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

[BroDeal]

TIf you ask me, life time bans. This will make riders think twice about inserting that needle.

Won't work. The effectiveness of anti-doping efforts is not just determined by the punishment. It is a product of the punishment combined with the probability of being caught. The death penalty could be imposed for doping and riders would still dope because the chance of getting caught is so low. Victor Conte has said that event day doping tests are like stupidity tests. Only the truly dumb fail them.

 

[BroDeal]

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..

Wow. What an amazing display of naivete.

a) A study done by the Luasanne WADA lab in 2007 concluded that 25% of the TdF peloton was blood doping, and 80% were using testosterone or HGH. Of the 47 riders the lab concluded were blood doping, how many have been caught? Of the 140 - 150 that were using testosterone/HGH, how many have been caught? Did all the dopers decide they would quit last season?

b) That may be true on the surface, but it has not stopped many from welcoming Armstrong back. It has not stopped the media, which makes its money catering to the fans, from touting obviously dodgy performances. It has not stopped many fans from sticking their heads in the sand and denying there is a doping problem.

c) Based on what evidence? If the UCI wants to get rid of doping then why did they refuse to test the '08 Giro and the '07 TdF samples for CERA? Why has the UCI consistently denied the systemic nature of the doping problem? Wht did they put their reputation on the line by backing a product (Contador) of Saiz' teamwide doping program?

d) Because a few riders and a team like Garmin are talking big about being clean, we are supposed to believe the feeling is consistent across the rest of the peloton? Other, less ethical teams are not supposed to see this as an opportunity to gain an even greater advantage, just like they did in 1999 when teams became afraid to carry their dope around with them?

 

[skidmark]

First, if you mean 'forgive' as in let them ride after they've served their ban, then yes. If you mean 'forgive' as in like them, that's a personal choice depending on the rider, their circumstances, their attitude, etc.

But I see no problem letting a rider ride after a ban is served, although I understand that sponsors might not think it's the best thing for their product.

Four year maximum bans would be nice.

I think Puerto should be shelved, it's been too long and been pursued too inconsistently.

And BroDeal, I'm interested in your last comment about the WADA tests in 2007. How can WADA determine that 80% of the peloton was using testosterone and HGH but doping authorities can't? What tools do they have at their disposal that the UCI doesn't? And why doesn't the UCI have that capability?

 

[BroDeal]

And BroDeal, I'm interested in your last comment about the WADA tests in 2007. How can WADA determine that 80% of the peloton was using testosterone and HGH but doping authorities can't? What tools do they have at their disposal that the UCI doesn't? And why doesn't the UCI have that capability?

I would have to dig up the study, but I would think they looked for unnatural fluctuations in hormone and blood parameters.

In fact it was not that long ago that Damsgaard said that a huge percentage of samples showed signs that various forms of EPO were being used but because the types of EPO were not the major types being tested for, they could not be deemed positive. For example in 2007 it was reported that TdF samples showed use of Dynepo, but no one was ever sanctioned for it.

 

[ingsve]

Won't work. The effectiveness of anti-doping efforts is not just determined by the punishment. It is a product of the punishment combined with the probability of being caught. The death penalty could be imposed for doping and riders would still dope because the chance of getting caught is so low. Victor Conte has said that event day doping tests are like stupidity tests. Only the truly dumb fail them.

To me a lifetime ban is not about deterrence it's about not letting someone who disgraced the sport ever get a chance to do it again. Being allowed to race at the highest levels is not a god given right, it's a privilege. If you break the rules of the game and thus the trust of the people in it then why should you be given that priviledge back?

If an employer steals from the company he works for and then goes to jail. Why should the company ever want to hire that person again? That's how I look at cheaters. A lifetime ban is perhaps not the final answer. That would be equivalent to life in prison in my analogy but stopping that rider from ever riding in the pro peloton again by not hireing him on a team or refusing access to races should be totally within the rights imo.

 

[BroDeal]

To me a lifetime ban is not about deterrence it's about not letting someone who disgraced the sport ever get a chance to do it again. Being allowed to race at the highest levels is not a god given right, it's a privilege. If you break the rules of the game and thus the trust of the people in it then why should you be given that priviledge back?

If an employer steals from the company he works for and then goes to jail. Why should the company ever want to hire that person again? That's how I look at cheaters. A lifetime ban is perhaps not the final answer. That would be equivalent to life in prison in my analogy but stopping that rider from ever riding in the pro peloton again by not hireing him on a team or refusing access to races should be totally within the rights imo.

Again, you have to take into account the probability of a rider being caught. If 80% are doping (as per the Lausanne study) and 1% get caught then it is absurd to say the 1% caught should be tarred and feathered for disgracing the sport while the other 79% continue doping. What you are effectively saying is that they should be banned not because they doped but because they got caught and embarrassed the sport. This is scapegoat justice.

I also think this sort of attitude is farsical given the current situation. How can Hamilton be denounced as a dirty doper who should never be alllowed to infest the peloton while we know Armstrong was using EPO in 1999 and he is welcomed back with open arms? There are several dozen riders (at least) who were involved with OP but only a handful were ever sanctioned. You are advocating a ridiculous situation where some riders would be pariahs even though the fans know that specific other riders are just as guilty.

 

[ingsve]

Well, you can't do anything to someone without proof. You have to assume people are innocent unless they get caught. I don't know that 79% of riders are getting away with cheating and you can't be sure of that as well.

Should we be lenient towards people that get caught just become we think others migth be getting away with murder? Of course not, that is absurd. The attitude towards cheaters need to change with alot of people, the UCI non the least. Then follows the DSs, the race organizers, the sponsors, the riders and the fans.

I have to believe that anyone that cheats will eventually get caught. If that's not the case today then we have alot of work to do. You sort of suggest that we should stop trying because trying is futile. I just can't accept that.

 

[BroDeal]

Should we be lenient towards people that get caught just become we think others migth be getting away with murder? Of course not, that is absurd.

The situation is not at all the same. The police actively try to catch and prosecute murderers. The cycling situtation is more akin to how prostitution is handled in america. Every major city has certain areas where streetwalkers ply their trade. The police know where these areas are. The interested citizens know where the areas are. But for the most part the hookers are left alone. Occasionally the moral majority types complain to the politicians, and the politicans lean on the police. The police then conduct a series of publicized roundups but it is all for show. The prostitution continues unabated.

 

[ingsve]

The situation is not at all the same. The police actively try to catch and prosecute murderers. The cycling situtation is more akin to how prostitution is handled in america. Every major city has certain areas where streetwalkers ply their trade. The police know where these areas are. The interested citizens know where the areas are. But for the most part the hookers are left alone. Occasionally the moral majority types complain to the politicians, and the politicans lean on the police. The police then conduct a series of publicized roundups but it is all for show. The prostitution continues unabated.

So does that mean that's how it's suppose to be? I'm not saying your analogy is wrong, I just don't think that's the way it should be. What I'm saying is that the attitude needs to change. Cheaters should be fought as if they were murderers rather then the way in your prostitution analogy.

 

[Jarvis]

Wow. What an amazing display of naivete.

a) A study done by the Luasanne WADA lab in 2007 concluded that 25% of the TdF peloton was blood doping, and 80% were using testosterone or HGH. Of the 47 riders the lab concluded were blood doping, how many have been caught? Of the 140 - 150 that were using testosterone/HGH, how many have been caught? Did all the dopers decide they would quit last season?

b) That may be true on the surface, but it has not stopped many from welcoming Armstrong back. It has not stopped the media, which makes its money catering to the fans, from touting obviously dodgy performances. It has not stopped many fans from sticking their heads in the sand and denying there is a doping problem.

c) Based on what evidence? If the UCI wants to get rid of doping then why did they refuse to test the '08 Giro and the '07 TdF samples for CERA? Why has the UCI consistently denied the systemic nature of the doping problem? Wht did they put their reputation on the line by backing a product (Contador) of Saiz' teamwide doping program?

d) Because a few riders and a team like Garmin are talking big about being clean, we are supposed to believe the feeling is consistent across the rest of the peloton? Other, less ethical teams are not supposed to see this as an opportunity to gain an even greater advantage, just like they did in 1999 when teams became afraid to carry their dope around with them?

I like this post. It is a concise summary of the problems of our sport. Although I think you let the UCI off a bit lightly. I'd go with the earlier suggestion of a clean-out of Verbruggen and his cronies.