Knebel (Rabobank) says "High-ranking dopers should be banned for longer"

[doolols]

LINK

Interesting idea, a few days ahead of Contador's decision

 

[sniper]

“Under the current system, the relationship between risk and return is beneficial to the abuser

though this affirmation is of course no news to us clinicians, I found it well put.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rabobank-manager-says-high-ranking-dopers-should-be-banned-longer

I think his general proposal is quite unrealistic, however. There's no way to design or implement such a punishment measure.

 

[GJB123]

Harold Knebel should be careful, he might just get what he wished for.

 

[Nilsson]

I'm not in favor. The length of a ban shouldn't depend on the status of the athlete. If X and Y both used EPO, X shouldn't be punished more severely just because he's a star rider. The (financial) implications for him are bigger as well, and in my opinion that's enough (he loses more income, will be killed by press and fans, gets a higher fine by the UCI, etc.)

I also don't like the idea that it possibly could lead to relatively extra incentives to dope for the non-stars. Just like we had a couple of years ago with the distinction between Pro Teams and Pro Continental Teams, not totally being on the exact same anti-doping regime. I'm not keen on seeing 'small names' doing strange things - like, for instance, the 'green guys' (Sella, Pozzovivo, etc.) in the Giro of 2008 making PT-riders look like amateurs...

 

[El Pistolero]

The only reason why he says this is because Rabobank doesn't have high ranking cyclists in their team.

Dumbest idea I've ever heard. To make an analogy: let's let poor people get away with serious crimes and let the weathier people rot in prison. Makes sense... Not.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Human Plasma, anyone?

It sure reeked of team-wide doping. I guess Niermann is the only old-timer who is still on the team, though.

 

[Big Doopie]

i like it.

 

[hrotha]

The only reason why he says this is because Rabobank doesn't have high ranking cyclists in their team.

Dumbest idea I've ever heard. To make an analogy: let's let poor people get away with serious crimes and let the weathier people rot in prison. Makes sense... Not.

How about progressive fines depending on how much money you make? Doesn't sound that dumb now, does it?

 

[Orvieto]

I'm not in favor. The length of a ban shouldn't depend on the status of the athlete. If X and Y both used EPO, X shouldn't be punished more severely just because he's a star rider. The (financial) implications for him are bigger as well, and in my opinion that's enough (he loses more income, will be killed by press and fans, gets a higher fine by the UCI, etc.)

I also don't like the idea that it possibly could lead to relatively extra incentives to dope for the non-stars. Just like we had a couple of years ago with the distinction between Pro Teams and Pro Continental Teams, not totally being on the exact same anti-doping regime. I'm not keen on seeing 'small names' doing strange things - like, for instance, the 'green guys' (Sella, Pozzovivo, etc.) in the Giro of 2008 making PT-riders look like amateurs...

Agreed. All this would do is shift the risk/reward to benefit nonstars. We'd start to see more out of the blue performances from relative newcomers.

It would also encourage team wide doping, especially at grand tours. The ridiculousness of the Discovery years was seeing 5 or six Discovery riders at the head of the peleton at the start of the climb. Those doped domestiques didn't benefit from that. The GC star did.

 

[python]

we already had discussions of similar proposals - lengthening punitive sanctions - with almost everyone disregarding the actual lessons form the 'field' - longer bans, regardless of whether they were applied to starts or ponies HAVE NOT stopped nor slowed down doping.

as most of us understand intuitively (at least, i hope so), the problem of doping is wider and deeper and thus wont respond to one-sided measures like proposed by knebel. as some already mentioned, it will only SHIFT it to lower echelons. utopian, impractical, half-baked....

 

[pmcg76]

Personally I believe this is an interesting idea, it does seem unjust but just look at the clinic in general and look at who are considered the biggest dopers. It just happens to be the guys on the big teams with the most money.

It has also been suggested on here in the past that as the process of doping becomes more complicated, it is the guys with the most money and power who can afford to pay the top doctors to be provided with the best stuff leaving the lesser riders with an even tougher time to keep up in races or in the doping race.

Likewise, these top guys are also the ones who can afford to pay top dollars to lawyers to fight their cases. Look at the difference between Contador and Fuyu Li, out of those two, who was the most likely to have consumed tainted meet??

Maybe the length of ban should be the same regardless of rider status but maybe there should be an accompanying fine to reflect the status of the rider.
As much as the ides seems unfair and unrealistic, I think it does have some credit.

 

[Nilsson]

How about progressive fines depending on how much money you make? Doesn't sound that dumb now, does it?

But that's already happening. The UCI fine already depends on the riders salary and a big star has more to lose (income, media demolition, etc.)

Jail time or, even better, prohibiting someone to take on his profession by disciplinary Rules of professional conduct are better analogies. And in my opinion a prolonged punishment like that, just because you make more money, isn't fair...

 

[Race Radio]

Harold Knebel should be careful, he might just get what he wished for.

Exactly.

Wonder what he will say after Dekker's discussion with WADA becomes public

 

[Nilsson]

Personally I believe this is an interesting idea, it does seem unjust but just look at the clinic in general and look at who are considered the biggest dopers. It just happens to be the guys on the big teams with the most money.

It not just happens to be... But you're probably right that doping is probably more present in the top of professional sports. Although you never know, and incentives are present in bottom (just getting a contract) and beneath the top as well (a shot at finally winning a race)...

Fact is that the Big guns are the ones that are (considerably more) tested, and thus have the highest chance to test positive. I would love to see the amount of positives, per test, per 'catogory of riders'...

It has also been suggested on here in the past that as the process of doping becomes more complicated, it is the guys with the most money and power who can afford to pay the top doctors to be provided with the best stuff leaving the lesser riders with an even tougher time to keep up in races or in the doping race.

Do not forget that most of the complicated stuff for the big guys is because of the fact that they're the ones who are being tested. It's not a coincidence that the guys who - whether or not by accident - are caught for micro dosing EPO are the lesser ones, because they can get away with that more easily (or at least they think they do)...

Likewise, these top guys are also the ones who can afford to pay top dollars to lawyers to fight their cases. Look at the difference between Contador and Fuyu Li, out of those two, who was the most likely to have consumed tainted meet??

That difference has not so much to do with money, but almost everything with time and authority perception. (Te case) Contador is a turning point. Before him (and Ovtcharov, who was let go by WADA) everyone got banned, after him everyone got off - including cyclists like Nielsen and Van Hout (you may haven't even heard of). If Li (or Colo) tested positive on clenbuterol now they would almost certainly get a free pass...

Maybe the length of ban should be the same regardless of rider status but maybe there should be an accompanying fine to reflect the status of the rider.
As much as the ides seems unfair and unrealistic, I think it does have some credit.

That's already happening right now...

 

[theyoungest]

The only reason why he says this is because Rabobank doesn't have high ranking cyclists in their team.

Dumbest idea I've ever heard. To make an analogy: let's let poor people get away with serious crimes and let the weathier people rot in prison. Makes sense... Not.

Your analogy is (once again) terrible, and your first comment is plain stupid... Rabo don't sign returned dopers, so if you're caught your Rabo career is over anyway, no matter what the punishment. Knebel's comments have no bearing on his own situation, at all.

Exactly.

Wonder what he will say after Dekker's discussion with WADA becomes public

Don't you think he already knows the ins and outs of the Dekker case? If you're paying the slightest attention you can connect the dots yourself (hint: Boogerd, Michael)

 

[theyoungest]

Stupid idea, almost as stupid as the people who think he says this because Rabo don't have any stars on their team... if they're caught they don't re-sign them anyway, no matter what the punishment. They're not Movistar.

 

[El Pistolero]

How about progressive fines depending on how much money you make? Doesn't sound that dumb now, does it?

Has nothing to do with what Knebel is suggesting, so I don't know why you're quoting me.

 

[sniper]

How about progressive fines depending on how much money you make? Doesn't sound that dumb now, does it?

The idea is nice, but it seems difficult to implement.
You would get additional lawsuits only to determine the amount of the fine.

 

[LaFlorecita]

What a stupid idea this is. High-rank dopers already pay higher fines. He shouldn't whine.

 

[Kwibus]

The only reason why he says this is because Rabobank doesn't have high ranking cyclists in their team.

Dumbest idea I've ever heard. To make an analogy: let's let poor people get away with serious crimes and let the weathier people rot in prison. Makes sense... Not.

First line is just stupid.

I agree on the second part, allthough I think they should stick to the 2 year ban for everyone, but give the riders a fine according the money they made the last 2-3 years of their career.

 

[El Pistolero]

First line is just stupid.

I agree on the second part, allthough I think they should stick to the 2 year ban for everyone, but give the riders a fine according the money they made the last 2-3 years of their career.

It's not stupid. Do you really think Knebel would have said this if he was manager for BMC or Radioshack? To say it in Dutch: hij schopt niemand tegen de schenen bij Rabobank met zo'n uitspraak.

They already need to pay a whole year's salary if they test positive by the way. 2-3 years? That would bankrupt 90% of the cyclists! We don't want to ruin their lives you know, just keep them out of cycling for 2 years(or one).

 

[theyoungest]

It's not stupid. Do you really think Knebel would have said this if he was manager for BMC or Radioshack? To say it in Dutch: hij schopt niemand tegen de schenen bij Rabobank met zo'n uitspraak.

Think for a few seconds, and then explain the logic behind this statement. I'm curious.

 

[Polish]

Banning the high profile dopers longer than the low profile dopers will help the lower profile dopers become high profile dopers. Seems fair I suppose. Give the donkeys a chance too I guess.

2006 Tour de France comes to mind kind of

 

[sniper]

Banning the high profile dopers longer than the low profile dopers will help the lower profile dopers become high profile dopers. Seems fair I suppose. Give the donkeys a chance too I guess.

2006 Tour de France comes to mind kind of

the system would of course only work if the uci would not collect sysmex machines.
donkey landis would then have been dominant from 2000-2006.

 

[Bala Verde]

How would that affect the team strategy. Teams will take risks with domestiques who all ride like the wind and take less risks with a leader, who'll follow in their slip stream?