Looking forward -The proactive change of cyclings culture thread

[mrhender]

1. First non-negative test: The rider is sanctioned with a lifetime ban.
2. A non-negative test: The riders team (all other riders and ALL team employees) are sanctioned with 6 months ban from races and all other activities in cycling.
3. All employees of the teams must have a personal license to work with cycling.
4. All tests to be conducted by an organization independent of UCI.
5. All teams and their employees must sign a legal binding document that states, that they have no past involvement in doping or doping related activities.
6. Sanction if it is proven without doubt, that their statement was false: Lifetime ban and a fine of one year salary.
7. No past (or present) doped rider or people related to doping in any way allowed to work in cycling (managers, riders, soigneurs, cleaners, mechanics, chefs etc.)

I believe this will change the "culture" in cycling.

Thanks for contributing...
My take on your 7 points below........

1. A four year ban would suffice, with the option of reducement if two demands are met..
a) Spill the beans to the past, and the precent...
b) a one year cooperation agreement within a anti-doping taskforce which purpose is to learn more about how to perform testing and anti-doping in general more effectively (when and where to test, what to look for, altitude training etc etc....)

2. I would prefer this:
When a ban is issued 10% of all sponsor income are confiscated for a year and all money goes directly to testing and surveillance...
Furthemore 5% af all team salaries in a year goes directly to the "science" of anti-doping, helping them to catch up on Big Pharma...
These measures would not only provide more ressources for anti-doping but maybe also ensure a self-regulation within the teams on a larger scale...

3. Agreed, the question is who should issue these licences..?
Certainly not UCI at it's current level...

4. Yes... Anti-doping affairs should be kept strictly away from the sporting and commercial side of cycling.. This is the core of effective anti-doping...

5. Hmm... I think this is too early to implement, but only because I believe that former dopers has to be used more as a solution then only a problem, over the next decade or so...

6. See above

7. Related to my point in no 5.. I think dopers should be involved primarily in the role of anti-doping advisers.. I also think that the culture of cycling somehow should be taken into account before we get too judgemental.. A new culture has to be established before i would undertake so drastical meassures.. I would not implement the suggestion of yours in present time as I do believe they have a responsibilty to help the sport to move on from the past which I regard as a current...

 

[alcedo]

Thanks for contributing...
My take on your 7 points below........

1. A four year ban would suffice, with the option of reducement if two demands are met..
a) Spill the beans to the past, and the precent...
b) a one year cooperation agreement within a anti-doping taskforce which purpose is to learn more about how to perform testing and anti-doping in general more effectively (when and where to test, what to look for, altitude training etc etc....)

2. I would prefer this:
When a ban is issued 10% of all sponsor income are confiscated for a year and all money goes directly to testing and surveillance...
Furthemore 5% af all team salaries in a year goes directly to the "science" of anti-doping, helping them to catch up on Big Pharma...
These measures would not only provide more ressources for anti-doping but maybe also ensure a self-regulation within the teams on a larger scale...

3. Agreed, the question is who should issue these licences..?
Certainly not UCI at it's current level...

4. Yes... Anti-doping affairs should be kept strictly away from the sporting and commercial side of cycling.. This is the core of effective anti-doping...

5. Hmm... I think this is too early to implement, but only because I believe that former dopers has to be used more as a solution then only a problem, over the next decade or so...

6. See above

7. Related to my point in no 5.. I think dopers should be involved primarily in the role of anti-doping advisers.. I also think that the culture of cycling somehow should be taken into account before we get too judgemental.. A new culture has to be established before i would undertake so drastical meassures.. I would not implement the suggestion of yours in present time as I do believe they have a responsibilty to help the sport to move on from the past which I regard as a current...

I think that some of your suggestions complicates things unnecessarily. You basically allow dopers to come back to the sport. I would like to see a radical new start, starting tomorrow, where ALL current riders, managers, soigneurs, DS etc. who can be linked to past doping disappear completely and forever. They are not needed in any way. The purpose of my suggestions is to get rid of these people completely and to scare others from doping. I agree that great resources should be spent on anti-doping research, but the money should primarily come from national and international organizations. I also agree that it would help a lot if doped rider tells about the system, doctors, methods, the mafia etc. Maybe #1 should simply be changed to this:

1. First non-negative test: The rider is sanctioned with a lifetime ban + a fine of one year salary. If the rider is able to provide useful new information that can be used in the fight against doping (provide names, information about methods, how to avoid getting caught, products etc.) then the sanction is reduced to the lifetime ban only.

There should be no way he can come back and work with cycling. He can go and get another job as a cleaner or taxi driver or whatever, but he can not come back as a rider, manager, soigneur, coach, mechanics or in any other job function within cycling, ever!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I think that some of your suggestions complicates things unnecessarily. You basically allow dopers to come back to the sport. I would like to see a radical new start, starting tomorrow, where ALL current riders, managers, soigneurs, DS etc. who can be linked to past doping disappear completely and forever. They are not needed in any way. The purpose of my suggestions is to get rid of these people completely and to scare others from doping.

And the people already doping that we don't know about?
And the DS's etc that never admitted or are not know as dopers?

Curious how you propose to handle them?

I don't think I could be convinced to agree to only one punishment - out or in, and no graduation, I think it's unrealistic, but willing to discuss.

I guess it also comes back to how you perceive doping and its impact on society / pro cycling / sport, etc. I think that perception is what drives the suggestions and levels of punishment / leniency.

 

[alcedo]

And the people already doping that we don't know about?
And the DS's etc that never admitted or are not know as dopers?

Curious you propose to handle them?

I don't think I could be convinced to agree to only one punishment - out or in, and no graduation, I think it's unrealistic, but willing to discuss.

I guess it also comes back to how you perceive doping and its impact on society / pro cycling / sport, etc. I think that perception is what drives the suggestions and levels of punishment / leniency.

There are criminals that the police know about and there are criminals that they do not know about yet. The fact that there are some criminals that they do not know about yet, should not prevent them from arresting the criminals that they know about.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

There are criminals that the police know about and there are criminals that they do not know about yet. The fact that there are some criminals that they do not know about yet, should not prevent them from arresting the criminals that they know about.

Sure.

But if your punishment is entirely black or white - how are you going to incentivise confessions or information sharing?

To take your "arrest" analogy - plea bargaining and reduced sentences are par for the course in the area of law enforcement, as well as levels of punishment for the same crime, depending on extenuating circumstances and repeat offenses.

 

[alcedo]

Sure.

But if your punishment is entirely black or white - how are you going to incentivise confessions or information sharing?

I changed #1 to this:

1. First non-negative test: The rider is sanctioned with a lifetime ban + a fine of one year salary. If the rider is able to provide useful new information that can be used in the fight against doping (provide names, information about methods, how to avoid getting caught, products etc.) then the sanction is reduced to the lifetime ban only

I believe this will motivate a rider two share information.There is no way he can return to cycling, but he can save a lot of money by telling all that he knows about cheating.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I changed #1 to this:

1. First non-negative test: The rider is sanctioned with a lifetime ban + a fine of one year salary. If the rider is able to provide useful new information that can be used in the fight against doping (provide names, information about methods, how to avoid getting caught, products etc.) then the sanction is reduced to the lifetime ban only

I believe this will motivate a rider two share information.There is no way he can return two cycling, but he can save a lot of money by telling all that he knows about cheating.

Fair enough.

I dislike others vetoing ideas, so am loathe to do it myself, but (!!) there are labour laws and what not that mean imposing that fine is difficult from a legal POV.

It already exists as a policy within a team / UCI, and I believe Vino was subject to that rule, however got out of it somehow.

Did a google - you can read about it here: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/vinokourov-beats-uci-over-doping-fine-20101021-16upd.html
ETA: Rasmussen too: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/6169/Rasmussen-escapes-710000-doping-fine-as-UCI-drops-demand.aspx

I'd like to reiterate that my intent is to add information / precedent to the discussion rather than shut it down.

Labour laws also allowed Wiggo to move to Sky despite his 2 year contract in place with Garmin.

The reason you can ban people is that governments have signed the WADA accord basically agreeing to abide by and enforce the rules and policies implemented by that organisation.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Further research reveals some riders were fined based on salary (6-12 months worth) and either paid it or there is no mention of them fighting it.

Collom and Hoste are 2 such examples.

I guess this comes back to something I have been told by people who work in the law industry: the person with the most money wins.

 

[SundayRider]

I would say a % fine of all earning of maybe the last 3yrs. Also fine the team owner/main sponsor. 4yr ban for first offence, lifetime for 2nd.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

An idea I had - which was aiming to help the rider post-career as well as provide disincentive to dope (mind you is very open to corruption) was to have an investment account where a % of rider's salaries is paid into.

If, 2? 5? 10? years post-career end they have not been found to have been doping, they get the windfall of the deposited amount + interest.

If, on the other hand, they have samples retested (with new tests / detection methods, etc) they forfeit the deposited amount.

 

[SundayRider]

An idea I had - which was aiming to help the rider post-career as well as provide disincentive to dope (mind you is very open to corruption) was to have an investment account where a % of rider's salaries is paid into.

If, 2? 5? 10? years post-career end they have not been found to have been doping, they get the windfall of the deposited amount + interest.

If, on the other hand, they have samples retested (with new tests / detection methods, etc) they forfeit the deposited amount.

That is a good idea. Pretty much like a pension. However you have the problem of making a lot more through doping and getting better results than that pension would be worth if they had been riding clean.

 

[mrhender]

An idea I had - which was aiming to help the rider post-career as well as provide disincentive to dope (mind you is very open to corruption) was to have an investment account where a % of rider's salaries is paid into.

If, 2? 5? 10? years post-career end they have not been found to have been doping, they get the windfall of the deposited amount + interest.

If, on the other hand, they have samples retested (with new tests / detection methods, etc) they forfeit the deposited amount.

Funny you should mention this.. I was thinking of something pretty similar last night but was wanting for a useful template.. I think the basis of the idea is great on several parametres.. Also your carreer as top-cyclist is short so maybe the riders would see this as a good idea (having some savings). A key thing is that the managing of these funds should be left somewhere with great credibility and possibly outside sport environment..

 

[Dear Wiggo]

A key thing is that the managing of these funds should be left somewhere with great credibility and possibly outside sport environment..

Yeah that's a the biggy, no question. Rife with opportunity to be abused and corrupted.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I wonder if you could generate a share scheme for pro cycling. Get a pro license / gig and you earn shares in the franchise. Pinged for doping means you hand those shares back and have to start again post-ban.

Keep clean and you get to cash those shares in 2 / 5 / 10 years post-career.

Just thinking out loud.

Part of my problem here is I feel cyclists in general are treated way too poorly, from the team managers / owners up the hierarchy to UCI / WADA, etc.

I want to make it easier / better for them. So my motivation in discussing and ruminating on anti-doping is to set up the system (very system oriented) whereby a talented rider gets to race and train dope-free and reap the rewards of hard work and genetic lottery luck. And the guys who are doms, etc, get just and fair recompense for their work. At the moment that's too lopsided to the guys at the top, IMO. But this is probably mirroring society and unlikely to be fixed in the life time of the species of the human race.

ie I am more likely to favour solutions that contain aspects of carrot as well as stick.

And have more of a focus on the cyclists' periphery when it comes to curtailing doping, whether peers, doctors, enablers, etc.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'm guessing I did not express my point of view correctly. We may disagree anyway, but lets try again.

Fair to me is when all players get to use the same stuff.
<snip>
By allowing everyone to dope, everyone is allowed to use the same stuff. That is fair.

And, for the second or third time, this is where I completely disagree with you - it's not fair.

I asked if you had looked into doping at all and you said -

Yes. Very much for many years.

And yet you say, "if everyone dopes then it is fair".

What exactly did you look into in terms of doping, how it's done, what it entails, and its effect on an athlete?

 

[msjett]

Open the governing bodies of cycling to public membership - give the fans a chance to change the sport by voting. Not everyone is or wants to be part of a cycle club, so by having a public membership for a nominal fee would mean several things, there would be a public vote on president and board members. The money from fees could be put into a retirement fund for riders - so those who are not high earners have some sort supplement to their income once they are not riding.

The secret persons clubs that are the National Federations and UCI are what I see as a big problem in the sport, I actually think that it is worse than the issue of doping, due to the high risk of corruption from not being held accountable by share/stakeholders or membership.

 

[robertmooreheadlane]

There are a number of problems with some of what is being proposed and stated
Firstly lets take the incentive plan for riders to be clean
Clean rider gets paid for 5 years (he is going to be slower than doped riders so is not earning as much) gets his 20% lumps sum we deducted for his testing and then still only earns his meagre salary for his time as a rider
Or Do drugs earn a lot more money and so get to keep 80% of that which is way more than his clean friend even with his 20% windfall.

Secondly to look at the idea of who gets what
Any profession anywhere in the world has the superstars and the supporting cast. Professional football has the players at the top earning millions and thousands of others earning next to nothing. In business there are the business owners earning big money and chief executives earning a fortune and then the workers not earning much at all

So why should we be paying ordinary cyclists anything more than the wage structure and supply and demand dictates.

And before the bleeding hearts come out with the idea they are risking their lives for our enjoyment and we are forcing them to take drugs to be worth any serious money.

2,000 years ago the men who had the greatest perks in society as workers were probably the gladiators who were always 2 mins from death and still did it because of what they could earn if they were the best and survived.

Drugs will be here for as long as we have competition, and they will be abused by some to achieve more than others.

The only proactive way to address this is in two forms, Firstly to work far more closely with the drug companies and look at how they can help with drug markers or advance warning of new drugs on the market

second option is to have a UCI medical examiner placed within the confines of every pro tour team who would have access to all the riders on a daily basis and would be able to test anyone at any time with no warning. (however they would need to be well paid to ensure no option of being bribed by the team.)

 

[mrhender]

There are a number of problems with some of what is being proposed and stated
Firstly lets take the incentive plan for riders to be clean
Clean rider gets paid for 5 years (he is going to be slower than doped riders so is not earning as much) gets his 20% lumps sum we deducted for his testing and then still only earns his meagre salary for his time as a rider
Or Do drugs earn a lot more money and so get to keep 80% of that which is way more than his clean friend even with his 20% windfall.

This idea is not the invention of the weel.. If it was so, that one thing would do the trick, then someone would have figured out a single tool of total change long ago...
The ideas here (for starters) are ment to be gathered in the lots.. You need time to perfect a recipe, and ingredients has to be suggested and tested before we stumble over the michelin dish....I accept and understand your point, futhermore I acknowledge your financial logic.. So let me dare you to try and use that to improve the idea, not to shoot it down?

Secondly to look at the idea of who gets what
Any profession anywhere in the world has the superstars and the supporting cast. Professional football has the players at the top earning millions and thousands of others earning next to nothing. In business there are the business owners earning big money and chief executives earning a fortune and then the workers not earning much at all

So why should we be paying ordinary cyclists anything more than the wage structure and supply and demand dictates.

Yeah, Why create any union-like organization... How could that benefit anyone

And before the bleeding hearts come out with the idea they are risking their lives for our enjoyment and we are forcing them to take drugs to be worth any serious money.

2,000 years ago the men who had the greatest perks in society as workers were probably the gladiators who were always 2 mins from death and still did it because of what they could earn if they were the best and survived.

Drugs will be here for as long as we have competition, and they will be abused by some to achieve more than others.

Hey, we are under no illusion here that we can eradicate doping for good.. The purpose is to change the culture that resides now and before...
Call me naive, but I do think that the effort now is only worth 10% of the actual potential.. Nearing the 50 or 80% would be a huge leap forward...
I do not hold the dopers as lesser humans than I, they just need to be provided a decent other option and still do what they love -To ride their bike..

The only proactive way to address this is in two forms, Firstly to work far more closely with the drug companies and look at how they can help with drug markers or advance warning of new drugs on the market

second option is to have a UCI medical examiner placed within the confines of every pro tour team who would have access to all the riders on a daily basis and would be able to test anyone at any time with no warning. (however they would need to be well paid to ensure no option of being bribed by the team.)

Thanks for your contribution...

 

[yespatterns]

Sounds a bit like a tontine, which are by definition, illegal. Just my 0.02

 

[mrhender]

Sounds a bit like a tontine, which are by definition, illegal. Just my 0.02

Depends on how the papers and everything is drawn out...

I would rather consider it as union-like which is very legal.....

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The only proactive way to address this is in two forms,

All other ideas must bow before yours. Gotcha.

I wonder if you have read the thread, particularly the parts where people have asked, more than once, for ideas to be suggested, and leave the knocking down till later? I'd like to show you why I do not believe your 2 suggestions are the only proactive way to address the problem.

Firstly to work far more closely with the drug companies and look at how they can help with drug markers or advance warning of new drugs on the market

Apparently you have not heard of "The Clear", "BALCO", or Marion Jones.

Regardless, this idea been discussed before, and implemented already - with tests for new compounds shared / developed with ADOs prior to market release.

second option is to have a UCI medical examiner placed within the confines of every pro tour team who would have access to all the riders on a daily basis and would be able to test anyone at any time with no warning.

So the UCI promote the sport and police the sport. Like a fox guarding the hen house? Gotcha.

I think you'll find doing a search on "Zorzoli" will show you the error of this suggestion.

(however they would need to be well paid to ensure no option of being bribed by the team.)

Because being bribed never occurs to wealthy people. Like say... millionaire politicians in the US, Russia or China. Gotcha.



It's good to have those old ideas brought to our attention, as a reminder, but they are not the only thing that can be done.

 

[yespatterns]

Depends on how the papers and everything is drawn out...

I would rather consider it as union-like which is very legal.....

Of course there are ways around everything legality-wise, but you get the gist of the idea. Survival of the fittest, et al. It's still banned in most euro-centric nations.

 

[sponsor]

And, for the second or third time, this is where I completely disagree with you - it's not fair.

I asked if you had looked into doping at all and you said -

And yet you say, "if everyone dopes then it is fair".

What exactly did you look into in terms of doping, how it's done, what it entails, and its effect on an athlete?

I didn't really look up my last post as it is on a different thread. I came here per your request.

Calling out a forum poster to see if they are lying with a post where they can lie, about what they know seems a bit pointless don't you think?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I didn't really look up my last post as it is on a different thread. I came here per your request.

Calling out a forum poster to see if they are lying with a post where they can lie, about what they know seems a bit pointless don't you think?

If you feel I am calling you out as a liar, that is perhaps understandable.

However, I am simply curious what your knowledge of doping entails, and where you looked - perhaps you have looked into it a lot, but not in the areas I have looked.

If you are having a discussion with a stranger (like we are) who claims extensive knowledge in the subject at hand, yet displays a certain level of naivety, it can help to seek clarification as to how their knowledge was compiled.

That's essentially what I am seeking to do.

I said previously: saying people can dope with the same stuff is "fair" is like saying "everyone's physiology is the same".

Do you understand what I am saying there? Do you agree or disagree that everyone's physiology is the same?

 

[mrhender]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja_wQnVgkEc