• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Does Cycling need an Amnesty Period

Jun 28, 2009
568
0
0
Visit site
Maybe a month or so where all riders can spill their guts on what they did in the past and the sport can move on from that point? I think it would go a long way in providing the UCI and the sport as a whole information on how to improve testing and to really look at how to clean up the sport.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Visit site
metaCYCLE said:
i don't believe in this idea. a true cheater won't ever come clean about his "dark days"...

Sorry, it is already happening.

Pair the US Feds involvement into the Landis claims, with Garmin's blanket "you won't lose your job" position, and there it is. Only thing missing is the details of USADA behind-the-scenes deal-making.

Suddenly, the only downside is public perception. Keep your job, don't go to jail, don't get suspended (or get a very short "Cooperation" term...

Soon, if any of the Grand Jury testimony is sealed, it could be that even those corroborating, and there are at least two beyond Andreau and JV, they might be able to slip out the side door without being named.

Guys with the yellow wristbands, the party is over.
 
Oct 31, 2009
87
0
0
Visit site
Not sure about the amnesty. The big riders' names are strong trademarks in them self so they will most likely lose cash on coming forward even if they were not to be sanctioned.

I think more like a lighter penalty if you cooperate once caught would be effective. Say four years if you don't help bring down the men behind the curtain and two if you do. But then again the good doctors' are probably confident enough to keep doing it.
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
1
0
Visit site
No ephing way!

Amnesty after how many careers were ruined by just rumors of doping?

Ask Ballan if he thinks there should be amnesty or any other rider made to sit on the bench because of an accusation.

If the test is positive you must convict!
 
Clemson Cycling said:
Maybe a month or so where all riders can spill their guts on what they did in the past and the sport can move on from that point? I think it would go a long way in providing the UCI and the sport as a whole information on how to improve testing and to really look at how to clean up the sport.
There is relief in US law anyway; it's called the statute of limitations. The concept is easy; if a crime is not prosecuted within a given time frame, it can't be. Serious crimes have a larger window than lesser crimes. After the statute is up, what's left is what the public thinks of the perp.
 
ElChingon said:
Amnesty after how many careers were ruined by just rumors of doping
Therein likes the rub. Evidence the caught doper supplies to investigators would need to be legit, otherwise you'll have a rider throwing someone under the bus for no reason other than to keep racing.

Otherwise, I think over time Colm will be proven to be correct.
 

SpartacusRox

BANNED
May 6, 2010
711
0
0
Visit site
Colm.Murphy said:
Sorry, it is already happening.

Pair the US Feds involvement into the Landis claims, with Garmin's blanket "you won't lose your job" position, and there it is. Only thing missing is the details of USADA behind-the-scenes deal-making.

Suddenly, the only downside is public perception. Keep your job, don't go to jail, don't get suspended (or get a very short "Cooperation" term...

Soon, if any of the Grand Jury testimony is sealed, it could be that even those corroborating, and there are at least two beyond Andreau and JV, they might be able to slip out the side door without being named.

Guys with the yellow wristbands, the party is over.

Lol You are such a drama queen, I think you watch too many cop programmes. As for the yellow wristbands, they are worn by many people outside of cycling and even outside of sport to support the fight against cancer. I don't think that many who wear them identify with any "party' for it to be over.

Your posts get more and more absurd each day. I will look forward to quoting them back to you in a few months;)
 
Mar 11, 2009
18
0
0
Visit site
CycloErgoSum said:
I see a lot of riders with these. Are they all Lance fans or is it part of their 'cyclist identity?'

I wore the yellow band for a while without being a fanboy. I had participated in a Livestrong event because friends and family were involved and came away inspired by the cancer survivors and their stories. I took the yellow band off when LA started mistreating AC last year. BTW, I own a Madone too, but my excuse is that it's a team bike.
 
scribe said:
What about the SCAs of the cycling sponsorship world that might want their money back?

I think that is the point. for instance, I believe Jan Ulrich would have liked to admit, but the financial cost of doing so would be too large. Now, you can say that he got that wealth by cheating, but remember most others cheated too. These financial costs are between riders and various companies, which cannot be included by any amnesty.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Visit site
If doping is as big a part of the fabric of pro-cycling as many, including me, constantly claim it is, I think an amnesty of sorts is the only way out.

Given a chance, I think most riders would prefer to ride without abusing their bodies (too much). But within pro cycling as riders find it, only the exceptions can get away with it and still keep it as a source of income for you and your family within a sport that operates to different standards.

We can keep banning riders until Kenny Van Hummel gets across the Alps within the time limit, but unless we get to the folk who set these standards, and make sure folk stick to them, nothing will change. Period.

Yes there are "natural" cheats within the peloton. But I firmly believe most dopers are not cheaters by heart, but somehow still end up doping. The doping culture is there, riders have no other option than to deal with it one way or the other, a choice with only downside real-life consequences for both options.

The real culprits are those around the riders that force this doping culture upon the riders. From the shady doctors to corrupt officials to insiders who turn a blind eye.

We need to get people in charge whose sole interest is to keep the sport clean (well, as clean as you can get which is still well up from where we are now). But right now, it is still in the interest of those in charge to keep these folk out of the sport, and retain control.

The only way to get rid of them is to make clean ship once and for all, by shaming them into cold daylight and show how rotten the core of current ship is. Only that way can we get to a whole new set of ground rules, watchmen, and (independent) enforcers. People who have the interest of the sport, races and riders at heart.

The only people who hold the key to a new era are the riders. They are the only ones who can make a case that points away from the riders and towards the culture around them. Without truly damning evidence it will be riders who will keep carrying the can, and the occasional pharmacist.

With entire livelihoods at stake, and only stakes, an amnesty is the only way out, in my mind.

And yes, an amnesty would be hugely unfair on many folk who would have been fingered at the wrong side of the net. But without it, I can't see how we would ever undermine the vested interests enough to change it. Which means that what we keep in place would remain unfair for all, and all the more to the odd rider who keeps being sacrificed as a token gesture.

There is no ideal way out, we are in the mess we are in. But one route is more ideal than the other, I'd argue. It will be "unfair" on riders whichever route we chose out of this mess, so we might as well pick the one that leads to a cleaner future with more safeguards to keep it so, by reinventing the way pro-cycling is governed.

Which leaves us with the conundrum of needing to get an amnesty in place to get to this situation, when the ones who would have to issue the amnesty are the ones with all to lose, and nothing to gain (if my reading of it is right).

Maybe the most lasting US contribution to cycling won't be Lance, but a fed investigation that might penetrate the corruption within the sport. I hope it will. But it will need the co-operation by riders. And I hope the first sheep will make it across the dam for the benefit of all. A damning Fed report might well be their last chance for a few years to do something about the shape of their own workplace.

First we need to show the rot, then we need to start voicing the urgent need for a truth and reconciliation period. Speak and be truthful, and there won't be any consequences beyond the unavoidable. Don't co=operate truthfully then, and you will face full (and even harsher) consequences later.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
Colm.Murphy said:
Sorry, it is already happening.

Pair the US Feds involvement into the Landis claims, with Garmin's blanket "you won't lose your job" position, and there it is. Only thing missing is the details of USADA behind-the-scenes deal-making.

Suddenly, the only downside is public perception. Keep your job, don't go to jail, don't get suspended (or get a very short "Cooperation" term...

Soon, if any of the Grand Jury testimony is sealed, it could be that even those corroborating, and there are at least two beyond Andreau and JV, they might be able to slip out the side door without being named.

Guys with the yellow wristbands, the party is over.

Hopefully we can add Kristin A to that list as she will be able to corroborate first hand to a Grand Jury but would want that testimony sealed to avoid civil exposure.
I just hope the participating executives get nailed. The goons in UCI, USACycling and other profiteers should be the ultimate target if things will truly get better.
 
Cycling needs an amnesty but it won't get one. The powers that be do not want one. The public would forgive the riders. They would not be so kind to the UCI and others who not only covered up the doping but were also corrupt. The last thing McQuaid wants is more information about payoffs, crooked testing, and protection money to come out. All those who watched their favorite rider get burned at the stake as though he was one of the few witches in the peloton would be angry if they found out that whole teams were being protected. It would delegitimize the UCI.

Instead there will be a slow drip drip drip of information. Retired riders will talk. The information will be there so that people who want to see the truth can assemble a picture of what went on. The naive and clueless will continue to ignore the evidence. What is revealed will be revealed slowly so that by the time the whole truth is known the authorities can say that was the past but the present is different--even if the present is exactly the same as the past.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
Cycling needs an amnesty but it won't get one. The powers that be do not want one. The public would forgive the riders. They would not be so kind to the UCI and others who not only covered up the doping but were also corrupt. The last thing McQuaid wants is more information about payoffs, crooked testing, and protection money to come out. All those who watched their favorite rider get burned at the stake as though he was one of the few witches in the peloton would be angry if they found out that whole teams were being protected. It would delegitimize the UCI.

Instead there will be a slow drip drip drip of information. Retired riders will talk. The information will be there so that people who want to see the truth can assemble a picture of what went on. The naive and clueless will continue to ignore the evidence. What is revealed will be revealed slowly so that by the time the whole truth is known the authorities can say that was the past but the present is different--even if the present is exactly the same as the past.

I hope you're wrong about the non-rider element. I would think that Novitsky might consider those organizations a big prize. The problem is, the closer he gets to the USOC and IOC the closer he gets to a greater level of Omerta and protection. Not much seems to have changed after the IOC's hand-slap at Salt Lake.
 
May 20, 2010
718
1
0
Visit site
What a great thread.

sida-mot post 6 “Not sure about the amnesty. The big riders' names are strong trademarks in them self so they will most likely lose cash on coming forward even if they were not to be sanctioned….”

Good thought

ElChingon post 7
“No ephing way!

Amnesty after how many careers were ruined by just rumors of doping?…”


yes I agree with the sentiment.

I don’t think “rules” should be changed arbitrarily. However I believe in a clean “sport”… we are just not there yet. Nor for that matter are we anywhere close to clean. So exceptional circumstances exist sufficient to allow radical rule changes.

As per Francois the Postman (see post 13)
I recon there is a very substantial level of doping and only “the tip of the iceberg” is revealed.

I want to see a sport where the spirit of “fair play” is more important than the letter of the law. AValverde is currently arguing the letter of the law…I would love to see a situation where we could/would see adherence to the spirit…

Francois the Postman
continues
“… The real culprits are those around the riders that force this doping culture upon the riders. From the shady doctors to corrupt officials to insiders who turn a blind eye.

We need to get people in charge whose sole interest is to keep the sport clean (well, as clean as you can get which is still well up from where we are now). But right now, it is still in the interest of those in charge to keep these folk out of the sport, and retain control…”


Oldman post 14

“The goons in UCI, USACycling and other profiteers should be the ultimate target if things will truly get better.”


As per Francois’ and Oldman suggestion, I suspect significant corruption within the cycling stakeholders generally and specifically the senior administrators and managers. If not corruption in its most concrete sense, then at least a “blind eye” or tacit acceptance of doping. We need an environment where the compulsion to dope no longer exists and a true non doping imperative is created.

To get back on track, reduce the penalty for compliance with investigation to something less than two years (if relevant a full amnesty). For less than perceived full compliance extend the penalty to four years (or more if relevant).

I agree with posters from this and similar threads: most pro cyclists are not cheaters at heart. The selection to get to the top of this game, to my mind does not lend itself to cheating to the extent of some other human endeavours.

The end objective is to have a sport where cheating is the exception rather than the “rule”. This objective is congruent (I guess/hope/believe) with the “personality” of most pro cyclists.

And BroDeal post 15 may well prove to be right...but I bloody well hope not!:(
 
Mar 26, 2010
92
0
0
Visit site
I wouldn't be opposed to an amnesty.

There should be a window of opportunity, i.e., you have to come forward by December 31, 2010.

And as a condition of the amnesty, you have to cooperate fully and truthfully. This includes naming names and providing details about methods -- the who, where, when, why and how. If you cooperate fully, you avoid sanction and keep all past results. If you intentionally leave something out or deceive, then you lose your amnesty.

I would also add that, to the extent practicable, the ADAs should be discreet with the identities of those who come forward. I understand that confidentiality cannot be guaranteed, considering the number of people who may obtain the information and the need to discsloe if pursuing sanctions against someone that didn't come forward.

Anyone who doesn't come forward by the deadline loses out and is subject to sanctions if a case can be made against them. I suspect the threat that someone will come forward and provide information that could form the basis of a sanction might induce others to come forward too.
 
Mar 26, 2010
92
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
Cycling needs an amnesty but it won't get one. The powers that be do not want one. The public would forgive the riders. They would not be so kind to the UCI and others who not only covered up the doping but were also corrupt. The last thing McQuaid wants is more information about payoffs, crooked testing, and protection money to come out. All those who watched their favorite rider get burned at the stake as though he was one of the few witches in the peloton would be angry if they found out that whole teams were being protected. It would delegitimize the UCI.

Instead there will be a slow drip drip drip of information. Retired riders will talk. The information will be there so that people who want to see the truth can assemble a picture of what went on. The naive and clueless will continue to ignore the evidence. What is revealed will be revealed slowly so that by the time the whole truth is known the authorities can say that was the past but the present is different--even if the present is exactly the same as the past.

Do you really need to have the UCI on bosrd? What if WADA and the various ADA's offered the amnesty? If, for example, USADA offered the amnesty with WADA's approval, the information would be provided by the ride to USADA. Would USAC (or UCI) try to sanction without USADA's cooperation? (USAC consistently says that it refers such matters to USADA -- it would seem difficult to reverse course just because there was amnesty offered.) How would they obtain the evidence?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oldman said:
Hopefully we can add Kristin A to that list as she will be able to corroborate first hand to a Grand Jury but would want that testimony sealed to avoid civil exposure.
I just hope the participating executives get nailed. The goons in UCI, USACycling and other profiteers should be the ultimate target if things will truly get better.

I doubt Kristin A will add anything to a Grad Jury.

Amnesty is a bad idea.
 
Aug 4, 2009
286
0
0
Visit site
Amnesty

If you confess, you keep your money, keep your results, have a short ban. If you don't confess and get caught later, life ban, lose your results, get fined.

But maybe you can only implicate yourself.