The Rules for Redemption

[TrackCynic]

If someone is caught doping or "confesses" to doping then...

1. if they are a current pro they should be banned for life from all IOC/UCI/Pro/... events. No special deals, no exceptions.

2. if they are retired then it gets difficult to police. For instance, I think it is abhorrent that Big Dope Hincapie has a huge "cycling" hotel, a clothing business, a grandfondo, and a development team yet we know 100% he was a doper. How do you "ban" that activity? Maybe the Development team should have been pinched in the bud by USAC/UCI, but the rest?

If there are enough masters idiots out there who want to buy his stuff, ride his wine tours, wear his bib shorts, then how do you prevent what is really just a matter of morals? I personally won't buy any stuff that has links to dopers, especially when they use them as a promotional figurehead, like Recon Instruments. Problem is I'm fast running out of brands I can use! Maybe someone could start a website cycling products/brands with how tainted they are - going from red (e.g. Levi's Granfondo) to green (DeFeet)

 

[20SecondsToComply]

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.

If Riis had confessed before he employed and asked Tyler about blood doping then my view would be 100% "you're out". ie confess and then encourage doping = not on.

But his confession was 3-4 years after that. Now, that doesnt make him a saint. And we should look at why he confessed, etc. and what he has done or said since. Looks like he confessed because he was backed in to a corner. His association with Tinkov over the last few years doesnt look good.

My view is that he cannot be considered for redemption.

 

[Night Rider]

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.

Stephen Swart and Kimmage are probably the only two who admitted without any outside pressure whatsoever to do so. If anyone can point to another I would be surprised.

 

[Archibald]

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.

I don't disagree that Millar is bit of a tool just spouting on and on about it. As much of a git as he comes across with his constant switching feet, I don't believe he's back on it.
Valverde is just business as usual and I have no doubt he's back on it like he was before - just wiser as to how to better get away with it

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I don't disagree that Millar is bit of a tool just spouting on and on about it. As much of a git as he comes across with his constant switching feet, I don't believe he's back on it.
Valverde is just business as usual and I have no doubt he's back on it like he was before - just wiser as to how to better get away with it

If it were not for Millar's ridiculous retics in 2007/8, and JV's claim that Millar is not a GT rider due to lack of BV expansion, with Millar's subsequent increase in Hct over the course of a GT, I would agree.

 

[42x16ss]

Stephen Swart and Kimmage are probably the only two who admitted without any outside pressure whatsoever to do so. If anyone can point to another I would be surprised.

Manzano?

10 Chars

 

[RedheadDane]

In order for a rider to get redemption, he has to actually seek redemption.

Which is why I'm leaning more and more towards a lifetime ban on second offence (as opposed to my earlier support of a "three strikes rule"); if a rider gets busted for doping once there is a potential that he - after serving some years on the sideline - realises that what he did was pretty damn stupid. However, if he upon returning goes right back to doping I'd say he probably didn't learn anything.

 

[mrhender]

Are we holding the right people responsible?

Forehand I would like to state that my English is far froom(joke) good, so please bear with me or ask me to elaborate if my lesser language skills becomes too much an obstacle

My stance on the subject raised in this thread is as following:

ALL individuals who have been involved with doping should be allowed to work in the sport.

This is because I feel that even those considered the worst sinners can make a positive contribution. The key thing is that there must be limitations to what positions they can possess.
Former dopers should only be working in the sport as advisors with the aim of preventing doping.

The worst sinners are in my view also those who are very much able to detect potential doping and in the perfect world, spot and stop it before it happens.

Former dopers should not write books about the excitements of operating under the radar etc.
Neither should they write books about how ruined their lives are (never their own fault), nor how many, (and who) others who also “did it”. These books are only part of an attempt to create cognitive consonance (and establish new livelihood).

After reading 1000+ post in the clinic it is my impression that there is room for some discussions regarding the psychological circumstances leading to doping, and especially the reactions from those who get caught. I furthermore believe that to change the culture of the sport, pointing fingers and discussing who or who may not be a part of the sport is only an obstacle to achieving the overall goal which in my opinion is to prevent the next generations of cyclist to live and operate in the shadows.

I firmly believe that to make a change we ALSO need to understand that filling an already filled garbage can does not help. We need to find some proactive way to move on, not by pressing reset but by using the knowledge of all individuals in a proactive way.

 

[Afrank]

Forehand I would like to state that my English is far froom(joke) good, so please bear with me or ask me to elaborate if my lesser language skills becomes too much an obstacle

My stance on the subject raised in this thread is as following:

ALL individuals who have been involved with doping should be allowed to work in the sport.

This is because I feel that even those considered the worst sinners can make a positive contribution. The key thing is that there must be limitations to what positions they can possess.
Former dopers should only be working in the sport as advisors with the aim of preventing doping.

The worst sinners are in my view also those who are very much able to detect potential doping and in the perfect world, spot and stop it before it happens.

Former dopers should not write books about the excitements of operating under the radar etc.
Neither should they write books about how ruined their lives are (never their own fault), nor how many, (and who) others who also “did it”. These books are only part of an attempt to create cognitive consonance (and establish new livelihood).

After reading 1000+ post in the clinic it is my impression that there is room for some discussions regarding the psychological circumstances leading to doping, and especially the reactions from those who get caught. I furthermore believe that to change the culture of the sport, pointing fingers and discussing who or who may not be a part of the sport is only an obstacle to achieving the overall goal which in my opinion is to prevent the next generations of cyclist to live and operate in the shadows.

I firmly believe that to make a change we ALSO need to understand that filling an already filled garbage can does not help. We need to find some proactive way to move on, not by pressing reset but by using the knowledge of all individuals in a proactive way.

Good post mrhender, and your English is perfectly fine (we've seen a lot worse ).

I would agree with you on former dopers taking up a position on the anti-doping side. For me personally if a former doper or someone involved in the doping of others did return from a ban and start working with the anti-doping side it would show that they realized what they did before was wrong and that they were making an effort to make amends for it.

Plus someone involved in doping has got to be able to provide much information on how the doping took place and how the anti-doping forces should operate to stop it. If it's now that persons job to help prevent doping then I would think they would feel required to share this information rather then keep it too themselves like retired riders of current day do.

 

[mrhender]

Good post mrhender, and your English is perfectly fine (we've seen a lot worse ).

I would agree with you on former dopers taking up a position on the anti-doping side. For me personally if a former doper or someone involved in the doping of others did return from a ban and start working with the anti-doping side it would show that they realized what they did before was wrong and that they were making an effort to make amends for it.

Plus someone involved in doping has got to be able to provide much information on how the doping took place and how the anti-doping forces should operate to stop it. If it's now that persons job to help prevent doping then I would think they would feel required to share this information rather then keep it too themselves like retired riders of current day do.

Thank you Afrank
I would argue that there are multiple psychological factors that actually make doping understandable but off course not fair or right. (It is not only greed, ambition and self-assertion)

It is not all black or white/right or wrong -especially since the riders seem to stand in the middle and some obviously have difficulties understanding the difference. Or at least have enough arguments in their heads to ignore what we see as logical/fair.

There is the real world -and there is cycling.

The amends part you mention is a key issue. After all dopers are also humans and I would argue that the cycling environment as a whole has some kind of responsibility -not only towards fans and future cyclists but also towards those who cross the line.

The point being that as step one -making amends must be positively welcomed if we wish to motivate cyclists to undertake a different behavior and mind-set.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I don't disagree that Millar is bit of a tool just spouting on and on about it. As much of a git as he comes across with his constant switching feet, I don't believe he's back on it.
Valverde is just business as usual and I have no doubt he's back on it like he was before - just wiser as to how to better get away with it

Valverde was busted regarding stuff that happened long before he was actually banned though - Operación Puerto was 2006, and Bag #18 Valv.Piti dated all the way back to 2004, from his Kelme days. Because of the suspicion over him and because of the number of race wins and jerseys held, Valverde was under a lot of scrutiny 2007-10. Yet he never tested positive or flagged anything on the biopassport. Clearly whatever he was doing in that period worked, as he ranked #1 in the world on CQ in both 2008 and 2009, won monuments, stage races and a GT in that time, holding a huge number of leaders' jerseys. Whatever his regimen was at that time was allowing him to perform at an élite level without going positive, so it would be no surprise to see him come back and go straight back to that level, whereas most dopers get caught doing whatever they were doing at the time of being busted, so if they do go back to doping, they have to either come back to a different, usually lower-profile program which means weaker results than pre-ban, or run out of damns to give and go the Di Luca route.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I firmly believe that to make a change we ALSO need to understand that filling an already filled garbage can does not help. We need to find some proactive way to move on, not by pressing reset but by using the knowledge of all individuals in a proactive way.

The UCI "moved on" after Festina and the sport still stumbles from one scandal to the next. The IOC and UCI are as much to blame for permitting doping as the athletes themselves. Perhaps the best example being Pat and Hein's quoted reluctance to sanction Armstrong.

Otherwise, your English is fine. This forum needs non-English speakers as doping occurs in all languages.

 

[mrhender]

The UCI "moved on" after Festina and the sport still stumbles from one scandal to the next. The IOC and UCI are as much to blame for permitting doping as the athletes themselves. Perhaps the best example being Pat and Hein's quoted reluctance to sanction Armstrong.

Otherwise, your English is fine. This forum needs non-English speakers as doping occurs in all languages.

Your point is very valid.

The legitimate authorities abandoning their responsibility for years and years are very much to blame for the cultural and structural problems cycling suffers from now.

It seems the enforcers need ekstern enforcement and supervision.
-That is not a healthy sign.

I also often wonder what kind of selection process we do not know about was -and is going on when it comes to nailing (or not nailing) specific dopers.

 

[Archibald]

Valverde was busted regarding stuff that happened long before he was actually banned though - Operación Puerto was 2006, and Bag #18 Valv.Piti dated all the way back to 2004, from his Kelme days. Because of the suspicion over him and because of the number of race wins and jerseys held, Valverde was under a lot of scrutiny 2007-10. Yet he never tested positive or flagged anything on the biopassport. Clearly whatever he was doing in that period worked, as he ranked #1 in the world on CQ in both 2008 and 2009, won monuments, stage races and a GT in that time, holding a huge number of leaders' jerseys. Whatever his regimen was at that time was allowing him to perform at an élite level without going positive, so it would be no surprise to see him come back and go straight back to that level, whereas most dopers get caught doing whatever they were doing at the time of being busted, so if they do go back to doping, they have to either come back to a different, usually lower-profile program which means weaker results than pre-ban, or run out of damns to give and go the Di Luca route.

fair enough, but a rider under a lot of scrutiny, not testing positive and winning loads?
hmmm...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

fair enough, but a rider under a lot of scrutiny, not testing positive and winning loads?
hmmm...

He'll stop winning now that Cookson is in charge of the UCI and thus the UCI are no longer protecting riders.

 

[Archibald]

He'll stop winning now that Cookson is in charge of the UCI and thus the UCI are no longer protecting riders.

maybe he dominated 2007-10 because everyone stopped doping in 2006

 

[jens_attacks]

only god/universe can give redemption not the forumz

 

[Dear Wiggo]

maybe he dominated 2007-10 because everyone stopped doping in 2006

seems highly likely.

 

[42x16ss]

seems highly likely.

Has your mate JV finally hacked your account?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Has your mate JV finally hacked your account?

seems highly likely.