Banned for life?

Jul 10, 2011
30
0
0
Would the threat of being banned for life from racing if caught doping, clean up the sport?

Should cyclists be banned from racing for doping?
 
bikebottles said:
Would the threat of being banned for life from racing if caught doping, clean up the sport?

Should cyclists be banned from racing for doping?
Some already are, dus to multiple offenses. Like Erwin Bakker. He's still winning races against UCI riders, in non-UCI events.

The threshold for life bans could be lowered though. Say, for certain substances you don't get in tainted meat or protein powder. HGH. Testosteron. EPO. Life ban for those. And passport cases, obviously. You doped intensionally with full knowledge of the moral issues involved, and the amended penalties for the offense in question. You are now promoted to cycling FAN rather than racer, for life.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
In economics, there is a simple analysis of why people commit crime when they risk punishment. Increasing the risk of punishment pushes the curve somewhat - and lifetime bans would represent an increase in the punishment risk. But the curve is not an even one - people will risk a much larger punishment than the payoff would seem to justify - which is just how folks act in reality. A lifetime ban would not stop everybody, but it would change the numbers willing to participate in the risk.

Hard to say by how much the "numbers willing" would change. Since we still have a difficult time accurately testing for modern doping methods, I don't think it would change the perceived risk that much. Look at Ricco, or even better, look at Pantani. If somebody is taking the risk now, they are thinking to themselves "Yeah, but I'm not like them. I'm smarter." Or something like, eh?
 
Jun 25, 2012
283
0
0
hiero2 said:
In economics, there is a simple analysis of why people commit crime when they risk punishment. Increasing the risk of punishment pushes the curve somewhat - and lifetime bans would represent an increase in the punishment risk. But the curve is not an even one - people will risk a much larger punishment than the payoff would seem to justify - which is just how folks act in reality. A lifetime ban would not stop everybody, but it would change the numbers willing to participate in the risk.

Hard to say by how much the "numbers willing" would change. Since we still have a difficult time accurately testing for modern doping methods, I don't think it would change the perceived risk that much. Look at Ricco, or even better, look at Pantani. If somebody is taking the risk now, they are thinking to themselves "Yeah, but I'm not like them. I'm smarter." Or something like, eh?
Good post. I agree with most.. one of the things I think would be good with lifetime bans (only for convicted dopers with proof) is that it would keep them out of the sports, thus stopping the diesease from spreading (if we can put it that way)

Looks like a the peleton in this years tour... I can name alot of "convicted" dopers still riding.. its a disgrace im0
 
Fergoose said:
What? Incase they get a modest backdated suspension that makes them miss only two GTs in the calendar and leaves the door open for them to be DSes later in their career? The penalties are laughable and cheats will always be tempted as long as the penalties remain utterly toothless.
So I think yes it would be a deterrant to a large percentage of offenders and yes it would therefore clean up the sport. Even the meagre penalties that are passed are undermined and that gives offenders hopes (e.g. that legal challenges will see them reinstated to lead the UK to gold in the Olympic roadrace).
 
There would likely be even stronger omerta, covering up, and driving it underground.

The best success in anti-doping comes from information provided by those caught. (in exchange for either a lighter, or a normal 2 year sentence).

Automatic life bans especially for a first offense just wouldn't help any.
 
Apr 18, 2011
27
0
0
As already stated people will risk some things no matter what. I think lifetime for first offence might be too much imo, I'd raise the ban to 4 years with a chance of reducing to 3 if they can give some evidence leading to a tangible result.
 
Interview with Dan Ariely, authors of the The (Honest) Truth about Dishonesty:

1) we all cheat and lie to some extent, but only to a very limited extent
2) the degree to which we cheat and lie is a balance between our desire to view ourselves as basically decent and honest, on the one hand, and to take advantage of the benefits of cheating and lying, on the other
3) the (perceived) probability of getting caught has more of an effect on preventing cheating and lying than the magnitude of the penalty
4) but even increasing the probability of getting caught does not have a major deterrent effect
5) ways we rationalize cheating (this will be very familiar to cycling fans—everyone does it, trying to stay up with others, etc.)
6) we’re more likely to cheat if we see other people we like cheating; also, people do it out of loyalty to organization
7) actually talks about doping (starts about 24:00), says every time athletes who aren’t doping hear stories about others doping, they are more likely to dope
8) the greatest impact on cheating and lying comes from increasing our desire to see ourselves as decent and honest; studies have shown that people will cheat less when confronted with subtle reminders of good behavior (he said he got atheists to stop cheating after persuading them to swear on the Bible)

http://integral-options.blogspot.com/

(scroll down)
 
Aug 4, 2009
177
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
It hasn't cleaned up this forum, so I'm not sure it will work in cycling either...:)
I was thinking along the same line...
if all these offenders were banned for life,
would it be "good enough" for those
who trade off of being busted, or as authors?
Kimmage, Papp, The Mouth?
Would lifetime bans of every offender
be good enough for the clinic?

Would this significant, visible element in the sport
simply vanish if doping riders were excoriated?

I'd see lifetime bans as cleaning up the sport on more than one front.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Lifetime bans only for EPO, HGH, blood doping, etc.--things that you won't unintentionally ingest.

Keep it as it is for the other stuff.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
montagna lunga said:
I was thinking along the same line...
if all these offenders were banned for life,
would it be "good enough" for those
who trade off of being busted, or as authors?
Kimmage, Papp, The Mouth?
Would lifetime bans of every offender
be good enough for the clinic?

Would this significant, visible element in the sport
simply vanish if doping riders were excoriated?

I'd see lifetime bans as cleaning up the sport on more than one front.
Ooooh...angry, angry, angry, grrrrr, grrrrr, grrrrr...somebody needs a nap.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
bikebottles said:
Would the threat of being banned for life from racing if caught doping, clean up the sport?

Should cyclists be banned from racing for doping?
I would doubt that Life bans would be any deterrent. As often said here by Alpe d'Huez, it isn't the length of the ban but the likelihood of getting caught that would have a bigger impact.

On a personal level I am against Lifetime bans (for a 1st offence).
Main reasons are sometimes people make mistakes - sometimes honest mistakes like Zirbel for example - but even those who knowingly doped can change and deserve a second chance. Also, if all doping resulted in lifetime bans every instance would be appealed to CAS and would drain the system.
 
Merckx index said:
Interview with Dan Ariely, authors of the The (Honest) Truth about Dishonesty:

1) we all cheat and lie to some extent, but only to a very limited extent
2) the degree to which we cheat and lie is a balance between our desire to view ourselves as basically decent and honest, on the one hand, and to take advantage of the benefits of cheating and lying, on the other
3) the (perceived) probability of getting caught has more of an effect on preventing cheating and lying than the magnitude of the penalty
4) but even increasing the probability of getting caught does not have a major deterrent effect
5) ways we rationalize cheating (this will be very familiar to cycling fans—everyone does it, trying to stay up with others, etc.)
6) we’re more likely to cheat if we see other people we like cheating; also, people do it out of loyalty to organization
7) actually talks about doping (starts about 24:00), says every time athletes who aren’t doping hear stories about others doping, they are more likely to dope
8) the greatest impact on cheating and lying comes from increasing our desire to see ourselves as decent and honest; studies have shown that people will cheat less when confronted with subtle reminders of good behavior (he said he got atheists to stop cheating after persuading them to swear on the Bible)

http://integral-options.blogspot.com/

(scroll down)
I'm pretty psyched to probably contribute to Dan's work later this summer and talk w/ him on camera all about doping doping doping/cheating cheating cheating in cycling. will keep you posted.
 
My thought is the opposite.

Big bans result in big (lawyer) business - we're talking about taking down marketing dreams here.

Go for shorter, punchier bans, but lower the bar for testing positive and take out all the lawyering BS. Be much more stringent with the BP - if you are suspicious, gone for 3 months.

May not work, but stiffer penalties just make the whole process gummed up and create a sub-economy of hiding and fighting it.
 
May 26, 2009
460
0
0
Last Month I provided an opportunity for those visiting the clinic to stand up and be counted by proposing a “ SPORTING MORATORIUM “ and I was not surprised when the “ Mods ” deleted a number of comments !

When those Anti “ he who should not be named “ proposed a Petition to Barack Obama , only a little over a TENTH OF ONE PERCENT , needed , bothered to respond ! Seems that the rest were content to read but lacked the energy to participate . On another thread I saw a comment on an item about the “ Slow twitch “ thread wherein the claim of ONE yes to hundred No was made ! Fact was 80+ yes , 18 waverers and even less NO ! Shows that the commenter was making their own point at the expense of truth !

Oh yes , we ALL have a point of View and the OP on this thread was trying hard to lead an informed discussion BUT those who know OP better decided to have fun at his expense !

Of course “ Kicking a man whilst he is down “ is good sport for some , especially those with “ unregistered IP addresses “ but if you were all honest enough to say your piece with real names there would be less spurious allegations , jumping to conclusion and throwing of mud in the hope it will stick .

Post #12 in this thread makes valid points and in thread 17702 the Op’s statement is countered by #5 , who at a guess , I would say was a new identity for a previously busy commenter !

AS a COMMUNITY , this forum could be a force for change ! BUT it requires digging out the old news and getting ALL THE SKELETONS rattling around the closet OUT IN THE OPEN !

How many more generations of YOUR offspring have to be exposed to those with “ questionable sporting careers “ before we ALL cry “ Enough is ENOUGH ” !

GET OFF YOUR **** AND HELP MAKE A DIFFERENCE !
 
May 26, 2009
460
0
0
Last Month I provided an opportunity for those visiting the clinic to stand up and be counted by proposing a “ SPORTING MORATORIUM “ and I was not surprised when the “ Mods ” deleted a number of comments !

When those Anti “ he who should not be named “ proposed a Petition to Barack Obama , only a little over a TENTH OF ONE PERCENT , needed , bothered to respond ! Seems that the rest were content to read but lacked the energy to participate . On another thread I saw a comment on an item about the “ Slow twitch “ thread wherein the claim of ONE yes to hundred No was made ! Fact was 80+ yes , 18 waverers and even less NO ! Shows that the commenter was making their own point at the expense of truth !

Oh yes , we ALL have a point of View and the OP on this thread was trying hard to lead an informed discussion BUT those who know OP better decided to have fun at his expense !

Of course “ Kicking a man whilst he is down “ is good sport for some , especially those with “ unregistered IP addresses “ but if you were all honest enough to say your piece with real names there would be less spurious allegations , jumping to conclusion and throwing of mud in the hope it will stick .

Post #12 in this thread makes valid points and in thread 17702 the Op’s statement is countered by #5 , who at a guess , I would say was a new identity for a previously busy commenter !

AS a COMMUNITY , this forum could be a force for change ! BUT it requires digging out the old news and getting ALL THE SKELETONS rattling around the closet OUT IN THE OPEN !

How many more generations of YOUR offspring have to be exposed to those with “ questionable sporting careers “ before we ALL cry “ Enough is ENOUGH ” !

GET OFF YOUR derriere AND HELP MAKE A DIFFERENCE !
 
Jun 18, 2012
299
0
0
Your point may be received a little better if it wasn't PUNCTUATED with lots of RANDOM capital LETTERS and an excessive amount of EXCLAMATION marks!
 
Jun 21, 2012
43
0
0
1 : Mandatory lifetime bans for all first time offenders.
2 : No appeal once a case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
3 : The athlete will have to pay a fine which matches, but does not exceed their career earnings.
4 : A mandatory five Year prison term without the possibility of parole.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Zarvinov said:
1 : Mandatory lifetime bans for all first time offenders.
2 : No appeal once a case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
3 : The athlete will have to pay a fine which matches, but does not exceed their career earnings.
4 : A mandatory five Year prison term without the possibility of parole.
You'd have to have a name for such a league! How about the Hitler-Stalin Bicycle League! You could recruit your riders from condemned prisoners (like the Dirty Dozen!).
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,642
0
0
Zarvinov said:
1 : Mandatory lifetime bans for all first time offenders.
2 : No appeal once a case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
3 : The athlete will have to pay a fine which matches, but does not exceed their career earnings.
4 : A mandatory five Year prison term without the possibility of parole.
In England, when stealing over a certain amount (a relatively small amount compared to monthly earnings) carried the death penalty, many thieves caught stealing more than that ended up being found by juries to have stolen less than that. Impose such ludicrous penalties, and you will simply encourage corruption and behind-the-scenes dealings. I know that if I were a doping tester, I would find it difficult to knowingly ruin someone's whole life like that if I knew that others were getting away with it.
 
Jun 21, 2012
43
0
0
MarkvW said:
You'd have to have a name for such a league! How about the Hitler-Stalin Bicycle League! You could recruit your riders from condemned prisoners (like the Dirty Dozen!).
I don't think that those proposals are two harsh.:D Take in to consideration the amount of money Lance Armstrong has amassed illegally through lying, cheating and defrauding. And numerous other charges. And there have been many more like him. People have been condemned to prison for less. But Armstrong is free to roam the streets. The vast fortune that he has obtained illegally by fraudulent means are not cents but millions of dollars. In my opinion fraud in sport should be criminalized by the same means that fraud is dealt with in the rest of society.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY