Surety Bonds?

[MarkvW]

I've been wondering why surety bonds are not being used in the fight against doping.

Make the riders post a BIG bond conditioned on clean test results. The bondsmen would make the riders or sponsors encumber real assets so that they would not get stuck having to pay on the bond. A rider would be leery of doping if everything he had of real value was pledged to his bondsman. A sponsor posting such a bond would have good cause to puta percentage of rider earnings in escrow until the bondsman was discharged.

Such a scheme would provide a strong disincentive to cheat.

Trolling for criticism / comment.

 

[theswordsman]

The riders had to sign some kind of financial agreement to ride in the Tour de France a few years ago. One rider paid it this year, and I'm not sure what happened with Vino. There was also a team that tried to change contracts to include something like that I believe around Tour time 2009. Was it Katusha? Anyway, at least one rider publicly balked at that.

Sorry I'm not better with the details, but I haven't had money for supplements and my Post Concussion Syndrome is hitting me hard. I'm sure others can quickly fill in the blanks.

 

[Anonymous]

So im a young rider, just promoted from a domestic team to a pro contintal team, earning $20,000 a year to race. Where do i get the money to pay my bond?

It wouldnt solve the problem anyway.. Its not that riders cheat, its that certain riders get protected while certain get busted. Some riders could post bonds, the uci could test them weekly and "never find anything". Drug testing will never be effective in the sport until the bodies that control the testing are cleaned up and the corruption removed. Besides, i wouldnt trust the UCI with my money, youd give them the bond and paddy would spend it on something.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I've been wondering why surety bonds are not being used in the fight against doping.

Make the riders post a BIG bond conditioned on clean test results. The bondsmen would make the riders or sponsors encumber real assets so that they would not get stuck having to pay on the bond. A rider would be leery of doping if everything he had of real value was pledged to his bondsman. A sponsor posting such a bond would have good cause to puta percentage of rider earnings in escrow until the bondsman was discharged.

Such a scheme would provide a strong disincentive to cheat.

Trolling for criticism / comment.

The problem with your point is that the vast majority of Pro's do not make vast sum's.
Your point would be better aimed at teams or more specifically their controlling agents.

@TheWordsman - correct. Moreni paid it - while both Vino & Rasmussen have fought paying damages.
Again correct on Katusha - McEwen (IIRC) fought signing the 'updated' contract and Steegmans refused and was released.

 

[MarkvW]

scale

So im a young rider, just promoted from a domestic team to a pro contintal team, earning $20,000 a year to race. Where do i get the money to pay my bond?

It wouldnt solve the problem anyway.. Its not that riders cheat, its that certain riders get protected while certain get busted. Some riders could post bonds, the uci could test them weekly and "never find anything". Drug testing will never be effective in the sport until the bodies that control the testing are cleaned up and the corruption removed. Besides, i wouldnt trust the UCI with my money, youd give them the bond and paddy would spend it on something.

The bond wouldn't need to be equal, it could be scaled to earnings or some other indicator

 

[Joe in LA]

The bond wouldn't need to be equal, it could be scaled to earnings or some other indicator

Assuming the bond was equal to your annual salary, you still have a practical problem. Bonds (like bail bonds) are typically 10% of their face and may require security. If you are a young rider earning $30,000 per year, forking over $3,000 is going to be pretty painful, and you probably don't have much in the way of assets to secure it. It's not really fair or workable.

Another problem here is that you might have to pay far more than 10% depending on the risk assessment of the surety company. If they read this forum, they might well conclude everyone dopes and a greater than 10% fee is needed.

 

[flicker]

I've been wondering why surety bonds are not being used in the fight against doping.

Make the riders post a BIG bond conditioned on clean test results. The bondsmen would make the riders or sponsors encumber real assets so that they would not get stuck having to pay on the bond. A rider would be leery of doping if everything he had of real value was pledged to his bondsman. A sponsor posting such a bond would have good cause to puta percentage of rider earnings in escrow until the bondsman was discharged.

Such a scheme would provide a strong disincentive to cheat.

Trolling for criticism / comment.

They tried something similar 1 or 2 years salary in the case of a positive, I think no one paid who signed and many refused to sign.

 

[simo1733]

bonded labour

Did't bonded labour get outlawed along with slavery in most european countries?

 

[Oldman]

Assuming the bond was equal to your annual salary, you still have a practical problem. Bonds (like bail bonds) are typically 10% of their face and may require security. If you are a young rider earning $30,000 per year, forking over $3,000 is going to be pretty painful, and you probably don't have much in the way of assets to secure it. It's not really fair or workable.

Another problem here is that you might have to pay far more than 10% depending on the risk assessment of the surety company. If they read this forum, they might well conclude everyone dopes and a greater than 10% fee is needed.

Excellent point. The base would be much higher unless there was a pledge of unencumbered assets like cash or seriously vetted real estate (your Dubai condo wouldn't count for much). It was offered up in an earlier forum to have the sponsor/team post the bond. That would keep the pressure for hanky panky in the family, so to speak. They could simply kill the rider or something like that. Oh, but first we'd have to have someone other than the UCI providing bonds or policing the testing.

 

[Anonymous]

This, while creative, likely would not work.

Surety Bonds (in the US anyway) are underwritten generally by insurance companies. Underwriters and actuaries are very good at calculating risk. They would take one look at pro cycling and walk away.

 

[brianf7]

Too many legal problems its too simplistic but a Fidelity insurance could be on the cards.
then if you claim you cant get more insurance so you dont race.

 

[doperhopper]

Well, what certainly worked much better was insurance against being caught. Paid directly to Verdruggen.

This could eventually be commercialized: insurer examines quality of your doctors, dealers, motomen, miracle mountains (e.g. Mt. Teide), pillows and other marginal gains... and eventually produces an offer (subject to changes if significant factors change - be it UCI attitude, new drug or new test).

 

[proffate]

what makes you think riders have real assets to encumber?

"I'm sorry Phil but we need you to hand over that igloo..."

Therein lies the problem of sports doping to begin with. If your options are

a) don't dope, be noncompetitive, remain poor
b) dope, be competitive, either make bank or get caught and get the boot

what is the disincentive for doping? Worst case scenario, you're back where you started.

 

[BullsFan22]

what makes you think riders have real assets to encumber?

"I'm sorry Phil but we need you to hand over that igloo..."

Therein lies the problem of sports doping to begin with. If your options are

a) don't dope, be noncompetitive, remain poor
b) dope, be competitive, either make bank or get caught and get the boot

what is the disincentive for doping? Worst case scenario, you're back where you started.

I think it also depends on when you are caught and what the potential consequences are (beyond the suspension). If you are an up and comer that has potential and is caught, given a two year ban...you may have a better shot at coming back and still making decent dough. If you are someone that's in their 30's, an established but nothing special pro, then you may be in trouble. Of course it will also depend on what you have beyond cycling, who you align yourself with, what sort of results you have been putting in (who would want a washed up doper that will lose two full years??), etc.