Punish the DSes?

[Caruut]

I have often thought that while some riders are clearly determined to cheat their way to the top, much of the blame for doping lies at the door of team management. To me, it would make far more sense to go after these guys than the riders.

If a team manager has 4 riders test positive under him in a career, he would be banned for two years and fined half his salary. If he gets another 2 testing positive, then he is banned for life. In my mind that would be far more effective than the current farce.

I would word it in such a way that the offence definitely didn't accuse them of being complicit. Rather, that they were guilty of failing to carry out sufficient internal checks on doping to stop it spreading in their teams.

Can't find this anywhere else on the forum, but apologies if a thread exists. What do y'all think?

EDIT: could a mod change the title to "Punish the team managers?"

 

[Digger]

I have often thought that while some riders are clearly determined to cheat their way to the top, much of the blame for doping lies at the door of team management. To me, it would make far more sense to go after these guys than the riders.

If a team manager or directeur sportif had 4 riders test positive under him in a career, he would be banned for two years and fined half his salary. If he gets another 2 testing positive, then he is banned for life. In my mind that would be far more effective than the current farce.

I would word it in such a way that the offence definitely didn't accuse them of being complicit. Rather, that they were guilty of failing to carry out sufficient internal checks on doping to stop it spreading in their teams.

Can't find this anywhere else on the forum, but apologies if a thread exists. What do y'all think?

Well I have had an issue with a certain DS who remains silent on the workings of another DS he would have had personal dealings with. I don't understand how the sport can clean itself when people don't call out the DS's.

 

[veganrob]

Totally agree the DS should share some responsibility in the doping. I am really surprised nothing has been done to this point. They are certainly encouraging the doping or at the very least enabling it. If some of them started losing their jobs situation would change much faster imo.

 

[ChrisE]

I have often thought that while some riders are clearly determined to cheat their way to the top, much of the blame for doping lies at the door of team management. To me, it would make far more sense to go after these guys than the riders.

If a team manager or directeur sportif had 4 riders test positive under him in a career, he would be banned for two years and fined half his salary. If he gets another 2 testing positive, then he is banned for life. In my mind that would be far more effective than the current farce.

I would word it in such a way that the offence definitely didn't accuse them of being complicit. Rather, that they were guilty of failing to carry out sufficient internal checks on doping to stop it spreading in their teams.

Can't find this anywhere else on the forum, but apologies if a thread exists. What do y'all think?

I can agree with this post, especially the bolded part but I am not sure how this can be implemented foolproof. I guess records could be kept independently that would protect them if a rider got popped. "See, we were testing them, what else can I do?". There must be protections like this or innocents could be punished for things out of their control.

But still, until the riders start policing themselves and doping is chastised within the peleton, as opposed to AS's dancing around getting beaten by a doper (for obvious reasons), it will remain an uphill battle. I would think most of the cyclists that have made it to the pro level worked out any internal conflict about doping years before.

 

[ElChingon]

Well I think we all (clinic followers) know who you are referring to and the issues at hand. The problem is legally it can't be applied unless they are outed by the riders testing positive which to date has not been a factor (legally) in any doping positive (that I can remember).

I think another angle would be for the bank guarantee to be taken if not currently being used for a sponsor who left and used for the cost of testing or legal expenses into prosecuting riders. This would affect the sponsors as well and which I think are equally in the blame game for not doing due diligence into who they are backing, its not like this whole cycling game is new to the world, doesn't take much to get the historical to a person at least a person putting up several millions.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I can agree with this post, especially the bolded part but I am not sure how this can be implemented foolproof. I guess records could be kept independently that would protect them if a rider got popped. "See, we were testing them, what else can I do?". There must be protections like this or innocents could be punished for things out of their control.

But still, until the riders start policing themselves and doping is chastised within the peleton, as opposed to AS's dancing around getting beaten by a doper (for obvious reasons), it will remain an uphill battle. I would think most of the cyclists that have made it to the pro level worked out any internal conflict about doping years before.

I don't really see that as a problem. Do you honestly believe there is even one pro team director who doesn't know/help with what the riders are doing?

 

[hrotha]

I don't really see that as a problem. Do you honestly believe there is even one pro team director who doesn't know/help with what the riders are doing?

There were even in the worst years of the EPO era, before the hematocrit cap. So why not.

 

[mtb Dad]

I agree DS's are complicit and probably should be held responsible. But if we're looking at root causes, we can't stop there. The UCI was, at the very least, guilty as hell of looking the other way and ignoring the evidence, the dying riders, the doping teams and doping systems. I'm sure lab directors the world over have been telling the UCI what was happening and they ignored it. And had the gall to force the sport community to drag them kicking and screaming into the WADA code.

And we know who ran it for 30 years, and picked the current leader. Are they less responsible than DS's? I don't think so. In many ways, they forced the DS's to do what they did. Maybe an amnesty for DS's telling all? And an appropriate footnote on the careers of certain cycling leaders, to warn the next generation's leaders.

Then we should all take a look in the mirror as fans, and ask if we've asked for the controls, before we ask for heroics.

 

[ChrisE]

I don't really see that as a problem. Do you honestly believe there is even one pro team director who doesn't know/help with what the riders are doing?

Perhaps not, but what if somebody in the future not named Riis or Bruhneel became a DS? What if you did? Wouldn't you want protections, or would you throw caution to the wind if Bruhneel is still in the sport?

 

[Hugh Januss]

There were even in the worst years of the EPO era, before the hematocrit cap. So why not.

Perhaps not, but what if somebody in the future not named Riis or Bruhneel became a DS? What if you did? Wouldn't you want protections, or would you throw caution to the wind if Bruhneel is still in the sport?

Maybe of the local bike shop team, otherwise......don't buy it, sorry.

 

[ChrisE]

Maybe of the local bike shop team, otherwise......don't buy it, sorry.

OK cool. No matter how many internal controls one does, if one of the cyclists on the team goes rogue between the controls and takes something then the DS gets whacked. What a deal.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I can agree with this post, especially the bolded part but I am not sure how this can be implemented foolproof. I guess records could be kept independently that would protect them if a rider got popped. "See, we were testing them, what else can I do?". There must be protections like this or innocents could be punished for things out of their control.

But still, until the riders start policing themselves and doping is chastised within the peleton, as opposed to AS's dancing around getting beaten by a doper (for obvious reasons), it will remain an uphill battle. I would think most of the cyclists that have made it to the pro level worked out any internal conflict about doping years before.

To the OP - I broadly agree with your point, the DSs should be held more accountable but any measures should impact on all the team, and in particular the doctors or medical personnel.

My view has always been that the Docs should be assigned to certain riders, if one of their riders gets popped then they too are sacked. It stops the "we cannot be with the riders 24/7" line we get fed.

Also, the pointing system for World Tour status should be rejigged - forget results, and award points on an ethics basis - ie teams that are properly funded, pay on time etc get rewarded and teams that don't or have positives get hit hard.

This then goes to ChrisEs point above - if your teams place is in jeopardy and you know that a certain teammate is being naughty, then there is now an incentive to speak out.

 

[ChrisE]

My view has always been that the Docs should be assigned to certain riders, if one of their riders gets popped then they too are sacked. It stops the "we cannot be with the riders 24/7" line we get fed.
.

I don't agree. The possibility, however small, of a rider taking something and getting immediately popped, contamination, or whatever is real. I concede it is a remote possibility, especially if the attitude within the peloton changes, but it is still a possibility. I say all they can do is internally monitor and be held accountable for that monitoring within reason. That is 100% more than is being done now.

There is also the problem with paying for a doctor to be with each rider or a small group of riders within a team. Heck, when the FL thing came up people were saying the T/E test had to be used to screen instead of IRMS from the outset, because IRMS was too expensive to use for the 3 riders tested at that time after each stage of a GT. I think that is ridiculous and said so at the time, but that is the argument that will be put forth.

And having several docs on a team for a year would be pretty expensive, and I am pretty sure there would not be a line out the door to sign up and be held accountable for everything a bike racer does every minute of their life.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't agree. The possibility, however small, of a rider taking something and getting immediately popped, contamination, or whatever is real. I concede it is a remote possibility, especially if the attitude within the peloton changes, but it is still a possibility. I say all they can do is internally monitor and be held accountable for that monitoring within reason. That is 100% more than is being done now.

Which is why you put in the accountability. If the Doc knows his job is also on the line, then they will make it their job to know what their assigned riders are doing - any suspicion and the rider is gone.

There is also the problem with paying for a doctor to be with each rider or a small group of riders within a team. Heck, when the FL thing came up people were saying the T/E test had to be used to screen instead of IRMS from the outset, because IRMS was too expensive to use for the 3 riders tested at that time after each stage of a GT. I think that is ridiculous and said so at the time, but that is the argument that will be put forth.

All the top teams have numerous medical personnel.

And having several docs on a team for a year would be pretty expensive, and I am pretty sure there would not be a line out the door to sign up and be held accountable for everything a bike racer does every minute of their life.

I am pretty sue that you are right that the Docs would object - it why I wouldn't bother asking them for their input. Cycling is not a democracy.

 

[ChrisE]

Yea, it's not a democracy. It's not the draft, either.

So, let's conclude that you would sign up and stake your reputation and livelihood on the actions of others. I doubt that, but I will concede you would do that and assume you are not just being hypocritical and argumentative.

I would not sign up for such a noble endeavor, and I realize there are limitiations to accountability that must be taken into consideration when implementing punishment beyond the rider.

With that, I will move on. I am beginning to feel a little disoriented from my gravitational field being screwed with by the vortex.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yea, it's not a democracy. It's not the draft, either.

So, let's conclude that you would sign up and stake your reputation and livelihood on the actions of others. I doubt that, but I will concede you would do that and assume you are not just being hypocritical and argumentative.

Well, I will assume that you are only being "hypocritical and arguementitive", do you remeber the meeting the UCI had with the riders about sanctions and points? Me neither.

I would not sign up for such a noble endeavor, and I realize there are limitiations to accountability that must be taken into consideration when implementing punishment beyond the rider.

That is because you are not noble - you see it's a self fulfilling system.

With that, I will move on. I am beginning to feel a little disoriented from my gravitational field being screwed with by the vortex.

Ya, as you havent actually come with any ideas of your own its probably better if you run along.

 

[Caruut]

Well, the reason I suggested that it be the team management that take the hit is because they are the ones that call the shots. If you put the doc's job on the line, I feel there is an element of accountability without responsibility - they don't have the power to order riders what to do, or terminate their contracts if non-compliant, but they could lost their jobs even if they do the right thing.

The idea was that if the team managers knew that their own jobs were on the line, they're going be more careful about internal testing, more likely to report a rider to the authorities and generally better behaved. At the moment, it seems that DSes will encourage a rider to dope, and then when he gets caught, come out saying "he's a bad apple", terminate the contract and buy a new one with the money.

Yes, there are always some riders willing to take stupid risks, but do this and the risks become even riskier - for example, which team manager with 3 points on his licence is now going to recruit a rider known to be a risk? Currently all that's at stake is a little bit of reputation, so dopers keep getting hired again and again.

The rules should be set up in such a way that there is a strong incentive to play by the book. While this is the case for the riders, it simply isn't for the teams.

 

[MarkvW]

This is a doping methodology for the times! Select a hostage from each team and make that hostage's cycling career depend upon the doping performance of his team.

Can we trust the UCI to administer this hostage program fairly?

Will sponsors and team owners want to put their whole investment in jeopardy, on a bet that every single team member will stay clean? In a sport with a history of pervasive filthiness?

Who will the hostage be? In other words, what is a DS? If it is just the guy who sits in the car and talks on the radio to the riders during races, then a prudent team owner is going to put a disposable flunky in the car and keep the guy who really calls the shots in a control room somewhere. That won't accomplish much of anything.

The hostage idea is totally based upon disruption. In other words, the doping of one team member will cause the whole team to be severely disrupted. But if you disrupt a whole team in the ProTour environment, you disrupt the ProTour itself, because there just are not that many ProTour teams out there. Too much disruption of ProTour teams will disrupt the ProTour and will kill the golden goose that the hostage idea was designed to protect. The owners would have to be thinking "Do we have to destroy the ProTour in order to save it?"

Awhile back, I proposed a variant of the hostage idea: A surety bond predicated upon team compliance with specified doping standards. In other words, every team puts a big pile of money into a pot. If a doping violation occurs on a team, then that team forfeits the money that it posted into the pot and has to post a new pile of money into the pot in order to keep riding. If the team stays clean, the team's money is not forfeited. This idea was decimated by a couple of posters (probably correctly), because it could never work in the real world.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well, the reason I suggested that it be the team management that take the hit is because they are the ones that call the shots. If you put the doc's job on the line, I feel there is an element of accountability without responsibility - they don't have the power to order riders what to do, or terminate their contracts if non-compliant, but they could lost their jobs even if they do the right thing.

Not really disagreeing with your points - but it is usually the medical personell that look after the doping. Also, they should be in a better position to spot if a rider is not complying with their rules.

The idea was that if the team managers knew that their own jobs were on the line, they're going be more careful about internal testing, more likely to report a rider to the authorities and generally better behaved. At the moment, it seems that DSes will encourage a rider to dope, and then when he gets caught, come out saying "he's a bad apple", terminate the contract and buy a new one with the money.

Again, I broadly agree - however when you say DS or team manager, are we talking the top guys, Vaughters or Bruyneel (General Managers) or the Pieper/Andersen role?
Because if it is the GM then a team could fold if they were sacked, which IMO would be over punishment.

Yes, there are always some riders willing to take stupid risks, but do this and the risks become even riskier - for example, which team manager with 3 points on his licence is now going to recruit a rider known to be a risk? Currently all that's at stake is a little bit of reputation, so dopers keep getting hired again and again.

The rules should be set up in such a way that there is a strong incentive to play by the book. While this is the case for the riders, it simply isn't for the teams.

I certainly agree with that - which is why I suggested that points system be restructured and any positive meaning points would be deducted.

 

[Caruut]

Not really disagreeing with your points - but it is usually the medical personell that look after the doping. Also, they should be in a better position to spot if a rider is not complying with their rules.

They do look after it, but at the behest of the team management, not because they particularly want to dope riders. The managers are responsible for the doctors - this means that it is up to the manager to ensure that not only are the doctors not doping the riders, they are also doing proper internal checks. The individual teams can structure the medical staff's contracts in such a way that they are also responsible, but they are unlikely to do this if they don't have an incentive.

Again, I broadly agree - however when you say DS or team manager, are we talking the top guys, Vaughters or Bruyneel (General Managers) or the Pieper/Andersen role?
Because if it is the GM then a team could fold if they were sacked, which IMO would be over punishment.

I mean team manager, should have been clearer. Every team has loads of DSes, and their responsibility is primarily race-day based.

 

[Caruut]

This is a doping methodology for the times! Select a hostage from each team and make that hostage's cycling career depend upon the doping performance of his team.

Who will the hostage be? In other words, what is a DS? If it is just the guy who sits in the car and talks on the radio to the riders during races, then a prudent team owner is going to put a disposable flunky in the car and keep the guy who really calls the shots in a control room somewhere. That won't accomplish much of anything.

Apologies, I meant the team manager - the licence holder. The guy who hires, fires and calls all the shots.

Can we trust the UCI to administer this hostage program fairly?

Maybe not, but this is a false logic that leads only to a downward spiral. One reason not to trust them is their lack of a system to punish team managers. If the consequence of that lack of trust is that you won't let them set up a system to punish team managers, then you have given up before you've even begun.

Will sponsors and team owners want to put their whole investment in jeopardy, on a bet that every single team member will stay clean? In a sport with a history of pervasive filthiness?

Turning this idea on its head, it's entirely possible that sponsors and team owners will be more willing to associate their name with something with the rule in place. Right now, there is a risk that a rider will test positive, damaging (rather than enhancing) the sponsor's reputation in return for their investment. Won't sponsors feel much safer knowing that the guy in charge of their investment shares the risk with them?

The hostage idea is totally based upon disruption. In other words, the doping of one team member will cause the whole team to be severely disrupted. But if you disrupt a whole team in the ProTour environment, you disrupt the ProTour itself, because there just are not that many ProTour teams out there. Too much disruption of ProTour teams will disrupt the ProTour and will kill the golden goose that the hostage idea was designed to protect. The owners would have to be thinking "Do we have to destroy the ProTour in order to save it?"

A strange logic again, disguised by cryptic syntax. Systems of punishment are almost all based on the threat of disruption, and not disruption itself. Good laws are not written to catch people - they are written to try and make sure that people do not want to break them.

Worse is the opposite of what you have just said - turning a blind eye to the problem. A rider dopes and nothing happens to the guy that was ultimately responsible for the doping - the team manager.

Awhile back, I proposed a variant of the hostage idea: A surety bond predicated upon team compliance with specified doping standards. In other words, every team puts a big pile of money into a pot. If a doping violation occurs on a team, then that team forfeits the money that it posted into the pot and has to post a new pile of money into the pot in order to keep riding. If the team stays clean, the team's money is not forfeited. This idea was decimated by a couple of posters (probably correctly), because it could never work in the real world.

And? What were the problems with that? Were they relevant to this?

 

[MarkvW]

Apologies, I meant the team manager - the licence holder. The guy who hires, fires and calls all the shots.



Maybe not, but this is a false logic that leads only to a downward spiral. One reason not to trust them is their lack of a system to punish team managers. If the consequence of that lack of trust is that you won't let them set up a system to punish team managers, then you have given up before you've even begun.



Turning this idea on its head, it's entirely possible that sponsors and team owners will be more willing to associate their name with something with the rule in place. Right now, there is a risk that a rider will test positive, damaging (rather than enhancing) the sponsor's reputation in return for their investment. Won't sponsors feel much safer knowing that the guy in charge of their investment shares the risk with them?



A strange logic again, disguised by cryptic syntax. Systems of punishment are almost all based on the threat of disruption, and not disruption itself. Good laws are not written to catch people - they are written to try and make sure that people do not want to break them.

Worse is the opposite of what you have just said - turning a blind eye to the problem. A rider dopes and nothing happens to the guy that was ultimately responsible for the doping - the team manager.


And? What were the problems with that? Were they relevant to this?

It's really not a question of me "not letting them set up a system to punish team managers." It is more of a question of persuading team owners that it is in their own self-interest to set up a system to punish team managers. I just don't see how you could do that.

There is a lack of fairness that goes with holding a team manager responsible for the acts of the players. In modern cycling, there may be some team-wide doping, but a lot of doping is just between a player and his doctor or a clique of players and their doctor. In other words, the team manager is sometimes, but not always, in the doping "loop." When the team manager is outside the loop, is it fair to punish him for actions taken "in the loop?" More importantly, would the team owners ever buy such an unfair scheme.

My comment about "team manager" or "DS" still holds true. To defeat your system, any sensible owner would name a disposable flunky as a team manager and have another person calling the shots. You'd get into interminable definitional problems defining what a "team manager" is. Would the owners ever buy into that?

And if you got over the definitional problems, you'd then have to find people to take the job of team manager. Which men of quality would take a job like that if they could be instantly canned? There's an easy answer to that--only men who would be paid an awful lot of money! Would the owners ever pay such money? Would the sponsors gladly bear that cost?

I totally agree with you that if pro cycling was radically changed that a new breed of sponsors could get involved and that cycling could be better.

No owner would sign up for a hostage system if that would mean that the fate of his entire team hinged on the behavior of any one of his employee-riders. What investors or sponsors would buy into investing in a team that could blow up at any moment with the termination of the team leader?

My suggestion of a surety bond was trashed because the fees would be too high. Insurance companies would look at the risk and impose fees that the teams/riders could not bear.

If you are a rider struggling to hang on to a ProTour slot, you are not going to give a darn about whether the team manager gets canned if you dope. For you, it's a matter of staying on the team or not staying on the team. You are not ever going to put the team first in that situation--especially if you know that the team is just looking for a reason to cut you.

Talking about schemes is useful. I didn't mean to suggest that discussing remedies is not a good idea--to the contrary. If I did, I'm sorry.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Caruut,

There does need to some way to hold the managers and doctors accountable, instead of just picking on the athletes all the time.

I favor two mechanisms. The first is based on the idea that it is very difficult to detect doping with enough certainty to sanction individuals. If results were averaged over a team though, there would be enough certainty to impose a penalty on the team. Ashenden has talked about similar concepts in the past. I suggest the penalty would be the loss of world tour points.

The UCI already factors some subjective fluff about ethics into world tour licence criteria. Why not remove this fluff but, for example, deduct points if a team has multiple riders showing positive at the 90% confidence interval, although this wouldn't equate to an individual AAF? For this idea to work though, penalties would have to be based on objective measures, which were fairly monitored across all teams. So, until the UCI governance structure is reconfigured into something less inherently corruptible, no such deterent/penalties could be effectively implemented.

The second idea I've raised before. I think a 4 year sanction for "aggravating circumstances" should be imposed on any athlete who refuses to name the supplier. The intention is to make sure each AAF leads to action against an enabler as well as an athlete. For example, Galimzyanov's letter exonerating his team but protecting his supplier should get him into very hot water with the anto doping authorities. If they didn't supply you Dennis, who did!?!

 

[Caruut]

It's really not a question of me "not letting them set up a system to punish team managers." It is more of a question of persuading team owners that it is in their own self-interest to set up a system to punish team managers. I just don't see how you could do that.

Well, the owners would then hold an insurance policy against a manager going rogue and damaging their reputation.

There is a lack of fairness that goes with holding a team manager responsible for the acts of the players. In modern cycling, there may be some team-wide doping, but a lot of doping is just between a player and his doctor or a clique of players and their doctor. In other words, the team manager is sometimes, but not always, in the doping "loop." When the team manager is outside the loop, is it fair to punish him for actions taken "in the loop?" More importantly, would the team owners ever buy such an unfair scheme.

Yes, and this rule would make it in the interests of the manager to control the activities of his team. In business, a manager is ultimately responsible for the actions of those under his/her command. A cyclist known to be a troublemaker who played outside the team control would quickly find themselves unemployable, whereas now all they have to do to get back onto the bandwagon is say "I'm really really really sorry".

My comment about "team manager" or "DS" still holds true. To defeat your system, any sensible owner would name a disposable flunky as a team manager and have another person calling the shots. You'd get into interminable definitional problems defining what a "team manager" is. Would the owners ever buy into that?

Well, it would be up to the relevant authority to determine who was ultimately responsible for the control of the team. The team's licence would name someone, and if the UCI thought that the named person was a puppet, they could revoke the licence.

And if you got over the definitional problems, you'd then have to find people to take the job of team manager. Which men of quality would take a job like that if they could be instantly canned? There's an easy answer to that--only men who would be paid an awful lot of money! Would the owners ever pay such money? Would the sponsors gladly bear that cost?

Most of the team managers now don't have much else to do but manage cycling teams, I think they would have no option but to accept the rules.

I totally agree with you that if pro cycling was radically changed that a new breed of sponsors could get involved and that cycling could be better.

No owner would sign up for a hostage system if that would mean that the fate of his entire team hinged on the behavior of any one of his employee-riders. What investors or sponsors would buy into investing in a team that could blow up at any moment with the termination of the team leader?

Well, the team would still exist, the manager would just be punished. If a CEO is charged with a business-related offence, the company doesn't immediately cease trading.

My suggestion of a surety bond was trashed because the fees would be too high. Insurance companies would look at the risk and impose fees that the teams/riders could not bear.

Don't think that that would apply here, unless the team insured against legal costs, or something.

If you are a rider struggling to hang on to a ProTour slot, you are not going to give a darn about whether the team manager gets canned if you dope. For you, it's a matter of staying on the team or not staying on the team. You are not ever going to put the team first in that situation--especially if you know that the team is just looking for a reason to cut you.

This is another one where it might actually have the converse effect - if a rider is just about hanging onto a job, the last thing he needs is a set of funny results and blood values.

Talking about schemes is useful. I didn't mean to suggest that discussing remedies is not a good idea--to the contrary. If I did, I'm sorry.

My bad.

 

[Hugh Januss]

OK cool. No matter how many internal controls one does, if one of the cyclists on the team goes rogue between the controls and takes something then the DS gets whacked. What a deal.

If the system was such that the DS's were not the ones organizing the doping and hiring the best medical help to get it done then you might have a point. I do not believe that to be the case in pro cycling. Who is the innocent one? Riis? Bruyneel? Vaughters? Any of the Spanish or Italian or Belgian DS's? How 'bout the rest of management? Ex racers all, mostly (at this point) from the height of the EPO era. Yup a lot of interest in "clean cycling" there.
I thought you were capable of pure cynical thought...........disappointing.