What is the Real Reason Cyclists Lie When Caught Doping?

[hmronnow]

There is another reason, which I didn't see mentioned when browsing the thread - money.

I believe e.g. Jan Ulrich would have been sued in civil court cases by sponsors wanting their money back. The doping-courts and civil courts are different. You can be banned for doping but still not deemed guilty in civil court. But, if you openly admit the doping you might suddenly become guilty also in civil court definitions.

When a star (sport, music, whatever) earns lots of money, the spending level goes up, so they will have spent fair amounts of those money. If then they are forced to pay it back, they could go bankrupt. I'm not sure it is just a matter of returning some money conveniently available on the bank account.

With nothing to back it up, I have a feeling that if it wasnt for the monetary issue, Jan would have admitted and told a lot.

 

[Ozzie2]

There is another reason, which I didn't see mentioned when browsing the thread - money.

Ah the 2 universal motivators. Fear and Greed.

Hang on- that’s wrong- Chicks* need to be in there, yeah, chicks. Make it 3

*substituting for the alternative “p” word most commonly referred to

 

[TrudyTas]

I think you would end up in jail if you purged yourself.

This cracked me up - If you vomit, you end up in jail!

(I think the poster meant perjured ...)

 

[VeloFidelis]

This is a an interesting tread. I think that a great deal of what has been stated here regarding athlete's refusal to admit to doping when having tested positive is cogent and well reasoned. Although I have found some reason to give pause. This is not shameless trolling, even though I am not above that sort of thing. But I have what I consider a valid question for this thread.

Can anyone here give an example of the prosecution of an athlete, and it can be in any sport, for what they consider to be a false positive in a drug test?

There have been many examples of expensive and protracted defenses that defy logic, and end up financially and emotionally bankrupting that accused athlete. Assuming guilt in 100% of the cases, the reasons for these defenses have been pretty well outlined in this thread, but they cannot answer the question as to why any athlete contesting his doping accusation would go to such extremes.

Hein Verbruggen personally told Floyd Landis to take his suspension and serve your time, or you will go broke defending yourself. Without this becoming a discussion about the Lanids case, one of the interesting factoids that came out of that exercise is that USADA has never lost a single case where an athlete has defended themselves against their doping positive. Statistically that is well beyond probability. I would love to take those odds to Vegas.

Is the science that good? Are the labs, WADA, USADA, UCI, and AFLD really infallible on this point. Their records with regards to successfully defending their results are suspiciously compelling. But more importantly if we accept that they are in fact that good at what they do; Why do some of the biggest names in the sport continue to avoid detection through their measures, and only get tripped up by happenstance in situations like Operation Puerto?

It seems a strange dichotomy. If the science is compelling enough to slam the door on anyone being accused, why is it not good enough to catch people that we all assume to be guilty.

Is it possible that some of those guilty athletes have been wrongly convicted?

 

[Izoard]

This is a an interesting tread ... It seems a strange dichotomy. If the science is compelling enough to slam the door on anyone being accused, why is it not good enough to catch people that we all assume to be guilty. Is it possible that some of those guilty athletes have been wrongly convicted?

Interesting points you raise!

I think there is the potential that a wrongful conviction has occurred. Just look at the stakes for the system if it were to become public that they were the ones who "made a mistake"! So there is a fair bit on the line ...

On the other hand, it could be that they only slam the door when the evidence is truly air tight, thus everyone who is called guilty actually is guilty. If the evidence is not solid and irrefutable, then no 'conviction', which is why some who seem to be doing it may not be able to be caught.

Just my 2 cents!

 

[patswana]

This is a an interesting tread. I think that a great deal of what has been stated here regarding athlete's refusal to admit to doping when having tested positive is cogent and well reasoned. Although I have found some reason to give pause. This is not shameless trolling, even though I am not above that sort of thing. But I have what I consider a valid question for this thread.

Can anyone here give an example of the prosecution of an athlete, and it can be in any sport, for what they consider to be a false positive in a drug test?

There have been many examples of expensive and protracted defenses that defy logic, and end up financially and emotionally bankrupting that accused athlete. Assuming guilt in 100% of the cases, the reasons for these defenses have been pretty well outlined in this thread, but they cannot answer the question as to why any athlete contesting his doping accusation would go to such extremes.

Hein Verbruggen personally told Floyd Landis to take his suspension and serve your time, or you will go broke defending yourself. Without this becoming a discussion about the Lanids case, one of the interesting factoids that came out of that exercise is that USADA has never lost a single case where an athlete has defended themselves against their doping positive. Statistically that is well beyond probability. I would love to take those odds to Vegas.

Is the science that good? Are the labs, WADA, USADA, UCI, and AFLD really infallible on this point. Their records with regards to successfully defending their results are suspiciously compelling. But more importantly if we accept that they are in fact that good at what they do; Why do some of the biggest names in the sport continue to avoid detection through their measures, and only get tripped up by happenstance in situations like Operation Puerto?

It seems a strange dichotomy. If the science is compelling enough to slam the door on anyone being accused, why is it not good enough to catch people that we all assume to be guilty.

Is it possible that some of those guilty athletes have been wrongly convicted?

There have been a few have gotten convictions overturned. I can recall a sprinter and a couple of cricketers successfully claiming that they inadvertently took anabolic steroids in a vitamin pill!

As Izoard said, the bar is set very high for labelling a sample as positive so the issue is far more to do with all the false negatives where we know that they are doping but can't actually convict.

Every test of any sort has a rate of both false positives and false negatives. That can never be avoided unless you, for example, make sure that every test result is negative (such as with American football or tennis!).