A Second Chance

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Arnout said:
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.
Well, it varies a lot between people it seems. While there are a certain group of people who do think that doping is a very bad thing there are also a lot of people who seem almost treat it like someone got caught in a white lie.

Ricco is one of the worst examples around. While he was still suspended he was signed by Ceramica Flaminia, was part of their team presentation and was hailed as a champion on their website. It's the attitude of the people responsible for that at Ceramica Flaminia that I have difficulty tolerating. And it's not like it's an uncommon attitude.
 
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.
agree with this and your earlier post.
it's a "horses for courses" deal where the punishment doesn't fit the crime. It isn't helped by how easily the peleton accepts the cheaters back with a handshake, a pat on the back and a "good to see you back" type sentiment.

I have no issue with people having done the time for their crime getting a second chance, but alas, the dopers aren't seen by their community as having done a crime...
 
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.
tell that to everyone on Saunier Duval after Ricco's bust... all lost their jobs for the stupidity of one individual
 
Archibald said:
tell that to everyone on Saunier Duval after Ricco's bust... all lost their jobs for the stupidity of one individual
To be fair, there was also Piepoli who was not busted until later but still legged it when Ricco was caught. Not on the same level but it can't have helped. SD-Scott was a team with other shady characters, it seems with hindsight. Perhaps if it hadn't been Ricco then another of them would have messed up. :) Lobato Elvira and Fernandez de la Puebla both got busted on the bio-passport the following season after they'd moved on.
 
Mar 17, 2010
46
0
0
Susan: your question has been on everyone's minds as of late. I believe in giving second chances to cyclist who have served their time. Here in the States, we have laughable punishments for athletes who have been caught doping in entertainment sports such as baseball or football. This is due to the athletes strong union representations that they (baseball / football players) are given heads up when and where their drug testing is going to occur. Only a total idiot could mess this up. Even then, there are several baseball players have yet to serve their suspension / punishment of "missing a few games" of their doping offense. Doping in Cycling offenses are pretty harsh compared those I have just mentioned. Pro Cyclist do not have such a luxury of strong representation and must defend themselves alone (using their own resources and money). On a personal note, I have a very good friend who is currently in rehab for the second time for abusing prescription drugs. His problem has cause hurt to all his family members, friends and employers. Do I believe he deserves a second chance to bring himself back in the fold of our society? Absolutely.
 
Oct 28, 2010
1,578
0
0
When I was a child, I was 7 or 8 years of age, I remember it was at school, the teacher recounted about such a special theme as "why some people are put into prison?". I don't remember why she told about this, maybe someone of us asked a question... but she didn't say "because they kill, rape, steal...", children don't need to hear about those things. The meaning of what she said was something like "some people did some bad things and they were put into prison to limit their bad influence over other people for the period till they'll become safe to others (if they'll become safe to others)". It was soooo idealistic :)
For me the time when "they'll become safe to others" is the meaning of second chance. The only problem is how to know when this time begin?
Second chance in cycling means if you can change some bad things into good you also can return to racing with the chance of reaching at least the same level as you was before. It's also very idealistic but it's only my idealistic IMO :)
There are rules and they say when some suspended rider can return. But the main point is when some rider has returned but you still call him a doper, don't fool youself, he didn't get second chance at all, you didn't gave it to him.
 

rzombie1988

BANNED
Jul 19, 2009
402
7
9,295
L'arriviste said:
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.
I agree that 2 years is not enough either. It really does not seem long at all and with how easy of a time most riders have had with getting back on a team, it's not that bad of a punishment. 4 years would be better.

Like I have been saying with Rasmussen, he has been his own worst enemy. He hasn't had great results since he returned, never admitted to doing anything wrong and his personality is not one that is very inviting to teams. I'd love to see him back, and if he really wants to get back, he should try as hard to get on other teams as he did with Saxo Bank. I think if he does he will find someone.

I really think it is a shame though overall, as I'd love to see races be as competitive as possible.
 
Oct 31, 2010
172
0
0
ingsve said:
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.
Fair enough, taken out of context. I understand your point you tired to relay.

Each to their own.

Duval failed on many points and issues within the team, Ricco couldn't have started it all, the underlying theme to the team back then was to turn a blind eye to the Individual Riders Decision to Dope. I've no idea if doping was encouraged back then in that team, I do however think that the rolling ball of suspicion was already trundling along at pace before Ricco, he just added to the gravity the ball picked up speed. Once the sponsors decided to pull the funding it all fell apart.
But..
It was still the Rider who made the decision to dope. I can't ever imagine a team pinning down a rider and forcing him/her to dope. Mgt of teams may have encouraged doping, but the Rider still chooses whether to dope or not.

I may live in a hearty bubble world of individual responcibility, I'm happy to be here.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,394
0
0
Of course any rider should be able to get a second chance. But teams can sign who they like. They're not some sort of rehabilitation programme.

How many teams (of the 18 ProTour teams) have a convicted doper in their ranks?

Liquigas - Basso
Lampre - Petacchi, Kashechkin, Scarponi
Vacansoleil - Ricco, Leukemans
Astana - Vino (it's his team)
Garmin - Millar (I think this may be a one-off)

I dare say Movistar will re-sign Valverde.

I may have missed some, but I think only Lampre and Vacansoleil are willing to sign a convicted doper, nowadays. The other three made one-off exceptions (IMO). So if LAM and VAC are not interested, then the rider's probably not going to get a ride on a big team.

If there is a UCI black list, then why isn't Ricco, allegedly the most disliked man in the peloton, on it? And why was it OK for his presence to help his team get a PT licence? It doesn't make sense.
 
Mar 13, 2009
5,246
0
0
If there is a blacklist, Patrick Sinkewitz is on it. I'd love to see him come back but I doubt it'll ever happen. He said too much ...
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,394
0
0
Christian said:
If there is a blacklist, Patrick Sinkewitz is on it. I'd love to see him come back but I doubt it'll ever happen. He said too much ...
He's at ISD. They're a decent team. He's ridden some decent races and he'll probably get a ride in the Giro. He was hardly a world beater pre-ban.
 
Mambo95 said:
If there is a UCI black list, then why isn't Ricco, allegedly the most disliked man in the peloton, on it? And why was it OK for his presence to help his team get a PT licence? It doesn't make sense.
Remember this time last year? He struggled to find a team and ended up at one of the lesser of the Italian Pro Contis. This is one of the world's best climbers entering the peak of his career. The only explanation for this would be the big political players in the sport "blacklisting" him, or the teams collectively "blacklisting" him (we're all clean, we don't hire unrepentant dopers).
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,394
0
0
Ferminal said:
Remember this time last year? He struggled to find a team and ended up at one of the lesser of the Italian Pro Contis. This is one of the world's best climbers entering the peak of his career. The only explanation for this would be the big political players in the sport "blacklisting" him, or the teams collectively "blacklisting" him (we're all clean, we don't hire unrepentant dopers).
He returned in March 2010. Teams had spent their budget. They're not going to extend it for him.

As it happened, this so-called blacklist lasted 5 months and he signed for Vacansoleil (would have signed for Quick Step if riders like Pineau hadn't objected quite publicly). But the UCI were so outraged at the breaking of the blacklist that they spurned his new team.

Oh no, they didn't, did they. They gave them a ProTour licence ahead of a team with four GT wins on its roster.

The blacklist doesn't exist. It only exists in the minds of fans of riders who aren't getting hired and the tin-foil hat brigade in the Clinic section.
 
Mambo95 said:
He returned in March 2010. Teams had spent their budget. They're not going to extend it for him.

As it happened, this so-called blacklist lasted 5 months and he signed for Vacansoleil (would have signed for Quick Step if riders like Pineau hadn't objected quite publicly). But the UCI were so outraged at the breaking of the blacklist that they spurned his new team.

Oh no, they didn't, did they. They gave them a ProTour licence ahead of a team with four GT wins on its roster.

The blacklist doesn't exist. It only exists in the minds of fans of riders who aren't getting hired and the tin-foil hat brigade in the Clinic section.
Under what criteria were the UCI going to withhold a UPT license from Vacansoleil?

I'm not sure anyone has ever suggested that "if rider x is on this team we will not give them a license"
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
AT the moment there is a system in place that publicly says that once the ban is served a rider can ride wherever he is offered a contract. Privately pressure is sometimes brought to bear so certain riders are shut out. This is patemtly unfair. Why should Vino & Basso be back at the very top of the sport almost immediately and Rasmussen & others are blocked?

My suggestion would be to keep the 2 year ban, but once they have served their ban riders would have a probationary period of 12-24 months 2 steps down from the level they were at prior to being caught. So a Pro Tour rider would come back at Continental level thus precluding him from riding a major race straight away, as Di Luca is aiming to do.

The ban could be set according to the level of doping and the probationary period by the cooperation level.

If a stockbroker gets caught insider-dealing he is banned for ever, yet a sporting cheat has a 2 year holiday and comes back at the highest level. Hardly a fair or transparent system is it?
 
ultimobici said:
If a stockbroker gets caught insider-dealing he is banned for ever, yet a sporting cheat has a 2 year holiday and comes back at the highest level. Hardly a fair or transparent system is it?
Ah, that's a better example than the one I used. I'll use this one in the future.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,394
0
0
Ferminal said:
Under what criteria were the UCI going to withhold a UPT license from Vacansoleil?

I'm not sure anyone has ever suggested that "if rider x is on this team we will not give them a license"
So what is this blacklist you think exists then?

"You can't sign for a good team (unless they want you to). And you can't come to any good races (unless your team qualifies or is invited)". Is that it?
 
Mambo95 said:
So what is this blacklist you think exists then?

"You can't sign for a good team (unless they want you to). And you can't come to any good races (unless your team qualifies or is invited)". Is that it?
Why are you trying to quantify what happens? Each case is different, each case ultimately relies on the discretion of the key political players at any one time. Rasmussen is different to Ricco is different to Gusev is different to Vino.

Call it a blacklist, call it what you like, but there are clearly some levels of political interference beyond the doping sanction. I think it's a bit more than teams making commercial decisions.
 
Mambo95 said:
So what is this blacklist you think exists then?

"You can't sign for a good team (unless they want you to). And you can't come to any good races (unless your team qualifies or is invited)". Is that it?
Not sure who, if anyone was/is blocking Patrick Sinkewitz's return to PT level.
Just look at Jörg Jaksche's failure to get a return ride.
There is a common factor or two, here.

Seems to me Ferminal has a point.
 
As has been pointed out before, a lot depends on the personality of the rider involved. There are some riders who are just not well-liked for a variety of reasons not related to doping.

So that may also be a reason why a team is not willing to sign a rider, whether he is returning from a doping suspension or not.

Susan
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Chuffy said:
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.
based on what? he never tested positive. he lied as to his whereabouts. who did he lie too? his team? the oh so squeaky clean rabobank, hah what a laugh! the other his federation for which he served his ban. rabobank used him as a scapegoat to deflect any bad press onto the team. b@st@ards...

Rasmussen is like your average very talented cyclist who wants to win and will do whatever it takes to win. ask LA, Contador, Ullrich, Indurain, Fignon, Merckx, Hinualt, Landis, Basso, Ricco, Di Luca, Valverde, Hamilton, Vino.....seems to me it is time to cull the overly poplated peloton from the weasels....
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Susan Westemeyer said:
As has been pointed out before, a lot depends on the personality of the rider involved. There are some riders who are just not well-liked for a variety of reasons not related to doping.

So that may also be a reason why a team is not willing to sign a rider, whether he is returning from a doping suspension or not.

Susan
If contracts were based on personalities how the f*** did evans ever get a contract?
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
I think that if the sport itself dictates the punishment, once that punishment is over, they should be treated by the powers that be like anyone else. Otherwise there's more punishment involved than stated, and black lists and super secret probation are used by organizations taking on more power than they should have. It's the kind of thing that leads to talk of bribes, etc.

If two years isn't deemed long enough, change it, but don't expect people to return to the sport after four years away. But I doubt that it would be an additional deterrent. People who rode the Tour a few years ago signed the document agreeing to give up a year's salary if they weren't clean, and that didn't seem to stop anyone.

There was a famous study of Olympic athletes a lot of years ago. People were asked if there was something they could take that would help them win a gold medal, but severely shorten their life, would they do it. Way too many people said yes. If people are willing to die many years early in order to achieve what they consider success, I doubt that two years off instead of four would change things.

I wouldn't force their old team to take them back, because an employer shouldn't have to take back someone who probably lied to them and cheated, and hurt the image of the team, the sponsor and management. And having a guaranteed job at the end of a ban (if the team survives) would make the ban less effective. Hopefully it would be based on ability and willingness to work towards the team goals. Besides, it would be unfair for those whose teams did fold for other reasons.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS