Aftermath...

af·ter·math (ftr-mth)
n.
1. A consequence, especially of a disaster or misfortune: famine as an aftermath of drought.
2. A period of time following a disastrous event: in the aftermath of war.
3. A second growth or crop in the same season, as of grass after mowing.


Perhaps a constructive and productive exercise to while away the days and hours preceding the outcome of USADA vs. LA - would be to consider how the sport prevents a recurrence.

This is particularly compelling given that stamping out the rampant fraud of 99 to 2005 Tours and the preceding Festina affair have done seemingly little to restore faith in the sport or prevent offenses.

An environment of doubt does little to serve either the fans or the athletes, as evidenced by the current tour with the Sky questions and the imminent return of Contador.

More of the same, year after year is intolerable, anything short of perpetual transparency and the timely sanctions of offending athletes simply perpetuates the status quo.

We can only hope that the current unpleasantness ends with the totality of the malignancy unveiled, including the dismantling of a self-'regulated' sport and the incarceration and shame of UCI leadership and their methodologies.

It is time to keep the good, improve on it and throw out the bad, throughout the governing leadership, team management, staff and the peloton.

Possible examples:

Shut down the UCI and develop an alternative, what would this look like?

How are bribes and corruption relegated to history?

It has been discussed that the ABP should be managed independently and some aspects or all revealed publicly?

Should the sport require that all riders bikes are equipped with power meters and the data is collected and transmitted live?

The solutions proposed need to be actionable, practical, affordable and fair to and conscientious of the riders (within reason).


In researching various aspects of the current cases, repetitive themes are the teams being offended by the invasive methods of OOC's and Doping Tests in general & often team management being allowed to undermine, evade or restrict the passage of tighter controls and impede the evolution of a clean, transparent sport.

What are the answers?

To keep this quick, interesting and lively I suggest limiting responses to one aspect of the solution with a single succinct statement (unlike this post) following a:

Problem:

Solution:

format...
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
TubularBills said:
[the timely sanctions of offending athletes simply perpetuates the status quo.
I think you gloss over the biggest issue: Ban corrupt doctors and management!

Just one disgusting example: Jean-Jacques Menuet

Can anyone explain why this guy is allowed to work for Saur Sojasun. Yes, the rot is not only in the big teams, the small teams are rotten as well.

Solution: Ban team doctors and management involved in fraud. Make the risk not just solely by the rider, but by the team.
 
Oct 7, 2010
123
0
0
Perhaps all members of a team must be licensed. No unlicensed workers at all. Maybe all the way to the up front people that answer the phones. With that, penalties, suspensions and the like can be handed down. If a team continues to deal with s suspended licensee, they could lose Pro Tour status, incur other penalties, or perhaps other penalties could be envisioned.
 
Franklin said:
I think you gloss over the biggest issue: Ban corrupt doctors and management!

Just one disgusting example: Jean-Jacques Menuet

Can anyone explain why this guy is allowed to work for Saur Sojasun. Yes, the rot is not only in the big teams, the small teams are rotten as well.

Solution: Ban team doctors and management involved in fraud. Make the risk not just solely by the rider, but by the team.
Good Point and well taken, damning testimony here:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2004/04/09/gaumont040409.html
 
Jun 18, 2012
299
0
0
I did a write-up of this the other day on tumblr. The problem was, the extent of the issues the UCI will need to face are so exceedingly large that a paragraph wouldn't do them justice.
 
Cavalier said:
I did a write-up of this the other day on tumblr. The problem was, the extent of the issues the UCI will need to face are so exceedingly large that a paragraph wouldn't do them justice.
Could it be carved into pieces + do you have a link to the Tumblr piece?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Cavalier said:
I did a write-up of this the other day on tumblr. The problem was, the extent of the issues the UCI will need to face are so exceedingly large that a paragraph wouldn't do them justice.
read your piece on cavalierfc.tumblr

i like this

Anyone caught doping, facilitating doping or with unexplainable blood markers automatically receives a lifetime ban. This is reducible to two years for a first offence providing the following condition is met: A rider must be able to prove from where he received the doping product(s), when he received them, and how he received them. He needs to show testing organisations how they were taken as well. That enables the sport to go after the problem at it’s very source, and forces people to put their own livelihood before protecting others. Nobody will destroy their own career/earnings ahead of reporting a doctor or team manager.
I fully agree.
 
Jun 18, 2012
299
0
0
Yes, I figured that if riders are going to stay silent we might as well punish them properly for it. By staying silent they're protecting the guys who supply the rest of the peloton. Either we can nail these doctors, or the riders who protect them shouldn't get to ride again.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Cavalier said:
Yes, I figured that if riders are going to stay silent we might as well punish them properly for it. By staying silent they're protecting the guys who supply the rest of the peloton. Either we can nail these doctors, or the riders who protect them shouldn't get to ride again.
Respectfully, I don't agree.
I believe you have identified the cause but missed a solution.

PROBLEM:
The key is indeed to break omerta and punish not only the riders but the Doctors and the team management.

Solution:
The WordTour is already an arbitrary setup (that no-one understands) - it should adopt new regulations to take away points from dodgy teams.

If a team has an AAF, or anyone associated with the team gets in trouble with the law (soigneurs, Docs etc) they lose a significant amount of points
This then hurts the teams chances of automatic qualification to key events.
* Any team with 3 positives/incidents in 2 years loses it licence.
That way you get rid of the toxic team bosses/owners from the sport.

This in turn means other riders are more likely to stay away from dodgy teams, or to out suspicious teammates.

Also, assign specific team Docs to riders. If a rider goes pop the team Doc gets sanctioned also. That way it means the team Doc is keeping an eye on suspicious behavior (even if the rider has their own outside Doc). Too many times we hear, "we have no idea who they train with".
 
Jun 18, 2012
299
0
0
I'd agree that your solution stops the teams running organised doping practices, but your individual rider who's doping doesn't really have a disincentive there under your model to not dope himself.

As far as doctors go: I'd prefer to see no doctors employed by teams. They can and should employ trainers/coaches and nutritionists, but as far as I'm concerned anyone who has an issue that requires a doctor should see a race-appointed one (only) in competition, and their own GP (in their immediate vicinity, not in Spain or Italy when the rider lives in another country) outside of competition.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Cavalier said:
I'd agree that your solution stops the teams running organised doping practices, but your individual rider who's doping doesn't really have a disincentive there under your model to not dope himself.
I suppose - we should put in the disclaimer that our 'Aftermath' conclusions will never see the light of day....

But, I already believe individuals get punished quite severely.
And, there are different degrees of doping from willful ignorance to full on program. My view is a first time offense even for full on should be no-more than 4 years.

There also would be the ongoing consequences (in our made up scenarios) for a single riders negative, in that future teams would be reluctant to hire.

Cavalier said:
As far as doctors go: I'd prefer to see no doctors employed by teams. They can and should employ trainers/coaches and nutritionists, but as far as I'm concerned anyone who has an issue that requires a doctor should see a race-appointed one (only) in competition, and their own GP (in their immediate vicinity, not in Spain or Italy when the rider lives in another country) outside of competition.
I don't think there is any way in modern sports to get away from having Doctors.
The key is that anyone involved with the sport is to ensure they are ethical - which means they have to be accountable too.

In short - I couldn't care if Bruyneel started a team with Ferrari, LdM as his Docs and everyone from Rock Racing riding - what the sport would need is that if they were up to their old tricks is that they are caught and punished, and if its team wide that their licence should be removed and all banned from the sport.
 
Jun 15, 2012
193
0
0
Maybe I am just dejected over the latest news but I am starting to come to the conclusion that's doping *IS* and will always be a part of cycling. There is no amount of science that will correct this problem. Cycling is inherently cursed because doping has such a force on the sport...I don't care about Tiger Woods doping because I know most of the skill involved is accuracy and strike, with cycling it's a completely different animal...shew, just depressing
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Respectfully, I don't agree.
I believe you have identified the cause but missed a solution.

PROBLEM:
The key is indeed to break omerta and punish not only the riders but the Doctors and the team management.

Solution:
The WordTour is already an arbitrary setup (that no-one understands) - it should adopt new regulations to take away points from dodgy teams.

If a team has an AAF, or anyone associated with the team gets in trouble with the law (soigneurs, Docs etc) they lose a significant amount of points
This then hurts the teams chances of automatic qualification to key events.
* Any team with 3 positives/incidents in 2 years loses it licence.
That way you get rid of the toxic team bosses/owners from the sport.

This in turn means other riders are more likely to stay away from dodgy teams, or to out suspicious teammates.

Also, assign specific team Docs to riders. If a rider goes pop the team Doc gets sanctioned also. That way it means the team Doc is keeping an eye on suspicious behavior (even if the rider has their own outside Doc). Too many times we hear, "we have no idea who they train with".
What about free agency?

i.e. you inherit a dirty rider?

Do the demerits transfer?

And do the guilty, including doctors and management carry their tally forever?

If so, this has wings...

Dopers, Doctors and Management carry weight and their compensation is stilted.

You can never again transfer from a dirty team to a 'clean team' without repercussions.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY