Pondering Solutions

[Lord Bovine]

I don't understand a lot of things. SO forgive my ignorance and what not. It seems to be that a company that wants to sponsor a team also wants results. Why be satisfied with punishing a rider that cheats when the pressure behind that stays in place? If you manufacture bikes and supply them to a team and a rider is caught cheating, perhaps your company should be prohibited from sponsoring any team for the duration of the rider's punishment. And if you supply to more than one team, well, you lose that right as well.

 

[scribe]

That's like suspending Dairy Queen from doing business because one of their employees got caught smoking the el Pot-o out by the garbage bins.

 

[Lord Bovine]

Not exactly. Has Dairy Queen been pressuring this guy to provide world class results in any way shape or form? Do they pay him mega bucks to do what he does? A better class from that line of reasoning would be Mike Phelps. How many companies dumped him after his picture with the bong was posted?

 

[scribe]

What do you mean? That chronic enables him to make the best damn banana split ever seen!

 

[hrotha]

That'd be a good way to make all the sponsors go away.

There should definitely be a way to go after the DS's, but even then it's hard to prove anything as long as omerta stands, and ultimately the rider is responsible for what they take.

 

[Altitude]

Yeah those bike manufacturers are trouble. Each rider should have to build their bikes by hand.

 

[SaftyCyclist]

I don't understand a lot of things. SO forgive my ignorance and what not. It seems to be that a company that wants to sponsor a team also wants results. Why be satisfied with punishing a rider that cheats when the pressure behind that stays in place? If you manufacture bikes and supply them to a team and a rider is caught cheating, perhaps your company should be prohibited from sponsoring any team for the duration of the rider's punishment. And if you supply to more than one team, well, you lose that right as well.

Can't work in a commercial based sport. Imagine I start a bike company and to push my new brand, I supply bikes to a low level Continental bike team. I have little of no knowledge of the riders involved but the DS says everybody's clean, turns out they're not, is this my fault as a sponsor? It can't work and just chases sponsors out of the sport, a high level brand demanding results is another matter, but it's another case of needing proof that this is the case once again, very hard to prove.

 

[Lord Bovine]

If, as a rider, you are responsible for everything you put into your body, then, yes, as a sponsor you are responsible for the team. Weaseling out of responsibility is what perpetuates the problem. And I am not just referring to bike manufacturers but everyone that has their logo on the jersey.

 

[fatandfast]

I don't understand a lot of things. SO forgive my ignorance and what not. It seems to be that a company that wants to sponsor a team also wants results. Why be satisfied with punishing a rider that cheats when the pressure behind that stays in place? If you manufacture bikes and supply them to a team and a rider is caught cheating, perhaps your company should be prohibited from sponsoring any team for the duration of the rider's punishment. And if you supply to more than one team, well, you lose that right as well.

take your thought a couple of steps further..first the usual suspects. Campy,Shimano and SRAM..you are out for a couple of years. You guys that make gasoline,steel,oil,flooring,shoes you have to go also..Sure the bike people will return because there is no cross market for seat posts,headsets or pedals..Everybody else will stay gone forever..maybe to return in F1 or the boards at the base of the pitch.

 

[Altitude]

If, as a rider, you are responsible for everything you put into your body, then, yes, as a sponsor you are responsible for the team. Weaseling out of responsibility is what perpetuates the problem. And I am not just referring to bike manufacturers but everyone that has their logo on the jersey.

You mean those sponsers who are the reason cycling exists as a professional sport in the first place? Yeah-- I heard Radioshack will be closed for 2 years following the ongoing Armstrong investigation.

That would be good-- a sponser assumes an insane risk when choosing to fund a cycling team. A rider tests + and they're out of business. Cycling would be dead before you could say "contaminated meat".

 

[brianf7]

Yeah those bike manufacturers are trouble. Each rider should have to build their bikes by hand.

the team mechanic's job is hard enough now imagin sorting out jerry built wheels after all have gone to bed.

 

[Lord Bovine]

Thank you one and all for helping me to understand a complex problem. I don't think anyone would go out of business because their advertising budget is blown. If that is the case their priorities are all out of whack and I wouldn't give them long anyway. If a rider has signed a contract saying he won't dope but does anyway, then each and every sponsor would have legal recourse against said rider. I'd like a clean sport. What other ideas are out there?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Thank you one and all for helping me to understand a complex problem. I don't think anyone would go out of business because their advertising budget is blown. If that is the case their priorities are all out of whack and I wouldn't give them long anyway. If a rider has signed a contract saying he won't dope but does anyway, then each and every sponsor would have legal recourse against said rider. I'd like a clean sport. What other ideas are out there?

Sorta like this?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/schumacher-to-face-fraud-charges

 

[LanceInMyPants]

The world of work is an unfair twisted world of exploitation. The bosses at my last 2 jobs demanded that I break the law to get the job done. If I got caught, I would pay the price. When I confronted them about this they said, "We're not telling you to break the law, but...."

Meaning you get the job done or else. Same thing in cycling.

Pro cycling is just a job to most of these guys. And in the workplace the bossman has most of the power. A good deal of the pressure to systematically dope comes from the corporations that sponsor the riders. I don't mean the maunufacturer's of components and frames. What I'm talking about is the company whose name is on the jersey. Only a fool would believe otherwise.

The thing is corporations cover their asses legally so they never have to pay for the consequences of their actions. Or the consequences of the actions of their employees.

The surest way to clean up doping in any sport would be to hold the corporations responsible for the behavior of their employees. Never gonna happen. Not in the capitalist system as we know it.

I'm not excusing dopers BTW. If the choice is dope and race or not dope and finish off the back maybe it's time to find a new career.

 

[samerics]

The world of work is an unfair twisted world of exploitation. The bosses at my last 2 jobs demanded that I break the law to get the job done. If I got caught, I would pay the price. When I confronted them about this they said, "We're not telling you to break the law, but...."

Meaning you get the job done or else. Same thing in cycling.

Pro cycling is just a job to most of these guys. And in the workplace the bossman has most of the power. A good deal of the pressure to systematically dope comes from the corporations that sponsor the riders. I don't mean the maunufacturer's of components and frames. What I'm talking about is the company whose name is on the jersey. Only a fool would believe otherwise.

The thing is corporations cover their asses legally so they never have to pay for the consequences of their actions. Or the consequences of the actions of their employees.

The surest way to clean up doping in any sport would be to hold the corporations responsible for the behavior of their employees. Never gonna happen. Not in the capitalist system as we know it.

I'm not excusing dopers BTW. If the choice is dope and race or not dope and finish off the back maybe it's time to find a new career.

Great post.

 

[scribe]

Sorta like this?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/schumacher-to-face-fraud-charges

Problem with that, it opens the doors to scurrilous lawsuits. Imagine a company's motivation to not pay a rider several million dollars in bonuses, when they didn't even test positive in a control. That one has happened....

 

[Stephen_M]

Problem with that, it opens the doors to scurrilous lawsuits. Imagine a company's motivation to not pay a rider several million dollars in bonuses, when they didn't even test positive in a control. That one has happened....

Wow, are you saying that Tailwind's lawsuit against SCA was scurrilous? I'm shocked! Next I'll be hearing that witch-hunt was a waste of tax payers dollars and it's far better to let sleeping dogs lie...

 

[scribe]

Wow, are you saying that Tailwind's lawsuit against SCA was scurrilous? I'm shocked! Next I'll be hearing that witch-hunt was a waste of tax payers dollars and it's far better to let sleeping dogs lie...

Go ahead and create whatever you want to hear. But a poorly defined anti-doping clause in a contract is bad business for a top level professional cyclist.............(insert additional wording between the lines as you see fit)

 

[Stephen_M]

Go ahead and create whatever you want to hear. But a poorly defined anti-doping clause in a contract is bad business for a top level professional cyclist.............(insert additional wording between the lines as you see fit)

I thought I was reading too? Clearly, I live and learn!!

Not sure I follow you though - the case you were clearly referring to didn't have any clauses about doping, badly written or not. Badly written clauses are bad business for team, sponsors and athletes (whether top-level or completely mediocre).

Just some observation around the OP - since them mid-80s teams are companies which employ the riders. Sponsors pay the team to buy advertising space on jerseys and any other commitments they agree to put in the deal. Banning sponsors from the sport doesn't make any sense - you might as well ban the fans who put 'unreasonable demands' on their heroes.
The decisions made by athletes to use PEDs are far more complex than just an endless pursuit of fame or money. I would wager there are more cyclists who dope to try and hold a place on a team, than there are guys who dope because their sponsor wants to see some big wins.