Davide Rebellin

[bikepure]

I watched him chase and chase and chase at the worlds in Varese in 2008. My report said Rebellin's attacks were superhuman.

Well better late than never the game is up. Once again a top line rider brings our sport into the gutter. We need MAJOR reforms. I feel for the riders he beat who were clean the races he ruined, the promises broken.. Davide and his generation needs to leave our sport.

Our proposals to assist with the clean up of cycling:

1. Introduction and immediate implementation of a blanked, fixed four-year ban from competition for any doping offence.
2. Introduction of life bans for anyone caught doping for the second time.
3. Life bans for management and team personnel working with cyclists to
Assist doping practices.
4. Strict adherence to the rulebook and a time limit of 4 weeks to be set
from sample taken to test result, inclusive of ruling.
5. Unification of all countries testing authorities under the UCI banner,
meaning that any doping infringements in a single country will have automatic
effect globally.
6. A standardization of testing procedures under WADA, to be enforced in
each area.
7. Fully open results of the Bio-Passport program online and listed
infringement penalties.

We hope this meets with your approval and we look forward to a response in
the near future.

http://www.bikepure.org
Support clean/real riders

 

[ElChingon]

Your proposal leaves out the most important thing. Seeking to stop or identify the pushers and notify those in their businesses governing bodies to issue fines and possibly revoke licenses for dealing to athletes drugs intended for the sick. When those fines, legal hurdles are so high they won't dare sell outside their intended clientel will this be better regulated.

G.D. the pushers! To date they are left to do as they wish and sell to whom they wish, put a stop to it.

 

[BikeCentric]

What I don't understand is why aren't Government drug enforcement arms going after these guys (the dealers) more aggressively? In the US this would be the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) but I have no idea what the agencies are in European Countries. I do know in the US the DEA often have to go after violent gangs; seems like targeting crooked doctors that sell drugs to cyclists would be some nice, fat, juicy high value targets for these agencies. Question is, why aren't they going after these people with criminal charges for drug trafficking?

I think we're pretty much at the point where the governing bodies are going to have to get draconian on enforcement if there's ever going to be a chance at clean competition. Rebellin is another huge fish that just got reeled in.

As of now it's a simple cost/benefit analysis to all involved in doping: the benefits of doping FAR outweigh the risk of getting caught.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

DEA? Maybe back in the narcotic Pot Belge days. Were talking about CERA here.

 

[bikepure]

do you then offer a reduction in length of ban for a whistle blower?

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

Witness protection program.

 

[Kennf1]

DEA? Maybe back in the narcotic Pot Belge days. Were talking about CERA here.

And we're talking about a tiny, tiny fraction of the population.

 

[ElChingon]

DEA? Maybe back in the narcotic Pot Belge days. Were talking about CERA here.

I'm talking Doctors and Pharmaceutical companies here not the black market. More like USDA (or is it FDA? I'm bad with those acronyms) and what ever governing bodies control pharmaceuticals in Europe.

 

[patswana]

What I don't understand is why aren't Government drug enforcement arms going after these guys (the dealers) more aggressively?

Because governments like the benefits of doping too. They get the sports stars with whom they can have photo opportunities, and the olympic medals to use as evidence of your nation's superiority. In addition, a general public that is addicted to sport is less likely to take much interest in politics, corruption, injustice etc.

 

[Greg Johnson]

I watched him chase and chase and chase at the worlds in Varese in 2008. My report said Rebellin's attacks were superhuman.

Well better late than never the game is up. Once again a top line rider brings our sport into the gutter. We need MAJOR reforms. I feel for the riders he beat who were clean the races he ruined, the promises broken.. Davide and his generation needs to leave our sport.

Our proposals to assist with the clean up of cycling:

1. Introduction and immediate implementation of a blanked, fixed four-year ban from competition for any doping offence.
2. Introduction of life bans for anyone caught doping for the second time.
3. Life bans for management and team personnel working with cyclists to
Assist doping practices.
4. Strict adherence to the rulebook and a time limit of 4 weeks to be set
from sample taken to test result, inclusive of ruling.
5. Unification of all countries testing authorities under the UCI banner,
meaning that any doping infringements in a single country will have automatic
effect globally.
6. A standardization of testing procedures under WADA, to be enforced in
each area.
7. Fully open results of the Bio-Passport program online and listed
infringement penalties.

We hope this meets with your approval and we look forward to a response in
the near future.

http://www.bikepure.org
Support clean/real riders

Ahh, Myles. It's good to start the day with a laugh.

Cheers
Greg Johnson

 

[BroDeal]

What I don't understand is why aren't Government drug enforcement arms going after these guys (the dealers) more aggressively? In the US this would be the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) but I have no idea what the agencies are in European Countries. I do know in the US the DEA often have to go after violent gangs; seems like targeting crooked doctors that sell drugs to cyclists would be some nice, fat, juicy high value targets for these agencies. Question is, why aren't they going after these people with criminal charges for drug trafficking?

PEDs are not in the same class of drugs as narcotics. The FBI did do a large steroids investigation a couple of years ago but I think some of their case fell apart. I have a hazy memory about it.

I also think the reality of the situation is that the PED problem has become more diffuse. It is easy to order products over the internet. If you live near the southern border, it is easy to bop into Mexico and buy whatever you need.

As of now it's a simple cost/benefit analysis to all involved in doping: the benefits of doping FAR outweigh the risk of getting caught.

That is the real problem. It is not the harshness of the punishment that counts. It is the probability of being caught, which is very low. Combine that with the possible rewards and doping is a rational decision. Very few people would not dope when confronted with the small chance of being detected and the moneyy that can be made by doping.

 

[Escarabajo]

I think the 4 years ban for dopin is a "No Brainer". Why don't the UCI implement this right away????

I was one of the believers of the Biological Passport because it tracks profiles instead of drugs. But they havent catched anybody yet??? Taking into ac**** that this is the second year already. The UCI surely looks like corrupted.

Thanks.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

It is not the harshness of the punishment that counts. It is the probability of being caught, which is very low.

Yes, agree completely. It's the certainty of being caught that works best as a deterrent, not the severity. Right now, we have maybe a 10% accuracy rate of catching cheats, and even then, it's the worst (or dumbest in this case) cheats that get caught. False negatives are still a huge, huge problem. Guys aren't afraid of the suspension, they don't think they're going to get caught in the first place.

1. Introduction and immediate implementation of a blanked, fixed four-year ban from competition for any doping offence.

This was the UCI's rule on Pro Tour riders. But the Pro Tour doesn't mean anything anymore, so all positives are two-year only. I think one year would be enough, IF we created a foolproof testing program.

2. Introduction of life bans for anyone caught doping for the second time.

Unless I'm mistaken, the current rules are 8 year minimum, life-time maximum. Again, that's plenty. We need to create foolproof testing, not more severe punishment for the riders.

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

If convicted yes, I'd go along with this. We can alter it later if we need to.

4. Strict adherence to the rulebook and a time limit of 4 weeks to be set from sample taken to test result, inclusive of ruling.

But what about getting the test right, instead of fast? This rule would inevitably lead to claims of haste creating false positives. Ideally, what you seek would be great, but there's simply not enough money to throw at it to get enough labs and technicians to work that quickly.

5. Unification of all countries testing authorities under the UCI banner, meaning that any doping infringements in a single country will have automatic effect globally.

Sure, but how much do you really trust the UCI to be fair? Your next suggestion holds more weight.

6. A standardization of testing procedures under WADA, to be enforced in each area.

Again, it's a matter not of rules, but of cost, and ability to enforce.

7. Fully open results of the Biological Passport program.

But how much of a deterrent will this really be?

I think a better step is to continue to work with pharmaceutical manufacturers to do what Roche did with Cera. But this needs to be done with Repoxygen and stem-cell gene doping. And right now, that's hard as the Beijing Olympics proved with the BBC's undercover ability to buy gene doping there without a problem.

There is no possible way the DEA or FBI is going to go at the pharmaceutical companies. That's just an absurd comment. Going after the suppliers, as in doctors, trainers, soigners and managers is however possible.

Going after the teams, and holding the sponsors financially accountable is another step. Getting the sponsors to create contracts within the team that puts harsh financial pressure on the team organizers and riders to comply or suffer severe punishment for violating such a contract is another badly needed start. Hence: You work for us, and you're proven to be involved in doping, you owe us 5 years salary at your highest wage. Sign here saying you agree _____.

Another step we're likely to see more of is sporting organizations becoming more connected to legal powers, the way CONI is in Italy. We also are likely to see more cases like that of Kayle Leogrande who was suspended for doping based on gathered circumstantial evidence and testimony, and presented like that in a legal trial - even though he never tested positive for anything.

 

[The GCW]

DEA, Pharm'ers and attacking sponsors, doesn't help.

BikeCentric asks, “why aren't Government drug enforcement arms going after these guys” That’s the DEA in America… folks…

Here in America the DEA spends too much time trying to persecute, prohibit and exterminate the plant cannabis (marijuana) which is less addictive than coffe and less harmful than beer or wine or cigarettes.

-0-

As far as the pharmaceutical manufacturers go,,, they have some of the largest lobbying groups in the world and will fight it hard.

-0-

And Alpe d’Huez,

“holding the sponsors financially accountable” may make sponsors dissapear like magic.

 

[Epicycle]

I watched him chase and chase and chase at the worlds in Varese in 2008. My report said Rebellin's attacks were superhuman.

What did your report say about Andy Schleck last Sunday?

 

[BikeCentric]

As far as the pharmaceutical manufacturers go,,, they have some of the largest lobbying groups in the world and will fight it hard.

Folks, my comment specifically questioned why the DEA was not going after the doctors (or whoever) that are illegally distributing these drugs to athletes. I didn't make any mention of the companies that create the drugs, that's not possible not to mention it wouldn't make any sense to discourage them from inventing new cancer treating drugs of course! It's not their fault that people are abusing these drugs that were created with good intentions.

And one thing that sucks is that pharma companies have no incentive to put any kind of gene markers or DNA signature or whatever in these drugs in order to help identify their use as PED's (aside from maybe some bad public relations). That is extra R&D cost that provides little benefit to the companies unless a Governement or governing body like WADA or some such pays them to do it.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

BikeCentric asks, “holding the sponsors financially accountable” may make sponsors dissapear like magic.

Not if the sponsors write contracts that hold the team accountable for costs. I'm not looking to fine the sponsors, but to pressure them into putting pressure on the team's management and riders to remain clean.

And one thing that sucks is that pharma companies have no incentive to put any kind of gene markers or DNA signature or whatever in these drugs in order to help identify their use as PED's (aside from maybe some bad public relations). That is extra R&D cost that provides little benefit to the companies unless a Governement or governing body like WADA or some such pays them to do it.

Bike - This is one of the reasons why I think ideally USADA would have more teeth, and more funding, as they would have the ability to do such a thing. My only real complaint against USADA is that they are largely ineffective on a wide scale basis

 

[Epicycle]

Clinical trials can cost tens of millions of dollars. I don't know how much adding a marker to a drug would increase costs but it is probably a lot. Drugs are meant for patients not sportspeople. Markers would just add another level of concern of contraindications for patients and added risk of lawsuits for drug companies. They are not going to happen. Why subject patients to added risk because of doping in sport?

Even if markers were added companies in China or Russia will inevitably produce copies of the drug without markers. Or what if the marker can be erased by something as easy as ****ing on soap?

Drug companies can also point to statistics and show that perhaps less than a hundred athletes worldwide test positive for a certain drug each year. Fans know many more use the drug but the statistics don't say that.

 

[unsheath]

The day they introduce lifetime bans for the first offence, I will be a happy man.

 

[Anonymous]

wow.. how many rebillin threads do we need..

 

[DAOTEC]

Tomorrow will be the ruling on the case at the CAS of Rebellin

will come tomorrow afternoon: we are talking about the CAS ruling in arbitration proceedings between David Rebellin and the International Olympic Committee. http://www.tuttobiciweb.it/index.php?page=news&cod=31366&tp=n

For which team will he race for then, the next month or so ?

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

he's not planning to come back at all(although it would be great). he's just trying to get his medal back

 

[flicker]

What I don't understand is why aren't Government drug enforcement arms going after these guys (the dealers) more aggressively? In the US this would be the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) but I have no idea what the agencies are in European Countries. I do know in the US the DEA often have to go after violent gangs; seems like targeting crooked doctors that sell drugs to cyclists would be some nice, fat, juicy high value targets for these agencies. Question is, why aren't they going after these people with criminal charges for drug trafficking?

I think we're pretty much at the point where the governing bodies are going to have to get draconian on enforcement if there's ever going to be a chance at clean competition. Rebellin is another huge fish that just got reeled in.

As of now it's a simple cost/benefit analysis to all involved in doping: the benefits of doping FAR outweigh the risk of getting caught.

The drug war the US has conducted is about money and showmanship. Without that the DEA is not interested. Not much different then pro cycling eh?

 

[skidmark]

Tomorrow will be the ruling on the case at the CAS of Rebellin

will come tomorrow afternoon: we are talking about the CAS ruling in arbitration proceedings between David Rebellin and the International Olympic Committee. http://www.tuttobiciweb.it/index.php?page=news&cod=31366&tp=n

For which team will he race for then, the next month or so ?

In the next month? I thought his suspension was in late April 2009, meaning he'd be eligible only in late April 2011? He's like 39, so it'd be hard to come back.

Also, what are we supposed to do about threads that get bumped from before the clinic existed? Do they get grandfathered and get to stay here?

 

[ericthesportsman6]

Ummmmm, shouldn't this be in the clinic?