UCI Forbids Convicted Dopers from Team Management

[fujitourer]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-forbids-convicted-dopers-from-future-team-management-positions

To the extent that the sport needs to remove those that have done it damage from perpetuating the cycle of doping, this is a good policy.

The fact that this regulation will not be applied retrospectively is surely problematic, as is the fact that it requires the individual to be convicted of a doping offence (and so a future rider in the position of Bjarne Riis or Jonathan Vaughters, for instance, who received no such conviction yet have admitted to their doping would still be allowed a team management role).

If the UCI was serious about the "ethical" standard of teams they would be going much further than this to ensure that at the level of team management there is a break with the practices of the past. Why should the UCI arbitrarily exempt so many known users and pushers of drugs from this regulation?

 

[blackcat]

what about unconvicted dopers. Vaughters, Neil Stephens?

 

[hrotha]

Objectively, I think this is good, but the fact that it comes from the UCI without seemingly any external pressure worth mentioning makes me uneasy.

 

[ElChingon]

How are the current ex-doper DS's going to spin it to keep their jobs? Yes, its not retroactive but any doper wanting to be a DS now will only point back at the current crop of ex-doper DS's.

Still can't believe the UCI is all of a sudden coming up with these new rules, I wonder what is prompting them now as opposed to previous years where the doping was worse according to them? Its much better now so we need all these new rules? Something is majorly wrong.

Can't wait till they add the rule that if any UCI official accepts a bribe they will be banned for life and have to pay a years salary as a fine

 

[brianf7]

what about unconvicted dopers. Vaughters, Neil Stephens?

Inocent untill proven guilty. and that wont happen now.

 

[sniper]

what about unconvicted dopers. Vaughters, Neil Stephens?

exactly.

this is just another measurement taken to keep the ignorant happy.

neither Riis nor Bruyneel were ever convicted.

The fact that this regulation will not be applied retrospectively is surely problematic ...

why?
do we have a convicted doper in a teammanager position?

 

[hrotha]

exactly.

this is just another measurement taken to keep the ignorant happy.

I see this pretty often. No measure is good enough unless it fixes everything single-handedly. The 50% hematocrit cap? Rubbish. The passport? A smokescreen.

Fact is, if you can't fix things with a single master stroke, you need to take small steps as they become possible and keep moving forward.

This won't get rid of Bruyneel and Riis, but it will prevent Vino from becoming a DS (as much as we all love his riding style, his being a DS wouldn't be good news for clean cycling), and it would have stopped the Andersens and Galdeanos of this world. Depending on how the rule is worded, it might even prevent the next Riis from becoming a DS.

 

[fishtacos]

Well, if you wanted to be pessimistic...

You could suggest that the rule is to make it look like they're doing something about doping, while assuring that the old-school doping directeurs/staff, convicted or not (Riis, Bruyneel, Zabel, Anderson, etc.), are left in place whilst anyone who is busted now and is possibly going to pull a Landis/Hamilton soup-spitting omerta-busting confession is forever banned from a job in pro cycling after they retire as a rider.

Not that I would suggest something like that.

 

[Nearly]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-forbids-convicted-dopers-from-future-team-management-positions

To the extent that the sport needs to remove those that have done it damage from perpetuating the cycle of doping, this is a good policy.

The fact that this regulation will not be applied retrospectively is surely problematic, as is the fact that it requires the individual to be convicted of a doping offence (and so a future rider in the position of Bjarne Riis or Jonathan Vaughters, for instance, who received no such conviction yet have admitted to their doping would still be allowed a team management role).

If the UCI was serious about the "ethical" standard of teams they would be going much further than this to ensure that at the level of team management there is a break with the practices of the past. Why should the UCI arbitrarily exempt so many known users and pushers of drugs from this regulation?

Why not retrospective? For a start, it would be not be legal as you cannot wack up penalties after a "crime" is committed any more than you can taxes after income has been earned.

In fact even if it operates prospectively query whether a punishment such as this is not outside WADA or some other guidelines or laws as being additional to existing benchmarks or otherwise being disproportionate. Some cyclists may know little else than a sport/profession/business in which they have already invested countless years and at no time before now was there ever any sanction which really threatened their post racing livelihood. Especially a "sudden death" one of any doping finding particularly where there can be "strict liability" for anything above a zero reading.

Watch the squeals if such a ban were to extend to the accreditation of journalists to cover cycling (no more Paul Kimmages for example?).

Also what would retrospectivity do for those wishing to unburden themselves of past misdeeds?

That said if it sticks this could be a powerful deterrent going forward especially for those who have been on the scene for while. To the younger ones perhaps not so?

 

[hrotha]

Well, if you wanted to be pessimistic...

You could suggest that the rule is to make it look like they're doing something about doping, while assuring that the old-school doping directeurs/staff, convicted or not (Riis, Bruyneel, Zabel, Anderson, etc.), are left in place whilst anyone who is busted now and is possibly going to pull a Landis/Hamilton soup-spitting omerta-busting confession is forever banned from a job in pro cycling after they retire as a rider.

Not that I would suggest something like that.

This is perfectly possible, yes. Another reason why this makes me uneasy.

 

[sniper]

I see this pretty often. No measure is good enough unless it fixes everything single-handedly. The 50% hematocrit cap? Rubbish. The passport? A smokescreen.

Fact is, if you can't fix things with a single master stroke, you need to take small steps as they become possible and keep moving forward.

This won't get rid of Bruyneel and Riis, but it will prevent Vino from becoming a DS (as much as we all love his riding style, his being a DS wouldn't be good news for clean cycling), and it would have stopped the Andersens and Galdeanos of this world. Depending on how the rule is worded, it might even prevent the next Riis from becoming a DS.

You're right in as far as, in the Clinic, the glass is often half-empty, rather than half-full.
However, there are very clear and easy measures the UCI could take, but which they aren't taking, such as assigning others to do the doping controls, or an independent investigation into Landis' & Tyler's allegations of a cover up, etc.etc..
So yes, this current measure is for the ignorant.
That doesn't mean that I don't welcome it.

 

[fujitourer]

why?
do we have a convicted doper in a teammanager position?

I was thinking of Vinokourov's plan to take over the management of Astana next season.

 

[fujitourer]

Why not retrospective? For a start, it would be not be legal as you cannot wack up penalties after a "crime" is committed any more than you can taxes after income has been earned.

In fact even if it operates prospectively query whether a punishment such as this is not outside WADA or some other guidelines or laws as being additional to existing benchmarks or otherwise being disproportionate. Some cyclists may know little else than a sport/profession/business in which they have already invested countless years and at no time before now was there ever any sanction which really threatened their post racing livelihood. Especially a "sudden death" one of any doping finding particularly where there can be "strict liability" for anything above a zero reading.

Watch the squeals if such a ban were to extend to the accreditation of journalists to cover cycling (no more Paul Kimmages for example?).

Also what would retrospectivity do for those wishing to unburden themselves of past misdeeds?

That said if it sticks this could be a powerful deterrent going forward especially for those who have been on the scene for while. To the younger ones perhaps not so?

It would be perfectly legal for the UCI to create a new ethical regulation in relation to team managers as part of the process of applying for a Pro Tour/Pro Conti/Conti licence. This would take into account an individual's past involvement with drugs in the sport. That could quite easily block anyone who has ever been convicted of a doping offence or has admitted their doping history, be it as a rider or as a manager, from being a team manager. Simply put, you make it impossible for a team to gain a ProTour licence if they hire people in management positions who don't make the grade when it comes to their history of doping.

Technically, legally, that is not punishing a rider/manager again for a crime they have already committed and been punished for (thoguh obviously in practise it is) - it is simply making the entry requirements for any prospective team that little bit tougher when it comes to that team's staffing arrangements.

 

[Scatto]

It could be a good thing to break the omerta, cutting the deal that if not caught while active as a pro, they can still loose their jobs and revenues from cycling if evidence pops up later (think of the 8-year period in which Olympic samples are kept, think of LA). The deal then would be a full confession, with names & everything. Those names will probably the ones that were willing to give the uncaught former dopers a job, but not in the long run, because soon they'll be out. So in that respect, it works somewhat retroactively too.

 

[JRTinMA]

They should have just called it the Vino rule.

 

[dbrmuz]

As an Oz cycling fan,any mention of Neil Stephens p****s me off massively,quite frankly.How he has managed to skate through without any sort of conviction is beyond me.When Heras was EPO-ing his way around Spain in '05,who was most visible by his side? And that's just the first example that comes to mind.

So anything that would prevent any future "Neil Stephens" from having any sort of management position is alright by me.

 

[hrotha]

Wasn't Stephens suspended along with the rest of the Festina Tour squad (except for Virenque and Herve)?

 

[fujitourer]

Wasn't Stephens suspended along with the rest of the Festina Tour squad (except for Virenque and Herve)?

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/sky-may-relax-zero-tolerance-doping-policy-29295/

This article says he was the only one not sanctioned...

 

[movingtarget]

I think it's a great move. A step in the right direction even though some of the current DS's won't be effected unfortunately.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Wasn't DDL talking about going into management as well recently?

Just out of interest - has anyone got a list of all the current management in the PT who have doping convictions or admitted doping?

Admitted:

Riis
Aldag
Holm
Zabel
K.Anderson
González de Galdeano
Vaughters
Stephens
Breukink


Suspected:

Hog
Yates

Others?

 

[The Hitch]

So no Vino as Astana manager

 

[Anonymous]

So no Vino as Astana manager

vino will be fine apparently. the 1st july ruling is for bans during or after that period.

 

[Cloxxki]

Can Lance still switch jobs within his teams after any convinction, or is he sufficiently "in" now to be out of trouble in the DS respect?

 

[fujitourer]

vino will be fine apparently. the 1st july ruling is for bans during or after that period.

It is a little unclear on this point, I think - are people caught doping before 1 July fine to become team managers, with this regulation only applying to anyone convicted after that date, or must a person who already has a doping conviction become a team manager before that date?

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

Does anyone have the actual text of the rule? Is it written in such a way that when Vaughters and Bruyneel get entangled in the upcoming Lance case that it can be applied to them?

McQuaid's previous comments to the press make it clear that Vino will not be affected.