Ban ex dopers from managing teams?

No_Ta_Doctor

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/8491/ ... teams.aspx

I've got a fair amount of sympathy for the stance, I don't feel comfortable with ex riders who were immersed in the dark arts of doping directing teams, as it's clear there is at least potential for them to pass on their knowledge.

But I can't help thinking it might be counter-productive; it eliminates the possibility of a reformed doper working as team manager and would make it very hard for a rider with ambitions of managing to come clean.

Perhaps it might be more beneficial to penalise teams for the doping indiscretions of their riders, providing a larger incentive for teams to ensure clean practices?

What are the current rules regarding penalties for a team when one of its riders is caught, where it can't be established that the management was involved?

LangerDan

What about former dopers in roles other than the actual "team managers"
- directeurs sportive, coaches etc.

Also does this discriminate against former dopers who have confessed (even if it was in a "f__ you, what are you going to do about it?" style like Riis) as opposed to others who have just danced around the edges of an explicit admission, like Vaughters.

rick_chasey

Who would be qualified to do it then?

No_Ta_Doctor

Well firstly the ban won't and can't be retroactive. So Riis still gets to keep his job.
I've no idea how the UCI would work the ban. What would there be to stop a team putting a puppet in as manager and hiring an external consultant to do the actual work?

It does also feel a little arbitrary in that so many cyclists doped but only the ones caught would be banned.

To make it have any chance of succeeding there would have to be some sort of amnesty first: fess up and you won't risk having your licence withdrawn.


Which brings me back to my question - can teams currently be held accountable for the doping indiscretions of their riders? If not, why not?

LangerDan

Rick Chasey wrote:

Who would be qualified to do it then?

I'd just leave the current set-up alone.
I don't think its a practical or fair proposal. There are several former dopers working in roles outside of team manager - why should a manager get the bullet but his DS holds onto his job?. Plus there are so many team personnel with "previous" that you cannot get rid of them all and still hope to function

I think the best you can hope for is apply sanctions going forward, so team management know what they can expect if there is a failure on their watch.

disgruntledgoat

Like, for example, suspending any team with 3 positives in a year? Oh, hang on...

No_Ta_Doctor

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Like, for example, suspending any team with 3 positives in a year? Oh, hang on...

Is that an actual UCI policy?

I'm ignorant here, though I'm detecting a touch of sarcasm in your post....

Is there anything before a suspension? Loss of ranking points? Financial penalty?

rick_chasey

Surely with management the issue is about their role in the doping chain rather than whether they had needles stuck in them or not?

Manolo Saiz wasn't even a proper pro rider was he?

disgruntledgoat

the 3 positives rule was part of the original Pro-Tour set up I thought, until Lampre struck out last year (?) and it was convinienetly ignored.

As to Saiz, I don't think he was ever an athlete of any note, as his physique will testify.

No_Ta_Doctor

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surely with management the issue is about their role in the doping chain rather than whether they had needles stuck in them or not?

Manolo Saiz wasn't even a proper pro rider was he?

So to sum up opinion...

It's

Ineffective
Unworkable
Unjust

andyp

disgruntledgoat wrote:

the 3 positives rule was part of the original Pro-Tour set up I thought, until Lampre struck out last year (?) and it was convinienetly ignored.

As to Saiz, I don't think he was ever an athlete of any note, as his physique will testify.

It's not always easy to tell;

LangerDan

andyp wrote:

[

Cav's had a shave?

dougzz

I won't do a big self righteous bit, but Pat was happy to break a sanction trying to bring apartheid South Africa to it's senses, I think he should consider his position, and the gravity of his offence before he starts dictating to others.

ms_tree

Dougzz that thought crossed my mind as well.
Also his idea would preclude Kelly and (horror) Merckx would'nt it?
Bring on the European human rights act IMHO!

P_Tucker

No tA Doctor wrote:

It does also feel a little arbitrary in that so many cyclists doped but only the ones caught would be banned.

Indeed, but how is this different to say cyclists who are still actually riding, or (taking a step back) any application of justice whatsoever? Dunno about you, but I've gone over 70mph on the motorway more than 4 times in the last month but I still have a driving licence.

jerry3571

To be honest I have a problem with the Liquigas manager as me and my family travelled a long way to see the Leeds Classic race years ago and we found he was doping soon afterwards. I'm still a little bit peeved about it and think he doesn't encourage clean bike racing;
STAND UP MR VOLPI!!!! What a waster!!!!!!!!!!!



-Jerry

No_Ta_Doctor

P_Tucker wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

It does also feel a little arbitrary in that so many cyclists doped but only the ones caught would be banned.

Indeed, but how is this different to say cyclists who are still actually riding, or (taking a step back) any application of justice whatsoever? Dunno about you, but I've gone over 70mph on the motorway more than 4 times in the last month but I still have a driving licence.

While true, there is a difference. Cyclists that are caught are banned, as they're cheating at what they do. Managers that were caught doping as cyclists aren't (at least not on that basis).

As far as I can see it's just a PR stunt.

ms_tree

Isn't it better to have people who went through the bad days but now know how to do it in a cleaner way now? Take Riis who admitted he did wrong but has now bought a different way of working to his team. After all, we don't know if riders were forced to dope or did it of their own free will. How many of us could stand up to wholesale bullying?

dougzz

Ms Tree wrote:

Isn't it better to have people who went through the bad days but now know how to do it in a cleaner way now? Take Riis who admitted he did wrong but has now bought a different way of working to his team. After all, we don't know if riders were forced to dope or did it of their own free will. How many of us could stand up to wholesale bullying?

So Riis really thinks Bertie ate a bad steak? Franks payment to Fuentes? If he's brought a different way it's certainly eluding me.