How back should a doped rider lose their results?

[md2020]

I would invalidate all of the results going back to the violation but then I would also apply the suspension retroactively. In Valverde's case, get rid of ALL of his results since this affair started but allow him to start racing now.

 

[Ferminal]

Valverde didn't actually lose any results because they were all part of his suspension duration. I actually think the way they handled that part was okay.

As for normal people going positive, it would be good if you could strip their current season (but no more) of its records in the year you turn positive.

 

[gregod]

i chose option four. i have always thought it might be a good idea for first-time-caught dopers to get a four year suspension. two years are retroactive and two years subsequent to the positive test. the logic of the retroactive suspension is that they probably were doping in the past, as well. they should also be forced to pay back all prize money earned during that time. however, i am a little reticent to apply the same standard to salary because it is difficult to know what pressure the team was applying on the rider to dope. as for results, rewriting history is always difficult, but this is further complicated by the fact that at least some of the people who would move up in the rankings would not have been tested and therefore do not really deserve to move up.

 

[shawnrohrbach]

I voted for "all results...". I also want them to return all of the money they made. The money is what it is about, not the winning. The winning drives the money and the dope drives the winning. I agreed to sponsor a semi pro athlete in Seattle in the early 90's and when we determined he was cheating we successfully sued him for our sponsorship money. All of it. Screw him and the cheats in cycling. They can flip burgers at MikkiDee's if they can't win bike races honestly.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

The whole "voiding results" business is a farce for many reasons.

Promoting a rider who finished 2nd as the winner when the real winner was subsequently found to be a doper often makes no sense. The truth is nobody really knows how the race would have panned out without the real winner. Cycling is a team sport not an individual sport - how do you retrospectively assess the contribution of a single rider to the team as a whole ? How do you factor in how the race may have changed tactically ?

I think in all cases the podium positions should be final and in the world of Eyeballs Out they always will be. Sorry Oscar but you did not win the 2006 Tour. Either catch the doper before the end of the race or he keeps his result. Should be an added motivation for the anti-doping authorities to get these riders before the race starts / out-of-competition (i.e. at the times when they are doing the bulk of their gear)

 

[dsut4392]

I'm going along with the "all results since the sample was taken" majority but I would also be OK with "take the lot away". All samples should remain legitimately subject to retrospective testing for any substance or method banned at the time the sample was taken. Cheating is cheating.

As far as the problem that creates by promoting other riders who may equally have doped, one option would be to;
* leave the positions as they were, just scrap the positions of the dopers.
* promote the riders if they request it, on the condition that any and all samples they have ever provided are re-tested at their cost.

Using this scenario for 2006 TDF, the two possible outcomes I can see are (A) Oscar came second (thanks very much but don't retest my samples)
or (B) the top ten looks like this:
1 ****rider sanctioned for doping violation****
2 ****rider sanctioned for doping violation****
3 ****rider sanctioned for doping violation****
4 ****rider sanctioned for doping violation****
5 ****rider sanctioned for doping violation****
6 ****rider sanctioned for doping violation****
7 ****rider sanctioned for doping violation****
8 ****rider sanctioned for doping violation****
9 ****rider sanctioned for doping violation****
10 ****rider sanctioned for doping violation****


Repayment of winnings and payment of fines is a tricky one - did Vino ever pay his fine for breaking the ProTour doping code (i.e. pay back salary)? How would this work for broke bums like Landis? What about winnings shared with the team? I could see civil action by riders to recover winnings from dopers becoming a real mess, except that few would want such scrutiny on their own results as this would bring.

What I do think should happen for any future cases like Valverde is that any rider who is riding pending a sanction should have all winnings held in escrow until the sanction is dismissed or upheld, at which time they can be paid to the rightful winner (subject to that person passing controls as above).