Banned for life?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Zarvinov said:
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.
Lance is a freak, money-wise. How much do you think a domestique makes a year? How long a career does an average domestique have? Maybe a couple domestiques on a normal team approach 200K. The peons don't even get to 100K. Your rules would not be a very good fit for the bulk of the peloton.
 
Jun 21, 2012
43
0
0
MarkvW said:
Lance is a freak, money-wise. How much do you think a domestique makes a year? How long a career does an average domestique have? Maybe a couple domestiques on a normal team approach 200K. The peons don't even get to 100K. Your rules would not be a very good fit for the bulk of the peloton.
Good point......
 
Jul 10, 2011
30
0
0
This may repeat, my post didn't seem to go through.

First...Thank you to you all who have posted, so many excellent viewpoints and thoughts on cheating.

I would agree that winning while doping is a fraud and should be treated as such.

Does anyone know what happens regarding the winnings, when a yellow jersey is taken from one racer and then given to the next racer in line? Does the next in line team have to sue for these winnings? What about lost endorsements?
 
There is little evidence that increasing punishment has any impact on people's behavior.

We need the culture of the sport to continue to change ... That is what will limit and eventually eliminate most (never all) cheating from the sport of cycling.

INMHO

T
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
Caruut said:
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.
Funny, I've always thought that guys who dope, cheat, and get caught are knowingly (and voluntarily) ruining their own lives...
 
Jan 14, 2011
504
0
0
Exactly

180mmCrank said:
There is little evidence that increasing punishment has any impact on people's behavior.
T
1+

I seem to recall that both 1) a high likelihood of being caught and 2) the guarantee of punishment are more important than the severity of the punishment as deterrents.

For example, if the punishment for littering was 1 year in prison, it would not stop littering because it is easy to get away with littering and few judges would send anyone to jail for littering. If on the other hand there is a 100% certainty of a $100 fine few people would litter.

In cycling the "authority" (UCI) seems only interested in 1) managing the PR problems associated with doping 2) using the threat of exposure and punishment to control riders, teams and race organizers. 3) possibly lining its own pockets with hush money (if there is any truth to the LA bribery accusation).
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,642
0
0
MacRoadie said:
Funny, I've always thought that guys who dope, cheat, and get caught are knowingly (and voluntarily) ruining their own lives...
The bolded is the part that I would have trouble with, morally. If I knew others were getting away with it, I would not feel totally okay about testing a guy I knew was going to be the unlucky one.
 
Apr 13, 2010
1,238
0
0
rickshaw said:
1+

I seem to recall that both 1) a high likelihood of being caught and 2) the guarantee of punishment are more important than the severity of the punishment as deterrents.

For example, if the punishment for littering was 1 year in prison, it would not stop littering because it is easy to get away with littering and few judges would send anyone to jail for littering. If on the other hand there is a 100% certainty of a $100 fine few people would litter.

In cycling the "authority" (UCI) seems only interested in 1) managing the PR problems associated with doping 2) using the threat of exposure and punishment to control riders, teams and race organizers. 3) possibly lining its own pockets with hush money (if there is any truth to the LA bribery accusation).
Especially to the bolded - if we imagine that greater punishments are actually detrimental to achieving convictions due to a greater need for "reassurance" of guilt and greater need for a perception of deserved punishment or that the punishment is just and fair - then it's not far-fetched to believe that were doping offences punished much more lightly there would not only have been a lot more admissions faster there would likely also have been much less "omerta" and doping could potentially have been effectively battled much earlier.

The fear of reprisal or perception of unjust punishment - both against yourself as well as your colleagues - can easily have been working against cleaning up the sport. The line "we're just doing what we have to in order to do our jobs" suddenly gets a much stronger ring to it...

Had the punishments instead been that you'd be riding with a black jersey saying "I'm a cheat" for the next six months but no suspension it might have worked differently :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY