New ideas

Titanium

Here's two ideas for you guys to think about in the fight against doping:

1. If the UCI could get a working version of the document pro tour riders sign to hand back a year's wages if they're caught doping, I suggest that the money seized by the UCI should be paid directly to the guilty rider's teammates.

It might sound crazy at first but it provides a big incentive for riders to inform on those they suspect cheating. If you're a domestique in Astana, anonymous tips to the UCI's Anne Gripper and soon Vino and Kash get caught and you get cashback. Informing isn't the big thing, as riders accompanying the winner of a big race stand to earn more by being part of a winning team, but it tilts the odds.

The point is that if a rider is caught he does big damage to his team. Thanks to the actions of Moreni or Sinkiewitz, team sponsors almost walked away: the damage the doper does do might as well compensate the others.

2. This might be a more powerful idea: stop the UCI or WADA being in charge of doping controls and give make the riders in charge of monitoring anti-doping. This sounds counter-intuitive but many riders are sick of those who dope and they know the methods they are using. If a committee of riders was charged with spending a budget to detect doping, and they had to publish details of their meetings, they would have a vested interest to be open and thorough. The honest guys are too silent and instead of just collecting the monthly paycheck from Bouygues or FDJ, they'd be forced to speak up, to monitor their peers and to use their inside information to better effect.

Neither idea is a panacea, just a new approach to discuss.

andyp

Both have legs. The current situation clearly doesn't work and having the UCI in charge of testing leads to a strong conflict of interest, i.e. the body responsible for the government of the sport is also responsible for the policing of it.

I like them both. I think self-governance is a good thing.

Iain will be along shortly to tell us why it won't work from a pinko-lefty-hippy perspective.

dave_1

Both are good ideas...it´s the riders who are the biggest doping experts , so why not have them in charge of its implementation? Probably anonymous tip off system, a phone number where you can shop anyone, or even report known couriers visiting on rest days etc...

John Stevenson

The future of pro cycling: like living in East Germany without the drugs!

The rules of sport are not worth setting up a virtual private police state.

top_bhoy

The anonymous 'hotline' is a good one but riders who sit on anti-doping committees will be under the pressure of and at risk of not having a contract should they start to dig and ask too many pertinent questions. Change needs to start at the top end. It's the DS and team owners who have to be first removed, quickly followed by cheating doctors and then riders. Remove the people who condone, hire and assist the cheats and I would suspect then, whilst there would still be riders doping it, it would reduce - the noose on riders would be tightened!! It is probably very simplistic but they need to start somewhere and not simply raise their hands and say 'we are doing everything we can', when that is quite clearly not the case.

iainf72

No one likes a grass.

And I'd also fear someone would end up with concrete boots.

If we take the case of Moreni - Wiggins was surprised but then said there had been signs. Well, hindsight is 20:20, isn't it?

How would it work though? "Billy is doping" - "Oh, okay, we'll test him" - "Nope, can't find anything"?

The testing doesn't work - Perhaps if you combined the tip off thing with hormonal monitoring or something that might work?

timoid.

If someone was found to be a grass, they'd end up never winning sh1t or even getting in a breakaway at best, in a ravine at worst.

mm1

Don't know if the climate has changed enough to stop riders getting bullied for speaking out...

Like the time when poor old Tafi (great rider) ended up in tears at the back of the bunch in the Giro after arguing with Pantani, or a well publicised altercation between Simione and a certain Texan...

skavanagh.bikeradar

Okay, but what would be an effective policy then? I don't know enough about it all to say. Others on here appear to know a lot more - so what would be the way you'd go to tackle it?

iainf72

Okay, I think the French have the right idea but it needs to be made more robust and work at a commerical level.

So, continual hormonal and blood monitoring for riders. Not just once or twice a year but monthly at least. Something along the lines of the CSC programme. If I a rider show wierd results or unexpected levels, they're suspended from racing for 30 days but still being paid by their team. They should then be sent off to appoved doctors to have a medical checkup to make sure they've not got some underlying condition which needs to be treated (some cancers elevate certain hormones etc etc) After 30 days, they're rechecked and if everything is clear they're free to race but will be subject to additonal controls.

This assumes the blood and hormonal profiling works for finding dopage but it sounds like it does. If a rider gets stopped for 30 days a few times a year, why would you hire him? Someone who can't ride is of no use to sponsor, especially if you're having to continue paying him.

Perhaps a clause about 3 x 30 days suspensions in a year gives the team a get out of jail clause and they can terminate the contract.

Might work, might not. But the current testing methods where they look at wee and it looks like highland spring water but isn't a positive is a waste of time.

The trick is to make it difficult not to think punishment will stop it.

As with all things, funding it is a problem and I don't know how you'd do that. What is the UCI's blazer budget?

top_bhoy

Funding - when you consider the huge commercial cost doping damage does to the TdF and other races, the amount required to 'fire fight' negative publicity and the loss of comercial and team sponsors, I'd say that if the UCI, race organisers and teams were all being serious, the money would and could be be found without bankrupting the sport.

Kléber

It's an interesting idea and based on economics, that those with the real interest in the system are charged with running it and that those who cause damage to others have to compensate for the damage. I don't think it needs to centre on grassing up riders, it's could compensate riders who suffer because a fool in their team ends up scaring a sponsor away.

Add on Iain's monitoring scheme - which has to work 365 days a year and not just in the season, then add start line doping controls to monitor anyone who's had a blood transfusion (=high haematocrit) before the race and this is all workable. Increase the number of riders who get tested after each race too, say test the podium, jersey holders and 25 random riders.

If a few punters can knock up some rules like this, why can't the UCI still communicate any ideas for the future?

Finally, for John's point on the police state, these are not the rules of sport we are talking about, this is high-end show business, not sport.

calvjones

I'm coming to the reluctant conclusion that the only answer to this is a localised, amateur sport with zero prize money/sponsorship and the only rewards being kudos that is dependent on community belief that one is clean. 'Media' coverage is going to consist of enthusiastic amateurs & participants videoing and uploading races & headcam footage, with a correspondingly localised audience.

There may be some halfway-semi-pro house, but as soon as you go beyond an essentially local sport, the community doesn't have enough info to judge who might be doping so the kudos rewards make it worthwhile doping again.

Just a thought, albeit a depressing one

ddraver

Timoid. wrote:

If someone was found to be a grass, they'd end up never winning sh1t or even getting in a breakaway at best, in a ravine at worst.

Well its that attitude that has GOT to stop, this omerta thing is just bullshit designed purely to protect the cheaters by the cheaters (who can control it with a 30% advantage on eveyone else!!!)

The change is going to come from the bottom, the new cyclists like Gerdeman (sp?) and Wiggins who carry on when all the old guard give up and retire...we need to keep them believing that sooner rather than later we will have a clean peleton and they need to work for it...would anyone have cared, outside UK cycling, if Wiggins HAD thrown in the towel after the TdF?!

timoid.

ddraver wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

If someone was found to be a grass, they'd end up never winning sh1t or even getting in a breakaway at best, in a ravine at worst.

Well its that attitude that has GOT to stop, this omerta thing is just bullshit designed purely to protect the cheaters by the cheaters (who can control it with a 30% advantage on eveyone else!!!)

The change is going to come from the bottom, the new cyclists like Gerdeman (sp?) and Wiggins who carry on when all the old guard give up and retire...we need to keep them believing that sooner rather than later we will have a clean peleton and they need to work for it...would anyone have cared, outside UK cycling, if Wiggins HAD thrown in the towel after the TdF?!

Easy to say at your keypad, but not if your livlihood depends on it. Look at what happened to Wiggins in the Tour when he tried to breakaway. Nobody went with him and he was left to hang for the day. This just because he makes noises. What would happen to a known snitch?

No. Paying people to grass won't be successful and will lose the good will of the riders who do want a clean sport. You need to have a willing test programme instigated by the teams. Something along the CSC lines and then have parameters for each cyclist that can samples can be measured against in a race test. This would ensure that the sampes couldn't be cleansed before being handed over.

Also you need kick the ass of the teams that are actively doping. Three positves and the season should be over for that team. Any transfusion detected, the season ends for that team. Its up to the team to actually want to be clean for the sport to change.

ddraver

I know.....should nt have basically, but at least he was nt chased down and forced to stop this year

It makes me worry how clean the sport is... why if its now a few bad apples who cheat, don't the clean guys start makeing more noises its for the benefit of all - in a round about way they are supporting the dopers by not speaking out

It slike Walsh said in that interview (and i'm prepared to e shot down in flames here) when floyd landis eventually gave an opinion on operation Puerto he said - i'm sorry the guys aren't here - why is he sorry to not be competing against dopers if he is clean - he likes a bit af an extra challange?!

I do appreciate its not as easy as this but why are people who have worked so bloody hard to become a pro sportsman happy to settle for (not even) second place behind a cheat?!

flattythehurdler

Timoid, did you see my message at the end of the schleck's tour of ireland thread?

P.S. Ian , why give the f'ckers 3 chances?

skavanagh.bikeradar

Why isn't the UCI coming up with this stuff? As someone else said (Timoid?) if this forum has a few ideas why don't the UCI? It's bloody daft and suggests that despite all the PR cycling doesn't actually want to change all that much, or at least not if it can help it.

Iain, are T-Mobile really pulling the wool over my eyes? Someone needs to challenge them if so, who and how though?

If this forum can come up with an improved Pro Tour and anti doping strategy, what are the UCI doing? And why isn't someone harassing them morning until night about it?

Titanium

It takes time to come up with ideas but the UCI needs to put a calendar out there, to announce the dates of series of meetings between the people involved (riders, team managers, broadcasters, police, WADA) and then to announce the date when it will show us the conclusions. It's leadership but right now, these guys are following and always having to react to the scandals instead of point the way forward.

T-Mobile are doing the right thing but Stapleton is like an indulgent parent. He pretends he's strict on doping but then can't implement a real anti-doping testing program. He relies on Rolf "deny everything" Aldag and there are rumors that Erik "I didn't inhale" Zabel is going to act as a mentor to young talent Ciolek. I have a lot of time for Zabel, he comes across as a nice guy and even collects bikes in his spare time, he's crazy about cycling. But he only confessed when he was bounced into it. This isn't the kind of mentor I'd like. The Sinkeiwitz case is worrying too, and when the riders got surprise tested in the Pyrenees they wrote pages of complaints about it, not the sign of riders with nothing to hide.

The fight against doping has been half-hearted. We can't stamp it out but there's definately a way to reduce it and to make sure riders have a choice in their careers.

iainf72

flattythehurdler wrote:

P.S. Ian , why give the f'ckers 3 chances?

Because my way is to try and change the mindset. I don't believe people who take drugs / hormones or blood doping are *bad* people. But we're dealing with something they consider to be the "norm" so we need to work on making it not the norm. If they're not prepared to step into line, chuck 'em.

Reading interviews with doping guru's etc, they know what's going on and have a very good idea who, but the way the tests are setup it needs a positve + ban. I prefer the idea of "this is odd, lets keep an eye on it" Constant monitoring seems to have had a profound effect on the French teams.

iainf72

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

Iain, are T-Mobile really pulling the wool over my eyes? Someone needs to challenge them if so, who and how though?

I don't know for sure, but I find it difficult to take them seriously.

Titanium covers it in his post a bit. My other questions would be

a) Did you not doing some serious investigation into the doctors background before you put them in charge of your anti-doping?
b) Why did you employ Honchar? Was he a token person to chuck off the team for PR?
c) Why is Aldag still there? He wasn't up front to begin with, admited to years of doping under duress. Is he there to run a clean team or to help the riders evade doping tests...After all, you learn a lot from years of dopage.
d) Why do you continue to rely on standard ADA testing - It hardly works as it is? Take Sinkewitz as an example, there is no way he'd been carrying a spare tube of testosterone gel around and just used it once. Which means he'd been using it all season and didn't get nabbed until 6 months in.
e) The management effectively slag off Discovery yet will happily sign some of their big riders because they're important to some of T-mobiles markets. If I say Hincapie I'm not sure "A New Cycling" comes to people's minds.

Their reaction has generally been a bit odd and scattergun.

skavanagh.bikeradar

I share your reservations - and I like the sound of some of the positive stuff on here about how to move forward. Profiling and stopping riders where abnormalities are present is attractive as a way of changing the mindset. There isn't any reason in this day and age if the will is there why all of this couldn't be totally transparent and done over the internet - even published on the internet. No secrets.

I really hope somebody somewhere with the best interests of the sport at heart is plotting out a path to resolve the issues we all keep discussing here. In the meantime how do we go about putting pressure on people to do something? And who are those people?