Would you rather...

[Colm.Murphy]

Would you rather see Professional Cycling abandon the Olympic Movement and adopt doping control policies similar to Premier League, NFL, NBA, MLB?

OR

Would you rather see the other sports leagues adopt the Olympic Movement anti-doping protocols and rules?

It would be interesting and appreciated if you explained why you voted the way you did.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Would you rather see Professional Cycling abandon the Olympic Movement and adopt doping control policies similar to Premier League, NFL, NBA, MLB?

OR

Would you rather see the other sports leagues adopt the Olympic Movement anti-doping protocols and rules?

It would be interesting and appreciated if you explained why you voted the way you did.

You haven't put your point of view or explained why you decided to do a poll?

But I'll bite - the WADA protocols is probably the fairer system even if it is in need of refinement.

Penalty's and sanctions should be the same across all sports and applied evenly by all nations - if you remember the Kazakhstan Federation originally only gave Vino a 1 year ban for blood doping!

My view is that WADA - or some other independent recognized authority - should be in control of all anti-doping, including testing, but thats a debate for another day.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

You haven't put your point of view or explained why you decided to do a poll?

But I'll bite - the WADA protocols is probably the fairer system even if it is in need of refinement.

Penalty's and sanctions should be the same across all sports and applied evenly by all nations - if you remember the Kazakhstan Federation originally only gave Vino a 1 year ban for blood doping!

My view is that WADA - or some other independent recognized authority - should be in control of all anti-doping, including testing, but thats a debate for another day.

Well, I felt I was going off-topic with this kind of discussion in some other threads, so started this one here.

I feel it would be the most beneficial to Professional Cycling to move in the direction of the other big sports.

They would first need to divorce the IOC (not going to happen unless they are kicked out), then the athletes need to unionize (too many languages and self interest, nationalistic views, etc.), then they'd need a new racing structure, similar to the old World Cup, to present a compelling TV product made up of classics and moderate stage races. And on and on and on.

So many things that are not going to happen...

Surely we can all agree that the other sports won't move to a WADA system...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

then the athletes need to unionize (too many languages and self interest, nationalistic views, etc.), then they'd need a new racing structure, similar to the old World Cup, to present a compelling TV product made up of classics and moderate stage races.

They are already, at least they strike together (like last years Giro, TdF 1998).
The racing structure is ok like it is i think. So why change?
For what more TV? All races are brought live....

We all know what more profesionalism brings (in cycling it brought the mad doctors, in the NFL it brought the TV dictating the game, gamblers and all other bad stuff). A Union brings more problems in the doping fight (just look the NFL where the players say what should be tested and what not; a high powered cycling union brings every little doping case to court without risk).

No, i think cycling has enough problems. The last thing needed is another like NFL-Product. Say good-bye to fight man-against-man and welcome to a show like wrestling if cycling says good-bye to WADA and olympics.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well, I felt I was going off-topic with this kind of discussion in some other threads, so started this one here.

I feel it would be the most beneficial to Professional Cycling to move in the direction of the other big sports.

They would first need to divorce the IOC (not going to happen unless they are kicked out), then the athletes need to unionize (too many languages and self interest, nationalistic views, etc.), then they'd need a new racing structure, similar to the old World Cup, to present a compelling TV product made up of classics and moderate stage races. And on and on and on.

So many things that are not going to happen...

Surely we can all agree that the other sports won't move to a WADA system...

But again Colm, with respect you have not said why you consider it "would be the most beneficial to Professional Cycling"?

I agree the current system is flawed - but I can't see what would be gained from going away from the IOC system.

I also agree with your scenario that it is unlikely to happen - and will add to your points by highlighting that the UCI does not make any money from most races. The lucrative TV rights are held by the promoters of the events who will not give up their positions.

The only organization in Pro Cycling that has that capability is the ASO.

 

[Rip:30]

Choice C

Would you rather see Professional Cycling abandon the Olympic Movement and adopt doping control policies similar to Premier League, NFL, NBA, MLB?

OR

Would you rather see the other sports leagues adopt the Olympic Movement anti-doping protocols and rules?

It would be interesting and appreciated if you explained why you voted the way you did.

Keep everything the same. Doping stories are the main reason I still follow cycling.

Oh so I guess it would be nice to see more doping stories in other sports so choice B is ok, but I don't think I'd have time to keep up with all those different forums.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

But again Colm, with respect you have not said why you consider it "would be the most beneficial to Professional Cycling"?

I agree the current system is flawed - but I can't see what would be gained from going away from the IOC system.

I also agree with your scenario that it is unlikely to happen - and will add to your points by highlighting that the UCI does not make any money from most races. The lucrative TV rights are held by the promoters of the events who will not give up their positions.

The only organization in Pro Cycling that has that capability is the ASO.

1. It would redistribute the power in the sport back to the talent, the riders who race the races.

2. It would remove the WADA testing protocols, which I feel create more problems than they can solve. There would need to be a negotiated program that was even and fair to all parties.

3. It would largely remove the promoters of the races as the limiting factor on the economic development, for jsut the reasons you cite: they hold the TV rights based on producing the event. there would need to be revenue sharing for the teams or a new race promoting organization (league) could be formed and re-invent the events. No racers, no races.

4. Without the IOC lording over the purse strings of the sport, they can develop the sport against the template of several of the major sports so that they can bring in more/better sponsors. Look at all the exits... so many to count....and more going out the door, with fewer and littler coming in.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I just don't think that's going to bring more eyes to the sport. The sport is already so damaged with doping, both cases and allegations, having the fox watching the hen house while we all pretend there isn't a problem isn't going to work for cycling the way it "does" with the NFL.

There already is a riders union, the CPA. The problem is at almost every juncture they have sided with less testing, and defending cheats and dopers, with little focus on some of the other problems associated with cycling and no solution towards stopping doping on their own. Thus, they've been on the losing end almost every time. It's damaged their cause, whatever that cause is. There is also the AIGCP, which is the team's union, which is however run by Eric Boyer, who is anti-doping. The AIGCP however did support the riders decision last year in the Tour against banning race radios. Something again most fans disagree with the riders on.

However, if you are stating the riders union, if more focused and less stuck to a primary cause of upholding the omerta, would lend some outside scrutiny and oversight to the UCI and Pat McQuaid, then I would like to think this would make the world a better place. However, the biggest problem with McQuaid's UCI is the near arbitrary testing and rulings regarding doping, and the CPA isn't going to do anything to remedy that. At least not at this point in time.

The best of all would be a rider's union that is anti-doping, and looking to hold the UCI to seeking third party, objective oversight at all times. But that's about as likely to happen as the NFL joining WADA, as you say.

 

[locker]

i would like to see other major sport codes follow cyclings anti doping controls.

 

[Cobblestones]

I would not support option 1, and I give a sh!t about most other sports, so option 2 does nothing for me.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I just don't think that's going to bring more eyes to the sport. The sport is already so damaged with doping, both cases and allegations, having the fox watching the hen house while we all pretend there isn't a problem isn't going to work for cycling the way it "does" with the NFL.

There already is a riders union, the CPA. The problem is at almost every juncture they have sided with less testing, and defending cheats and dopers, with little focus on some of the other problems associated with cycling and no solution towards stopping doping on their own. Thus, they've been on the losing end almost every time. It's damaged their cause, whatever that cause is. There is also the AIGCP, which is the team's union, which is however run by Eric Boyer, who is anti-doping. The AIGCP however did support the riders decision last year in the Tour against banning race radios. Something again most fans disagree with the riders on.

However, if you are stating the riders union, if more focused and less stuck to a primary cause of upholding the omerta, would lend some outside scrutiny and oversight to the UCI and Pat McQuaid, then I would like to think this would make the world a better place. However, the biggest problem with McQuaid's UCI is the near arbitrary testing and rulings regarding doping, and the CPA isn't going to do anything to remedy that. At least not at this point in time.

The best of all would be a rider's union that is anti-doping, and looking to hold the UCI to seeking third party, objective oversight at all times. But that's about as likely to happen as the NFL joining WADA, as you say.

Oversight is one main problem and lack of transparency. The other is the vested interests that come into play when it comes to anti-doping with the current system of discipline being devolved down to the national feds. Some feds are clearly anti-doping, while others it seems are very keen to 'look after their boys'.

As pointed out Vino got a 1 year ban for blood doping, the Spanish Fed has dragged its heels over Piti and OP, while the likes of Basso and Scarponi have served bans. Discipline becomes a matter of geography rather than guilt. Until there is some move to centralise it (something the national feds will never agree to) then there will always be that problem.

Also, the UCI has a vested interest as well, they make their money off racing and they seem to have concluded that positive dope tests are bad for business and McQuaid has basically tried to reset the clock to 1999. You pretend to ride clean and while pretend to test. A few sacrificial lambs are thrown out every now and again, but the big names know that they are safe.

Ultimately, all of the big scandals have come about because of an outside force - ie Festina, OP and even Balco, all came about when the state rather than sport became involved. If there is going to be any further reform/moves against doping, then I tend to think it will have to come from outside of sport rather than from within.