David Millar

Yossie

Bomps: I'm not trolling - why is that anyone who doesn't share your views is trolling?

Yes - I take the pisss occasionally when it is deserved, but if you go back to my very early posts you'll see that I have maintained the same viewpoint: you dope, you get banned and don't come pedalling back for pity.

However, it seems that my morale viewpoint is wrong (especially as it concerns someone Scottish who Douche wants on the team - although the rest of the team, errrrr, don't). So I'm with Bomps on this one. Bring back Millar. He said sorry, so its all cool. And never mind the atmosphere in the team when Dopey walks in, walks up to Wiggo, Hoy, the delicious Vioctoria and says "so, you have aproblem with me being here?".

greasedscotsman

Yossie wrote:

And never mind the atmosphere in the team when Dopey walks in, walks up to Wiggo, Hoy, the delicious Vioctoria and says "so, you have aproblem with me being here?".

Cavendish doesn't seem to have a problem with him.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 83273.html

DrKJM

Yossie wrote:

However, it seems that my morale viewpoint is wrong (especially as it concerns someone Scottish who Douche wants on the team - although the rest of the team, errrrr, don't). So I'm with Bomps on this one. Bring back Millar. He said sorry, so its all cool. And never mind the atmosphere in the team when Dopey walks in, walks up to Wiggo, Hoy, the delicious Vioctoria and says "so, you have aproblem with me being here?".

Your viewpoint is not wrong, and nor is my disagreement with it based upon the fact that David Millar is a Scot. However, what you've done is given a clear and emotional statement of what you believe but not *why* you believe it. Your point about team dynamics is interesting but I think in this instance irrelevant. I don't believe for one moment that personal animosity hasn't reared its head before in GB sports teams but the athletes have to ignore that in order to do their job. Were Millar to be selected this would be no different.

So, *why* should people be banned for life? And why only for drugs offences?

laurentian

There is NO WAY any athlete should be allowed back into the sport after two years of being found guilty of a doping offence.

I have spent many years keeping fit (running, weights, pilates, eating properly and now cycling) in order that I can continue to compete in my chosen sport of Rugby.

If I were to stop all of this tonight and do nothing for, say, 12 months and then started to train again with someone of the same age who had done nothing ever, genetic differences notwithstanding, its a fair assumption that I would get to a higher level of fitness in a shorter period of time than the other chap.

I have gained physical advantage through my efforts in the past that will have a bearing on my performance in the present.

If an 18 year old athlete trains with the aid of steroids or EPO, etc etc for two years he will "develop" faster and be physically superior to one of his peers who has not doped.

If the doping athlete is then banned from competition for two years, gets clean and continues to train at the same intensity as the none doping athlete for the length of his ban, all other things being equal, who do you think will be the superior athlete?

It will obviously be the doper.

He has gained physical advantage from his doping in the past that has a bearing on his performance in the present.

Not only is this grossly unfair on clean athletes, it is an attractive proposition to any ambitious athlete in their teens/early 20s. A athlete with a two year ban at age 24 (after gaining the advantage of perhaps 6 years drug abuse) can be cleared to compete at 26 with potentially more than 10 years of a career ahead of them.

I cannot pretend to have anything like the technical knowledge of WADA, the IOC and their ilk but simple logic tells me that they are either:

a) not thinking this through to its natural conclusion
or
b) don't care.

The natural conclusion? There will be (note, will be) coaches and athletes who do the sums above. Train on dope, compete on dope. If you get away with it, great, you'll win and be a national hero. If you get caught you'll continue to train (perhaps remaining on dope as you won't be in competition and may not be tested) and come back two years later, compete, win and become a national hero. This will become the norm - to a degree it already is. Can someone name an Olympic 100m champion in the last 25 years who has not been implicated in drug taking? (I'll give you Usain Bolt!) The value of sport and competition will be forever warped and a growing number of our young athletes will be putting themselves in danger through drug abuse.

How on earth a two year ban is seen as a deterrent or punishment in any way is beyond me and surely beyond anyone who applies some logic to the situation.

The questions to ask are:

1) Will a two year ban deter enough athletes from taking performance enhancing drugs if caught?
Answer "No" - in reality the advantages from doping will probably encourage many as the consequences are largely irrelevant over a 15 year career.

2) Is a two year ban sufficient punishment for someone who has tarnished sport in general and their sport in particular for the thousands and thousands who compete outside of the rarefied atmosphere of international and top flight sport.

Again, "No".

OK - I'll allow a shot at redemption.

Ban them for 15 years.

bompington

Yossie wrote:

Bomps: I'm not trolling - why is that anyone who doesn't share your views is trolling?

Yes - I take the pisss occasionally when it is deserved, but if you go back to my very early posts you'll see that I have maintained the same viewpoint: you dope, you get banned and don't come pedalling back for pity.

However, it seems that my morale viewpoint is wrong (especially as it concerns someone Scottish who Douche wants on the team - although the rest of the team, errrrr, don't). So I'm with Bomps on this one. Bring back Millar. He said sorry, so its all cool. And never mind the atmosphere in the team when Dopey walks in, walks up to Wiggo, Hoy, the delicious Vioctoria and says "so, you have aproblem with me being here?".

Well firstly, I don't make a habit of accusing people of trolling, only when that's what it looks like. If it's not, well maybe you need to stop and think, perhaps read back over some of your posts, and ponder why a less perceptive person like me might think so?

As for "my moral viewpoint is wrong", well, true, it's just a viewpoint like mine or anyone else's, and you're entitled to give it: but it's customary to try and justify your viewpoint - and I've seen you do that in plenty of posts with a lot more insight and logic than the pitchforks & noose approach here. Hence my suspicions about trolling: and they're not allayed much by the use of childishly insulting nicknames, a sure sign of the abandonment of reasoned discussion.
In particular, a few posters, including me, have raised the question of why this one form of cheating in one area of life should somehow be exempt from the statute of limitations, when others shouldn't. Can you explain that?

FYI I am not actually Scottish and I genuinely don't think liking the individuals or otherwise has got a lot to do this for me, can you honestly say the same?

The atmosphere in the team is a genuinely good question, but it's not as if tensions are unheard of in teams of all sorts - and I didn't notice much of a problem at the worlds.

DrKJM

Laurentian: Interesting. I'd like to see the evidence to support your assertion. What I suspect is that for steroid doping and the like you may be right and two years may be too short although I would have hoped that WADA considered this before setting a 'tariff'. For blood doping type offences I suspect that you would not be right and that the effects would have long since disappeared. Your argument about a punitive punishment, 'pour encourager les autres', I think is less easily supported. We don't use that logic very often in our legal systems and when we do - summer riots for example - the sentences tend to get overturned on appeal.

Yossie

Part of it is the cheatin', lyin' route - as I've said before, essentially he's robbed clean riders of their future, thrown the faith people have shown him in the bin, lied to his friends, family and fans, wasted British Cycling's time (and his team) and has been yet another person to tarnish our sport - and how many times and have we all been discussing cycling for somone to come up and say "oh, cycling - you all take drugs don't you?" and then ranted about how its only a few and we are clean etc etc.

The other hand is that its such a horrible, underhand sneaky way of doing - discreet meetings in doctor's flats, sticking needles in your arms, the sly blood transfusions, the denials, the huge amount of money changing hands, the wholly unclean practice of it all - the whole lot. Its like being a smackhead without the zits and burglary convictions.

Falling over on a footy pitch is one thing, sneaking around sticking needles in your arm is horrible. Blood transfusions in the back of camper vans. Injecting in hotel room toilets. Chucking stuff out of car windows as you go along to get rid of the evidence. Nah, not for me thanks. I'll stick to doing some sly mileage when I have told the delicious Victoria that I'm working late.

It seems that to say sorry for the above while makinga shed load of tax free cash at the same time is fine in most people's eyes, but unfortunately its not in mine - perhaps having a high morale threshold is old fashioned and classed as trolling in this here forum internet modern world - if so, bring on the trilby and gramophone. Mine's a pipe.

I personally feel that you need strict rules in there - would you dope if you knew that you were running the risk of a life ban if you got caugh? It would put a lot of people off. And those that did it and got caught anyway - well, funk 'em, they're obviously too stupid.

Clean the sport of dopers, get a good image, get people back into cycling (and the standard of cycling will rise just through the sheer number of available athletes) get public backing, get sponsors, get the money flowing, get cycling bigger. Its not that difficult to comprehend really. Idealistic, yes, but easily understood.

If I had a load of wedge then would I a) invest in a team which is goingto have its name pulled through mud every 9 months when someone gets caught doping or b) look for a clean sport where my money won't be wasted - its simple decision.

Jez mon

You mean moral viewpoint right?

Surely it's separate teams road and track, generally, those who have experienced road cycling will have a more realistic viewpoint on the subject matter. I'm sure if you ask Cav and Wiggo they'll both be happy to have Millar back in? Whatever the trick cyclists say

At the end of the day, it's only entertainment.

As for life bans...until the drugs tests have a higher hit rate I can't see any point, other than satisfying the wishes of a few hardcore anti-doping fans. Why, put it this way, do you want to continue doing your chosen career, which you have devoted your adult life to and dope (with the punishment of a lifetime ban, but a very small risk of getting caught) or do you want to retire. Retirement is just the same as a lifetime ban really...

laurentian

DrKJM wrote:

Laurentian: Interesting. I'd like to see the evidence to support your assertion. What I suspect is that for steroid doping and the like you may be right and two years may be too short although I would have hoped that WADA considered this before setting a 'tariff'. For blood doping type offences I suspect that you would not be right and that the effects would have long since disappeared. Your argument about a punitive punishment, 'pour encourager les autres', I think is less easily supported. We don't use that logic very often in our legal systems and when we do - summer riots for example - the sentences tend to get overturned on appeal.

Firstly, the fact that we don't "use that logic very often in our legal systems" is as much down to the economics of prison/rehab programmes/parole etc as it is down to the perceived punishment and moral standpoint. Many would like to see a greater degree of punishment in society but the government coffers can't support it. I would not deny the right to appeal although having been found with drugs in the system, it mauy be akin to denying one was pregnant.

Secondly, crime of all sorts in society is often a "spur of the moment" activity - the summer riots being a prime example. Where it is not, stricter punishments are enforced.

Doping in sport is a premeditated, systematic act wittingly carried out over an extended period of time by the protagonists.

My main point is that not only is two years an insufficient deterrent, it will encourage drug abuse when athletes weigh up the pros and cons over their projected career.

Evidence to support my assertion? Any athlete who has won major honours or enjoyed a prosperous career before or after serving a drugs ban.

DrKJM

laurentian wrote:

Evidence to support my assertion? Any athlete who has won major honours or enjoyed a prosperous career after serving a drugs ban.

That's not evidence though is it? At the very top levels of sport - levels that I spy on from a very long way below - the differences between best and second are often miniscule. Dopers who win would I guess be clean athletes who *could have* won, or who came second or third. No amount of pharmaceutical assistance would ever have turned me into a racing whippet or a powerful sprinter. It's not that surprising therefore that those athletes return to their sport as contenders.

(Slow day at work)

laurentian

DrKJM wrote:

laurentian wrote:

Evidence to support my assertion? Any athlete who has won major honours or enjoyed a prosperous career after serving a drugs ban.

That's not evidence though is it? At the very top levels of sport - levels that I spy on from a very long way below - the differences between best and second are often miniscule. Dopers who win would I guess be clean athletes who *could have* won, or who came second or third. No amount of pharmaceutical assistance would ever have turned me into a racing whippet or a powerful sprinter. It's not that surprising therefore that those athletes return to their sport as contenders.

(Slow day at work)

So, the dope enhanced gold medallist narrowly beats the clean silver and bronze medallists and it's OK because they were "pretty good anyway"???

You're right - no amount of pharmaceutical assistance would make me a 400 metre champion at our local athletics club let alone the Olympics but its the aggregation of marginal gains that we are discussing at the moment (in a round about sort of way).

I don' t think we differ on the fact that doping is wrong. It's just that I can't see a two year ban as a sufficient deterrent over an athletes career. It will make doping the norm in some sports and that, whatever the argument, cannot be right.

(slow day here too!)

laurentian

DrKJM wrote:

laurentian wrote:

Evidence to support my assertion? Any athlete who has won major honours or enjoyed a prosperous career after serving a drugs ban.

Dopers who win would I guess be clean athletes who *could have* won, or who came second or third.

(Slow day at work)

Not so, who was the female Irish swimmer who came from nowhere to win Olympic gold (married to a convicted drug abusing belgian discus thrower I think)- not sure she was ever convicted but missed loads of tests, gave whisky (masking agent) in a urine sample, left by the back door when testers coming in the front etc. etc. Then conveniently "retired"?

Marion Jones another example . . .

DrKJM

laurentian wrote:

So, the dope enhanced gold medallist narrowly beats the clean silver and bronze medallists and it's OK because they were "pretty good anyway"???

That's not what I meant. I meant that on their return the fact that they are there or thereabouts is not evidence that they derive a continuing benefit from having doped. And let's face it, only those that show some promise in the first place are ever going to be tempting targets for the doping coaches. Nobody ever offered me anything to improve my performance (except maybe a go on their specs).

laurentian

If I use and anabolic steroid for two years from the age of 18 to the age of 20, muscle growth, power and endurance will be significantly enhanced over and above that which they would have done otherwise. Fact.

If I then stop taking the steroids and continue to train at the same intensity, with correct nutrition etc. for two years, that muscle etc. will still be there and I will enjoy the benefits of it in competition. Can't see how it wouldn't be.

ddraver

This is irrelevant to David Millar and the BOA but it does throw an interesting light on ban length for doping.

There was a study i hears about on one of my science podcasts that tried to evaluate what Laurentian is postulating and it did broadly agree. A trained athlete who stops for a year and then returns has more of a physiological benefit that someone starting from scratch. I can't remember th exact time but it was true to a measurable degree for some 3 or 4 years after stopping.

However I think there has to be the possibility for some redemption but Mostly, Ithe problem is that no one who is looking to retunr after a ban would stop training anyway. What ever Fat Pat thinks, he cannopt stop anyone riding a bike for 2 years, nor can UKAthletics stop someone running etc etc...

Richard_D

This is obviously a debate where both the public and the Athletes have passionate arguements . There is not completely right stance.

Here is my pennyworth

Having banned substances in your blood can be a spur of the moment act but gaining lasting benift has to be planned. It can also be accidental as per the Scotish skier a few years ago.
Some drugs give lasting benefit some only give short term benefit. Blood doping is not going to give anything like the same sort of long term effect as steroids and growth hormones.
A 2 year ban is not long enough. The steroid bans should be at least 4 years so they miss the next Olympics, world cup etc. It annoys me that there is an athlete caught in 2009 after having won a medal in 2008 will be back to compete this year. The fact he was caught in 2009 casts doubt on his performance the previous year.
4 years is most probably long enough as few athletes compete at the top level for more than 1 or 2 Olympics. I know there are exceptions.( Redgrave, Pinsent, Ainslie, Carl Lewis)
I would remove retrospective bans e.g Bauge and Contador.
I have more time for Millar than I do Chambers as Millar seemed to have accepted that he was not going to the Olympics rather than fighting to go to it.
I would also publicly humiliate those who have bans imposed. For example where they have Olympic Gold medals removed they should have to publicly hand them to the people that should have got them at the next Olympics. Let the silver medalist see their flag and hear their anthem all be it years too late.

Muffintop

Jez mon wrote:

You mean moral viewpoint right?

I'm glad you said that... it was soo annoying me (I'm pedantic too).

My thruppence is...

I'm in two minds, by contrition and not shying away from being a cheat he has no doubt contributed immeasurably to the anti doping campaign. Had he been given a lifetime ban throughout his chosen sport we would not be aware of the issue to this extent. if anyone should be allowed to return with a clean slate it should be him.

On the other hand, irrespective of the pressure put on him, he should never have done it. Many who have been in that situation and has chosen not to will not have their honor as sportspeople preserved by letting anyone who cheated return, because lets face it those who don't cheat don't get any thanks for it (and there can only be one winner).

Sport organisations need to be consistent in this also. It should be clear that when a footballer does the same thing as a cyclist or a cricket person gets caught with 'x' they should face the same punishment.

Also, if we are going to have the 'punishment fit the bill' and the EPO/drugs have effects on their training after the fact (I don't know enough to know which would do what and for how long) then it should be pretty clear cut that a ban for life should be implimented as it slaps the face of anyone who got to that standard by an enduring will and hard work, as any further fitness gains for the convicted sports person would be ommited by taking of drugs.

Which if they are going to allow convicted drugs cheats back, this would be a call for different sentances for different drugs.

Mx

NickintheLakes

@***!!! type swear words in here as in the recent John Terry thread - surprise, surprise.

At the end of the day DM cheated, he got caught, he cannot represent his country. Not the sort of person that should be a role model really.

Bit of a scummy sport at times this professional cycling malarky.

rick_chasey

NickintheLakes wrote:

At the end of the day DM cheated, he got caught, he can now represent his country.

.

Corrected .

Cleat Eastwood

I still thinks its a morally muddy murky pool - you have millar who has admitted his indiscretions, regretted his actions but has had the good grace to accept his punishment. Chambers however seems to only have one goal in mind, to whit to race like his contemporaries not for glory or the good of the sport but because he make a packet out of being one of the fastest in the world.

That what I mean when i say its sends out the wrong message, ie that contrition has been twisted to mean the only regret you have is being caught - to me it is the money grabber chambers that is muddying the waters rather than millar who has, as has been mentioned, post drug abuse, never shirked to be open and honest about wrongdoings.

But largely I'm with yossie on this - mainly because I get a go on his wife now and then - but instead of banning, say cyclists, why not impose a handicap system - if they're caught let them or any team they ride for start a good hour behind every one else - mind you theyd still catch cav on the hills.

NickintheLakes

Rick Chasey wrote:

NickintheLakes wrote:

At the end of the day DM cheated, he got caught, he can now represent his country.

.

Corrected .

Oh well - that makes it ok to be a drug cheat then. My mistake.

What a *hitty sport pro' cycling can be.

freddiegrubb

This is a subject akin to the great helmet debate & it's got legs boy can it run.

kentphil

I never expected so many views on this subject. The consensus seems to be that Millar has served his punishment, regrets what he did, and should therefore be at the Olympics. I can also fully understand and respect those that say he knew what he was doing and should never race again. Its down to personal viewpoint.

I liked the idea that everyone deserves a second chance, but cheat again and your banned for life. Few people can understand the pressure/culture that he was racing in at the time he took the drugs. Its this culture that I think is changing through better testing of athletes and less acceptance of drug taking in the sporting world.

Wheelspinner

My view is that drug cheats should not get a second chance. One bust, career over. Riding a bike for a living is NOT by any reasonable test a tough job - it's a privilege that should be accorded only the very best that can make it. If you have to resort to drugs cheating to make that career viable at any stage, then you are in the wrong job. MTFU, and go out and get a real job like the rest of us. There's no practical difference between being almost but not quite good enough to be a pro racer, and being a fat MAMIL who can't hold a wheel in the Sunday bunch ride. Never mind how nice you are, not good enough is simply not good enough.

If you want to combine a love of drugs and a career, take up stockbroking.

Yossie

NickintheLakes wrote:

@***!!! type swear words in here as in the recent John Terry thread - surprise, surprise.

Because although he's a cheatin' lyin' dopin' slag (who slept with his best friend's wife, which is never really very nice and just a bit, well, icky uurrggghhhh, really), he hasn't done any of these http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/pictur ... me=2203775

Terry is in a different league of scumbags. But that's a different thread.

With a background like this and a potential racism conviction coming up, should Terry be representing his country (let alone his club)? Hmm..... lets discuss that on another thread methinks.

laurentian

KentPhil wrote:

. . . I liked the idea that everyone deserves a second chance, but cheat again and your banned for life. Few people can understand the pressure/culture that he was racing in at the time he took the drugs. Its this culture that I think is changing through better testing of athletes and less acceptance of drug taking in the sporting world.

Again, I'm afraid that this will simply encourage abuse.

Take drugs, get away with it, succeed, defraud the public and your peers, earn lots - great. Retire early.

Take drugs, get caught, keep your head down for two years, succeed, earn lots . . .

A gamble worth taking.

NickintheLakes

Yossie wrote:

NickintheLakes wrote:

@***!!! type swear words in here as in the recent John Terry thread - surprise, surprise.

Because although he's a cheatin' lyin' dopin' slag (who slept with his best friend's wife, which is never really very nice and just a bit, well, icky uurrggghhhh, really), he hasn't done any of these http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/pictur ... me=2203775

Terry is in a different league of scumbags. But that's a different thread.

With a background like this and a potential racism conviction coming up, should Terry be representing his country (let alone his club)? Hmm..... lets discuss that on another thread methinks.

My point was not the merits of the JT situation for want of a better description but that as soon as a thread with JT appeared it was full of asterixed invective but when (yet another) doping related cycling thread appears it wasn't.

Not sure why you are going off on the tangent that you have taken. I'm also surprised that you are implying that Millar isn't in the top echelon of scumbags too (unless I have read you wrong). Surely it doesn't get worse than using drugs to profit illegally from a sport at the expense of other athletes who haven'y used drugs but who have slogged their guts out with honest endevour?

ddraver

NickintheLakes wrote:

Yossie wrote:

NickintheLakes wrote:

@***!!! type swear words in here as in the recent John Terry thread - surprise, surprise.

Because although he's a cheatin' lyin' dopin' slag (who slept with his best friend's wife, which is never really very nice and just a bit, well, icky uurrggghhhh, really), he hasn't done any of these http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/pictur ... me=2203775

Terry is in a different league of scumbags. But that's a different thread.

With a background like this and a potential racism conviction coming up, should Terry be representing his country (let alone his club)? Hmm..... lets discuss that on another thread methinks.

My point was not the merits of the JT situation for want of a better description but that as soon as a thread with JT appeared it was full of asterixed invective but when (yet another) doping related cycling thread appears it wasn't.

Think my point from that thread still stands - something about football makes people remove their brains...

Jez mon

NickintheLakes wrote:

Yossie wrote:

NickintheLakes wrote:

@***!!! type swear words in here as in the recent John Terry thread - surprise, surprise.

Because although he's a cheatin' lyin' dopin' slag (who slept with his best friend's wife, which is never really very nice and just a bit, well, icky uurrggghhhh, really), he hasn't done any of these http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/pictur ... me=2203775

Terry is in a different league of scumbags. But that's a different thread.

With a background like this and a potential racism conviction coming up, should Terry be representing his country (let alone his club)? Hmm..... lets discuss that on another thread methinks.

My point was not the merits of the JT situation for want of a better description but that as soon as a thread with JT appeared it was full of asterixed invective but when (yet another) doping related cycling thread appears it wasn't.

Not sure why you are going off on the tangent that you have taken. I'm also surprised that you are implying that Millar isn't in the top echelon of scumbags too (unless I have read you wrong). Surely it doesn't get worse than using drugs to profit illegally from a sport at the expense of other athletes who haven'y used drugs but who have slogged their guts out with honest endevour?

Yes, it does, look through the list of crimes of JT, I'd say assault is worse than the occasional bit of EPO. Two years before he "won" the worlds TT he was beaten by a certain Jan Ullrich. Let's not pretend here, David Millar isn't a single bad apple amongst a load of honest cyclists who are slogging their guts out everyday and existing on bread and water.

NickintheLakes

I wasn't trying to suggest that DM was a single bad apple - from your post I guess you are saying that he is in good company and that the sport is rotten to the core to pick up on your analogy.

I am a Chelsea fan but happen to not think very highly of him (JT) at all.

My point was, still is, that people jumped more readily on JT than DM - but, on reflection, that's fair enough is that's what they feel.

At the end of the day it surprises me that people are happy when a druggie cyclist gets caught and says sorry and then moves on as if nothing happened. Makes everything all right then?

Really, what does anyone expect them to say..."Ooops I'm a cheating *astard and I'll happily give up my lucrative career as penance". Course they don't, off they toddle down the contrition route and sooner or later they are back on the gravy train.

I do not for one minute think that if DM was not caught that he would have given up doping - beggars belief in my mind.