Why 2 yearsfor doping?

beelzebozo
beelzebozo Posts: 10
edited October 2009 in Pro race
Are the controls not exact enough that they can be confident in banning a rider for longer. Have doping bans ever been overturned after the B sample is tested? Or is it purely "political"?

I truly believe the 2 year ban is not an effective deterrent for doping in cycling.

Comments

  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    Two years is the WADA recommendation for a first offence.

    I don't have a problem with the length of the ban, I have a problem with the rate of detection.

    If they could catch every rider who doped then a two week ban would be enough because the rider would always be caught and never able to race.

    Many riders dope knowing the chances of getting caught are next to nothing, some riders have had full careers without testing positive or others have probably been on the "hot sauce" for a decade and only get rumbled by accident, for example Rebellin.
  • beelzebozo
    beelzebozo Posts: 10
    I agree, the rate of detection is the main issue. however, to change that you need more money, more advanced techniques etc so that's not really something you can change overnight,...and extremely costly.

    If riders received a life ban for a first offence I think a lot of people would think twice about doing it. What case do WADA make as to why a life ban isn't a viable ban?
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    beelzebozo wrote:
    I

    If riders received a life ban for a first offence I think a lot of people would think twice about doing it. What case do WADA make as to why a life ban isn't a viable ban?

    Do you steal or kill? Why? Because of the punishment? I doubt it.

    2 years is plenty - A ban is not a deterrant, it's a punishment. If you can't perform at the same level without dope, you will dope to keep going. If you've passed 70 or 80 tests you're pretty confident you don't need to worry.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • beelzebozo
    beelzebozo Posts: 10
    Why do you claim 2 years is plenty? Why not 4 or 5?
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    beelzebozo wrote:
    Why do you claim 2 years is plenty? Why not 4 or 5?

    Because that's the rules.

    You suggested its supposed to be a deterant. I was just stating its not supposed to be, its a punishment.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    TDF started refusing to dispense drugs to riders in the 1950s, by 1988 there was a 10 minute penalty for doping-which rooks 2nd on GC 88 said he'd throw away by pulling up road side in the next stages if it was appliled to Delgado. Now it is a 2 years ban -quite a change. Life bans are needed now
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2V ... ata_player
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,726
    Dave_1 wrote:
    TDF started refusing to dispense drugs to riders in the 1950s, by 1988 there was a 10 minute penalty for doping-which rooks 2nd on GC 88 said he'd throw away by pulling up road side in the next stages if it was appliled to Delgado. Now it is a 2 years ban -quite a change. Life bans are needed now

    Nah, Dave, now come on, get it right.
    Doping at the Tour and tested by the French:
    Life ban for Arsetana, two weeks for the rest! :P :wink:
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    Two years is about the max as beyond this the idea is that you start to stray into territory that can be challenged on human rights grounds, or so the argument goes.

    As Dave_1 shows, things have tightened up a lot. Even in the early 1990s riders were getting caught but somehow managing to defer their hearings until mid-September and then taking a 6 month ban, meaning they were banned from racing... during the winter.

Categories