The Rules for Redemption

[RobbieCanuck]

At what point do we forgive the dopers who confessed? What does it take to earn redemption for a major life mistake? Does s/he remain in cycling purgatory forever? What are the ground rules?

 

[Scott SoCal]

Tell the whole story. All of it.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Tell the whole story. All of it.

Is that it? Is it that simple. Does this mean Barry is redeemed? Hamilton? Hincapie? Are they allowed to run development teams? Should they be allowed to be employed with a Pro Team, amateur team? Run cycling clinics?Profit from Gran Fondos? Promote the sport?

What about timing of the disclosure? Is Ryder Hejesdal redeemed even though he cynically waited until the Statute of Limitations to expire before he "told the whole story"? Does it matter whether or not the cyclist is a "good guy" or a real skunk like Armstrong?

Help me out here or this will be the shortest thread on record!

 

[20SecondsToComply]

Is that it? Is it that simple. Does this mean Barry is redeemed? Hamilton? Hincapie? Are they allowed to run development teams? Should they be allowed to be employed with a Pro Team, amateur team? Run cycling clinics?Profit from Gran Fondos? Promote the sport?

What about timing of the disclosure? Is Ryder Hejesdal redeemed even though he cynically waited until the Statute of Limitations to expire before he "told the whole story"? Does it matter whether or not the cyclist is a "good guy" or a real skunk like Armstrong?

Help me out here or this will be the shortest thread on record!

Boy, talk about opening a can of worms ...

 

[20SecondsToComply]

Boy, talk about opening a can of worms ...

In all seriousness, I'm new here so don't have much experience but given your question I can't see this being the shortest thread ever.

 

[Afrank]

I think it depends on the rider. Someone that was caught doping, admits they made a mistake, and serves their ban fairly; I can forgive them if they wish to make a return after serving their ban.

On the other hand someone like Ricco who kept coming back never learning from his mistakes, or like Armstrong (we're all familiar with his history). They are riders who I don't think I would ever forgive, lied for too long and did too much damage to the sport. These types are the ones I want to just go away and leave the sport alone.

If a rider tells all then it IMO certainly helps to cast them in a more forgiving light because at least they are trying to do the right thing after making the mistakes of doping. But the degree of forgiveness they get for telling all depends on their past history.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Is that it? Is it that simple. Does this mean Barry is redeemed? Hamilton? Hincapie? Are they allowed to run development teams? Should they be allowed to be employed with a Pro Team, amateur team? Run cycling clinics?Profit from Gran Fondos? Promote the sport?

What about timing of the disclosure? Is Ryder Hejesdal redeemed even though he cynically waited until the Statute of Limitations to expire before he "told the whole story"? Does it matter whether or not the cyclist is a "good guy" or a real skunk like Armstrong?

Help me out here or this will be the shortest thread on record!

Is that it? Is it that simple.

I think so. At least in most cases I think people are willing to forgive and allow for second chances. Lance is a pariah because he is still lying and everybody knows it. If he told his story, all of it, asked for forgiveness I think he'd be much further along than he is now (legal cases notwithstanding).

Does this mean Barry is redeemed?

At least one person with knowledge thinks that Barry is not being completely honest. Beyond that, I don't think too many people are concerned about Barry's redemption. Hamilton I think is well on his way. Why? He told his story, doesn't appear to be holding anything back and named names.

Hincapie?

Seems to be getting a pass although if he keeps running his mouth the way he did to the DFP then I think he will ultimately sink himself.... unless he tells the entire story. Then he will certainly be a compelling actor.

Are they allowed to run development teams?

Sure. If I'm trying to brand my company I don't get in bed with the Axel Merckx's of the world, but that's just me.

Should they be allowed to be employed with a Pro Team, amateur team? Run cycling clinics?Profit from Gran Fondos? Promote the sport?

If they are not currently serving a suspension then, yes. But it's also up to sponsors and tifosi to make a judgment. Somebody like JV being involved in the sport bothers less than, say, Lefevere being involved. Again, that is just my opinion.

What about timing of the disclosure? Is Ryder Hejesdal redeemed even though he cynically waited until the Statute of Limitations to expire before he "told the whole story"? Does it matter whether or not the cyclist is a "good guy" or a real skunk like Armstrong?

Being compelled to talk via subpoena isn't particularly impressive. Hejesdal's silence is deafening. I get why he doesn't want to talk about it but if I'm branding a company or product I want nothing to do with the guy. Again, my opinion.

 

[the sceptic]

At what point do we forgive the dopers who confessed? What does it take to earn redemption for a major life mistake? Does s/he remain in cycling purgatory forever? What are the ground rules?

I dont think former dopers should be allowed to run cycling teams.

I have no sympathy for the likes of Hesjedal who come out with a half assed "confession" once there is no turning back. For me, that is no better than what the likes of Di Luca and Ricco did.

Someone who comes clean out of their own free will gets my respect, or someone who tells the entire truth, without any of that "dark era" bull****.

 

[purcell]

RC,

The thing is that none of these people looking for "redemption" or admittance back into the money printing club have come anywhere near telling the truth or baring their souls in any meaningful way.

None of them. If they admit anything it is because they were forced into it and then only as much as they think they can get away with in a measured, legal advice taken, manner.

This Barry thing is an example. He hasn't come clean. He keeps dribbling out little bits and pieces here and there all the while making it clear that he had no choice so it wasn't his fault. Poor me, feel bad for me.

Why doesn't he man up and say he wanted the money, the fame, the adulation and the multiple houses and world travel so he decided that the only way he was getting the big contracts was to get friendly with a syringe. He made the deliberate choice because he wanted what the choice would buy him. At least it would be honest.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

This is sport, Canuck. Once the "sentence" has been giving and the rider is set free, the fans will decide the consensus perhaps with help from journalists, insiders and people with cash.

There is no such thing as redemption by rules in sports.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Being compelled to talk via subpoena isn't particularly impressive. Hejesdal's silence is deafening. I get why he doesn't want to talk about it but if I'm branding a company or product I want nothing to do with the guy. Again, my opinion.

Right now the USADA has asked him not to comment publicly on certain issues.

 

[20SecondsToComply]

Unfortunately I don't think you will often see people 'fess up their lot when there is a possibility of being sued by sponsors, etc.

Losing a sporting career is one thing, losing $m is another.

Its a difficult one, esp. when it comes to running teams. Personally I like what Vaughters says, etc. and to a lesser extent Millar. But how do you then treat Riis - he confessed, and has talked about running a clean team. What about having zero tolerance - does that force people to hide?

Trying to write rules around what you will / wont accept and allow back in to the fold is a bit of a nightmare (unless you just life ban everyone on the first offence).

 

[Catwhoorg]

Tell the whole story. All of it.

To the relevant authorities, preferably under oath is the ideal.
I'm less concerned about public dishing than the information gets to people who could actually use it.


Actually apologise and admit that they were wrong.

Show remorse when allowed back after a ban.

Then maybe over time a little bit of redemption can occur.

 

[pmcg76]

I think it depends on the rider. Someone that was caught doping, admits they made a mistake, and serves their ban fairly; I can forgive them if they wish to make a return after serving their ban.

On the other hand someone like Ricco who kept coming back never learning from his mistakes, or like Armstrong (we're all familiar with his history). They are riders who I don't think I would ever forgive, lied for too long and did too much damage to the sport. These types are the ones I want to just go away and leave the sport alone.

If a rider tells all then it IMO certainly helps to cast them in a more forgiving light because at least they are trying to do the right thing after making the mistakes of doping. But the degree of forgiveness they get for telling all depends on their past history.

But what is 'all' and what does it entail. Too often it is posters deciding when someone is telling the truth. For example Dave Zabriskie's affidavit was one of the more believeable accounts of doping and coupled with the bit's in Cycle of Lies, it seems truthful but there are plenty on here who would claim he didn't tell the whole truth. How someone would know that I don't know unless they know Zabriskie or people close to him.

On the other hand, Floyd is more or less forgiven by many people yet many refuse to believe that he was riding clean at Mercury and at US postal the first year as he claims. On that basis Floyd is still not telling the full truth but is still forgiven. Floyd only told the truth when he ran out of options and chances are if he had got a ride at RadioShack, he would have said nothing. I am not sure how that marks him out as any different than Dave Z.

Take Ricco, people always say he is a punchbag but it is pretty obvious why he is the punchbag. He is the guy who doesn't know when to stop and is well ****ed-up. To me someone like Ricco(and Di Luca)is such a hardcore doper, he could never even comprehend riding clean or anyone else doing so. If he came out tomorrow and said everyone was doping, plenty on here would laud it as the truth.

The truth and how forgiveness is doled out in the clinic depends on the agenda of the particular poster.

 

[nevada]

Have any of them ever fully told the truth about the full extent of their doping ?

 

[20SecondsToComply]

Floyd only told the truth when he ran out of options and chances are if he had got a ride at RadioShack, he would have said nothing. I am not sure how that marks him out as any different than Dave Z.

Its just as well Lance was such an ar5e towards him and (allegedly) stopped him coming back, otherwise we would never have known.

What I do find interesting about the USADA evidence is that almost all of them mentioned stopping in 2006. Now that corresponds with Armstrong retiring (or soon after) - coincidence maybe, but given that date has no SOL implications (evidence in 2011/12) its an interesting thought. Armstrong certainly had day to day control of his team mates, and seemed to know what all the big boys were up to.

Did he bully (directly / indirectly) the peloton? Were they relieved when he retired? Did they feel they could speak out more?

 

[Scott SoCal]

But what is 'all' and what does it entail. Too often it is posters deciding when someone is telling the truth. For example Dave Zabriskie's affidavit was one of the more believeable accounts of doping and coupled with the bit's in Cycle of Lies, it seems truthful but there are plenty on here who would claim he didn't tell the whole truth. How someone would know that I don't know unless they know Zabriskie or people close to him.

On the other hand, Floyd is more or less forgiven by many people yet many refuse to believe that he was riding clean at Mercury and at US postal the first year as he claims. On that basis Floyd is still not telling the full truth but is still forgiven. Floyd only told the truth when he ran out of options and chances are if he had got a ride at RadioShack, he would have said nothing. I am not sure how that marks him out as any different than Dave Z.

Take Ricco, people always say he is a punchbag but it is pretty obvious why he is the punchbag. He is the guy who doesn't know when to stop and is well ****ed-up. To me someone like Ricco(and Di Luca)is such a hardcore doper, he could never even comprehend riding clean or anyone else doing so. If he came out tomorrow and said everyone was doping, plenty on here would laud it as the truth.

The truth and how forgiveness is doled out in the clinic depends on the agenda of the particular poster.

It's not about the clinic.

Take LA for example. How is he looked upon outside the clinic?

For example Dave Zabriskie's affidavit was one of the more believeable accounts of doping and coupled with the bit's in Cycle of Lies, it seems truthful but there are plenty on here who would claim he didn't tell the whole truth. How someone would know that I don't know unless they know Zabriskie or people close to him.

If DZ is to be believed he tried to alert Johnson at USAC. That's ballsy and it's also my understanding he spoke willingly to Tygart. If true, then he should be viewed differently than, say, Hincapie.

On the other hand, Floyd is more or less forgiven by many people yet many refuse to believe that he was riding clean at Mercury and at US postal the first year as he claims. On that basis Floyd is still not telling the full truth but is still forgiven. Floyd only told the truth when he ran out of options and chances are if he had got a ride at RadioShack, he would have said nothing. I am not sure how that marks him out as any different than Dave Z.

Floyd saying he had no qualms about doping is about as honest as it gets. His motivations were different to be sure but ultimately his back was not against the wall (in a legal sense). He didn't have to do anything. But he did. I think most are giving him credit for that.

 

[pmcg76]

It's not about the clinic.

Take LA for example. How is he looked upon outside the clinic?



If DZ is to be believed he tried to alert Johnson at USAC. That's ballsy and it's also my understanding he spoke willingly to Tygart. If true, then he should be viewed differently than, say, Hincapie.



Floyd saying he had no qualms about doping is about as honest as it gets. His motivations were different to be sure but ultimately his back was not against the wall (in a legal sense). He didn't have to do anything. But he did. I think most are giving him credit for that.

Landis didn't have to do anything but don't try to tell me he did it for the good of cycling. His prime motivation was revenge. Everyone has their own personal agenda for telling the truth. There is also the qui tam case in which he stands to make big bucks if it goes that way. If he had not blown his money on his own defence, again he might have said nothing.

I give kudos to Landis but don't understand why people give him a break when they don't believe he is telling the full truth.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Is that it? Is it that simple. Does this mean Barry is redeemed? Hamilton? Hincapie? Are they allowed to run development teams? Should they be allowed to be employed with a Pro Team, amateur team? Run cycling clinics?Profit from Gran Fondos? Promote the sport?

What about timing of the disclosure? Is Ryder Hejesdal redeemed even though he cynically waited until the Statute of Limitations to expire before he "told the whole story"? Does it matter whether or not the cyclist is a "good guy" or a real skunk like Armstrong?

Help me out here or this will be the shortest thread on record!

My personal opinion is that once you've had a doping sanction, you can serve your time and then ride again. But once you've retired from racing, that's it. You can't be associated with the sport at any level. You've compromised yourself and have no place in the sport.

Of course, that means you're limiting someone's career options and future earnings, which can be unfair. What I'd like to see is that upon retirement (for whatever reason), a rider has access to a fund (paid for by the teams) set up for retraining. Retraining could be any kind of vocational training or education up to a bachelor's degree.

I think that would be both fair, and provide less incentive for lesser riders to engage in doping, since their livelihood would not depend on cheating.

Redemption really has no meaning, nor any place in fair sport.

John Swanson

 

[Benotti69]

I dont think former dopers should be allowed to run cycling teams.

I have no sympathy for the likes of Hesjedal who come out with a half assed "confession" once there is no turning back. For me, that is no better than what the likes of Di Luca and Ricco did.

Someone who comes clean out of their own free will gets my respect, or someone who tells the entire truth, without any of that "dark era" bull****.

I agree, I dont think dopers should be allowed have influence in the sport not just running teams. I think if you dope you're out for life.

 

[Avoriaz]

Who decides whether a rider has come clean, told the whole truth and is rehabilitated?

 

[Digger]

Landis didn't have to do anything but don't try to tell me he did it for the good of cycling. His prime motivation was revenge. Everyone has their own personal agenda for telling the truth. There is also the qui tam case in which he stands to make big bucks if it goes that way. If he had not blown his money on his own defence, again he might have said nothing.

I give kudos to Landis but don't understand why people give him a break when they don't believe he is telling the full truth.

Landis also knew he was leaving himself open to charges for the fund by coming forward...so I am sick of this notion that he had nothing to lose...half a million and jail time....yeah other than that he had nothing left to lose...

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Who decides whether a rider has come clean, told the whole truth and is rehabilitated?

Which is why I say its based on consensus. A bit likely a politician who fuccs up and comes up with an excuse and apologizes. She might be popular again or not. Rules can't be applied logically.

The public or fans will ultimately decide, sometimes a slow process.

 

[gooner]

Landis also knew he was leaving himself open to charges for the fund by coming forward...so I am sick of this notion that he had nothing to lose...half a million and jail time....yeah other than that he had nothing left to lose...

I will repeat what I said before on this.

Read Cycle of Lies, Landis first heard about the whistleblower stuff when I think Lim told him about what Prentice Steffen was planning to do on it. That obviously stuck in Floyd's mind and for me, it was the defining reason to come forward. Floyd saw an opportunity to gain as a result of doing it himself. Had Floyd got a ride with Radioshack or if there was no whistleblower incentive for a chance of a lorry load of cash, I don't think he would have opened his mouth. People can have their hero worship of him if they wish, not that I have heroes in sport but if someone was to gain my respect for coming forward, Floyd's reasons are not it. I don't think someone who says doping should be legalised in some form has this great interest in the good of the sport. It's the same as the nonsense that Di Luca said recently.

I'd love to see the reaction of the same people here who love Landis, if Wiggins in the future said something about legalised doping. Somehow, I think the reaction would be different.

 

[20SecondsToComply]

My personal opinion is that once you've had a doping sanction, you can serve your time and then ride again. But once you've retired from racing, that's it. You can't be associated with the sport at any level. You've compromised yourself and have no place in the sport.

Why different if you are retired?

Dopers are liars (Tyler and Floyd I'm sure would agree) - but does being caught make you less of a liar than someone who isnt? Has Berty shown any contrition?

Tyler & Floyd have (ok maybe for the wrong reasons) but at least they have. AB (by rights) should be on a life ban now ...

Now, if they both wanted to come back and ride or run a team, how would I feel about that? Actually I probably wouldn't be too disturbed about it. They are both confessed dopers BUT have shown some kind of (minimal) repentence. What about Vaughters - confessed but never sanctioned?

As I said earlier - its a difficult situation.