should dopers pay back their salary

should dopers pay back their salary?

  • No because without a clear consistency it’s a rule mockery

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
yesterday maquaid announced that christian moreni (suspended for doping in 2007) became the first rider to pay a year’s salary to the uci. this was because he signed the uci letter.

i’ve always been unsure about the issue. yeah, if you earned the money through cheating it’s hardly surprising that someone will want it back. but why should the uci get it? and isn’t it already too harsh after a two year suspension? And if one rider pays and several others don’t - vino races on a pt team and did not pay - doesn’t it make the rule makers look stupid? In this light katusha’s demand for several years salary looks like a cruel joke.

I honestly don’t know what to think . to be effective and enforceable I feel the punitive system should either be based on fines or suspensions. not both. what do you think?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You're right. This is a tricky one. I'm pretty stumped

I voted, Yes, but only the Prize Money

I guess I did this becoz its a bit like erasing results. I.e. FLandis get's deleted from the TDF records, but still gets the prize money, doesnt seem right. That said, if he followed tradition and split the money between the team, it changes the story.

Personally, I think it's up to the teams to do their research about a rider, and therefore, their salary is theirs (the rider) to keep. They are paid as a rider, but the team management should definately investigate and scrutinise their riders.

For example, a team like Garmin (and a few others) have put in place a system to detect if one of their riders may be doping. As such, they would not need to fine a rider for doping becoz they have a system to stop such a thing before the rider enters a race. So in that sense, I think its the team's responsibility to investigate and scrutinise their own riders before the race, rather than demanding compensation after they are caught

From a team perspective.i would much rather catch my cheating riders before the doping testers do. That way, he can f-ck off, and my sponsors won't have to be the face of a doping sanction. Getting money off him after he dopes is very very little compensation.
 
Apr 19, 2009
140
0
0
I voted: yes, to the uci.

Because they all signed a letter where they accepted it.

Dragging it to CAS after they get caught just shows what pathetic liars they are.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
I must admit I struggled to come to a clear opinion on this - but actually yes I agree with the principle and as is the case the fines should go to the anti-doping section of the UCI.

Part of the motivation to dope is to get a better (or any)contract - either through wins and success or just the ability to do their duties. So a financial penalty could act as a major deterrent.

However one point overlooked thus far - the teams should also have to pay a penalty.

In the current system, if a doped rider is caught the team have benefited through publicity and prize-money on that success. Also in sacking a rider for getting caught it allows the team to replace a rider of similar pay so essentially the team does not suffer.

Teams receive financing through sponsorship, but 'earn' extra money through appearance fee's and prize-money- this is usually divided on a percentage scale throughout the riders, management and staff. A penalty on a team would effect all members.

Having a financial penalty on a team could make the management more selective in its choice of riders, make other teammates more conscious/suspicious of each other and offer a disincentive for teams to have organized doping practices.
 
Mar 31, 2009
156
0
8,830
Not to the UCI - at least not until UCI becomes an unpartial for-the-sport rather than a corrupt for-the-money organisation.

Not to the teams - If teams get the money back, it is costless for them to gamble on hiring dopers. It would be a win win situation for them. If their doped rider doesn't get caught, they have wins and fame. If he does get caught, they get the money back and can try again.

Don't know what the riders fund is, but supposing this is a good thing, that could be a place for it to go.

However, if this is to exist, it would have to be a very well established rule. Not some ad hoc document that riders are blackmailed into signing before a big race. And, it should not be full salary, but some significant fraction.

Where I think it might become tricky is the legal aspects of possible false positives. Paying back 2 years salary may bankrupt most riders, and since this is about money they will be forced to fight it all the way to civil courts. The upshot will be that no-one will admit and confess. Once you admit, you can be fined. As long as they maintain innocense, it will be a long haul to get their money.

I believe this is the only reason why Ulrich has not admitted - it would cost him too much money. He will tell the truth once sufficient time has gone for law suits to be obsolete.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
well i go with a rather confused no....

*firstly if any money is getting doled out the UCI are the last people who should get it
* i dont know about winnings if you bear in mind for major tours etc the winnings are split between the whole team.. do we start punishing domestiques because the team leader is a doper..
* its virtually unenforceable.. if the rider says no, im not paying, what do they do, take him to court, make him bancrupt and look like the bad guys
* I dont think it will stop them doping. Humiliation, being branded a cheat is far worse than a financial penalty and that doesnt bother them..
* many of these riders dope without the people around them knowing it, without even their family knowing it, and they get punished enough, without a family being financially punished
* i doubt the legality of it
* until they can get the tests so that ALL dopers are caught, its just alottery, we all know that many many more riders are cheating than are caught. i have some sympathy with those who are made to feel scapegoats..

Its a pile of hot air from the UCI that looks good in the press but in the real world is pointless..

Lifetime bans would have hell of a lot more impact..
 
Apr 29, 2009
18
0
0
They must also be treated as crimminals as thats what they are - they are guiilty obtaining money by deception - lets see some of thse scumbags in prison.
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,274
1
0
dimspace said:
* I dont think it will stop them doping. Humiliation, being branded a cheat is far worse than a financial penalty and that doesnt bother them..

I totally disagree. There is one spot where you can hurt a pro-rider and that's in his wallet. Branded a cheat in a world full of cheats? Who cares. Just clean up your act after the suspension, act like you're sorry and willing to fight for a clean sport and you will be welcomed back as a lost son.
 
Sep 22, 2009
45
0
0
I didn't vote for the UCI because I would be reluctant to give some of them an ounce more power than the already have. IF the money could be guarranteed to be going to an anti-doping program, I'm all for it. Ultimately, I think fines are legitimate, as effectively they have stolen money from other riders (or at least gained money through dishonest means, which is a crime in my book), and punishments in line with this criminal act are appropriate.
 
May 6, 2009
8,522
1
0
I don't think life bans will also be effective. In America and other countries if you murder somebody you can face capital punishment, and yet people still murder other people.
 
Oct 22, 2009
11
0
0
dimspace said:
*firstly if any money is getting doled out the UCI are the last people who should get it
*snip*

Agreed. It would be a conflict of interest for the accusers to profit.

I'm actually excited about this topic....it has the potential to be a good debate without the need for bashing specific riders.
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,270
2
0
I voted for the "No because without a clear consistency it’s a rule mockery" option, mainly because of the UCI's system of singling out poorer riders while letting some of the big guys off. All this would do is make the poor scapegoats poorer, thus ensuring they have even less money to put on a legal battle. These guys are already the doctors' guinea pigs when it comes to dope, and then are made the UCI test cases for prosecution (e.g., trying to prosecute based on biopassport alone. That would never be done with a big star, but with a lowly rider form a poorly-funded team).

Until the UCI gets more impartial, and stops taking bribes from riders in the name of "fighting doping," I don't want them getting any more money and power.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
MiXels said:
Agreed. It would be a conflict of interest for the accusers to profit.

I'm actually excited about this topic....it has the potential to be a good debate without the need for bashing specific riders.

Always good to see new posters on the forum! Welcome.

I agree with your point, as I have often said - the UCI should have nothing to do with anti-doping.
Unfortunately in the poll the only anti-doping is through the UCI.

I am very surprised to see people voting that the team gets any fine. I would be interested in hearing an argument for that as I can see lots of conflicts of interests there.
 
I voted No for many reasons:

- Consistency problems
- Legality problems,
- Error related issues.
- Etc.

Maybe the prize money but not the salary. This was discussed before. You can look up at Boalio's posts from the past. His answers were very comprehensive. He is no longer in this forum anyway. Too bad.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
ha..when i created the poll i hesitated to include 'no because it's illegal' because i don't know how the eu labor law looks at sporting fraud.
to my surprise the 'illegal' option collected as many votes as the next highest.

i wonder if there are any legal specialist around here to shed some light. it'd be fascinating.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
python said:
ha..when i created the poll i hesitated to include 'no because it's illegal' because i don't know how the eu labor law looks at sporting fraud.
to my surprise the 'illegal' option collected as many votes as the next highest.

i wonder if there are any legal specialist around here to shed some light. it'd be fascinating.

ok.. if i commit a sackable offence at work, my employer is able to sack me, and recoup any costs for instance if i have stolen (as long as there is an agreement to such in my contract).. they are not allowed to take wages i have already earnt by way of fine..

regardless of the image the doper makes on the sport, in winning a stage for instance, he has already given the sport positive publicity (even if that is later undone), he has attented press conferences, he has done his JOB...

where do you stop, cadel evans convicted of doping, so he has his results and , winnings taken from him, thats fine, do we also fine Philippe Gilbert, and take away his winnings from him as he won them by receiving assistance from a cheat...???
(using evans purely as a random example).. Evans may have cheated his way to a win in the worlds, so take that away, but how can you realistically take away his wages, because in lombardia he did his job, what he was paid to do... he earned that money..

its a legal quagmire and i beleive unenforcable..
 
I voted for the fact that it's a bs deterrent :D

Harsher punishments for crimes simply don't work on their own. You need good enforcement to act as an equal deterrent, and we all know how great that is in cycling.

Just increasing it to 3 year suspension would probably work better... It's basically the same thing 3 years income lost instead of 2+1.

Edit: Prize money should be returned just for the ethics of it, not as any real deterrent.

There's no way ANY of this money should be going to the UCI. Give them money to WADA.
 
Aug 26, 2009
38
0
0
which?

Beech Mtn said:
I voted for the "No because without a clear consistency it’s a rule mockery" option, mainly because of the UCI's system of singling out poorer riders while letting some of the big guys off. All this would do is make the poor scapegoats poorer, thus ensuring they have even less money to put on a legal battle. These guys are already the doctors' guinea pigs when it comes to dope, and then are made the UCI test cases for prosecution (e.g., trying to prosecute based on biopassport alone. That would never be done with a big star, but with a lowly rider form a poorly-funded team).

Until the UCI gets more impartial, and stops taking bribes from riders in the name of "fighting anti-doping," I don't want them getting any more money and power.

"Fighting anti-doping". Don't you mean fighting doping?
I voted No, and, I'd like to add to the sound reasons expressed on this forum by several members. This is another case of punishing individuals - the riders. I won't believe the guilty riders do it all on their own. I wish the UCI and other authorities would get their act together and go after the suppliers, the enablers, and the whole hidden network of people who are making big money from selling dope. They are the ones who should be fined, banned, jailed... whatever it takes.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
dimspace said:
ok.. if i commit a sackable offence at work, my employer is able to sack me, and recoup any costs for instance if i have stolen (as long as there is an agreement to such in my contract).. they are not allowed to take wages i have already earnt by way of fine..

regardless of the image the doper makes on the sport, in winning a stage for instance, he has already given the sport positive publicity (even if that is later undone), he has attented press conferences, he has done his JOB...

where do you stop, cadel evans convicted of doping, so he has his results and , winnings taken from him, thats fine, do we also fine Philippe Gilbert, and take away his winnings from him as he won them by receiving assistance from a cheat...???
(using evans purely as a random example).. Evans may have cheated his way to a win in the worlds, so take that away, but how can you realistically take away his wages, because in lombardia he did his job, what he was paid to do... he earned that money..


its a legal quagmire and i beleive unenforcable..
Firstly - we are jumping the gun a little here, in so far as the ruling from CAS will answer the question of legality or not

DIM - to answer your highlighted questions.
Remember all prize-money from all riders goes in to a collective pool. So the team profits from having doped rider - currently when a rider gets caught the team does not suffer, only the rider. There is no incentive on management to not hire suspect riders and no incentive on the other riders to highlight suspect teammates.

Also taking on an earlier point that was raised - if a rider gets caught with their A sample, if they fore-go having their B sample analyzed they only pay half a years salary. This would save the anti-doping agencies money and time. But if they insist on having the B sample analyzed and are found positive they pay the full amount.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Firstly - we are jumping the gun a little here, in so far as the ruling from CAS will answer the question of legality or not

DIM - to answer your highlighted questions.
Remember all prize-money from all riders goes in to a collective pool. So the team profits from having doped rider - currently when a rider gets caught the team does not suffer, only the rider. There is no incentive on management to not hire suspect riders and no incentive on the other riders to highlight suspect teammates.

Also taking on an earlier point that was raised - if a rider gets caught with their A sample, if they fore-go having their B sample analyzed they only pay half a years salary. This would save the anti-doping agencies money and time. But if they insist on having the B sample analyzed and are found positive they pay the full amount.

The team should have some liability then.

A more awkward way would be to "freeze" prize money until 12months after the competition (or maybe distribute it in increments) and after that you're home free, but yeh, awkward.

Honestly, the biggest deterrent would be something which punishes non-sanctioned riders also. An individual has no reason to stop doping if things only get bad when he's caught. I guess professionals would never agree to that though.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
I'd just call it a fine rather than a reimbursement of salary. The UCI could use and should use some extra dough to combat doping.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
dimspace said:
well i go with a rather confused no....

*firstly if any money is getting doled out the UCI are the last people who should get it
* i dont know about winnings if you bear in mind for major tours etc the winnings are split between the whole team.. do we start punishing domestiques because the team leader is a doper..
* its virtually unenforceable.. if the rider says no, im not paying, what do they do, take him to court, make him bancrupt and look like the bad guys
* I dont think it will stop them doping. Humiliation, being branded a cheat is far worse than a financial penalty and that doesnt bother them..
* many of these riders dope without the people around them knowing it, without even their family knowing it, and they get punished enough, without a family being financially punished
* i doubt the legality of it
* until they can get the tests so that ALL dopers are caught, its just alottery, we all know that many many more riders are cheating than are caught. i have some sympathy with those who are made to feel scapegoats..

Its a pile of hot air from the UCI that looks good in the press but in the real world is pointless..

Lifetime bans would have hell of a lot more impact..

Dim-thanks for saving me some typing as you hit the top points. I do like the Dr's suggestion of fining the teams, though. That money could go to a rider's fund.