The Rules for Redemption

[the sceptic]

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.

Sadly though, the sport is riddled with these people so I dont see how this is going to happen any time soon.

 

[Benotti69]

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.

Who is hero worshipping Landis?

Landis said that there was no fight for preventing doping so might as well legalize it. Considering his state of mind when he made that comment he may well have changed it.

As for Di Luca's nonsense, i say he knows more about doping in the peloton than most. His pro career started in '98. Long time doping and riding a bike.

 

[Scott SoCal]

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 didn't have to do anything but don't try to tell me he did it for the good of cycling.

I never said that he did. I said, "His motivations were different to be sure."

His prime motivation was revenge.

Maybe. I think it was more of the mafia mentality and the rank hypocrisy that Floyd could not reconcile.

There is also the qui tam case in which he stands to make big bucks if it goes that way.

That, no doubt, is about revenge.

If he had not blown his money on his own defence, again he might have said nothing.

I think Floyd burned the house down because of him being black-balled. I don't think it was about money until LA started with the "we like our credibility" nonsense.

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

Well, there's no Hamilton without what Landis did. There's no reasoned decision without what Landis did and so on.

 

[gooner]

Who is hero worshipping Landis?

Landis said that there was no fight for preventing doping so might as well legalize it. Considering his state of mind when he made that comment he may well have changed it.

As for Di Luca's nonsense, i say he knows more about doping in the peloton than most. His pro career started in '98. Long time doping and riding a bike.

Benotti, I'm on about Di Luca's "legalize doping" comment which he also said.

Either way, the suggestion shouldn't be welcomed.

 

[Benotti69]

Benotti, I'm on about Di Luca's "legalize doping" comment which he also said.

Either way, the suggestion shouldn't be welcomed.

Nope it shouldn't be welcomed.

Di Luca is an idiot. Not too far removed from Ricco imo, but that tends to be the way of it in Italy. These guys are started down these roads at a young age.

But I have not seen too many in here worship Landis as a hero. Plenty have been happy that he became a whistleblower, whatever his motivation.

 

[pmcg76]

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

What if you doped your entire career, co-erced others into doing so and were an active promoter in doping but were never caught or never linked to anything. In that case, this type of person could be far worse to have running a team than someone who was caught, admitted and did their time.

Just picking out someone randomly, is Dimi Konyshev a good person to have in charge of a team or Andrei Tchmile? Yes both Katusha guys but that is just a sample.

 

[del1962]

How many have confessed without being caught and no evidence from others against them, not many, I can think of Kimmage who we can trust on his own story and for which he showed a great deal of bravery.

I think Tyler Hamilton is genuinely sorry for what he did, there will be others to, and some will have told the whole truth, but the problem is no one really knows if they are telling the whole truth.

Anyway a good question to ask.

 

[pmcg76]

I think there is also too much emphasis put on this idea that because a rider doped themselves, they will automatically put pressure on others to dope if they become a DS, manager, coach. Like all things, I don't believe it is that black or wide, there is probably a spectrum. I am sure there are guys who take full responsibility for their own doping but would never put any pressure on anyone else to dope and vice-versa.

Another example, Marc Madiot, admitted to doping, was pro-ometra(see Rough Ride), ran a team that had the normal doping protocols of the time(97-98) but still running the same team that is now considered to be one of the team's most likely to be clean.

 

[martinvickers]

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

Jesus, you two guys are going to do my head in, talking all this good sense. not that it matters, but I agree 100%. Life bans. And frankly, the quicker other countries, my own included (both jurisdictions!) copy France and Italy and seek to criminalise doping activity, the better - The threat of Jail time is the one thing that seems historically to have put a dent in the doping style.

If the IOC got its act together, and made such criminalisation a requirement for hosting games, for example...

 

[martinvickers]

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

Probably Kimmage, to be fair. But his personal knowledge is very old. Hamilton and Landis probably were reasonably frank about the extent of the problem, some of the techniques, but maybe not all the personal details, which I suspect were bent to fit narratives, as such books always are.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Probably Kimmage, to be fair. But his personal knowledge is very old. Hamilton and Landis probably were reasonably frank about the extent of the problem, some of the techniques, but maybe not all the personal details, which I suspect were bent to fit narratives, as such books always are.

Rasmussen delivered the truth imo, but I doubt he can be trusted in any capacity. Hence the consensus statement earlier.

Of course simple employment/ownership rules can be applied, but these are different from general redemption imo.

 

[42x16ss]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Jesus Manzano or Filippo Simeoni. They are about the only two ex-dopers who I'd trust if they chose to remain in the sport. Even then, I'd be sceptical of Simeoni. If Kimmage chose to get back into cycling in some capacity I would include him as well.

If true, some of the things I've heard about Zabriskie would go a long way to restoring some credibility but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Hamilton, Rasmussen and Landis have given some great insight to techniques etc but I still don't think they should be welcomed back in to the fold, unless it involves suggesting improvements to anti doping.

Barry, Hincapie, JV, Zabel, Riis, Stephens, Julich, White etc should have no place in the sport. Disgusting hypocrites.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Working with the (independent, non-UCI) authorities only. For the purposes of outing other cheats / dopers / suppliers / dodgy practices.

ala Frank Abagnale.

On the premise that their confession involves "catching" at least one other person involved in their doping before they even become eligible for this singular task.

Anyone saying, "I did it all myself" is out, banned for life. You bought it from someone else for starters, or the raw ingredients to make your own (!?).

Doctors, with their specialised training and Hippocratic oath dope riders because they see the incredible physical strain they are under. Now imagine someone with proven dodgy morals (already doped) in that same arena, feeling any concern for riders they direct or coach, with the contacts they have, and the experience they have in avoiding tests or testing positive.

Post-AA drunks do not say they are no longer drunks. "We in AA believe there is no such thing as a cure for alcoholism."

At the very least I think that's a good place to start for people who have doped, in terms of the mindset that needs to be instilled if wanting to be involved in cycling.

 

[42x16ss]

Working with the (independent, non-UCI) authorities only. For the purposes of outing other cheats / dopers / suppliers / dodgy practices.

ala Frank Abagnale.

On the premise that their confession involves "catching" at least one other person involved in their doping before they even become eligible for this singular task.

Anyone saying, "I did it all myself" is out, banned for life. You bought it from someone else for starters, or the raw ingredients to make your own (!?).

Doctors, with their specialised training and Hippocratic oath dope riders because they see the incredible physical strain they are under. Now imagine someone with proven dodgy morals (already doped) in that same arena, feeling any concern for riders they direct or coach, with the contacts they have, and the experience they have in avoiding tests or testing positive.

Post-AA drunks do not say they are no longer drunks. "We in AA believe there is no such thing as a cure for alcoholism."

At the very least I think that's a good place to start for people who have doped, in terms of the mindset that needs to be instilled if wanting to be involved in cycling.

This^^^

A good explanation of why Manzano and Simeoni are about the only dopers I'd accept back in to the sport.

 

[Archibald]

....I doubt he can be trusted in any capacity....

this is the key - trust

who do you trust?
LA? Landis? JV? DiLuca? Simeoni? Hamilton? Millar? O'Grady? Valverde? etc...


that, for me is where it lies. I grew up thinking the world of O'Grady, but then he came out with that rot he esponged... well... for the moment I really don't know how I see him anymore. Redeemed? Not in my eyes now... or yet
And that's why I reckon Scott SoCal is on the money.

Also comes down to how repentent they are. Millar vs Valverde... one I don't mind, the other I can't stand

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Also comes down to how repentent they are. Millar vs Valverde... one I don't mind, the other I can't stand

I am probably (?) the complete opposite of you.

To my mind, Millar is a train wreck of PR blathering, not believable, self-entitled, cry baby BS.

Off the top of my head:
* Sky are the clean team, along with us, with the only believable TdF winners other than Cadel
* Contador is clean coz he crushed, non-stop
* The whole Floyd Landis denigration
* Doping didn't help me all that much



Valverde just gets on and does his job. Far more believable.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I'm repeating a little, is the overwhelming tendency for the caught doper's story to be told, roughly, as some kind of lone doper. Which, we know isn't true and doesn't really get to the matter, IOC's enabling the doping.

As for the sanctioned athletes themselves, it's too hard to set broad guidelines that work. Yes, some cases need a ban from the sport.

Others, probably are better to be involved if they can come at it with a JV-like message of "We don't want you to be doing that stuff, so don't do that stuff here because we have these different measures of success." It would be nice, but not quite real.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

I'm repeating a little, is the overwhelming tendency for the caught doper's story to be told, roughly, as some kind of lone doper. Which, we know isn't true and doesn't really get to the matter, IOC's enabling the doping.

As for the sanctioned athletes themselves, it's too hard to set broad guidelines that work. Yes, some cases need a ban from the sport.

Others, probably are better to be involved if they can come at it with a JV-like message of "We don't want you to be doing that stuff, so don't do that stuff here because we have these different measures of success." It would be nice, but not quite real.

Yeah maybe there needs to be a Reformed Dopers Association, a sort of a post cycling AA for cyclists. They could have group therapy online and earn points towards redemption.

But seriously, I think it is an individual thing. Some people are just more contrite and more apologetic than others. Sincerity is the key. I don't have a lot of trouble with Vaughters and Riis in the sport because I think they admitted everything, apologised and seem committed to clean cycling. Hamilton seems genuinely contrite.

But those who write books where they try to shape their legacy favourably, minimize their culpability and rationalize their behaviour in my mind will do the same things if they are back in cycling.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

But seriously, I think it is an individual thing. Some people are just more contrite and more apologetic than others. Sincerity is the key. I don't have a lot of trouble with Vaughters and Riis in the sport because I think they admitted everything, apologised and seem committed to clean cycling. Hamilton seems genuinely contrite.

And then have a team website where the team manager's profile boasts about setting the Ventoux ascent record thanks to advanced training techniques?

Puhlease.

 

[SundayRider]

Probably Kimmage, to be fair. But his personal knowledge is very old. Hamilton and Landis probably were reasonably frank about the extent of the problem, some of the techniques, but maybe not all the personal details, which I suspect were bent to fit narratives, as such books always are.

Hamilton does seem genuine to me, his book points a lot of blam at himself as well as the system. He was one of the first riders to speak about Armstrong in the mainstream on 60 minutes. Of course they all have a narrative though, the ones still inside the sport always make much more guarded 'revelations'.

 

[Netserk]

I'd be pro life-time bans, if I thought doping primarily was/is an individual problem, but I do think it's a systematic one primarily.

 

[Walkman]

Yeah maybe there needs to be a Reformed Dopers Association, a sort of a post cycling AA for cyclists. They could have group therapy online and earn points towards redemption.

But seriously, I think it is an individual thing. Some people are just more contrite and more apologetic than others. Sincerity is the key. I don't have a lot of trouble with Vaughters and Riis in the sport because I think they admitted everything, apologised and seem committed to clean cycling. Hamilton seems genuinely contrite.

But those who write books where they try to shape their legacy favourably, minimize their culpability and rationalize their behaviour in my mind will do the same things if they are back in cycling.

Hahaha, what?!

The guy has coached Basso, Hamilton, Jaksche and Contador among others. And you think he is "committed to clean cycling".

Bjarne Riis is a ****ing disgrace to cycling and I welcome the day when he is out of the sport. Cheated as a rider and as a manager, he is the same as Bruyneel.

 

[ebandit]

sorry!

sorry! is so lame................don't do it

Mark L

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Hahaha, what?!

The guy has coached Basso, Hamilton, Jaksche and Contador among others. And you think he is "committed to clean cycling".

Bjarne Riis is a ****ing disgrace to cycling and I welcome the day when he is out of the sport. Cheated as a rider and as a manager, he is the same as Bruyneel.

Yes I do in spite of the circumstantial evidence you appropriately point to that causes you to raise legitimate concerns about Riis. I cannot see why Riis would risk his managing and coaching career by encouraging the riders he has coached to dope, especially after his very public admission he too doped. He would be committing suicide with his career and his former ownership position of a pro team.

My understanding of Riis is that he is widely respected as a great tactician and that is his forte as a DS.

 

[gobuck]

Riis told Tyler about blood doping...............

RobbieCanuck
Quote:


Yes I do in spite of the circumstantial evidence you appropriately point to that causes you to raise legitimate concerns about Riis. I cannot see why Riis would risk his managing and coaching career by encouraging the riders he has coached to dope, especially after his very public admission he too doped. He would be committing suicide with his career and his former ownership position of a pro team.

My understanding of Riis is that he is widely respected as a great tactician and that is his forte as a DS.