Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
Joelsim wrote:That's exactly what I'm saying. An amnesty for past offences and a total own-up and start again. Get to the root of the problem.
I also agree that doping will always happen, but it needs to be minimised as much as possible.
In my view current testing procedures can be got around very easily indeed, which is why my view is that doping is still rife, albeit at a much lower level and effectiveness that it was 10 years ago.
I think I also said that LA should be treated the same as everyone else too, not made the scapegoat, no matter how much I dislike his bullying attitude.
Lets say the UCI say have total amnesty for any rider that admits doping.
what rider in his right mind will admit to doping if he has been getting away with it and not been caught? He has no reason to own up
And just say a rider who never got caught does own up and he has won a big race, it will not do him any favours amongst the anti doping brigade.
They will still be angry and feel cheated. He will not be valued in the same way.
Would you wipe out all those results like Armstrongs's tour wins or let them keep them if they owned up to doping.?
So then we start again and riders will start doping again.
You could make doping/PED's legal and let the team Dr's manage the riders health but some riders might not want to dope. Then what?
Well you could start a non doping league in which case a few riders will then start to dope to win. Back to square one.
IMO a life ban is the only way that might make a few think about stopping doping.0 -
Joelsim wrote:I think I also said that LA should be treated the same as everyone else too, not made the scapegoat, no matter how much I dislike his bullying attitude.
If LA had acted in the same manner as 'everyone else' then fair enough, but its pretty clear the guy acted in a gangster like fashion that separates his actions and the consequences of his actions from those of the other cyclists who simply doped and kept their heads down. So Hitler was no more guilty than a soldier on the front line?'Performance analysis and Froome not being clean was a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean.' TSP0 -
Bo Duke wrote:Joelsim wrote:I think I also said that LA should be treated the same as everyone else too, not made the scapegoat, no matter how much I dislike his bullying attitude.
If LA had acted in the same manner as 'everyone else' then fair enough, but its pretty clear the guy acted in a gangster like fashion that separates his actions and the consequences of his actions from those of the other cyclists who simply doped and kept their heads down. So Hitler was no more guilty than a soldier on the front line?
I know what you mean but I suspect some of that was due to the circumstances, huge profile etc.
He wasn't involved when it all started, but a year or two later. Once he had come back from the miracle he was under the microscope and the whole sport couldn't afford another scandal like Festina. But I agree, I don't like the way he went about it at all, a nasty piece of work exacerbated by circumstance.0 -
Bo Duke wrote:Joelsim wrote:I think I also said that LA should be treated the same as everyone else too, not made the scapegoat, no matter how much I dislike his bullying attitude.
If LA had acted in the same manner as 'everyone else' then fair enough, but its pretty clear the guy acted in a gangster like fashion that separates his actions and the consequences of his actions from those of the other cyclists who simply doped and kept their heads down. So Hitler was no more guilty than a soldier on the front line?
Did Vaughters and half his team do any less than LA to keep the omerta or protect their own interests? Not until caught with no way out ...
Vaughters is currently at the head of an organisation that is keeping riders who have served bans out of the sport ... Whilst those within his circle carry on as though nothing had happened ...
All very familiar, no?0 -
Bo Duke wrote:Joelsim wrote:I think I also said that LA should be treated the same as everyone else too, not made the scapegoat, no matter how much I dislike his bullying attitude.
If LA had acted in the same manner as 'everyone else' then fair enough, but its pretty clear the guy acted in a gangster like fashion that separates his actions and the consequences of his actions from those of the other cyclists who simply doped and kept their heads down. So Hitler was no more guilty than a soldier on the front line?
Compare Hitler to Armstrong
Armstrong is a gangster. Like who? Al Capone or a gangster rapper like Ice T or perhaps James Cagney the gangster actor
How do you know how other cyclist/team leaders acted? Are you a wizard? Did you go to Hogwarts ?
Do you think Vino's a Saint? Do think Chipo's an angel?
oh you missed ,,,Armstrong is Satan and will destroy us all with his evil powers and his fridge full of special blood
Having said that, if he does go in to politics he could get a bit close to that big red button
Hitler brilliant. 0 -
Crankbrother wrote:
Vaughters is currently at the head of an organisation that is keeping riders who have served bans out of the sport ... Whilst those within his circle carry on as though nothing had happened ...
All very familiar, no?
Which organisation is that?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
MPCC ... and if he's not at the head of that he sure acts like he does ...
Rules of that are >6 month ban = 4 years WT ban ... Guess what length of ban every rider in his team recently got for their part in continued, systematic doping abuse? Funny that ...0 -
Can we knock the stuff about life bans on the head please?
Life bans don't work as a deterrent. Increased penalties for being caught for a crime have been shown to be utterly ineffective at reducing the rate of the crime, time and time again. Look at it this way: the penalty for crashing your car at high speed is likely to be your death or maiming. Yet people still crash their cars at high speed. This is particularly the case with young men who aren't averse to taking risks.
Incidentally, to have a pro cycling career, you'll have to be ready to cycle at very high speed, surrounded by other riders you have no control over, with a plastic hat and a bit of lycra for protection. To do well in that environment you'd probably fall well into the group of people who aren't particularly risk averse...Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:Can we knock the stuff about life bans on the head please?
Life bans don't work as a deterrent. Increased penalties for being caught for a crime have been shown to be utterly ineffective at reducing the rate of the crime, time and time again. Look at it this way: the penalty for crashing your car at high speed is likely to be your death or maiming. Yet people still crash their cars at high speed. This is particularly the case with young men who aren't averse to taking risks.
Incidentally, to have a pro cycling career, you'll have to be ready to cycle at very high speed, surrounded by other riders you have no control over, with a plastic hat and a bit of lycra for protection. To do well in that environment you'd probably fall well into the group of people who aren't particularly risk averse...
We are not talking About speeding drivers. If a athlete thinks he may never compete again it might make him think twice about doping/PED's . Otherwise they will carry on doping like they still are.
Or just accept that athletes will dope and the 2 year ban spent away from their given sport they can use to dope themselves up to the eyeballs and come back stronger.
Personally I would not ban Ped's/doping, I would rather see it managed and riders health looked after.
If we do ever get a perfect test to detect doping etc then you could ban it. IMO0 -
Crankbrother wrote:MPCC ... and if he's not at the head of that he sure acts like he does ...
Rules of that are >6 month ban = 4 years WT ban ... Guess what length of ban every rider in his team recently got for their part in continued, systematic doping abuse? Funny that ...
He isn't the head of it, no.
I think you have an entirely subjective assessment of whether he "acts like" he is their head.
Incidentally, while head of AIGCP Vaughters stopped a proposal that would have prevented UCI team managers from signing a rider until two years after suspension. He seems to have been fairly consistent on this point.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:Crankbrother wrote:MPCC ... and if he's not at the head of that he sure acts like he does ...
Rules of that are >6 month ban = 4 years WT ban ... Guess what length of ban every rider in his team recently got for their part in continued, systematic doping abuse? Funny that ...
He isn't the head of it, no.
I think you have an entirely subjective assessment of whether he "acts like" he is their head.
Incidentally, while head of AIGCP Vaughters stopped a proposal that would have prevented UCI team managers from signing a rider until two years after suspension. He seems to have been fairly consistent on this point.
The Point, that he runs a team full of ex dopers who only got a off season ban
What a guy.0 -
Roger Legeay is head of MPCC. It's very much a French organisation (which is probably why a lot of WT teams don't join).Crankbrother wrote:MPCC ... and if he's not at the head of that he sure acts like he does ...Twitter: @RichN950 -
No tA Doctor wrote:Crankbrother wrote:MPCC ... and if he's not at the head of that he sure acts like he does ...
Rules of that are >6 month ban = 4 years WT ban ... Guess what length of ban every rider in his team recently got for their part in continued, systematic doping abuse? Funny that ...
He isn't the head of it, no.
I think you have an entirely subjective assessment of whether he "acts like" he is their head.
Incidentally, while head of AIGCP Vaughters stopped a proposal that would have prevented UCI team managers from signing a rider until two years after suspension. He seems to have been fairly consistent on this point.
Vaughters, President MPCC ... Just Google it ...0 -
rayjay wrote:
We are not talking About speeding drivers. If a athlete thinks he may never compete again it might make him think twice about doping/PED's . Otherwise they will carry on doping like they still are.
Sorry, I didn't realise you were unable to use a concrete example of risk taking activity in the face of severe penalty to extrapolate a conclusion to other risk taking activities - e.g. taking PEDs.
In the hope of making this clear, it's long been established that for any risky activity the penalty for failing has very little effect on how willing participants are to take the risk. The perception of how likely the penalty-outcome is (in PED taking, your perceived chance of getting caught) is the absolute main factor.
it's also been shown that there are certain demographic groups that are more likely to take risk (young men, for example) and certain occupations (e.g. cycling) where risk taking is a necessary requirement for success.
If you throw that all together you can confidently predict that life bans would have between little and no effect on decreasing the incidence of PED use in the peloton.
There could, though, be other negative effects of a life ban, for example, the increase in legal challenges to a positive where a rider thinks they may have a chance of overturning it. That has a corresponding cost to the enforcement agencies, which limits their funding for actual testing. But if they end up testing less then the likelihood of catching PED use falls and the perceived risk is lower - so we end up with more PED use.
Hopefully that's all clear now.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
I'll provide a direct link to show that Roger Legeay is in charge: http://www.mpcc.fr/index.php/en/mpcc-ukCrankbrother wrote:Vaughters, President MPCC ... Just Google it ...
No mention of Vaughters.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
I'll provide a direct link to show that Roger Legeay is in charge: http://www.mpcc.fr/index.php/en/mpcc-ukCrankbrother wrote:Vaughters, President MPCC ... Just Google it ...
No mention of Vaughters.
I did Google it. He isn't, and has never been, the president.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:rayjay wrote:
We are not talking About speeding drivers. If a athlete thinks he may never compete again it might make him think twice about doping/PED's . Otherwise they will carry on doping like they still are.
Sorry, I didn't realise you were unable to use a concrete example of risk taking activity in the face of severe penalty to extrapolate a conclusion to other risk taking activities - e.g. taking PEDs.
In the hope of making this clear, it's long been established that for any risky activity the penalty for failing has very little effect on how willing participants are to take the risk. The perception of how likely the penalty-outcome is (in PED taking, your perceived chance of getting caught) is the absolute main factor.
it's also been shown that there are certain demographic groups that are more likely to take risk (young men, for example) and certain occupations (e.g. cycling) where risk taking is a necessary requirement for success.
If you throw that all together you can confidently predict that life bans would have between little and no effect on decreasing the incidence of PED use in the peloton.
There could, though, be other negative effects of a life ban, for example, the increase in legal challenges to a positive where a rider thinks they may have a chance of overturning it. That has a corresponding cost to the enforcement agencies, which limits their funding for actual testing. But if they end up testing less then the likelihood of catching PED use falls and the perceived risk is lower - so we end up with more PED use.
Hopefully that's all clear now.
No actually, IMO a life ban could have an effect. It's never been used and until it has been used you will not know the effect. You can use any demographic analogy you like but simple FACT is YOU DON'T KNOW what effect it would have and your examples have no relevance to sport whatsoever. If you are caught doping then their is no legal challenge. That would be made clear.
Hopefully that's all clear now0 -
RichN95 wrote:
I'll provide a direct link to show that Roger Legeay is in charge: http://www.mpcc.fr/index.php/en/mpcc-ukCrankbrother wrote:Vaughters, President MPCC ... Just Google it ...
No mention of Vaughters.
Was not doubting you were right ... But I knew Vaughters had some formal capacity at some point, seems it was President but no idea when this ended ... Likely recent enough for him to be a conniving little toerag given it was 2012 when the bans were being handed out (and his crew likely were offered deal long before then) ...0 -
No he's never been President, or had any role. Legeay has been the boss since he founded it.Crankbrother wrote:RichN95 wrote:
I'll provide a direct link to show that Roger Legeay is in charge: http://www.mpcc.fr/index.php/en/mpcc-ukCrankbrother wrote:Vaughters, President MPCC ... Just Google it ...
No mention of Vaughters.
Was not doubting you were right ... But I knew Vaughters had some formal capacity at some point, seems it was President but no idea when this ended ... Likely recent enough for him to be a conniving little toerag given it was 2012 when the bans were being handed out (and his crew likely were offered deal long before then) ...
When you tell people to 'Google it', it would be advisable if you take your own advice first.Twitter: @RichN950 -
My view is that investigating the past or having an amnesty of pursuing anyone is just a huge waste of time and money.
Some will tell the truth, some will lie
Some will come forward, some will hide
The truth will never be known, and quite frankly unless we have the whole truth I would rather not waste any brainpower on trying to understand what vested interests try to sell us as THE truth.
Yes, some made loads of money and shouldn't have. Yes, some lost money and shouldn't have. I just don't have any confidence in anyone's ability to really uncover what was right and what wasn't.
So, let's move on. Let's decide what the rules are going forward and make sure that whatever is decided is enforceable. No point having anti doping rules or any others for that matter unless you can test with a high level of statistical confidence.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
No he's never been President, or had any role. Legeay has been the boss since he founded it.Crankbrother wrote:RichN95 wrote:
I'll provide a direct link to show that Roger Legeay is in charge: http://www.mpcc.fr/index.php/en/mpcc-ukCrankbrother wrote:Vaughters, President MPCC ... Just Google it ...
No mention of Vaughters.
Was not doubting you were right ... But I knew Vaughters had some formal capacity at some point, seems it was President but no idea when this ended ... Likely recent enough for him to be a conniving little toerag given it was 2012 when the bans were being handed out (and his crew likely were offered deal long before then) ...
When you tell people to 'Google it', it would be advisable if you take your own advice first.
What I would have been better to do is not just read the Google taglines, and believe what Bikezilla tells me (whoever that might be) ...
So, hands up ... I was wrong ...
Vaughters is still a snake though ...0 -
What you've done is confuse MPCC with AIGCP (which he was the head of - now Luuc Eisenga, formerly of Belkin)Crankbrother wrote:
What I would have been better to do is not just read the Google taglines, and believe what Bikezilla tells me (whoever that might be) ...
So, hands up ... I was wrong ...
Vaughters is still a snake though ...Twitter: @RichN950 -
Bo Duke wrote:Joelsim wrote:I think I also said that LA should be treated the same as everyone else too, not made the scapegoat, no matter how much I dislike his bullying attitude.
If LA had acted in the same manner as 'everyone else' then fair enough, but its pretty clear the guy acted in a gangster like fashion that separates his actions and the consequences of his actions from those of the other cyclists who simply doped and kept their heads down. So Hitler was no more guilty than a soldier on the front line?
Dishing out penalties for gangster-like behaviour isn't in the WADA code, though. The gangster-like behaviour can only be dealt with via the criminal and civil courts.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
What you've done is confuse MPCC with AIGCP (which he was the head of - now Luuc Eisenga, formerly of Belkin)Crankbrother wrote:
What I would have been better to do is not just read the Google taglines, and believe what Bikezilla tells me (whoever that might be) ...
So, hands up ... I was wrong ...
Vaughters is still a snake though ...
Funnily enough, I knew NOT to confuse those when Googling ... but not in my pea brain :oops:0 -
rayjay wrote:
No actually, IMO a life ban could have an effect. It's never been used and until it has been used you will not know the effect. You can use any demographic analogy you like but simple FACT is YOU DON'T KNOW what effect it would have and your examples have no relevance to sport whatsoever. If you are caught doping then their is no legal challenge. That would be made clear.
Hopefully that's all clear now
We've also never used giving all riders who don't test positive in a season a bonus jam doughnut at the end of the year: "until it has been used you will not know the effect".
My example was entirely relevant, because it was an example of risk taking, which is a generic activity that covers both driving fast and taking PEDs. Your argument is that increasing the penalty (risk) acts as a deterrent. In decades of research this has been shown to be conclusively wrong. Mt own conjecture is that those that hang on to the idea of increased penalty as a deterrent are actually post-rationalising a desire for punishment for its own sake.
Whichever analogy I use the "simple FACT is YOU DON'T KNOW" what you're talking about.
"If you are caught doping then their is no legal challenge. That would be made clear."
Dear Lord.... you think you'll squeeze that ruling past the lawyers? I can't even begin to think of the amount of laws, rulings, precedents and regulations that falls foul of.....Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:Bo Duke wrote:Joelsim wrote:I think I also said that LA should be treated the same as everyone else too, not made the scapegoat, no matter how much I dislike his bullying attitude.
If LA had acted in the same manner as 'everyone else' then fair enough, but its pretty clear the guy acted in a gangster like fashion that separates his actions and the consequences of his actions from those of the other cyclists who simply doped and kept their heads down. So Hitler was no more guilty than a soldier on the front line?
Dishing out penalties for gangster-like behaviour isn't in the WADA code, though. The gangster-like behaviour can only be dealt with via the criminal and civil courts.
That depends on whether the gangster like activity falls under the heading "conspiracy" doesn't it? That's the ruling that gave him a life ban, which is in the WADA code.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:rayjay wrote:
No actually, IMO a life ban could have an effect. It's never been used and until it has been used you will not know the effect. You can use any demographic analogy you like but simple FACT is YOU DON'T KNOW what effect it would have and your examples have no relevance to sport whatsoever. If you are caught doping then their is no legal challenge. That would be made clear.
Hopefully that's all clear now
We've also never used giving all riders who don't test positive in a season a bonus jam doughnut at the end of the year: "until it has been used you will not know the effect".
My example was entirely relevant, because it was an example of risk taking, which is a generic activity that covers both driving fast and taking PEDs. Your argument is that increasing the penalty (risk) acts as a deterrent. In decades of research this has been shown to be conclusively wrong. Mt own conjecture is that those that hang on to the idea of increased penalty as a deterrent are actually post-rationalising a desire for punishment for its own sake.
Whichever analogy I use the "simple FACT is YOU DON'T KNOW" what you're talking about.
"If you are caught doping then their is no legal challenge. That would be made clear."
Dear Lord.... you think you'll squeeze that ruling past the lawyers? I can't even begin to think of the amount of laws, rulings, precedents and regulations that falls foul of.....
It's simple really. The appropriate sporting body's bring in a life ban for a first offence.
David Millar for example would not have been allowed to ride again. Simple isn't it :roll:
Chris Hoy and other athletes who have called for life ban's for doping athletes would soon change their mind's once you wave your statistics at them about young men driving cars fast
enjoy your doghnut 0 -
rayjay wrote:
It's simple really. The appropriate sporting body's bring in a life ban for a first offence.
David Millar for example would not have been allowed to ride again. Simple isn't it :roll:
Thanks for clarifying that, I was in some doubt as to what a life ban was, now I'm clear :roll:rayjay wrote:Chris Hoy and other athletes who have called for life ban's for doping athletes would soon change their mind's once you wave your statistics at them about young men driving cars fast
enjoy your doghnut
While I respect Chris Hoy's achievements on a bike and generally think he's a decent chap I've yet to see anything from him that suggests he's considered the matter in any depth. I'd certainly hope that if he was proposing life bans as a deterrent then he'd have a good look at the research on punishment and crime prevention, and of risk taking in general, first. If, on the other hand, he just wants to see cheats punished as severely as possible, as a form of retribution, then that's his prerogative. That's fair enough, it just won't stop cheats cheating.
You haven't quite managed to describe how a life ban with no possibility of appeal would be legally possible though. It would be in contravention of most national legislature, international human rights laws, employment laws and God knows what else.... Natural justice in general.
Enjoy your simplicity.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Where does this word 'cheaters' come from? That's more American than Chris Horner.0
-
Joelsim wrote:Where does this word 'cheaters' come from? That's more American than Chris Horner.
Que?
Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
