Saturday question (ok, it's dopage related)

iainf72

If you were in charge of the UCI and there was a rider who 4 years ago was doping and you had evidence of it, but in the last 2 years the passport data has shown they've been playing fair, would you

a) Open a case
b) Not open a case and follow up on people at it now

Discuss.

I get the impression this is something the UCI is probably faced with at the moment.

ms_tree

Definitely B.
What's past is past. If he's playing fair now then leave it alone. It may well be that he didn't have much of an option in the past. Peer pressue and all that. Otherwise half the peloton would be under investigation!

BikingBernie

Can't we have a 'C' option?

C: Open a case and also follow up on people at it now.

finchy

Good question.

I say B. Seeing as the cycling authorities were sitting on their hands for a long time, it could be argued that cyclists felt they had little choice but to dope.

If they clean up their act, then I say forgive and nearly forget.

I say nearly forget - I would inform the rider that I know what they were doing, and any further transgressions would mean two doping cases rather than one, therefore a lifetime ban. This would also have the effect of letting the cyclist know that the authorities are catching up with the dopers.

takethehighroad

Definately the second. One of the points of banning them is to make them realise the error of their ways (a la Millar) and if they've already realised the error of their ways and changed accordingly, then surely that's job done.

Got a certain rider in mind Iain?

BikingBernie

Consider an analogous situation. There is swindler who for years cheated people out of their money, at times even costing some people their livelihood. This swindler has now got an 'honest' job, albeit living rather comfortably off his ill-gotten gains. Would everyone be so keen to say 'the past is the past' in this case? Dopers aren't much different, as they robbed clean riders of the rewards that should have been theirs.

cougie

I'd go for B.

If they're putting their efforts into offences years back - then how will they be on the ball for the current situation ?

We know the past was bad. If you strip one rider of a win - you'll almost certainly be giving it to another rider who had doped.

emadden

B... The rider would appear to have turned the corner so to speak... What use would bringing this up now do only drag the sport through the poo again... I would mark the rider for more random scrutiny etc

JackCB

I'd say open a case.

Of course, if opening a case on a rider who doped in the past meant that you let riders who dope at the moment get away with it, then drop the case. It's always going to be more important to catch the people who are cheating now than to catch riders who are now clean but who were dirty in the past. So if that's what you mean by your question - chase people cheating now or chase people who cheated in the past - then I think the answer's pretty clear.

But assuming that you're asking whether riders who stopped doping should be investigated, despite the fact that they no longer dope, then I would have to say yes. I don't think the 'he's learned the error of his ways argument' really works. Yes, the practice of disciplining drugs cheats is aimed in part at encouraging them to not cheat in future (although you could argue for a zero tolerance, banned for life policy towards dopers, that doesn't seem fair or necessary to me - see David Millar). But that's not the only reason to punish riders. The hypothetical rider may have done the right thing in stopping doping, but he's hardly a great moral example, he didn't admit to his crime and so he hasn't done his time for it. He's 'got away with' doping, even if he has come to realise that it's wrong.

But the strongest argument for exposing the hypothetical rider is all the clean riders (assuming for the sake of argument that such riders do exist) that our hypothetical rider has cheated out of wins while doping. If you opened a case then you might be able to disqualify the rider from races in which you could show he'd been doping.

secretsqirrel

BikingBernie wrote:

Consider an analogous situation. There is swindler who for years cheated people out of their money, at times even costing some people their livelihood. This swindler has now got an 'honest' job, albeit living rather comfortably off his ill-gotten gains. Would everyone be so keen to say 'the past is the past' in this case? Dopers aren't much different, as they robbed clean riders of the rewards that should have been theirs.

I appreciate the logic. But we don't know who the clean riders are who have been robbed? If any?

Tom Butcher

I think I'd open a case against them. If you have evidence that a current pro was doping then you have to follow that up - otherwise where do you draw the line - 6 months, 12 months ?

mididoctors

A) but offer reduced sanctions if they fess up

jim one

Who are you thinking of Iain?? Not picking on poor Micky Rodgers again are you?!!!

I can think of several riders who perhaps come in this catergory....both who had a battle for young riders jersey in the tour. These who you are thinking???

deejay

emadden wrote:

B... The rider would appear to have turned the corner so to speak... What use would bringing this up now do only drag the sport through the poo again... I would mark the rider for more random scrutiny etc

I'm for the case to be opened. That was the question you asked.

Now you would only open a "File" if you have evidence and like all investigations it would be a crime to throw evidence away.
There being no recent evidence then the file can be left in abayance and the rider warned of it's existence and that it will be re-opened if they have anything to add that is recent. Proceedings would then apply to the whole case file.

I would hope that the extreme position (and good luck to them) that "Israel" takes would be impractable with Sportsmen/women but like the case of Telekom they cannot just ignore their past without any stain.

stagehopper

I'd invite the rider in for a cosy chat, present the evdience to him and ask for cooperation. If he decided not to I'd open a case.

finchy

If the authorities of a sport decide to turn a blind eye to doping, as the UCI did in the past, then riders are faced with one of the following options:

1) Dope knowing that nearly everyone else is doping, so creating a level playing field.
2) Dope knowing that others AREN'T doping, so gaining an advantage.
3) Don't dope, in the knowledge that nobody else is doping.
4) Don't dope and go into racers at a disadvantage because everyone else does.
5) Quit the sport and do something else.

We all know by now just how widespread the practice was (is?), so obviously options 2 and 3 are out.

That leaves 1, 4 and 5. Assuming they don't want to quit the sport, they are then left with dope, which would put them on a level playing field, or don't dope, which would mean being at a disadvantage.

This being the case, I don't really attach the blame to the riders for doping (although I do wish a few more would speak out against it), I would instead blame the authorities, organisers, teams and doctors.

Kléber

Does the UCI have a choice? The statute of limitations is 8 years and so any infringement during this period should be reviewed and if in breach of the doping regulations, a case should be brought.

One of the worst aspects of cycling at the moment is the way Pat McQuaid and the UCI seem to be caught in their own "moral maze", taking decisions not on the basis of rules and regulations but whims and conveniences. The whole point of the rules is to take the decision away from the UCI (or us in this thread).

Yes it might be harsh on our lone rider here but the sport needs to respect the rules for once, too often we're making up the rules as we go along. If the UCI or WADA rules say open a case, then this is what should be done.

iainf72

Kléber wrote:

One of the worst aspects of cycling at the moment is the way Pat McQuaid and the UCI seem to be caught in their own "moral maze", taking decisions not on the basis of rules and regulations but whims and conveniences. The whole point of the rules is to take the decision away from the UCI (or us in this thread).

That is true but the UCI apply rules in their own ways.

I'm not sure which side I fall on this one. Especially if you start looking at the financial angle. If it's a big name with lots of money it could be costly to go after a case. And the UCI are trying to grow the sport and keep sponsors.

Further proof sport governing bodies should have nothing to do with anti-doping.

GyatsoLa

Perhaps someone can confirm if I'm right in this, but I think if you are sure someone was using EPO in the past, then the passport isn't a great guide as the 'baseline' haem might be artificially high. So in this case, 'letting bygones be bygones' might actually be helping someone disguise microdosing.

While my first instinct is to say that if someone is genuinely clean now, there is no point of investigating them, I'd be worried that this would set a precedent for young ambitious riders to think 'oh, I can dope for a year or two, get myself a good contract, then go clean before the authorities start looking too closely at me'.

nick hanson

What about the case of,someone,in 1999,winning a 3 week tour,then the Labs inadvertantly releasing,recently,that said winner actually retrospectively tested positive for EPO.
Should this rider not have been prevented from even starting this years edition of said race???

iainf72

There is an 8 year statute of limitations in place. Hence someone like Zabel's confession not amounting to a ban or anything.

Tom Butcher

For those that think we shouldn't go after them - what if they develop a test in 2 years time to detect a new drug that came to light - one that had been used in the 2009 tour - or maybe a better test for microdosing with existing drugs - should they then just say forget it it's over with ? If we aren't going to pursue cases from a few years ago then it weakens the threat that samples may be stored and tested retrospectively when new tests are developed.

finchy

Tom Butcher wrote:

For those that think we shouldn't go after them - what if they develop a test in 2 years time to detect a new drug that came to light - one that had been used in the 2009 tour - or maybe a better test for microdosing with existing drugs - should they then just say forget it it's over with ? If we aren't going to pursue cases from a few years ago then it weakens the threat that samples may be stored and tested retrospectively when new tests are developed.

It's a fair point, but you could also argue that because so much more is being done about doping these days, then cyclists are doping to gain an unfair advantage over the rest of the field, rather than in the past when it would have been to put themselves back on a level footing.

As I said in a previous post, I don't believe it is fair to blame the cyclists when the UCI and other authorities were pretty much allowing a situation to develop in which riders may have felt compelled to dope just to compete.

I would not say the same about today, so harsher measures resulting from retrospective testing would be much more justified.

nick hanson

GyatsoLa wrote:

While my first instinct is to say that if someone is genuinely clean now, there is no point of investigating them, I'd be worried that this would set a precedent for young ambitious riders to think 'oh, I can dope for a year or two, get myself a good contract, then go clean before the authorities start looking too closely at me'.

Would that be like the guy who won a 3 week stage race,in 1999,& retrospectively testing positive for EPO,much to Jean Marie LeBlanc's chagrin.
Would you allow him to ride this years edition????

GyatsoLa

nick hanson wrote:

GyatsoLa wrote:

While my first instinct is to say that if someone is genuinely clean now, there is no point of investigating them, I'd be worried that this would set a precedent for young ambitious riders to think 'oh, I can dope for a year or two, get myself a good contract, then go clean before the authorities start looking too closely at me'.

Would that be like the guy who won a 3 week stage race,in 1999,& retrospectively testing positive for EPO,much to Jean Marie LeBlanc's chagrin.
Would you allow him to ride this years edition????

I certainly wouldn't let him run a team....