Manifesto for clean cycling

[davidmam]

No thread on this so far so here goes:

Pinotti makes the obvious statement that the penalties for doping must be more severe than the potential benefit. He also highlights the current points system as an issue.

Riders who themselves aggregate few points as they are riding int he service of team mates start to succumb to the WT points frenzy as contract renewal time approaches.

Some of my thoughts:

Suggestion 1: Only consider WT points for license renewals from a maximum of ten or fifteen riders from each team. This reduces the pressure to have all riders achieving points and restores the value of pointless domestiques.

It would change the dynamics of the contract renewals and marketability of riders, reducing the pressure to succumb to doping. It is also very easy to implement.

2. A penalty points system for teams based on doping infractions. DS/support staff all count.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

No thread on this so far so here goes:

Pinotti makes the obvious statement that the penalties for doping must be more severe than the potential benefit. He also highlights the current points system as an issue.

Riders who themselves aggregate few points as they are riding int he service of team mates start to succumb to the WT points frenzy as contract renewal time approaches.

Some of my thoughts:

Suggestion 1: Only consider WT points for license renewals from a maximum of ten or fifteen riders from each team. This reduces the pressure to have all riders achieving points and restores the value of pointless domestiques.

It would change the dynamics of the contract renewals and marketability of riders, reducing the pressure to succumb to doping. It is also very easy to implement.

2. A penalty points system for teams based on doping infractions. DS/support staff all count.

1. How does it restore the value of pointless doms? If the top 15 provide the points, Sky or similarly liquid teams can buy the top 15 riders or so and load up. I think the pointless dom will still seek to gain points to gain entry to that top 15- surely they would be the most valued / valuable? The top 10 or 15 get pay rises and guaranteed contracts.

Maybe I am missing something entirely, but I do not think it changes anything.

2. Agreed on penalty points however how do you apply them after the fact. Eg: how would a penalty points system work for USPS, given what we know of the history of the peloton as revealed by the USADA evidence?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The following is not aimed directly at impacting on peloton cleanliness. This is more aimed at providing team stability and continuity, reducing the stress of ongoing employment.

Idea: flip the emphasis from individual points earned to team points earned.

As an example: in soccer, it is not the person who gets the most goals who wins the game - his team wins if they kick more goals than the other team. The striker may have kicked the most goals, yes, but it's the team who gets the credit. The winger who passed him the ball shares in that. The goalie who stopped the opposition is also part of that equation. None of them are ranked on points and take those points with them to their next contract, determining whether their new team is going to be in the league or not.

If all the points won went to the team, and not the rider, you still know who won those points. You still know which dom scored no points for the team but stayed with his leader the longest and kept the leader out of the wind.

The person who gained the most points still demands a good contract because you know he did the best ride in the races that count. But if he leaves the team, he does not ruin that team's chances of staying in "the league".

The team now has stability. I think this is important for all the riders on that team - particularly the doms with no points but good work ethic, as they are not concerned about their team losing its place in the "league" and subsequent loss of sponsorship dollars and therefore their job.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

More info was started here, but it's a few pages in now.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=19182

 

[martinvickers]

1. How does it restore the value of pointless doms? If the top 15 provide the points, Sky or similarly liquid teams can buy the top 15 riders or so and load up. I think the pointless dom will still seek to gain points to gain entry to that top 15- surely they would be the most valued / valuable? The top 10 or 15 get pay rises and guaranteed contracts.

Maybe I am missing something entirely, but I do not think it changes anything.

2. Agreed on penalty points however how do you apply them after the fact. Eg: how would a penalty points system work for USPS, given what we know of the history of the peloton as revealed by the USADA evidence?

Can i suggest what my untrained eye sees as an obvious point?

Cycling is rather unique - the competitiors are treated theoretically as single racers - but the reality is they race in, and for, teams.

I can't offhnad think of any other sport that does this - even motor racing concentrates really on the racer.

So for doping sanctions to REALLY matter, you have to stop this tendency for teams to 'wash their hands' of dopers, and then claim 'it wasn't me' guv'

In other words, teams have to be held officially responsible for performance doping, at least partially. Whether they keep a rider on or not - you have a doper on your watch? you suffer - strict liability. you hire a doper who has not previously fessed -you suffer. strict liabilty.

And i don't mean fines - i mean bans and licence stripping. one exception - a team that dobs its own doper in to wada while he's still there, with evidence - they, and only they, can get a hearing.

change the peleton culture pretty f***ing quick that would.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Can i suggest what my untrained eye sees as an obvious point?

Cycling is rather unique - the competitiors are treated theoretically as single racers - but the reality is they race in, and for, teams.

I can't offhnad think of any other sport that does this - even motor racing concentrates really on the racer.

So for doping sanctions to REALLY matter, you have to stop this tendency for teams to 'wash their hands' of dopers, and then claim 'it wasn't me' guv'

In other words, teams have to be held officially responsible for performance doping, at least partially. Whether they keep a rider on or not - you have a doper on your watch? you suffer - strict liability. you hire a doper who has not previously fessed -you suffer. strict liabilty.

And i don't mean fines - i mean bans and licence stripping. one exception - a team that dobs its own doper in to wada while he's still there, with evidence - they, and only they, can get a hearing.

change the peleton culture pretty f***ing quick that would.

You replied to both my questions / points.

You are only talking about doping, so I am guessing you are responding to #2.

#2 is asking - what if the doper does not get found out for years.

eg: <new drug D> is not detecable, but samples are stored for 8 years. <Drug D> is in a class prohibited on WADA's lists, but not known. <Rider 1> on <Team A> is using this drug. Is team leader, wins lots of points. 4 years later, <drug D> discovered and test certified.

In the mean time, <Rider 1> has ridden for 2 other teams (Team B and Team C), and is currently riding for Team D.

Half the riders from <Team A> have also moved on. Most of the staff are the same, with a new DS and soigneur, after their counterparts retired.

Samples from 4 years prior are tested for <"new" drug D> and it is found that <Rider 1> was using <Drug D> at all 4 teams (A - D).

What are the penalties, and how are they applied? Keeping in mind it was previously undetectable, and <Rider 1> denied ever doping.

(THG "The Clear" is an example of such a drug - see Marion Jones).

 

[martinvickers]

You replied to both my questions / points.

You are only talking about doping, so I am guessing you are responding to #2.

#2 is asking - what if the doper does not get found out for years.

eg: <new drug D> is not detecable, but samples are stored for 8 years. <Drug D> is in a class prohibited on WADA's lists, but not known. <Rider 1> on <Team A> is using this drug. Is team leader, wins lots of points. 4 years later, <drug D> discovered and test certified.

In the mean time, <Rider 1> has ridden for 2 other teams (Team B and Team C), and is currently riding for Team D.

Half the riders from <Team A> have also moved on. Most of the staff are the same, with a new DS and soigneur, after their counterparts retired.

Samples from 4 years prior are tested for <"new" drug D> and it is found that <Rider 1> was using <Drug D> at all 4 teams (A - D).

What are the penalties, and how are they applied? Keeping in mind it was previously undetectable, and <Rider 1> denied ever doping.

(THG "The Clear" is an example of such a drug - see Marion Jones).

quick answer? all of them. punish all of them - because deliberate or not they all prospered.

And if you DID take that attitude, watch how closely teams would monitor their own riders to ensure it didn't happen - riders wouldn't be able to take a fart untraced.

If a rider can't stomach that form of oversight -he's not ready for a team sport, which is what cycling is. So go try track and field.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

quick answer? all of them. punish all of them - because deliberate or not they all prospered.

And if you DID take that attitude, watch how closely teams would monitor their own riders to ensure it didn't happen - riders wouldn't be able to take a fart untraced.

If a rider can't stomach that form of oversight -he's not ready for a team sport, which is what cycling is. So go try track and field.

What are the penalties, and how are they applied?

I disagree entirely, however, and think there is no quick answer. I am treating this very sincerely.

 

[hiero2]

No thread on this so far so here goes:

Pinotti makes the obvious statement that the penalties for doping must be more severe than the potential benefit. He also highlights the current points system as an issue. . . .

Pinotti calls for greater financial penalties for doping

Obviously, the article linked is what got you thinking. Pinotti speaks very sensibly. I like what he has to say - as a student of economics, I agree with his thoughts about the risk vs. benefit.

Pinotti on doping economics:

“Above all, doping needs to be made unviable from an economic point of view,” he said. “A legally sustainable solution needs to be found so that there is a much higher financial penalty than the current one, and then whoever doesn’t honour it isn’t allowed to come back to racing.

“Today, the economic benefits often outweigh the risks enormously. If a new, undetectable drug comes out, but with effects that improve performances, it would need strong moral values not to use it.”

Pinotti on the points system and the risks of doping:

. . .The existing WorldTour points system does little to help the situation in Pinotti’s eyes, with teams desperate to sign riders with points in order to ensure their elite status. Those riders who have little or no points near the end of the campaign can find themselves in something of a paradoxical situation.

“Take a rider who is without UCI points and knows that he’ll be without a team and without a future at the end of the season. What does he do? He starts to dope to get results and points. If he tests positive, he is banned, but in any case, he would have been out of work.”

If all we do, as a sport, is act on these words, appropriate solutions will be found. The key is that the people at the top of the sport are held accountable to ACT on these words. Pinotti has spoken rationally, realistically, and responsibly. Love it!

And the truth of what he is saying is in our face, coming out recently, ag2rs-hunt-for-worldtour-points-goes-on-without-houanard

 

[zebedee]

From the Gazetta article, Pinotti also suggested that heavy economic sanctions taken against dopers will serve to finance (in part) the cost of testing.

 

[hiero2]

1. How does it restore the value of pointless doms? If the top 15 provide the points, Sky or similarly liquid teams can buy the top 15 riders or so and load up. I think the pointless dom will still seek to gain points to gain entry to that top 15- surely they would be the most valued / valuable? The top 10 or 15 get pay rises and guaranteed contracts.

Maybe I am missing something entirely, but I do not think it changes anything.

2. Agreed on penalty points however how do you apply them after the fact. Eg: how would a penalty points system work for USPS, given what we know of the history of the peloton as revealed by the USADA evidence?

Whilst still thinking that Pinotti had the big picture in mind, and we seem to getting into the weeds a bit here - this is a good point.
re:
1. I agree. Let's just say you need 100 points. You've got a team with 30 riders. So, you have a scale of need to get to 100 - from 3.31 points per rider, up to 100 points from one rider. If you are a small team, with fewer top-echelon riders, like say, FDJ, you probably want to aim for 3.31 points per rider, and taking only 10 or 15 leaves your *** hanging in the wind.

I also agree that putting the points toward the TEAM would be a better solution than what we have. It would not stop all the problems - but it would stop the silliness like Fuglsang went through this year.

I don't know enough about WHY they put the points system in place to begin with, but it seems like a stupid system to me. I might not agree if I knew the original "why".

2. Penalties for doping being applied to the team - outside of the fact that this could be a logistical nightmare - (who the heck would get the USPostal points? ) - this does make some sense. But to do this, would also probably be a political hot potato - I think most or many of the teams would object. Loudly. I'm not sure it would accomplish the desired goal, either. You could just end up with DS's being more "I don't want to know, don't tell me, and DON'T get caught" than they are now.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No thread on this so far so here goes:

Pinotti makes the obvious statement that the penalties for doping must be more severe than the potential benefit. He also highlights the current points system as an issue.

Riders who themselves aggregate few points as they are riding int he service of team mates start to succumb to the WT points frenzy as contract renewal time approaches.

Some of my thoughts:

Suggestion 1: Only consider WT points for license renewals from a maximum of ten or fifteen riders from each team. This reduces the pressure to have all riders achieving points and restores the value of pointless domestiques.

It would change the dynamics of the contract renewals and marketability of riders, reducing the pressure to succumb to doping. It is also very easy to implement.

2. A penalty points system for teams based on doping infractions. DS/support staff all count.

Hate to be the one to break this - but the current World tour selection process actually does that.
It takes the points from the top 12 riders signed for the following year.

While the selection and points process is a separate issue - I agree that it could be tied in better and made on mainly ethical or anti-doping issues, not on race result performance which could tie in nicely to your second point as a way to punish naughty teams.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

From the Gazetta article, Pinotti also suggested that heavy economic sanctions taken against dopers will serve to finance (in part) the cost of testing.

IMO the costs of testing needs to come under severe scrutiny. Particularly given the gig was handed to LAD without tender or question.

From 2008 / 9 the contribution from pro teams towards ABP has not changed, but the number of tests is less than half - more like 1/3.

So where's the money going?

And if an XT-2000i costs $100k, why does it cost a team more than $100k to do their share of tests in a season (~100 tests)?

Something about the testing costs does not smell right.

(TBC)

 

[Tinman]

Great discussion, great thread, but I am missing the big picture.

Here we have 5 major European newspapers that cover cycling, coming out with THEIR view of how the sport should be run.

For the first time we see a strong ownership of HOW the sport should be run by a significant alliance of major mass market media... Not just another doping scandal, not what is wrong with UCI, but HOW TO FIX IT COMPREHENSIVELY!

The details can be worked out. They key issue is that there needs to be mass media pressure on UCI on how to fix cycling, not just a change in leadership (although also required). And the media is now onto it, not just a few journo's, but a media alliance.

And that is what we need. And guess what will happen if UCI drags the chain, the media will keep at them. They are invested in the solution now...

 

[sashimono]

Cleaning up cycling is impossible. Even if you restricted entry solely to newborn infants, all the crack babies would win.

 

[Krebs cycle]

2. A penalty points system for teams based on doping infractions. DS/support staff all count.

This is a no cost option and it is something that has great potential to make life a lot more difficult for dopers.

Any governing body (whether it be the UCI or some new independent sanctioning body that the UCI is answerable to) needs to strictly implement penalties for doping control tests that are missed, obstructed, delayed or hindered in any way. By the sounds of things, Armstrong was allowed to get away with this over and over and who knows how many others have also. If you can beat the doping controls simply by pretending you're not home (when you are supposed to be under the athlete whereabouts system) then the entire system fails. Every missed or delayed test should be recorded and points accrued in each case. Eventually they add up and a ban gets imposed.