They've done their time, now they are back and winning

[karlboss]

No, but I'm not a pro cyclist already. These people are already the top of the top. We're not talking about Cat 5s here. We're talking about very talented people who are looking for that extra edge.

Maybe neither was he until he started doping.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Very important and good question doc !

(though zirbel’s and several others caught for dhea cases could be not the best example because as mark zeigler very well explained in that interview in another thread, dhea is an integral component of cycling an anabolic steroid program, and my hunch - and some knowledge - tell me zirbel more likely cheated knowingly)

but, yeah, honest mistakes happen - you are right. not every one can spend 150 000 euros/year on a special certified supplements program like armstrong (my friend has personally overheard him saying that)

and, above all, the wada strict liability principle basically crushes an athlete who made an honest mistake.

Ya - I must admit I was hesitant to actually name someone because there will always be arguments as to did they really not know what they were taking. And putting in the name of someone who did manage to show a tainted supplement would go against the hypothetical.

 

[L'arriviste]

I have already stated my view that I am against lifetime bans for a first offence. But will again say that the current system is riddled with flaws.

I am going to throw a hypothetical in to your argument for you to consider.

Zirbel was caught recently for having DHEA in his system and claims it must have come from a tainted supplement he was taking. This may or may not be true - but at present he is serving the same ban as Vino faced - 2 years, even though Vino was bloood doping.

Do you think someone who may have made a mistake in the product they were taking or has taken a PED with limited enhancement ability should also serve a lifetime ban?

(PS I am not flaming here. I find your stance very interesting and you are well able to articulate your views. I am just interested to see where this goes.)

I appreciate your response. It's better if we all try to be civilised like that! I'm replying to your post, Doc, but I'm going to try to address yours too python.

I don't know too much about the specifics of the Zirbel case other than CN.com reports but I think that every legal system has to have a proper right of appeal. After all, that's just the problem with capital punishment, isn't it, a dead man can't defend himself. I remember how sad it was when the ageing family of Derek Bentley got their kid exonerated in the UK, over thirty years after he'd swung.

So Zirbel would have to bring his defence - and prima facie he has one - which would mean that riders take responsibility for themselves and record their activities very closely should "issues" arise.

Then you have to be able to guarantee a tidy, adequately funded and fair process duly informed by the proper jurisprudence that doesn't suffer from red tape, backlogs, vagaries, phobias or corruption.

For my part and for painfully obvious reasons, I feel better able to conceive of the foundations of jurisprudence rather than the administrative utopia. For the former we have many fine examples, for the latter there are very few.

In many criminal systems, then, one has to prove intent or recklessness. By that standard Zirbel may not have intended but we might consider him recklessly culpable. Elsewhere, it is generally held that ignorance is not a defence: I parked facing traffic in Key West one time and I paid a fine, though it isn't illegal in my own country.

Of course, the risk here is that our ProTour peloton would need to consist of 150+ pharma graduates with at least some grounding in international dispute settlement.

But then, python did say hypothetical

 

[Steel4Ever]

I am going to throw a hypothetical in to your argument for you to consider.

Zirbel was caught recently for having DHEA in his system and claims it must have come from a tainted supplement he was taking. This may or may not be true - but at present he is serving the same ban as Vino faced - 2 years, even though Vino was bloood doping.

Do you think someone who may have made a mistake in the product they were taking or has taken a PED with limited enhancement ability should also serve a lifetime ban?

Do you think someone (in the US) getting busted for having marijuana should get a 25-year jail term similar to that of someone who commits murder?

It is a "flaw" with the system which the governing bodies will have to work out. Your job as a fan is merely to support good racing.

 

[python]

i have very limited time atm and will have to respond only briefly to L'arriviste's logical but eventually inapplicable (or better said impractical) example.

(i)antidoping legislature is not based on a criminal law (like your example) standard of proof - beyond reasonable doubt. it's based on a standard that's between the criminal and civil standards. roughly speaking - 75%.

(ii) the state of anti-doping testing accuracy - whilst generally superior to the common medical testing for general public- is insufficient to meet even that 'relaxed' standard in some cases.

so ratcheting up punishment scale is simply out of line with the level of accuracy of test results regarding the level of proof or confidence in the gathered evidence.

there are many papers on the subject, and if you are interested, you can find them by googling.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I appreciate your response. It's better if we all try to be civilised like that! I'm replying to your post, Doc, but I'm going to try to address yours too python.

I don't know too much about the specifics of the Zirbel case other than CN.com reports but I think that every legal system has to have a proper right of appeal. After all, that's just the problem with capital punishment, isn't it, a dead man can't defend himself. I remember how sad it was when the ageing family of Derek Bentley got their kid exonerated in the UK, over thirty years after he'd swung.

So Zirbel would have to bring his defence - and prima facie he has one - which would mean that riders take responsibility for themselves and record their activities very closely.

Then you have to be able to guarantee a tidy, adequately funded and fair process duly informed by the proper jurisprudence that doesn't suffer from red tape, backlogs, vagaries, phobias or corruption.

For my part and for painfully obvious reasons, I feel better able to conceive of the foundations of jurisprudence rather than the administrative utopia. For the former we have many fine examples, for the latter there are very few.

In many criminal systems, then, one has to prove intent or recklessness. By that standard Zirbel may not have intended but we might consider him recklessly culpable. Elsewhere, it is generally held that ignorance is not a defense: I parked facing traffic in Key West one time and I paid a fine, though it isn't illegal in my own country.

Of course, the risk here is that our ProTour peloton would need to consist of 150+ pharma graduates with at least some grounding in international dispute settlement.

But then, python did say hypothetical

I am just going to qualify my hypothetical and bring up your parking in Key West.

So you broke the rules in Key West - as you pointed out ignorance is not a defense. So by their rules you are a naughty naughty man and will face the full force of the law and justice shall prevail. Of course you are not writing from death row but had to pay an appropriate (albeit painful) fine.

Hypothetical II.

Rider A has failed a test and admitted he took an extra long puff from his inhaler before his Cat 5 race.

Rider B has been caught on an island with his gynecologist - he admits he has been blood doping and using EPO for years and that he pays the Doc €70,000 a year and has never actually been to Mexico in his life.

Should they face equal sanction?

 

[eleven]

For example Pantani's record (36'50") up to alpe d'huez doped to the gills add 10% and 40'31 (play with numbers as you like you'll see my point) and anyone who can do this time, is possibly as talented as Pantani, just clean. The climb was timed in 1990 when lemond won the tour the fastest were between 40'30 and 42" So it fits right? Do you know who else managed this time? The groups that finished behind Sastre at the 2008 tour. Sastre was 39'30". So if the best guys in the world go to the Tour and perform as guys did before the spread of EPO...surely they could be clean right?

That's a very interesting comparison. Wouldn't we expect times in 2007 or 8 to be faster than 1990 simply due to improved equipment / nutrition / training? I'm not sure how much training has changed, but weren't they riding downtube shifters in 1990? I suspect you save a decent amount just by having easy access to gear changes etc...and of course, the equipment is lighter.

 

[L'arriviste]

I am just going to qualify my hypothetical and bring up your parking in Key West.

So you broke the rules in Key West - as you pointed out ignorance is not a defense. So by their rules you are a naughty naughty man and will face the full force of the law and justice shall prevail. Of course you are not writing from death row but had to pay an appropriate (albeit painful) fine.

Hypothetical II.

Rider A has failed a test and admitted he took an extra long puff from his inhaler before his Cat 5 race.

Rider B has been caught on an island with his gynecologist - he admits he has been blood doping and using EPO for years and that he pays the Doc €70,000 a year and has never actually been to Mexico in his life.

Should they face equal sanction?

Excellent reasoning from both of you (Python, Doc) I have no real answer to that, because I'm a nice guy and because your reasoning appeals to my head rather than my heart.

If I wasn't a nice guy with a sensible head I'd be quoting Jeremy Bentham's theory of utilitarianism at you: namely that one should bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Which means sacrificing a few for the sake of the majority. But I know, as I have always known and as you have so convincingly underlined, that a lifetime ban couldn't really work because it stinks of unfairness.

All of which still leaves me very unhappy about these Rider B types, who also stink.

 

[karlboss]

That's a very interesting comparison. Wouldn't we expect times in 2007 or 8 to be faster than 1990 simply due to improved equipment / nutrition / training? I'm not sure how much training has changed, but weren't they riding downtube shifters in 1990? I suspect you save a decent amount just by having easy access to gear changes etc...and of course, the equipment is lighter.

Pity more of the "everyone in the top 10 dopes crowd" doesn't respond. I'd like to hear their thoughts.

I wish I had more data, and more points for comparison.