Interesting idea

[Colnagoguy]

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/hitting-sports-cheats-in-their-wallets/#more-16883

 

[rhubroma]

Doping is also big business. The establishment wouldn't tollerate it.

 

[Izoard]

I actually quite like this idea, at least the premise, and worthy of more discussion. It is certainly best than trying to have someone pay a year's salary, which is BS. It would also facilitate post racing career planning and some degree of pension - also not bad things.

I do tend to agree with rhub as well, I don't think it'll fly.

 

[Dude17]

My concern with the idea is the extreme contortions (legal and otherwise) that people would go through to keep that money. They go through those contortions now when trying to keep from being banned for some period of time.

Would make for an interesting situation where early in your career the risk/reward would be in favor of doping, but later on the calculation would reverse in that you have a bunch of money in an account and want to be sure you don't lose it. So instead of "old guys" taking drugs to hang on longer, they might end up being the cleanest athletes (at least in their later years). This might also lead to the "old guys" retiring soon thereby opening up more positions for younger athletes.

 

[Bala Verde]

Wouldn't work because many doping tests aren't full proof and some doping is not even detectable, sometimes not even after retirement. It would reward the best doper, not the cleanest cyclist.

The idea is based on perfect testing procedures, but what if you convict someone whose 'values' (not talking about synthetic or non-natural substances) are slightly off. Ie the blood passport is based on averages and averaging the human being, while human beings can differ significantly from one to another. With such harsh punishments, the burden of proof is a little higher than 'off values'...

You could ruin the poor man, who'd busted his buttocks for a short lived career of max 10-15 years. On wall street they jump off the ship with a golden parachute, and silverlined underwear instead...

Again, it singles the rider out too much, instead comprehensively targeting the system.

 

[Anonymous]

My concern with the idea is the extreme contortions (legal and otherwise) that people would go through to keep that money. They go through those contortions now when trying to keep from being banned for some period of time.

Would make for an interesting situation where early in your career the risk/reward would be in favor of doping, but later on the calculation would reverse in that you have a bunch of money in an account and want to be sure you don't lose it. So instead of "old guys" taking drugs to hang on longer, they might end up being the cleanest athletes (at least in their later years). This might also lead to the "old guys" retiring soon thereby opening up more positions for younger athletes.

Interesting idea but it does not address the corruption of the organizations charged with administering/testing/adjuicating athletes. I mean, if the UCI and WADA (& whomever else) can be bought then steps taken to further punish athletes are meaningless.

 

[Izoard]

My concern with the idea is the extreme contortions (legal and otherwise) that people would go through to keep that money. They go through those contortions now when trying to keep from being banned for some period of time.

As the saying goes "kill all the lawyers"

 

[Izoard]

Interesting idea but it does not address the corruption of the organizations charged with administering/testing/adjuicating athletes. I mean, if the UCI and WADA (& whomever else) can be bought then steps taken to further punish athletes are meaningless.

I agree, which is what I think rhubroma meant. That level of corruption is another whole issue.

Perhaps we should not really worry too much about testing the athletes, because we already have the means and several methods. Perhaps we should worry about testing the bureaucrats and weeding out the corruption.

 

[the truth.]

the premesis of the idea has substance.

the idea is that riders must think more carefully of the consequences .
either steeper bans of bigger fines. doping must not be an option.

 

[usedtobefast]

As the saying goes "kill all the lawyers"

except my lawyer, please.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Simply put- there is no one solution to in the Anti-doping game.

The only idea I liked from the article was putting 10% every year in an escrow account - in Pro Cycling at least if a rider like Rasmussen/Vino etc get busted then the UCI don't have to try and chase the rider for the money penalties.

But other than that the argument is weak - as there doesn't appear to be any other sanction for the offender and the decision to take PED's then becomes an economic calculation.

Also if there is no ban or suspension then the athlete continues to play- maybe the team would pick up the tab for any indiscretion?

 

[kiwirider]

But other than that the argument is weak - as there doesn't appear to be any other sanction for the offender and the decision to take PED's then becomes an economic calculation.

You mean, like it is under the current punitive system?

Whether there's a sanction on the end of things or not, there's an economic decision at work ... "If I get caught, I can get fired and have to pay a fine ... the cost of my PED's are XX ... the potential lost salary is XX ... the potential prize money, sponsorship and additional salary totals XXX ... and it sets me up for job YY when I retire which pays XX more than what I'd go back to otherewise ... Sounds good to me - shoot me up Doc!!!"

The only other thing that I'd add to the decision tree is that there are a range of social and psychological factors in there as well - as per my post on another thread.

Again, as I've said before - sanctions aren't the be all and end all ... **** - we've got a system that focuses almost exclusively on sanctions and there are enough threads here bagging performances by "clean" riders and "clean" teams - let alone bagging the efforts and press releases of the UCI - to show that it's not working!

The anti-drug regime has its roots in a time before social and economic factors were viewed as potential motivators for "crime". It reflects a view that "only bad people do bad things and if we punish them they'll stop". Ignoring the social factors (eg., fear of failure, "hero status", fear of career end, peer pressure etc) and economic factors (eg., post career job offers, sponsor pressure, etc) will by definition result in a system that fails to achieve the desired ends ... At risk of sounding boring (and exposing myself as a potential target for the earlier "kill all lawyers" posts!! ) - it's basic criminology ... and it's being ignored by the UCI ...

We may disagree on a few of the subjects within this topic Doc, but we do agree on one thing:

Simply put- there is no one solution to in the Anti-doping game.

 

[mherm79]

i also think this approach places way to much focus on the athelete. Yes they are ultimately responsible for what goes into their bodies, but i don't think anyone is under the illusion that coaches, managers, team doctors and others are also supporting / encouraging them.

if doping is a team decision, then all they have to do is pay the rider an additional 10% and hey presto - the riders percieved lost becomes zero

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You mean, like it is under the current punitive system?

Whether there's a sanction on the end of things or not, there's an economic decision at work ... "If I get caught, I can get fired and have to pay a fine ... the cost of my PED's are XX ... the potential lost salary is XX ... the potential prize money, sponsorship and additional salary totals XXX ... and it sets me up for job YY when I retire which pays XX more than what I'd go back to otherewise ... Sounds good to me - shoot me up Doc!!!"

The only other thing that I'd add to the decision tree is that there are a range of social and psychological factors in there as well - as per my post on another thread.

Again, as I've said before - sanctions aren't the be all and end all ... **** - we've got a system that focuses almost exclusively on sanctions and there are enough threads here bagging performances by "clean" riders and "clean" teams - let alone bagging the efforts and press releases of the UCI - to show that it's not working!

The anti-drug regime has its roots in a time before social and economic factors were viewed as potential motivators for "crime". It reflects a view that "only bad people do bad things and if we punish them they'll stop". Ignoring the social factors (eg., fear of failure, "hero status", fear of career end, peer pressure etc) and economic factors (eg., post career job offers, sponsor pressure, etc) will by definition result in a system that fails to achieve the desired ends ... At risk of sounding boring (and exposing myself as a potential target for the earlier "kill all lawyers" posts!! ) - it's basic criminology ... and it's being ignored by the UCI ...

We may disagree on a few of the subjects within this topic Doc, but we do agree on one thing:

Simply put- there is no one solution to in the Anti-doping game.

Agree entirely with your post -in particular that there will always be a financial consideration at play.

However the reason I said the original argument was weak is just taking it at the stand alone context it is presented - as I said the idea has merit in conjunction with other penalties and sanctions.

As an example - and yes the numbers are silly but....

Under their system an athlete doesn't suffer a ban - therefore they are earning throughout their career.
I will give an example of an athlete who has a 12 year career - first 4 years makes say $1 per year, next 6 at $2 per year and back to $1 for the final 2 years. Thats a total of $18 - so a 'fine' of 10% is $1.80.

However say the same athlete is banned for two years the minimum loss of earning would be $2 or even $4 during the good years.

Two other points to factor in - an athlete coming back from a lengthly ban is usually a shadow of their former glory - so they earn less.
Also their earning potential - endorsements etc - would be gone during a ban. In the other system they would continue to have a significant extra income that could potentially be larger than the 10% fine.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Agree entirely with your post -in particular that there will always be a financial consideration at play.

However the reason I said the original argument was weak is just taking it at the stand alone context it is presented - as I said the idea has merit in conjunction with other penalties and sanctions.

As an example - and yes the numbers are silly but....

Under their system an athlete doesn't suffer a ban - therefore they are earning throughout their career.
I will give an example of an athlete who has a 12 year career - first 4 years makes say $1 per year, next 6 at $2 per year and back to $1 for the final 2 years. Thats a total of $18 - so a 'fine' of 10% is $1.80.

However say the same athlete is banned for two years the minimum loss of earning would be $2 or even $4 during the good years.

Two other points to factor in - an athlete coming back from a lengthly ban is usually a shadow of their former glory - so they earn less.
Also their earning potential - endorsements etc - would be gone during a ban. In the other system they would continue to have a significant extra income that could potentially be larger than the 10% fine.

Jeez, you're not a doctor, you're a fricken CPA. I agree though.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

I think the overall idea has some merit. As a stand alone measure though, it looks more like a doping-fines insurance policy than anything else.

The whole savings thing seems to have more merit as a nest-egg, to set pros up for life after cycling and thereby reduce financial pressure to dope late in their career. As kiwirider pointed out, post career planning (including encouraging saving) has been tried in pro rugby in NZ. There was an article on it here last night; the basic conclusion was 'you can lead a horse to water....'

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Perhaps we should worry about testing the bureaucrats and weeding out the corruption.

+1

How do we test the bureaucrats though? Could WADA have a role here?

Somehow the consequences of individuals doping has to be shared between everyone responsible.

 

[kiwirider]

I think the overall idea has some merit. As a stand alone measure though, it looks more like a doping-fines insurance policy than anything else.

The whole savings thing seems to have more merit as a nest-egg, to set pros up for life after cycling and thereby reduce financial pressure to dope late in their career. As kiwirider pointed out, post career planning (including encouraging saving) has been tried in pro rugby in NZ. There was an article on it here last night; the basic conclusion was 'you can lead a horse to water....'

Was that in the press or on the box? Can you send me the link - I don't get to keep pace with all of the NZ media up here and I'd be really interested to read what was said.

Like you say though, at the end of the day it's a matter of individual choice as to whether people take the opportunities put in front of them. But that applies in all spheres - eg., I work with a young guy who is stoning and cruising away a good degree of talent.

The best that can be hoped for is to play the probabilities game - if you put a program in place (of whatever type - educational, social, support or sanction) then you need to do so with the best expectation that the balance of probabilities are in favour of it achieving a positive outcome. Then you sit back and watch - and get ready to fine tune things ...

 

[kiwirider]

However the reason I said the original argument was weak is just taking it at the stand alone context it is presented -

Fair call ... I'd implicitly read it as a suggested component of a more comprehensive regime.

I'll make another assumption and say that, given that it's from a US publication, I'm guessing that the guy who recommended it is thinking more in terms of sports like baseball, football, hockey and tennis (I guess I could also say golf - but I refuse to acknowledge it as anything more than "a good walk ruined" ... ) where the PED regimes make the UCI look like the KGB's evil big brother - and where the salaries they pay the "waterboys" make cyclists look like they're on minimum wage. In that type of context it probably could be effective as losing that "retirement fund" could really be a big financial hit. Mind you, I still think it'd need additional measures of some sort around it to be the most effective ...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Fair call ... I'd implicitly read it as a suggested component of a more comprehensive regime.

I'll make another assumption and say that, given that it's from a US publication, I'm guessing that the guy who recommended it is thinking more in terms of sports like baseball, football, hockey and tennis (I guess I could also say golf - but I refuse to acknowledge it as anything more than "a good walk ruined" ... ) where the PED regimes make the UCI look like the KGB's evil big brother - and where the salaries they pay the "waterboys" make cyclists look like they're on minimum wage. In that type of context it probably could be effective as losing that "retirement fund" could really be a big financial hit. Mind you, I still think it'd need additional measures of some sort around it to be the most effective ...

As i said - the idea does have merit - but in conjunction with other deterrents.

I too took that it is the thinking of a US based fan probably of Baseball- they mention steroids and not any other PED.

One part of their argument I found interesting - in a humorous way - was that if a player was caught they "would involuntarily make a large anonymous donation to a youth anti-steroid program".

I took from that quote that the player gets to keep on playing and no-one would know their indiscretion- so I am assuming that the person who wrote the original isn't too confident that the team they support is playing on just bread and water

 

[Bala Verde]

Dunno if I mentioned this before in another thread.

What if the UCI - assuming they're keen on improving the sport - use the money 'donated' by the riders, taken from their wages or money from the teams to participate in the blood passport, to set up some kind of a 'witness protection' program.

The UCI starts a cycling team for riders who come clean. The team and cyclists who break the Omerta, get a contract with the team and receive a salary that is basically funded by other teams/rider's salary, in return for their depositions/declarations.

You got a roster of 22-26 riders who broke the silence, and can still continue doing what they loved doing, while not being financially harmed or socially stigmatised. On top of that they have to do some stints/ads/promos/workshops to educate young cyclists.

In the end, they don't have to go back to paint houses, and they promote a clean sport.

 

[issoisso]

Dunno if I mentioned this before in another thread.

What if the UCI - assuming they're keen on improving the sport - use the money 'donated' by the riders, taken from their wages or money from the teams to participate in the blood passport, to set up some kind of a 'witness protection' program.

The UCI starts a cycling team for riders who come clean. The team and cyclists who break the Omerta, get a contract with the team and receive a salary that is basically funded by other teams/rider's salary, in return for their depositions/declarations.

You got a roster of 22-26 riders who broke the silence, and can still continue doing what they loved doing, while not being financially harmed or socially stigmatised. On top of that they have to do some stints/ads/promos/workshops to educate young cyclists.

In the end, they don't have to go back to paint houses, and they promote a clean sport.

Blood Passport money from the teams is about €400.000 a year. That can't pay for the riders' salaries

 

[Hugh Januss]

Blood Passport money from the teams is about €400.000 a year. That can't pay for the riders' salaries

Maybe it can if they don't have to pony up for a full time staff gynecologist.

 

[elapid]

The first I thing I though when I read that article was that the UCI would love it - another way to make money, squirrel it away and make money of the interest, and then find some excuse to not give it back to the rider when he retires. Similar to the current system the UCI has for teams if they go bust: the team gives the UCI money to ensure payment of their riders if the team goes belly-up. At least according to Floyd Landis's book, the UCI took a long time (years?) to pony up the money for him. I think the UCI would love this scheme. It would be good PR for them too - see everyone, we're all in this together to fight doping. We had no positives in the TdF, professional cyclists are giving up 10% of their pay as insurance to prove they don't dope, yada yada. The doping problem is solved, the war is won, no one dopes anymore.

 

[David Suro]

Garnishing wages is something any individual would take exception to. Imagine if your boss told you he would withhold a portion of your pay pending results on a test.

However, a bonus for merit is something most enjoy.

The concept is the same, but the verbage is different.

But then again, the image of the sport could be tainted more if it became public knowledge that riders who raced clean were given a bonus for their merit.