Tone deaf award of the month for Cadel

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
86TDFWinner said:
Exactly, Nor does it change the fact that he/they doped(which has been my point from the beginning).

Like I said, some folks here(and Im too lazy to look it up) have cited that Wonderboy was doping as early as the late 80s/early 90s, correct me if Im wrong, but wouldn't that fall out of the SOL so many here are going on and on about? Plus, wasn't Wonderboy past the SOL when they busted him? Atleast that's what I was led to believe, that the big hubub was about hi m being past the SOL, and the "witchhunt" nonsense and so forth.
SOL is 8 years. They was able to go past SOL because of fraud and conspiracy (or something like that). He was only banned since 1998 due to evidence IIRC
 
Netserk said:
SOL is 8 years. They was able to go past SOL because of fraud and conspiracy (or something like that). He was only banned since 1998 due to evidence IIRC
I get that....but wouldn't that also mean those guys who've admitted to/been busted for doping past the SOL, could technically still be stripped or busted because they frauded the sport too? I mean, other guys have come out past the SOL and have admitted to it, or been caught and not been busted/stripped, etc(or am I wrong here?). So, why only a few and not all?
 
Netserk said:
SOL is 8 years. They was able to go past SOL because of fraud and conspiracy (or something like that). He was only banned since 1998 due to evidence IIRC
If Armstrong had not taken the high and mighty stance at the USADA thing in August, he could have kept some of his Tours as I understand it.

It was his fault for trying the whole - they are persecuting me bull****.

Pantani and others have gotten to keep gts we know they have doped for. Armstrong might have gotten too if he wasnt so eager just to **** us all of one last time.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
86TDFWinner said:
I get that....but wouldn't that also mean those guys who've admitted to/been busted for doping past the SOL, could technically still be stripped or busted because they frauded the sport too? I mean, other guys have come out past the SOL and have admitted to it, or been caught and not been busted/stripped, etc(or am I wrong here?). So, why only a few and not all?
No, because LA did two things to allow the SOL to be lifted.

He came back in 2009. Probably the dumbest thing he could have done.
He continued to stymie investigations by intimidating witnesses.

Had he stayed retired he would have been outside the SOL and for all intents and purposes home free as far as USADA were concerned.

The likes of Riis, Merckx, Indurain, Pantani etc all retired well before the SOL's extent. That's the rules.

The longer back you want to go the shakier the grounds for conviction are. Lack of credible witnesses, lack of reliable evidence etc all make it less and less likely that any rider from the 60's to 90's would get a fair "trial", let alone a just outcome for them or the sport.

That's why a proper, independently run T & R is the only way forward. The rules are simple. Tell the truth in full and you're free to walk away with your career intact, decline to take part or tell the "truth" and get found out however long down the line and you're out for good as if your career never happened.

The only stumbling block is what year to start from. My vote 1991 onwards.
 
ultimobici said:
No, because LA did two things to allow the SOL to be lifted.

He came back in 2009. Probably the dumbest thing he could have done.
He continued to stymie investigations by intimidating witnesses.

Had he stayed retired he would have been outside the SOL and for all intents and purposes home free as far as USADA were concerned.

The likes of Riis, Merckx, Indurain, Pantani etc all retired well before the SOL's extent. That's the rules.

The longer back you want to go the shakier the grounds for conviction are. Lack of credible witnesses, lack of reliable evidence etc all make it less and less likely that any rider from the 60's to 90's would get a fair "trial", let alone a just outcome for them or the sport.

That's why a proper, independently run T & R is the only way forward. The rules are simple. Tell the truth in full and you're free to walk away with your career intact, decline to take part or tell the "truth" and get found out however long down the line and you're out for good as if your career never happened.

The only stumbling block is what year to start from. My vote 1991 onwards.
How about anyone alive?
 
ultimobici said:
No, because LA did two things to allow the SOL to be lifted.

He came back in 2009. Probably the dumbest thing he could have done.
He continued to stymie investigations by intimidating witnesses.

Had he stayed retired he would have been outside the SOL and for all intents and purposes home free as far as USADA were concerned.

The likes of Riis, Merckx, Indurain, Pantani etc all retired well before the SOL's extent. That's the rules.

The longer back you want to go the shakier the grounds for conviction are. Lack of credible witnesses, lack of reliable evidence etc all make it less and less likely that any rider from the 60's to 90's would get a fair "trial", let alone a just outcome for them or the sport.

That's why a proper, independently run T & R is the only way forward. The rules are simple. Tell the truth in full and you're free to walk away with your career intact, decline to take part or tell the "truth" and get found out however long down the line and you're out for good as if your career never happened.The only stumbling block is what year to start from. My vote 1991 onwards.
Very good way to put it, thanks. I totally get it......IMO Miggy should be at the top of the list to get stripped, but they cant because he's outside the SOL. Riis, Pantani, etc, etc should be stripped too if they had that sort of commssion. That's the only way I see them doing it to get the sport back to credibility IMO.


How about anyone alive?
I'd have to second this. if we're going total truth or you get stripped, then EVERYONE should be held under the microscope. Coppi, Merckx, Fignon, Miggy, everyone. I get it'll be hard to prove Coppi, or Merckx, but both admitted to doing something that at the time wasn't banned. if you're seeking the truth from some, why not ALL?(and i get Coppi/Merckx/Fignon/Miggy fall under the SOL guidelines, I'm saying as a whole).
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
Netserk said:
Yes. But that doesn't change the fact that the rules was changed *after* the crime.
The rules that prohibited their actual doping were in effect before they doped and were caught. The only rules that changed were those applying to what points a team was allowed to rely on for selection.

The rules were up for revision in the wake of various debacles concerning riders coming back from bans with little or no contrition. That their teams should benefit after cynically rehiring them, if indeed Valverde was ever off the payroll, is an aberration. The teams & the riders concerned are only miffed because their gamble on the UCI allowing them to benefit as if nothing happened before backfired. Tough luck, especially for Movistar & Saxo, and rightly so.
 
ultimobici said:
The rules that prohibited their actual doping were in effect before they doped and were caught. The only rules that changed were those applying to what points a team was allowed to rely on for selection.

The rules were up for revision in the wake of various debacles concerning riders coming back from bans with little or no contrition. That their teams should benefit after cynically rehiring them, if indeed Valverde was ever off the payroll, is an aberration. The teams & the riders concerned are only miffed because their gamble on the UCI allowing them to benefit as if nothing happened before backfired. Tough luck, especially for Movistar & Saxo, and rightly so.
To bolded: I know. No dispute here.

It still doesn't change the fact that Contador was caught in '10 and (also) got punished by a rule that got implemented over a year after.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
Netserk said:
How about anyone alive?
Not practical.

Testimony from the 1960s & 70s is abut events 40-50 years ago. Would you be happy submitting yourself to that? Can you imagine the settling of old scores that might be attempted? Maertens is still ticking about the 73 Worlds 40 years on!
The reason I picked 1991 is that it is obvious that there was a quantum shift at that time with EPO. Doping existed before then but the methods were less sophisticated and less consistently effective. A rider might be up one day due to amphetamine , cortisone or testosterone, but there was a down going hand in hand. Blood manipulation changed all that, hence my choice of date.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
Netserk said:
To bolded: I know. No dispute here.

It still doesn't change the fact that Contador was caught in '10 and (also) got punished by a rule that got implemented over a year after.
Diddums!

My heart bleeds for the conniving cheats and their teams. Movistar in particular should be grateful they weren't pulled up for obviously carrying on their support for Valverde. My bet is that if their accounts & Valverde's are examined there'll be a very close correlation of transactions over his ban.

I cannot understand for the life of me why a banned rider is allowed to come back at the same level immediately after their ban. There should be a rule forcing a rider to come back in at a lower level of team for a fixed period. That period could be relaxed depending on the amount of help the rider provided to the ADA. Fix the ban at 2 full seasons too - caught in 2013 Tour? - ban runs to end of 2015 season. That'll focus the mind.
 
ultimobici said:
Diddums!

My heart bleeds for the conniving cheats and their teams. Movistar in particular should be grateful they weren't pulled up for obviously carrying on their support for Valverde. My bet is that if their accounts & Valverde's are examined there'll be a very close correlation of transactions over his ban.

I cannot understand for the life of me why a banned rider is allowed to come back at the same level immediately after their ban. There should be a rule forcing a rider to come back in at a lower level of team for a fixed period. That period could be relaxed depending on the amount of help the rider provided to the ADA. Fix the ban at 2 full seasons too - caught in 2013 Tour? - ban runs to end of 2015 season. That'll focus the mind.
I don't disagree with your POV, but other than caring for cleaner cycling, civil rights also mean a whole lot to me.

I do think that both Contador and Valverde still dopes, and I hope that they will get lifelong sentences if caught yet again, but that doesn't change the fact that even criminals and dopers have rights as well. It's what defines a just society and liberal democracy.
 
One thing to consider is that in Armstrongs case the SOL was opened by USADA (using the fraud clause??), the operative word being USADA.

Whereas in say Riis case he managed to admit to doping in the TdF just after the SOL, but it was UCI and ASO that declined to either prosecute him or strip him of his maillot jeune. The operative word being UCI and ASO.

All the more reason to have drug testing, prosecution and sentencing in the hands of an independent body to race organisers or UCI.

The principle of SOL is being corrupted just like everything else touched by a corrupt UCI. Its the nature of corruption.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
ultimobici said:
Not practical.

Testimony from the 1960s & 70s is abut events 40-50 years ago. Would you be happy submitting yourself to that? Can you imagine the settling of old scores that might be attempted? Maertens is still ticking about the 73 Worlds 40 years on!
The reason I picked 1991 is that it is obvious that there was a quantum shift at that time with EPO. Doping existed before then but the methods were less sophisticated and less consistently effective. A rider might be up one day due to amphetamine , cortisone or testosterone, but there was a down going hand in hand. Blood manipulation changed all that, hence my choice of date.
I agree. So did Fignon.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
Netserk said:
I don't disagree with your POV, but other than caring for cleaner cycling, civil rights also mean a whole lot to me.

I do think that both Contador and Valverde still dopes, and I hope that they will get lifelong sentences if caught yet again, but that doesn't change the fact that even criminals and dopers have rights as well. It's what defines a just society and liberal democracy.
If their civil liberties were so trampled upon why did they not contest the matter? It's not like they (the teams) didn't have the means.
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,639
0
0
To me it's a general principle of law that people should be punished for the offences they have committed according to the rules in place when they committed them. The only crimes I know of in which retroactive application of law is generally accepted are war crimes and crimes against humanity, for very good reasons. In those instances there are real risks of vigilante actions, civil wars and retaliatory genocide if something is not seen to be done against the perpetrators of such atrocities. Doping in sport is neither remotely as bad as crimes against humanity, nor does it have the same risks associated with not trying to convict people retroactively.
 
Caruut said:
To me it's a general principle of law that people should be punished for the offences they have committed according to the rules in place when they committed them. The only crimes I know of in which retroactive application of law is generally accepted are war crimes and crimes against humanity, for very good reasons. In those instances there are real risks of vigilante actions, civil wars and retaliatory genocide if something is not seen to be done against the perpetrators of such atrocities. Doping in sport is neither remotely as bad as crimes against humanity, nor does it have the same risks associated with not trying to convict people retroactively.
Huge +1
 
Caruut said:
To me it's a general principle of law that people should be punished for the offences they have committed according to the rules in place when they committed them. The only crimes I know of in which retroactive application of law is generally accepted are war crimes and crimes against humanity, for very good reasons. In those instances there are real risks of vigilante actions, civil wars and retaliatory genocide if something is not seen to be done against the perpetrators of such atrocities. Doping in sport is neither remotely as bad as crimes against humanity, nor does it have the same risks associated with not trying to convict people retroactively.
Yeah, but to get around that, some folks like to throw around the "SOL" arguement. I agree with your statement(and thats what I tried pointing out here, but to no avail). Like I said, hypocrisy.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
86TDFWinner said:
Yeah, but to get around that, some folks like to throw around the "SOL" arguement. I agree with your statement(and thats what I tried pointing out here, but to no avail). Like I said, hypocrisy.
Earlier on in this thread you were calling for Coppi to be stripped.

Yes, Indurain, Merckx, Coppi, Evans(if doped)Fignon, everyone(who doped). Why should dopers reap the benefits of being in the record books alongside clean riders/winners? If its fair for them to strip Wonderboy, and Landis, etc, then ALL dopers should be stripped and banned as well. Just my opinion

Notice how no one talks about stripping/banning those gentlemen, wonder why that is?
Problem is he didn't dope at all. He was many things in life, but a doper ain't one of them. Unless, of course, you want to apply post 1960 olympic rules to him.

Indurain etc is a different matter, but still one cannot hold them accountable for actions that were made illegal later. Moser's hour is legitimate because he was not breaking any rule using blood doping.

By the same logic, perhaps they should reinstate Emile Georget as the 1907 Tour winner because bike changes are now permitted?
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Coppi wasn't a doper, and to be honest amphetamine isn't much of a PED. In fact I think it was largely banned because of the health risks rather than the fairly limited performance boost it gave.

Because it doesn't actually increase your physical capacity in any way, it just enables your mind to push your body beyond the limits that would normally get alarm bells ringing. This is what those riders were on, that and any random cocktail their soigneurs would swear make them ride faster and recover better. Drugs like amphetamine,cocaine and even caffeine have hallucinogenic, euphoric qualities that trick the mind, which meant you could push past the pain barrier, which in turn meant at the end of a race they'd need morphine injections directly into their legs to stop them hurting and let them sleep.

That coupled with a very basic understanding of human physiology and things like hydration made for a lethal combination, particularly on hot days, as Tom Simpson found out to his cost as a he wobbled to a stop on the slopes on Mt Ventoux. But the drugs didn't make their muscles bigger, their circulation better or their lungs more efficient.

EPO, steroids, AICAR, gene-doping, these are game changers and operate in a totally different way to those early PEDs.
 
Caruut said:
To me it's a general principle of law that people should be punished for the offences they have committed according to the rules in place when they committed them. The only crimes I know of in which retroactive application of law is generally accepted are war crimes and crimes against humanity, for very good reasons. In those instances there are real risks of vigilante actions, civil wars and retaliatory genocide if something is not seen to be done against the perpetrators of such atrocities. Doping in sport is neither remotely as bad as crimes against humanity, nor does it have the same risks associated with not trying to convict people retroactively.
Also in many cases the people who committed those offences set the laws by which they would be punished if there was no retroactive application of law, in the point to which they can arrange it in such a way as to let themselves off.

Markus "Mischa" Wolf, head of the Stasi's foreign intelligence unit, was found guilty of treason in 1993. "Me, a traitor? Against who?", he reportedly said.
 
Earlier on in this thread you were calling for Coppi to be stripped.
Wasn't it well known that at the time, he introduced other riders to various "modern" methods?;)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fausto_Coppi


My thing is, if you want to truely "clean up the sport" then you have to go back and start looking up everyone. I know it's easier said then done, and there's a SOL, but still. If you bust, or atleast acknowledge these guys did something(an asterisk maybe), maybe it would make others think"wow, these guys arent playing around, if they got so and so, they'll get anyone".


Problem is he didn't dope at all. He was many things in life, but a doper ain't one of them. Unless, of course, you want to apply post 1960 olympic rules to him.
According to sources and other riders, Coppi WAS a doper though(atleast that's what it appears to be-see the link I provided) and according to that he even admits to it.

Indurain etc is a different matter, but still one cannot hold them accountable for actions that were made illegal later. Moser's hour is legitimate because he was not breaking any rule using blood doping.
I get it.


By the same logic, perhaps they should reinstate Emile Georget as the 1907 Tour winner because bike changes are now permitted?
Well, thats a horse of a different color isn't it? I dont think he doped though:p
 
86TDFWinner said:
Wasn't it well known that at the time, he9and other riders) were using supposed banned substances(only they werent banned at the time?) I know it's been posted here before about that, and I've read it other places too. My thing is, if you want to truely "clean up the sport" then you have to go back and start looking up everyone. I know it's easier said then done, and there's a SOL, but still. if you bust, or atleast acknowledge these guys did something, maybe it would make others think"wow, these guys arent playing around, if they got so and so, they'll get anyone".




Who Eddy or Coppi?



I get it.




Well, thats a horse of a different color isn't it? I dont think he doped though:p
Coppi. He didn't break any rules at the time.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS