Arguments against life ban for first offence

[laurel1969]

Sorry, I haven't got any, and I apologise if this topic has already been covered in recent history.

It seems to me that the current top riders (at the very least) are playing the system and its vulnerabilities as much as they can whether it be knowing how to circumvent testing, questionable use of cortisone and so on. Would they do this if there was a lifetime ban for any doping offence including retrospective testing?

What are the arguments against, acknowledging that as it stands the national and international cycling bodies don't seem to want to catch big name cheats (or can't)?

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

In my opinion it should be a bigger variason between the different offenses. Like ACs clen case... anything more than 3 months there were a disgrace. 2 years are 1 to many unless you've been caught with the needle in your arm, EPO, straight forward LA style blood doping etc.

Arguments against liftime bans are for example that clenbuterol from a steak could have fatal consquences(doesn't matter if you belive ACs sory or not, IF it happend to be true you would have ruined his life with a lifetime ban for something he didn't do)

 

[zigmeister]

I think you still need to look at each instance on a case-by-case basis.

Old Mick Rogers, Contador etc..with their claimed tainted food, hard to prove they didn't eat tainted food when it is proven that stuff we eat has all sorts of crap/chemicals and taint in it. Even the so-called "organic" foods, which now after more research, we find out isn't much different, or any different at all than regular foods, dairy etc...

Are you and your team supposed to bring a small lab around with you, or bring only food you have tested previously that has proven it is not tainted with any substances? Not realistic. The logistics would be a mess. Derailleurs? Check. Spare wheels? Check. Bar tape? Check. Food testing lab? Check. 300 cases of sponsors food bars? Check. Ok fellas, let's roll!!!

Not sure what Mick ate that had clen, but the UCI and ADS have to take more responsibility that if they are going to ask teams to go to some foreign land like China with all sorts of unscrupulous, sketchy stuff going on, food might be an issue.

EPO...well, come on now. Let's get real, there is only one reason for that in your system. Ban away!

Or, we can do like USADA, let's not give but simple Winter 6 months suspensions to guys who were dopers for years, got a way with it, as long as you rat out some guy who you have a vendetta with. See, that makes sense right? EPO, so what!! You helped us bag the big fish..you get a pass.

It's just a mess still in the world of anti-doping and sports. Follow the money.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Argument against life ban for first offence? Rui Costa.

 

[SeriousSam]

The argument is that it's too harsh, that we do not want to inflict such harm straight away.

Deterrence isn't the only consideration when it comes to punishment. If it were we should ramp up all the punishments to the max, for maximum deterrence, for every offense, everywhere.

 

[hrotha]

It seems to me that the current top riders (at the very least) are playing the system and its vulnerabilities as much as they can whether it be knowing how to circumvent testing, questionable use of cortisone and so on. Would they do this if there was a lifetime ban for any doping offence including retrospective testing?

Yes, they would. It's not about the punishment, but about the perceived likelihood of being caught. Does crime exist in countries that have the death penalty? Why yes, it does.

Personally I'm in favour of life suspensions for certain substances and methods that are pretty clear-clut, with a provision for a reduced suspension for cooperating with the antidoping authorities.

 

[Netserk]

Argument against life ban for first offence? Rui Costa.

What difference would a life sentence have done for him (not a rhetoric question, as I'm not that sure of his case)? Wouldn't he have been cleared as well?

Isn't it cases like Offredo, Bassons and Alex Rasmussen that are arguments against life bans (for any anti-doping violation)?

 

[laurel1969]

Possible contamination from food supplement

 

[Netserk]

Possible contamination from food supplement

I know that. How would a life sentence change anything in his case?

 

[laurel1969]

Very borderline case

 

[The Hitch]

Sorry, I haven't got any, and I apologise if this topic has already been covered in recent history.

It seems to me that the current top riders (at the very least) are playing the system and its vulnerabilities as much as they can whether it be knowing how to circumvent testing, questionable use of cortisone and so on. Would they do this if there was a lifetime ban for any doping offence including retrospective testing?

What are the arguments against, acknowledging that as it stands the national and international cycling bodies don't seem to want to catch big name cheats (or can't)?

Life bans are a distraction and so frustrating to read (not from you, in the media) when people with brains the size of atoms start saying "oh this (insert scapegoat who never won anything) only doped because the bans are too short".

The flaw is in the assumption that people dope expecting to be caught. No they dope hoping to never be caught. A 2 year punishment really isn't that much more cosy than a life ban. The real punishment is in the depression, the being scapegoated, spat on, etc. Riders will do anything to avoid getting caught, so whether the punishment is a life ban or 2 years makes little difference to their motivation.

I actually prefer the 2 years becuase at least this way we get to laugh at people like Vino, Basso, Contador, Valverde coming back and winning which totally destroys the arguments of the morons about cycling now being clean.

But life bans wont stop doping. They will just speed up its evolution, making it more specialized.

People in the recreational drug industry risk life inprisonment, death, torture, the lives of their families etc and yet for every drug trafficker that falls hundreds are ready to take their place.

You think mere forced retirement is going to stop people from doping? No.

That said I do think the life ban would work well if used as a push and pull mechanism together with - 0 time. So anyone caught gets a life ban but if they testify about their supplier they get the entire ban overturned and are free to race again. Any part of testimony turns out to have been false or held back, life ban reapplied together with pay back of all money made during limbo.

It wouldn't stop doping of course, but give us the satisfaction of seeing some doctors fall.

 

[laurel1969]

Well that all makes sense. I suspect the driver in all of this is that the overseeing body is, at the very least, overseeing the making of money. Don't want to rock that boat too hard.

 

[melkemugg]

Two years for first offense. Lifetime for the next one. Doesn't matter if you ban riders, you need to hurt the economy of the teams and everyone else that gains on doped winners.

 

[Luigi_Max_Again]

A blanket life time ban for all first time offenders is far too harsh, but it certainly should be an option in cases which are very serious.

 

[Futuroscope]

First offence should only give a ban for a few months. This would save time and money and you wouldn't need to get bogged down in these type of processes that take ages.

 

[D-Queued]

First ban should be a slap on the wrist.

Oh, wait!

Dave.

 

[King Boonen]

There are very few things in life, particularly something as insignificant as sport, where the first offence is a life sentence. I personally see no reason why a blanket ban for a first offence should be considered. People make mistakes.

 

[neineinei]

That said I do think the life ban would work well if used as a push and pull mechanism together with - 0 time. So anyone caught gets a life ban but if they testify about their supplier they get the entire ban overturned and are free to race again. Any part of testimony turns out to have been false or held back, life ban reapplied together with pay back of all money made during limbo.

It wouldn't stop doping of course, but give us the satisfaction of seeing some doctors fall.

A change in the World anti-doping code opens up for 0 sanction and 100% confidentiality from next year, "in exceptional cases".

The new Code incentivises early cooperation and information sharing by persons who are accused of committing doping violations. Admitting a violation can be rewarded with a reduced ban, with WADA having the final say on any reduction. Anti-Doping Organisations can agree reduced bans in return for the provision of ‘substantial assistance’, that is, information that leads to other doping violations being uncovered. In exceptional cases, WADA will have the power to agree to eliminate a ban in its entirety and offer complete confidentiality in return for substantial assistance. (Article 10.6)

http://www.ukad.org.uk/news/article/WADA-agree-2015-code

 

[the delgados]

There are very few things in life, particularly something as insignificant as sport, where the first offence is a life sentence. I personally see no reason why a blanket ban for a first offence should be considered. People make mistakes.

We're not talking life behind bars here.
Let's not forget the comedic value of defence lawyers supporting a client faced with a lifetime ban from racing his or her bicycle. The vanishing twin defence will be taken to laugh-inducing levels. Oh, wait. It already has.
Life bans are probably not a good idea.

 

[sponsor]

Doping is one form of cheating and it should not be singled out. I'd rather have a doper than someone that purposely takes out another rider.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

The sanctions aren't the problem. It's the detection of doping that's the problem.

If you start to catch a majority of dopers, then the existing sanctions become highly effective.

Simply upping the sanctions won't have the same effect.

 

[thehog]

The sanctions aren't the problem. It's the detection of doping that's the problem.

If you start to catch a majority of dopers, then the existing sanctions become highly effective.

Simply upping the sanctions won't have the same effect.

Correct. This slide appeared at a recent anti-doping conference.

 

[D-Queued]

Correct. This slide appeared at a recent anti-doping conference.

And that is based upon pure statistical chance with 'dumb' dopers, doing the same thing month after month.

Imagine if dopers had some intelligence. Imagine if they traveled to places where ooc testing was difficult. Imagine...

Dave.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The sanctions aren't the problem. It's the detection of doping that's the problem.

If you start to catch a majority of dopers, then the existing sanctions become highly effective.

Simply upping the sanctions won't have the same effect.

While testing itself will always be a problem, there are issues that can be addressed.

At this point in time, we don't have a clue what the actors in the system is doing. We don't know the breakdown of bio-passport negative/suspicioius/positives. None of the numbers agree from the sports federation and WADA.

The lack of back-dated testing is a problem. Tests do catch up to dopers, yet there's so little back-dated testing and consequences from going positive on a back-dated test that it just enables doping.

The IOC sports know this and take advantage of many of the loopholes. They designed it that way after all.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

And that is based upon pure statistical chance with 'dumb' dopers, doing the same thing month after month.

Imagine if dopers had some intelligence. Imagine if they traveled to places where ooc testing was difficult. Imagine...

Dave.

Based on those usage and testing assumptions, i.e. doping on a totally random basis 3 times / month, with a 2 day glow window, and timing of testing is also totally random 50 per month over 1000 in testing pool, and they are independent events*, then:

the probability of catching the doper within that 9 years 4 months period is 67%.

Using same assumptions:

* Now of course the assumption of random usage, random testing and that these are independent events is probably not valid, but it at least illustrates the problem, and shows how long before a doping imbecile might go before being picked up.

Non random usage (i.e. being a bit smart) will significantly reduce the chance of a glow period and a test control coinciding, i.e. a positive doping control.

This of course assumes that the sample taken is tested for whatever the substance/method being used is. If only some of them do, then the probabilities drop further again.

Intelligence gathering to better target testing will increase the chance of a positive doping control.