Pat McQuaid's take on the Valverde verdict

[thehog]

Agreed. Bravo. Very good. Email to Broomwagon in CycleSport magazine. They will print this.

 

[Animal]

i come from the sport of rowing where there is a life ban for positive drug tests. this means rowing is one of the cleanest sports out there (although not totally clean i suspect), still, its a damn sight better than cycling in that regard.

Life bans for doping...lets see how that would change the speed of the peloton...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's also mainly amateur isn't it?

The very top rowers no doubt have sponsors, but it's not like cycling.

Cycling is basically a travelling billboard. (Just go and see The Tour in person for proof of that!). It's all about advertising money.

 

[delbified]

i'm in favour of life bans. it's embarrassing and makes me angry to see dopers back in the peloton. but let's not kid ourselves that it would stop doping. dopers believe they need to dope to win and that they won't be caught. frankly, there is a lot of evidence to support that theory. a survey of olympic athletes revealed that most would give their lives for a gold medal. this is the prevailing mindset, for many competitors doping is just one more in a long line of hurdles to winning.

 

[fatandfast]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's also mainly amateur isn't it?

The very top rowers no doubt have sponsors, but it's not like cycling.

Cycling is basically a travelling billboard. (Just go and see The Tour in person for proof of that!). It's all about advertising money.

McQuaid is nobody to comment on ethics. He made his choice to embrace the racists and their cash as a young man. If any cyclists breaks the rules they should be punished,first you have to establish some rules, rules that work for every pro regardless of where they are from. McQuaid's comments about a $100k that was given by Lance and now the fact that the UCI didn't inspect any bicycles for weight and safety after major races on the calender is plain dumb. Was there something wrong with allowing a guy to win pro races when others were suspended? Was it bad to take $100k and not have a press release if it was intended for cycling development or good will? Did a guy win a bicycle race using a motor? If Valverde is suspended he and McQuaid should leave on the same bus. McQuaid is the king of loose ends just what you need in a guy running the UCI or BP

 

[JA.Tri]

Dr M *applause*

It takes incredible strength of character for a young rider to resist the insidious charms of doping: these charms wrapped in the "goodwill" of :"hot" colleagues/opponents; DSs and Team Management. All this accompanied by the insincere oversight of a blase pathetic administration and other senior stakeholders.

So while cyclists are undoubtedly culpable their "sins", these are nothing compared with the egregious behaviour of those in "power".

Hence penalties for cyclists are important, but we (all stakeholders) need to ensure an environment that gives these guys/girls a reasonable chance of truly competing clean.

 

[Animal]

McQuaid is nobody to comment on ethics. He made his choice to embrace the racists and their cash as a young man. If any cyclists breaks the rules they should be punished,first you have to establish some rules, rules that work for every pro regardless of where they are from. McQuaid's comments about a $100k that was given by Lance and now the fact that the UCI didn't inspect any bicycles for weight and safety after major races on the calender is plain dumb. Was there something wrong with allowing a guy to win pro races when others were suspended? Was it bad to take $100k and not have a press release if it was intended for cycling development or good will? Did a guy win a bicycle race using a motor? If Valverde is suspended he and McQuaid should leave on the same bus. McQuaid is the king of loose ends just what you need in a guy running the UCI or BP

I'm confused as to why you quoted me above your post. Did you just click the wrong button?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

There used to be a gentlemen's agreement amongst the big teams that they wouldn't touch a rider coming off a ban for two years...

That was actually a UCI rule. Riders were banned for two years from racing at any sanctioned event worldwide. Then no ProTour team could sign them for two more years. This is why Hamilton ended up on Tinkof for example after his two year ban. This rule was also enforced towards Roberto Heras, though there are strong hints even UCI Continental teams were discourage from signing him, effectively blackballing him from the sport (he's not the only one though).

The rule started to get broken when the schism formed between the UCI and AFLD making the ProTour null. Though it has re-strengthened, the two-year ban from PT teams was ignored, and continues to be ignored. It may no longer be a rule for all I know.

As far as punishment, it isn't the severity of punishment that's a deterrent nearly as much as the certainty of it. If riders knew that there was a 98% chance of being caught when doping, they wouldn't dope. You can give instant lifetime bans, but if there's only a 10% chance of being caught - or as Bernard Kohl pointed out how he was tested the same day he doped and still didn't get caught - the length of the ban is pointless.

Also agree with Martin that there desperately needs to be some sort of whistle-blower and amnesty program for caught cyclists. It's the system of doping, including the doctors, that need to be taken down just as much as the riders.