Welcoming back previous suspended riders?

donrhummy
donrhummy Posts: 2,329
edited October 2009 in Pro race
Since Rasmussen has served his suspension and is coming back, it made me think: if he follows all the rules this time and never fails (or misses) a drug test, will you welcome him back? Would you ever cheer for him again?

Comments

  • takethehighroad
    takethehighroad Posts: 6,821
    I said the first one, but only if he showed that he was fully reformed, and there's no definate moment for everyone for me as to when I'd forgive them. For example, Rasmussen would take a lot longer for me than David Millar, or even Basso.

    I'm not gonna argue my point because I know it's a contentious one which I don't expect loads of people to agree with, but I just have my own reasons for how long it would take...
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    I've never cheered the chicken and never will. Anyonw who was too filthy for CSC is beyond redemption.

    Also, as he was hiring out his blood centrifuge recently you can hardly think he's "reformed"

    But within the rules he can come back and that's all that really matters. He broke the rules, was punished and now is back.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • intothe12
    intothe12 Posts: 190
    a pre-requisite is that they must admit their guilt.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    intothe12 wrote:
    a pre-requisite is that they must admit their guilt.

    I think thats a non starter what if a rider thinks he is not guilty , you want them to admit to it just to appease cycling fans ? Whether they admit to it or not should have no bearing on whether they are allowed back imo.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    intothe12 wrote:
    a pre-requisite is that they must admit their guilt.

    So Rassmussen is ok as he admitted his guilt?
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Moray Gub wrote:
    intothe12 wrote:
    a pre-requisite is that they must admit their guilt.

    I think thats a non starter what if a rider thinks he is not guilty , you want them to admit to it just to appease cycling fans ? Whether they admit to it or not should have no bearing on whether they are allowed back imo.

    I'm with MG on this. I know "gee, what a surprise". They say confession is good for the soul but forcing people to confess and / or apologise seems, to me, at best, an odd
    request. Seems like people put too many conditions on this admission of guilt or apology. Things like "well, he has to show me that he means it", "can we really trust him",
    "he has to be serious looking", etc., etc. There is no way that these guys are going to appease all the demands of the "outraged fans" and, to be honest, I don't think they have to. If it was me I wouldn't even try. It's pretty much a lose / lose situation when you're trying to please all the people, all the time. From an observers standpoint I would guess it would be best to simply go about your business and if people accept you, fine, if they don't, well, continue to go about your business.
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    I suppose in a way I agree with Moray Gub and Dennis, not about the fact that a rider might believe himself innocent if he has doped, but there really is absolutely no value in a forced apology.
  • mididoctors
    mididoctors Posts: 18,908
    depends on who it is..I'm biased
    "If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm
  • richard wants a baum
    richard wants a baum Posts: 744
    Depends Ricco admitted his guilt but i dont think i be cheering for him when his back, but i think its does come down to ones own perception of how much that particular rider is likely to just go back to doing what he did before. Vino is a perfect example denied all, had a hissy fit and decided to retire, tried to bend rules to get a 1 year ban then came pack shouting 'My Team, My Team ' not the kinda guy im glad to see back in the peloton. Basso while i dont believe the i only planned on doping story is a bit different as he seems to understand that he know has to prove his doing the right thing and working withe the right people (Sassi , profiles on line etc.) .
    Take care of the luxuries and the necessites will take care of themselves.
  • afx237vi
    afx237vi Posts: 12,630
    mididoctors wrote:
    depends on who it is..I'm biased

    This.

    All riders should be allowed back after they've served their ban, but whether they should be welcomed back is a different kettle of fish altogether.

    Only their words and actions will make fans decide to cheer them on or not.
  • LangerDan
    LangerDan Posts: 6,132
    I don't want an apology from Rasmussen. What would be nice is an explanation for why, earlier on this year, he was reportedly using the blood centrifuge he co-owns and which has been implicated in the Kohl / Matschiner doping investigation. As far as I'm aware (though I am open to correction on this) the only reason to be using it is the manipulation of his blood profile in advance of a return to competition.

    Or maybe he was just using it to tumble-dry his clothes.
    'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'
  • micron
    micron Posts: 1,843
    It's a curious thing with sport isn't it? You commit an offense, serve the ban and back to business. Can't imagine someone who'd been convicted of fraud being allowed their old job in a bank. But, hey ho, them's the rules
  • PinkBianchi
    PinkBianchi Posts: 63
    I think the only thing that might stop doping is if you get caught you get banned for life AND you'll have to pay back alot of money that you've earned.
    Now you get caught and get a couple of years off racing whilst you train and find new ways to dope and make some more money.
  • Moomaloid
    Moomaloid Posts: 2,040
    Until the UCI grow some balls and instill a life ban, we'll never really make an impact on doping...
  • donrhummy
    donrhummy Posts: 2,329
    Moomaloid wrote:
    Until the UCI grow some balls and instill a life ban, we'll never really make an impact on doping...

    This will have no effect just as the death penalty doesn't stop people from committing murders. If it did, places with the death penalty would have a LOT fewer (or no) murders, but that is not the case.

    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterre ... rder-rates
    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... bbe2f.html
  • The Prodigy
    The Prodigy Posts: 832
    donrhummy wrote:
    Moomaloid wrote:
    Until the UCI grow some balls and instill a life ban, we'll never really make an impact on doping...

    This will have no effect just as the death penalty doesn't stop people from committing murders. If it did, places with the death penalty would have a LOT fewer (or no) murders, but that is not the case.

    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterre ... rder-rates
    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... bbe2f.html

    I'm not sure this is the best comparison. I would say doping is more like gambling. Maybe having to put the whole career and career earnings on the line might make people think twice. Personally I wouldn't gamble with my future in that way.

    As for the issue of whether returning riders need to apologise/ show remorse. It is in their best interests to create the best public image possible, to make themselves as marketable as possible, make as much money as possible. Thats why the like of the Chicken shoot themselves in the foot.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    The Prodigy wrote:
    I'm not sure this is the best comparison. I would say doping is more like gambling. Maybe having to put the whole career and career earnings on the line might make people think twice. Personally I wouldn't gamble with my future in that way.

    What if your earning potential was 10x greater and the chances of getting away with it were 97%?

    A lot of these life ban arguments assume you can perform at the same level sans dope.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,726
    Along the sameish lines as Iain.
    Any life ban argument falls flat, unless there can be a guarrantee that testing is 100% effective, 100% of the time.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • The Prodigy
    The Prodigy Posts: 832
    iainf72 wrote:
    The Prodigy wrote:
    I'm not sure this is the best comparison. I would say doping is more like gambling. Maybe having to put the whole career and career earnings on the line might make people think twice. Personally I wouldn't gamble with my future in that way.

    What if your earning potential was 10x greater and the chances of getting away with it were 97%?

    A lot of these life ban arguments assume you can perform at the same level sans dope.

    Who says doping will make me 10x more money? Would you not have to take the gamble that doping actually works for you? You could dope, see marginal gains, get caught, be completely screwed. Its not as simple as ' take this, win the TDF'

    So I don't think anyone is assuming same level of performance and dope, but you are assuming dope and perform better. You can't assume either. Thats part of the gamble.
    A gamble that is much bigger if you have the threat of a life ban.
  • SpaceJunk
    SpaceJunk Posts: 1,157
    afx237vi wrote:
    mididoctors wrote:
    depends on who it is..I'm biased

    This.

    All riders should be allowed back after they've served their ban, but whether they should be welcomed back is a different kettle of fish altogether.

    Only their words and actions will make fans decide to cheer them on or not.

    ^ + 1[/b]

Categories