• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Introduce a Life-Time Ban For Doping

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 17, 2009
2,280
0
0
screw banning, it deters nothing. public hanging, no B samples, no appeals. that'll show the cheating sob's.
 
Jul 27, 2010
255
0
0
The thing is, i don't think that will stop most riders. Just like people who smoke, riders think "OH, but that won't happen to ME." They think that since they have passed all these drug tests throughout there career, surely they are doing something right and will never get caught. These riders aren't thinking about the length of bans because they believe they'll never be banned. I think if they thought they'd be banned, two years would be a risk big enough for them to not want to take.
 
May 20, 2010
745
0
0
Ferminal said:
How can you do it fairly?

Does Contador get a lifetime ban, even though he only tested positive for a minor PED which it's unlikely he knowingly took? Does he still escape with a year ban even though there is little doubt about his use of transfusions

Does Basso only get 2 years because he just visited a friendly doctor and was only thinking about doping, not caught in the act.

Is Valverde's lifetime ban really such when he continued to race for years before being sanctioned?

Should Mosquera get a lifetime ban, even though the guy ahead of him who is almost certainly juicing gets away with the win plus being seen as a clean rider.

How is it at all fair for someone to get a lifetime ban when others like Andy Schleck are running rampant at the top of the sport?

All a lifetime ban will do is further widen the gap between haves and have nots, without tackling the real issue. Sure there will be less dopers, but will there be more clean riders winning races?
Man, I agree with your points, as well as those posted by RR, but I am really struggling with this one.
My main desire is to clean it up, and though it may seem a simplistic approach to the problem, a lifetime ban is appropriate. Take it further and give the ban to the rider's ds, too. How about collective guilt? Ban the team.
You are your brother's keeper afterall.

Contador? Ban him.

If anything can be done, eliminating the UCI upper echelon would be a start. The only way to insure fairness in application of the rules is to root them out first, and entrust the judicial process to a third party.
 
Jul 7, 2009
562
0
0
BotanyBay said:
I disagree. A guy who can fool himself into this is not motivated one way or the other by the fear of consequences, but rather the irresistible urge to do it anyway.

If a guy's willing to pump his blood full of "who knows what" and do blood transfusions in his apartment (which by the way, has become such a common subject for us, we fail to remember that it is a serious medical procedure)...brutha's willing to risk his life, so obviously he's willing to risk the career.

There are no "drug" addicts, alcoholics, meth-heads, etc.

There are merely "addicts". It's all the same affliction. When a rock star goes on VH-1 and talks about how he got off of Coke, and then Heroin, and then thinks getting drunk every so often is OK... He fails to understand the true nature of addiction. It's something deep down.

It's not about the drugs.
Well said. I think it goes to the character of the individual.
 
TexPat said:
Man, I agree with your points, as well as those posted by RR, but I am really struggling with this one.
My main desire is to clean it up, and though it may seem a simplistic approach to the problem, a lifetime ban is appropriate. Take it further and give the ban to the rider's ds, too. How about collective guilt? Ban the team.
You are your brother's keeper afterall.

Contador? Ban him.

If anything can be done, eliminating the UCI upper echelon would be a start. The only way to insure fairness in application of the rules is to root them out first, and entrust the judicial process to a third party.
I'm trying to hold some kind of realist perspective. I do advocate penalties for Mangers, DS, medical staff etc but it seems so hard to implement in a just manner (at this point in time). What about Doctors who operate outside the sport like Ferrari, Fuentes, Del Moral - criminal action against them needs to be a lot stronger. Whilst dopers and facilitators are all evil and we want them gone, we must not forget that they live in a world where we supposedly value fairness, justice and equality.

Unfortunately I feel the whole system needs to become a lot more transparent before we can take any steps forward.
 
May 20, 2010
745
0
0
fishtacos said:
According to Amnesty International, in 2009 at least 69 people in Saudi Arabia were executed by beheading or crucifixion, which is about 1.3 people a week. I'd say that's plenty, compared to 0 a week.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8593438.stm


As BB (and you) were saying, the death penalty or lifetime bans won't discourage everyone from doing the wrong thing.
And amazingly, the kingdom has a very low crime rate.
 
May 20, 2010
745
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Throw in immunity for staff people who turn in a doper before he fails a test and you might have something.
And add into that a guarantee that their salary and legal fees be paid during the process.
 
Mar 10, 2009
481
0
0
Not sure where I come down on this topic yet, but I will say that this is one of the more rational and respectful clinic discussions to date!
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
TexPat said:
And amazingly, the kingdom has a very low crime rate.
People would shoplift a lot less if they knew their hand could get chopped off.

If we had a similar policy in cycling I bet we could get rid of most abuse of Viagra. :)
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
TexPat said:
Man, I agree with your points, as well as those posted by RR, but I am really struggling with this one.
My main desire is to clean it up, and though it may seem a simplistic approach to the problem, a lifetime ban is appropriate. Take it further and give the ban to the rider's ds, too. How about collective guilt? Ban the team.
You are your brother's keeper afterall.

Contador? Ban him.

If anything can be done, eliminating the UCI upper echelon would be a start. The only way to insure fairness in application of the rules is to root them out first, and entrust the judicial process to a third party.
Completely agree- that is the first part that needs addressing...

Ferminal said:
I'm trying to hold some kind of realist perspective. I do advocate penalties for Mangers, DS, medical staff etc but it seems so hard to implement in a just manner (at this point in time). What about Doctors who operate outside the sport like Ferrari, Fuentes, Del Moral - criminal action against them needs to be a lot stronger. Whilst dopers and facilitators are all evil and we want them gone, we must not forget that they live in a world where we supposedly value fairness, justice and equality.

Unfortunately I feel the whole system needs to become a lot more transparent before we can take any steps forward.
Here is something to think on. (where the hell is JV when you need him?)

The current system has points for the individual that goes towards the team which dictates their position in the WorldTour.

Scrap it, throw it in the bin.
Firstly, it punishes riders that don't score points (makes it harder to renew contracts etc) so it actually encourages individual doping.

A new system would see points to the teams only (have a separate competition for individuals) - afterall it is team effort.
Any team caught with a doped rider shave off a load of points and do not allow a replacement until the end of the year.
All teams must assign doctors to riders* - if a rider gets popped the Doc goes too, but you are allowed replace the Doc hopefully having learnt the lesson.
(*so, even if the rider has outside assistance the team Doc will cry foul)

Any team with 3 positives in 2 years or where its shown they are complicit losses its WT license with all those sanctioned (Doc & DS) banned for life.


This could make teams more selective on who they hire and punishes the team (ie all the riders and staff) if they keep secrets and shows that omerta only hurts you.
 
May 20, 2010
745
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Completely agree- that is the first part that needs addressing...



Here is something to think on. (where the hell is JV when you need him?)

The current system has points for the individual that goes towards the team which dictates their position in the WorldTour.

Scrap it, throw it in the bin.
Firstly, it punishes riders that don't score points (makes it harder to renew contracts etc) so it actually encourages individual doping.

A new system would see points to the teams only (have a separate competition for individuals) - afterall it is team effort.
Any team caught with a doped rider shave off a load of points and do not allow a replacement until the end of the year.
All teams must assign doctors to riders* - if a rider gets popped the Doc goes too, but you are allowed replace the Doc hopefully having learnt the lesson.
(*so, even if the rider has outside assistance the team Doc will cry foul)

Any team with 3 positives in 2 years or where its shown they are complicit losses its WT license with all those sanctioned (Doc & DS) banned for life.


This could make teams more selective on who they hire and punishes the team (ie all the riders and staff) if they keep secrets and shows that omerta only hurts you.
That's a damn good idea.
 
Aug 26, 2010
256
0
0
A lifetime ban would certainly have a big impact on the sport! The way to continue to clean up the sport is by targeting especially the young riders from doping. A lifetime ban on first offence has the greatest deterence to young riders. A lifetime ban for a 30 year old for example means that they may lose the last 5-10 years of their career. For a young rider they are greatly discouraged from dope as the penalty spells the end of a career that has a good 15 years left in it. Also the fines should go up because based on the same principle they will impact the tounger riders anyway.

One could argue that this argument falls on its own sword when the young riders get older however this is about changing the culture of cycling completely. There is never going to be a 100% clean peleton. It is in the nature of some humans to cheat but denying that harsher penalties will have any efect is like arguing that increased demand for a good will not raise its price.

Increases in out of competition testing is also imperative to further deter riders from doping. I assume that the doped riders generally dope through microdosing these days and because a detecable level of EPO and other PED's only stays in the system for a short time it is only natural that more frequent knocks on riders door will deter them from doping.

Its not unrealistic in the slightest it just requires someone who really believes and desires a clean peleton to be at the Helm of the UCI.
 
Mar 19, 2009
2,235
0
0
BroDeal said:
We would be much better off introducing lifetime bans for lying about doping.
+1
The lie is worse than the offence.

I'd still want the lifetime ban for intensional doping though.
 
Dec 21, 2010
147
0
0
The Hitch said:
Lifetime ban BUT if you cooperate, name ALL your suppliers contacts etc, your let back in.

Then if you want to go back to doping you need to find new suppliers, and if you get caught then, youll turn on them too,
That's a good idea.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,010
0
0
I'm having an increasingly hard time strictly blaming the riders for doping.

They are a part of a massive system (or culture) that has doping deeply entrenched within it. The fact that 'a rider' ends up doping is not strictly the sole fault of the rider. There are SO many links in the team structure chain that MUST know what is going on, I think it's naive to continue to punish the riders as individual renegades.

Pulling the points (a la Dr Mas) is a great idea. I've also advocated that if a rider gets popped, the TEAM's license should be pulled for a month. The managers and DSs need to feel the spanking as much as the riders. A sort of internal impetus needs to be created to motivate an actual adherence to the rules. So many teams are now stating that they have their own internal anti-doping testing protocols that it wouldn't be like we're asking them to do much more (apart from using the programs to ensures riders are clean, rather than ensuring they won't test pos).

These two ideas, unfortunately, require the UCI to actually be onside wiith attacking doping in cycling, and to be honest and transparent. Not holding my breath...

If we could have some faith in the UCI, then there are many ways that doping could be productively confronted. EVERYONE on a team (staff included) is UCI licensed - that lends an overarching structure through which to enforce the rules.

But, once again it's back to the UCI...
 
May 11, 2009
186
0
0
knewcleardaze said:
Well said. I think it goes to the character of the individual.
Not really, not if it's a standard and required part of the job. To take a football analogy - you can be the nicest, most moral person in the world but if you play defensive midfield you're going to get booked a lot, it just comes with the job. I don't even think the rewards or penalties are relevant - take another sport, rugby union, where there is very visible almost constant cheating every game at the breakdown, exactly the same whether it's a 6 Nations game or a park game. Players regularly get sent off now for killing the ball, but they still do it; single penalty kicks decide games but players still take the chance. They do it for the exact same reason that cyclists dope: a. all competitive people look for an edge; and b. they know there's a very good chance they won't get caught.

When testing is sufficient you won't need any bans at all, just disqualification from the particular race.
 
I thought what would be a good punishment would be to fine the rider.

The fine would amount to the cost of re-testing all of their samples on record using the latest analysis available.

The more positives, the longer the ban, with a year being the minimum, and then each positive adding further time. Perhaps the severity of the time added by each punishment to be graded based on the substance, divided into classes. I see no reason to punish Aurélien Duval or Marta Bastianelli's use of diet suppressants as harshly as Nuno Ribeiro using EPO, or David García da Peña using EPO AND masking substances.

The time added by each positive to be halved if you co-operate and name names. But this would require a Jörg Jaksche/Emanuele Sella level of testimony.

This would require that riders would not just have to fear the anti-doping authorities' capabilities today, but their capabilities several years down the line.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts