UCI supports 4 year bans in serious cases

[Beech Mtn]

UCI supports longer doping suspensions: Four-year bans to become a reality for first-time offenders?

"I support very much the idea of a four-year ban for first offenders, in the case of a very serious doping case," UCI president Pat McQuaid told Cyclingnews at the start of the Tour de France in Rotterdam. "This would make it much harder for a rider to come back."

Serious cases would be ones like this:

Under the Code, the "aggravating circumstances" resulting in four-year bans include violations as part of a doping plan or scheme, as well as the use of multiple substances or multiple uses as such.

4-year-ban possibility has already been in place, but not really used. I'm surprised to see Patty Mac coming out in support of 4-year bans for serious cases when there is a serious investigation going on right now against McQuaid's good friend Lance.

 

[Oldman]

This should be combined with the Doping Costs and benefits thread as it's been discussed pretty well there.

 

[Cobblestones]

I support lifetime bans of corrupt officials.

 

[Oldman]

I support lifetime bans of corrupt officials.

Good start but the worst ones just go dark and work behind the scenes.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Hahaha.... This is the UCI version of SSDD, lets have a look....

Pat McQuaid, July 2010:

"I support very much the idea of a four-year ban for first offenders, in the case of a very serious doping case," UCI president Pat McQuaid told Cyclingnews at the start of the Tour de France in Rotterdam. "This would make it much harder for a rider to come back."

....

the "idea"....nice one. Pat supports the idea, not the application as he said this in 2008:
Pat McQuaid, October 2008

"In these cases [Kohl and Schumacher], considering that these guys were given the product and then went and took it for the Tour de France, it would be very much classified as willful cheating. Next year a rider in that position would face a four year ban.

If Pat is all for the "idea" then why has he sat on his hands the last 18 months ?? (The 4 year ban for 'wilful cheating' was adopted 1st January 2009.)

 

[Hillavoider]

Uci would only give 4 year bans to people it doesn't like such as gusev and the chicken, that is as long as the hog gave fat pat the approval.

 

[tubularglue]

I support lifetime bans of corrupt officials.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

As noted numerous times before, it's not the severity of punishment that's a deterrent as much as the certainty of it. And that's where the failure lies.

Sure, a 4-year ban might keep some dopers from coming back sooner, but it's not going to stop people from doping if they know they're not going to get caught due to weak testing, lax enforcement and/or corruption, and a powerful omerta. Fix those, and we'll start to see a serious dent in doping. Until then, they can give instant life-time bans and we're still going to see the insane speeds and non-tired riders we are.

 

[dbrower]

Supporting longer punishments is what politicians do when they can't come up with anything else to fix the underlying problem. It's a charade, done to present the appearance of doing something, which doesn't do anything useful. It mostly inflicts misery on the targets, and risks alienation of public affection for the sport and the stars.

-dB

 

[soulor]

As noted numerous times before, it's not the severity of punishment that's a deterrent as much as the certainty of it. And that's where the failure lies.

Sure, a 4-year ban might keep some dopers from coming back sooner, but it's not going to stop people from doping if they know they're not going to get caught due to weak testing, lax enforcement and/or corruption, and a powerful omerta. Fix those, and we'll start to see a serious dent in doping. Until then, they can give instant life-time bans and we're still going to see the insane speeds and non-tired riders we are.

Absolutely spot on. The (perceived) hit-rate for catching and sanctioning dopers is negatively proportional to the incentive to dope. The more that riders believe they are likely to be caught the less likely they are to dope. Moreover, and fairly obviously, the lower the incentive to dope, the more incentive there is to compete clean. Given the main extrinsic motivation in professional cycling is to win or contribute to winning (and therefore receive continued sponsorship; although see Jonathan Vaughters who has claimed to see things differently) the only way to motivate professionals away from doping is to demonstrate that this is more likely to be achieved by clean riders.

What I still do not understand is the intrinsic motivation to dope. The extrinsic rewards are are fairly clear, but why do some choose to ride clean? If as is generally accepted Boardman was clean, and motivated by winning (he has often said he found cycling unpleasant) what should we make of this.

 

[bobbins]

I support the end of world poverty but do f-all about it.

 

[Benotti69]

Hahaha.... This is the UCI version of SSDD, lets have a look....

Pat McQuaid, July 2010:....

the "idea"....nice one. Pat supports the idea, not the application as he said this in 2008:
Pat McQuaid, October 2008

If Pat is all for the "idea" then why has he sat on his hands the last 18 months ?? (The 4 year ban for 'wilful cheating' was adopted 1st January 2009.)

Doc, you gotta read between the lines. What Paddy is offering here is 4 years for those who don't pay up...ya' know a few bucks $$$$$ or ya get the 4 year ban....

these are once in a lifetime offers! Roll Up Roll Up last of the 2 year bans

 

[Barrus]

As noted numerous times before, it's not the severity of punishment that's a deterrent as much as the certainty of it. And that's where the failure lies.

Sure, a 4-year ban might keep some dopers from coming back sooner, but it's not going to stop people from doping if they know they're not going to get caught due to weak testing, lax enforcement and/or corruption, and a powerful omerta. Fix those, and we'll start to see a serious dent in doping. Until then, they can give instant life-time bans and we're still going to see the insane speeds and non-tired riders we are.

Well it can help, but in a different way. Say we have a 4 years or lifetime ban, in that case a plea bargain with a severely mitigated sentence might ensure that more riders talk about their suppliers, doctors and managers. This might help, however the UCI is not that keen on mitigating sentences and has no clear guidelines in those kind of cases, therefore this probably won't have any effect at the moment

 

[Greg Johnson]

We're running a pole on this here (on our Facebook page): http://poll.fm/f/21x1y

Cheers
Greg Johnson