The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Mongol_Waaijer said:Unless they detail the exact and honest circumstances surrounding their doping they should lose ALL of them, for their entire career.
If they are prepared to talk (name names), and their testimony checks out, then selected results prior to their admitted doping might be reinstated.If they are later found to have lied, or implicated in controversies prior to the one they have just been sanctioned for, they should receive double punishment and all professional results annulled.
Otherwise we just get the pointless "thinking about doping", "gave in to temptation once" etc
JA.Tri said:Aside: off thread sorryIdeally what is needed is a scheme that actively encourages a "clean" environment. To my mind prevention is better than cure. IMO penalties/sanctions don't really constitute prevention.
ak-zaaf said:Nothing but the race where the positive sample was taken.
If positive out-of-competition, no results scraped.
Taking away race results is about the worst thing this doping hunt has to offer, it ruins the way this sport leans on it's history.
Publicus said:This is a tough call. I think the Valverde case represents the exception more so than the rule. In his case, he's never actually tested positive during any of his races, but has been found guilty of doping violations. I think the decision to allow him to keep his results up through Jan 1, 2010 is the correct one (though I don't fully understand the rationale for moving the date back to January 1 versus say June 1), since again, he's not failed a test during any of those races.
For consistency sake, they should have made the effective date June 1 and he would kept his results from this year as well. That would have made more sense than the back-dating.
Publicus said:This is a tough call. I think the Valverde case represents the exception more so than the rule. In his case, he's never actually tested positive during any of his races, but has been found guilty of doping violations. I think the decision to allow him to keep his results up through Jan 1, 2010 is the correct one (though I don't fully understand the rationale for moving the date back to January 1 versus say June 1), since again, he's not failed a test during any of those races.
For consistency sake, they should have made the effective date June 1 and he would kept his results from this year as well. That would have made more sense than the back-dating.
JA.Tri said:Is this because you wish the "Results" of the race to reflect the finish of the event as it actually occurred rather than a revisionist version? If so would you countenance refund of all prize money and salary received for the offending period?
I was one of the two (so far) that felt that, those that suspend should set the terms. I feel that way because some latitude can be exercised, in issuing penalties, especially in extraordinary cases such as this one.Publicus said:This is a tough call. I think the Valverde case represents the exception more so than the rule. In his case, he's never actually tested positive during any of his races, but has been found guilty of doping violations. I think the decision to allow him to keep his results up through Jan 1, 2010 is the correct one (though I don't fully understand the rationale for moving the date back to January 1 versus say June 1), since again, he's not failed a test during any of those races.
For consistency sake, they should have made the effective date June 1 and he would kept his results from this year as well. That would have made more sense than the back-dating.
JA.Tri said:Is this outcome not thereby "rewarding" AV for using appeal rights? . While he has not tested positive for these races; had he not appealed he would not have had the opportunity this year to achieve the results he has.
Not having a go at you and recognizing that any answer is fraught with complications (also understand is an unusual case).
ak-zaaf said:That could do, but I would have problems with asking money back from events a couple of years ago.
Usually prize money is divided between teammates and staff.
When I think about it, stripping people from past salary (and thus losing their home) is a problem. That's a way too desperate measure for something that still is nothing more than cheating at a sporting event.
Yes, these people knowingly doped and made a career from it, but their talent was always there and so the dope only upped their salary. Taking it all away would be insane. What if 3 years later you're (at the time unlikely) innocence is proven? Great news when your wife left you and your living in a friends basement.
Taking results is horrible for fans, taking away (all) money is too drastic and probably not legal.
Just up the ban to 3 or 4 years, test like never before and stop treating this problem like it's completely and utterly destroying the sport.
Publicus said:I don't think anyone should be punished for exercising their rights. That being said, that is a fair point. I just don't recall a worldwide ban being previously imposed and that Valverde appealed from that decision and it resulted in a delay of the suspension. Which I think is part of the problem (at least for me): I don't fully understand the timeline/chain of events that led to the worldwide suspension. I am under the impression that CAS simply imposed it in response to the UCI/WADA appeal of Spain's reluctance to impose a sanction. If that is correct, there is no original suspension date other than the one imposed by CAS.
Libertine Seguros said:Only remove the results from the race with the positive test, but announce an enforced retesting with the latest methods of ALL previous tests. Maybe that testing to be paid for by the rider out of their winnings.