The worst thing about doping - Lying

[Cloxxki]

I've been thinking about what to me is the worst about doping.
Having been a competitive cyclist, and now moving into other sports, I've at times dealt with visual cheating. Riding diving under a course barrier to overtake 30 people in one go on a singletrack jam, for instance, got me really mad. I was just as fast a rider, but had a better start, and still got stuck in traffic. Such is mountainbiking, deal with it, don't cheat for it.

We all know that doping could be a factor among those beating us to the line. There's always someone who'll sacrifice more to reach the same goal. Breach moral standards, take medical risks, and subsequently risks of being caught.
If we think doping tests will catch all events of doping, we are apparently near-podium finishing, but still very naive professionals. Everywhere else, it's just plain stupid. You need testing to get cheaters. A lot of it, in fact.

What keeps coming back though, and seems humanly worst than the cheating itself: the lying.
Doping leads immediately to incomplete truths, and when an athlete is asked for it, an outright lie.
Lying is totally allowed in everyday life, and in sports. Only when under oath, in a court of law, do athletes and entourage get in trouble when lying about doping. And even then, there may not be sports-related consequences in the form of a ban or fine.

Not only doping use itself is a lie, but due to the very nature of PEDs and methodes, every sports performance after the first offense becomes a lie. Your body and credibility are forever unfairly advantaged and scarred, the essence of fairplay is gone.

Athletes seem to think the lies about their dopage are not really lies, just part of being a professional atlete. It seems to me this notion must be addressed more than the morals of doping itself.

In these days of social media, what can we the fans do to address doping, to get to the minds of dopers? Launch a non-budget fairplay campagne that reaches even the coldest of elite sports' hearts, make it go viral on Twitter, Facebook, etc, addressing all our ideols and not-so idols??

The lying, it just gets to me. Lying is wrong whatever it's about. When you commit something you can't openly speak about in public, it should never be considered worth it. Nothing is worth having to lie to fans and family. Especially not if your sportsmanship is a significant part of your image, and this goes for nearly ALL elite-level sportsmen. Sport is big, but not worth lying for. Say it, tweet it, whatever.

Please offer your thought on how to address the lying. Make athletes see the seriousness, before they sell their sports souls to the evil that is doping.

Thanks,
J

 

[JA.Tri]

I agree with much of what you say. My concern is that I have lied and will do so again. Most people have at one time or another lied and to condemn others is analogous to "people in glass houses...".

As a slight aside I was watching a potted history of the LA Raiders. The virtuous part of me was disappointed to hear how they would deliberately bend/break rules and obscure their actions to gain an advantage.

I think it takes significant fortitude to play the game "straight". To my mind the ultimate competitor strives for personal improvement and plays the game ethically to the very best of their ability and results while desirable are secondary.

To the crux of OP. We encourage ethical particpation by emphasising teamwork, doing to others as you would have done unto you and sport ultimately might be about personal improvement, learning lessons. By cheating you are cheating your life, your friends, family and community.

 

[9000ft]

Such virtue and righteous indignation. Here's a thought: Take care of yourself. Concentrate on your own deficiencies. Improve your own moral fortitude. When you reach the highest levels of pious purity then you can lead by example. One thing I have noticed about those people who are at those high levels is they don't judge or denigrate others.

 

[Cloxxki]

I agree with much of what you say. My concern is that I have lied and will do so again. Most people have at one time or another lied and to condemn others is analogous to "people in glass houses...".

As a slight aside I was watching a potted history of the LA Raiders. The virtuous part of me was disappointed to hear how they would deliberately bend/break rules and obscure their actions to gain an advantage.

I think it takes significant fortitude to play the game "straight". To my mind the ultimate competitor strives for personal improvement and plays the game ethically to the very best of their ability and results while desirable are secondary.

To the crux of OP. We encourage ethical particpation by emphasising teamwork, doing to others as you would have done unto you and sport ultimately might be about personal improvement, learning lessons. By cheating you are cheating your life, your friends, family and community.

Thanks for your input.

I forgot to mention my age-old gut feeling, that lying about crucial facts regarding your sportsmanship, should be banned seperately from the offense itself.
So an athlete can dope. (S)he knows that typically, a 2-year ban is being risked. Now a journalist, union worker, or WADA-ralted researcher has reason to doubt their medical-moral status. And comes with a direct question, based on significant research, albeit not necessarily hard proof. Athlete denies to ever have been involved in any doping practice. We've seen this time and again. Based on fact or circumstances, and someone daring to ask, forced into a very hard, active LIE. In writing, eyes in the camera or just a voice recording. This lie is of no consequence. Not even if the evidence materializes, and is accepted as such to the point of conviction. 2 years, is 2 years.

Draft proposal: each calendar year in which an athlete lies about a single crucial moral issue, a year is added to the eventual ban, should one be given. This way, athletes would quickly gather a nice base of formal denials, each one of them potentially worth another year. Take Valverde, how long did he uphold denial? Even after the DNA proof I think. He was accused of being Puerto man, he denied, his blood was matched, he still denied. 2 years is not enough for him.
He disgraced sportsmanship with his lying.
Adding a seperate punishment for the lying, should make it less attractive to defendants to stretch a doping case. We all want a case to be closed, don't we. If the defendent wishes to deny and thus prolong the case, the subsequent ban will increase as well. And this increase is not to be bargained. Even if for instance Contador did activelytake CB, but had good reason to and is given a pass, he still lied. That's 3 years of ban for unsportsmanlike immoral behavior: lies in 2010, 2011, and 2012. He could have admitted first time, and take his 2 years. He chose to lie. Just an exmple, this is not to discuss Contador's case, but we all know it so well.

Why is lying a "free of charge" offense, if it's 180º against all an elite sportsman should stand for? Or another approach, do Olympians lie when asked a straight formalized question, by the press or a sports union?

I envision a standard WADA-maintained form to ask a given athlete a very specific question, based or circumstances or quasi-proof. Denial is the expected responses, as admittance would mean a 2 year ban right there and then. Athlete is granted 2 months to come with a statement. It looks bad to use that time though, and longer than a month is good reason for serious scrutiny from relevant parties. The denial is kept on record, and will be renewed exactly a year after being originally posting of the question. The question can be amenden by the asker, new seperate questions can be added by any other parties. The athlete can decide to deny again, or take his (now) 2+1 years. Admit 366 days after being asked, that's already 4 years then, thankyouverymuch!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Thanks for your input.

I forgot to mention my age-old gut feeling, that lying about crucial facts regarding your sportsmanship, should be banned seperately from the offense itself.
.......

While I found your first post somewhat thought provoking in that the lie can be worse than the doping, I think you over state it and miss the clear fact - when you dope you lie.

So that I don't get a ban - in all honesty I did not read all your second post, but if you put in rules for lying you will have no-one left in any sport.

Such virtue and righteous indignation. Here's a thought: Take care of yourself. Concentrate on your own deficiencies. Improve your own moral fortitude. When you reach the highest levels of pious purity then you can lead by example. One thing I have noticed about those people who are at those high levels is they don't judge or denigrate others.

I read it recently (I think on twitter) - it is probably a famous quote, but I could not find it when I went looking - but it goes like How can you judge me when you do not understand, then when you do understand how can you judge me?

 

[JA.Tri]

Interesting concept. One of my many gripes coincides with your general thrust. I have far more time for the athlete that immediately admits to their error and provides all info relevant to their own situation.

As you indicate, at present there is no diferentiation between the athlete that immediately admits and the athlete that denies until even the whole populous rejects their denials.

Yes there should be consequences for continuing to deny what is subsequently found to be proven.

 

[Cloxxki]

Such virtue and righteous indignation. Here's a thought: Take care of yourself. Concentrate on your own deficiencies. Improve your own moral fortitude. When you reach the highest levels of pious purity then you can lead by example. One thing I have noticed about those people who are at those high levels is they don't judge or denigrate others.

I am right on it, thanks for your concern. But want to make it easier for those with something to hide, to speak the truth. Lies should not be encouraged.
My own pointing finger always points back at myself. What punishment would I wish upon others if they crossed moral borders I am?
No one has a clean mind, but first committing intentional doping and then knowingly denying it being presented with reasons for questions, that's another level. I state, worthy of punishment itself. Aggrevating circumstances. Lying should NOT be part of the deal when committing doping related sports fraud.

 

[Cloxxki]

I think you over state it and miss the clear fact - when you dope you lie.

You just made lying a non-punishment offence, free pass. Is that your stance?
So let's say a rider himself is clean, even though his team pressures him. He denies a team doping program being in place, which a journalist had fair reason to suspect. The rider is clean, so cannot receive a ban for his own doping. He did actively cover up an uncovered doping issue, and thus deserves his first one-year ban. 365 days from now, it will become 2. He get the ban when a formal ruling is made in either sports or legal courts.

I agree on doping rules and punishments, they seem fair most of them.
Denial and lies are overlooked. It's the part where athletes really go low, and erode the credibily of their sport and sportsmanship in general. That's a huge fairplay violation.
In the US they tried to impeech (sp) a guy why had a small slip with an intern, not even intercourse. Because he lied about it, or half-lied. That's the equivalent of a life time ban from the job he held?

The lie cannot ever be implied as part of the offense. That way the truth is at an unfair disadvantage.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You just made lying a non-punishment offence, free pass. Is that your stance?

Honestly - I have to be honest, right? - yes, lying should be a non-punishment offence.

Who would enforce it? The UCI, the Pope? You?

Should someone get credit for a truthful admission - yes, but making a rule for lying is idiotic (I am just being honest).

So let's say a rider himself is clean, even though his team pressures him. He denies a team doping program being in place, which a journalist had fair reason to suspect. The rider is clean, so cannot receive a ban for his own doping. He did actively cover up an uncovered doping issue, and thus deserves his first one-year ban. 365 days from now, it will become 2. He get the ban when a formal ruling is made in either sports or legal courts.

I agree on doping rules and punishments, they seem fair most of them.
Denial and lies are overlooked. It's the part where athletes really go low, and erode the credibily of their sport and sportsmanship in general. That's a huge fairplay violation.
In the US they tried to impeech (sp) a guy why had a small slip with an intern, not even intercourse. Because he lied about it, or half-lied. That's the equivalent of a life time ban from the job he held?

The lie cannot ever be implied as part of the offense. That way the truth is at an unfair disadvantage.

You seem to miss that there are already consequences for lying - look at riders who have made timely admissions as opposed to those who did not, or who continued to lie.

 

[Cloxxki]

It should be enforced by the very parties now ruling about the issues at hand.
The formal denial are to be administered centrally. WADA might want to host it objectively.
If the statement requests from media, sports institutes, competition or fans is formally raised via the appropriate form, it is forwarded without delay, as is a target doping test. Receipt cannot be denied. Also, it will be open information. Nothing secretive. You can follow @moralstatement on twitter, to offer an idea..
Those with nothing to hide, get to formally deny a few accusations per year. Not a biggie. Easier than predicting where you'll sleep next weekend.

If a sports union or CAS rules about a case, say a simple EPO case such as Longo. No positive up till now, but there's the Papp letters. Longo were to deny having anything to do with it. But, her husband finds himself admitting arranging the EPO for her, with her consent. Husband is believed, Longo given a 2-year ban (never having tested positive), plus the year for denying it when asked about it directly.
A very small WADA panel can decide whether the denial is relevant to the case. Statement (admit/deny) can be on slightly vague details, as to not let it slip on technicalities. You deny dope, you deny all dope. If you deny EPO use, but are found positive for another hormone, well, tough luck fancy sportsman, that's an extra year on top of your two. Better allow quick sentencing, or you'll add another year. It's only your problem as denier, the courts are not going to take it into ac-count, or dis-count.

Oh, when a statement is formally pursued, "no comment" is non-admissable, of course.

 

[Cloxxki]

You seem to miss that there are already consequences for lying - look at riders who have made timely admissions as opposed to those who did not, or who continued to lie.

Wasn't there a NewZealand or South African rider recently, getting an extra year's ban after admitting after his punishment was ruled? It should not work exactly that way, but turn out the same. An extra year if you decide to deny it after a positive result or formal statement request.

 

[andy1234]

I've been thinking about what to me is the worst about doping.
Having been a competitive cyclist, and now moving into other sports, I've at times dealt with visual cheating. Riding diving under a course barrier to overtake 30 people in one go on a singletrack jam, for instance, got me really mad. I was just as fast a rider, but had a better start, and still got stuck in traffic. Such is mountainbiking, deal with it, don't cheat for it.

We all know that doping could be a factor among those beating us to the line. There's always someone who'll sacrifice more to reach the same goal. Breach moral standards, take medical risks, and subsequently risks of being caught.
If we think doping tests will catch all events of doping, we are apparently near-podium finishing, but still very naive professionals. Everywhere else, it's just plain stupid. You need testing to get cheaters. A lot of it, in fact.

What keeps coming back though, and seems humanly worst than the cheating itself: the lying.
Doping leads immediately to incomplete truths, and when an athlete is asked for it, an outright lie.
Lying is totally allowed in everyday life, and in sports. Only when under oath, in a court of law, do athletes and entourage get in trouble when lying about doping. And even then, there may not be sports-related consequences in the form of a ban or fine.

Not only doping use itself is a lie, but due to the very nature of PEDs and methodes, every sports performance after the first offense becomes a lie. Your body and credibility are forever unfairly advantaged and scarred, the essence of fairplay is gone.

Athletes seem to think the lies about their dopage are not really lies, just part of being a professional atlete. It seems to me this notion must be addressed more than the morals of doping itself.

In these days of social media, what can we the fans do to address doping, to get to the minds of dopers? Launch a non-budget fairplay campagne that reaches even the coldest of elite sports' hearts, make it go viral on Twitter, Facebook, etc, addressing all our ideols and not-so idols??

The lying, it just gets to me. Lying is wrong whatever it's about. When you commit something you can't openly speak about in public, it should never be considered worth it. Nothing is worth having to lie to fans and family. Especially not if your sportsmanship is a significant part of your image, and this goes for nearly ALL elite-level sportsmen. Sport is big, but not worth lying for. Say it, tweet it, whatever.

Please offer your thought on how to address the lying. Make athletes see the seriousness, before they sell their sports souls to the evil that is doping.

Thanks,
J

Im fairly sure there is some gudance on your dilemma in the Bible, the Koran etc etc.
When you have figured out what to do about this age old problem, let us know.

 

[Cloxxki]

Im fairly sure there is some gudance on your dilemma in the Bible, the Koran etc etc.
When you have figured out what to do about this age old problem, let us know.

It's an old issue from those old books, like Israel, and has as yet not been handled. Should we just succomb?
I say, regulate. It's not that hard you see.

Athlete dopes, gets caught, or is openly suspected. Two options:
- They have nothing on me, I'll deny, and I'm confident to never be sentenced.
- They have nothing on me YET, I'll bide my time, and deny. risk 3+ years, depending on when I'm eventually sentenced.
- Holy ****, they are on to me. If I admit everything now, I'l be back in 2 years.

It won't bring the number of lies down by too much at first, but we won't have many convicted LIARS riding bikes, as sentences would end up much longer.
Can you trusted convicted doper to change his ways? Yes.
What about a convicted liar? Will he lie again when he dopes?
Think about it.

Two ways for athletes to be in an admit/deny situation:
- No formal case, just a formal statement request from press/sports unions, in official format.
- A positive or other doping-related case suspect to lying. No oath required, just public knowledge of the denial.

Denials are adminitered. Admittances are automatically a case for the local sports union. Holding back information (not singing names) can be the next reason to add to the standard punishment.

2 years, should be the punishment for the doper that admits immediately after a positive, and names everyone. If he wants to keep silent for someone, he can sit out their ban.

 

[shawnrohrbach]

Cloxxki, here is the core problem with your reflections on lying. You have raised the importance of the sport of cycling beyond the level of entertainment it really is. It is just entertainment. Once you make it more important than that, the stakes for winning are increased and the lying, cheating, stealing and doping increase. I get involved in pick up basketball and there is nothing more than bragging rights for winning, and I don't see a lot of lying, cheating stealing and doping on that court. My point is; no matter what rules you put in place, as long as the stakes are raised higher and higher, there are a certain number of participants in anything you do who will violate the rules, period. Your assumption that punishment somehow motivates cheaters and thieves to incline their lives toward the good is simplistic. That might be the case for a few, but I have long ago given up on the notion that humans are somehow inherently good. No. Some have simply chosen to be evil and will never change. They are there for the big payout at any cost and by any means. You will not clean up cycling with more rules. You will clean it up by taking the money out of it.

 

[Cloxxki]

Cloxxki, here is the core problem with your reflections on lying. You have raised the importance of the sport of cycling beyond the level of entertainment it really is. It is just entertainment. Once you make it more important than that, the stakes for winning are increased and the lying, cheating, stealing and doping increase. I get involved in pick up basketball and there is nothing more than bragging rights for winning, and I don't see a lot of lying, cheating stealing and doping on that court. My point is; no matter what rules you put in place, as long as the stakes are raised higher and higher, there are a certain number of participants in anything you do who will violate the rules, period. Your assumption that punishment somehow motivates cheaters and thieves to incline their lives toward the good is simplistic. That might be the case for a few, but I have long ago given up on the notion that humans are somehow inherently good. No. Some have simply chosen to be evil and will never change. They are there for the big payout at any cost and by any means. You will not clean up cycling with more rules. You will clean it up by taking the money out of it.

I agree with you to an extent, and you bring good points to consider. Thanks.

I was actually trying to make this discussion regarding serious sports in general.

Cycling being an Olympic sport, I think is a bit more than just entertainment. It may have a steep TV watcher/active practicer ratio, it's still supposed to be a SPORT. Although I'll agree that expecially road cycling is laughable in terms of the way it's governed and rules are enforced, the official version is still that they are pro-fairplay, anti-doping, etc.
American style wrestling for instance, doesn't play that charade. It's entertainment, pur sang.

For an entertainment sport, Cycling is a bit too competitive. Contador and Schleck could make a much better show by winning roughtly alternate TdF's, and not let the public know in advance. Heck, decide before the last ITT who's going to win it, and how. Don't pretend.
The involvement of national anti-doping agencies, direct WADA involvement and more CAS cases per year than stolen bicycles in Amsterdam, all a waste of cycling club membership fees, if it's just entertainment.

Cycling is claiming to be clean and working on that, well than back that up with a busy broom.

While a lie-rule in place may not change behavior immediately, it will punish it more openly. Add disgrace. And keep liars out of the sport for a much longer time. Perhaps the lie rule doesn't even need to be backed by a positive test, and abolute proof of doping and subsequent ban. I might just be triggered by the lie itself, on morally vital grounds, much be proven. Covering up your doped up team while you are leading them clean, should not be tolerated.
Lying is not part of Olympic sports. It's only there because the liar brought it there. Incidentally, most liars in professional sports, are dopers. They consider it worth lying for. And as long as the lie itself is not made part of fairplay rules, the lie WILL rule.

With the lie-rule in place, cases such as Valverde's would not be stretched by the defense teams as much. Why? Because you lose more riding time (cashing time) than you win.

Lying regarding moral issues is at least as bad as committing them. IMO, it should never be expected. What's a sportsman's word worth? If it suits him, millions in endorsements. And if it doesn't? Ha, it's just part of the game amigo, don't be so serious!

Let's make it more practical, for a more near-term solution.
What if requesting a B sample test would endanger an extra year's ban? You'll know what's in it. Can only hope the sample deteriorated over time. But if the second lab can still find your doping, that makes the B sample pretty useless. You could and should have admitted, take your two years. B sample positive: one year on top of whatever is being ruled.
Asking for the B sample is like denying you doped, right? Does the doper need overwhelming technical proof to know he doped? Does he need the B sample to speak the truth?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The worst thing about doping is the health risks and that there are people willing to jeopardise their own lives for the sake of a slightly higher placing in a cycle race. And it only gets worse the lower down the ladder you get because you have fewer well-trained and well-rehearsed corrupt medical practitioners administering the products. Do we think lying is the biggest importance to Luís Ángel Mate, who was apparently used as a guinea pig by Jesús Losa?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Cloxxki, here is the core problem with your reflections on lying. You have raised the importance of the sport of cycling beyond the level of entertainment it really is. It is just entertainment. Once you make it more important than that, the stakes for winning are increased and the lying, cheating, stealing and doping increase. I get involved in pick up basketball and there is nothing more than bragging rights for winning, and I don't see a lot of lying, cheating stealing and doping on that court. My point is; no matter what rules you put in place, as long as the stakes are raised higher and higher, there are a certain number of participants in anything you do who will violate the rules, period. Your assumption that punishment somehow motivates cheaters and thieves to incline their lives toward the good is simplistic. That might be the case for a few, but I have long ago given up on the notion that humans are somehow inherently good. No. Some have simply chosen to be evil and will never change. They are there for the big payout at any cost and by any means. You will not clean up cycling with more rules. You will clean it up by taking the money out of it.

While I agree that Cloxxkis theory is rather simplistic - isn't the above also too simplistic?

Many people cheat, lie for no financial benefit.
As for "not cleaning up cycling with more rules", while I agree in principal, the problem with cycling is that many rules are not implemented at all.

 

[Cloxxki]

People don't need big money to dope. And they don't need promise of great prize money to take the assortment of risks.
If they have big money though, they'll do it more professionally. See what people bring to track days (car racing). Does the richest guy bring an off the shelf Golf GTI, or the latest Ferrari/Maserati and support crew? Pun intended.
Both are about as likely to hit a wall and die. One riding slow in crappy track car that loses a wheel at the straight, one riding much faster and missing a brake point.

Riders think that doping is part of getting respect through race results, at any level. That's rotten.

I still think a moral campaign should have some impact.
"OK, you lie to the press and your most loyal. But are you prepared to lie to your old mother, in her face?".

"Who has more problems living with himself, Jan Ulrich or Floyd Landis?".

"Do you feel good about yourself, when you lie to the sport you loved so much as a little boy?"

"Do you feel good about yourself, when you request the B sample to be tested in another lab?"

"Does your wife know? And how many years of lying will she overcome and stay with you?

"What do you tell your little brother? You're his biggest hero in life to date, but he's not that simple..."

"Imagine which fan you never want to lose. What if we told you that proof of doping would make her stop waving her flag for you, or any cyclist?

You guys are usually so original and witty, help me out here!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

People don't need big money to dope. And they don't need promise of great prize money to take the assortment of risks.
If they have big money though, they'll do it more professionally. See what people bring to track days (car racing). Does the richest guy bring an off the shelf Golf GTI, or the latest Ferrari/Maserati and support crew? Pun intended.
Both are about as likely to hit a wall and die. One riding slow in crappy track car that loses a wheel at the straight, one riding much faster and missing a brake point.

Riders think that doping is part of getting respect through race results, at any level. That's rotten.

I still think a moral campaign should have some impact.
"OK, you lie to the press and your most loyal. But are you prepared to lie to your old mother, in her face?".

"Who has more problems living with himself, Jan Ulrich or Floyd Landis?".

"Do you feel good about yourself, when you lie to the sport you loved so much as a little boy?"

"Do you feel good about yourself, when you request the B sample to be tested in another lab?"

"Does your wife know? And how many years of lying will she overcome and stay with you?

"What do you tell your little brother? You're his biggest hero in life to date, but he's not that simple..."

"Imagine which fan you never want to lose. What if we told you that proof of doping would make her stop waving her flag for you, or any cyclist?

You guys are usually so original and witty, help me out here!

It was tried before - it didn't work then and it wouldn't work now:

UCI demands ProTour riders' signatures on anti-doping agreement for Tour participation.

"I swear to my team, my colleagues, the UCI, the cycling world and the public that I have not cheated, have not been involved in the Fuentes case or in any other doping case," read the statement that must be signed. "I declare myself ready to give a DNA sample to the Spanish judicial system so that it can be compared to the blood bags taken in the Operación Puerto."

"With this new anti-doping charter, we want to further intensify the fight against doping," McQuaid commented. "The UCI cannot accept that an individual or organization damages our sport."

 

[Polish]

I think a lot of riders lie because they are afraid they will lose their jobs if they tell the truth.

Maybe Pro Cycling needs to implement a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
Would eliminate the need to lie.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

The worst thing about doping is the health risks and that there are people willing to jeopardise their own lives for the sake of a slightly higher placing in a cycle race. And it only gets worse the lower down the ladder you get because you have fewer well-trained and well-rehearsed corrupt medical practitioners administering the products. Do we think lying is the biggest importance to Luís Ángel Mate, who was apparently used as a guinea pig by Jesús Losa?

I agree that's the most important thing. And it's the saddest thing about doping too because of that.

The lying part plays on a different emotional level though... more on the lines of anger than sadness. It's definately more annoying to hear constant lying when the truth is obvious.

 

[Cloxxki]

It was tried before - it didn't work then and it wouldn't work now:

UCI demands ProTour riders' signatures on anti-doping agreement for Tour participation.

Did you say UCI? Ah yes.
But valid point of course. I would not call it "try" though. Just a win-face short-term kind of trick. They tried to take money from dopers they could not possibly have. They fully intended to get them back in the circus asap.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

'...'I still think a moral campaign should have some impact.
"OK, you lie to the press and your most loyal. But are you prepared to lie to your old mother, in her face?".

"Who has more problems living with himself, Jan Ulrich or Floyd Landis?".

"Do you feel good about yourself, when you lie to the sport you loved so much as a little boy?"

"Do you feel good about yourself, when you request the B sample to be tested in another lab?"

"Does your wife know? And how many years of lying will she overcome and stay with you?

"What do you tell your little brother? You're his biggest hero in life to date, but he's not that simple..."

"Imagine which fan you never want to lose. What if we told you that proof of doping would make her stop waving her flag for you, or any cyclist?

You guys are usually so original and witty, help me out here!

That's not a "moral" campaign, it's pointing out that honesty might be in the cyclist's self interest. In effect you have demonstrated that lying brings it's own punishment. Perhaps pointing this out to people early in their career would have some effect.

In your proposal for sanctioning lying, most of the evidence would be circular and athletes would be required to make certain declarations. The parallels to a real witch hunt make such a proposal unworkable IMO.

The WADA code already has some rewards for honesty built in. A timely admission removes the possibility of a 4 year suspension for aggravating circumstances. Providing evidence leading to suppliers/enablers/other dopers makes one eligible for up to a 3/4 reduction in suspension. I would like to see the 3/4 suspension reduction used more aggressively. Overall, I would like to see more rewards for coming forward as opposed to penalties for lying.

 

[Cloxxki]

That's not a "moral" campaign, it's pointing out that honesty might be in the cyclist's self interest. In effect you have demonstrated that lying brings it's own punishment. Perhaps pointing this out to people early in their career would have some effect.

In your proposal for sanctioning lying, most of the evidence would be circular and athletes would be required to make certain declarations. The parallels to a real witch hunt make such a proposal unworkable IMO.

The WADA code already has some rewards for honesty built in. A timely admission removes the possibility of a 4 year suspension for aggravating circumstances. Providing evidence leading to suppliers/enablers/other dopers makes one eligible for up to a 3/4 reduction in suspension. I would like to see the 3/4 suspension reduction used more aggressively. Overall, I would like to see more more rewards for coming forward as opposed to penalties for lying.

Whatever works!
And yes, catching them early would deserve priority. Those already lying will not give up what they have until they are contronted with a positive test, and options to weigh.

The WADA code has proven very ineffective in keeping people from doping. The sports is stuffed with hardcoredopers, who came back to their old level. They learned how to not get caught. The sport is so educational...

The 4 years for aggravating circumstances seems to rarely happen. We say 8 for Papp, but that's media-conscious ruling more than anything, albeit fair.

Cyclists are just like people. They are born with morals. The system has proven more effective to convince aspiring pro's to dope (break WADA code, start the career of lying) more than it has had people determined to take on the doped peloton while clean. There are cases, but rare as hens that lay gold eggs. The rest keeps its mouth shut, or temporarily opens it when the doc has a special vitamin pill.
The system has the moral overhand. It needs to be broken.

Don't tell me what won't work. Tell me what will.
Words are powerful. They make us believe in war. Defend agressors. And volunteer selling yellow wristbands.
Time that words were used to actual good! And why not start with the most rotten aspect of sports. And why not pick cycling. They all tweeet. Let's get it viral. How many tweets will you write, if it will keep one young guy or gal from agreeing to dope?

 

[Granville57]

I don't know if lying about doping is the worst part but it's definitely what insults my intelligence the most. But it's not necessarily just any given athlete in question, it's systemic throughout many, many sports—the doping and the lying about it. Floyd and Tyler both knew what they were up against if they came clean in the beginning. The institutions themselves want no part in transparency. They oppose it at every turn.

We could exclude cycling from the conversation and same factors would still be in place. From owners, coaches, trainers, athletes, those in the media...the list goes on and on. Everyone is in on it. The Olympics are a sham but everyone just plays along. Watching Marion Jones now try to claim that she "didn't know" what she was being given is beyond insulting.

Demanding "truth" from the individual who is but a cog in a corrupt and deceitful organization whose very existence is threatened by the truth (pick your sport) is doomed to fail in terms of implementing any sort of real, meaningful and lasting change. It must start from the top and somehow work its way down. How to achieve that, I have no idea.