Team Doctor Idea

dave_1

How about absolutely no team Drs allowed on races or at training camps, but race provides Drs instead? if riders feel they are ill ASO of whomever could have Drs they could go to?

Rule74Please

The sponsors are the only ones who can clean it up (if it is possible)

Put what you want in the terms of the contract. Teams have no choice but to agree ( economic climate and all).

However....... The sponsor wants results is not afraid to put pressure on to achieve them.

Maybe the system we currently have is as good as it gets.

One day FOOTBALL might allow random testing.

ilovebigwig

There is random testing in football, and rugby.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... avid-james

Pross

1600 tests in a year - how many footballers are there playing how many matches in a season? There are about 4,000 games in the top 4 flights of English football alone each year. I can't believe they are now complaining that they have to finally make their movements known for testing like other sports have for years (often where the people taking part are semi-professional or amateur). In rugby the testers only seem to show up if they have some 'intelligence' that a player at a certain club is taking something. I've seen it at the club I support where a player on the opposition team was rumoured to be using steroids and the testers turned up to test and carried on targetting him at other games. Cycling, swimming, athletics - if you win then you are almost certain to be tested. 1600 tests a year in a sport with a many participants as football is barely worth bothering with!

ilovebigwig

I think the stats have changed (number of tests increased) since that article but sadly I cannot access much from work. However, there is still not enough testing in football, I think mainly because the controllers do not believe that there are really any performance enhancing drugs available to footballers (obviously naiive beyond belief). I have personally witnessed professional footballers taking drugs (recreational) and none of them seemed bothered about the risk/repercussions.

mididoctors

Timoid. wrote:

Don't agree with OP for the following reasons:

Doctors can also be policemen. On a team with a stated clean goal like Garmin, a doctor will be able to monitor/flag doping riders.

And I don't think any ban on using doctors during the TdF would pass a ECHR test.

Do you expect riders to queue for doctors services after a stage? How would that work? Take a ticket and sit down in some Mecical tent reading old Marie-Claire magazines?

+1

and they should be held [in part] responsible for not flagging up riders who later test positive or at least provide information and analysis about why they missed it.

ddraver

You could have WADA/UCI sanctioned doctors as it were, so that they had to apply, be checked out a bit and then could be monitored, and , more importantly, have the approval removed.A rider using a non-approved doctor could then expect more 6 am visits from the dope squad etc...

It would act as some kind of deterrent but would nt solve the problem for a team/rider that is determined to dope

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Maybe all Formula 1 cars should be only tended to by a couple of blokes Bernie Ecclestone found at his local Kwik Fit.

Are we equating riders to F1 cars?...

You'd hope there's a lot less engineering involved in riders.


Like I said, I was just trying to think of a way round the enabling issue.

I want doping to be risky, both for the riders' health and for getting caught. I see that as a deterrent.

I don't this this is necessarily a good thing. I would think most young cyclists would be happy to risk their life for a chance of winning. Or rather, I think they'd be able to rationalise the risks of doping, as something that happens to others and not them. Young people knew smoking was dangerous for years, and kept doing it.

I think independent observers might be something worth looking into. I.e. officials from the UCI/race organisers, who poke their nose in to the nooks and crannies of team busses/meetings/hotels.

gabriel959

That sounds like a good idea ddraver but in practice, and knowing of UCI past, I am not sure it will be effective.

Rule74Please

ilovebigwig wrote:

There is random testing in football, and rugby.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... avid-james

None in Premier league away from matches.

Testers MUST make an appointment with the club to visit the training ground. Strangely many players have that day off. This was the reason for the famous missed test by Rio. He was not meant to be at training that day and tried to sneak out the back door after being spotted and targetted.

To show the difference a motor racing driver failed dope control for the second time ( announced yesterday) did this make the papers? A cyclist failing for the second time would be headline news

ddraver

gabriel959 wrote:

That sounds like a good idea ddraver but in practice, and knowing of UCI past, I am not sure it will be effective.

True data - hence why I added WADA...

McQuaid/Verbruggen would have fawned over both Ferrai and Fuentes

sherer

like the OP i find it strange that Saxo and Astana have someone who runs their anti-doping programme. Surely all you need to say is don't dope and then job done.

The only reason I think you need these doctors is to make sure riders don't push it too far and go over the limits

mroli

Legal minefield innit.