Looking forward -The proactive change of cyclings culture thread

[Tonton]

Re: Re:

Sorry and that DUH is for you I assume who used Product originally when you didn't mean it. Yes

Good apology accepted

Apart from the fact you still don't answer the question of how do you guard against a substance designed for something else that is later proven to provide benefits for cyclists and may show up in someones retrospective tests.

You can't just state that every athlete has to never use medication in case it is proven as a benefit.

There goes all the asthma sufferers out of the sport
There goes anyone with an extreme allergic reaction that might require an epi pen,
There goes anyone who suffers from hay fever
There goes anyone who has ever had a kidney problem or liver problem
There goes anyone who has had a heart arrhythmia
And so the list goes on...........

Sweeping statements that exclude any substance that does or could be proven to provide a benefit gets us nowhere but wrapped up in endless law suits and confusion I'm afraid.

You are trolling my friend. You are. You understood perfectly well that I meant substance. You can also catch me on some typos if you'd like. I don't think it will contribute to the discussion, though.

Now I encourage you to re-read my post and try to understand it.

What "using a substance with the intent..." implies...is the intent. Duh again . A lawyer may phrase it differently and more accurately, but what it does mean is:
* You may use a treatment/medicine if your intent is not to dope.
* It doesn't matter if the substance is on a list at the time you take the substance. If you took EPO before its prohibition in '90, you would still have been doping per the rule. As long as I can prove the...intent.

That's what I wrote. Duh again. So I'll explain again...

Example: In 1980 UCI changes the definition of doping to "using a substance with the intent..." and institutes retro-testing like...I wrote. Say the winner of the '87 TdF gets his samples back-tested and EPO is detected. The change of definition makes it unimportant that EPO wasn't banned in '87. [and BTW, I don't think Roche was doing EPO in '87].

This is what my point was: even substances NOT on the banned list may now lead to sanctions. For this to happen, we now have to prove intent. Conspiracy. Find Roche's nickname "Irish Piti" on blood bags, or several corroborating witnesses (squealing Chicken and Zulle equivalents)...

Intent: if you know that rotten eggs mixed with aspirin works and it's not yet banned, if I can prove that every night during your winning TdF you took some, and that you had some shipped from Ferrara to your training facility in Tenerife, you are done...

Now you can attack me for saying that rotten eggs and aspirin are the new EPO .

 

[robertmooreheadlane]

Re: Re:

You are trolling my friend. You are. You understood perfectly well that I meant substance. You can also catch me on some typos if you'd like. I don't think it will contribute to the discussion, though.

Now I encourage you to re-read my post and try to understand it.

What "using a substance with the intent..." implies...is the intent. Duh again . A lawyer may phrase it differently and more accurately, but what it does mean is:
* You may use a treatment/medicine if your intent is not to dope.
* It doesn't matter if the substance is on a list at the time you take the substance. If you took EPO before its prohibition in '90, you would still have been doping per the rule. As long as I can prove the...intent.

That's what I wrote. Duh again. So I'll explain again...

Example: In 1980 UCI changes the definition of doping to "using a substance with the intent..." and institutes retro-testing like...I wrote. Say the winner of the '87 TdF gets his samples back-tested and EPO is detected. The change of definition makes it unimportant that EPO wasn't banned in '87. [and BTW, I don't think Roche was doing EPO in '87].

This is what my point was: even substances NOT on the banned list may now lead to sanctions. For this to happen, we now have to prove intent. Conspiracy. Find Roche's nickname "Irish Piti" on blood bags, or several corroborating witnesses (squealing Chicken and Zulle equivalents)...

Intent: if you know that rotten eggs mixed with aspirin works and it's not yet banned, if I can prove that every night during your winning TdF you took some, and that you had some shipped from Ferrara to your training facility in Tenerife, you are done...

Now you can attack me for saying that rotten eggs and aspirin are the new EPO .[/quote]


TonTon Honestly I wasn't trolling I was trying to make sense of what you wrote and my understanding of it.

My second point on the issues related to what you are suggesting is basically wrapped up in the final sentence, By trying to write rules that cover every eventuality and possible substance OR product that could be used to gain an advantage you will effectively put a huge onus on the UCI or whatever body will be issuing sanctions to PROVE INTENT. I capitalise that because in a court of law that is going to be very difficult to do.
And regardless of how these things are set up to work they will end up being tested in a court of law. The case will be dealt with locally and then appealed and then it will go all the way to CAS who will finally have to determine the intent of a persons actions.
Did someone fall for a snake salesmans charm, did they just do as they were told by their doctors, were they just taking what they thought were vitamins from the team nutritionist? there will be a thousand excuses and trying to determine intent in the face of those will be almost impossible without the e-mail from a persons own account (which they wouldn't use) asking for a drug in order to cheat.

There is large amounts of speculation about TUE's on this forum and they are a perfect example, medications which may have some benefit being handed out like candy with a TUE attached to make it legal. Now is the intent to cheat? if you believe what is written very probably. Could you prove it in a court of law? very probably not.

So the idea of a sweeping statement within the rules will only serve to embroil the UCI or whomever in endless litigation and appeals and probably end up bankrupting them as numerous legal cases almost bankrupted UK athletics back in the 80's / 90's.

I am not trolling I am trying to understand how this suggestion would work in practice.

 

[Tonton]

Re: Re:

TonTon Honestly I wasn't trolling I was trying to make sense of what you wrote and my understanding of it.

My second point on the issues related to what you are suggesting is basically wrapped up in the final sentence, By trying to write rules that cover every eventuality and possible substance OR product that could be used to gain an advantage you will effectively put a huge onus on the UCI or whatever body will be issuing sanctions to PROVE INTENT. I capitalise that because in a court of law that is going to be very difficult to do.
And regardless of how these things are set up to work they will end up being tested in a court of law. The case will be dealt with locally and then appealed and then it will go all the way to CAS who will finally have to determine the intent of a persons actions.
Did someone fall for a snake salesmans charm, did they just do as they were told by their doctors, were they just taking what they thought were vitamins from the team nutritionist? there will be a thousand excuses and trying to determine intent in the face of those will be almost impossible without the e-mail from a persons own account (which they wouldn't use) asking for a drug in order to cheat.

There is large amounts of speculation about TUE's on this forum and they are a perfect example, medications which may have some benefit being handed out like candy with a TUE attached to make it legal. Now is the intent to cheat? if you believe what is written very probably. Could you prove it in a court of law? very probably not.

So the idea of a sweeping statement within the rules will only serve to embroil the UCI or whomever in endless litigation and appeals and probably end up bankrupting them as numerous legal cases almost bankrupted UK athletics back in the 80's / 90's.

I am not trolling I am trying to understand how this suggestion would work in practice.

The main issue with doping today is that by the time a product/subtance gets banned, anyone who used it before the ban doped but gets away with it; Nulla poena sine lege (maybe mispelled here), no sentence without a law. It is possible to negate the insurmountable advantage that dopers have: time. With retro-testing, and finding a way to punish doping, even if at the time the product/substance is not yet banned.

Intent is not easy to prove, I agree. Yet it is possible, mostly by proving that actions took place, individuals took art/witnessed, products/substances were delivered, used, in a scheme designed to dope. That a conspiracy took place. Intent and conspiracy are two concepts which exist in US law. One can be convicted, jailed for "conspiracy to commit murder" or "possession of controlled substance with the intent to distribute", without a murder being committed in the first case, or a drug sale taking place in the second case. These two concepts prove really useful when investigating organized crime and convicting the bosses, not just the hit men. I propose to fight the Mafia in cycling with the whole anti-Mafia arsenal. Intent may be hard to prove, but it's not impossible. The more people get involved in a scheme, the higher the chances that one will talk, or possess incriminating evidence.

Stopping the "doper always a step ahead" reality with retro-testing has to be part of it: given enough time/research (and yes, money), masking agents won't mask anything, et caetera...

 

[robertmooreheadlane]

Tonton

I agree intent can be proven but I just think that by the time you get to gather enough evidence to put forward a case and then the appeals and counter case comes out it will end up being prohibitively expensive for an organisation that can't afford to drug test many people in the first place.
Personally I would have to say it seems to me that the easy way to solve this would be to have a pro level where drugs are allowed and a level below where drugs weren't even if it was just for a few years and see where the public and the money gravitated towards

THen we will know one way or another if the riders want to ride in which level and the public want to see one or the other.

It does seem like a little bit of an easy way out but it also has it's merits. If the public and riders and money continue to gravitate towards the doped level then it is obviously a lost cause and we should lay down arms and allow it under medical supervision, or if the public riders and money all move to the clean sport maybe then the powers that be will get the message

 

[Tonton]

Re: Looking forward -The proactive change of cyclings cultur

I don't see how you would allow doping at pro-level and be sure cycling is clean in the lower levels, with hundreds of times more riders to test. Plus, non-pros would dope to get to pro-level. This doesn't make any sense. Allow doping for all, or don't. You know my position on the subject.

For several decades, people in cycling and sports marketing have lamented that it is the bad image, doping, that deters potential sponsors and makes current race/team sponsors leave. You propose to allow doping: the image problem will go away, short term it may bring money to the sport. First, I can guarantee you that governments, who spend billions promoting health to increase productivity and reduce healthcare costs, those governments won't let it happen. Public televisions may not be allowed to broadcast cycling. Governments will also refuse to authorize road closures, free police/gendarmerie controlling crowds, et caetera...

And even if the show goes on, what happens next is unknown: will the freak show turn cycling into a fringe sport, like a WWF Wrestling, or bodybuilding? Will parents allow their children to join a club? I can go on and on...

This is why we are in this situation today. UCI, teams, riders don't want to allow doping: they understand the consequences. On the other hand, they know that scandals keep sponsors at bay, so why not just pretend to be doing something?

 

[Taxus4a]

Re: Looking forward -The proactive change of cyclings cultur

This is why we are in this situation today. UCI, teams, riders don't want to allow doping: they understand the consequences. On the other hand, they know that scandals keep sponsors at bay, so why not just pretend to be doing something?

It is like that.

It have been a hard time for cycling all the scaldals as OP and all the transitional era: 2008-2011.

But finally all the big names that doped were punished: the last ones Contador and Frank Schleck (his brother with him)

To clean this was hard for all the people that love cycling, but it was necessary.

Doping was bad for cycling.., but not for some riders...

I am well know and dont love so much in an spanish forum to be lot of time defending Andy, i read lot of lies about him...but somthing I havent clar, now i think that he was a good rider for long and hard stages in GT, but he wanst as good to be in a podium of a GT, just maybe top ten.

He got big result in just 6 or 7 races in his life, but now he is multimillonaire, he has a family, etc...and today I believe he doped in the past.

At least Lance is paying his faults...

I followed Andy, but maybe i wanst a fan... but I was a real fan of Iban Mayo, and now for me is not more than a doped... i dont know if he has a big talent.

It was hard for me.

All that was hard for cycling, but now I am proud of cycling, even maybe it is not everything clean, it is difficult to do more.

Now, cycling can be clean becouse of the damage coused by doping, and by all those people here thinking everybody still dope...that is good, but this people is losing the only real cycling from 1990. There was doping before, but the champions were real.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Re: Looking forward -The proactive change of cyclings cultur

This is why we are in this situation today. UCI, teams, riders don't want to allow doping: they understand the consequences. On the other hand, they know that scandals keep sponsors at bay, so why not just pretend to be doing something?

It is like that.

It have been a hard time for cycling all the scaldals as OP and all the transitional era: 2008-2011.

But finally all the big names that doped were punished: the last ones Contador and Frank Schleck (his brother with him)

To clean this was hard for all the people that love cycling, but it was necessary.

Doping was bad for cycling.., but not for some riders...

I am well know and dont love so much in an spanish forum to be lot of time defending Andy, i read lot of lies about him...but somthing I havent clar, now i think that he was a good rider for long and hard stages in GT, but he wanst as good to be in a podium of a GT, just maybe top ten.

He got big result in just 6 or 7 races in his life, but now he is multimillonaire, he has a family, etc...and today I believe he doped in the past.

At least Lance is paying his faults...

I followed Andy, but maybe i wanst a fan... but I was a real fan of Iban Mayo, and now for me is not more than a doped... i dont know if he has a big talent.

It was hard for me.

All that was hard for cycling, but now I am proud of cycling, even maybe it is not everything clean, it is difficult to do more.

Now, cycling can be clean becouse of the damage coused by doping, and by all those people here thinking everybody still dope...that is good, but this people is losing the only real cycling from 1990. There was doping before, but the champions were real.

Riders who gave interviews with CIRC say that in today's peloton 3 or 4 teams dope, 3 or 4 teams don't dope and the rest they don't know. One rider said 90% of all riders dope and another said about 40% of all riders dope. What do you think?