Should those caught using PEDs..

[Benotti69]

Should those caught using PEDs be automatically given min 4/5/6 (or longer)year bans and only reduced if they reveal where and how they acquired their PEDs..

i.e. in the case of Dekker, admitting to use but refusing to say more. He wants to race clean, so he says, but why not give names, as did Kohl, this would make others think about it in the first place and would scare off pharmacists selling/producing the stuff making it harder to dope.

 

[intothe12]

In short yes.

Harsh bans for those who do not expose how, where and from who they recieved the PED's and in what events - then backward testing on those events to see why the did not test positive previously.

Short bans - 1yr / 18 mths for those who sing like a canary.

 

[Roland Rat]

Yes. There has to be some incentive to break omerta.

 

[NashbarShorts]

What about the DS's? They really are the ones enforcing the omerta -- riders who rat don't ride again (Jorg Jaksche, anyone??)

There should a policy where DS's who are complicit or who put their riders on programs should be banned from the sport. 4yrs, 6yrs, lifetime, who cares. Guys like Riis and Bruyneel should be gone. Instead we hear that Riis is going to be Contador's new employer??

Remember all the babble about how Riis was a magician who could help riders "rediscover" themselves?? Jalabert, Julich, Hamilton, etc. Riis could "somehow" help these riders re-believe in themselves. What baloney.

Oh yeah, in order for anything like this to happen, the UCI would have to have a spine and be committed to clean cycling. Never mind...

 

[straydog]

What about the DS's? They really are the ones enforcing the omerta -- riders who rat don't ride again (Jorg Jaksche, anyone??)

There should a policy where DS's who are complicit or who put their riders on programs should be banned from the sport. 4yrs, 6yrs, lifetime, who cares. Guys like Riis and Bruyneel should be gone. Instead we hear that Riis is going to be Contador's new employer??

Remember all the babble about how Riis was a magician who could help riders "rediscover" themselves?? Jalabert, Julich, Hamilton, etc. Riis could "somehow" help these riders re-believe in themselves. What baloney.

Oh yeah, in order for anything like this to happen, the UCI would have to have a spine and be committed to clean cycling. Never mind...

Actually, sanctioning teams might be interesting....one rider fails....the team loses it's licence for the year....wonder what riders would be saying to one another at pre season camps?

I feel another thread coming on....something about a magic wand

 

[Polish]

...reduced if they reveal where and how they acquired their PEDs

Yes. There has to be some incentive to break omerta.

Short bans - 1yr / 18 mths for those who sing like a canary.

I think if a rider is caught using PEDS, but then identifies the Doctor who is supervising the program,
and also pinpoints the valid pharmacy where the PEDS came from
- that rider should be allowed to continue to ride.

No Ban

That would really give incentive to break omerta.

Or at worst ban the rider for 8 months - from races between August and February

 

[The Hitch]

No Ban

I would agree with you, but i think riders caught need some time to let the heat die. If a rider is caught, then breaks omerta, and is allowed straight back into the peloton, while the controversy is fresh, some riders might treat him badly, and then claim the positive dope test is the reason for their hate (when it is actually the breaking of omerta which so ticks them off).

Give the rider 8 months for the story to cool down and then let him back in.

Should those caught using PEDs be automatically given min 4/5/6 (or longer)year bans and only reduced if they reveal where and how they acquired their PEDs..

i.e. in the case of Dekker, admitting to use but refusing to say more. He wants to race clean, so he says, but why not give names, as did Kohl, this would make others think about it in the first place and would scare off pharmacists selling/producing the stuff making it harder to dope.

Why do all the best ideas appear only in this forum, and arent disscussed by the actual organisers.

 

[Benotti69]

I would agree with you, but i think riders caught need some time to let the heat die. If a rider is caught, then breaks omerta, and is allowed straight back into the peloton, while the controversy is fresh, some riders might treat him badly, and then claim the positive dope test is the reason for their hate (when it is actually the breaking of omerta which so ticks them off).

Give the rider 8 months for the story to cool down and then let him back in.



Why do all the best ideas appear only in this forum, and arent disscussed by the actual organisers.

Good question! Why aren't journalists asking these questions of the UCI, DS's, ASO etc.....

 

[Polish]

I would agree with you, but i think riders caught need some time to let the heat die. If a rider is caught, then breaks omerta, and is allowed straight back into the peloton, while the controversy is fresh, some riders might treat him badly, and then claim the positive dope test is the reason for their hate (when it is actually the breaking of omerta which so ticks them off).

Give the rider 8 months for the story to cool down and then let him back in.

Why do all the best ideas appear only in this forum, and arent disscussed by the actual organisers.

Good point about being treated bad.

How about this - the UCI will not announce the bust. Keep it hush hush.

And the rider can explain not racing between August and February as normal rest time. Allergy season or something.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Why do all the best ideas appear only in this forum, and arent disscussed by the actual organisers.

Because they don't favor the current power structure?

 

[Realist]

I've raised the idea of sanctioning teams before. I think it is a good one. I don't think it is fair to riders to suspend the license, since that means one doper can significantly affect the job market for a lot of people. It would be easy to imagine a scenario where two or three pro-tour teams have positive tests in a year, and that would flood the market with riders and hurt the sport badly. I would say personal fines for the DS and doctor of the team would go a long way. Ameliorate or eliminate these fines if the team dobs in the rider or suggests they are suspicious to WADA prior to the date of a positive test.

I also think shortened bans for cooperators are a good idea. One year seems sensible to me. Any less is insulting to riders who raced clean. This means the drugs will have no effect at all by the time the rider comes back, but they won't have their career affected too drastically. If non-cooperators had the ban at three years I think that would be pretty great.

Test positive... assumption is three year ban... if a rider can state where the drugs came from and how they were administered, and prove it on the balance of probabilities (eg through financial records, phone records - avoid the 'fall guy') then ban is reduced to 1 year.

I wouldn't mind if Riis and Bruyneel were out of the sport... if a systematic program is proved you shouldn't be allowed back in, whether you were an administrator or a rider. But perhaps this should be a rule for the future, since it might exclude too many DS's who came through the 90's.

 

[The Hitch]

Good point about being treated bad.

How about this - the UCI will not announce the bust. Keep it hush hush.

And the rider can explain not racing between August and February as normal rest time. Allergy season or something.

Good idea in my opinion.

Good question! Why aren't journalists asking these questions of the UCI, DS's, ASO etc.....

Because they don't favor the current power structure?

It was more a rhetorical question. There are a few good ideas which i think cycling would benefit from. Obviously there are a number of reasons why this one (longer sentences for doping) dont look like getting implemented any time soon.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

The WADA code (see below) is frustratingly close to the ideal of 4yrs for omerta followers, 1yr for omerta breakers, and 4yrs or more for enablers. But, as stated the previous time we discussed it, the code would need to be altered for there to be any true incentive to come forward.

In essence, the problem is that 4yr sanctions can be imposed for anyone who has any kind of ongoing or carefully managed program (unless they promptly admit doping). It's as if WADA believes a one-off lapse of judgement is the norm for athlete PED use. Until the sanction structure places higher benefits on breaking omerta, than punishment for multiple use of PEDS, saying "I was acting alone and I'm very sorry" is the only reliable course of action for an athlete.

IMO, if sanctions were adjusted so everyone expected that riders would break omerta, doping syndicates and team programs would cease rapidly, because they would be too risky. It follows that the motivation to blacklist omerta breakers would also diminish, as there would be fewer individuals benefiting from an "honor among thieves" culture.

For anyone unfamiliar with the details, Here's a brief summary of the WADA CODE 2009 – Article 10, Sanctions:

Under 23.2.2, all WADA signatories must comply with Article 10; substantive changes are not allowed.

10.1 Disqualification Results cancelled if performance was enhanced
10.2 2yr First offence involving positive test, posession or attempted doping
10.3.1 2yr Sample tampering or refusing a test
10.3.2 4yr-Life Traffiking, administering, assisting or abetting
10.3.3 1yr-2yr Whearabouts violation or missing a test
10.4 0yr-2yr If no intention to enhance performance is demonstrated
10.5.1 0yr If no fault or negligence is demonstrated
10.5.2 0-½Reduction If no significant fault or negligence is demonstrated
10.5.3 0-¾Reduction Substantial assistance with busting soemone else
10.5.4 0-½Reduction Voluntary confession
10.5.5 ¾reduction Maximum possible from combining 10.5.1 – 10.5.4
10.6 4yrMax Doping Scheme, multiple incidents/substances, deception/obstruction
**this clause is cancelled by prompt admission**
10.7 1-Life Multiple busts. There's a lookup table that combines the severity of the offences the 1st and 2nd time an athlete gets busted. Generally at least double for a second offence. 3rd offence = go away!

(Note: 0-½Reduction means that the applicable sanction may be reduced anywhere between no reduction and ½ of total applicable ban)