various criteria related to PED use should be considered. What they are doing at the moment would be like a national transport certifying agency looking at a new model car and having a certification list that excluded brakes and safety belts.

Ok, so this is getting overly long (apologies for that ... but as you can probably guess, it's something I'm kinda passionate about) - but even so I recognise that I've only skimmed the surface of the issue ... So please take the lack of discussion on establishing evidence etc in that light (ie., rather than dismissing the argument because of it).

I will conclude by saying that any criminology student will tell you that focusing only on making criminals (either literally or in a sporting sense) out of the riders wont ever fix the problem of PEDs when you have the network of pressure that I've described here behind them. The solution as I see it is to build a multi-layered framework that combines education, contracts, regulation and sanctions that are specific to each of these levels. (Again, space prohibits expansion ...) It'll take a generation or so to achieve the desired ends and will result in some pretty major blood spilling in the meantime - but I believe we'd get to where most people would rather be if we could implement something like this.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-19-09, 02:28
blackcat's Avatar
blackcat blackcat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,265
Default

I don't think the fans facilitate it.

I don't think the lust for records from fans drives it. This is a counter argument, when those who criticise the opinion that all winners in the top tier are compromised, they will invoke some hypothetical vocation where no doping occurs.

There IS a set number of wins. Doped or clean, the pool of wins, and the pot of gold to be distributed is finite. Doping does not change it. You could argue, doping decreases it, because it loses fans as an externality. So there is less rewards to be distributed with doping.

Fans will get wins in a clean sport. Fans will get records in a clean sport. The speed and theatre is relative. We are not comparing Bolt to a cheetah, and we are not comparing Contador to Valentino Rossi. In a clean sport, we compare Contador to his contemporaries. So it is all relative. Fans do not drive the performance doping, because there is a show at a VAM of 1600, just like there is a show at a VAM of 1800. There would be no material difference in spectacle.

Fans will protect their mythical champion to the end, in that respect, they are complicit in not holding to account. However, there should be no push factor, in doping, from the fan.

I think the solution is staring everyone in the face. Simple, do not permit the logistics to exist for intra-GT doping. That will create momentum. I do not think this works piecemeal. You need the revolution. Otherwise 98 would have facilitated a policy wonk solution.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-19-09, 02:36
slcbiker slcbiker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 192
Default

No matter how much cycling fans and riders might want it, the criminalization thing would not be easy to put in place.

And European labor laws are very protective of the workers(riders), so there may be limits on what can legally be imposed.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-19-09, 03:18
Dr. Maserati Dr. Maserati is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,035
Default

While I like a lot of what BikePure are trying to do and a lot of their proposals are what I agree in I think it will be superseded by what is happening in Europe.

There are new and tough laws in a lot of countries there. If Operaction Puerto happened tomorrow it would be very different than what transpired in 2006.
Riders would be facing criminal sanctions - and it would hit them where it hurts, in the pocket.

Also those setting up doping practices would be liable for conviction to - the powers that Police forces have is well beyond anything the UCI or WADA are capable of.

Also one point to note of the BikePure effort is that they have yet only a handful of Pro riders signed up - that says a lot about the mentality of many to this problem.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-19-09, 03:27
Alpe d'Huez's Avatar
Alpe d'Huez Alpe d'Huez is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 7,593
Default

Myles and Andy are/were members of this site for the first couple of months it got going. Search and you can find their posts under the screen name BikePure. I think Andy was mostly posting them. I don't know if they got too busy, or what, but they haven't posted in a while.

I actually like them a lot, and bought their jersey. It's beautiful, and well worth the money. I have some issues with their list, and anyone who knows me knows why, and what some of my suggestions are (close to BC), but they seem to be dynamic in their approach to stopping doping, not with any dead set ironclad anything, and I think that's something that's needed in these times.

Are you thinking of signing on, Joe? I'm sure if you dropped them a line they'd respond, though they seem to be busy of late.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-19-09, 04:01
craig1985's Avatar
craig1985 craig1985 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Posts: 8,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpe d'Huez View Post
Myles and Andy are/were members of this site for the first couple of months it got going. Search and you can find their posts under the screen name BikePure. I think Andy was mostly posting them. I don't know if they got too busy, or what, but they haven't posted in a while.

I actually like them a lot, and bought their jersey. It's beautiful, and well worth the money. I have some issues with their list, and anyone who knows me knows why, and what some of my suggestions are (close to BC), but they seem to be dynamic in their approach to stopping doping, not with any dead set ironclad anything, and I think that's something that's needed in these times.

Are you thinking of signing on, Joe? I'm sure if you dropped them a line they'd respond, though they seem to be busy of late.
Well give credit to Dan Martin (BB basically said he was doping), Nicolas Roache, Marco Pinotti, Robbie Hunter, Steve Cummings etc. for all joining up.

Mine:

- 4 year and lifebans for 1st and repeat offenders. Only those who break omarta and name names and the more details they give will get shorter sentences, with the minimum of 1 year out.
- Any rider/s who break omarta and/or blow the whistle who can't get a new team, the UCI will find them a ProTour spot, any team manager who complains, will face the loss of their PT licence.
- If found positive, then said doper will hand back any trophies, jerseys, prize monies won whilst on PEDs.
- Any team manager, DS etc. found to be involved with doping will face a life ban from the sport.
- Riders to be tested at least twice a day during training camps.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-19-09, 05:41
unsheath's Avatar
unsheath unsheath is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 656
Default

The problem with the 24/7 supervision methodology is that it only counters for in competition testing. As we know riders are now doping year round and not just exclusively at the GTs. In essence, they would still be bringing in the benefits from earlier doping to the event through either retained benefits of elevated blood boosting or the physiological benefits of harder doped training. Holding riders any longer would be far too draconian.

I personally think we've got to be taking baby steps before we unravel any of these grand plans. The total haemogloban test would be a good place to start.

Lastly in regards to the list formed by the OP, the 2 key points for mine are 2 & 3 which I agree wholeheartedly. Firstly we will never have a dope free sport if the UCI are in charge. It's been repeatedly shown, they cannot be trusted to run this sport. Secondly, I would love to see all support staff (owners, managers, DS, soigners, drivers) sign a 'magna carta' of sorts which results in life bans for practices that aids doping practices. 1 strike and you're out!! The point is can we trust the UCI to implement such systems? I think Not..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-19-09, 05:49
blackcat's Avatar
blackcat blackcat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unsheath View Post
The problem with the 24/7 supervision methodology is that it only counters for in competition testing. As we know riders are now doping year round and not just exclusively at the GTs. In essence, they would still be bringing in the benefits from earlier doping to the event through either retained benefits of elevated blood boosting or the physiological benefits of harder doped training. Holding riders any longer would be far too draconian.

I personally think we've got to be taking baby steps before we unravel any of these grand plans. The total haemogloban test would be a good place to start.

Lastly in regards to the list formed by the OP, the 2 key points for mine are 2 & 3 which I agree wholeheartedly. Firstly we will never have a dope free sport if the UCI are in charge. It's been repeatedly shown, they cannot be trusted to run this sport. Secondly, I would love to see all support staff (owners, managers, DS, soigners, drivers) sign a 'magna carta' of sorts which results in life bans for practices that aids doping practices. 1 strike and you're out!! The point is can we trust the UCI to implement such systems? I think Not..
need to concentrate the testing resources on the heads of state.

When the UCI asked everyone to sign the agreement to pay one year's salary if found to have doped, everyone but Bettini remitted. Then industrial lawyers ark up on behalf of indignant riders and said it was contrary to EU labour laws. Go figure. So you can have everyone signing anything, their word means nothing in this culture unfortunately.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:34.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.