How back should a doped rider lose their results?

[kurtinsc]

With Valverde being suspended, an interesting question gets raised about what results they should lose. What do you think?

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

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

 

[Oldman]

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

I can't accept the honesty of riders that cheat to begin with so the reliability of their account shouldn't benefit them.
Knowing the system is also rife with incompetence and it's own graft; they shouldn't lose results or cash prior to the sample that busted them.

They should have to give up some money for the deterrent to be real. Valverde is appealling to keep his salary, in my mind.

 

[fuggles]

I had to go with the "lose all prior results option" because when you really look at it, there is no real deterrent from doping.

Lifetime bans, 5yr bans etc are not going to happen. We cannot catch dopers reliably, and even when we do the penalties are not too severe (especially if your a top tier rider). And, because of omerta, even those who are caught are not going to talk.

Although, if this was a penalty for doping I would become worried about a) "false positives" and b) administrative corruption (looking at you UCI).

 

[JA.Tri]

I don't know the answer to the doping conundrum.

I vote for: from date the positive test sample was taken.

Aside: off thread sorry Ideally 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.

Back on thread: general principles allow for appeal rights. However appealing should not work to the advantage of an unsuccessful appellant (to my mind AV has probably benefited under the current regime with a very significant series of results to add to his palmeres).

 

[Zerak-Tul]

**** 'em, take it all.

 

[ak-zaaf]

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.

 

[Polish]

The dopers results should be knocked down to last place.
Came in first? Last Place
Came in 32th? Last Place

Of course, there is the possibility that a rider will eventually end up in better position than the original result using this system. Oh well.

Once a rider retires, however, the results should be Set in Stone.

The results from Fausto, Eddy, Sean, Herman, etc should not be tampered with.

Might also give dopers an incentive to retire

 

[ak-zaaf]

Aside: off thread sorry Ideally 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.

The only way to prevent doping is to take away ALL money from the sport, and even then there would still be some doping for the excitement of winning or just because they can.

 

[Jux1893]

I don't think it is healthy to think they were always doped. That means to assume that all the previous tests were wrong.
If a rider gets 49 tests and only accuses something at the 50th, it would mean assuming 98% of the controls were wrong, and who is to say that the wrong test isn't the one that came out positive.

They should only be stripped from the results that happened after the test, when we have proof of the offense, to go before that it's just unreallistic.

Only if it can be proved that there was some wrong doing in the previous tests it should be analised all of that rider's results.

 

[JA.Tri]

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.

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?

Edit: Sorry have now noted your earlier response that addresses second part of my query

 

[Publicus]

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.

 

[la.margna]

cheaters should be stripped of all results and price money during the preceeding two-year period + three year ban (instead two).

plus charged all adminstrative costs for changing all those rankings and results and shipping price money around.

 

[fruit bars with eyes]

how about:
full and frank admissionof all doping and name others - keep all results
full and frank admission but no names- keep results before offence only
no admission - stripped of all results

might work?

 

[luckyboy]

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.

I think it's been backdated to January because Piti and his lawyers dragged it out soo much. This might have all been over by January. I think it's fair anyway.

"So finally justice is served. Well, not actual justice, just what I wanted. Which is basically the same thing"

 

[JA.Tri]

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.

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]

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?

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.

 

[Michielveedeebee]

imho they should only lose the result(s) of the race(s) they test positive in. this may cause some dopers to keep results of races they won being doped. But that still is better than taking away results of races they did win clean even if they doped themselves afterwards.

 

[nowhereman]

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.

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.
I think The suspension was meted out this way following the reasoning that they are in fact giving Valverde a 6 month break by starting his suspension retroactively, kind of like "time served" But in giving him that break, he must forfeit his results during that retroactive period.
Valverde should have followed Ivan Basso's model and given up once the Spaniards gave a blood sample to the Italians, and that sample showed illegal substances. That he chose to fight from that point on, it was all just a Dance of Inevitability, to this final curtain call. And so, no matter what all the Spanish pundits say about their homeboy, He has received a sentence he now, fully deserves. Too bad for him, and his choices.

 

[Publicus]

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 ).

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.

 

[JA.Tri]

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.

Acknowledge that the penalty may be overly onerous.

And this goes off thread: I know that doping is simply regarded as cheating...I believe that the cheating may also be regarded as fraud. That is the doper has intentionally obtained/sought to obtain benefit under false pretenses. To soften this harsh view I repeat (from other posts) that this activity is enabled, encouraged and tacitly accepted by the peloton and the powers at large. More importantly this occurs from the time the cyclist joins the peloton (and perhaps before).

 

[JA.Tri]

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.

Ta, fair call, as you indicated tough question. I hasten to add that appeal rights are sacrosanct, I was not advocating punishment for accessing appeal rights.

 

[awal3207]

I would recommend that an additional fixed time of 6 months before the time of the test, and all results since the positive test if no other evidence is found of doping prior to the test. Also, would find the rider the equivalent of 50% his winnings from that period. I say this as i am unsure of the portion of money earned from results that goes to teamates.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

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.

They'll always be guilty by association anyway. If we are to make the (admittedly gargantuan) assumption that Valverde won races clean in 2009, the fact that he had misdemeanours elsewhere in his career will cause the results he put together at any other time to always be suspected, and clean winnings will be dismissed as doping, and his results will always be suspect in the eyes of the fans. That's a fitting punishment.

 

[Willy_Voet]

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.

Best idea so far. If implemented, there would be a lot of squirming athletes out there. That is to say, at this precise moment, you have to worry about testing technology 8 years from now.

Could be more interesting if the suspension period is commensurate with the number of samples found positive after the retest. Only one positive? (that being the most recent one that initiated proceedings...) Okay, 6 months off. You've been doping for two or more years? Great, find a new profession!