Introduce a Life-Time Ban For Doping

[Anonymous]

If the sport has any future, it should lead the way.

If you're caught....you're out; for good. No thresholds or exemptions. If you're positive, you're positive. End of.

These one/two year bans don't act as a deterrent. Simply get rid of the guilty. That'll set out a warning and might make a statement of intent.

Other sports may well follow suit.

 

[BroDeal]

We would be much better off introducing lifetime bans for lying about doping.

 

[BotanyBay]

La Cosa Nostra should throw it's "pinched" members out too. But wait, there is no La Cosa Nostra

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If the sport has any future, it should lead the way.

If you're caught....you're out; for good. No thresholds or exemptions. If you're positive, you're positive. End of.

These one/two year bans don't act as a deterrent. Simply get rid of the guilty. That'll set out a warning and might make a statement of intent.

Other sports may well follow suit.

Ricco was caught back in 2008 so he knew he risked a lifetime ban, yet it was not a deterrent to him.

As Alpe has often said it is not the length of suspension that will change attitudes, it is the certainty of being caught.

 

[Race Radio]

Lifetime bans for riders will do nothing if you still have the Doctors and DS' who encourage and enable the riders to dope and a UCI that looks the other way.

 

[Anonymous]

Ricco was caught back in 2008 so he knew he risked a lifetime ban, yet it was not a deterrent to him.

As Alpe has often said it is not the length of suspension that will change attitudes, it is the certainty of being caught.

And even then if the UCI dishes out favors for a fee then lifetime bans will only change the fee structure and only benefit the UCI.

So we are right back where we started.

Corruption is the problem.

 

[Havetts]

Lifetime bans would be ok if the UCI wouldnt contact the rider first to make a deal about hiding the positive for some $$$'s.

 

[Anonymous]

Ricco was caught back in 2008 so he knew he risked a lifetime ban, yet it was not a deterrent to him.

As Alpe has often said it is not the length of suspension that will change attitudes, it is the certainty of being caught.

If they are [allegedly] caught, let them personally fund their case and take their disputed ban to the Court of Arbitration.

Let them put their 'blood money' where their mouth is.

This'll soon see who's, who.

Just my opinion, but cycling has a chance to show other sports that it's taking doping (or whatever artificial stimulate) seriously.

 

[BotanyBay]

As Alpe has often said it is not the length of suspension that will change attitudes, it is the certainty of being caught.

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.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If they are [allegedly] caught, let them personally fund their case and take their disputed ban to the Court of Arbitration.

Let them put their 'blood money' where their mouth is.

This'll soon see who's, who.

Just my opinion, but cycling has a chance to show other sports that it's taking doping (or whatever artificial stimulate) seriously.

I agree with your opinion - but I would prefer that the UCI firstly enforces the existing rules with transparency and consistency.

Lifetime bans will have little effect if people feel there is little likelihood to getting caught.

 

[BotanyBay]

Just my opinion, but cycling has a chance to show other sports that it's taking doping (or whatever artificial stimulate) seriously.

When the cyclists themselves take it seriously (they've not yet), "Cycling" will already have done so.

Does that make any sense?

Even if the UCI was not corrupt, they'd still be just as powerless as the parent who has to go bail their son out of jail for a DUI.

 

[rickshaw]

We live in the real world

Unfortunately that means that if most people (including police, and other officials) don't think a crime warrants a certain sentence, the perps won't be arrested, or go to trial, or be convicted.

If spitting on the sidewalk got the death penalty would no one spit any more, or would no one be arrested for that "crime"?

 

[BotanyBay]

Unfortunately that means that if most people (including police, and other officials) don't think a crime warrants a certain sentence, the perps won't be arrested, or go to trial, or be convicted.

If spitting on the sidewalk got the death penalty would no one spit any more, or would no one be arrested for that "crime"?

Plenty of people lose their heads every week in Saudi Arabia. That fact never deterred any of them from doing what got them into that situation.

Sometimes the difference between a mass murderer and yourself is a few drinks and a bad day (or a really bad childhood).

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

Yes & no.

I agree that there are many who are 'addicted' - so any sanction or risk of getting caught is not really a deterrent to them.

However I think a large number of dopers are what I'd term 'reluctant dopers' - ie they dope because they believe 'everyones doing it' or feel pressure to do so - therefore sanctions (or the fear of being caught) would be a deterrent to them.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Just my opinion, but cycling has a chance to show other sports that it's taking doping (or whatever artificial stimulate) seriously.

Cycling already takes doping just as seriously as any other sport. There just isn't enough money in it to hide all the positives, and the reputation being so poor means they have to be seen to make an effort, hence more tests. More tests = more positives.

Cycling is too small a concern to be able to sweep the whole issue under the carpet like football, American football and tennis. But cycling's too big a concern for it to be forgotten about or for covering-up not to seem important.

 

[Met de Versnelling]

As much as it would be a great thing to say, "ah yes, cycling, we don't tolerate dopers, lifetime bans etc", we'd just be kidding ourselves.

Personally, i know that some of the things i get up to in my free time are frowned up by the authorities, but at the same time, i'm prepared to do them and take the risks, because in my eyes, the positives outweigh the negatives.

Riders will just have the same perspective. Yes, there will be one or two of the "reluctant" dopers who think, "well, that's a good enough reason not to dope", but most of the riders that will dope, will do so without any consideration of the consequences.

What riders need to have told to them from a young age is the medical risks of the drugs, and as we've seen in the case of Ricco, how they can put you in hospital with serious medical ailments.

In regards to the UCI and the corruption side of it, it's obvious what needs to be done, and hopefully Schenk can lead something on this cause, but that's for another thread.

 

[rickshaw]

with all due respect.....

Plenty of people lose their heads every week in Saudi Arabia. That fact never deterred any of them from doing what got them into that situation.

Sometimes the difference between a mass murderer and yourself is a few drinks and a bad day (or a really bad childhood).

I seriously doubt if PLENTY OF people are beheaded every week in SA. Can you give us a real number with citation? ei doubt it.

As for Ricco, recall him shooting off his mouth after being busted. All he talked about was how much he doped and NEVER tested positive. He would appear to think he will never get caught, and he faces a lifetime ban now. How has that deterred him? or That the rewards still outweigh the punishment.

Check out that warning next time you watch a DVD. Copy it and you could get 5 years in prison AND a $250,000 fine..... right...

 

[fishtacos]

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.

 

[NashbarShorts]

Lifetime ban for McQuaid, that is the only way to go. As Floyd stated, how can athletes w/ a desire to win even CONTEMPLATE riding clean if they know the governing body is dirty?

Cyclingnews, I'm so confused. For yrs you've told us that we should focus on "the new cycling". The "new generation". This is all in the past. Now you run an editorial telling us things seem strangely reminiscent of 1998 and 2006. How can it be, cyclingnews? I thought we should let the past be and focus on the new cycling?

RICCO IS PROTOUR CYCLING

 

[Met de Versnelling]

I seriously doubt if PLENTY OF people are beheaded every week in SA. Can you give us a real number with citation? ei doubt it.

<snip>

(un)Funnily enough, i had a discussion with someone the other day about this. 2007 was a "record" year (man, that's a bad bit of phrasing) with 156 beheadings. (http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/behead.html)

3 a week, make of that what you will. Not plenty, but certainly enough to be a deterrent in my eyes.

Sorry to stick my oar in and all that.

 

[The Hitch]

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,

 

[131313]

you're always going to have cheating where you have sport. I don't think anyone is suggesting lifetime bans to eliminate doping, but merely to drastically reduce it.

The comment about people "addicted" to cheating misses the mark, and assumes that everyone is cheating for the same reason. That's simply not the case. Some will do whatever they can to cheat no matter what, some will never cheat, and then you have that fat bell curve in the middle; people cheating because "everyone else is doing it" or "there's almost no chance to get caught or whatever.

The key is to have punishments that are an effective deterrent (yes, that's not a mutually exclusive concept), and testing procedures which effectively make cheating risky.

Want an example of a punishment which will be an effective deterrent? First offense, 5 year bans....


...for all of the management, staff and sponsors. Two year bans for the riders.

Second offense, life for everyone.

Not fair?? Well, no, it isn't. But drastic times call for drastic measures. And all of those involved have been complicit for too long. Trek has made an awful lot of money on Armstrong's back, why shouldn't they be held accountable if their product gains its hold in the marketplace through nefarious means?

Even with less effective testing, this would be the most effective deterrent one could dream up.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I am against life time bans for first offenses - for a variety of reasons, but I will state it now.

1. I have mentioned this before - do you ban a kid who genuinely has asthma who took an extra suck on their inhaler which they have a genuine TUE for but exceeded.

2. Introducing life time bans would mean everyone would appeal (unless this idea is universally accepted across all sports per WADA) to CAS - what has the doper/accused got to lose?

3. As we have often seen those that have the resources will avoid/evade capture - which means it is the poor or new doper who is punished.

4. People do make mistakes or bad choices.
I have a hard time blaming individual athletes when they are often subject to undue pressures and are introduced to doping practices.
Anyone caught should be punished appropriately and when they return be subjected to more testing (that they pay for).

The doping problem and culture needs to be tackled through various ways and more effort needs to be focused on the roles and duties

 

[Hugh Januss]

you're always going to have cheating where you have sport. I don't think anyone is suggesting lifetime bans to eliminate doping, but merely to drastically reduce it.

The comment about people "addicted" to cheating misses the mark, and assumes that everyone is cheating for the same reason. That's simply not the case. Some will do whatever they can to cheat no matter what, some will never cheat, and then you have that fat bell curve in the middle; people cheating because "everyone else is doing it" or "there's almost no chance to get caught or whatever.

The key is to have punishments that are an effective deterrent (yes, that's not a mutually exclusive concept), and testing procedures which effectively make cheating risky.

Want an example of a punishment which will be an effective deterrent? First offense, 5 year bans....


...for all of the management, staff and sponsors. Two year bans for the riders.

Second offense, life for everyone.

Not fair?? Well, no, it isn't. But drastic times call for drastic measures. And all of those involved have been complicit for too long. Trek has made an awful lot of money on Armstrong's back, why shouldn't they be held accountable if their product gains its hold in the marketplace through nefarious means?

Even with less effective testing, this would be the most effective deterrent one could dream up.

Throw in immunity for staff people who turn in a doper before he fails a test and you might have something.

 

[Ferminal]

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?