Time for zero tolerance?

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

It's exactly what Spalco and I were both talking about.

It could also be legally questionable if people are unreasonably barred from working

Okay, I'm getting bored now but the last time: two such bans exist - stooping riders from working in the sport and stopping teams from racing - WHERE ARE THE LEGAL CHALLENGES?

If you're bored feel free not to reply.

I'll point out that you have just redefined the terms by including riders, neither myself or Spalco specifically mentioned cycling.

If you'd engaged in discussion maybe we could have discussed and defined the terms, what we thought was acceptable and what wasn't and what we thought might be challenged (and there is a difference between something being challengeable and someone actually doing it).

But I'm getting tired now so that's probably my last response.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Re: Re:

I'm sure it is legally questionable.

And yet we have the ban and no one's questioning it. Explain, please.

And you are correct about banning whole teams, it's probably on very shaky grounds.

I've not heard many rumbles when the teams that have been banned so far get sent to the naughty step - have you?

Given the tone in which you have conducted the subsequent discussion, I don't feel very inlined to answer, but to tell you what I am sure you already know:

In the first case, these are sanctions that are clearly stated in advance, and the rider competes in full knowledge of that.

In the second, there is a short term suspension, not the cancellation of contracts with all those working on the team.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Given the tone in which you have conducted the subsequent discussion, I don't feel very inlined to answer

And yet you did.

In the first case, these are sanctions that are clearly stated in advance, and the rider competes in full knowledge of that.

Stating the bleeding obvious - is there a point?

In the second, there is a short term suspension, not the cancellation of contracts with all those working on the team.

It's a team ban, and that's what's been called for and suggested would be legally dubious. There have been no legal challenges, from teams or from riders.

 

[Cookster15]

Re: Re:

I want epo to be legal. Cycling is full of hypocrites, everyone is a doper

Agreed. However hct/hb limits are still needed to prevent riders to get full *** and killing themselves. Would be bad for the business.

I agree

And what makes you think testing for hct/hb limits will be any more successful than the rest of doping controls?

Legalizing doping is not a practical or safe option. People will die, particularly amateurs who don't have access to team doctors. In the pros there would still be an arms race and riders and teams with access to the best methods would win - like Sky. Sponsors would also get cold feet because cycling is not a major sport like Football, NFL, Baseball et al. Sponsors have already drifted away from the sport. Will legalizing dope to remove the controversy bring them back? No, because legalizing dope will only increase the controversy and resulting bad publicity. The sport will only become an even bigger joke.

I recall I was in a newsagent a few years ago and the paper had a headline of Cadel Evans winning the Tour (yes I am Australian). An old man looked at me and said who cares they are all on drugs. I said yes probably and asked him what Sport he follows? Answer: Horse Racing! Even horse racing where EPO and result fixing is rife has more credibility amongst people in the street than cycling and this is without legalizing EPO!

Do you want a sport with some semblance of credibility or do you want WWF on Wheels?

The OPs post may seem naive and unrealistic but it is far more preferable to the opposite, there is nothing wrong with having an ideal. The last US President argued for a world free of nuclear weapons, that is a far more silly and unrealistic proposition than asking for a cleaner sport by instilling a zero tolerance policy with massively increased punishment of riders and their teams.

Yes they all dope we know that but if doping controls had no effect Pantani's record would be history by now. There has very obviously been an effect particularly since the EPO test prior to the Sydney Olympics and then the UCI Blood Passport system. Is it perfect? Of course not. Do riders cheat? Of course. Is banning doping better than allowing a free for all? Absolutely.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Re: Re:

Given the tone in which you have conducted the subsequent discussion, I don't feel very inlined to answer

And yet you did.

And if you didn't cut the citation of what I had said short, that explanation was given.

In the first case, these are sanctions that are clearly stated in advance, and the rider competes in full knowledge of that.

Stating the bleeding obvious - is there a point?

You have been challenging others to provide evidence of legal challenges in the current situation, I explain (having already said that I am telling you nothing new) why there have been no such challenges. Why the rude response?

In the second, there is a short term suspension, not the cancellation of contracts with all those working on the team.

It's a team ban, and that's what's been called for and suggested would be legally dubious. There have been no legal challenges, from teams or from riders.

The difference is the duration, and the effect of that on contracts. 6 month team bans are far more likely to lead to unemployment than the current short suspensions, and so legal recourse is unnecessary in the present situation.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

You have been challenging others to provide evidence of legal challenges in the current situation, I explain (having already said that I am telling you nothing new) why there have been no such challenges.

Well we can both agree you're not telling me anything new: I've already pointed out up thread the crucial difference. So why you're wasting my time and "don't feel very inlined to answer" others who don't seem to grasp this point is beyond me.

The difference is the duration, and the effect of that on contracts.

I am reminded of the apocryphal story in which Winston Churchill asks a Lady if she'll sleep with him for a thousand pounds and she says maybe, and then he asks her if she'll sleep with him for ten pounds, at which point she replies 'Of course not, what do you think I am, a prostitute?' To which he replies: 'Madam, we've established what you are, now we're just haggling over the price.' We're agreed you and I it's a ban, a real ban, not the hypothetical nonsense some here seem to think it is: all you are doing is haggling over the tariff, the penalty to be applied.