What should Cookson do?

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
thehog said:
Phil Gill givin' it large to Cookie.

http://philippegilbert.com/
Gilbert message appears to be more of a personal thing rather than a general representation of the riders views.
Reducing the number of races in the world tour may be required but then the riders themselves can organize their schedules with focus on particular races.
The more difficult the parcours, the more better it is for viewing. If there are no spectators there will be no races. No races means less money to riders. No hills/Mountains/Cobbles means all to sprinters which would be extremely boring.
Weather is certainly not in control of the organizers. Besides which it is the one thing that makes for spectacular viewing & epic racing. if it is too tough then the choice is simple - abandon like many did in MSR, Giro & Vuelta. If it is hazardous like snow covered roads etc then surely the organizers themselves take the decision to stop racing.
 
Jan 18, 2010
3,059
0
0
Sorting out the shambles that is track would be a good start. Too many sprint events and not enough of the far more interesting endurance stuff in Major Championships.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
sublimit said:
Sorting out the shambles that is track would be a good start. Too many sprint events and not enough of the far more interesting endurance stuff in Major Championships.
That's really only the olympics. The full set is done at the worlds and continental.
 
MR/GL and Mario Zorzoli incident is first real test for Cookson


BT contacted Zorzoli to ask him his account of the moment. He sent a SMS message back stating that he was not able to speak.

However UCI press officer Louis Chenaille has disputed Rasmussen’s assertion that a reticulocyte level under 0.3 should have led to his suspension. “We can only say that in relation to the rules that were in force at the time, the limit of reticulocyte value for riders not to start was 0.2 percent."
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15749/UCI-disputes-Rasmussens-claim-that-he-was-below-reticulocyte-threshold-during-2005-Tour-de-France.aspx
 
del1962 said:
yes, this is a critical test. I think the first PR seen here could be a result of the "old" culture (or so I hope). Cookson now needs to get the team together and hammer in the message: we are open for business and critique and we will take comments, reports etc seriously.

Awaiting further development.
 
Dazed and Confused said:
yes, this is a critical test. I think the first PR seen here could be a result of the "old" culture (or so I hope). Cookson now needs to get the team together and hammer in the message: we are open for business and critique and we will take comments, reports etc seriously.

Awaiting further development.
I can only imagine someone deep in the UCI saying to Cookson... "Yes Boss but then everyone would test positive or be removed from races.."
 
So... seems like I keep getting new "ideas" (because some weird part of my mind seem to think I'll have anything to say in these matters...) so here's my attempt at a (somewhat) more coherent version of what I think could be done.
And, yes! I'm working with some really long time horizons!

Cycling's 'Three Wave Overhaul'

First Wave - going from 2014 to 2024:

In this period of time cycling will work with a 'Three Strikes Rule' which goes as follows:

First offense against the anti-doping rules will result in:
A two year ban.
More frequent out of competition testing.
Tests after every race the rider finishes, regardless of the position.
First year after return must be ridden on a continential team.
Rider will, after ending his/her active career be allowed to work with almost everything within cycling, except management or ownership roles.

Second offense against the anti-doping will result in:
A six year ban.
Even more frequent out of competition testing.
Tests after every race the rider starts, even if DNFing.
Rider will not be allowed to Work directly with riders after ending his/her active career.

Third offense against the anti-doping rules will result in:
A permanent ban!
The closest the (former) rider may ever get to "working with cycling" will be selling merchandise for a race.

In this period UCI should also host an annual seminar on the negative effects of doping - both how it destroys a person's Health, and how it destroys the reputation of the sport. This seminar should be mandatory to attend for all teams from the Junior level.

Second Wave - going from 2024 to 2034:

First strike in the 'Three Strikes Rule' will be removed, so it's first a six year ban, then a permanent ban.

Needless to say earlier bans will carry over, so that if a rider gets busted in 2020, returns in 2022, then gets busted Again in 2025 it'll be a permanent ban! Also, if a rider gets busted, for the first time, in 2023 it'll result in a six year ban, since the majority of the ban will take place during the "second wave".

Seminars should still be held.

Third Wave - Starting in 2034:

Second strike in the 'Three Strikes Rule' will be removed as well, so now it's directly on to the permanent ban.

Any rider who gets a ban before 2034, but whose ban would go past 2034 will also get a permanent ban.
Basically; after January 2034 nobody will ever be able to return to the sport after a doping conviction!

Seminars should still be held!

Okay. Now I won't post any more of these things...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts