Cycling Weeklys angry response to Contadors win (TT Spoiler)

dave milne

that article isn't very well written but I am completely with the sentiment. It really took the gloss off the giro

dougzz

P_Tucker wrote:

Mr Dog wrote:

Sadly yes, but the clean rider is getting shafted. Fear is only way to control. Ban and lock em up along with the doctor.

Wrong. Plenty of research has been done in the realm of criminal law - more severe sentences don't act as a deterrent to any great extent - it's the likelihood of being caught that influences behaviour.

Mmmm http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13345189

You can pretty much find a study or research to support anything you want, doesn't mean a thing.

mididoctors

NapoleonD wrote:

Plus as P Tucker says, it's too easy to avoid detection at present, and then when detected, too easy to muddy the waters.

I disagree to a degree

one part of the problem is they keep getting caught..... if they could keep it out of the press 100% of the time the problem isn't there.


but you only have to fail once (out of how many doses?) to skew perceptions

even if you get bureaucrats to muddy up the issue for you.

contador has got away with it but still has fffked it all up.... even thou only o.oooooooooo whatever grams of clen was found

farcical....

rockmount

Tom Butcher wrote:

Why ? If he's not tested positive during the Giro and he was allowed to start the race why should he have that win taken from him ?

...but I'm not takin' anything now !

Tom Butcher

ok fair point - but it still seems a bit unfair taking wins off a rider for racing when he's actually been cleared of the charge as Contador has. OK so the way he's been cleared stinks but that's a different problem.

I just think if the punishment is 2 years then give him 2 years from the point of being found guilty - the real problem is the length of time that is taking.

Richrd2205

Contrary to some of the opinion in this thread, the peleton appear to be cleaner than ever. (bottom two posts)

The benefits are arguably now in doping smarter, as well as being a better responder...

NapD makes a very sound point: there are hundreds & hundreds of studies in criminology about what deters crime: folk vote for longer sentences; what works is fear of detection. Life bans are silly & potentially counter productive (what would the confidence level need to be in the biological passport in order to ban someone on first offence for life? How many folk would this let off?)
So severe sentences are popular, but serve no purpose at all, or an opposite one....
Detection & culture, however, achieve a lot....
If every magazine had the courage to run a piece akin to the CW one, cycling would improve....

P_Tucker

dougzz wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

Mr Dog wrote:

Sadly yes, but the clean rider is getting shafted. Fear is only way to control. Ban and lock em up along with the doctor.

Wrong. Plenty of research has been done in the realm of criminal law - more severe sentences don't act as a deterrent to any great extent - it's the likelihood of being caught that influences behaviour.

Mmmm http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13345189

You can pretty much find a study or research to support anything you want, doesn't mean a thing.

So does that mean if you can, for example, find 1000 studies to support one side of an argument and only 1 to support another, you should simply throw your hands up and say that you just don't know which one is almost certainly correct? How do you make decisions?

Besides, your link was RE the reoffending rate, which is not the same thing as the "offending rate". One might hypothesise that the REoffending rate lowers with longer sentences due to more time spent being rehabilitated whilst in prison, which is clearly not relevant to someone deciding whether or not to offend in the first place.

P_Tucker

mididoctors wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

Plus as P Tucker says, it's too easy to avoid detection at present, and then when detected, too easy to muddy the waters.

I disagree to a degree

one part of the problem is they keep getting caught..... if they could keep it out of the press 100% of the time the problem isn't there.


but you only have to fail once (out of how many doses?) to skew perceptions

even if you get bureaucrats to muddy up the issue for you.

contador has got away with it but still has fffked it all up.... even thou only o.oooooooooo whatever grams of clen was found

farcical....

They're still spectacularly unlikely to be caught. Lets not forget that Contador passed a test the day before AND the day after his positive in the Tour - and does anyone really believe his doping strategy was to inhale about 12 atoms of clenbuterol on one day only?

mididoctors

P_Tucker wrote:

They're still spectacularly unlikely to be caught. Lets not forget that Contador passed a test the day before AND the day after his positive in the Tour - and does anyone really believe his doping strategy was to inhale about 12 atoms of clenbuterol on one day only?

thats sort of my point

getting tested a lot means passing 99.9% of the tests counts for nothing


look at the number of podium positives from GTs in the 5 years or so

you are more likely to have a positive test on the podium than not

how that translates into a cleaner peloton s unclear as of yet.... but you would think it would?

Cumulonimbus

P_Tucker wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

Plus as P Tucker says, it's too easy to avoid detection at present, and then when detected, too easy to muddy the waters.

I disagree to a degree

one part of the problem is they keep getting caught..... if they could keep it out of the press 100% of the time the problem isn't there.


but you only have to fail once (out of how many doses?) to skew perceptions

even if you get bureaucrats to muddy up the issue for you.

contador has got away with it but still has fffked it all up.... even thou only o.oooooooooo whatever grams of clen was found

farcical....

They're still spectacularly unlikely to be caught. Lets not forget that Contador passed a test the day before AND the day after his positive in the Tour - and does anyone really believe his doping strategy was to inhale about 12 atoms of clenbuterol on one day only?

He actually tested positive on four occasions in the final week although them being close together means they are considered as one positive.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contado ... uterol-ban

rick_chasey

The cycling weekly editor has made the odd inappropriate rant at car drivers in his editorials which was the final nail in the coffin for that magazine for me.

I'm not too surprised the editor's let that one get published too.


The guys there need to chill out a bit.


Edit: A classic example from the editor's blog

BikingBernie

mididoctors wrote:

look at the number of podium positives from GTs in the 5 years or so

you are more likely to have a positive test on the podium than not

how that translates into a cleaner peloton s unclear as of yet.... but you would think it would?

Then again...

AUSTIN, TX—Embattled seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong held a press conference this morning to sternly reiterate that during his career he passed every easy-to-mask, ineffective doping test he was ever given. “Let me be entirely clear about this: I, like the hundreds of obviously juiced cyclists who also passed them, never failed one of those shitty tests that you can basically learn how to beat by reading Internet message boards,” Armstrong said.

http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/artic ... tty,20612/

Yes, I know it is a spoof...

P_Tucker

Cumulonimbus wrote:

He actually tested positive on four occasions in the final week although them being close together means they are considered as one positive.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contado ... uterol-ban

Well butter my arse. The internet lied to me. I stand corrected.

Ben6899

Poor journalism. Give me the facts and let me make up my own mind whether the sport is in a sorry state or whether Bjarne Riis knowingly runs a non-clean team. Can the journo really suggest that about Riis without landing the magazine in hot water?

It reads like my blog, but then again I don't get paid to write and I'm entitled to twist the facts to satisfy my own muse! I guess the journo must have had a pony at Betfair on a Scarponi win.

Salsiccia

Pretty hopeless article. How can he expect Contador to pull out of racing, or his team to pull him out racing, if he believes he's innocent? And if Contador know's he's not innocent, then wouldn't pulling out be a tacit admission of guilt? Until he's banned he has the right to race. That is enshrined in the rules, and whether we like it or not, believe he's innocent or not, until due process is carried out the RCS/ASO/etc have to let him ride if they don't want a legal challenge.

And I do hope he has some sort of evidence to back his suspicion about Riis' team, because I'm sure what he's written borders on libel unless he has proof.

calvjones

Salsiccia wrote:

Pretty hopeless article. How can he expect Contador to pull out of racing, or his team to pull him out racing, if he believes he's innocent? And if Contador know's he's not innocent, then wouldn't pulling out be a tacit admission of guilt? Until he's banned he has the right to race. That is enshrined in the rules, and whether we like it or not, believe he's innocent or not, until due process is carried out the RCS/ASO/etc have to let him ride if they don't want a legal challenge.

And I do hope he has some sort of evidence to back his suspicion about Riis' team, because I'm sure what he's written borders on libel unless he has proof.

Managing to get the CAS hearing delayed seems to me a tacit admission of guilt.

BikingBernie

Clentador's game plan seems to be to delay any final hearing, in the meantime getting in some really big wins. It seems he is doing this in the belief that no one will be willing to over-rule the Spanish cycling federation's true-to form refusal to impose the rules of the sport, largely because by then it would have 'too big a negative impact' on the sport.

cajun_cyclist

I guess it has been in the news from posts I have read here but I did see the news story: on Lance Armstrong, former President George Bush and the 15 veterans taking a bike ride. It was part endurance. Also the news story did indeed have Armstrong talking to the veterans saying something like "You all are the real heroes", I am sure the video will show up on youtube, in fact, it seems there already is some kind up but probably not the video I saw. One of the Veteran cyclists had a prosthetic for his leg, these were war vets. I tried to follow the story, the 2nd day actually was a bit of an endurance ride. The first day I think was relatively easy. Looks like they were using mountain bikes. I don't know what happened after the 2nd day. They were riding in the Big Ben country.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?sec ... id=6438477

This is a bit off topic from this thread but not BB's avatar so instead of making a whole new thread, I'd just place it here.

RichN95.

cajun_cyclist wrote:

IThis is a bit off topic from this thread but not BB's avatar so instead of making a whole new thread, I'd just place it here.

Oh for god's sake, don't encourage him.

iainf72

RichN95 wrote:

cajun_cyclist wrote:

IThis is a bit off topic from this thread but not BB's avatar so instead of making a whole new thread, I'd just place it here.

Oh for god's sake, don't encourage him.

Don't you ever read your PM's?

squired

If Contador is eventually banned I would prefer his ban to start on the date of the decision. If they simply give him a two year ban and cancel all results from the last year it means people have been robbed of wins/podiums (getting them after the fact will never be the same). Also and more importantly, it means he would have spent a large amount of his "Ban" getting high quality training in a race environment. Part of the punishment of a ban should be the amount of time you are out of competition.

Lets say, for the sake of argument that they ban him for 18 months, from last year's Tour. Yes, he loses his results from the last 18 months, but he essentially finishes his season when he would have finished it anyway and can start again in 2012 without any actual interruption to his schedule.

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

cajun_cyclist wrote:

IThis is a bit off topic from this thread but not BB's avatar so instead of making a whole new thread, I'd just place it here.

Oh for god's sake, don't encourage him.

Don't you ever read your PM's?

No. I hadn't realised I'd got any. Maybe it's because the e-mail address in my profile is out of date. (edit: In fact, I realise it's because I've got the Forum and Cakestop bookmarked as they the only places I go, so never see the main forum index).

I've just had a read now. (interesting - even if it is largely meaningless to me)

moray_gub

squired wrote:

If Contador is eventually banned I would prefer his ban to start on the date of the decision. If they simply give him a two year ban and cancel all results from the last year it means people have been robbed of wins/podiums (getting them after the fact will never be the same). Also and more importantly, it means he would have spent a large amount of his "Ban" getting high quality training in a race environment. Part of the punishment of a ban should be the amount of time you are out of competition.

Lets say, for the sake of argument that they ban him for 18 months, from last year's Tour. Yes, he loses his results from the last 18 months, but he essentially finishes his season when he would have finished it anyway and can start again in 2012 without any actual interruption to his schedule.

As far as i am concerned once he started to race again then he should lose the right to have it backdated. Two years from the date of the guilty verdict for me.

No_Ta_Doctor

mididoctors wrote:

Cumulonimbus wrote:

Why them?

.

totally unjustified guesswork forms the central component of my ironclad hypothesis

That is a world class line. I'm nicking it.