What to do

[Realist]

Just tossing some things out there. Most of us here agree that there has been reasonably widespread doping in the pro peloton for a long time. What to do about it? I wouldn't be surprised if most of these things have been raised, but in the midst of all the negativity, where do we see our sport going? I love this damn sport, and I hope for better for the up and coming generation of riders.

Burn it down. It is quite clear that the UCI has not been diligent in policing doping. It may well be completely corrupt. Get rid of it in its current form. We need clearer mechanisms of control and accountability going from licensed racing cyclists to the board of national federations and the governing body. We need proper conflict of interest rules. It is not OK that McQuaid's sons are a riders agent, a race promoter and a high-up at Oakley. It's not ok that many members of USAC are financially connected to Armstrong.

Immunity for cooperation. For all cyclists. I don't even mind if we reinstate previous doped riders who are on suspensions. All on the proviso of giving concrete evidence as to where the drugs came from and who advised on their use. The past is the past, it was bad.

Incentives for snitching. For non-analytical evidence (if analytical, would give incentives to spike drinks... not cool), provide a decent percentage of any fine payed by a doper to the snitch.

Increase fines. It's financial for a lot of these guys.

Increase time to run for statute of limitations AND increase retrospective testing.

Fine teams if their riders dope. We couldn't control him? Well you shouldn't have hired him.

Suspend managers if their riders dope. See above.

Put Mike Ashenden in charge of testing.

Do not increase first time bans to 4 years. This is unduly harsh. If an athlete does something stupid, at a young age, they should lose the money they made from it, they should lose their palmares. They should not lose the entire of their career, in my view. Hit them with much larger financial penalties instead. Eg: all your salary, plus your prizemoney. This alters the incentives substantially. If I have one good season, I can pay for my two year hiatus as long as I don't have to pay it all back. If I have to pay it all back when I'm caught and I'll be poor as well as banned, that is more likely to stop me than a four year ban.

Strip titles and prize money for two years up to the doping offense, not just for the offense. If we catch you cheating, we assume you cheated before.

 

[rhubroma]

Just tossing some things out there. Most of us here agree that there has been reasonably widespread doping in the pro peloton for a long time. What to do about it? I wouldn't be surprised if most of these things have been raised, but in the midst of all the negativity, where do we see our sport going? I love this damn sport, and I hope for better for the up and coming generation of riders.

Burn it down. It is quite clear that the UCI has not been diligent in policing doping. It may well be completely corrupt. Get rid of it in its current form. We need clearer mechanisms of control and accountability going from licensed racing cyclists to the board of national federations and the governing body. We need proper conflict of interest rules. It is not OK that McQuaid's sons are a riders agent, a race promoter and a high-up at Oakley. It's not ok that many members of USAC are financially connected to Armstrong.

Immunity for cooperation. For all cyclists. I don't even mind if we reinstate previous doped riders who are on suspensions. All on the proviso of giving concrete evidence as to where the drugs came from and who advised on their use. The past is the past, it was bad.

Incentives for snitching. For non-analytical evidence (if analytical, would give incentives to spike drinks... not cool), provide a decent percentage of any fine payed by a doper to the snitch.

Increase fines. It's financial for a lot of these guys.

Increase time to run for statute of limitations AND increase retrospective testing.

Fine teams if their riders dope. We couldn't control him? Well you shouldn't have hired him.

Suspend managers if their riders dope. See above.

Put Mike Ashenden in charge of testing.

Do not increase first time bans to 4 years. This is unduly harsh. If an athlete does something stupid, at a young age, they should lose the money they made from it, they should lose their palmares. They should not lose the entire of their career, in my view. Hit them with much larger financial penalties instead. Eg: all your salary, plus your prizemoney. This alters the incentives substantially. If I have one good season, I can pay for my two year hiatus as long as I don't have to pay it all back. If I have to pay it all back when I'm caught and I'll be poor as well as banned, that is more likely to stop me than a four year ban.

Strip titles and prize money for two years up to the doping offense, not just for the offense. If we catch you cheating, we assume you cheated before.

The only way you will defeat doping in sport is to take big money out of sport. Take big money out of sport and you have no sport. Ergo, doping will always be practiced in sport. I reallize mine is a disheartening syllogism, and probably a rather flawed logic. But my inadequite intelligence can come up with no other conclusion.

 

[Roland Rat]

The only way you will defeat doping in sport is to take big money out of sport. Take big money out of sport and you have no sport. Ergo, doping will always be practiced in sport. I reallize mine is a disheartening syllogism, and probably a rather flawed logic. But my inadequite intelligence can come up with no other conclusion.

I'm not quite that cynical yet, I believe it can be improved. They just need to find a way of adjusting the balance so that the potential rewards from doping are outweighed by the potential risks. Eg. life bans and prison sentences would go a long way to helping that.

 

[Realist]

The only way you will defeat doping in sport is to take big money out of sport. Take big money out of sport and you have no sport. Ergo, doping will always be practiced in sport. I reallize mine is a disheartening syllogism, and probably a rather flawed logic. But my inadequite intelligence can come up with no other conclusion.

I sort of agree. But I hope if we can improve the system and the balance of incentives enough, clean riders can have successful careers and the margins of cheating will reduce. If detection gets good enough that you can only dope a tiny bit, and the incentives are such that getting caught will mean you make no money anyway, things change a lot. You probably won't take the risk of doping if you know it will only net you a tiny improvement. And even if a couple of idiots/cowboys do, the clean people will still be close to competitive. And perhaps if there are enough clean riders, Omerta will be essentially reversed. Imagine a world where ratting out a cheat was rewarded instead of punished? I never want to see something like Armstrong vs Simeoni as long as I follow this sport.

I'm not quite that cynical yet, I believe it can be improved. They just need to find a way of adjusting the balance so that the potential rewards from doping are outweighed by the potential risks. Eg. life bans and prison sentences would go a long way to helping that.

I am not sure this is the right thing to do from a human rights perspective. I agree (as you can see) with changing the balance of incentives. But I think improving the chance of detection is a better way to change that and means you don't end up with the Landis situation - everyone seems to have done it, but one person wears the punishment. It is unfair for the person who actually does get caught (I know it is hard to have sympathy for them, but I think a better system can avoid this).

 

[goober]

Burn it down. It is quite clear that the UCI has not been diligent in policing doping.

How is this quite clear? It has been suggested by AFLD but there is a major conflict of interest there and UCI fully responded to those suggestions including recent WADA stepping in between these two.

It is not OK that McQuaid's sons are a riders agent, a race promoter and a high-up at Oakley.

You really believe that is a conflict of interest? How do any of his sons jobs conflict?

Immunity for cooperation. For all cyclists.

So if you have information on a rider you have a free ride to dope? Don't think so.

Put Mike Ashenden in charge of testing.

Are there problems with the testing? Also, putting someone who is willing to claim someone doped based on incomplete scientific evidence (non-positive) would be bad for cycling...

Do not increase first time bans to 4 years. This is unduly harsh. If an athlete does something stupid, at a young age, they should lose the money they made from it, they should lose their palmares. They should not lose the entire of their career, in my view.

Young age - these are adults and there are rules. Anyone proven doping through a positive A and B sample should be banned for life for certain banned substances or procedures.

 

[rhubroma]

I sort of agree. But I hope if we can improve the system and the balance of incentives enough, clean riders can have successful careers and the margins of cheating will reduce. If detection gets good enough that you can only dope a tiny bit, and the incentives are such that getting caught will mean you make no money anyway, things change a lot. You probably won't take the risk of doping if you know it will only net you a tiny improvement. And even if a couple of idiots/cowboys do, the clean people will still be close to competitive. And perhaps if there are enough clean riders, Omerta will be essentially reversed. Imagine a world where ratting out a cheat was rewarded instead of punished? I never want to see something like Armstrong vs Simeoni as long as I follow this sport.

The problem has always been the doping products being 3 steps ahead of the tests.


I am not sure this is the right thing to do from a human rights perspective. I agree (as you can see) with changing the balance of incentives. But I think improving the chance of detection is a better way to change that and means you don't end up with the Landis situation - everyone seems to have done it, but one person wears the punishment. It is unfair for the person who actually does get caught (I know it is hard to have sympathy for them, but I think a better system can avoid this).

I live in Italy. Believe me, omertà is hard to break. In the ego maniac world of sport, where you have enough folks who live by prepotency and arrogance, and where ethics becomes only an interpretive philosophy, omertà becomes a cultural mores that is very difficult to bring down.

Perhaps many would like to live another way, they, though, aren't the ones establihing the modus operandi.

In any case, the system needs an overhaul. And baring the political will to "burn it down," those in power with the money will keep the sytem in tact. Perhaps there will be some casualties, but the system will essentially remain in tact.

 

[Realist]

How is this quite clear? It has been suggested by AFLD but there is a major conflict of interest there and UCI fully responded to those suggestions including recent WADA stepping in between these two.

It is quite clear in that the problem - doping - is still there. McQuaid dealt himself into a compromised position as soon as he lashed out at Landis and began advocating a position instead of letting the investigations take their course and remaining impartial. I, as a licensed racing cyclist, would prefer my governing body didn't do that - didn't advocate for a particular party in a dispute, especially one this serious.

You really believe that is a conflict of interest? How do any of his sons jobs conflict?

I really do believe it is a conflict of interest for the UCI to try to force agents to register, when previously registration was not required, and there is no reason to require it, but hey, this might help Pat McQuaid's son. I believe it is a conflict when his other son is involved in a company who is a major sponsor of an athlete whose sport McQuaid is meant to govern. I believe it is a conflict when McQuaid gives the UCI's imprimatur to a sh*tty race in India, in pollution, in smog, and bends the arm of protour teams to attend, so his other son can make some cash. Just say the UCI was a public company and McQuaid was the CEO... and then he dealt with his sons like this? How are these not conflicts?

So if you have information on a rider you have a free ride to dope? Don't think so.

Sorry maybe I wasn't clear. I meant this as a policy for right now. If doping has been systemic - and there is reason to believe it has - there is no point in trying to punish every person involved. Set a date, then say: guys, you have until then to tell us what you know, down to your own involvement, names dates and places. After that, if you haven't come forward and you are implicated in an investigation, you're f*cked. And then you provide financial incentives for coming forward after that (not, of course, immunity).

Are there problems with the testing? Also, putting someone who is willing to claim someone doped based on incomplete scientific evidence (non-positive) would be bad for cycling...

I don't know if there are problems with the testing but it would remove all doubt for me if Ashenden was in charge.

If you are talking about Ashenden when you say someone who is willing to claim someone doped on incomplete scientific evidence, I challenge you to spell out in what manner that evidence was incomplete. There were samples. They were tested by a lab, with a rigorous procedure, while the samples were anonymous. At that point, they were found to contain EPO and nothing further happened. It was later found that the samples were Lance's. From a legal perspective, it is not an analytic positive which automatically leads to a doping charge (although, would that the UCI was less corrupt, it probably should have been a non-analytic positive). It is still complete, scientific evidence to the satisfaction of an expert in the field.

Young age - these are adults and there are rules. Anyone proven doping through a positive A and B sample should be banned for life for certain banned substances or procedures.

I think this is overly arbitrary and lacks nuance. But everyone has their own view on crime and punishment.

I think Mark French and Bernard Kohl and even Ricardo Ricco have done some stupid sh*t. I don't think that should mean they get hung out to dry forever. And it isn't just about being young. I'd apply the same argument to a thirty year old. It's about the possibility of rehabilitation. It's about thinking about the worst thing you've ever done in your life, or had done to you, that went unpunished. And then showing some compassion when you realise that sporting fraud by an individual who didn't pressure others or deal drugs pales in comparison. It is something that people should be able to deal with. I think life bans are unjust, in the same way that I think three strikes and you're out criminal law is plain stupid and inhumane. There are always people who think these sorts of plans will deter crime, but in general the evidence is to the contrary.

So what would you do to deal with the problem? Or perhaps you think there isn't one? I'm happy for people to throw stones at me, but I'd be even more interested to know what they think should be done.

 

[sars1981]

I said once before that we should put the riders in lock down during the grand tours. Make them all stay in the same hotels with constant chaperons ... sort of like a travelling prison .. with bikes.

 

[Benotti69]

I said once before that we should put the riders in lock down during the grand tours. Make them all stay in the same hotels with constant chaperons ... sort of like a travelling prison .. with bikes.

wont work. how do junkies in jail locked up for 23hours a day get their drugs. there will always be a way found..

 

[sars1981]

wont work. how do junkies in jail locked up for 23hours a day get their drugs. there will always be a way found..

Good point. In addition to a tour prison, have the riders filmed 24 hours per day and the footage streamed live to the internet.

 

[Murray]

I challenge you to spell out in what manner that evidence was incomplete. There were samples. They were tested by a lab, with a rigorous procedure, while the samples were anonymous. At that point, they were found to contain EPO.

The science is incomplete because the samples were frozen for several years before testing. The test cannot be certainly positive because the original validation of the test didn't use frozen samples. We don't know how the reliability of the test is affected with long-term frozen samples.

In order to remedy this you would have to take several know positives and negatives, freeze them and retest them to ensure the validity of the test. This goes for any biologic test, not just doping controls.

 

[sars1981]

The science is incomplete because the samples were frozen for several years before testing. The test cannot be certainly positive because the original validation of the test didn't use frozen samples. We don't know how the reliability of the test is affected with long-term frozen samples.

In order to remedy this you would have to take several know positives and negatives, freeze them and retest them to ensure the validity of the test. This goes for any biologic test, not just doping controls.

Im no chemist. But i doubt an effect of freezing urine is the creation of erythropoietin.

 

[mercycle]

Testing needs to be repeatable and standardized. Sounds like more than a few tests rely on the testers judgement as to a positive vs negative. Do not have the same lab and same tester test B samples (removes the appearance of bias). Designate one lab as the "gold standard" to test B samples, (how long would it take to get a days samples from France to Switzerland?) Include control samples with each days batch, some that should register positive, some negative by known quantities. Double blind the samples so that there is no way for the tester to know the person the samples came from. They can do this for BBQ contests, why not for something more important? Stop the leaks; no rumours of results until after the B sample has been tested. Test the A sample, if positive or indicating "out of ordinary" inform the rider, the race officials and the team management, but withhold public disclosure until the results of the B sample are known.

From an engineers point of view, the testing does not seem to be concrete enough, too much judgement from the tester. If a sample contains X mcg/ml of testosterone, when split in two and tested by 2 different labs and testers, they must get the same results of X mcg/ml. This will improve the confidence of the results and remove at least one excuse the riders can give.

 

[Murray]

Im no chemist. But i doubt an effect of freezing urine is the creation of erythropoietin.

No, freezing does not create EPO, and that is not the suggestion. The gel-electrophoresis test shows a dark band which is presumed to be EPO, but needs to be validated against more definative and much more expensive tests.

 

[Realist]

Testing needs to be repeatable and standardized. Sounds like more than a few tests rely on the testers judgement as to a positive vs negative. Do not have the same lab and same tester test B samples (removes the appearance of bias). Designate one lab as the "gold standard" to test B samples, (how long would it take to get a days samples from France to Switzerland?) Include control samples with each days batch, some that should register positive, some negative by known quantities. Double blind the samples so that there is no way for the tester to know the person the samples came from. They can do this for BBQ contests, why not for something more important? Stop the leaks; no rumours of results until after the B sample has been tested. Test the A sample, if positive or indicating "out of ordinary" inform the rider, the race officials and the team management, but withhold public disclosure until the results of the B sample are known.

From an engineers point of view, the testing does not seem to be concrete enough, too much judgement from the tester. If a sample contains X mcg/ml of testosterone, when split in two and tested by 2 different labs and testers, they must get the same results of X mcg/ml. This will improve the confidence of the results and remove at least one excuse the riders can give.

I don't know about the other things you are saying because they are insufficiently precise, but testing is done blinded. Even in the research context where Lance's samples were positive, the tests were blinded.

 

[Realist]

No, freezing does not create EPO, and that is not the suggestion. The gel-electrophoresis test shows a dark band which is presumed to be EPO, but needs to be validated against more definative and much more expensive tests.

It would be super-convenient if another molecule in urine degraded into a molecule with a close to identical mass-charge ratio as EPO, thereby yielding the same signature in the gel. It would be even more convenient if this same molecule only degraded in this manner occasionally, thereby meaning some samples went positive but not others. Given that a lot of other anonymous, stored samples were tested and did not contain this posited 'degradation signature', how likely do you think this is, really? Give me a probability (or a probability range). Quantify your uncertainty. I'll start. The subjective probability I attach to the event that degradation caused the EPO signature to occur in Lance's gels is less than 0.01

Detection of EPO in samples was actually a lot less than people in these forums might have guessed for the '99 tour. And, in fact, lower than what we might expect given the number of athletes who have subsequently been caught doping and were in that race. So it doesn't look like the false positive rate on that test was really high. That is, the rate of detection looks too low. They seem to have chosen specificity over sensitivity.

 

[David Suro]

Great thread. It's nice to read one where there is intellegent debate and a lack of personal needling.

I think the equation is pretty easy. Currently, the risks of being caught doping are less than the rewards of improved performance through doping.

Risk vs. Reward

Once the risks are greater than the rewards, the inclination of an individual to assume those risks will decrease.

An example:

I currently drive faster than the speed limit. The risk is a ticket of $100. The reward is being able to get where I am going a little bit quicker, all the time. I am happy to pay the occasional fine to get around quicker. If the ticket were to be increased to a larger sum, say $1000, I would drive the speed limit. The risk would outweigh the rewards.

The case of valverde, to me, is a clear example. While he was being investigated he earned a large amount of money. He is now serving a suspension, but how much does it reallt matter. I would happily have the last four years he has had, then retire.

The consequences for doping must be more severe.

I have heard that in Saudi Arabia they cut the hand off of a thief. In Saudia Arabia, theft is not a problem. The consequences are overly severe, but they work.

 

[Realist]

The consequences for doping must be more severe.

I have heard that in Saudi Arabia they cut the hand off of a thief. In Saudia Arabia, theft is not a problem. The consequences are overly severe, but they work.

You wouldn't find many people with a stronger anti-doping view than me, but I don't like this logic. As a civilised society, we shouldn't and we don't go around cutting off people's hands. I agree with the idea that incentives are crucial but I think the best way to shift the incentives is more subtle. You can probably have greater impact and avoid unduly harsh punishment for transgressors. Increase the payoff to snitching (it's currently negative by the look of things, make it neutral, or better, positive). Increase the probability of being caught, in part with incentives for snitching, in part with continuing to try to find good analytical methods. Also, increase the financial penalties, massively. Even if you get caught and banned for life, it is still worth doping if it means you net $200k for 1 year and you otherwise would have been on $25k in a conti team. If you have to pay back all your prize money and all your salary, it isn't worth it anymore.

I also really like the idea of banning directors, docking their salaries and fining teams. I think you would find that would help break the omerta. What do people think about this idea in particular?

 

[Realist]

If you have to pay back all your prize money and all your salary, it isn't worth it anymore.

Addendum: especially since you have probably already chopped in your teammates and sometimes the team staff with the prize money. This has the added effect that there is a financial penalty to being caught. Since you have already chopped up, you actually lose money. And the bigger the race you doped to win, the greater the prize money, and the more you lose paying back the share you gave out to teammates.

 

[JFDavis]

To carry the desire for a clean peleton another step - what would pro tours look like if the capability is found to guarantee a clean peleton? First off it seems illogical that the distances covered per avg. day of the GT's could be maintained, unless audience is excited by wasted riders weaving in @ 10 min intervals. So I think the per day distances would need to come down for one.

While the aim is good and true I believe there would become much collateral damage to the various tours financially if the !Wow! high cadence fast climbing factor cannot be maintained. Just look at the tours back pedal after the fan attrition after O.P.,Rasmussen,Landis,etc to regain audience from the many who became disallusioned and lost interest. IMO this is a catch22 for the Pro Tour as a industry, and I take a middle of the road opinion due to the difficulty of maintaing the business aspects given the complexities in play.

All pro sport depends on audience. Audience is made up of mostly average folk who go to watch someone they wish they could be. For better or worse.

Personally I'd prefer for sure an honest transparency in all sports. Primarily so physiology and devotion, integrety, and honor to ones sport are the determinate factors. Sadly human history and nature indicate as soon as cleanliness is achieved, the dirt reappears. Some call it survival. The real champs and heroes buck that, but typically are never 'known'. Most are out here living honestly and go about for the pure experience, not to be adulated upon.

 

[ellenbrook2001]

HMMMMMMMMM well when you signe for a team if you dont performe the next year you are out no team sponsor so what do you do cry for the sport you love all the hard work you did put in gone by the windown grrrrrrrrrrrr crual???????????????/

 

[raleighsuper]

Sick of doping discussion

Personally I am sick of the whole doping discussion so please pardon my cynicism.
While I applaud the many comments, possible remedies, etc. doping in some form is always going to be a part of cycling. I mean, hasn't it always been that way?
Cycling history is replete with known instances of doping in some form. There has been blood transfusion, amphetamine, cocaine, caffeine, etc. Why hasn't it been discussed that the great Eddy Merckx doped during his career? Remember Tom Simpson who died as a result of doping? I believe that LeMond probably did something during his career although to hear him you would think he was pure and untainted by personal doping.
Why is EPO doping any different? Doping is doping.
Does anyone really believe that the cycling powers really want to totally eliminate doping? There is simply too much money at stake! They don't want the sport to be destroyed.
What if the NFL seriously decided to crack down on performance enhancing drugs? What a "shock" it would be to find out the extent of the problem. LOL! They probably wouldn't ban the team from playing. Most NFL fans know performance enhancing drugs are being used but they don't seem to care. Again, there is too much money at stake! After all, aren't these people essentially entertainers? This isn't amateur sport.

 

[Realist]

Personally I am sick of the whole doping discussion so please pardon my cynicism.
While I applaud the many comments, possible remedies, etc. doping in some form is always going to be a part of cycling. I mean, hasn't it always been that way?
Cycling history is replete with known instances of doping in some form. There has been blood transfusion, amphetamine, cocaine, caffeine, etc. Why hasn't it been discussed that the great Eddy Merckx doped during his career? Remember Tom Simpson who died as a result of doping? I believe that LeMond probably did something during his career although to hear him you would think he was pure and untainted by personal doping.
Why is EPO doping any different? Doping is doping.
Does anyone really believe that the cycling powers really want to totally eliminate doping? There is simply too much money at stake! They don't want the sport to be destroyed.
What if the NFL seriously decided to crack down on performance enhancing drugs? What a "shock" it would be to find out the extent of the problem. LOL! They probably wouldn't ban the team from playing. Most NFL fans know performance enhancing drugs are being used but they don't seem to care. Again, there is too much money at stake! After all, aren't these people essentially entertainers? This isn't amateur sport.

What is your argument? It is happened for a long time so don't bother trying to fix it? I can't abide that.

 

[dbrower]

I think we have to change the business model of the sport significantly. First, we get rid of, or ignore the UCI. The ASO owns the business, and becomes the "league", and runs the rules and puts on events, perhaps with local promoters as NASCAR. To support this, there is a real rider union with teeth, and a collective bargaining agreement to prevent the league from running over the riders completely

Intercourse the Olympics and WADA-world; whatever agreement ASO and the riders union come to on a bi-lateral basis is good enough.

-dB

 

[Realist]

I think we have to change the business model of the sport significantly. First, we get rid of, or ignore the UCI. The ASO owns the business, and becomes the "league", and runs the rules and puts on events, perhaps with local promoters as NASCAR. To support this, there is a real rider union with teeth, and a collective bargaining agreement to prevent the league from running over the riders completely

Intercourse the Olympics and WADA-world; whatever agreement ASO and the riders union come to on a bi-lateral basis is good enough.

-dB

I think getting rid of the UCI in its current form is not a bad idea. I am not convinced we can leave so much control in the hands of the riders though. If the wrong riders get close to power, we get the same situation as we have now all over again. That is part of the problem isn't it? That some riders and ex-riders are extremely influential? I would prefer that there was greater movement towards control of the sport by all licensed racing cyclists.