Four Year Ban instead of Deux - Yay or Nay?

[Polish]

Fighting words from the UCI this week - proposing FOUR year doping bans:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/6...-bans-for-first-serious-doping-violation.aspx

The God of Thunder is even harsher as He hints at "blacklisting" from top Teams:

Thor Hushovd told VeloNation last weekend, taking such a substantial chunk out of a rider’s career should be a real deterrent.

“Maybe in some cases they should have longer suspensions and, when they come back, don’t let them come back that easily [to the top –level teams],” the Norwegian said.

I agree with the FOUR year ban. The short TWO year ban combined with the "served his time" mentality must be discouraging to the scientists as they develop the all important anti-doping tests.

 

[andy1234]

Fighting words from the UCI this week - proposing FOUR year doping bans:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/6...-bans-for-first-serious-doping-violation.aspx

The God of Thunder is even harsher as He hints at "blacklisting" from top Teams:



I agree with the FOUR year ban. The short TWO year ban combined with the "served his time" mentality must be discouraging to the scientists as they develop the all important anti-doping tests.

Four year minimum, life for a second offence.
It's the only way forward.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Absolutely! Tu as ecrit 'deux' correctment, felicitaitons!

 

[hrotha]

I'm all for four-year bans but they're not the solution. The current two-year bans were considered pretty harsh when they were introduced, but they don't seem to have solved anything. No matter how harsh the punishment, it's no deterrent if you still don't think you're going to get caught. We can make the bans longer and longer until a first offense means a lifetime ban, but it still won't change much. It will only prevent proven dopers from coming back, which I guess could be argued to be a good thing.

Longer bans also mean punishing the rider even more while his DS and doctors keep doing their thing. Until we make sure doping is a strictly individual affair, there's always going to be a certain element of unfairness in any ban.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Nay.

Not unless the frequency with which all riders are targeted is increased, and those in charge of testing can't pick and choose who gets exposed to what spotlight intensity.

Too many riders fly under the radar of a system that flags clearly how best to avoid detection in the first place. And too often there seem to be a double standards in targeting "like for like riders".

A system that imposes harsh(er) punishments on offenders should only be imposed if, on the whole, it also succeeds in catching a good chunk of actual offenders, and if the offenders all have a reasonably equal chance of getting caught.

At the moment, it seems neither fair nor effective. In other words, it sounds to me that it is just a way to paint the occasional scape goat even blacker. Something that might give the impression of "we are taking it seriously". Rather than address the roots of the actual problem.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Nay.

Not unless the frequency with which all riders are targeted is increased, and those in charge of testing can't pick and choose who gets exposed to what spotlight intensity.

Too many riders fly under the radar of a system that flags clearly how best to avoid detection in the first place. And too often there seem to be a double standards in targeting "like for like riders".

A system that imposes harsh(er) punishments on offenders should only be imposed if, on the whole, it also succeeds in catching a good chunk of actual offenders, and if the offenders all have a reasonably equal chance of getting caught.

At the moment, it seems neither fair nor effective. In other words, it sounds to me that it is just a way to paint the occasional scape goat even blacker. Something that might give the impression of "we are taking it seriously". Rather than address the roots of the actual problem.

All very good points. What if the UCI was totally removed from the doping control game? Would an over-arching external testing body, with the ability to enforce longer bans, be an answer? It's obvious the UCI can't be trusted to do a good job...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Nay.

Different products should get different sanctions.
Someone taking an extra pull on an inhaler that they have a TUE for is very different from someone flying around Europe to get blood withdrawn for later use.

Also - the 4 year ban for willfull cheating' is already in place on the WADA code since 2009 - so McQuaids comments are very similar to what he said 3 years ago.

October 2008.

From the first of January (2009) there is a bit more flexibility in it, and we can go up to a four year ban in the cases of something regarded as willful cheating.

"In these cases [Kohl and Schumacher], considering that these guys were given the product and then went and took it for the Tour de France, it would be very much classified as willful cheating. Next year a rider in that position would face a four year ban.

 

[Altitude]

If it's Alberto Contador, yes. Otherwise no.

 

[Altitude]

Nay.

Different products should get different sanctions.
Someone taking an extra pull on an inhaler that they have a TUE for is very different from someone flying around Europe to get blood withdrawn for later use.

Also - the 4 year ban for willfull cheating' is already in place on the WADA code since 2009 - so McQuaids comments are very similar to what he said 3 years ago.

October 2008.

Well they did give Kohl a lifetime ban.. after he retired...

 

[Anonymous]

Voted for four, reduced to one if they name names, suppliers and come completely clean.

Second offence, automatic life ban.

 

[ingsve]

Longer bans also mean punishing the rider even more while his DS and doctors keep doing their thing. Until we make sure doping is a strictly individual affair, there's always going to be a certain element of unfairness in any ban.

I think that's a separate issue that desparately needs to be adressed but I don't think it should have any influence on rider bans.

 

[Benotti69]

I'm all for four-year bans but they're not the solution. The current two-year bans were considered pretty harsh when they were introduced, but they don't seem to have solved anything. No matter how harsh the punishment, it's no deterrent if you still don't think you're going to get caught. We can make the bans longer and longer until a first offense means a lifetime ban, but it still won't change much. It will only prevent proven dopers from coming back, which I guess could be argued to be a good thing.

Longer bans also mean punishing the rider even more while his DS and doctors keep doing their thing. Until we make sure doping is a strictly individual affair, there's always going to be a certain element of unfairness in any ban.

there should be a ban for DS and Doctors too, 3 riders and their out sort of system. They claim ignorance, but sure we believe them

Until the UCI gets its own house in order it is hard to see 4 year bans as being fair. I am for serious bans fro serious substances but the UCI is a mickey mouse federation at the moment.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well they did give Kohl a lifetime ban.. after he retired...

No, not quite - Kohl was originally sentenced to 2 years.
But when the Austrians reviewed the Police transcripts they realised he was doping from 2001 and gave him a lifetime ban..... that was to be set aside after 4 years as he co-operated.


The 4 year ban McQuaid is on about is for a first offence for 'wilfull cheating'

 

[schweinika]

It should depend on the substance and how it's used, but longer bans might be the next step to a cleaner sport.

 

[Altitude]

No, not quite - Kohl was originally sentenced to 2 years.
But when the Austrians reviewed the Police transcripts they realised he was doping from 2001 and gave him a lifetime ban..... that was to be set aside after 4 years as he co-operated.


The 4 year ban McQuaid is on about is for a first offence for 'wilfull cheating'

Thought UCI handed him the lifetime. Either way I was attempting to take a shot at McQuaid. If Kohl had kept his mouth shut he'd likely be racing now.

 

[L29205]

I voted no because they should just enforce the rules they have in place right now. If it is willful (which I would suspect most cases are) the WADA allows for a 4 year ban. If it is not give them the standard 2. If the UCI has an issue with the federations giving time off for cooperation then they need to go to the CAS to have the full ban enforced. By the time the CAS rules the full ban probably would have expired anyway.

 

[python]

can anyone find hard evidence that longer, harsher bans resulted in less doping or are/were/will be an effective deterrence ?

if anyone remembers, they went from 3 to 6 to 9 to 2 year minimum now and we're still in the clinic and growing...

are we giving in too easily to the utopian utterance that never was rooted in reality -'zero tolerance.' ?

if we are going to use a measure, shouldn't we first consider if it's going to be effective at least in a historic sense ?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

can anyone find hard evidence that longer, harsher bans resulted in less doping or are/were/will be an effective deterrence ?

if anyone remembers, they went from 3 to 6 to 9 to 2 year minimum now and we're still in the clinic and growing...

are we giving in too easily to the utopian utterance that never was rooted in reality -'zero tolerance.' ?

if we are going to use a measure, shouldn't we first consider if it's going to be effective at least in a historic sense ?

I am against lifetime bans, for a first offence.

But the reason I am for a longer ban - 4 years for blood boosting products or methods - is that it allows an oppurtunity to offer a reduced sentence for co-operation, the more you tell the less the sanction.
As I believe it is the only way to break the current Omerta.

 

[The Hitch]

I think the solution should simply be life ban, unless you tell all to the authorities.

2 years 4 years is all finate. What is needed is infinate bans, up until you name your suppliers, what drugs youve been taking through your career, your doctors etc.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Since there is no real way to test DSs or mgrs, it's back to the idea of taxing the riders so hard that the management structure of teams crumple under the pressure...

If the riders are too spooked to dope, then what management provides is not tennable. I'll admit that it's a hard sell, but it really does come down to the riders. If the riders can't functionably dope (due to increased testing), then they can't dope, regardless of what their dirty DSs or Mgrs have in mind.

If the horses can't be jacked, then the DSs who have based their careers on that will eventually fade from the sport...

 

[papisimo98]

Have to agree with the Dr. M.
Different penalties for different drugs.
EPO, CERA, any type of blood manipulation, definitely 4 years. Unless they name names and it is a productive list, a possible reduction could be offered.
Other types like test, dhea, things that you could possibly, accidentally ingest, 2 years.
I seem to remember when the ProTour started, the ban was for 2 years no cycling. When the ban was up, the rider could race again, just not on a ProTour team, effectively making the ban 4 years from a ProTour team.
Wasn't The Hog the 1st DS to hire a rider(Ivan Basso, Discovery) after their initial 2 year ban was up?
I suspect the UCI will fudge it and guys will be racing a lot sooner than the 4 years, even if it became mandatory.

 

[hrotha]

I disagree about having different bans for different drugs, because:
1) We know dopers are currently beating the tests, which means they know how to keep the drugs they're taking from showing up in the results.
2) We know doping does not involve one single drug or one single method. Dopers generally use a wide arrange of drugs carefully combined.

In short, just because you were caught for x that doesn't mean you didn't take y and z.

 

[Ferminal]

No... harsher penalties =/= a solution.

The only possible change to the suspension system could be more incentives for those who genuinely talk big. Also a structure system might work where say you can't race 1.HC/2.HC until 30 months, and HIS/UPT until 36 months.

 

[richwagmn]

No... harsher penalties =/= a solution.

The only possible change to the suspension system could be more incentives for those who genuinely talk big. Also a structure system might work where say you can't race 1.HC/2.HC until 30 months, and HIS/UPT until 36 months.

I agree with the incentives to talk. It'll never be broken by banning a few riders. Significant reduction if you talk.

 

[lean mean &green]

Nay.

Different products should get different sanctions.
Someone taking an extra pull on an inhaler that they have a TUE for is very different from someone flying around Europe to get blood withdrawn for later use.

Also - the 4 year ban for willfull cheating' is already in place on the WADA code since 2009 - so McQuaids comments are very similar to what he said 3 years ago.

October 2008.

mostly agree. the current system is poorly thought out, primitive, and maybe even illogical. suspensions need to be proportional.

even an honest rational person needs to ask, if the ban is two years no matter what i do then why stop with just a little dope? you might as well get on a full program that manipulates anabolic drive, red blood, weight loss, etc along with elaborate transfusion schedules until you get pinched for the first time, am i right? doping in moderation would be foolish under the current structure. if athletes don't fear getting caught (because most don't) a mandatory 2 year ban actually encourages athletes to take bigger risks with stronger pharmaceuticals and methods.

proportional suspensions may also discourage corruption. if a little clenbuterol in contador's urine only gets him a year off the incentive to perform a cover-up is minimized. in some instances, the risk of being exposed as corrupt won't be worth just a single year's results. it also minimizes the incentives for guilty riders to attempt long drawn out expensive (to both sides) appeals of their national feds, CAS, or whomever. in some cases they may be back riding before the appeal is even resolved. problem solved!

let's pretend bertie's the innocent victim of contamination. well, a 1 year vacation would minimize the injustice. (for the record, AC's being used for instructional purposes only, i don't like him even a little bit, IMO the clen is pretty strong evidence of a transfusion which should get a 2 yr ban but we could argue that all day in other threads)

i'd like this approach to include a 4 year suspension for the most egregious and/or easy to prove offenses. so the answer is yes with an asterisk. lastly, we keep lifetime bans for multiple offenses and start with only small reductions for cooperation.

landis has pushed the idea of proportion recently and i think it's because he's been chatting it up with ashenden who's proposed this type of reform as far back as 2007.