Reduced bans - What to do?

[gooner]

I keep hearing complaints about the Garmin guys and their 6 month bans. Bolts' comments this week on Gay got me thinking.

Gay disclosing info led to Drummond's ban. While I understand the anger, I think it's wishful thinking on some people's part to want guys disclosing what the know and still have a lengthy ban to their name. The former won't happen in the first place as a result.

My opinion is that for guys like Gatlin, the incentive for a reduced ban after a second offence should be gone. It should only remain for a first offence.

Interested what others have to say.

 

[Tonton]

I'm not familiar with the case but will soon be. IMO, only the first bust should allow a "plea-bargain", and for it to be accepted, names should be disclosed. Dates, places, basically what would normally be required in a narcotics investigation. The second time, nope.

 

[hrotha]

Give out lifetime bans for certain substances and methods but allow for a reduction to 2 years for the first offense if there's full cooperation (like what Tonton described).

Personally, however, I see no reason not to encourage a doper who has been busted twice to provide useful information again a second or any subsequent time; if the info is valuable enough that it would have got them a reduction if this was their first time, then it's something useful to know in the fight against doping and more important in the grand scheme of things than suspending this or that particular doper forever. Maybe their second ban will only get reduced to 4 years for full cooperation, but the incentive should always be there.

 

[SeriousSam]

If you oppose bargains in the second round you either:

1) Care only about reducing incidence of doping. You believe that the net effect on incidence of doping is negative. You believe losing out on disclosed information (which decreases the ability to detect and punish dopers, which decreases the probability dopers are caught) is outweighed by deterring some fraction of first-time dopers from doping again (the expected costs of getting caught again are higher when an option to get a reduced ban is removed)

2) care also about punishing the wicked and would be willing to tolerate a somewhat higher incidence of doping to make that happen

 

[Netserk]

I think it was absolutely fine that someone like Rasmussen who told absolutely everything and all names got his 2nd ban reduced to 2 years. At that point it didn't really matter if he got 6 months or a lifeban, but the info he has provided matter a lot.

 

[Catwhoorg]

You have to have an incentive in place even for a 2nd offense, to get people to talk.

With a 4 year standard ban, the tell all incentive for a 1st offense now is 1 year not 6 months (75% reduction).

With life ban on the cards, 4-8 years seems reasonable for telling all on a 2nd offense.

 

[Netserk]

If you are caught for the 2nd time and served 4 years for the first time, you probably have less than 8 years left of your career (probably less than 4 years as well) by the time you caught again, so I doubt there's much of an incentive to talk unless you want to be a DS.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Aren't the rules for being involved after your career (DS and management) change such that after such and such a date anyone who got at least a 2 year ban in ineligible ?

Couldn't go after older dopers, but no current ones can go that way.

 

[Netserk]

Well in that case, if you are 30 or more when you are caught the 2nd time, you don't really have any incentive to talk.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Why does Lance want his life ban revoked ?

Even if they can't make a living in cycling, the inability to ride at any sanctioned event must be grating on them, and provide some level of incentive.

 

[Tonton]

Re:

Well in that case, if you are 30 or more when you are caught the 2nd time, you don't really have any incentive to talk.

Hehehehehehehe, that's 34 years old when the suspension expires. Several undrafted riders are still available who did great things after turning 24

 

[ray j willings]

Two year ban ,,,,Young rider dopes makes loads of cash winning races, gets caught aged 25. talks, gets 2 year ban.
Spends two years training and doping himself up to his eyeballs while living in luxury from his winnings . Comes back aged 27/28 maybe micro dose's . Is stronger than ever, starts winning again and chances of getting caught are smaller as he his older wiser and doping alone.
In reality that would be the way to go. Risk is well worth it IMO.

 

[mrhender]

By changing the bans you might impact the "timeline" dynamics of doping..

The question is if any lenght adjustment will result in a cleaner peloton?

I doubt it..

The thing is, (most) dopers just adjust to the current (environment, rules, banned lists etc), and they will do so regardless of sanctions..

You might get a "pocket" impact, but all in all I see no avenue for real change in ban leght...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

Two year ban ,,,,Young rider dopes makes loads of cash winning races, gets caught aged 25. talks, gets 2 year ban.
Spends two years training and doping himself up to his eyeballs while living in luxury from his winnings . Comes back aged 27/28 maybe micro dose's . Is stronger than ever, starts winning again and chances of getting caught are smaller as he his older wiser and doping alone.
In reality that would be the way to go. Risk is well worth it IMO.

Intelligent ex-pro ex-doper / ex-doper trainer teaches young riders how to dope intelligently, helps them slowly ramp up their Hct and retics over time to acceptable but decidedly unnatural levels and continues to generate revenue from their winnings and ongoing tuition fees.

No ban, go out in glory.

See: Brad Wiggins, Andy Schleck et al.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Anyone serving a ban remains in the testing pool, and WILL be tested frequently if there is any chance of them coming back.

 

[Singer01]

first ban, 4 years if you keep quite, 2 years if you spill the beans. second ban 8 years if you keep quiet, 4 years if you spill the beans.

in addition 1/3 of all salary earned through cycling should be handed over to the UCI, if you test positive you can get half of it back for spilling the beans, as well as the above reduction in time. this money stays with the UCI, who invest it on your behalf for up to 5 years after you retire, if you then retrospectively test positive you lose the lot, or you can come clean when you retire, to get half of it back.