To forgive or not forgive? Attitudes towards doping within the cycling sport.

[ingsve]

Inspired by the thread "Is doping talk fair game..." I would like to start a serious discussion about one aspect of doping within cycling that I'm especially interested in.

That is the topic of forgive and forget vs lifetime bans and exclusions from races. I'm not interested in speculation about who is cheating and who is not etc. I beleive people are innocent until proven guilty. What concerns me is what happens with people that have been caught cheating and perhaps even admitted that they were cheating.

The situation in the sport right now is that we see examples of both sides. We see riders coming out of doping bans and immediately are back racing at the highest levels as if nothing had happened. On the other hand we also have ASO, especially surrounding the Tour de France, who are refusing teams access because of their previous problems with doping.

I would like to know peoples opinion on this topic.

Should there be further conseuqenses of cheating that just getting a time ban?

Should riders who have been caugt cheating be welcomed back into the sport with open arms?

Should they have the right to race in the highest level races?

If we don't want to forgive and forget so easily, who's responsibility is it? Should the UCI refuse protour teams to hire former cheaters? Should team directors be more reluctant to hire cheaters? Should race organizers exclude teams or riders with doping problems?

What do you think about teams that are quick to fire anyone who gets caught cheating but are just as quick to hire people that gets out of a ban?

What about teams associating with doctors or other staff that have know histories of helping cheaters? Should those teams get sanctioned?

There seems to be a double standard within the sport with regards to cheating. Is it right to be more forgiving to some riders who happen to be stars while others don't get the same treatment?

What do you all think? What is the right way to move forward for the sport? How important is the attitude within the sport with regards to these topics in the larger sence of fighting doping?

Looking forward to see what everyone thinks.

 

[bikingbadger]

Thismight open a can of worms. SO may as well put in my two cents.
I feel that the cyclists of today that still cheat are killing the sport. I agree that it was accepted practice in years past but now the sponsors are running scared and this is causing the clean riders to suffer. So why should these riders be allowed back, Ricco's arrogance of already sayig he's going to come back stronger sickens me. He destroyed Saunier-Dauval and they have been excluded from the most important race on the racing calendar as aconsequence. If you ask me, life time bans. This will make riders think twice about inserting that needle. I'd also like to see some form of team punishment above the ASO excluding the teams from their races. It is their responsibility to make sure they have clean riders.

 

[Stani Kléber]

What about teams associating with doctors or other staff that have know histories of helping cheaters? Should those teams get sanctioned?

In France there is a requirement that the soigneurs are qualified experts. The idea is some level of training and professionalism is required. I'm not sure if this fixes that much but it's helpful.

I think the backroom staff have a lot to answer for. One name behind some troubles at Lampre re-appeared at Saunier Duval, he's still at Fuji-Servetto today. The same doctor working for Manolo Saiz during the Puerto days was somehow able to continue as the Astana doctor until Vino got caught and Bruyneel took over the team and cleared out the backroom staff. The same doctor has just joined the Euskatel team.

This does not mean guilt at Euskatel but it makes me concerned. I'd like to see a "fit and proper" test where team staff are licenced and vetted by the UCI or their national federation, some minimum standards.

Remember if a rider is doping, often they are the victims: they don't want to but are surrounded by people telling them it is "professional". The team doctors earn nice commissions but suffer no bans.

 

[mr. tibbs]

I think there is a tradition of double jeopardy with some cyclists, but others are free to race at the top level as soon as they return. I think the informal extended bans placed on certain riders are bullsh**, and that practice needs to stop.

Some riders get caught and are allowed to return to the top levels of the sport immediately following their bans. Other riders are not. There are even some cases where riders who aren't even charged with anything get an informal ban.

The rules state that a convicted rider serves two years and then is free to ride again, but whether or not they really can ride again seems determined by public opinion more than official rules. The cycling community is letting their emotions dictate policy rather than the official policy, and that needs to stop.

Whatever you think of Hamilton, Basso, Landis, Millar, or etc, they have served their time and should be allowed to race. It doesn't matter if they publicly admit they were doping or continue to claim innocence; they have served their time and should be allowed to race, regardless of how much the cycling community likes/hates them or how popular/unpopular they are.

I'm not a doping apologist, and I would support a lifetime ban for doping, but there isn't one on the books now. If the cycling community would like to only let convicted dopers back if they confess and get all cuddly with the anti-doping movement then the rules should be changed to reflect that requirement. As it stands, this is NOT a requirement, and convicted riders should be allowed to race once they have served the prescribed sentence.

At least, that's how it seems to me. And sorry about the length.

 

[BrandonT]

Let me ask you this. When Tyler Hamilton gets caught again for doping are people going to forgive him? Will you? I dont think he should ever be allowed to infest the peloton ever again.

 

[Stani Kléber]

Well it makes a real difference if a rider admits a mistake and promises to make a fresh start.

Remember, often the riders are under a lot of pressure, it is not that they just want to beat rivals, many are told it is normal, that they won't get caught, that it is part of the job. Now all this is wrong but the whole point is that a bad team or a crooked doctor will make the decision to dope by the rider as ambiguous and banal as possible.

 

[BigBoat]

Ricco's arrogance of already sayig he's going to come back stronger sickens me. QUOTE]


LOL he said that? Me thinks he was doing it on his own because if he was getting help from a doctor (with normal IQ above room temp) he would not have been using animal-based EPO! Use the Dynepo (human identical) Ricco~ or just Autologous blood dope with blood that has normal rectics!

Maybe the Saunier team was actually one of the cleaner teams ironically.

 

[ingsve]

I thought I'd reply to my own topic and put down my own views as well.

I feel that the future certainly needs to go in a way that becomes alot less forgiving. The hypocracy in the sport needs to stop.

However it's not all about the riders. A single rider may be naive and under the influence of preasure from within the team or from others. For that reason I don't support a lifetime ban for any first time offender eventhough the thought has crossed my mind. If however the act of cheating can be proven to have been entirely deliberate and vile and even part of systematic doping then I'm all for lifetime bans or lifetime restrictions from competing at the highest level.

What needs to happen is that people other than the riders need to be dealt with. There must certainly be alot of factors and people behind every case of doping. It everything from doctors to team managers or other staffers. There must be steppes taken to keep people that have a deliberately helped someone cheat or even been the mastermind behind such cheating from ever influensing the sport.

I'm also sure that there must be forces outside of the cycling industry itself that are part of the problem. Doctors or other types of drug suppliers that are interested in making money off of doping in various sports. That's something that is hard to regulate and that can really only be done by making it clear that anyone that deals with such forces face penalties and exclusions within the sport.

To me the only way to make the sport clean is to root out all individuals that hurt the sport in any way and as of right now that's not happening.

 

[bianchigirl]

But that would mean rooting out a great dela of the infrastructure of the current pro peloton - Riis, Bruyneel and many other DSes would have to go along with their support staff and doctors. Ironically, only the French would remain pretty much unscathed.

 

[BigBoat]

Doping will never stop as long as there is BIG MONEY involved in Pro Sports! IF you gave everybody a living wage and didnt reward people for doped performances then you'd get your un-doped racing.

As an aside, Total Body Hemoglobins would help clean things up right now~Tracking total blood volume. This isnt in place but it can be done. Why wont they (UCI) do this?!

 

[ingsve]

But that would mean rooting out a great dela of the infrastructure of the current pro peloton - Riis, Bruyneel and many other DSes would have to go along with their support staff and doctors. Ironically, only the French would remain pretty much unscathed.

Yes, that is true and I would in fact wholeheartedly welcome that. It would be hard to enforce right away but if the attitude and atmosphere towards these types of people would change then hopefully things can change.

The only thing that would make me lenient towards team managers etc that have had atroubled passed would be if they did everything in their power to fight the problem by having good anti-doping programs etc.

And it's not like there aren't people out there that wouldn't be interested in stepping up and taking the place of some of these people. There might be some knowledge and experience that goes missing but who cares.

 

[Anonymous]

my attitude varies.. while i am behind the rehabilitation of riders like david millar, etc, i think that the likes of ricco should be banned for life and to hell with them...

much of this i think is based on when and where..

30 years ago probbaly most of the pelaton doped, and it was ignored...
20 years ago, 90% did with a kinda dont get caught attitude...
10 years ago 80% did and did there best to stay ahead of the game, but when they get caught they held there hands up, and when they came back, they came back clean (on the whole)..

nowadays any rider that dopes knows
a) hes going to get caught
b) it is not what the cycling fans want
c) it is not what the cycling governing bodies want
d) it is not what the teams and other riders want..

ten years ago when riders got caught, it was much more widespread, harder to trace, and everyone was at it.. apologies, bans and rehabilitiation and they came back..

anyone who is stupid enough, and selfish enough now to dope, that should be it.. i would change the rules now, simple...

from tommoro any rider that gets caught faces an immediate lifetime ban..
simple..
any rider that fails a test that was taken prior to that date, faces a 2 year ban..

no arguments... any rider that test positive also faces criminal procedings, along with any doctor, or other person involved..

 

[Bala Verde]

In essence, doping seems to be a primarily a 'medical violation', so I think you should start with weeding out the doctors.

Doctors have sworn the hippocratic oath, and their medical profession also instructs them to not do any harm to a patient. Supplying a form of doping loosely defined as a performance enhancing exogenous substance which adversely affects the health of the rider, in case of excessive intake or an actual overdosis, in the short term, perhaps even in the long run, goes against their ethical and professional standards, while it might even have legal implications when someone deceases. Too much EPO for example could thicken the blood so much that you'd die. In competition people are more likely to cross the thin line between administering enough, a little more, and too much.

Doctors who are caught should be severely punished by stripping them of their right to ever practive again. Since most doctors make quite a bit of money, they might not want to run the risk to ruin their careers and think twice to supply, or prescribe such substances. If Kohl won the TdF, what would his doctor have gained? Would that person have wanted to run the risk of being exposed and lose his job for the rest of his life, for a million bucks?

However, the relationship between patient and doctor also obstructs further (criminal) investigations, since they are under no obligation to cooperate and release any medical data.

Then again, a rider surely should not shirk his responsibilities, even in the worst case 'Abu Ghraib/Stanford prison/Zimbardo experiment' type of environment. Yes, there is a lot of pressure, perhaps even so much that it is really, really difficult to resist. But if a rider goes to a vet to order oxyglobin and injects himself with stuff like that, how could you forgive him for doing such a stupid thing? Injecting yourself with animal meds? I mean, they are still human beings with some kind of ratio, they can think for themselves, and hence, be held responsible for the decisions they make. It is not that people put a gun to their heads and force them to take whatever drug was available. They still had the choice to not do it and refrain from taking it.

In some of these confessions, riders say that they didn't even knew what their doctors put in their bodies to prep them before a race. Clearly in such a case, the doctor is responsible, but in some/many (?) cases I think riders knew it wasn't kosher, but ignored it and chose to remain ignorant.

At this point, the 'jail time' is a 2 year suspension. If that's what it is, they should be allowed to come back, start with a clean slate, while the presumption of innocence remains intact. Those are the current rules, so I guess they, and we, have to go by them.

 

[msjett]

I think that if you are busted for doping, it should be that you are banned for life. The reason I say this is, a person may think its not the worse thing that could happen, it's really only a 2 year period off etc, then they are back. And everything is forgiven(so it seems for those returning from said bans)....It doesn't really put it out there that this type of behaviour is totally unacceptable.

Do the crime, do the time???For all involved, Doctors etc!!!

 

[Indurain]

Doping is wrong but very tempting. Athlete's have very short careers. What if your a Columbian. Country in turmoil no hope for a good job past cycling. And here is a drug that will help you win and potentially get enough money to feed you and your family til death. Not taking it will probably be more of a risk on you and your family than taking it. Likewise for a french farmer, etc. Morals would in most cases go out the window for survival.

I think there is a huge difference between those that do it for survival or a better life than the dump they came from and those that do it purely for fame and glory. I wouldn't do it, but maybe I would if I was in desperation.

 

[Jarvis]

Every time there has been a big scandal, I've thought that things would change. Obviously, I hadn't realised how rotten the sport had become by '98. But by Operation Puerto and the obvious damage it was doing to the sport that should have been the line in the sand. But the authorities have let it drag.

Sadly I feel quite bad for those who 'fessed up as it seems the better approach was to keep your gob shut and you might just avoid the fall out.

I have no sympathy for anyone who is caught post Puerto, there are no excuses any more, there are no mistakes.

Frankly, most of the issues, the root causes, lie with the UCI. But they don't seem too fussed about sorting things out now that Armstrong has brought his cash-cow back to the circus.

 

[bikepure]

the start of the solution? a step in the right direction.

Each time i get disheartened about doping destroying our wonderful sport, i see the passion it builds in people (see above and below) and i seriously hope there is an answer.

BikePure is a campaign group trying to protect the future of cyclesport. We campaign for lifetime bans and until they come about, we work to promote clean riders and forget the cheaters that damage biking each season.

http://www.bikepure.org

free,not for profit campaign.

 

[elapid]

There are so many different approaches and none seem to be working. I do not support lifetime bans for a first offense because they do not act as a deterrent and I believe that we all deserve a second chance. Hopefully those that get a second chance will be a vocal advocate like Millar rather than an arrogant idiot like Ricco. I would actually favour a more conservative approach based on the biological passport system. Rather than athletes, UCI and WADA getting bogged down in legal battles, if an athlete's blood values are not within the accepted values then ban that athlete for a race or until such time that their values return to within the accepted range.

I agree that the higher priority should be the source of the problem. Doctors, managers, directors, etc. Not sure how, but the UCI and WADA (and CONI) should not be directing their efforts as much towards the athletes as towards those supplying the athletes.

Then finally there is us, the fans. We watch races and the sponsors get their value for money. But what makes us watch a race - fast, amazing exploits? Is it really possible for mere mortals to race around France for 3 weeks, including over two mountain ranges, and average 42 kmh? I know I am as guilty as anyone because I still enjoy watching Floyd making his amazing comeback. If this is truly what makes us watch, and sponsors pony up the big bucks as a result, then are we inadvertently supporting the need for pros to dope? We should be satisfied with good racing (as I am sure the majority of us are - Team CSC/SaxoBank on the Alpe d'Huez last year for instance) rather than superhuman speeds or exploits.

 

[tifosa]

What's happening globally in cycling regarding performance enhancing drug usage, testing, enforcement and punishment is evidence of a very broken system. Nothing works, yet they (everyone related to cycling) keep doing the same damn things over and over expecting different results.

As stated here previously, from this day forward - zero tolerance for EVERYONE involved, lifetime bans from the sport, all wins/podium finishes removed from official records, immediate forfeiture of salary, additional mandatory fines equal to one year's salary, criminal prosecution, and if found criminally negligent--jail time. Maybe that will give them all pause.

 

[ingsve]

Then finally there is us, the fans.

I don't really believe that totally clean cycling would be any less exciting to watch. To me it's not how many minutes it takes for the winner to get up Alpe d'Huez that matters it's the fight between the top racers that's important. And even if you remove alot of the top racers that we know were cheating from a race then there would still be a set of people that are the best of the rest.

It could even be that racing would be even more exciting to watch. I'm guessing it's safe to say that in the past when alot of the top racers were cheating it was possible for them to keep themselves on an even level through a Tour without really bonking much. A race where anyone can have a bad day at any given stage should end up being alot more exciting.

 

[Cribbo]

Great discussion topic.

This is something that I tend to find myself talking about faily regularly, with almsot anyone who'll listen. Like a lot of the comments here, I like the idea of lifetime bans for doping offences. But ... I think we might still be a while off getting it.

I think the first stage should be to increase the 2 year ban to possibly 3 or 4 years. How often do you hear of riders getting the full 2 years? They always seem to get a reduced sentence of only 1 year, or 18 month ban. Start the maximum even higher, before they start introducing reductions.

The 1 issue I always have trouble reconciling with is riders who either stupidly or inadvisedly ingest a product that might not be performance enhancing, but might be on the prohibited list due to it's masking properties. Should they be banned for life for being stupid? It seems a little harsh.

Don't get me wrong, I still want to string Ricco, Piepoli, Kohl, etc. from the nearest tree for what they did during last years TdF. They knew what they were doing, and what benefit they would get out of it. Forgiving them will be hard. Forgetting what they did will be even harder.

Now I'm just rambling.

 

[bianchigirl]

Riders are offered a reduced ban if they co-operate and name names - whilst the incentive is a reasonable one, I'm not aware of anyone being hauled in because they were named by a rider looking for a shorter suspension.

I believe the 4 year ban is under discussion and has widespread support.

I'd like to see greater consistency from the UCI, leading by example. Unfortunately there is simply too much corruption in head office, too many backhanders, playing favourites (giving certain team doctors information on when their team will be tested) and sacrificing other riders to maintain the illusion that they're doing something about the problems in the sport (the treatment of Mayo was a disgrace). I'd like to see Anne Gripper allowed to do her job and get the biological passport off the ground and working effectively. It's interesting that one of the BP team, Robin Parisotto (who helped develop the EPO test in use since Sydney 2000), made very public statements about the validity of the science used to detect EPO in the 99 Armstrong samples, followed by statements that at least 30 riders could be sanctioned under the BP scheme and then we had McQuaid backtracking furiously on whether any riders would be sanctioned at all. Since then? Nada.

Clean the stables - get rid of Verdruggen and his cronies from positions of power and then we might see some effective leadership from the UCI. Then we might see the UCI getting tough on team wide punishments, rooting out doping doctors etc. However, while ever the old guard rules in Switzerland we will never see anything but a sport willing to be compromised by the lure of filthy lucre and utterly compromised by the doping culture that runs through the sport from top to bottom.

 

[disgruntledgoat]

I don't believe in life bans. What does it achieve other than removing the rider, who is just the final link in a chain that stretches through his team, a doctor and (presumably) a corrupt clinic/ medical wholesaler providing the product?

It denies riders the chance to redeem themselves also. The route I favour is an amnesty whereby we all get a good chortle at what really went on in the 90s and 00s and then the serious business of looking at what the contributing factors were and what can be done to discourage athletes from going down that route. It has to be carrot as well as stick.

Plus talk of lynching people or, at best, imprisoning guys who cheat at sport is just bizarre to me. They p!ss me off as much as anyone, but these guys aren't evil, moustache-twirling supervillains, they're people with strengths, weaknesses, good points and bad just like you and me.

Dig In!- The Normal Persons Cycling Blog http//pdmalcolm.wordpress.com

 

[TrapperJohn]

I'd like to think an amnesty would work, but it probably would not. The rather oversized ego that comes with being a top cyclist isn't going to admit they cheated.

Banning for life only ups the ante. The dopers and especially those that motivate or assist them would just become more clever. For every one that gets banned for life, there are five more waiting to take their place.

I don't really blame the riders. They didn't create the system, they only live with it. How many of us would dope if the reward were a season on a top team? The experience of a lifetime.

Sadly, it all comes down to money. As long as there is a profit incentive, doping will continue. They've had some good moments lately, testing for CERA without announcing it was a clever move - keep the dopers guessing. About all they can do is that - try to stay one step ahead of the dopers.

 

[pmsc111]

Why do they test for drugs?

Is it for the health of the athlete? To make sport fairer? Stop drug companies becoming rich, or making them richer by finding ways around testing?

If the officiating body can't guarentee that everybody is not using, or hasn't used at any stage, how can they expect compliance?