MPCC calls for teams to be punished in doping cases

[Roland Rat]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mpcc-calls-for-teams-to-be-punished-in-doping-cases

I wasn't aware that the MPCC (Movement for Credible Cycling - presumably in French the "Mouvement pour un Cyclisme Crédible"?) even existed. It comprises Ag2r-La Mondiale, Bretagne-Schuller, Cofidis, Europcar, FDJ, Garmin-Cervélo and Skil-Shimano.

It's good to see the (some) teams getting together like this, and I think their proposals are good ones:

- the UCI to take positive doping cases into formal consideration when evaluating a team’s application for ProTeam status through a clear points system regarding doping cases be implemented in order to make the selection process more transparent.

- the UCI ranking points of a rider who has come back from a doping suspension should not be counted towards a team’s total during the first two seasons of his return to competition.

- heavier sanctions for riders themselves when they test positive for what it terms as “heavy” doping techniques. In the case of positive tests for products and practices such as EPO, growth hormone and blood transfusions, the movement would like the current two-year ban to be increased to four.

Can't fault any of those.

Good on those teams for getting together and pushing for changes to be made, and it's good to see some tangible action from Vaughters for a change. It's also interesting to note the teams involved, and perhaps some teams not involved, however.

 

[Chuffy]

Yup. I agree. Shifting some of the responsibility directly onto teams should have a big impact in the culture. Four year bans also good.

I'd never heard of the MPCC either (and wondered what the P stood for) so perhaps it's relatively new - would be nice to see more teams joining it if this is the kind of attitude they have.

EDIT - JV ref removed. No point risking a scrap on a sensible thread.

 

[Anonymous]

An idea who's time has come.

 

[Cloxxki]

Except, this hits mostly second tier teams and riders. Top teams and riders get away with much most PE before getting caught.
With longer bans involved, even more political and financial power will be put forth by top dopers.

Doesn't take away from these being necessary changes of course. The Protour may become a quiet place, though.

 

[JPM London]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mpcc-calls-for-teams-to-be-punished-in-doping-cases

I wasn't aware that the MPCC (Movement for Credible Cycling - presumably in French the "Mouvement pour un Cyclisme Crédible"?) even existed. It comprises Ag2r-La Mondiale, Bretagne-Schuller, Cofidis, Europcar, FDJ, Garmin-Cervélo and Skil-Shimano.

It's good to see the (some) teams getting together like this, and I think their proposals are good ones:


Can't fault any of those.

Good on those teams for getting together and pushing for changes to be made, and it's good to see some tangible action from Vaughters for a change. It's also interesting to note the teams involved, and perhaps some teams not involved, however.

I like the bolded part - as this initiative has been going on for some years now, it's not like Vaughters is suddenly doing something "for a change", he's actually consistently involved and in a non-PR fashion (or you would no doubt have heard about it and he berated for it being another media stunt).

I'm also curious to those teams not involved - apparently it's not straightforward to become a member, not like just signing up. I think they have quite strict guidelines - remember the corticoids thing in the tour a few years ago? They were the teams going public with the fact that none of their riders had TUE's for those and suggested that any corticoid treated rider in general should have a 15 day non-compete period after being given the drug.

Anyway, also very curious to who's not in there - I note both Slipstream and Columbia are, but not Saxo. Those three teams instigated the whole passport idea, so would have expected them all to be part. Maybe a bit disappointed Saxo's apparently not involved...

 

[bianchigirl]

MPCC were formed at the start of the TdF in London in 2007 http://mpcc.unblog.fr/

I knew a group of French teams kick started it but wasn't aware Garmin Whoever were a part - there's no doubt that gives MPCC more clout

 

[Roland Rat]

I like the bolded part - as this initiative has been going on for some years now, it's not like Vaughters is suddenly doing something "for a change", he's actually consistently involved and in a non-PR fashion (or you would no doubt have heard about it and he berated for it being another media stunt).

The "for a change" was directed at the "tangible" bit, because as far as I know this is the first time he is publically demonstrated to be doing something in relation to the sport as a whole, rather than internal team stuff or wishy-washy undefined statements about trying to make changes from within.

Anyway, also very curious to who's not in there - I note both Slipstream and Columbia are, but not Saxo. Those three teams instigated the whole passport idea, so would have expected them all to be part. Maybe a bit disappointed Saxo's apparently not involved...

Highroad were a member in 2007 (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mpcc-adds-a-member), but aren't any longer. Nor are Rabobank.

 

[Anonymous]

These rules would have had Vascansoleil (among others) making different off-season decisions.

I can imagine the UCI fighting this though.

 

[Roland Rat]

I'm also curious to those teams not involved - apparently it's not straightforward to become a member, not like just signing up. I think they have quite strict guidelines - remember the corticoids thing in the tour a few years ago? They were the teams going public with the fact that none of their riders had TUE's for those and suggested that any corticoid treated rider in general should have a 15 day non-compete period after being given the drug.

It seems a team applies, then undergo a kind of internship, and if they do well they're accepted:

The MPCC welcomes the candidacy of the Austrian team VOLKSBANK who want to join the MPCC. The team says VOLKSBANK share the philosophy of the movement and will adhere to all provisions of the ethical code which it has developed. In agreement with members of the association, VOLSBANK will initially be invited to the meetings and participate in the work of MPCC before joining permanently following a decision of the administration board

http://mpcc.unblog.fr/files/2008/04/communiqumpcc04042008.doc

This is interesting:

Further to its meeting of 13/10/2007, the MPCC:

- Took note of the decision of T-Mobile, a member of the association, to comply strictly with the ethical code and implement self-suspension following two positive controls in a period of 12 months.


http://mpcc.unblog.fr/files/2007/11/communiqumpcc16102007.doc

 

[bianchigirl]

I suppose the fact that the MPCC hasn't gained traction with more teams gives it more credibility - seems some teams know they wouldn't measure up

 

[ingsve]

MPCC is apparently led by Roger Legeay which I think is a very good thing for their credibility as well.

 

[ingsve]

It seems like in the past Gerolsteiner was a member of MPCC which doesn't speak in their favor. Gerolsteiner was definately one of the more suspicious teams with cases like Kohl, Rebellin, Schumacher. I've also found it interesting that the Fothen brothers after leaving Gerolsteiner for Milram never came back to the form they had at Gerolsteiner.

 

[frenchfry]

Except, this hits mostly second tier teams and riders. Top teams and riders get away with much most PE before getting caught.
With longer bans involved, even more political and financial power will be put forth by top dopers.

Doesn't take away from these being necessary changes of course. The Protour may become a quiet place, though.

Maybe this is the point of their action. Maybe they feel that they should be 1st tier if cycling was "credible".

 

[flyor64]

It seems like in the past Gerolsteiner was a member of MPCC which doesn't speak in their favor. Gerolsteiner was definately one of the more suspicious teams with cases like Kohl, Rebellin, Schumacher. I've also found it interesting that the Fothen brothers after leaving Gerolsteiner for Milram never came back to the form they had at Gerolsteiner.

Still it's possible that they really were juicing outside of the team's knowledge...and that the team really was caught unawares. I mean they tried get Schumacher on fraud and the Holczer has said it was abackwards step in the fight against doping that the charges were dropped.

ETA I'm only highlighting this as a possibility the team was genuine in their intentions and membership...an alternative to the possibility that they were indeed complicit while a member.

 

[Boeing]

Would that include fines to the main sponsors?

 

[D-Queued]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mpcc-calls-for-teams-to-be-punished-in-doping-cases

I wasn't aware that the MPCC (Movement for Credible Cycling - presumably in French the "Mouvement pour un Cyclisme Crédible"?) even existed. It comprises Ag2r-La Mondiale, Bretagne-Schuller, Cofidis, Europcar, FDJ, Garmin-Cervélo and Skil-Shimano.

It's good to see the (some) teams getting together like this, and I think their proposals are good ones:

- the UCI to take positive doping cases into formal consideration when evaluating a team’s application for ProTeam status through a clear points system regarding doping cases be implemented in order to make the selection process more transparent.

- the UCI ranking points of a rider who has come back from a doping suspension should not be counted towards a team’s total during the first two seasons of his return to competition.

- heavier sanctions for riders themselves when they test positive for what it terms as “heavy” doping techniques. In the case of positive tests for products and practices such as EPO, growth hormone and blood transfusions, the movement would like the current two-year ban to be increased to four.

Can't fault any of those.

Good on those teams for getting together and pushing for changes to be made, and it's good to see some tangible action from Vaughters for a change. It's also interesting to note the teams involved, and perhaps some teams not involved, however.

I cannot fault any of those propositions either. But I do not think this is much, if any, real punishment for teams.

Point #3 was already supposed to be part of the Pro Tour agreement (i.e. a double ban) for any doping offense. It only ever was applied in one case.

Points #1 & #2 are motivated by a desire to keep marginal teams out. This was precipitated by the case of Valv.piti (pretty sure it was valv-piti - maybe someone else) whose individual UCI point count dominated the selection process.

We are still a LONG way away from any team accountability.

There is nothing in there about penalties for encouragement to use specific doctors, filling the car trunk or private jet full of pharmaceuticals, clinics in Madrid, parking your Ferrari at a nearby hotel, coordinated garbage disposal, etc.

It shouldn't be radical to suggest that the DS get a lifetime ban if more than two riders are caught doping, and huge financial penalties for any AAF. All riders should be fined for more than two cases on the team (though that would also engourage higher degree of caution when doping), and the team automatically given 0 Pro Tour points with three or more cases. Whistleblowers should get extra points.

Dave.

 

[BotanyBay]

Gomer Pyle Effect

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12623

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I cannot fault any of those propositions either. But I do not think this is much, if any, real punishment for teams.

Point #3 was already supposed to be part of the Pro Tour agreement (i.e. a double ban) for any doping offense. It only ever was applied in one case.

Points #1 & #2 are motivated by a desire to keep marginal teams out. This was precipitated by the case of Valv.piti (pretty sure it was valv-piti - maybe someone else) whose individual UCI point count dominated the selection process.

We are still a LONG way away from any team accountability.

There is nothing in there about penalties for encouragement to use specific doctors, filling the car trunk or private jet full of pharmaceuticals, clinics in Madrid, parking your Ferrari at a nearby hotel, coordinated garbage disposal, etc.

It shouldn't be radical to suggest that the DS get a lifetime ban if more than two riders are caught doping, and huge financial penalties for any AAF. All riders should be fined for more than two cases on the team (though that would also engourage higher degree of caution when doping), and the team automatically given 0 Pro Tour points with three or more cases. Whistleblowers should get extra points.

Dave.

I disagree on your interpretation on points #1 & #2.
Cofidis & Europcar (formerly BBox) were originally part of the ProTour - they both had complied with the ethical & financial parts - yet both who got shafted for no apparent reason.
The teams are - quite rightly - looking for a transparent system for entry in to the 'WorldTour'.

My own (partial) proposal is scrap individual points but put them towards the team - but also 'fine' teams points for any type of doping violation.

 

[ElChingon]

Point number 2 will never make it. No team will sign an ex-doper and it will continue to push the black list making any two year ban really a four year ban.

Why not add a rule to not allow a team to have a DS who was on a Dot-Connected-Doping team? Or a known ex-doper can't be a DS? Makes more sense to me.

 

[Barrus]

There is one significant problem that I have with this suggestion, what if the team management did not have any knowledge of the doping. How can you punish the team for a personal transgression by one of their riders when the team themselves act in any possible way to prevent doping.
Now, it might be difficult for such a situation to truly come into being, but how can you fault the team in such a situation. Unless someone in management, the medical staff or something like that is involved, how can you lay the blame with the team?

 

[JPM London]

There is one significant problem that I have with this suggestion, what if the team management did not have any knowledge of the doping. How can you punish the team for a personal transgression by one of their riders when the team themselves act in any possible way to prevent doping.
Now, it might be difficult for such a situation to truly come into being, but how can you fault the team in such a situation. Unless someone in management, the medical staff or something like that is involved, how can you lay the blame with the team?

Sometimes it strengthens your effort if you have something to lose as well. I like it - it's a bit like workplace safety in some countries where, in case of an accident, the employer is fully liable - not the employee - even if the employee is breaking health and safety rules. Basically it's the employers responsibility to make sure their employees follow the H&S regulations...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There is one significant problem that I have with this suggestion, what if the team management did not have any knowledge of the doping. How can you punish the team for a personal transgression by one of their riders when the team themselves act in any possible way to prevent doping.
Now, it might be difficult for such a situation to truly come into being, but how can you fault the team in such a situation. Unless someone in management, the medical staff or something like that is involved, how can you lay the blame with the team?

Sorry Barrus - which suggestion do have a problem with?

To address the point you made - if a team suffers a penalty then they will be more selective in who they hire (both riders & staff).
I stated on a different thread* that team Doctors should be assigned to riders - if a rider goes positive their assigned team Doc is sacked - this makes the Doc (& the team) culpable.

*Edit - added in post from other thread.

The solution is to change the system so that it is not just the individual who gets punished.

All teams sign 'ethical' agreements to participate in the sport at the various levels (WorldTour, ProConti etc) - most teams ultimate goal is to get to the top level.

What should be included is:
All riders have a team Doctor assigned to them - any rider caught the Doc gets sacked and the Doc's licence in the sport withdrawn.
The team should be withdrawn from competition for a short period of time.
The team should be deducted points - which would put their position in the World Tour in jepordy.
Any team that has 3 positives in a 2 year period is gone - the DS has their licence revoked.
Any team found guilty of team wide doping have their licence revoked.

This means that teamates, the Doctors and DS's also have the desire to run a clean setup.

 

[Barrus]

Sorry Barrus - which suggestion do have a problem with?

That teams need to be punished if riders test positive

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

There is one significant problem that I have with this suggestion, what if the team management did not have any knowledge of the doping. How can you punish the team for a personal transgression by one of their riders when the team themselves act in any possible way to prevent doping.
Now, it might be difficult for such a situation to truly come into being, but how can you fault the team in such a situation. Unless someone in management, the medical staff or something like that is involved, how can you lay the blame with the team?

I view this as a significant step forward. We've already talked about how all the teams have entrenched medical staff and doctors. If they're not using these paid-for resources FOR doping, then they can use them AGAINST doping.

If they all have docs monitoring the health and optimum functioning of the team's investment, then this can be included in that sphere. Perhaps even more tightly under the fear of the team/sponsors getting a huge spanking.

I understand that this would be an additional expense, but that can be viewed as a 'tax' against doping (albeit, via the teams rather than the governing body - but we know where the UCI stands on taking the issue seriously).

I can only applaud this as a step in the right direction. Hopefully more teams will sign on (maybe under increased public pressure), and the organization will gain more traction and political power to force the UCI to get on-side.

I have no problem holding entire team structures to account.

 

[skippy]

Is this thread covering old ground once again ?

Just about every two years the french teams have banded together during TDF and announced they are going to act agaist doping !

Blogged about this during TDF in pau last year and suggested 4 year bans and ankle bracelets AND disqualification from working in ANY sports related occupation during their suspension !

Like the idea of the DS's being dealt with but don't think that the Sponsors should be hit as this will prevent any new sponsors coming forward because "Sh#t happens(murphy's law#1) "

Whoever thinks that getting Team Owners disqualified from the sport is on another planet but DS's that were dopers do create a credibility gap in my view .

Wonder what is going on with Voekler as he seems pretty motivated to get into the breaks in this Paris-Nice !