UCI Spitting their dummy.

[andy1234]

The UCI is a sports authority - not a business.



Sure, the UCI is a sports authority - not a business.

I was right, you didn't understand.

 

[Merckx index]

The primary purpose of McDonalds is not to employ people, it's to sell burgers. The fact that pro cyclists or burger flippers are paid is simply as a result of the employers or sponsors requiring them for their business.

But if either the burger or the cyclist has clenbuterol in it, for the sake of enhancing the product, doesn’t either McDonald’s or the organization running pro cycling have a responsibility to inform the public of this fact, rather than covering it up?

McDo, like UCI, might well want to cover up this fact, because announcing to the world that its meat is contaminated is likely to be very bad for business. Fortunately for us consumers, McDo operates in a larger social and economic environment that has institutions (such as the FDA in the U.S) that oversee it, compelling it to announce to the public that its meat is contaminated. McDo cannot simply work on the problem “behind closed doors”, because the public has an interest and a right to know immediately if the meat it’s eating contains some drug. The public also has a right to know exactly what steps McDo is taking to resolve this issue.

The problem that Dr. Mas is referring to is that there is no one overseeing UCI in the same way that the FDA oversees McDo. Yes, cyclists are employees in a business that has a primary purpose to make a profit. I agree with Andy there (though there are some very significant differences between pro sports teams and most other businesses). But most of us decided long ago that businesses can’t be allowed to pursue profits by any means they choose. They have to be regulated. The FDA regulates the food business, but who regulates cycling? Not UCI, because—this is one of the major differences beween pro sports and most other types of businesses—cycling teams need to cooperate with each other, not eliminate or grab market share from each other, and UCI is the organization that enables that cooperation. WADA is the closest analogy here to the FDA, but it has less power to regulate (both scientifically and politically).

Andy’s concern seems to be that regulating cycling more strictly will put it at a competitive disadvantage with other pro sports. That’s sort of like someone who prefers to eat at McDo saying it should remain unregulated if other food businesses are not equally well regulated. I don’t care if the burger I eat at McDo has clenbuterol in it. If I complain, they will shut down McDo, while Taco Bell or whatever continues to thrive. But if you don’t eat at Taco Bell, why should you care? And if you do, then you can start working on them. Either way, I don’t see how waiting for an even dirtier sport to clean up its act is going to help cycling.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I was right, you didn't understand.

Andy, maybe you need to clarify what you define as a "business".

My understanding is that a business is a profit-driven enterprise. The UCI is an international association mandated to promote cycling, with many other non-profit driven stipulations. One of those is to keep it clean.

The problem is that they've become way too big for their britches; and with the money, power, and connections involved they've devolved into an insular and incestuous quasi multi-national corporation (or at least try to act like one).

They are now so surrounded by that available money and power that they don't want to give it up, don't want to spit in the soup they made, and don't want to give up their place in gravy-train, regardless of what it does to the sport.

That's human nature, and to that degree quite understandable. That certainly doesn't make it right, or the way it should be.

 

[dbrower]

The UCI is a sports authority - not a business.



Sure, the UCI is a sports authority - not a business.

Unless there's external support to cover deficit, it's still a business, even if it's a non-profit. There's nothing special about a 'sports entity' in that regard. The Floyd Landis Foundation was a non-profit, and it didn't survive a lack of financial stability and a crisis of credibility. The 'business' part of the operation may mean it is not primarily concerned with maximizing return on investment, but it is very much concerned with survival and growth.

-dB

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Unless there's external support to cover deficit, it's still a business, even if it's a non-profit. There's nothing special about a 'sports entity' in that regard. The Floyd Landis Foundation was a non-profit, and it didn't survive a lack of financial stability and a crisis of credibility. The 'business' part of the operation may mean it is not primarily concerned with maximizing return on investment, but it is very much concerned with survival and growth.

-dB

It is not a business.
Sure it has to cover its administrative duties, which it does through charging the teams a licence fee, hosting the Worlds and through the IOC.

 

[andy1234]

Andy, maybe you need to clarify what you define as a "business".

My understanding is that a business is a profit-driven enterprise. The UCI is an international association mandated to promote cycling, with many other non-profit driven stipulations. One of those is to keep it clean.

The problem is that they've become way too big for their britches; and with the money, power, and connections involved they've devolved into an insular and incestuous quasi multi-national corporation (or at least try to act like one).

They are now so surrounded by that available money and power that they don't want to give it up, don't want to spit in the soup they made, and don't want to give up their place in gravy-train, regardless of what it does to the sport.

That's human nature, and to that degree quite understandable. That certainly doesn't make it right, or the way it should be.

Business can be a not for profit organisation.

An organisation that can plan, implement and fund its own strategy and growth, is a business.

I am not suggesting that the UCI is being run as efficiently or ethically as it should be, but I will argue that downplaying the doping element of the sport is necessary to protect funding coming into the sport.

If the UCI could clean the sport up tomorrow, do you not think they would do it? Until then, for the good if the business, the impact of doping must be managed. It might not be a pallatable concept, but a commercially driven sport must provide sponsors with an acceptable shop window to advertise their wares.

 

[andy1234]

It is not a business.
Sure it has to cover its administrative duties, which it does through charging the teams a licence fee, hosting the Worlds and through the IOC.

Say it as many times as you like, it's still wrong.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Say it as many times as you like, it's still wrong.

Think of it this way - if the UCI was a legitimate business it would have folded a long time ago.

 

[Mambo95]

It is not a business.
Sure it has to cover its administrative duties, which it does through charging the teams a licence fee, hosting the Worlds and through the IOC.

Here's the thing. Many in the Clinic* think that the UCI should be more testing and more prosectuting, with all the lawyers fees these entail. They also think that the UCI should be developing tests and investigating doping cases like the police.

While doing this they also think that the UCI should not trying to boost their income.

Basically, it's 'the UCI are terrible' regardless of their actual situation and any practicalities.


*I don't necessarily include you in this. You seem fairly reasonable most of the time.

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

Many in the Clinic* think that the UCI should be more testing and more prosectuting, with all the lawyers fees these entail. They also think that the UCI should be developing tests and investigating doping cases like the police.

Um, no. Where do you get that impression? The UCI should get out the testing side altogether and let a more effective and responsible authority take over this aspect.

 

[dbrower]

It is not a business.
Sure it has to cover its administrative duties, which it does through charging the teams a licence fee, hosting the Worlds and through the IOC.

Well, at this point probably a pointless definitional digression.

let's change topics.

 

[Mambo95]

Um, no. Where do you get that impression? The UCI should get out the testing side altogether and let a more effective and responsible authority take over this aspect.

So when posters say that the UCI are doing nothing, that means they should stop testing? Other national agencies do test, but some are better and less bias than others. Do you really want biological passport tests done by RFEC?

You can say pass it over to WADA - but they're not going to do it for free. The UCI will still have to pay.

Lots of people criticise the UCI, but there's little practicable suggestions.

Personally, I would like to see doping judgements taken away from national federations, but this goes against IOC regulations. More than two year bans? The UCI have said they want to, but WADA says no.

People have to realise that the UCI can only operate within the parameters that their superiors, science and finance provide. (There's also been a clear change of tone from Verbruggen to McQuaid, but the clinic doesn't want to see that)

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

So let me get this straight.

I'll agree that cycling has an ongoing problem with doping. However, the flak that it catches in the press relative to football & athletics is way way out of proportion to the level of doping & corruption in the sport.

FIFA has only just started to come under a little pressure over corruption that has been going on for decades. So I do feel hard done by as a cycling fan that every time cycling is reported in the British press it has a reference to doping even when there is no doping story. When there is a doping issue in football it is buried or misreported. Remember Jaap Stam's departure from Man Utd? At the time it was reported that he was fired for comments about Ferguson made in his autobiography when it was actually due to being caught with nandrolone. Just as OP was kicking off the WC was on. When asked about blood testing, Sep Blatter said that it was too expensive for football to do!!

I accept all of that and I accept that cycling is treated differently/more harshly than other sports.

But and this is the but. The problem of doping in cycling is the problem of cycling. I am not saying that football, golf, tennis etc do not get an easy time because they do, but just because they get an easy time does not mean that cycling should also get an easy time.

Not happy about coverage of doping in football, golf, tennis etc - complain on football, golf, tennis etc boards.

It isn't as if cycling hasn't had enough chances to clean itself up. The fact is that since Festina there have been multiple opportunities to reform the sport - at every corner the sport has failed and at every failure the media has failed to be critical of that failure.

When the sport loses sponsors, don't blame me, blame McQuaid, blame Hog, blame Armstrong, blame Benson, blame Westemeyer, Wieslo, Friebe and Harmon.

**** weak coverage is as responsible for the miasma that the sport finds itself in as much as Zabel sticking a needle in Frodo's ****, Hog giving some one a white lunch bag, McQuaid taking kickbacks, and Millar abusing omerta breakers.

All of those things are cycling's problem and no one elses.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

It isn't as if cycling hasn't had enough chances to clean itself up. The fact is that since Festina there have been multiple opportunities to reform the sport - at every corner the sport has failed and at every failure the media has failed to be critical of that failure.

When the sport loses sponsors, don't blame me, blame McQuaid, blame Hog, blame Armstrong, blame Benson, blame Westemeyer, Wieslo, Friebe and Harmon.

**** weak coverage is as responsible for the miasma that the sport finds itself in as much as Zabel sticking a needle in Frodo's ****, Hog giving some one a white lunch bag, McQuaid taking kickbacks, and Millar abusing omerta breakers.

All of those things are cycling's problem and no one elses.

Absolutely lovely!

 

[andy1234]

I accept all of that and I accept that cycling is treated differently/more harshly than other sports.

But and this is the but. The problem of doping in cycling is the problem of cycling. I am not saying that football, golf, tennis etc do not get an easy time because they do, but just because they get an easy time does not mean that cycling should also get an easy time.

Not happy about coverage of doping in football, golf, tennis etc - complain on football, golf, tennis etc boards.

It isn't as if cycling hasn't had enough chances to clean itself up. The fact is that since Festina there have been multiple opportunities to reform the sport - at every corner the sport has failed and at every failure the media has failed to be critical of that failure.

When the sport loses sponsors, don't blame me, blame McQuaid, blame Hog, blame Armstrong, blame Benson, blame Westemeyer, Wieslo, Friebe and Harmon.

**** weak coverage is as responsible for the miasma that the sport finds itself in as much as Zabel sticking a needle in Frodo's ****, Hog giving some one a white lunch bag, McQuaid taking kickbacks, and Millar abusing omerta breakers.

All of those things are cycling's problem and no one elses.

Do you want cycling to be as clean, or cleaner than other sports?
If so, how would that be achieved and how would it be measured?

 

[pmcg76]

So far in this thread I have seen people suggest cycling will die if the doping problem is not fixed yet there is no actual evidence of cycling really suffering. The sport is as healthy financially if not more healthy than it was 20 years ago or even 10 years ago, there are more big international sponsors in the sport than at any other time in the sports history so despite the contoversies, cycling is still a cheap way to achieve recognition.

People want media to take a hardline approach to reporting doping in the hope that sponsors will withdraw and the sport will start to die thus forcing changes in the belief that doping will be eradicated. So the people who want the sport to die actually believe the sport will die anyway if it is not changed. So it is a case of choose your poison.

The suggestions are that the cycling media, magazines, cycling websites etc take a hardline approach to reporting on doping. Well the whole purpose of the media is to make a profit so why should they follow an agenda that will effectively kill their own market and profits. Seriously, why? Because of a moral crusade by some fans?

It has been suggested Cycling News is poor at doping coverage whilst NYvelocity is a good web site. Well I have been to NYvelocity many times and yes they do report on doping but as an overall percentage of their coverage of cycling, it is small in comparison to the approach seemingly taken by the German TV channels. A lot of the time, they just report on it, they offer no opinions on the subject.

They have Dan Schmalz who if I am not mistaken is still an active rider on the US circuit. Is he outing riders based on the rumours and stuff he hears becasue that is what certain people on here want. They offer people like JV and David Millar the opportunities to air their views even though that is almost regarded as sacreligious around here. I find the idea of them being held up an anti-doping crusaders as weak sacue in comparison to what is being demanded on here.

Cycling News is no longer a first hand source for cycling, they usually reprint or comment on coverage from other sources. In terms of up close/relevant coverage, Cycling news is now behind a host of other websites.

In terms of other forms of media following the German example, again why should they? What do they stand to gain? Why has nobody else followed the German lead to date?

Papers like The Times, L'Equipe, La Gazzetta etc are sports newspapers, not cycling newspapers. To push an agenda against one sport is unprofessional and unethical for a mainstream newspaper yet that is what is being asked of them. Paul Kimmage is a sports journalist not a cycling journalist so for him to pursue only cycling would make him hypocritical and a doping apologist in general as he lets other sports slide whilst focusing on just one sport.

I agree that anti-doping needs to be taken out of the hands of the UCI but to whom shall it pass. WADA would be more independent but are subject to the same ethical, scientific and legal principles that would simply fail to appease the moral crusaders on here. Again WADA is an organisation that covers all sports so it cannot discriminate against cycling or introduce rules that are specific to one sport. What if WADA did take over anti-doping yet there were still limited positive tests whilst speeds remain high or do people actually believe this will change.

I also find the idea of calling cycling fans as infantile or stupid and deserving of the sport we have as well.....infantile. It is very ironic coming from people who lable cyclists as Dertie, Frodo, Pharmstrong, clearly not infantile at all.
Are cycling fans somehow more infantile than fans of other sports who would simply refuse to hear a negative somment about their own sport. Of course it is easy to take the "we dont care about other sports line". It also makes me laugh that anyone who doesnt take this hardling approach is a doping apologist, kinda reminds me of the George Bush & indeed the Lance line. "With us or agaisnt us".
Wow, behaving like the biggest sociopath ever!!!

Quite simply, the hardlines are demaning that mainstream media treat cycling different than other sports, that the sports own profit seeking media shoot themselves in the foot by focusing on the negatives. That the governing bodies ignore all scientific, ethical and legal precedents in an effort to catch the cheats in cycling above all other sports. That the cycling fans scream doper at cyclists whilst having zero real evidence that they actually dope. All this just so a few internet crusaders with very obvious emotional problems can feel better about themselves and their sport.

Finally, why do people care if cycling looks bad, if people dont care about other sports, why would they care what other sports fans think of cycling. I would love to know what the hardlines reply when fans from another sports mocks them for following the doping sport. I bet it isnt "we dont care about other sports"!!!

The difference between what peolpe on here are demanding and how the real world actually operates is staggering. Kinda reminds me of the Pol Pot regime, its not working so lets restart at year zero. How did that work for the Cambodians?

 

[sniper]

Do you want cycling to be as clean, or cleaner than other sports?
If so, how would that be achieved and how would it be measured?

+1 for managing to ignore each and every single argument provided thus far.

it would start with guys at the top of cycling being transparent about doping issues. that would change the world, even though it wouldn't eradicate doping.
so guys at the top at least showing an honest desire to deal with doping.
no pats, no verdruggens. no crystal clear cover-ups.
NB: that wouldn't be the ultimate solution, but it would be the start of solution, the start of a better image. the start of guys like me and others around here regaining trust in cycling.

So far in this thread I have seen people suggest cycling will die if the doping problem is not fixed yet there is no actual evidence of cycling really suffering. The sport is as healthy financially if not more healthy than it was 20 years ago or even 10 years ago, there are more big international sponsors in the sport than at any other time in the sports history so despite the contoversies, cycling is still a cheap way to achieve recognition.

People want media to take a hardline approach to reporting doping in the hope that sponsors will withdraw and the sport will start to die thus forcing changes in the belief that doping will be eradicated. So the people who want the sport to die actually believe the sport will die anyway if it is not changed. So it is a case of choose your poison.

The suggestions are that the cycling media, magazines, cycling websites etc take a hardline approach to reporting on doping. Well the whole purpose of the media is to make a profit so why should they follow an agenda that will effectively kill their own market and profits. Seriously, why? Because of a moral crusade by some fans?

It has been suggested Cycling News is poor at doping coverage whilst NYvelocity is a good web site. Well I have been to NYvelocity many times and yes they do report on doping but as an overall percentage of their coverage of cycling, it is small in comparison to the approach seemingly taken by the German TV channels. A lot of the time, they just report on it, they offer no opinions on the subject.

They have Dan Schmalz who if I am not mistaken is still an active rider on the US circuit. Is he outing riders based on the rumours and stuff he hears becasue that is what certain people on here want. They offer people like JV and David Millar the opportunities to air their views even though that is almost regarded as sacreligious around here. I find the idea of them being held up an anti-doping crusaders as weak sacue in comparison to what is being demanded on here.

Cycling News is no longer a first hand source for cycling, they usually reprint or comment on coverage from other sources. In terms of up close/relevant coverage, Cycling news is now behind a host of other websites.

In terms of other forms of media following the German example, again why should they? What do they stand to gain? Why has nobody else followed the German lead to date?

Papers like The Times, L'Equipe, La Gazzetta etc are sports newspapers, not cycling newspapers. To push an agenda against one sport is unprofessional and unethical for a mainstream newspaper yet that is what is being asked of them. Paul Kimmage is a sports journalist not a cycling journalist so for him to pursue only cycling would make him hypocritical and a doping apologist in general as he lets other sports slide whilst focusing on just one sport.

I agree that anti-doping needs to be taken out of the hands of the UCI but to whom shall it pass. WADA would be more independent but are subject to the same ethical, scientific and legal principles that would simply fail to appease the moral crusaders on here. Again WADA is an organisation that covers all sports so it cannot discriminate against cycling or introduce rules that are specific to one sport. What if WADA did take over anti-doping yet there were still limited positive tests whilst speeds remain high or do people actually believe this will change.

I also find the idea of calling cycling fans as infantile or stupid and deserving of the sport we have as well.....infantile. It is very ironic coming from people who lable cyclists as Dertie, Frodo, Pharmstrong, clearly not infantile at all.
Are cycling fans somehow more infantile than fans of other sports who would simply refuse to hear a negative somment about their own sport. Of course it is easy to take the "we dont care about other sports line". It also makes me laugh that anyone who doesnt take this hardling approach is a doping apologist, kinda reminds me of the George Bush & indeed the Lance line. "With us or agaisnt us".
Wow, behaving like the biggest sociopath ever!!!

Quite simply, the hardlines are demaning that mainstream media treat cycling different than other sports, that the sports own profit seeking media shoot themselves in the foot by focusing on the negatives. That the governing bodies ignore all scientific, ethical and legal precedents in an effort to catch the cheats in cycling above all other sports. That the cycling fans scream doper at cyclists whilst having zero real evidence that they actually dope. All this just so a few internet crusaders with very obvious emotional problems can feel better about themselves and their sport.

Finally, why do people care if cycling looks bad, if people dont care about other sports, why would they care what other sports fans think of cycling. I would love to know what the hardlines reply when fans from another sports mocks them for following the doping sport. I bet it isnt "we dont care about other sports"!!!

The difference between what peolpe on here are demanding and how the real world actually operates is staggering. Kinda reminds me of the Pol Pot regime, its not working so lets restart at year zero. How did that work for the Cambodians?

......sigh.....



it's been said a couple of times already, so I suppose it's difficult to grasp.

imagine your girl/boyfriend sleeps with another guy/girl, and comes up with the crap excuse that everybody else does it.
you wouldn't give a damn i suppose. you wouldn't apologize her for that.
exactly...so why do you continue to apologize the pats and verdruggens by comparing cycling with other sports?

 

[Benotti69]

Think of it this way - if the UCI was a legitimate business it would have folded a long time ago.

and the main principles arrested no doubt.

 

[pmcg76]

+1 for managing to ignore each and every single argument provided thus far.

it would start with guys at the top of cycling being transparent about doping issues. that would change the world, even though it wouldn't eradicate doping.
so guys at the top at least showing an honest desire to deal with doping.
no pats, no verdruggens. no crystal clear cover-ups.
NB: that wouldn't be the ultimate solution, but it would be the start of solution, the start of a better image. the start of guys like me and others around here regaining trust in cycling.



......sigh.....



it's been said a couple of times already, so I suppose it's difficult to grasp.

imagine your girl/boyfriend sleeps with another guy/girl, and comes up with the crap excuse that everybody else does it.
you wouldn't give a damn i suppose. you wouldn't apologize her for that.
exactly...so why do you continue to apologize the pats and verdruggens by comparing cycling with other sports?

No you clearly didnt get my point and I think I clearly stated anti-doping should be remover from the UCI so where am I apologizing for Pat or Hein? People want the cycling media in particular and media in general to take a more hardline approach to the subject of doping in cycling. I think my very obvious point is why should they? Why should a channel like Eurosport devote lots of time talking about doping in cycling whilst not doing it for any other sport in their canon? I am not saying they shouldnt talk about doping, I am just asking how does it benefit them?

 

[andy1234]

+1 for managing to ignore each and every single argument provided thus far.

it would start with guys at the top of cycling being transparent about doping issues. that would change the world, even though it wouldn't eradicate doping.
so guys at the top at least showing an honest desire to deal with doping.
no pats, no verdruggens. no crystal clear cover-ups.
NB: that wouldn't be the ultimate solution, but it would be the start of solution, the start of a better image. the start of guys like me and others around here regaining trust in cycling.



......sigh.....



it's been said a couple of times already, so I suppose it's difficult to grasp.

imagine your girl/boyfriend sleeps with another guy/girl, and comes up with the crap excuse that everybody else does it.
you wouldn't give a damn i suppose. you wouldn't apologize her for that.
exactly...so why do you continue to apologize the pats and verdruggens by comparing cycling with other sports?

So do you want the sport to have a better image or to be more transparent?

Unfortunately you cant have both.

Other sports have a cleaner image because they are not transparent, not because they are cleaner.

Do you not think that the UCI would eradicate doping tomorrow if it could?
It can't. No one can. So how does publicising a negative element of the sport, that can't be removed, helps you to regain your trust?

Nobody should be covering up negative tests, lets make that clear, but this discussion is about the media publicising doping in cycling and effectively dismissing it in other sports. Again, how does that help you or anyone regain their trust?

 

[Benotti69]

So do you want the sport to have a better image or to be more transparent?

Unfortunately you cant have both.

Other sports have a cleaner image because they are not transparent, not because they are cleaner.

Do you not think that the UCI would eradicate doping tomorrow if it could?
It can't. No one can. So how does publicising a negative element of the sport, that can't be removed, helps you to regain your trust?

Nobody should be covering up negative tests, lets make that clear, but this discussion is about the media publicising doping in cycling and effectively dismissing it in other sports. Again, how does that help you or anyone regain their trust?

why not. if it takes a few years of transparency to clean up the sport after that you can have both.

you cannot eradicate people doping because you cannot test every cyclist but you can almost eradicate dopers winning if you have the will to do it. who is gonna risk a lifetime ban from their job?

 

[AussieGoddess]

CN has long been the UCI's semi-official mouth piece, they've spent years on the Armstrong bandwagon, they were very uncritical when Landis was popped, but as soon as Landis broke omerta they put the boot in on him. Landis upholding omerta - good guy, Landis blowing the whistle - disgraced drunken waster.

They provide a mouthpiece for McQuaid, Millar etc to put the boot into anyone critical, while at the same time steadfastly refusing to ask tough questions. Then the hacks whine on Twitter when they get accused of being complicit in omerta.

Anyone thought of asking Vaughters about a Lim, Matt White etc?

Seriously, how anyone could post that last Millar interview with a straight face I have no idea.

The stitching up of Landis was one of the most disgraceful pieces of hatchet journalism ever.

Daniel Freibe is a **** of the highest order.

I know that ARD was on the bandwagon till Ullrich, just like other media was before Festina etc, the point is that while Ullrich was the turning point for ARD and resulted in more critical coverage, for CN etc, their response has been more of the same and more toeing the UCI party line. Afterall, don't want to post anything critical or question that might interrupt those exclusive interviews.

CN, is as much an upholder of omerta as Pozzato, Millar, Armstrong and McQuaid.

so why are you here then? (serious question and asked without snarkiness)

If CN is so incredibly bad that you feel they are part of the problem (upholding omerta etc) .... why are we here at CN, able to discuss these and other doping issues with a major portion of english speaking cycling fans?

 

[andy1234]

why not. if it takes a few years of transparency to clean up the sport after that you can have both.

you cannot eradicate people doping because you cannot test every cyclist but you can almost eradicate dopers winning if you have the will to do it. who is gonna risk a lifetime ban from their job?

Tell me how transparency cleans up the sport?

As far as risking a lifetime ban, riders risk their lives by doping. A lifetime ban surely isn't a bigger deterent? Yet riders still do it.

 

[Benotti69]

Tell me how transparency cleans up the sport?

As far as risking a lifetime ban, riders risk their lives by doping. A lifetime ban surely isn't a bigger deterent? Yet riders still do it.

well if you cant see how transparency cleans up the sport you're not trying. Weekly blood tests. Not difficult since most riders live in proximity to the south of Europe, Girona, Nice, Northern Italy and Tuscany. Values taken by and tested by an independent body and posted on a website. Paid for by teams.

the riders do not believe they are risking their lives by taking dope. If they did they wouldn't do it. They are happy to ***** about descents on a mountain in the Giro but not ***** about what they are being told to take by Docs and DSs

 

[Andynonomous]

No deterent if you won't get caught.

Tell me how transparency cleans up the sport?

As far as risking a lifetime ban, riders risk their lives by doping. A lifetime ban surely isn't a bigger deterent? Yet riders still do it.

There is no deterent if you won't get caught. If the UCI had the WILL to catch the most popular riders, they would catch more of them. There then WOULD be a genuine deterent.

The length of the sanction is MUCH less important than the likelyhood of being exposed as a cheat. For example, now that Contador has been exposed as a cheat (homeboy aquital notwithstanding), his reputation is permanently damaged (virtual asterisk beside everything he has, and will "accomplish"). This damage to his reputation is FAR more effective a deterrent than the possible 1 or 2 year holiday he may get.