Bike Pure - Are these demands realistic?

[the truth.]

great to see solutions.
makes a change from hearing moaning after yet another positive test.

the sport Must change if it is to survive with its soul intact.

congrats to all the pros who have signed up to Bike Pure.
To the rest why not?
Do they not know , do they not think drugs are a problem or Do they not want to be counted ?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Number 1 is asking for what's already happening, just that these aren't minimums but maximums. Bans are already 4 years for first offense and life for repeat offenders. That's been the case since this January.

The UCI have proposed several times Lifetime bans for all offenses, but WADA aren't letting them. When these new sanctions were approved the UCI's statement clearly said this was a good step towards their goal of eventually convincing WADA to make every offense a lifetime ban.

Firstly - it is Pat McQuaids personal preference to have 'lifetime bans'.
At least that is what he says in the press.

You are correct that the 4 year option is now available- but has yet to be used!!

As for someone elses comments on incarceration - while I am not in favor of locking up riders who dope it should be an option for countries that have anti-doping laws.
My preference would be that it is only used on those who have sold/provided PED's - and should include coaches, Doctors etc.

But it also should be remembered that some of the bigger fish are earning vasts sums of money - if they are doping then it is not just cheating but fraud, of sponsors, endorsement companies and other riders.

While heavy penalties would be the first deterrent the option should be there for someone who refuses to pay or co-operate.

 

[Oldman]

did not mean it in so simplistic terms. It was policy sumbission, without the detail. I think this would be less controversial and a problem. Teams and the UCI make selections and seeds. Any rider outside the seeding can be petitioned to be tested from teams.

You can poke holes in anything. I appreciate that was just devil's advocate pov, and not snark. But that would be workable in my opinion. You also have enough hitters, that those who are tested, are on the periphery anyhow. They will not be double figure winners, or riders who are on a GT podium. Just potential riders for the bubble.

But the whole concept of deterrent in this manner seems like it could eventually enhance the "clean culture", should it emerge. That is the best result we can hope for over time and a benefit to the preeminent riders of the future. It also highlights fewer riders and takes some of the Big Brother out of the picture. Personally, if I was a GT rider I would want a little "me time" to ease some of the personal pressure you endure for 3 weeks. Not sure I'd want that activity on the 24/7 monitoring tape.

 

[the truth.]

what about the BP idea to have riders convicted to spend the ban time working to help cycling and repair the damage done.
if they dont do 2 years of this coaching etc that will not qualify for a racing license at ban-end

 

[blackcat]

But the whole concept of deterrent in this manner seems like it could eventually enhance the "clean culture", should it emerge. That is the best result we can hope for over time and a benefit to the preeminent riders of the future. It also highlights fewer riders and takes some of the Big Brother out of the picture. Personally, if I was a GT rider I would want a little "me time" to ease some of the personal pressure you endure for 3 weeks. Not sure I'd want that activity on the 24/7 monitoring tape.

there wont be a tape. Clean hotel rooms, then riders left to their own devices.

But the caribinieri have already done the spy cameras in hotel rooms. It has been done before. I am not advocating that.

 

[blackcat]

what about the BP idea to have riders convicted to spend the ban time working to help cycling and repair the damage done.
if they dont do 2 years of this coaching etc that will not qualify for a racing license at ban-end

Basso worked to repair his image. Look at what he did, causes like poverty in Africa. Now have a look at his blood passport for the week the Giro started. His crit had gone up, and it was the highest mark on the year. So, you can ask riders to repair the damage, but do you think any rider has come back clean?

and who will pay?

 

[usedtobefast]

independent testing for sure, but draconian measures will not see the light of day. restraint of trade laws will prevail, i predict. my 2cents.

 

[131313]

congrats to all the pros who have signed up to Bike Pure.
To the rest why not?
Do they not know , do they not think drugs are a problem or Do they not want to be counted ?

I know drugs are a problem. I didn't sign up, and I won't. A teammate asked and I refused. If they get rid of the part about the TUE's, then I'll sign. My medical history unrelated to performance enhancing drugs is none of anyone's business. And by the way, I have no TUE's, but that's not the point.

I think the part about the vo2 is silly as well, for a few reasons (vo2 w/o knowing efficiency really isn't that meaningful), but it woudn't keep me from signing it.

 

[Epicycle]

Really what you need is a reform of the UCI. That would accomplish much more than any other change.

Unfortunately with McQuaid about to start another 4 year term things look grim. The scandal I would love to see is one uncovering his corrupt dealings. That is the veil which desperately needs to be lifted.

 

[elapid]

5. Doping to be seen as a criminal offence in every country.

6. Offending riders and team personnel involved in administration of doping practices and the administers/suppliers of illegal drugs punished accordingly in line with judicial law.

7. The full public disclosure of all riders' medication notes eg. Asthma remedies, Cortisone creams, Testosterone supplements etc.

8. The disclosure of all riders VO2 max measurements, so that profiles can be built up in conjunction with the impending Bio-Passport system.

9. Authorities working with previous offenders of doping to help improve the testing procedures. Former dopers, although part of the initial problem, would be able to provide information on how riders evade detection and the methods and practices involved in doping. Their reasons for doping could also be taken on board.
[/I][/B]
Bike Pure would like to thank all its members, riders, teams and media for their valued support over the last number of months. Without you we would not be where we are today.

1. More stringent sanctions for offending riders, with a minimum 4 year ban and life bans for repeat offenders. It is clear that the current 2 year ban is not deterring riders from doping.

I am in the definite minority here, but I prefer the 2-year ban. We know from the justice system that stiffer and heavier penalties do not act as a deterrent. I would rather the likes of Millar back in the peloton than not. There will be idiots who will be repeat dopers, and these are the ones that don't deserve to be in the sport. They should get life suspensions.

2. All testing to be carried out by an independent testing authority. This independent authority must have no affiliation with any cycling governing body, team or sponsor linked to cyclesport.

This is #1. Agree full heartedly.

3. Life bans and sanctions for management and team personnel working with cyclists to assist doping practices.

Agree, but would also consider leniency for those that expose doping rings and methods.

4. Suspensions for riders should be fully implemented, regardless of geographical location and/or National Federation.

I am not sure what this is referring to - is it implying that decisions like CONI should be upheld worldwide? If so, I disagree. There is due process and Valverde deserves to be heard. Again I am likely in the minority, but Valverde is a scapegoat IMO for the whole Operacion Puerto affair and CONI have overstepped their boundaries. Sanction everyone in Operacion Puerto, or let it go.

5. Doping to be seen as a criminal offence in every country.

Disagree. Doping is cheating, but it is not a criminal offense. Do you want to gaol the kid that cheats on his maths exam? Yes, there are wider implications of cheating in sport such as fraud etc, but I still do not think that making it a criminal offense will curb doping for the same reasons longer suspensions will not change doping practices. Harsher penalties just do not act as a deterrent.

6. Offending riders and team personnel involved in administration of doping practices and the administers/suppliers of illegal drugs punished accordingly in line with judicial law.

Suppliers - yes. See above comments regarding doping and the judicial system.

7. The full public disclosure of all riders' medication notes eg. Asthma remedies, Cortisone creams, Testosterone supplements etc.

This will not happen. The issue of privacy is tantamount here and public disclosure of anyone's medical records, whether they be TUE's or not, is not acceptable unless approved by that person. At some point we have to trust the authorities that oversee TUEs and doping. I do not personally trust the UCI, and hence my answer to #2.

8. The disclosure of all riders VO2 max measurements, so that profiles can be built up in conjunction with the impending Bio-Passport system.

Other people are more able to comment on VO2 max, but I imagine that someone's ability to perform well is not based solely on VO2 max. Yes, it may be valuable in combination with the passport, but may be we should also be measuring efficiency as well as VO2 max. In addition, the measurement of VO2 max is fraught with difficulties (ie, what if a rider wanted to purposely tank his VO2 testing to have any artificially low result?).

9. Authorities working with previous offenders of doping to help improve the testing procedures. Former dopers, although part of the initial problem, would be able to provide information on how riders evade detection and the methods and practices involved in doping. Their reasons for doping could also be taken on board.

Agree.

My take is that you need to make achievable aims. Anything to do with the judicial system and the violation of privacy will not be effective. Unfortunately, I do not think the UCI will willingly give up drug testing - too much money is involved. So what is achievable?

Tighten up the tests - more research into standard deviations and false positives and negatives. At this stage, many riders are probably very suspicious but do not test positive because to ruin a rider's livelihood with a false positive is worse than letting a doped rider with a false negative ride.

Use new technology such as hemoglobin mass.

Other than this, I am at a bit of a loss as to what would be effective and doable.

 

[elapid]

but do you think any rider has come back clean?

I believe Landis and Millar are racing clean. Not as though he was ever caught, but I believe Cunago is now clean.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

- Why do pro cyclists dope?
- How is doping organized?
- What is the attitude of riders towards doping?
- How does doping relate to the other factors riders have deal with, like personal life, team pressure, salary, etc.?
- What kind of intervention would make the large majority of riders refrain from using doping?

1. To win. Fortune and fame. But now that most do it, the answer is "to keep up and have a chance at winning".
2. Good question we only know some about. This is why I advocate going not just after the riders, but the support, as a priority.
3. No one gets into cycling wanting to dope. It becomes accepted. Look at Alex Zulle's comments. The speed limit says 55, but everyone is driving 80. What do you do?
4. Good question. Varies. Obviously the pressure is higher these days, but it's made it harder for lower riders to dope. Higher ups just have more sophisticated systems.
5. Shame. Punishment. Financial hardship.

Has anyone at the UCI or someone 'high up' in cycling ever commented on full body hemoglobin tests?

I wrote to both Pat and Anne about it earlier this year. No reply.

Sounds like the US doctrine of deterrence to make people comply with 'laws & regulations' like the death penalty. Haven't seen proof that harsher punishments leads to better results/behavior.l

Agree. As I said before, it's the certainty of punishment that acts as a deterrent, much more so than the severity of it. They're not thinking about what will happen if they get caught. They're thinking they're not going to be caught, period. And history has shown that to be true.

Need to read the doping dilemma chart/article again.

You are correct that the 4 year option is now available- but has yet to be used!!

Tell Roberto Heras that.

Agree that issues 7 & 8 are most sticky, hardest to enforce. TUE's really only need to be verified by another physician if it's an issue. They don't need to fully be made public.

Has anyone written to Andy and Myles about this? I'd like to get them in on the conversation here. I'll try to drop them a line.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Great thread...

Good on Bike Pure for trying to do something instead of just moaning. Hope they are able to compile a constructive blueprint, that can attract the support it needs to be effective.

1. More stringent sanctions for offending riders.

Because the testing leads to so many false negatives, and cannot possibly catch all dopers, increasing the chance of getting caught is probably more effective than occasional massive penalties. Stringent sanctions are ok if substantially lower penalties are offered to riders who give comprehensive information on suppliers & methods etc. This way, each failed test should lead to multiple people being sanctioned, provided Number 3 happens.

Difficulties with testing also mean pressure from within teams/the peloton is required to clean up the sport. Removal of an entire team from a race (or a brief team sanction), if an individual rider gets caught, is one way to increase internal pressures to ride clean. Of course, the team would not be sanctioned if one of the other team members alerted the authorities to what was going on in the first place......how can anyone expect omerta to end, if no steps are take to directly counterbalance it?

2. All testing to be carried out by an independent testing authority. This independent authority must have no affiliation with any cycling governing body, team or sponsor linked to cyclesport.

YES. I would like to see this as Number 1. Testing body must be fair & seen to be fair. Cycling can't possibly regain any credibility while this obvious conflict of interest continues.

3. Life bans and sanctions for management and team personnel working with cyclists to assist doping practices.

YES. Would be nice to 'blacklist' anyone found to be involved but not a team employee. Professional involvement with the blacklisted person would then count as a doping violation. Probably legal issues though...

4. Suspensions for riders should be fully implemented, regardless of geographical location and/or National Federation.

If a reasonable due process can be found.

5. Doping to be seen as a criminal offence in every country

It's probably more practical to focus on changes that can be made within cycling.

6. Offending riders and team personnel involved in administration of doping practices and the administers/suppliers of illegal drugs punished accordingly in line with judicial law.

Much prefer that legal measures are directed at UCI/Team Managers/Doctors for negligence or failure of duty of care, as discussed by kiwirider. Doctors providing prescription drugs to healthy athletes, for uses not covered by any clinical trials, are very vulnerable here. (Whose going to come up with the cash for civil law suits? What about a 'lets sue the UCI' fund-raising drive by Greg Lemond.....might see a sudden increase in enthusiasm for independent tests then)

7. The full public disclosure of all riders' medication notes eg. Asthma remedies, Cortisone creams, Testosterone supplements etc.

OUTRAGEOUS. The whole world needs to know which riders are being treated for hemorrhoids because why? More seriously, loss of patient confidentiality prevents patients talking to their doctors about personal health issues...some of which can even be fatal. If necessary, there are other ways around the TUE thing, e.g. a second medical opinion related only to the condition the prescription was issued for....but not public medical records....please take this one off the list....

8. The disclosure of all riders VO2 max measurements, so that profiles can be built up in conjunction with the impending Bio-Passport system.

Perhaps to the testing authorities, but to the general public....no. Every ignoramus who has never heard of fluctuating variables or experiment & modeling errors will be screaming out slanderous drivel any time an athletes VO2max is estimated at 2% higher than formerly reported. If you didn't mean publicly, sorry for rant, raw nerve here due to recent events.

9. Authorities working with previous offenders of doping to help improve the testing procedures.

YES, but what motivates them to do so? It's back to point 1. Differential sanctions for riders co-operating with anti-doping authorities are important. Here's why: If a rider believes most others are doping, they probably think its unfair that they got caught, and that they are doing the right thing by protecting others from the same injustice. The message that desperately needs reinforcement is that speaking out is the right thing to do; cleaning up the sport is the only way to protect others from facing the injustice of the 'dope or quit/lose races dilemma.'




I suggest adding a statement to the effect that "doping violations which occurred prior to changes in anti doping policy must be treated exactly as they would have been under the former system....even if the violations are not detected until the new system is in place." Here's why: It's simply not realistic to expect people to support new effective anti-doping measures, if they think there is a high chance they will be penalized for what they did under the old 'wink/nod' rules. In this case, their livelihood would depend on fighting off any proposals that could be effective. However, if they think the new rules offer them a way out of the 'doping dilemma', they might support the changes..........some anti-doping advocates will feel this is a horrible idea, which just lets the cheats go.......I would ask them which they care about most, the future or the past?

 

[Jonathan]

1. To win. Fortune and fame. But now that most do it, the answer is "to keep up and have a chance at winning".

If it is really to win, then most are failing. It cannot be true; most racers do not start to win, but with other goals in mind. In any case, winning or keeping up are only half an answer, and that's what I mean when I talk about assumed answers. What are rider's motivations to try and get a high result? What's the psychology behind it, how do they look at eachother and how does the system of rewarding good results affect riders?

2. Good question we only know some about. This is why I advocate going not just after the riders, but the support, as a priority.

At what age does doping typically start, how do riders make contact with dealers, where do they get their information from, etc.

3. No one gets into cycling wanting to dope. It becomes accepted. Look at Alex Zulle's comments. The speed limit says 55, but everyone is driving 80. What do you do?

At the same time, some have claimed that doping is part of the technology that you can push to its limits. It is possible that many riders are rather indifferent towards doping, considering it no more dangerous than orange juice. There is also the question if they consider a doping-free peloton to be something worth striving for. Obviously, this is a very important question, but has anyone ever researched if such an attitude is present among the majority of riders?

4. Good question. Varies. Obviously the pressure is higher these days, but it's made it harder for lower riders to dope. Higher ups just have more sophisticated systems.

I suspect that, as is usually the case with complex problems involving health, science, economy and social attitudes, there is a far-reaching web of factors that connect to the problem. The first step in looking for solutions to the actual problems is getting a good idea about the relations in that web. This has, to my knowledge, not been done in cycling. It has been done, for example, in South Africa, where AIDS problems and their relation to changing lifestyles in small villages were studied. Such studies indicated that social-economic factors played a major role in the spreading of AIDS, making the standard reactions we primarily think about too simplistic and ineffective.

5. Shame. Punishment. Financial hardship.

And for cycling, I would argue the same. The doping culture is embedded to deeply within the organization of the teams and the community of professional cycling that simple harsher sanctions aren't going to work. In fact, what I see is that most of the proposed forms of punishment are aimed at pleasing the audience rather than actually solving any problem. Ofcourse we could choose to go in that direction, but let's not lull ourselves into thinking it is in the name of a clean sport.

 

[Aapjes]

This is what the Bike Pure jersey looks like:

 

[Izoard]

1. To win. Fortune and fame. But now that most do it, the answer is "to keep up and have a chance at winning"

Good point, and to add: "to keep up because it is your only job and you don't want to be unemployed" (related to Zulle's comments).

 

[Izoard]

...

I pretty much agree with everything Elapid has stated. Some of the "demands" make sense and I agree with them, but some truly cannot or should not be imlemented (e.g. full TUE disclosure, criminalization).

 

[Bala Verde]

If it is really to win, then most are failing. It cannot be true; most racers do not start to win, but with other goals in mind. In any case, winning or keeping up are only half an answer, and that's what I mean when I talk about assumed answers. What are rider's motivations to try and get a high result? What's the psychology behind it, how do they look at eachother and how does the system of rewarding good results affect riders?

I believe it's not merely for a reason or the reason, we perceive as the ultimate reason that people dope. Perhaps it has more to do with a culture, a way of doing things in an somewhat isolated community/group of people.

If it is common that everyone pays taxes in a society, or tributes to a king, or jumps of a wooden tower with only a rope tied to your ankles, because that has meaning within those societies, then there are only few people who question it, and even when they question it, they more often than not, won't be able to change it significantly, to the point that the 'ritual'/'tradition'/'modus operandi' disappears.

Many outsiders may even question those habits, and rites and rituals, call them stupid, backward, unhealthy, irrational, but that is from an outside perspective, where a different rational applies. This is not to advocate a position of total relativism, but I think if you analyse it from an 'antropological perspective', it actually might give you some cues.

You are a young rider, you enter the pro-league, and older, more experienced riders test you - are you man enough, do you have what it takes, are you to be trusted into the secrecies of the peloton - they dare you to use something, they induct you into doping. Or you have heard about it and start exploring a little yourself, you need advice, you schluff bikes with some of your heros, you are in, and want to consolidate your position. Can you, will you, what if you fail, back to painting houses, even though you are hugely talented, can you win? And if you are not talented, will you stay? How many people will or can resist?

Reasons for justifying certain behaviour is often also out of self-preservation, to abandon questioning your newly adopted life-style. "It makes me stronger (even if there is proof to the contrary), it makes me a winner (although you never showed real top 1% talent), I need it otherwise I pedal backwards (even if it doesn't), I need to live up to my expectations (fear of failure), my contract has criteria x,y,z and I don't want to fail my DS, everyone is doing it, it's really not that bad for your health (even if it is), I have a doctor I can trust" Even if, given your abilities, you'd never be a winner, there seem to be ample reasons to accept, and join in?

Once you are committed, it's even harder to get out as you have become part of the gang, who "trusts you to keep you mouth shut", "took care of you to use the stuff", "helped you to get the stuff".

All these little, smaller, seemingly insignificant and self-justifying reasons add up, and start to form a reality, with a specific meaning, as well as communication (absence of communication Omerta is also communication) between the members that make up the group.

It's all mere speculation obviously...

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

This is what the Bike Pure jersey looks like:

It's actually a full-zip. Really quite nice. I should take a pic of mine and post it. Maybe later today.

Good point, and to add: "to keep up because it is your only job and you don't want to be unemployed" (related to Zulle's comments).

I think Zulle's other comment was that his choice was to dope like everyone else, and keep racing making good money doing what he loved. Or he could go back to painting houses.

Peculiar thing is that according to Willy Voet, Alex wasn't one who responded that well to doping.

 

[blackcat]

This is what the Bike Pure jersey looks like:

chicks jersey. Ride that in somewhere like Australia, you get beat up. They don't like gays down there.

 

[elapid]

chicks jersey. Ride that in somewhere like Australia, you get beat up. They don't like gays down there.

Ha - you've never lived in Sydney!

 

[blackcat]

facetious elapid, facetious. Need to stick the tongue firmer in one's cheek I s'pose.

 

[Dude17]

I think immediate lifetime ban for management of teams will only make some management teams work harder to bribe or coerce the results that are needed. A two year ban from managing any pro team for first offense would do wonders. Caught a second time, now you're out for life.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

chicks jersey. Ride that in somewhere like Australia, you get beat up. They don't like gays down there.

No reason to go. Just a British penal colony anyway.

I'm still going to wear mine anyway. You can stick to your Livestrong kit.

 

[Jonathan]

I believe it's not merely for a reason or the reason, we perceive as the ultimate reason that people dope. Perhaps it has more to do with a culture, a way of doing things in an somewhat isolated community/group of people.

If it is common that everyone pays taxes in a society, or tributes to a king, or jumps of a wooden tower with only a rope tied to your ankles, because that has meaning within those societies, then there are only few people who question it, and even when they question it, they more often than not, won't be able to change it significantly, to the point that the 'ritual'/'tradition'/'modus operandi' disappears.

Many outsiders may even question those habits, and rites and rituals, call them stupid, backward, unhealthy, irrational, but that is from an outside perspective, where a different rational applies. This is not to advocate a position of total relativism, but I think if you analyse it from an 'antropological perspective', it actually might give you some cues.

You are a young rider, you enter the pro-league, and older, more experienced riders test you - are you man enough, do you have what it takes, are you to be trusted into the secrecies of the peloton - they dare you to use something, they induct you into doping. Or you have heard about it and start exploring a little yourself, you need advice, you schluff bikes with some of your heros, you are in, and want to consolidate your position. Can you, will you, what if you fail, back to painting houses, even though you are hugely talented, can you win? And if you are not talented, will you stay? How many people will or can resist?

Reasons for justifying certain behaviour is often also out of self-preservation, to abandon questioning your newly adopted life-style. "It makes me stronger (even if there is proof to the contrary), it makes me a winner (although you never showed real top 1% talent), I need it otherwise I pedal backwards (even if it doesn't), I need to live up to my expectations (fear of failure), my contract has criteria x,y,z and I don't want to fail my DS, everyone is doing it, it's really not that bad for your health (even if it is), I have a doctor I can trust" Even if, given your abilities, you'd never be a winner, there seem to be ample reasons to accept, and join in?

Once you are committed, it's even harder to get out as you have become part of the gang, who "trusts you to keep you mouth shut", "took care of you to use the stuff", "helped you to get the stuff".

All these little, smaller, seemingly insignificant and self-justifying reasons add up, and start to form a reality, with a specific meaning, as well as communication (absence of communication Omerta is also communication) between the members that make up the group.

It's all mere speculation obviously...

That all sounds like the typical context for any health issue with social aspects, like smoking, drug abuse, safe sex, etc. I really wonder how much research has or has not been done on that subject. It's a shame, because the effectiveness of sanctions hinges on how well the reactions of those involved can be predicted. In other words: you only know if punishment will be effective if you know how the riders will react to the prospect of being punished. And how can any reaction be assumed if it is unknown how strong the motivation to dope is?

Note that I don't think there is a singular reason to dope, in fact I think it is the opposite. If serious research on the doping problem was done, I think the result would be a contextual model with quite complex relations involving a number of factors. Not one that easily points toward a solution, but one that does explain why the UCI has been unable to stop it.