From Gent to to Liege, how was it for you?

[auscyclefan94]

I personally think there are 1 too many cobbled classics and not enough classics like amstel or liege. A lot of the cobbled classics are very much the same.

 

[elapid]

to me two years is nothing.......atmo your might as well not have testing or bother with the drug war if cheaters are allowed back and winning as there is no way you could trust them again - ive always believed it should be a life ban and nothing is going to change that but if the fans and the UCI are going to be soft on cheats then sadly there isnt much I can do about it. All he and other cheats need to do is learn from their mistakes and not get caught again.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!

Firstly, there is no drug war. The UCI are just playing a political game and are not committed to exposing the big players.

Secondly, and we'll agree to disagree from the start, but lifetime bans are not a deterrent to doping, never have been and never will be. Look at capital punishment for crimes like murder. This was also meant to act as a deterrent but has had no such effect. You have to look at the motivations to dope and those motivations are not superseded by fears of the repercussions if caught.

Thirdly, you want Vino to play by your rules and not the rules established by the UCI and WADA. That's fine, but that's not real life either. Because he has played by the rules of the governing bodies and, at this stage, appeared to have won LBL without the assistance of doping, then his win should not be considered any less worthy because of his past. You say that people are innocent until proven guilty, but how long do they have to pay for their sins? He has not been proven guilty of doping at LBL or after returning from his suspension, so by your argument he is innocent. Or is he not innocent because, regardless of doing the time for his crime, he has been caught for doping in the past? Does that mean if you lied once that you are a liar forever? If you stole a candy as a kid that you are a thief forever? If you got drunk once that you are a drunk forever?

 

[elapid]

I personally think there are 1 too many cobbled classics and not enough classics like amstel or liege. A lot of the cobbled classics are very much the same.

Disagree. How many of the cobbled classics have you watched? PR the same as RVV? Pfft.

 

[L'arriviste]

Firstly, there is no drug war. The UCI are just playing a political game and are not committed to exposing the big players.

Secondly, and we'll agree to disagree from the start, but lifetime bans are not a deterrent to doping, never have been and never will be. Look at capital punishment for crimes like murder. This was also meant to act as a deterrent but has had no such effect. You have to look at the motivations to dope and those motivations are not superseded by fears of the repercussions if caught.

Thirdly, you want Vino to play by your rules and not the rules established by the UCI and WADA. That's fine, but that's not real life either. Because he has played by the rules of the governing bodies and, at this stage, appeared to have won LBL without the assistance of doping, then his win should not be considered any less worthy because of his past. You say that people are innocent until proven guilty, but how long do they have to pay for their sins? He has not been proven guilty of doping at LBL or after returning from his suspension, so by your argument he is innocent. Or is he not innocent because, regardless of doing the time for his crime, he has been caught for doping in the past? Does that mean if you lied once that you are a liar forever? If you stole a candy as a kid that you are a thief forever? If you got drunk once that you are a drunk forever?

I've responding to this in the Clinic because it's an interesting take.