So when is Cyclingnews or someone else in the press going to start asking the hard questions?
It's easy to make Thomas Frei out to be the bad guy, but let's face it: there are a dozen more ready to take his place.
So, from owning one of the dirtiest teams in the history of a dirty sport (Phonak), to buying back some credibility by running a clean team for a couple of years, then sliding back to the ways of old.
Juxtapose these two articles:
http://www.bmcracingteam.com/index.php?id=9&L=0&uid=10
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/3568/BMC-Racing-Andy-Rihs-takes-it-up-a-notch.aspx
Lot's of folks pussyfoot around the notion of holding team owners responsible, but I think it's clear that he needs to be held accountable. And, as he makes clear, he's in cycling for the promotional opportunities, not for charity. So why is he allowed to continue to profit, and only the riders get punished?
The old adage is pretty true; some people will cheat no matter what, some people will never cheat, and some will cheat if it's expedient. I'd guess it's a bell-shaped curve distribution.
BMC went from internal controls and an emphasis on riding clean to hiring guys with questionable characters as coaches, abandoning internal controls and hiring high-profile euro guys. Out with Ian McKissick, in with Thomas Frei. (This, by the way, is a perfect example of what happens when a guy decides to dope, and the real world consequences. McKissick, a guy of immense talent is out of pro cycling, Frei, no where near the class of McKissick, is rewarded with a bigger contract). 'Anti-doping' seems to have been replaced with tacit acceptance..."get yourself prepared, but if you're caught you're on your own" seems to be the message. As Frei noted, no one really paid much attention when he started going really well. Well, the noticed enough to talk about offering him more money.
It's fine to hold Frei accountable, but what's that going to solve? Frei's right, the financial incentive is too great for many to follow the rules.
What to do? Make a financial disincentive to break the rules. Fine the teams for doping infractions (take it out of their bank guarantee), and pass out suspensions for entire teams, not just individual riders. It seems pretty clear than sanctioning riders simply isn't helping. Until there's a system in place that provides a big disincentive for the team to cheat, not much is going to change.
And it's time for the cycling press to actually start asking the hard questions of those benefiting from the dishonest actions of others.
That's my two cents at least.
It's easy to make Thomas Frei out to be the bad guy, but let's face it: there are a dozen more ready to take his place.
So, from owning one of the dirtiest teams in the history of a dirty sport (Phonak), to buying back some credibility by running a clean team for a couple of years, then sliding back to the ways of old.
Juxtapose these two articles:
http://www.bmcracingteam.com/index.php?id=9&L=0&uid=10
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/3568/BMC-Racing-Andy-Rihs-takes-it-up-a-notch.aspx
Lot's of folks pussyfoot around the notion of holding team owners responsible, but I think it's clear that he needs to be held accountable. And, as he makes clear, he's in cycling for the promotional opportunities, not for charity. So why is he allowed to continue to profit, and only the riders get punished?
The old adage is pretty true; some people will cheat no matter what, some people will never cheat, and some will cheat if it's expedient. I'd guess it's a bell-shaped curve distribution.
BMC went from internal controls and an emphasis on riding clean to hiring guys with questionable characters as coaches, abandoning internal controls and hiring high-profile euro guys. Out with Ian McKissick, in with Thomas Frei. (This, by the way, is a perfect example of what happens when a guy decides to dope, and the real world consequences. McKissick, a guy of immense talent is out of pro cycling, Frei, no where near the class of McKissick, is rewarded with a bigger contract). 'Anti-doping' seems to have been replaced with tacit acceptance..."get yourself prepared, but if you're caught you're on your own" seems to be the message. As Frei noted, no one really paid much attention when he started going really well. Well, the noticed enough to talk about offering him more money.
It's fine to hold Frei accountable, but what's that going to solve? Frei's right, the financial incentive is too great for many to follow the rules.
What to do? Make a financial disincentive to break the rules. Fine the teams for doping infractions (take it out of their bank guarantee), and pass out suspensions for entire teams, not just individual riders. It seems pretty clear than sanctioning riders simply isn't helping. Until there's a system in place that provides a big disincentive for the team to cheat, not much is going to change.
And it's time for the cycling press to actually start asking the hard questions of those benefiting from the dishonest actions of others.
That's my two cents at least.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram