Bike Pure - Are these demands realistic?

[elapid]

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

Likewise - hence the little grinning face in my post.

 

[joe_papp]

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.



This is #1. Agree full heartedly.



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



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.



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.



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



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.



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?).



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.

Hey, just in case anyone reads your post and sees how you're quoting me...and the manner in which you do it makes it seem like the points are mine - they're not. I just reposted the manifesto that Bike Pure created!

 

[elapid]

Hey, just in case anyone reads your post and sees how you're quoting me...and the manner in which you do it makes it seem like the points are mine - they're not. I just reposted the manifesto that Bike Pure created!

Hey Joe, no offense meant. Your name automatically comes up when you hit the quote button. I see Bala Verde worked out how not to include your name when quoting your post. I know these weren't your words, in fact you specifically stated that you don't agree with some of these aims set forth by Bike Pure. I was just responding with my thoughts on these aims of Bike Pure. Again, no offense meant and nor was I implying these were your aims, just clumsy use of the quote button!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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?

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

Some great questions Jonathan. I know Bala has answered some of it but there is one point i would like to add.

One of cycling's biggest problems is the doping infrastructure is already there!
A new rider, Pro or U23 will quickly realize what is happening around them.

Take as an example a 22 years old rider who is new in Italy. On a baby team of a Pro Tour team. Obviously they have amazing natural talent to get there.
They are also aware that should they fail in this opportunity there are many willing riders to take their place.

Managers or Coaches rarely mention the word doping - however a new rider will be reminded that they "must take care of themselves" and "act Professionally".

Also the initiation to the doping culture is not overt but subtle. The Doctor or soigneur will visit you - they will ask are you taking your vitamins and supplements and are you "taking care of yourself".

You show them the bottle of vitamins - they will say that taking them orally is upsets the digestive system and is less effective than by injection.
But you are against injections - injections equal doping.

But you are soo tired and you have also noticed that riders that are the same caliber as you are now a level ahead- being offered contracts and making nice prize money.

So eventually you either put your arm out to the Doctor or you decide to head back home......

And a BTW - Bernard Kohl was doping from his Junior days and appeared to be a willing participant.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

So eventually you either put your arm out to the Doctor or you decide to head back home......

And that's what needs to change. As I said in the comment on Zulle. This issue has been at the core of the problem for a long time, and most serious within the last 15 years. Stop this, and it will help turn the tide.

And a BTW - Bernard Kohl was doping from his Junior days and appeared to be a willing participant.

Maybe he determined how clear the choices were, and he'd rather race a bike than paint houses for a living?

 

[Oldman]

And that's what needs to change. As I said in the comment on Zulle. This issue has been at the core of the problem for a long time, and most serious within the last 15 years. Stop this, and it will help turn the tide.


Maybe he determined how clear the choices were, and he'd rather race a bike than paint houses for a living?

Many others from our neighborhood chose to leave the sport when confronted with these choices. Several were US Juniors at the same time as Lance, Tyler, Levi. There is a sense of bitterness when they discuss the GT's because they guess what it took to get there. This type of discussion will help keep the next generation involved if they truly think there is a chance for them. I've been saying that for twenty years, though.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

This type of discussion will help keep the next generation involved if they truly think there is a chance for them. I've been saying that for twenty years, though.

Did you mean to imply that a discussion along the lines of "if you want to ride pro, you either put your arm out or you head back home" encourages doping, by reinforcing the belief that doping is the only way to be competitive?

 

[Oldman]

Did you mean to imply that a discussion along the lines of "if you want to ride pro, you either put your arm out or you head back home" encourages doping, by reinforcing the belief that doping is the only way to be competitive?

The opposite. The level of disclosure in these forums and the possibility that real clean atheletes begin to be the accepted standard will influence up and coming riders. That discourse and the change in social acceptance can have an impact; particularly on developing riders. My suggestion on other forums that parental influence can be important was met with skepticism; based on the early reputation of riders like Tyler Hamilton. That doesn't mean you give up on it.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Precisely. Which is why I stated that shame was one of the best deterrents to stop doping (along with punishment in the form of not being allowed to race, and financial hardship). If it can be initiated in the sport that dopers will be exposed and shamed - and not just by hardcore fans, but by the governing bodies, other teams, and other riders - the sport can be cleaned up.

This may seem improbable, but logic dictates the weight is on our side of the scale. Doping is cheating, and it can be expensive - is getting expensive to get away with at the high Pro level anyway.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Did you mean to imply that a discussion along the lines of "if you want to ride pro, you either put your arm out or you head back home" encourages doping, by reinforcing the belief that doping is the only way to be competitive?

Woooh... wait a second that quote -which you have misquoted - was mine.

This was in direct reference to Jonathan's question - and I was trying to put some perspective on what can happen to a rider going through a low point in their path to professional cycling.

Under no circumstances do I approve of PED use in sports - nor do I believe that it is impossible to race as a Pro without PED's.

If you have a problem with what I write than address me on it - this is the second time you have quoted a selective piece from a post of mine.

 

[kiwirider]

Precisely. Which is why I stated that shame was one of the best deterrents to stop doping (along with punishment in the form of not being allowed to race, and financial hardship). If it can be initiated in the sport that dopers will be exposed and shamed - and not just by hardcore fans, but by the governing bodies, other teams, and other riders - the sport can be cleaned up.

You mean like the way that publishing lists of sex offenders and pedophiles has seen those crimes both disappear completely in the countries that follow that approach? Oh, wait a minute ... those programs failed dismally - actually they just drove the offenders further underground ...

Basic criminology says that you need to look behind the crime to find the reasons and to then address the offending at a range of different levels. As I indicated in an earlier post in this thread, I believe that the riders are really just a small part in the problem - yet they are almost 100% of the focus of the sanctions/punishments. That system doesn't work - any more than punishing recreational drug users

Just thinking off the cuff, I would suggest that drug taking in cycling is based on a combination of:
- the short time that a cyclist (or in fact any pro sports person) is at the peak of their earning ability;
- the backgrounds of the individual - including the fact that for many, cycling is still an escape from a mundane existence;
- the post-cycling career/financial possiblities - eg. if you can take PED's win a couple of races and get a high paid job as a TV commentator, when option B is a job on a production line, what would most people do?;
- the individual's mental fortitude and the impact of their physical limits on the realisation of their dreams; and
- social/system pressures (ie., as per my earlier post referring to the role of fans, DS's, sponsors, race organisers, international bodies, etc.)

If you're the stereotype of the kid from the poor Flemish family who learns to ride, shows a natural talent and can see a way out through riding your bike, the consequences of "name and shame" - even if tied with any potential financial sanction - aren't really going to rate in comparison to the dream of the escape. This is human nature and it's not confined to sports - there are countless stories of people who are currently business magnates who have worked up from nothing ... and who have equally engaged in "somewhat dubious" or "risky" practices in getting there!

As I've said before - and as a couple of other posters have also said - PED's are a systemic problem. Fines, sanctions and punishment by themselves don't work. Although I stand to be corrected by WADA or the UCI - it seems to me that no-one in those bodies has taken the time to look at that system and to ask the "what?", "where?", "by whom?" and "how?" questions about the forces/pressures that lead to drug taking. And until they do - and then start formulating a comprehensive attack plan based on a combination of education and enforcement - we're just going to keep going round in circles with a new cast playing the same old villains ...

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I think you've completely missed my point. If you shame a rider out of racing to where he's blacklisted, he's not exactly going to be able to come back and race, as no team would sign him. That's the idea. This isn't the same thing as outing child molesters. What a strange comparison.

You also don't seem to be familiar with anything else I've posted on the subject over the last few months.

 

[kiwirider]

I think you've completely missed my point. If you shame a rider out of racing to where he's blacklisted, he's not exactly going to be able to come back and race, as no team would sign him. That's the idea. This isn't the same thing as outing child molesters. What a strange comparison.

You also don't seem to be familiar with anything else I've posted on the subject over the last few months.

Actually yeah, I have read a fair bit of what you post - some I agree with, some I don't ... this is one of the latter category ...

And no, the comparison isn't strange - as you're talking about using exactly the same methods, just with a different end (public safety vs sporting integrity) ...

But if you don't like that example ... try the use of stocks and various other medieval shaming punishments ... they didn't work either ... like I say - basic criminology ...

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Woooh... wait a second that quote -which you have misquoted - was mine

Yes, and yes....but please let me explain....(and sorry for the 'prevailing view' thing in the other thread with an indirect reference, I accept your & Blackcat's point about a range of views on the forum, have considered more carefully what gave me that impression in the first place... and decided I was being a bit harsh with that call)

This was in direct reference to Jonathan's question - and I was trying to put some perspective on what can happen to a rider going through a low point in their path to professional cycling.

Yes, I understood that you were making a point about what a riders attitude might be, not expressing your own view of the situation. Then I was under the impression that your point was being commented on by Alpe d'Huez and Oldman in turn. That is why I referred back to the what I thought was the original point.

The thing is, I was asking a genuine question here. The first time I read Oldman's post, I thought he meant something along the lines of ....this type of discussion will help keep the next generation involved (in PED use) if they truly think there is a chance for them (to be competitive and they assume everyone's doing it so that's what it takes)....I was about to burst into print saying "I don't agree with this, I think the best way to solve the problem is to have full information properly debated, and an understanding of what motivates riders to dope is vital information. Maybe potentially demoralizing messages need to be balanced with some glimmers of hope for the future.... but as for squashing debate....I don't think that's helpful"....but then I reread it and thought ok, maybe he means the exact opposite.....This type of discussion will help keep the next generation involved (in cycling) if they truly think there is a chance for them (to be competitive riding clean, because an open discussion has given them hope the doping problem will be addressed)....so I decided to ask instead of assume. In retrospect, there probably wasn't as much follow through from you, through Alpe, to Oldman as I inferred, which is how I got the wrong end of the stick in the first place. But in my defense, I knew that I didn't entirely understand the comment, I wasn't sure I had the right end of the stick, so I asked....

Under no circumstances do I approve of PED use in sports - nor do I believe that it is impossible to race as a Pro without PED's.

Agreed on both points. In fact is was comments made by you, Alpe d'Huez and Beroesprenner in threads like ARE ANY DRUGS SAFE and WHY BE A CYCLIST that helped shape my view on the unacceptability of PED use......(for the second part, my view is based on taking a hard look at the scientific evidence)

If you have a problem with what I write than address me on it - this is the second time you have quoted a selective piece from a post of mine.

I didn't have a problem with what you wrote in this instance, I liked your wording. I wish I had 1/2 your ability to express myself as clearly, then I wouldn't spend as much time frustrated that, yet again, I have managed to give the total opposite impression to what I intended! However, given my unique talent for transmitting on the wrong frequency, I wont do you the disservice of referring to your posts indirectly again. Sorry.

 

[Oldman]

Actually yeah, I have read a fair bit of what you post - some I agree with, some I don't ... this is one of the latter category ...

And no, the comparison isn't strange - as you're talking about using exactly the same methods, just with a different end (public safety vs sporting integrity) ...

But if you don't like that example ... try the use of stocks and various other medieval shaming punishments ... they didn't work either ... like I say - basic criminology ...

You're completely confusing a cheating rider's need for money with a pedophile's pathological need for socially unacceptable sex. The medieval reference is assuming some physical distress. Not to put words in Alpe's argument but my hope would be that the financial and social risk would be too great. Right now it's obviously not because the UCI appears to be at least partially co-dependent on the financial arrangement.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

....

I didn't have a problem with what you wrote in this instance, I liked your wording. I wish I had 1/2 your ability to express myself as clearly, then I wouldn't spend as much time frustrated that, yet again, I have managed to give the total opposite impression to what I intended! However, given my unique talent for transmitting on the wrong frequency, I wont do you the disservice of referring to your posts indirectly again. Sorry.

Appreciate the clarification - thank you - apologies too if my comments came across harshly.

I had read many of your posts and would find myself nodding in agreement with most of what you said. I very much appreciate your posts in particular your knowledge and common sence in the scientific department - which is where I struggle to keep up.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

We've seen these denials from people so many times before, only to find out later they were lying. Can we really take Dr Maserati at face value? You may call me a sceptic but I am going to reserve judgement.

Ok BPC- I have written over 700 posts - please show one where I ever said that all riders dope or where I said I condone doping?

I have said Lance dopes - now I know in your world HE is all of cycling - maybe you take this as all of cycling dopes?

As for face value - well I have remained consistent in my viewpoint.

You certainly wont find me saying in one post its easy to lie under oath and later saying the easy thing to do is to tell the truth under oath.

 

[kiwirider]

You're completely confusing a cheating rider's need for money with a pedophile's pathological need for socially unacceptable sex. The medieval reference is assuming some physical distress.

No ...

What is actually happening is that you are ignoring many of the reasons that underpin a decision to dope and focusing on the one that makes the most sense as being a motivator to you - ie., the $$$. I know of people in other sports who have doped (and, for a range of reasons, not always been caught) and in none of the cases was money the principal motivator. Rather things as diverse as a major lack of confidence (perversely enough from someone who was actually a world champion in their sport) to pressure in their private lives to fear of the end of career to the time it was taking to recover from injury to a perceived unreasonable pressure to be a "public hero". For those people who have talked to me about the issue (which was eye opening, scary and humbling at the same time), the fear of sanctions and the fear of being named made absolutely no difference to their decisions ... All that it did was drive them to more and more risky behaviour ...

So, my point remains - and is independent of the precise type of socially unacceptable behaviour that we are talking about. Name and shame or any punitive measure might make people sitting on the outside feel good ("we're getting tough on <insert type of criminal here>"), but it has consistently been shown not to work - and I believe that it wont work here ...

 

[blackcat]

Yes I know it is cynical but I've just seen it said so many times by people in the sport. I've been around too long and seen these little statements of denials over and over again from people that turned out to be phoneys. Don't take offense if I doubt.

huh? on one hand, you say Betsy Andreu should have lied under oath, if she was contravening an implicit privacy covenant...

you are just manifest inconsistency dude, as well as being a star propagandist.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Firstly - KiwiRider, I actually agree with almost all of your posts and find it wonderful to see someone on here who is passionate in their stance.

But I believe Aple's comments on shaming should not taken in the context of what you have said.
To me Alpe is one of the most respected and knowledgeable posters on this forum and I always enjoy reading his posts.

The problems in our sport have been well presented and the solutions are very interesting. What I think we can all agree on is there is no one solution to this problem - no Silver bullet - it requires a lot of changes and just as important a seismic change in attitudes.

When I first read Alpes comments on shaming I did not agree with it. To me it is very much the small side of the problem.
However I then started thinking of how attitudes can change - with Germany being a good example. Look at riders like Jaske, Sinkerwitz and Hondo.

I am not saying I advocate shaming - as I think in traditional countries like Italy, Spain and Belgium the general sports fan just shrugs it off with apathy.

But nevertheless it is worthy of discussion and debate.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Look, let's view this from the other side of the coin. The side we are looking at now in our sport:

A rider dopes, and others know he dopes. What happens? Almost always absolutely nothing. He keeps on doping as he wishes, and everyone looks the other way.

Or, a rider dopes, and gets caught. The best thing for him to do in order to be accepted back into the sport by his fellow riders, and cycling teams is what? To remain completely silent. Do that, and you should be okay and welcomed back.

It's the riders that break the omerta, the riders who tell the truth, the riders who name names, and explain what they did that are currently shamed. The are called liars, cheaters, and generally blacklisted from the sport, and especially by it's most powerful members. Ask Jesus Manzano. Ask Jorg Jasche, ask Bernard Kohl, ask Filipo Simeoni, ask JP.

This is what I think needs to be changed, and needs to be reversed.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes. Also, I'm not going to name names, but if anyone on this thread is secretly running a PED programme for pro cyclists, they need to come clean about it. That would certainly help the sport.

Wow, thats quite a statement - even for you - but I tend to agree.

But my own opinion is JV1973 is running a clean shop.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Wow, thats quite a statement - even for you - but I tend to agree.

But my own opinion is JV1973 is running a clean shop.

See BPC, that is how irony works when you get it right.

 

[kiwirider]

Look, let's view this from the other side of the coin.
....

The riders that break the omerta, the riders who tell the truth, the riders who name names, and explain what they did that are currently shamed. The are called liars, cheaters, and generally blacklisted from the sport, and especially by it's most powerful members. Ask Jesus Manzano. Ask Jorg Jasche, ask Bernard Kohl, ask Filipo Simeoni, ask JP.

This is what I think needs to be changed, and needs to be reversed.

I think that we all agree on the same desired outcome - which is that PED use isn't acceptable in the sport.

As I see it, our difference of opinion comes in the means that we believe will get us there. Without sounding like a "sensitive new age tree hugger", I'm much more in favour of an approach that uses positive reinforcement to get us there rather than one that uses negative reinforcement (be it from external bodies or peers).

That belief is based on a combination of my experiences leading people in a wide range of situations, conversations with friends who have competed in various sports at high levels, my training and experience as a lawyer, various things that I have read on the topics of criminology and also on PED (ranging from rider's stories to articles) - and even the experiences/observations of a member of my extended family who spent a few years as a "guest of Her Majesty" ...

We may always agree to disagree on the best approach, but like the Doc says (with a bit of paraphrasing on my part), debate and discussion is good ...

 

[Anonymous]

Luckily JV has not posted in this thread, so I was not refering to him.

The truth will come out in the end.

The truth is already out. It is what those that have the power to clean up the sport do with the truth that will make the difference.