Enough is enough - ban them for life

Schmidthouse

Copy of a letter that I just sent a few sites/publications:

I would like to know how many of us cycling fans are currently sitting back feeling satisfied that more drug cheats are exposed.

Don't get me wrong - I am exceedingly happy that these men who are going out of their way to cheat and rort the system are being caught (especially Mr 'mouth' Ricco - karma is a wonderful thing). But I am not satisfied.

I am not satisfied because there are still these morons who are cheating and doing so in a very deliberate and structured manner, micro-dosing and taking new drugs such as CERA with the belief that they can evade current testing standards. In addition to this we have the added bonus of known cheats trying to return to racing (yes Mr Vinokourov - you are one).

Well, I am fairly sure that I am not alone in saying that enough is enough.

Existing deterrents are not stopping the cheats. And let us call them that - cheats, because that is all that they are. Not cyclists, not racers, not professionals and most of all not sportsmen. Just plain, simple, low life, lying cheats.

So all you rule makers at the UCI - make sure that they never, ever return to sully our sport. If it is not accidental (and lets be realistic - how do you accidentally test positive to CERA in your blood) or if they do not offer information that leads to other cheats, suppliers et al, then they get a life ban.

You have offered them one deterrent that gave them a way back - the two year ban and it hasn't worked. You gave them another option, the years salary penalty and that has not worked. You have introduced biological passports that are helping to catch them but in the end they still have a way back.

So stop offering. Our sport does not need them, it will flourish without them and will die if these cheats still a part of the system.

Ban them for life.

dave_1

yes, life bans needed now...it is best they are not allowed back and so young riders will have a slot in a team that the 2 year ban rider could reclaim through the mafia like network that runs cycling. So yes, life bans needed...but they will not make the slighest difference in stopping doping...but they will free up employment opportunities for younger riders who deserve a chance to show what they can do

redddraggon

The best deterrent is actually getting caught - not the punishment.

Do you think all those dudes would have used CERA if they thought they were going to get caught?

Kléber

First, a life ban would be challenged in human rights courts as an excessive punishment. Legitimate mistakes over cold medicines would see people banned from their job because of this authoritarian law. Tough, you might say but human rights law would step in here to make the ban more lenient. It would certainly involve lengthy appeals and costly court appearances.

Second, I've posted this on here before but look beyond cycling and at other crimes. The death penalty in the US doesn't impact the murder rate very much. I'm on controversial ground but there is some evidence that in states where murderers are caught and punished quickly (whether jailed or executed) the murder rate is lower. This means criminals are not thinking of the punishment but more of the chance of being caught.

Back to cycling. If you're talented you can be a super-domestique on €100,000 a year or you can turn to blood doping and win a stage race and add a zero to your salary. Now imagine if there is a 1 in a 100 chance of being caught, you can try to set yourself up for life knowing you won't get caught or you can play by the rules. The temptation is there. Now change the odds from 1 in a 100 to 1 in 5, meaning you will get caught and banned for 2 years during your career, your name will be ruined. This will have a big effect, no?

So I'd suggest any money for legal challenges and more on a life ban should really be better spent on doping research, detection and intelligence. Even small steps could make a difference and remove blood doping, for example test a rider's haematocrit on the start line of a race, now six hours before the start of the race as the gap between testing and racing gives them plenty of time to infuse the infamous "800ml of packed cells". Just a time change in the doping could have caught many but we haven't even got to this.

But I would say if you are banned, you can get a one year ban of you co-operate and fill in a sheet naming who supplied you and who in the team knew. And if you test positive a second time for "serious" doping, like blood manipulation, then you face a four year ban.

LangerDan

Dave_1 wrote:

yes, life bans needed now...it is best they are not allowed back and so young riders will have a slot in a team that the 2 year ban rider could reclaim through the mafia like network that runs cycling. So yes, life bans needed...but they will not make the slighest difference in stopping doping...but they will free up employment opportunities for younger riders who deserve a chance to show what they can do

I think younger riders like Ricco and Schumacher have shown us exactly what they can do. The fallacy that doping is a problem associated with riders of a "certain generation" has been exposed again.

chuckcork

In Oz drink driving is a criminal offence, and can lead to jail time, that doesn't stop people from doing it, and unlike the UK the 'booze busses' (mobile police blood testing units) are a well known sight, with blowing in the bag a fact of the culture. It doesn't stop people drink driving or drug driving, nor do the penalties, or do the bans or life bans stop people from driving. They are just programmed to ignore the rules.

Now if you add in the financial incentive for these sports cheats to do the drugs to earn that extra nought on the pay cheque, with little chance of being caught, then why so suprised that they do?

A ban won't stop them, but human rights legislation will not allow anything too excessive either.

You might as well ask why the courts allow convicted rapists, murders etc out after 10-15 years, when their actions have shown they are a serious threat to society. If the 'system' can be that lenient in the case of seriously anti-social behaviour, why would they be more aggressive in the case of sport where noone is hurt?

off the back

Life bans won't stop it. that is a knee jerk reaction. I actually believe that the controls we have in place are a far better deterent. Let me explain.....

A life ban means nothing unless the testers are hot on the heels of the dopers. The deterent for a doper is not a life ban but getting caught. Right now you get 2yrs plus salary and I think money is a major motivator for doping. Looking at the tour 1/4 of the stages were won by dopers (Riccox2, Schumx2, Pieopili). While depressing it does show that these guys on the playing field stick out like sore thumbs versus regular athelets. Also we all were pointing the finger of suspission at these guys during the race watching them perform. What we don't see are the medical tests/blood tests done on them that give a lot more clarity. Combined these provide the testers all the info they need to nail these guys. Anyone doping shall we call it class A products (EPO/blood doping) will be at a level above the clean guys and highten the risk of getting caught. This is a new era in cycling in that a) these guys stand out b)we have teh means to nail them. Obviously this year has been bad - giro (God only knows how many dopers got away with it) and tour 1/4 stages won by dopers. But this will send a strong message to them that the tide is turning and u have to be a moran to dope!!! I have no problem with life ban for 2nd offense.

FJS

I would be in favour of life bans - but only for certain products. I think other sports have life bans, and the current amount of riders coming back from a ban, like nothing happened, could make people believe it's worth the risk. A life ban would be a lot better than the current situiation where every organizer, team director, and TV station can decide each time whether they want a rider with a 'history' or not and give de facto life bans, with arbitrary chaos as a result.
But, I can only see a life ban working if it is accompanied by some classification system (like the category A, B and C drugs categories in real life), so that people don't get life bans for cold medicines, recreational drugs like XTC, cocaine or cannabis (see Boonen or Ullrich), etc, but only for the heavy stuff like blood doping.

Still, I agree with others that finding a way to break the omerta culture in cycling is much more important

giant_man

Life ban is the only way you are going to stop this nonsense. Should have been introduced 5 years ago imo. With no exceptions.

GyatsoLa

The problem with a blanket life ban is that it then gives dopers who are caught an incentive to fight things to the death in the courts. This will mean only the most blatant cheats will ever be banned, the authorities will always pull back from banning unless they are 100% sure, which they rarely are.

However, I do think that a lifeban is appropriate where there is clear evidence of systematic doping and a failure to cooperate with the authorities. I'm quite happy to see riders given relatively light bans (say, one year) if they cooperate by naming their suppliers and medical advisors. Its not credible that a doper will not be able to say where they bought the drugs and who helped them take it.

The second issue is the large number of athletes who can't be 'proven' to have doped, but there is strong evidence that they may have doped. I think the notion of 'medical failure' needs to be formalised and strenghtened. I think any rider with any abmormality in their blood - elevated red blood cell counts, traces of breakdown products etc., there should be an automatic 1 to 3 month suspension with no implication of guilt (but also, no appeal except on strictly limited criteria). For repeated dopers this will result in a major disruption of their seasons and make them think twice about what they are doing. It will allow for focused testing on known (but unproven) dopers, allowing them in effect to be harrassed out of the sport.

The other side of this is that doping is such a huge problem that governments (or better still the EU) needs to make the procurement of performance enhancing drugs to be a criminal offence. It infuriates me that known drug doctors are allowed to practise. I personally know of a doctor who had her license to practice taken away for over prescribing anti-depressants to patients - the medical authorities need to get serious about this. The likes of Dr. F*** need to be removed from the medical field and forbidden to practice any branch of medicine.

bahzob

Agreed.

DavMartinR

Life Ban sounds to extreme. They should increase the ban from 2yrs to 5yrs.

If a rider gets a 2yr ban he probably thinks OK I'll miss next session and half of the following session,but as long as I keep training and keep in contact with the guys I know in the teams I'll be OK to make a comeback.

But if the ban was 5 years the will to keep training for so long without an income would I think deminish and the way teams change there would be less options for a rider that has been off the scene for 5 years.

FJS

DavMartinR wrote:

But if the ban was 5 years the will to keep training for so long without an income would I think deminish and the way teams change there would be less options for a rider that has been off the scene for 5 years.

So if the good thing about that would be that they would never return to pro-cycling, what would be the difference with a life ban?

TheCuriousOrange

Kléber wrote:

First, a life ban would be challenged in human rights courts as an excessive punishment. Legitimate mistakes over cold medicines would see people banned from their job because of this authoritarian law. Tough, you might say but human rights law would step in here to make the ban more lenient. It would certainly involve lengthy appeals and costly court appearances.

quote]

Good point but I'm not sure I totally agree. Certainly in the UK the position is that the Human Rights Act can only be relied upon in actions involving the state. E.g. if I am imprisoned for longer than is necessary, I might argue that my punishment is excessive.

Human Rights do not necessarily come into play in relations between private individuals. Say I get sacked from my job with a company not owned by the government (a dwindling number, it would seem ...), I cannot base a claim against my ex-employer on Human Rights grounds.

So, bearing that in mind, in the UK at least the position in cycling would be that a non-state organisation would not be liable in Human Rights law in repsect of punishments or policies it has in place.

Things might be different in other states but given that the Human Rights that we are generally talking about are those referred to in the European Convention, I would imagine that the position is essentially the same in Europe.

So, if there is no Human Rights bar to a lifetime ban, where does that leave us? I for one think that lifetime bans should certainly be available. Once a cheat, always a cheat. However, they should not be mandatory (e.g for the borderline cases where a cyclist took the wrong cold/flu remedy)

dave_1

guys/girls...can we all keep our posts as 3-4 sentences...huge essays as above do not work on here...I am guilty of them at times in past...5 sentences of 20 10 words max pls

dirk_van_gently

+1 ban em, no other option.
capitol punishment? that's a bit extreme even in my view :-)

Kléber

Good point Dave_1, I should be more concise and remember that some have short concentration spans Seriously, I agree with you though.

If people could also use the reply button and note quote someone's entire answer when picking up on one point.

Yorkman

Kléber wrote:

First, a life ban would be challenged in human rights courts as an excessive punishment. Legitimate mistakes over cold medicines would see people banned from their job because of this authoritarian law. Tough, you might say but human rights law would step in here to make the ban more lenient. It would certainly involve lengthy appeals and costly court appearances.

Second, I've posted this on here before but look beyond cycling and at other crimes. The death penalty in the US doesn't impact the murder rate very much. I'm on controversial ground but there is some evidence that in states where murderers are caught and punished quickly (whether jailed or executed) the murder rate is lower. This means criminals are not thinking of the punishment but more of the chance of being caught.

Back to cycling. If you're talented you can be a super-domestique on €100,000 a year or you can turn to blood doping and win a stage race and add a zero to your salary. Now imagine if there is a 1 in a 100 chance of being caught, you can try to set yourself up for life knowing you won't get caught or you can play by the rules. The temptation is there. Now change the odds from 1 in a 100 to 1 in 5, meaning you will get caught and banned for 2 years during your career, your name will be ruined. This will have a big effect, no?

So I'd suggest any money for legal challenges and more on a life ban should really be better spent on doping research, detection and intelligence. Even small steps could make a difference and remove blood doping, for example test a rider's haematocrit on the start line of a race, now six hours before the start of the race as the gap between testing and racing gives them plenty of time to infuse the infamous "800ml of packed cells". Just a time change in the doping could have caught many but we haven't even got to this.

But I would say if you are banned, you can get a one year ban of you co-operate and fill in a sheet naming who supplied you and who in the team knew. And if you test positive a second time for "serious" doping, like blood manipulation, then you face a four year ban.

In my profession, conviction of a criminal offence (except road traffic violations) means I lose my job for life.

it is no different for a cyclist, I know what my rules are and if I choose to ignore them and step outside, then I face the punishment and Court of Human Rights will help me.

Individuals can be excluded from races, like ASO did with the Astana team this year.

They'll soon lose the star salary and endorsements if they're not riding the premier events.

DavMartinR

FJS wrote:

DavMartinR wrote:

But if the ban was 5 years the will to keep training for so long without an income would I think deminish and the way teams change there would be less options for a rider that has been off the scene for 5 years.[

/quote] So if the good thing about that would be that they would never return to pro-cycling, what would be the difference with a life ban?

Exactly. But it doesn't sound so extreme as life ban? When human rights are being infringed.

But the doctors should be struck off for life.

dennisn

Schmidthouse wrote:

Our sport does not need them, it will flourish without them and will die if these cheats still a part of the system.

Ban them for life.

And off with their heads. :roll: :roll:
Three things.
1.) Explain what you mean by "our sport" i.e. who is this "our" you talk about?
2.) How will some people doing drugs kill cycling?
3.) Will any of us be allowed to ride our bikes after cycling dies?
Oh my god, that's it. Ban cycling and you will cure the world of drug problems. Why didn't
I think of it sooner. Thanks for setting me straight.

Dennis Noward

ride_whenever

My main issue with doping is the unfairness of it, because some people respond better to doping than others, otherwise i'd be all for legalising all doping and watching doped up supermen cycling at 35mph up the alps before their hearts explode.


Why not just monitor poweroutputs and heartrates as a measure, the only issue would be ensuring a clean starting point...

Jeff Jones

The Germans have asked for a minimum two year ban for Schuey: http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/g ... cher-18889

damage36

I plan to genetically manipulate myself a super child to to live our my cycling dreams. Sans dope ...

...sans morality too .

wildmoustache

chuckcork wrote:

In Oz drink driving is a criminal offence, and can lead to jail time, that doesn't stop people from doing it, and unlike the UK the 'booze busses' (mobile police blood testing units) are a well known sight, with blowing in the bag a fact of the culture. It doesn't stop people drink driving or drug driving, nor do the penalties, or do the bans or life bans stop people from driving. They are just programmed to ignore the rules.

?

I can't resist ... are you seriously suggesting that the existence of laws relating to drink-driving doesn't deter many people from drink-driving?

wildmoustache

I am not at all convinced by the argument that "human rights legislation" will make a life ban impractical as people won't be able to practice their profession. They have broken the rules of a profession that depends essentiallly on people adhering to rules. I do take the point though that life bans put people in a position where there are incentives to fight it and little incentives to shop others.

I'd like to see more flexibility around the bans, with bans of up to about 4 years. I'd also like to see stiffer financial penalities, including a deposit system meaning that professionals would only get their cash back if they retired clean.

skavanagh.bikeradar

How about getting the for 'sporting fraud'?

dennisn

Schmidthouse wrote:

So stop offering. Our sport does not need them, it will flourish without them and will die if these cheats still a part of the system.

Ban them for life.

Oh great seer of cycling. Knower of everything. I am at your feet in praise. Can you please tell us how much longer cycling will last. It's so full of cheats that it has to die,
just like you said. I need to know how many more sets of tires I will need before everyone
quits riding and replacement parts are a thing of the past. What do you think 5 or 6 years, 10 tops? I await your enlightened vision O great one.

Dennis Noward

Schmidthouse

Hey Dennis,

Just my thoughts on the matter.

If continued doping slows/stops sponsorship or teams and races - cycling as a sport will lose (or die).

And while I respect all the opinions (and all the letter was is my opinion) and comments in the thread - your sarcasm is really puerile.

dennisn

Schmidthouse wrote:

Hey Dennis,

Just my thoughts on the matter.

If continued doping slows/stops sponsorship or teams and races - cycling as a sport will lose (or die).

And while I respect all the opinions (and all the letter was is my opinion) and comments in the thread - your sarcasm is really puerile.

I've got to agree with you that my sarcasm is childish. Glad you understood that. If in fact you actually did. After all, it's only my opinion of you. It shouldn't bother you too much. You don't seem to mind writting in and calling other people dopers and morons, so I guess you won't mind me writting in and calling you an idiot. I mean, after all, all this letter is is my opinion. Or was that your quote?

Dennis Noward

Schmidthouse

Not at all Dennis, just as I can call you a puerile and sarcastic fool who seems happy mouthing off on forums without actually expressing his opinion.

I named two people - both are PROVEN dopers. I also called them and all other dopers morons and lying cheats. Which is my prerogative – just as I am sure you will now reply that its your prerogative to post more name calling.

Anyway, I am sure on your happy sun filled place in the world it makes you feel adequate and at peace - I am going to cease this stupid banter with you.

God forbid you should tell us all your thoughts on the ongoing doping issue or anything else related to cycling.

Trev36

wildmoustache wrote:

chuckcork wrote:

In Oz drink driving is a criminal offence, and can lead to jail time, that doesn't stop people from doing it, and unlike the UK the 'booze busses' (mobile police blood testing units) are a well known sight, with blowing in the bag a fact of the culture. It doesn't stop people drink driving or drug driving, nor do the penalties, or do the bans or life bans stop people from driving. They are just programmed to ignore the rules.

?

I can't resist ... are you seriously suggesting that the existence of laws relating to drink-driving doesn't deter many people from drink-driving?

No I don't think he is, just pointing out that there is always an element that will ignore the rules and do it regardless of any consequence. (and then there is the ones who are dumbed down by alcohol)