Four Year Ban instead of Deux - Yay or Nay?

[hrotha]

But then, does Landis get a shorter ban for testosterone than he would get for blood doping? How unfair and random would that be?

 

[lean mean &green]

But then, does Landis get a shorter ban for testosterone than he would get for blood doping? How unfair and random would that be?

i would suggest bans be determined by the efficacy of the drug(s) used and the strength of the evidence it was used. not random at all.

 

[hrotha]

i would suggest bans be determined by the efficacy of the drug(s) used and the strength of the evidence it was used. not random at all.

But my point is of all the stuff he did (and apparently he did it all), he was only caught for testosterone. He could have been busted for something more minor (say, clenbuterol!) while still doing his full program, and under the system you are proposing he'd get a reduced suspension.

As long as the tests aren't reasonably efficient, having proportional bans is going to produce unfair and random results.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

i would suggest bans be determined by the efficacy of the drug(s) used and the strength of the evidence it was used. not random at all.

I think that slippery slope has been proven to be ineffective. Everyone knows what the list is, so if you get popped that's it. Whether it's an asthma med or the newest form of an EPO synthesis, you should be banned. They're pros, right?

 

[lean mean &green]

I think that slippery slope has been proven to be ineffective. Everyone knows what the list is, so if you get popped that's it. Whether it's an asthma med or the newest form of an EPO synthesis, you should be banned. They're pros, right?

nope, i don't believe it's been attempted. an earlier era with proportional suspensions and completely ineffective testing isn't quite the same as the modern era with good testing that just needs to be more frequent and less predictable. it's a fairly obvious evolution. the banned substances list would need to be accompanied by clearly stated sanctioning guidelines for the respective categories of substances. assign every substance/method a value. the banned substances/methods list isn't even that long. it's really not that complicated.

i don't mean to be the least bit rude but rhetorically speaking...because you imagine it's a slippery slope we should continue with an obsolete system we know doesn't work rather than adopt one that's based on rationality?

neither of us seem to be in a position to force mandates on the UCI or WADA. it's my opinion (i can't even claim it as an original idea) and i won't spend hours trying to convince anyone. think about what it would look like, if you don't like it forget about it.

 

[hrotha]

Why do you think the tests are now particularly effective? We just got Mosquera's results back - hydroxyethyl aside, his samples are clean.

 

[lean mean &green]

But my point is of all the stuff he did (and apparently he did it all), he was only caught for testosterone. He could have been busted for something more minor (say, clenbuterol!) while still doing his full program, and under the system you are proposing he'd get a reduced suspension.

i never suggested landis should have received a shorter sentence. he mentioned the idea very recently in an interview with cyclingnews about ways to reform the code. it has absolutely nothing to do with his 2006 positive.

you can only punish an athlete based upon what you can PROVE and the 2 year approach actually encourages the use of those elaborate PED cocktails you mentioned.

As long as the tests aren't reasonably efficient, having proportional bans is going to produce unfair and random results.

things kinda look random to me right now.

 

[lean mean &green]

Why do you think the tests are now particularly effective? We just got Mosquera's results back - hydroxyethyl aside, his samples are clean.

i haven't dug into the mosquera thing in detail yet but i'd say the tests are good, not great

 

[flicker]

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.

Contador will get no ban or a 2 year ban. This is cycling not the national baseball league. He said one thing, it is either believed or not believed. Much more strict than our USA sanctions on American pro sport.

 

[Cobber]

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.

I voted for 4, but completely agree with Dr Mas's post.

1-2 year ban for "minor offences" - asthema inhalers etc.
4 year ban for blood boosting offenses (or evidence) - transfusions, EPO etc.

Consequently, assuming guilt is properly shown, I think Contador should get 2 years for the Clenbuterol offense alone, or 4 years for the plasticisers if that turns out to be true.

 

[Barrus]

I would say that bans need to be proportionate to the offence, with more chances for much shorter sentences in the case of co-operation. In this latter situation, the threat of a 4 year ban is more effective. As such I am undecided

 

[ultimobici]

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...

Although I voted for 4 years, this is the more effective path to ridding our sport of doping. The "Old Boy Network" of the UCI is demonstrably inept in its attempts to combat the problem. They seem to be more about managing and controlling the problem not cutting it out at the roots.

 

[Roland Rat]

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

Second offence, automatic life ban.

+1,111,111.1 for "proper" doping. Agree with Dr Mas re where it can be proven that it was a minor thing.

 

[mercycle]

If the testing can be guaranteed to be unambiguous, repeatable in a scientific manner (a test that shows X ppm of substance K in a French lab will show X ppm of substance K in a Kazkh lab), the testers have zero knowledge of whos sample it is (even for retroactive testing), the rider and team are the first ones to be notified after the governing body (lab notifies governing body, governing body notifies rider&team) and nothing is made public until the B sample has been tested at a different lab than the A sample (perhaps a Swiss lab as the gold standard or neutral lab), then I'd vote for lifetime bans on a first offense.

But since all the above will never happen, 4 years may actually encourage doping by riders nearing the end of their career.

 

[Marcus135]

Four years is to long, people who watch want excitement and they dont have another chance i think it teaches them a lesson. 2 years is a good time.

 

[Benotti69]

Although I voted for 4 years, this is the more effective path to ridding our sport of doping. The "Old Boy Network" of the UCI is demonstrably inept in its attempts to combat the problem. They seem to be more about managing and controlling the problem not cutting it out at the roots.

The "Old Boy Network" goes beyond the uci! look how many DS are former dopers

 

[Izzy eviel]

4 Years? God no. Far too harsh.

Too heavier price to pay for a mistake/being influnced. Athletes only have a short career, a 4 year ban would wreck their lives.

And you can bet your last dollar that the 'big' names will find loopholes & get shorter bans whilst the domestique types will never race again.

 

[BotanyBay]

6-8 years

I'd like to see it be 6-8 years of banishment from the "pro" ranks, 2 years from any form of racing. Why? Because a super-young pro can take 2 years off and then, perhaps, 4 years after re-entry as a Cat 1 (provided he stays clean) he can go back to the pros.

For pros who get caught in the waning days of their career, I don't mind this being a "career-ender", as they were probably doing it for many years before being caught.

We all know that the Death Penalty is not much of a deterrent for murder. People in the situation of "about to murder" someone are probably not the greatest critical thinkers. But a PRO cyclist choosing to dope (I think) will probably think long and hard if the consequence was more of a career-ender.

 

[Kvinto]

4 years ban is too long, it’s simply a life ban, because rider can’t physically and mentally return after 4 years without racing.
It’s not so simple.
The killer can get a life sentence, so is doper a killer of cycling? Yes, he is. He kills the nature of competition, he misleads all of us. It’s the first point of view.
But he is human and as all of us he can be mistaken. I have no illusions of professional sport and understand that the difference between allowed and forbidden is too small, sometimes really not seen. It’s the second point of view.

I don’t think it is fair to deprive doper of cycling at all for 4 years, because doing it you don’t leave him any chance to return. But you may not allow him for main competitions, leaving the chance to ride the smaller ones. For me it’s a solution.
I know that this is impossibe, but as a example:
First year – without racing
Second year – only category 2 races allowed (like Beverbeek Classic or Tour of Bulgaria)
Third year – cat.1 and hc-category allowed (Omloop Het Nieuwsblad, Brixia Tour or Critérium International)
Fourth year – all major races allowed (UPT, HIS and WC)
The real ban would be 3 years without racing in main competitions, but with racing practice at the end of it. Also it would be a promotion for the small races (the example would be Valverde at Tour of Norway next year ).
PS: all this is aboute the firs ban. Second one has to be a life ban for sure.
PPS: all IMO

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

When we started seeing 2 year bans, I thought that was enough. But some of those guys have turned out to be second time offenders, and guys still continue to dope knowing they could get caught. There is still too much incentive to dope with a 2 year ban, and not enough consequence. The four year ban would provide added consequence and would help IMO. So I'm in favor of the 4 year ban. BUT incentive and consequence are not the same thing, and a longer ban may not cure the problem. My guess is we'll still see some doping positives with 4 year bans in effect, but hopefully far fewer +ives.

 

[Barrus]

After some consideration I found what to me is the main problem. For a deterrent effect it does not matter whether the sentence is a 2 or a 4 year ban. Riders will not factor this in that much. The main problem in the deterring effect of these sentences is the probability of getting caught. Currently this probability is too low, due to which no ban of any amount of years is deterring riders from doping. The risk benefit analysis comes out in such a way that the chance of getting caught is so low that it warrantes the risk is almost insignificant compared to the benefit gained from doping. Unless the effectiveness of the controls is improved it does not matter what the sanction is, as such a 4 year ban would only be a symbolic improvement, while not changing anything in reality

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

After some consideration I found what to me is the main problem. For a deterrent effect it does not matter whether the sentence is a 2 or a 4 year ban. Riders will not factor this in that much. The main problem in the deterring effect of these sentences is the probability of getting caught. Currently this probability is too low, due to which no ban of any amount of years is deterring riders from doping. The risk benefit analysis comes out in such a way that the chance of getting caught is so low that it warrantes the risk is almost insignificant compared to the benefit gained from doping. Unless the effectiveness of the controls is improved it does not matter what the sanction is, as such a 4 year ban would only be a symbolic improvement, while not changing anything in reality

Whew! That took an awful lot words to get to the last five...

 

[Barrus]

Whew! That took an awful lot words to get to the last five...

That,s my problem most of the time

 

[python]

After some consideration I found what to me is the main problem. For a deterrent effect it does not matter whether the sentence is a 2 or a 4 year ban. <snip>

bravo for being a thinking man, barrus ! you came to a conclusion i vainly pointed to in my post #17

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=375141&postcount=17

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 ?

 

[Barrus]

bravo for being a thinking man, barrus ! you came to a conclusion i vainly pointed to in my post #17

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=375141&postcount=17

I don't know the exact manner in which it applies to doping in the pro-peleton, as most of it is not known about it, but I applied general deterrence theory. Off course taken into account that doping is done by a much more rational process than most ordinary crime. This means that unlike most crime the idea of a rational thought process to decide whether to dope is likely. What means that a cost benefit analysis is probably much more frequent. If you then look at the factors that need to be applied in a cost beenfit analysis, it is clear that especially the chance of getting caught is very low, thus leading to a big incentive for doping. In all cases te chance of getting caught factors much more prominently in such a cost benefit analysis than the actual sanction put on an offense