Millar - Ricco Little Bastard. VandeVelde & Cav heroes

andyp

sportzchick wrote:

Agreed 10000% on this one - at best a life ban and worst ban and jail time..... This is killing the sport!

ZERO TOLLERANCE Its the only way to stop these cheats once and for all

This is why I hate seeing Millar riding let alone commenting - he doesnt deserve that right

You've been banging the drum for Evans on here but what makes you think he is an innocent. He has ridden for teams, such as Saeco and T-Mobile, who've been exposed as having systematic doping regimes in place which would suggest he might have dabbled with the 'hot sauce' (TM J Vaughters) in the past.

Millar was caught, convicted and served his sentence without complaint. I'm sure if you really pressed him in an off the record chat, that he feels slightly unfortunate in that he got caught when so many, and we're probably talking about 75% of the peleton in the last ten years, have gotten off scot free.

Zero tolerance is a very simplistic solution to a complex problem (and I'm talking in a wider context that just doping in cycling here) and has consistently been discredited when applied in the real world.

Richrd2205

sportzchick wrote:

Moomaloid wrote:

Why should we give them a second chance, thats saying ok you've got one chance so go on dope'em up to the eyeballs, then if you get caught you can come back after two years... NO, you will never ever begin to clear these people out until they are made aware that there is no return... why we haven't had this yet i do not know....

Agreed 10000% on this one - at best a life ban and worst ban and jail time..... This is killing the sport!

ZERO TOLLERANCE Its the only way to stop these cheats once and for all

This is why I hate seeing Millar riding let alone commenting - he doesnt deserve that right

Hmmm, you (& everyone else shouting for draconian sanctions) have never been involved in trying to change a culture that leads to a certain behaviour or to change behaviour, have you?
This same discussion was in the same place last year & the answer doesn't change.
If people were seriously worried about doping,then they wouldn't dope in the first place. Making sanctions tougher is only useful if folk think they'll get caught & if folk thought they'd get caught, they wouldn't be doping.
So it'd simply be playing to the crowd.
If it happens, then you know the fight against doping is lost.
There's plenty of research on change of this type that's very transferable, perhaps we'd be better off checking it before spouting silly uninformed opinions.
(If you'd like to check the cultural influence of a reformed individual v a individual with no experience or understanding, then you'll understand why I like what DM is doing, again, perhaps best to get information before publishing an opinion on the subject)

meagain

"(If you'd like to check the cultural influence of a reformed individual v a individual with no experience or understanding, then you'll understand why I like what DM is doing, again, perhaps best to get information before publishing an opinion on the subject)"

Just so. IME would have been pretty pointless having an AA group "leader" who'd never tasted (too much) alcohol.

RichN95.

andyp wrote:

You've been banging the drum for Evans on here but what makes you think he is an innocent. He has ridden for teams, such as Saeco and T-Mobile, who've been exposed as having systematic doping regimes in place which would suggest he might have dabbled with the 'hot sauce' (TM J Vaughters) in the past.
.

Evans was only ever part time at Saeco, doing a couple of races through his Cannondale connections. He did a full MTB season that year.

At T-Mobile he was (to some people's mind) surprisingly overlooked for the big races. At the one Vuelta (2004 I think) he did, the team withdrew on mass with 'food poisoning' except Evans and Zabel.

Also, he was at Mapei, who had some problems, but they were under Lefevre's watch and he'd left long before Evans got there.

Remember, many people's paragon of virtue, Christophe Bassons, rode for Festina in 1998.

The evidence in favour of Evans being clean is that he's been a top notch rider for 14 years (he came 5th in his MTB World Cup debut at 17), there's never been a whisper directly against him or his trainer (Aldo Sassi), he's consistent all year round - no dramatic peaks or troughs or disappearances for months, he doesn't talk like a doper, journalists (like Matt Rendell) say he's clean and so did Tom Boonen last year (unprompted he said Evans was proof that the Tour could be one clean), and with the rider turnover between Silence and Quick Step, he's bound to have a good idea.

PS I'm not Australian and really dislike seeing them win, but I'll make an exception for Evans.

simon_e

It's very easy to argue for life bans etc from the comfort of your armchair. I'd rather argue in favour of life bans for drivers that kill than a sportsman who cheats. And when I see Cavendish win like he does I think there's hope for cycling, and particularly for the image of cycling - racing, leisure and commuting alike - in this country. And we certainly need it.

On the subject of drugs/doping Millar is an easy target whatever he says. You may argue he's not helping himself (in that respect) with his latest article. But it's deeply personal, he has been through sh*t I hope I will never have to endure. Self-inflicted you might say, and I am tempted to agree, but the ban was by all accounts a pretty dark period of his life. This will colour what he says. Perhaps you'd rather he kept it pretty and merely praise the winners and say how hard it was today, platitudes blah blah...

I read his article to mean that he wants a fairer game less for himself, more for the guys he knows. I suspect he is careful not to mention names without first-hand knowledge, and I don't blame him.

Remember he's just a bike rider, not Jesus; and his opinion on this particular subject is at the very least as valid as yours or mine. So while you disagree I think the "put him up against a wall and shoot him" attitude says more about the poster than the man himself, and it's not flattering.

And remember that it's only a bunch of blokes cycling round the country because they're paid by sponsors. We choose to watch it on TV as entertainment. As sport goes I think it is peerless. It has a complexity, unpredictability and variety that walks all over most other sports; it has the highs and lows of great drama - heroes and villains, achievements, woes and trickery - but it's hardly the kind of thing to start World War III.

top_bhoy

Richrd2205 wrote:

Hmmm, you (& everyone else shouting for draconian sanctions) have never been involved in trying to change a culture that leads to a certain behaviour or to change behaviour, have you?
This same discussion was in the same place last year & the answer doesn't change.
If people were seriously worried about doping,then they wouldn't dope in the first place. Making sanctions tougher is only useful if folk think they'll get caught & if folk thought they'd get caught, they wouldn't be doping.
So it'd simply be playing to the crowd.
If it happens, then you know the fight against doping is lost.
There's plenty of research on change of this type that's very transferable, perhaps we'd be better off checking it before spouting silly uninformed opinions.
(If you'd like to check the cultural influence of a reformed individual v a individual with no experience or understanding, then you'll understand why I like what DM is doing, again, perhaps best to get information before publishing an opinion on the subject)

This is an unfair opinion on those who'd also like to see an improvement in the reduction of drugs in sport in general, not only cycling. Its not the case to use draconian measures and simply wanting someone 'put up against the wall and shot'.

I subscribe to the view, whether a life ban would work or not work, it is irrelevant. In a lot of industries there is what is known as a 'code of conduct' which is in place, not really to stop bad practices and activities, but to weed out the bad apples after they have been caught. Professionalism means accepting the responsibilities and position of trust which goes along with the career choice. No-one is exempt from some degree of personal responsibility whatever they do.

There are many industries that where the individual has breached the responsibilities and position of trust expected of them, that particular industry is closed to them forever. Therefore its not uncommon for everyday people to be in a similar position to these sportspeople in that there are expectations placed upon them. Nobody should be immune from the rules whatever career path they follow.

Changing the culture is a different topic entirely. I agree, even with life bans, people will continue to try and evade the rules. This is the area where efforts should be concentrated on - but rooting out past dopers, dodgy doctors and team managements, would surely be a start?

RichN95.

The trouble with life bans is that not all doping cases are clear cut.

Example 1: The British skiier Alain Baxter. He used Vicks inhalers to clear his nose. Then went to the Olympics in the US and bought the same product. Problem was it had a different recipie, with a banned product in it. Now take this tale at face value - would such a mistake be worth of a life ban?

Example 2: Alessandro Petacchi. He took too much Sambutomol (or whatever it's called). It's allowed in certain amounts in asthmatic inhalers. Maybe he did take too much on a cold wet day. Maybe he was cheating. Can we be sure either way and would you be comfortable handing down a life-time ban?

I'm all for increasing the ban to three years but I wouldn't be comfortable with life bans.

Jez mon

Two year bans are fine, so long as you can catch the cheats.

Ricco wasn't doping and thinking, "Well, even if I get caught, I'll be back within two years"

When he doped, he thought, "I'll take this and win"

A two year ban would work if the cheats get caught...two years is a HUGE chunk off a pro cyclist's career not only that, but it's extremely difficult to keep the standard of training up, especially if you have to come back off the juice.

It's extremely difficult to bung the cheats in prison for a variety of legal reasons which Dr Hutch explained in one of his columns.

I wholeheartedly agree with what DM says. I personally feel he is a good example of why life bans at this moment in time could hurt the sport. Chucking away generally sorry cheats would hurt the sport. Of course, separating real tears from those of characters like Virenque is very difficult.

Richrd2205

Top_Bhoy wrote:

Richrd2205 wrote:

Hmmm, you (& everyone else shouting for draconian sanctions) have never been involved in trying to change a culture that leads to a certain behaviour or to change behaviour, have you?
This same discussion was in the same place last year & the answer doesn't change.
If people were seriously worried about doping,then they wouldn't dope in the first place. Making sanctions tougher is only useful if folk think they'll get caught & if folk thought they'd get caught, they wouldn't be doping.
So it'd simply be playing to the crowd.
If it happens, then you know the fight against doping is lost.
There's plenty of research on change of this type that's very transferable, perhaps we'd be better off checking it before spouting silly uninformed opinions.
(If you'd like to check the cultural influence of a reformed individual v a individual with no experience or understanding, then you'll understand why I like what DM is doing, again, perhaps best to get information before publishing an opinion on the subject)

This is an unfair opinion on those who'd also like to see an improvement in the reduction of drugs in sport in general, not only cycling. Its not the case to use draconian measures and simply wanting someone 'put up against the wall and shot'.

Given that I really want to see a reduction in drugs in sport, what are you saying? You're prejudging me, which I dislike. I want to use techniques that actually work rather than those that don't, is this a bad thing?

I subscribe to the view, whether a life ban would work or not work, it is irrelevant. In a lot of industries there is what is known as a 'code of conduct' which is in place, not really to stop bad practices and activities, but to weed out the bad apples after they have been caught. Professionalism means accepting the responsibilities and position of trust which goes along with the career choice. No-one is exempt from some degree of personal responsibility whatever they do.

Please don't patronize me. I work in about the most heavily regulated sector in the UK...
However, people change... When you tell them they can't change is when they don't. Please, go read research on the process of change.

There are many industries that where the individual has breached the responsibilities and position of trust expected of them, that particular industry is closed to them forever. Therefore its not uncommon for everyday people to be in a similar position to these sportspeople in that there are expectations placed upon them. Nobody should be immune from the rules whatever career path they follow.

This paragraph, I think, makes the same point as the last, but you're not clear...

Changing the culture is a different topic entirely. I agree, even with life bans, people will continue to try and evade the rules. This is the area where efforts should be concentrated on - but rooting out past dopers, dodgy doctors and team managements, would surely be a start?

OK, there's a number of issues here. Changing culture is the only thing we're talking about: from a doping to a clean culture. The stringency of the sentence has little deterrent effect on people seeking to evade rules, it only deters those who wouldn't evade rules anyway. So, "even with life bans," is an irrelevant comment. Rooting out past dopers etc is great, but changing the culture to make doping unacceptable is the only route to a clean tour. Or is Ricco just a one-in-a-million?
As I said in my original post, please read the research. We might not like what it says, but we have a simple choice: do what feels right; or do what will have the result we want. Let's bear in mind that they're mutually exclusive & make a choice, yes?

top_bhoy

Richrd2205 wrote:

Given that I really want to see a reduction in drugs in sport, what are you saying? You're prejudging me, which I dislike. I want to use techniques that actually work rather than those that don't, is this a bad thing?

What has worked so far in cycling - there are plenty of dopers still about.

There was nothing there saying what you are like. You're the one doing the pre-judging on people who have a different view on the matter - trivialising it as uninformed. As I state, you don't need to have read the 'research' to know that a serious breach of a code of conduct is unnaceptable and when it has been breached, permanent suspension is a possibility..

Please don't patronize me. I work in about the most heavily regulated sector in the UK...
However, people change... When you tell them they can't change is when they don't. Please, go read research on the process of change.

I didn't patronise you - its fact that once a serious breach of the code of conduct has been found to have occurred, the individual is no longer able to work within that industry. I am not only talking about doctors, nurses, etc. This applies to areas such as defence, police, finance, tc - a large area of life. Whether they change is irrelevant - they may go and work in other industries but not in the one where they screwed up.

This paragraph, I think, makes the same point as the last, but you're not clear...

Maybe it does...but it was worth re-iterating

As I said in my original post, please read the research. We might not like what it says, but we have a simple choice: do what feels right; or do what will have the result we want. Let's bear in mind that they're mutually exclusive & make a choice, yes?

I've already said that the sentence has little to do with having a detrimental effect on rule breaking but that is not any reason not to have life bans for those who are found to have been in serious breash of the regulations. You talk of research - if it has been implemented, it hasn't done any good so far to change the doping culture in cycling so the easy answer is that the current research is useless and perhaps time for a re-think on the research method and the output data?

Having only a 2 year ban for the most serious of doping breaches means the cyclist/team mgt can think they have a chance of a comeback - so its a chance worth taking. A couple of things which will change the culture is to improve the drug testing and ensure those found guilty are heavily punished. I think the former has been done (with room to improve) but there is still a lack of any heavy punishment.

Bugly

The question for me is why would a corporate sponsor want a banned drug cheat making a comeback on their team? Sponsors are there for the press and the bad smell associated with doping does not disappear after 2 seasons.

flattythehurdler

If there was a genuine will to change culture, then any positive, or reasonable suspicion (or whatever the rules are for this years tour) should see the entire team out on the spot. Then there may be a bit more self policing. Maybe not fair, but there you are.

SteveR_100Milers

Surely it is as "simple" as two fundamental issues:

1. How to engender a culture of no chating amongst te riders, clearly for many years it has been acceptable to cheat. Maybe riders don't see it as cheating, cheating each other so the moral concept clearly isn't fully understood or accepted.

2. For the number of riders for whom the moral responsibiliity and mutal respect has no meaning, there needs to be a rigorous system of detecting potential ilegal substances or aid.

I am not sure the enough emphasis is placed on 1 yet, for example clearly Ricco was a somewhat immature person, you might expect more from a 23 year old to be honest, but the reaity is that there are a***holes everywhere in life, so they have to be provisioned for. It's diffcult to cange when the mentors to a lot f young riders are team leaders - many ex pros who never did and perhaps still don't see it as *really* cheating

For those then that simply choose to ignore their responsibility, then being caught perhaps ought to lead to a life ban, otherwise how do you re-inforce the moral position. Eiher cheating is OK is society or its not, arguably a 2 year ban an insufficiently stiff penalty. If athletics can do it, why not cycling?

meagain

"why would a corporate sponsor want a banned drug cheat making a comeback on their team? Sponsors are there for the press "

Seems simple enough to me. There IS no such thing as bad publicity - the name/brand is up there and it is clear that most of the target audience either know little of the doping stuff and/or don't really care. Many folk accept that cheating a little is the only way to succeed whatever ones profession - why should pedalling be any different?

Bugly

Barloworld seems toe disagree as did telekom as supposedly do SD. I think the dollar/euro

top_bhoy

Also, considering the TdF is the biggest annual sporting event in the world and is possibly the 3rd largest sporting event behind the world cup and Olympics, certainly top 5, I'd like to know the reasons why there are next to none really big global corporations ie coke, pepesi, sony, etc, willing to participate in cycling sponsorship - cycling sponsorship consists of medium sized enterprises and a conglomerate of small ones. My own opinion is the drug issue scares these global corporations off.

SteveR_100Milers

Top_Bhoy wrote:

Also, considering the TdF is the biggest annual sporting event in the world and is possibly the 3rd largest sporting event behind the world cup and Olympics, certainly top 5, I'd like to know the reasons why there are next to none really big global corporations ie coke, pepesi, sony, etc, willing to participate in cycling sponsorship - cycling sponsorship consists of medium sized enterprises and a conglomerate of small ones. My own opinion is the drug issue scares these global corporations off.

Evidence? based on what exactly?

top_bhoy

It is a bit subjective and will depend upon the criteria selected ie area of action, tv figures, live spectators, etc, but over 15m people turn out on the streets and mountains to watch it, there are large world viewing figures, it occupies an entire countries thoughts for 3 weeks every year, covering 1000's of miles and is logistically huge. There may be singular events ie CL final, Wimbledon final, etc which capture the imagination on a given day but for consistency, the Tour De France is hard to beat.

Even if you don't agree with what I've suggested, thre's no denying it is still a huge event around the world. You haven't explained or given suggestions why global sponsors aren't cueing up to sponsor a cycling team and have a guaranteed 3 weeks world media exposure in addition to lesser exposure via other events around the world. Why are these global companies scared off - they seem prepared to sponsor smaller entities.

iainf72

Top_Bhoy wrote:

next to none really big global corporations ie coke, pepesi, sony, etc, willing to participate in cycling sponsorship - cycling sponsorship consists of medium sized enterprises and a conglomerate of small ones. My own opinion is the drug issue scares these global corporations off.

Coke used to sponsor the Tour. So they have dabbled before.

rdaviesb

Top_Bhoy wrote:

If he gives names, doctors and contacts for those who assisted his programme and whom he knows participate in drug taking, then that will be the only thing which will even begin to atone for his misdemeanours.

Of course he won't and I don't blame him as it will effectively kill his cycling career.

He has, and it hasn't. We need to focus on those that are DOING wrong, not those who have done wrong and are now brave enough to stand up and admit it. It you want to pop at someone try Tyler Hamilton or Floyd Landis.

top_bhoy

iainf72 wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

next to none really big global corporations ie coke, pepesi, sony, etc, willing to participate in cycling sponsorship - cycling sponsorship consists of medium sized enterprises and a conglomerate of small ones. My own opinion is the drug issue scares these global corporations off.

Coke used to sponsor the Tour. So they have dabbled before.

Agreed...as have maybe one or two others in the past but never plentiful. Currently Credit Lyonnaise and Skoda are the main sponsors of the tour but there is still a lack of global companies involved with the teams.

nferrar

Jez mon wrote:

Two year bans are fine, so long as you can catch the cheats.

Ricco wasn't doping and thinking, "Well, even if I get caught, I'll be back within two years"

When he doped, he thought, "I'll take this and win"

I disagree - if I were thinking about cheating I'd certainly consider the consequences for getting caught and not just the rewards. I'd guess the average pro cyclist doesn't have a lot to fall back on if they get banned from cycling, in those circumstances I'd imagine most normal people (i.e. not stupid) wouldn't take the risk of a lifetime ban. A 2 year ban though (when you're low-mid 20's) is much less of a consequence and easy enough to overcome (as long as teams are willing to employ ex-offenders which clearly they are).

iainf72

nferrar wrote:

I disagree - if I were thinking about cheating I'd certainly consider the consequences for getting caught and not just the rewards. I'd guess the average pro cyclist doesn't have a lot to fall back on if they get banned from cycling, in those circumstances I'd imagine most normal people (i.e. not stupid) wouldn't take the risk of a lifetime ban. A 2 year ban though (when you're low-mid 20's) is much less of a consequence and easy enough to overcome (as long as teams are willing to employ ex-offenders which clearly they are).

You seem to be making an assumption that drugs don't make a huge difference. So given the choice between being able to compete and make some money with a slim chance of getting a life time ban, or staying clean, keep getting nonwhere in races and after 1 season have no contract, what should they do?

In the 90's people were taking EPO to keep up. Not to win or kill everyone, but just to keep up from day to day.