MCquaid wants more lenient penalties for lighter drugs

Should lesser drugs have lesser penalties?

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
No, as long as the tests aren't reliable enough to catch most cheaters. Just because you were caught with a "minor" substance that doesn't mean you weren't following a full program. Actually, it's likely you were. That's what we learned from Manzano, Landis, Jaksche and Kohl, among others.
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
MCquaid wants more lenient penalties for lighter drugs. I personally think this is stupid. 6 to nine month penalties? Is this guy crazy?


Should there should be a lesser penalty lesser drugs? WE must all remember that the riders who dope knowingly make the descision that what they are doing is against the rules



http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-says-there-will-be-no-contador-verdict-until-2011
Well, I can understand for cases of strict liability if rides can show they did not take the drugs willingly that there should be leniency.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
auscyclefan94 said:
MCquaid wants more lenient penalties for lighter drugs. I personally think this is stupid. 6 to nine month penalties? Is this guy crazy?


Should there should be a lesser penalty lesser drugs? WE must all remember that the riders who dope knowingly make the decision that what they are doing is against the rules.



http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-says-there-will-be-no-contador-verdict-until-2011
I have to take issue with 2 things that you wrote:
I am going to flip around your opening sentence - McQuaid wants harsher penalties for heavier drugs......would you disagree with that viewpoint?

Yes, while "all riders who dope knowingly make that decision".... not all people who get caught meant to dope, I'll yet again give the example of the 18yo with asthma who takes an extra puff on their inhaler and exceeds their TUE.


I do think different substances should have different penalties.
2 years appear to be the default sanction - yet there is a massive difference between the 18yo taking the extra pull on an inhaler and an athlete flying off to the Canaries having their blood extracted as part of a sophisticated doping regime.

But, to clarify, it should be restricted to very very few substances - and the minimum ban should be a year.
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
mcquaid "spinning" out of control

Barrus said:
Well, I can understand for cases of strict liability if rides can show they did not take the drugs willingly that there should be leniency.
mostly agree but that's already protocol. 2 yrs possibly reduced to 1 works fine.

i AM for lengthier bans for more powerful drugs/methods. ironically, the contador situation, because clenbuterol seems* to show up out of nowhere, is very suggestive of a more serious infraction like a transfusion (the equivalent of EPO). mcquaid would probably do better to keep his mouth shut.


*obviously incomplete information on all of AC's controls/values at this point but i think we all know what was happening ;)
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
on3m@n@rmy said:
Besides more lenient for lesser drugs, Paddy has proposed a 4-year ban for EPO. I could probably go either way on the lesser drug idea, but am definately in favor of longer bans (for some drugs at least, and maybe all).
Only problem with Pats statement is he has been saying this for the last 3 years and has done nothing.

UCI to introduce 4 year bans in 2009 - CN October 2008:
Currently the world anti-doping code gives a maximum two-year sanction in the case of a positive test. From the first of January there is a bit more flexibility in it, and we can go up to a four year ban in the cases of something regarded as willful cheating.

"In these cases [Kohl and Schumacher], considering that these guys were given the product and then went and took it for the Tour de France, it would be very much classified as willful cheating. Next year a rider in that position would face a four year ban".
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Fat Pat really needs to get his story straight

“At the end of August, along with WADA, we gave Contador the chance to explain himself. Twenty-four hours later, he told us this story of the contaminated meat.
Contador says the UCI told him that this looked like a clear cut case of food contamination. Then they told him not to say anything so they could take care of it.
 
May 20, 2010
38
0
0
Let's say they decide a 6-9 month ban for clen, for example. Will that make it more or less likely that a larger percentage of the peloton will load up on clen? My opinion is that lots of riders will decide that it is worth the risk and load up on a full spectrum of the lower penalty drugs, especially in the off season, when they can lose weight, increase recovery for better training effect, etc.

And who decides what the "lesser" drugs are? How is the determination made? Is it the drugs that are less harmful to riders, or the drugs that increase performance less? Isn't it true that for one person a particular drug may give little benefit, while in another person it could be significant?

I see this as yet another sign that McQuaid needs to go.
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
the interesting thing about this article is that mcquaid addresses the two most important issues facing the sport. globalization and doping. CN/mcquaid, probably not accidently, have joined the two ideas that are at odds with one another. in short, a lack of credibility is getting in the way of the money grab. he fails to cover up his soft stance on doping just as he fails to cover up his real motivations for globalization.

does anyone with half a brain believe his "hard on dopers" stance. the very next minute he tries to explain away special treatment of AC and prepare everyone for a reduced sanction? :rolleyes:

does anyone with half a brain really see the olympics as extemely important to the long term success of pro-cycling? the olympic RR isn't half as prestigious as a paris-roubaix or a ronde win that happens annually. mcquaid has loyalties and wants to globalize to make $$$$$ and not p!ss off his contacts at the IOC who could have him replaced by lunch time, end of story.

he needs to get serious and be consitstent on anti-doping to restore credibility. you restore credibility and it is easier to market the sport to new sponsors in non-traditional cycling continents. the constant spinning and double-talk is getting in his own way. he appears too stupid to even satisfy his own greed.
 
lean said:
i AM for lengthier bans for more powerful drugs/methods. ironically, the contador situation, because clenbuterol seems* to show up out of nowhere, is very suggestive of a more serious infraction like a transfusion (the equivalent of EPO).

*obviously incomplete information on all of AC's controls/values at this point but i think we all know what was happening.
You can't have this. "Well, he tested for this or that, and as we all know it's indicative of something else. Therefore, off with his head".

The conjectures that have been made between the correlation of this tiny amount of clen and massive blood doping may make sense hypothetically, but in the real world it would have to be proven scientifically.

This isn't a real "Clinic" by the way. There are no doctors or scientists here performing the necessary tests and experiments so that this stuff can be sorted out.

Here, there is nothing but virtual conjecture.

I am so sick and tired of reading the same garbage over and over again, you guys with your 4-year and lifetime bans for first-time offenders. I believe none of you are equipped, even if you had all the resources at hand, to figure out the doping issue in cycling. Which is why the same nonsense gets repeated over and over again. People who are clueless should stay on the sidelines and let others who actually know come up with solutions.

Here's a hint at where I'm going-Jan Ullrich and Alejandro Valverde were hounded virtually out of the sport though they never tested positive. Yet the very doctor at the heart of the controversy not only skated on a technicality, he, 4 years later, get busted AGAIN for doing the same exact thing he was accused of in Operation Puerto!!!

Yes, you anti-doping crusaders-keep going after the riders while the organized doping apparatus remains virtually untouched. Brilliant strategy.

How about this? How about a lifetime ban for riders AND their children?

How about sanctioning the riders' parents for bringing these doped riders into the world?
 
If the punishment is to somehow be scaled against the severity of the doping crime, then *any* doping in the Tour should not only be a lifetime ban but a criminal act as well.

If Patty wants to support that, then I will listen to him.

Otherwise, this is just grandstanding to let AC off with a weekend's worth of community service.

Dave.
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
Berzin said:
You can't have this. "Well, he tested for this or that, and as we all know it's indicative of something else. Therefore, off with his head".

The conjectures that have been made between the correlation of this tiny amount of clen and massive blood doping may make sense hypothetically, but in the real world it would have to be proven scientifically.

This isn't a real "Clinic" by the way. There are no doctors or scientists here performing the necessary tests and experiments so that this stuff can be sorted out.

Here, there is nothing but virtual conjecture.

I am so sick and tired of reading the same garbage over and over again, you guys with your 4-year and lifetime bans for first-time offenders. I believe none of you are equipped, even if you had all the resources at hand, to figure out the doping issue in cycling. Which is why the same nonsense gets repeated over and over again. People who are clueless should stay on the sidelines and let others who actually know come up with solutions.

Here's a hint at where I'm going-Jan Ullrich and Alejandro Valverde were hounded virtually out of the sport though they never tested positive. Yet the very doctor at the heart of the controversy not only skated on a technicality, he, 4 years later, get busted AGAIN for doing the same exact thing he was accused of in Operation Puerto!!!

Yes, you anti-doping crusaders-keep going after the riders while the organized doping apparatus remains virtually untouched. Brilliant strategy.

How about this? How about a lifetime ban for riders AND their children?

How about sanctioning the riders' parents for bringing these doped riders into the world?
it was made pretty clear that my statement was conjecture. sadly, you missed the entire point of the post of which contador was only a small part.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
lean said:
the interesting thing about this article is that mcquaid addresses the two most important issues facing the sport. globalization and doping. CN/mcquaid, probably not accidently, have joined the two ideas that are at odds with one another. in short, a lack of credibility is getting in the way of the money grab. he fails to cover up his soft stance on doping just as he fails to cover up his real motivations for globalization.
Bingo. McQuaid wants the UCI to be like F-1 (or NASCAR). He needs the IOC to help introduce him to the strategic media contacts, and he needs to learn from them on how to cut such deals.

McQuaid and his pals have the sport held hostage. Sorta like The Crying Game
 
Berzin said:
I am so sick and tired of reading the same garbage over and over again, you guys with your 4-year and lifetime bans for first-time offenders.
We share the same frustration. I think a number of the regulars here have had the same frustrations, but are further along. IMHO blasting away at the less sophisticated readers is *not* a good strategy.

Part of changing opinion is retelling an argument (good or bad!) ad nauseum. Anyone invested in altering opinions is aware of this.

When there's yet another doping apologist thread variation posted, the work of breaking down the recycled argument into it's flawed parts is an important, but repetitive, task.

When there is a thread like this one, where the doping is wrongly portrayed as rider-specific, it's important to recycle the reasonable conclusions. For example, Pat and Hein are complicit as are the suppliers they knowingly enable with their doping policies and practices. (Contrasting recent clen positives are an excellent example.)

A few athletes will always gladly cheat for the win regardless of the sport. In cycling, Pat and Hein obviously enable the doping *way* beyond what a determined athlete would ever do.
 
Berzin said:
...

Here's a hint at where I'm going-Jan Ullrich and Alejandro Valverde were hounded virtually out of the sport though they never tested positive. Yet the very doctor at the heart of the controversy not only skated on a technicality, he, 4 years later, get busted AGAIN for doing the same exact thing he was accused of in Operation Puerto!!!

...
That Fuentes was allowed to walk, without even having to defend himself in court, underscores what is wrong here. No argument.

With respect to Valverde, however, he was matched to blood containing EPO - through a legal, rather than an ADA, action. Meanwhile, while he was clearly an OP client, he was out racing wherever he felt like (at one point in time, riders under suspicion/official investigation were not allowed to race).

His offense was thus flagrant and he should be toast.

Dave.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
The sooner we all realize that we're all playing ball in "McQuaid's UCI" the sooner we can figure-out a way to best deal with it.
 
D-Queued said:
With respect to Valverde, however, he was matched to blood containing EPO - through a legal, rather than an ADA, action. Meanwhile, while he was clearly an OP client, he was out racing wherever he felt like (at one point in time, riders under suspicion/official investigation were not allowed to race).

His offense was thus flagrant and he should be toast.
This is what is unfair about the Valverde case. With Operation Puerto, I don't understand how authorities from another country are allowed to remove evidence from a case that wasn't even brought to trial.

So of all the athletes who were clients, what was revealed? A grand total of three that received sanctions? The rest were nicknames and names of dogs? And Valverde gets sanctioned because somehow the Italians got their hands on evidence that authorities from other countries were no able to investigate?

The other thing that I find disturbing is the whole "attempting to dope" situation. I don't understand it. If your initials were found on a blood bag, you are under suspicion. But if you made payments to Dr. Fuentes like Schleck did, no problem?

Either investigate everyone involved or leave it alone. If the Italian authorities had busted one of their own riders, that would make more sense to me. But Valverde? Was his the only evidence they were able to gather before the Spanish authorities slammed the door in their face? How did this happen?

I hope you understand my points here. It just seems haphazard and arbitrary the way justice was meted out. And also the fact that Pat McQuaid has a tendency to single certain riders out when he should in fact remain impartial.

The whole thing stinks.
 
Berzin said:
...

I hope you understand my points here. It just seems haphazard and arbitrary the way justice was meted out. And also the fact that Pat McQuaid has a tendency to single certain riders out when he should in fact remain impartial.

The whole thing stinks.
Agreed.

Dave.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Berzin said:
I hope you understand my points here. It just seems haphazard and arbitrary the way justice was meted out. And also the fact that Pat McQuaid has a tendency to single certain riders out when he should in fact remain impartial.

The whole thing stinks.
Time to re-calibrate our McQuaid Meters. MARK!

 
BotanyBay said:
Bingo. McQuaid wants the UCI to be like F-1 (or NASCAR). He needs the IOC to help introduce him to the strategic media contacts, and he needs to learn from them on how to cut such deals.

McQuaid and his pals have the sport held hostage. Sorta like The Crying Game
The point is, though, they don't.

McQuaid wants the UCI to be like the FIA. Unfortunately for him, he is envisioning an F1 scenario, but cycling is in reality more like sportscar racing than F1. There are several different contingent series, but ultimately the FIA's GT rules are dependent almost entirely on the ACO's GT rules, because the ACO runs the 24h du Mans, and without the 24h du Mans, the sportscar calendar is pretty meaningless. There are other elite events, such as the 12h of Sebring (which is run to ACO rules) and the Grand-Am 24 Hours of Daytona (which is run with separate cars entirely and is entirely independent of the FIA). But everybody is trying to race at Le Mans, and because of that, the Automobil Club de l'Ouest hold all the cards.

Patty's trying to manoeuvre everything into his favour because ultimately, if Zomegnan and Prudhomme ally together, his weakness is there for all to see.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS