Serebryakov tests positive

[maltiv]

It's not, the UCI have already said that they'll start doing longer bans on clear cut cases like this one, where there's no uncertainty and one of the more heavier drugs is involved. Imo it's a step in the right direction.

2 years simply isn't enough to be perceived as a real threat. It's more than possible to come back from that and continue one's career. 4 years however...well, that's essentially the end of a career.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It's not, the UCI have already said that they'll start doing longer bans on clear cut cases like this one, where there's no uncertainty and one of the more heavier drugs is involved. Imo it's a step in the right direction.

2 years simply isn't enough to be perceived as a real threat. It's more than possible to come back from that and continue one's career. 4 years however...well, that's essentially the end of a career.

Agreed, so they should stop ***** footing around.

 

[sniper]

It's not, the UCI have already said that they'll start doing longer bans on clear cut cases like this one, where there's no uncertainty and one of the more heavier drugs is involved. Imo it's a step in the right direction.

2 years simply isn't enough to be perceived as a real threat. It's more than possible to come back from that and continue one's career. 4 years however...well, that's essentially the end of a career.

sure, i agree, but it's tough on the guy.
in 2012 a couple of anglophones were banned 6 months in the offseason for a similar offence.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Spent 2 months racing in China in 2012, kicking *** and taking names. Did not test positive for Clenbuterol.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Four years for two positives within the space of a month.
Isn't that a bit tough?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/serebryakov-banned-for-4-years-in-epo-case

With the right level of confidence in the anti dope setup, 4 years seems about right.

 

[The Hitch]

It's not, the UCI have already said that they'll start doing longer bans on clear cut cases like this one, where there's no uncertainty and one of the more heavier drugs is involved. Imo it's a step in the right direction.

2 years simply isn't enough to be perceived as a real threat. It's more than possible to come back from that and continue one's career. 4 years however...well, that's essentially the end of a career.

imo though very few dopers if any dope with any intention to get caught. Doesn't matter if punishment is 2 years or 10, they dope with the intention of avoiding the tests.

I often compare doping with the recreational drug's industry. There the rewards are pretty much the same with moderate profit for the majority and potential for big rewards which only a tiny minority end up having access to. But the potential penalties for getting involved are far greater, with death and lifelong incarceration the two most common paths compared to potential health problems and suspension from profession, in our thing. And they are far far more common.

And yet it is well known that everytime one drug mule gets caught a hundred wait to take his place

Now its different in sport because there are fewer people in a position to take advantage of such an opening in the first place (having enough talent to be a cyclist), but there are also more openings to begin with.

But if the recreational drug industry clearly shows that people are willing to risk their lives for a profit, I don't see how we can assume that "harder punishment" solution is going to work when all anti doping can deal in the first place is suspension. Even life bans wouldn't stop doping, it would probably just make it more efficient in the same way that previous tests have made doping more efficient and riders and teams no longer make simple mistakes they made before (eg bragging about their doping to the whole peloton).

Looking at the lower levels like with Serebryakov, he knows that getting caught his chances of getting back into cycling are very small once he tested positive. Is there a difference for him between a 2 year ban and a 4 year ban? I don't see it. He's better off applying for a customer service job at his local shopping mall either way. Carlos Barredo already got the "life sentence" for a first time offence last year and he was a bigger fish.

I doubt many if any dopers have a 2 year holiday in their plans when they decide to doper. At best its something they can try to lean back on once they have been caught if they do get caught. But it would apply mostly to the big fish like Contador, Basso, Valverde etc. There you could say that some of them may come to the conclusion that with a 2 year ban being the penalty, doping is more attractive since their names are big enough to land them a job post ban even with the stink they bring. But I think in their cases it is a mistake to focus on the lenght of the suspension too much since for these guys getting caught brings other penalties that far outweigh getting banned from the sport - lawsuits, loss of respect, getting spat on, etc. And even if the ban was life, the risk reward would still probably weigh in their favour since salary in cycling rises almost exponentially along the levels so inreasing ones level (eg going from continental domestique to WT domestique) will always increase salary by a significant ammount rendering it a risk worth taking for many.

So I don't think 4 years will necessarily do anything. I don't mind if they make it it 4 years but as long as it would stop the distraction of the argument. Im too tired of seeing in every comments section how the sole reason anti doping doesn't work is because Valverde only got 2 years instead of 4.

The reason anti doping doesn't work, or isn't 100% efficient anyway, is because it lags behind doping in almost all aspects. Financially WADA can't compete with potential profits in the hundreds of millions (at the highest level). Motivation wise, it means 1000 times more to the athlete not to get caught than it means to the anti doping personnel to catch him, since in his case its his life on the line. Chronologically, anti doping will always be behind doping, trying to catch up since anti doping cant deal with doping techniques until athletes have actually began using them.

2 years 4 years, is a in the wider scheme of things a distraction that can at best make small temporary adjustments to the way doping works

 

[Master50]

When was there last time you could take 2 years off your job in your peak earning years and call it time off? We have no debt other than mortgage and all the other bills like taxes and fuel, insurance , food, electricity..........
I don't care what you earn, 2 years off hurts. It hurts a lot and in 2 years you can go backward 10 years in financial terms.
How about we look at the issue with some real perspectives? the penalties hurt now. Sure a 4 year penalty hurts a lot more, but hey you can't call a 2 year penalty a holiday.

 

[Ferminal]

Kinda.

For fringe professionals though, any ban wouldn't be far off a life ban in terms of the consequences. If Serebayakov was suspended for one year he still wouldn't be back in 2014 at a reasonable team. If he was lucky he might get snapped up by a continental team in the middle of the season as the suspension passed. It's even more of an issue if all your good results previously were the result of doping. You have to decide if you want to continue doping on return, but either way it will not be a swift transition back to a professional contract. If you go clean then it's likely that you never return to former heights and race in the wilderness before quietly retiring. If you dope then you still have to serve out a couple of years at a low level "proving you can win clean".

For anyone but the superstars, the punishment for being caught is only just beginning when the suspension ends. I completely agree with you about the human aspect and have always been against ridiculous suspension lengths. However, those who choose to dope know how the system works, and all this is part of the risk they take when making that fateful decision. It is inequitable in that the caught dopers take all the punishment when there is a significant proportion of doping going on undetected, but that's just how the system is and probably always will. Maybe you can mitigate the inequality through reasonable ban lengths (probably recognised by the lawmakers and the reason for 2 years being the norm for a while until now) and removing the barriers to re-entry after the suspension has expired - but much of that is determined by the players in the system and not so much the regulators, thankfully CAS is there to help out when regulators overstep the mark like the UCI did.

Edit: Hitch basically hit the nail.

 

[zigmeister]

When was there last time you could take 2 years off your job in your peak earning years and call it time off? We have no debt other than mortgage and all the other bills like taxes and fuel, insurance , food, electricity..........
I don't care what you earn, 2 years off hurts. It hurts a lot and in 2 years you can go backward 10 years in financial terms.
How about we look at the issue with some real perspectives? the penalties hurt now. Sure a 4 year penalty hurts a lot more, but hey you can't call a 2 year penalty a holiday.

2yrs at most guys salary in this business is end of career...or find another job that gets them by and hope they can get picked up again like so many others have in the past and get a few more years of riding...until they really retire.