A Second Chance

The discussion in the Rasmussen thread made me think of this. It is something that I have considered for a while.

It is always said, and I think almost everyone agrees, that those returning from doping suspensions should have a second chance. But what exactly does that mean?

Does it mean that they should be allowed to sign with another team, even a top team, IF such a team offers them a contract? In other words, there is no so-called black list, and each team is free to decide whether it wants to hire this rider, as it is free to decide every rider it wishes to hire.

Does it mean that the teams are obligated to offer such a rider a contract? The same team the rider was on before, or another team? I can think of many reasons why a team may not wish to do so. And you surely can't force a team to sign a rider it doesn't want.

What does it mean to you, and what do you think it means in cycling?

Susan
 
Aug 9, 2010
448
0
0
Surely it just means that they can ride for any team prepared to offer them a contract? I don't think it gets any more complicated than that. As for Team Y having any obligation to sign Rider X, surely not. Even as a hypothetical question that's a bit of a stretch!
 
Oct 28, 2010
88
0
0
A second chance in my opinion means that after serving a sentence any rider is legally allowed to return to any team offering said rider a contract. In no way is any team obligated to offer a contract to a former rider who wants to return to racing. the breach of trust is usually to severe to make a rentree in your former team. I do not believe there is such a thing as a black list. Although I personally like Rasmussen I can imagine most teams don't want to sign him. Rasmussen never owned up to his mistakes and that makes it much harder to convince sponsors that Rasmussen deserves a place in your team. Other sentenced dopers who have acknowledged their mistakes have been able to find new teams (Basso is a good example. Besides there will always be teams who want to increase their exposure by signing "tainted" riders. Teams such as Vacansoleil.
 
Oct 31, 2010
172
0
0
Second Chance?
Yes, why not?
Sign for a Team, Top Teir or not?
Yes, why impose a limit on Riders ability and Teams choice.
Each Team free to decide to sign a Rider on Riders ability?
Yes, personality apart, ability is key.
Teams obliged to re-sign or sign a "returning Rider"?
No, decision should be made on Riders ability alone.
Black List?
No, most definetly not.

To me, this means once a rider has served a sentance they are free to ride again. I liken this to returning Drunk Drivers back into Cars once their sentance has passed, so too criminals who have served sentances.

Cycling is a robust sport and should stand high in both moral standing and acceptance of athletic ability.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
1
0
Second chance, I would be more willing to accept that a rider has come back clean if a 4 year ban was served. Ottherwise i will never accept rasmussen as a trustworthy or clean rider.

Nice to have susan contributing her opinion to the threads instead of being just a mod.:)
 
Everyone returning from suspension should be able to sign for any professional team, that much is clear. Its patently cruel to ban someone for two years, only to have longer de-facto bans via a backdoor. Dopers should just be banned longer in the first place. I also think everyone has the right to look disapprovingly at any team who chooses to sign a former (high profile, unrepentant) doper... Be it Vacansoleil with Ricco (and Thomas Dekker 8 months from now ;)), or Liquigas with Basso, or whoever gets Valverde in 2012. That's our right as cycling fans who wish to see a sport that isn't just clean, but also has the appearance of being clean.

If some teams however feel that the negative publicity they would receive for a signing is not commensurate with what the rider would produce on the road, I certainly can't fault them for refusing to sign such a rider. I think most teams see a 36 year-old Rasmussen and think "it's not worth it"...
 
Finbouy said:
To me, this means once a rider has served a sentance they are free to ride again. I liken this to returning Drunk Drivers back into Cars once their sentance has passed, so too criminals who have served sentances.
I instead liken it to child molesters. Once they have served their sentences they are allowed back into society but they should not expect to get any job working with children. Or a doctor or lawyer etc who commits something that gets their license revoked so that they are prohibited from practising medicine or law again.

Heavy doping is a severe crime against the sport in my opinion and that kind of violation of trust should be enough for the sport to not want to deal with them ever again.
 
auscyclefan94 said:
Nice to have susan contributing her opinion to the threads instead of being just a mod.:)
If you'll note, I didn't actually express an opinion, I just posed a question.

The reason I put the question is that many people say that Rasmussen isn't getting that second chance, since Riis refused to sign him, something which frequently is said when a returned doper has trouble finding a team.

Susan
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
1
0
Susan Westemeyer said:
If you'll note, I didn't actually express an opinion, I just posed a question.

The reason I put the question is that many people say that Rasmussen isn't getting that second chance, since Riis refused to sign him, something which frequently is said when a returned doper has trouble finding a team.

Susan
Sorry, just trying to pay you a complement because sometimes mods don't get to contribute to the forum much.
 
I agree with the general sentiments here. These are my two summary statements:

1. The current max ban of two years is not, in my opinion, long enough.

2. Once the time is served, it's up to the "marketplace" to decide.

Whilst I see no problem with my first statement, I have often considered the potential for inequity in the second one. People who talk for the good of the sport risk being shunned. Others meanwhile may enjoy a better deal specifically because they keep the omerta. There are no simple answers to this.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I do hope someone hands out an infraction to susan for discussing doping outside of the clinic :D

On the subject, everyone deserves a second chance, but wether or not they get support depends on their attitude during their ban, their reaction to it, and their behaviour afterwards.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
1
0
TeamSkyFans said:
I do hope someone hands out an infraction to susan for discussing doping outside of the clinic :D

On the subject, everyone deserves a second chance, but wether or not they get support depends on their attitude during their ban, their reaction to it, and their behaviour afterwards.
I am off to report her! And susan does not deserve a second chance!:D
 
Contre la montre said:
I do not believe there is such a thing as a black list.
When the last team tried to sign Rasmussen, a team staff member publicly said that the UCI told the team not to hire him. The UCI and the team denied it, but who are going to believe? The man telling the casual truth who had no reason to lie or the people doing damage control? The ASO and the UCI recent statements read like not only is each trying to pass the blame on the other but both are hoping the other continues.

A ten year pro who did not dope is as rare as a brass monkey's bo!!ocks. It is wrong to make pariahs out of the few who get caught while everyone else gets a free pass. Scapegoat justice is a sordid spectacle.
 
Jun 29, 2009
589
0
0
I dont believe in second chances, victim protection comes first.
The clean riders(no matter how many/few really exist) have been damaged and the return of dopers further hurts them/the sport.
Lawyers or Doctors often dont get second chances if they break their codes of conduct, same should apply atleast for serious doping offences (blood doping).
 
ingsve said:
I instead liken it to child molesters. Once they have served their sentences they are allowed back into society but they should not expect to get any job working with children. Or a doctor or lawyer etc who commits something that gets their license revoked so that they are prohibited from practising medicine or law again.

Heavy doping is a severe crime against the sport in my opinion and that kind of violation of trust should be enough for the sport to not want to deal with them ever again.
You are comparing a doper with a child molester? Seriously, that's in a different universe.

2 years is long enough (a cycling career lasts at most 12-15 years, converted it would mean a 15 year penalty in normal life) and the fact that the first year after suspension is often difficult (as they lack racing hardness) is enough to overcome.
 
While the reason for doping bans remain roughly the same, the circumstances that develop when bans are being served tends to effect an individual's chance of re-integration to the pro peloton.

I think this is wrong.

All returning riders should be allowed to sign for any team, regardless of what noises of contrition, they may, or may not have made.

They should however, be targeted for more frequent and perhaps intrusive (the 24 hour initiative) testing as a "probationary" condition.

Any comparison with return paedophiles does not factor that the community to which they return is generally sympathetic, not aggressively phobic.
Indeed, many probably sharing the same practices, but remaining hidden like trees in a forest.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
auscyclefan94 said:
I am off to report her! And susan does not deserve a second chance!:D
It was discussing doping in the road section led to my 1 week sabbatical (well that and my reaction to it) :D

I am only teasing by the was Mrs Westemeyer
 
Aug 9, 2010
448
0
0
Rasmussen has a second chance in as much as he is allowed to sign a contract and race, post ban. As someone else said, Rasmussen is knocking on a bit, plus he's about as untrustworthy a weasel as you could hope to find. it's no great surprise that no-one is prepared to sign him.
 
Arnout said:
You are comparing a doper with a child molester? Seriously, that's in a different universe.

2 years is long enough (a cycling career lasts at most 12-15 years, converted it would mean a 15 year penalty in normal life) and the fact that the first year after suspension is often difficult (as they lack racing hardness) is enough to overcome.
No, of course they're not that bad. Nothing is. But that's the closest example I could think of where people aren't just given a second chance without consequence. My point is that being a doper should bring with it a much higher social prize than it currently does.
 
The sentence is the 2 years, it's unecessary to punish anyone beyond that. The whole idea of riders not going straight back into ProTour just seems like something which was made up on a whim to "protect" the image of the sport (no one on the ProTour dopes). As it stands there is no flexibility in the system and this type of discretion does nothing. I'd rather a flexible system depending on whether or not you admit guilt, assist authorities (if your information is helpful)) etc. Maybe in that case you only get suspended for the rest of the season, but the next season you can't race UPT or HIS. People who do not admit guilt, maybe they get a 3 year suspension.
 
Oct 31, 2010
172
0
0
ingsve said:
I instead liken it to child molesters. .
Nope I can't do that because they are sinply not the same thing.

Cyclists only hurt themselves (an possibly collegues) by doping, they do not inflict pain/missery/death on anyone else by choosing to dope.
Therein lies the differance, subjective, objective.

Are you saying stop ex riders who dope from working in the sport at all, or even being involved in supply chain/mgt? If you are infering this or likening doping Cyclists with Child Molesters I can only feel sorry for you.

Sentance complete, completion of sentance, end of.
 
ingsve said:
No, of course they're not that bad. Nothing is. But that's the closest example I could think of where people aren't just given a second chance without consequence. My point is that being a doper should bring with it a much higher social prize than it currently does.
I think the social price is already high. All past results of the riders, not only the ones that he obtained while doping (that is, the one he got busted for) are regarded as doping results and all future results will be suspicious as well.
 
Finbouy said:
Nope I can't do that because they are sinply not the same thing.

Cyclists only hurt themselves (an possibly collegues) by doping, they do not inflict pain/missery/death on anyone else by choosing to dope.
Therein lies the differance, subjective, objective.

Are you saying stop ex riders who dope from working in the sport at all, or even being involved in supply chain/mgt? If you are infering this or likening doping Cyclists with Child Molesters I can only feel sorry for you.

Sentance complete, completion of sentance, end of.
As stated above. I'm not comparing the acts itself but was rather referring to the stigma attach to it and my point is that the stigma of doping ought to be worse than it is in a lot of places.
 
Sep 2, 2009
589
0
0
Just to clarify one thing I'm not in the category, thinking Rasmussen is not been givin a second chance because Riis didn't sign him.

But I do think it is strange that a guy who has found a team to participate in the vuelta 2009 is suddenly rejected because the team management had a conversation with UCI.
Especially considering that Vino got the clear to go, and he was still denying to dope.

and the discussion about untrusthworthy personality get's ridiculous in this comparioson.
Vino offered to apology to ASO before reentering the race this summer, common that's just hilarious.

Vino is way more powerfull and I don't hate him for that, it's just the way it is
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS