Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped

1…196197199201202…239

Comments

  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,656
    RichN95 wrote:
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    Coriander wrote:
    I think it was Rick who I first ever heard say, "Don't wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it", which is currently my favourite aphorism. But, grief, sometimes it's hard to follow.

    Think that's Mark Twain.
    It's George Bernard Shaw

    Cheers.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • rayjay
    rayjay Posts: 1,384
    Lets gang up on rayjay because he makes a suggestion of a life ban.

    I have made my argument perfectly clear from the outset.

    Yet when I responded to No ta Doctor all I got was a very patronising and child like response.

    Tailwind I have made it all perfectly clear how the process could work.

    No ta doctor you gave no response to my reply to your post just a load of childish comments.

    I won't be bullied and if you cannot respond in adult like way which you did not once I disagreed with you then I will do like wise.

    Tailwind and coriander, Go and look back at some of the things you have said on my previous posts and threads. I am never rude or abusive yet because you have a difference of opinion you feel you have the right to try and insult and bully me. Your behaviour is appalling, so go bully someone who give's a fu%% because I don't give a sh%t about people who cannot respect another persons view that is not hurting anyone .

    THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU .
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,438
    rayjay wrote:
    Lets gang up on rayjay because he makes a suggestion of a life ban.

    I have made my argument perfectly clear from the outset.

    Yet when I responded to No ta Doctor all I got was a very patronising and child like response.

    Tailwind I have made it all perfectly clear how the process could work.

    No ta doctor you gave no response to my reply to your post just a load of childish comments.

    I won't be bullied and if you cannot respond in adult like way which you did not once I disagreed with you then I will do like wise.

    Tailwind and coriander, Go and look back at some of the things you have said on my previous posts and threads. I am never rude or abusive yet because you have a difference of opinion you feel you have the right to try and insult and bully me. Your behaviour is appalling, so go bully someone who give's a fu%% because I don't give a sh%t about people who cannot respect another persons view that is not hurting anyone .

    THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU .


    Where did I bully or insult you. If you have any issue with any post I have made in this exchange please feel free to report it.

    I'm disagreeing with you and pointing out the fundamental flaws in what you are proposing.

    Have I misunderstood your proposal somewhere?
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,656
    rayjay wrote:
    Lets gang up on rayjay because he makes a suggestion of a life ban.

    I have made my argument perfectly clear from the outset.

    Yet when I responded to No ta Doctor all I got was a very patronising and child like response.

    Tailwind I have made it all perfectly clear how the process could work.

    No ta doctor you gave no response to my reply to your post just a load of childish comments.

    I won't be bullied and if you cannot respond in adult like way which you did not once I disagreed with you then I will do like wise.

    Tailwind and coriander, Go and look back at some of the things you have said on my previous posts and threads. I am never rude or abusive yet because you have a difference of opinion you feel you have the right to try and insult and bully me. Your behaviour is appalling, so go bully someone who give's a fu%% because I don't give a sh%t about people who cannot respect another persons view that is not hurting anyone .

    THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU .

    I said before I was out, but seeing as you're now calling me directly anyway...

    You're quick to draw the victim card. You've been given serious and considered answers as to why a life ban for first offences won't act as a deterrent and why it might have the opposite effect desired. You've chosen to dismiss these as irrelevant blathering with no argument given as to why. You've suggested removing recourse to appeal - something that is clearly impossible to implement, which has been pointed out to you many times. If you can debate seriously I'll debate with you. If not, I'm out again. You're not being bullied, you're being disagreed with, by people who are becoming frustrated by your inability to engage with the arguments being made.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • shinyhelmut
    shinyhelmut Posts: 1,364
    rayjay wrote:
    As for contamination. The samples would be sealed and stored straight away in front of the athlete and also his team manager or team Dr would witness this. Once sealed and stored there can be no contamination. They are then only opened at a verified LAB.

    Isn't this what already happens?
    But for a rider to get banned for life it has to be very clear that he has been doping or like Millars case caught red handed.

    Had Millar not confessed there was no positive test to condemn him, just a bit of circumstantial evidence, enough to condemn him beyond reasonable doubt?
    We know it's very hard to get caught as so many riders have proved and have never been tested positive.

    You would hope that the testing would get better but the dopers will always be one step ahead.

    IMO it's the only way any sport may deter a young athlete from doping/PED'S if they realise their competitive sporting life will be over. IMO

    So a young rider would have a choice, not dope and give up on their dream, back to stacking shelves. Or dope and, as you claim above there is very little chance of actually getting caught, have a shot at being a pro. If they do get pinged then it's back to stacking shelves.

    You are defeating your own arguments.

    Ps if you think you've been bullied here you've led a very sheltered life.
  • shinyhelmut
    shinyhelmut Posts: 1,364
    Ps I can't quite believe I've allowed myself to be drawn into this discussion.
  • Yellow Peril
    Yellow Peril Posts: 4,466
    with regard to life bans I don't think there is the stomach for it. GB's own lfe ban from Olympic representation was overturned within the last couple of years as it was seen to be too harsh a punishment.

    To be honest is there any need for them? Teams are increasingly sponsor sensitive. Any team hiring ex-dopers has to have big kahunas to justify it to their sponsors. There is of course Garmin but I think that their approach works because it is fairly unique. Sponsors who don't like that approach can back a team like Sky with their zero tolerance approach.

    I believe it is certainly harder now than ever before for a rider with a doping conviction to find a team after their ban. In that respect self -regulation is dealing with this issue.
    @JaunePeril

    Winner of the Bike Radar Pro Race Wiggins Hour Prediction Competition
  • mike6
    mike6 Posts: 1,199
    Yellow Peril wrote:
    with regard to life bans I don't think there is the stomach for it. GB's own lfe ban from Olympic representation was overturned within the last couple of years as it was seen to be too harsh a punishment.

    To be honest is there any need for them? Teams are increasingly sponsor sensitive. Any team hiring ex-dopers has to have big kahunas to justify it to their sponsors. There is of course Garmin but I think that their approach works because it is fairly unique. Sponsors who don't like that approach can back a team like Sky with their zero tolerance approach.

    I believe it is certainly harder now than ever before for a rider with a doping conviction to find a team after their ban. In that respect self -regulation is dealing with this issue.

    I can see where you are coming from but there are obvious team sponsors, we all know them so I wont bore you, who stick to the maxim "Any publicity is good publicity"
    Festina bragged they sold more watches after the team drugs bust than ever, so they were well pleased.

    Personally I thought the GB Olympic life ban worked. Not in every instance obviously, but Millar was very distressed that he had put his Olympic career to bed. Also, the distaste evident from Vino's Olympic road race win was tangible, and made the IOC look foolish.
  • salsiccia1
    salsiccia1 Posts: 3,725
    Is this thread still going?
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,927
    Is this a pro race thread lengh record? Quite amazing given how it survived through the mass thread locking period.
  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    mike6 wrote:
    Yellow Peril wrote:
    with regard to life bans I don't think there is the stomach for it. GB's own lfe ban from Olympic representation was overturned within the last couple of years as it was seen to be too harsh a punishment.

    To be honest is there any need for them? Teams are increasingly sponsor sensitive. Any team hiring ex-dopers has to have big kahunas to justify it to their sponsors. There is of course Garmin but I think that their approach works because it is fairly unique. Sponsors who don't like that approach can back a team like Sky with their zero tolerance approach.

    I believe it is certainly harder now than ever before for a rider with a doping conviction to find a team after their ban. In that respect self -regulation is dealing with this issue.

    I can see where you are coming from but there are obvious team sponsors, we all know them so I wont bore you, who stick to the maxim "Any publicity is good publicity"
    Festina bragged they sold more watches after the team drugs bust than ever, so they were well pleased.

    Personally I thought the GB Olympic life ban worked. Not in every instance obviously, but Millar was very distressed that he had put his Olympic career to bed. Also, the distaste evident from Vino's Olympic road race win was tangible, and made the IOC look foolish.

    Yep we've seen time and time again that they don't care about doping and some of them even used to encourage it during the dark days.

    With a lifetime ban a rider who might just take an illegal caffeine pill will reason it out to might as well dope to the gills as they get the same punishment but more reward from the extra kick
  • mike6
    mike6 Posts: 1,199
    sherer wrote:
    mike6 wrote:
    Yellow Peril wrote:
    with regard to life bans I don't think there is the stomach for it. GB's own lfe ban from Olympic representation was overturned within the last couple of years as it was seen to be too harsh a punishment.

    To be honest is there any need for them? Teams are increasingly sponsor sensitive. Any team hiring ex-dopers has to have big kahunas to justify it to their sponsors. There is of course Garmin but I think that their approach works because it is fairly unique. Sponsors who don't like that approach can back a team like Sky with their zero tolerance approach.

    I believe it is certainly harder now than ever before for a rider with a doping conviction to find a team after their ban. In that respect self -regulation is dealing with this issue.

    I can see where you are coming from but there are obvious team sponsors, we all know them so I wont bore you, who stick to the maxim "Any publicity is good publicity"
    Festina bragged they sold more watches after the team drugs bust than ever, so they were well pleased.

    Personally I thought the GB Olympic life ban worked. Not in every instance obviously, but Millar was very distressed that he had put his Olympic career to bed. Also, the distaste evident from Vino's Olympic road race win was tangible, and made the IOC look foolish.

    Yep we've seen time and time again that they don't care about doping and some of them even used to encourage it during the dark days.

    With a lifetime ban a rider who might just take an illegal caffeine pill will reason it out to might as well dope to the gills as they get the same punishment but more reward from the extra kick

    You are right there. There are some people who will do whatever it takes regardless of legislation or health issues. I presume they are in a minority. If longer bans make the guys new to the sport or wavering on the fence think again then It must be a good thing.
    Also, how many guys have been caught who were average at best? Its not a big money making scheme for them just a menial job same as in a factory.
  • rayjay
    rayjay Posts: 1,384
    TailWindHome wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    Lets gang up on rayjay because he makes a suggestion of a life ban.

    I have made my argument perfectly clear from the outset.

    Yet when I responded to No ta Doctor all I got was a very patronising and child like response.

    Tailwind I have made it all perfectly clear how the process could work.

    No ta doctor you gave no response to my reply to your post just a load of childish comments.

    I won't be bullied and if you cannot respond in adult like way which you did not once I disagreed with you then I will do like wise.

    Tailwind and coriander, Go and look back at some of the things you have said on my previous posts and threads. I am never rude or abusive yet because you have a difference of opinion you feel you have the right to try and insult and bully me. Your behaviour is appalling, so go bully someone who give's a fu%% because I don't give a sh%t about people who cannot respect another persons view that is not hurting anyone .

    THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU .


    Where did I bully or insult you. If you have any issue with any post I have made in this exchange please feel free to report it.

    I'm disagreeing with you and pointing out the fundamental flaws in what you are proposing.

    Have I misunderstood your proposal somewhere?


    If you can read. then you will realise your previous question was answered .
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,726
    A pity that you didn't answer mine.
    Multiple choice, too.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • rayjay
    rayjay Posts: 1,384
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    Lets gang up on rayjay because he makes a suggestion of a life ban.

    I have made my argument perfectly clear from the outset.

    Yet when I responded to No ta Doctor all I got was a very patronising and child like response.

    Tailwind I have made it all perfectly clear how the process could work.

    No ta doctor you gave no response to my reply to your post just a load of childish comments.

    I won't be bullied and if you cannot respond in adult like way which you did not once I disagreed with you then I will do like wise.

    Tailwind and coriander, Go and look back at some of the things you have said on my previous posts and threads. I am never rude or abusive yet because you have a difference of opinion you feel you have the right to try and insult and bully me. Your behaviour is appalling, so go bully someone who give's a fu%% because I don't give a sh%t about people who cannot respect another persons view that is not hurting anyone .

    THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU .

    I said before I was out, but seeing as you're now calling me directly anyway...

    You're quick to draw the victim card. You've been given serious and considered answers as to why a life ban for first offences won't act as a deterrent and why it might have the opposite effect desired. You've chosen to dismiss these as irrelevant blathering with no argument given as to why. You've suggested removing recourse to appeal - something that is clearly impossible to implement, which has been pointed out to you many times. If you can debate seriously I'll debate with you. If not, I'm out again. You're not being bullied, you're being disagreed with, by people who are becoming frustrated by your inability to engage with the arguments being made.


    Fact is ...I don't see your analogy as being relevant. I understand but IMO I think it has no reference to sport whatsoever. I disagree with you and your point.

    You don't have to reply and try and make me agree with your point you could have just left it.
    It was obviously a dent to your massive ego that someone could disagree with you .
    You have no FACTS to back up anything you said. I explained why I thought they were irrelevant. You obviously are blinded by any point other than you own .

    You then take a patronising attitude to make yourself feel better. Grow up.

    I have the FACT that a rider Di Luca has already been banned for life. So a life ban has happened .

    As for lawyers appealing I have made that clear as well. If you can't understand that, that's you problem.

    I was not playing any victim card. Just explaining that your reply's make you sound like a pompus di%k

    Let's see if your big ego can just move on without another word.
  • nic_77
    nic_77 Posts: 929
    I think you may be missing an important nuance of this particular argument.

    No tA Doctor is arguing that life bans do not represent a significant deterrent to prevent cheating. Your example of DiLuca supports this - he knew he would face a life ban for a third offence and this did not stop him.

    We haven't really discussed whether a life ban is an appropriate punishment once cheating has been proven.

    A deterrent and a punishment are different things.
    Strava
    Race reports
    Bike Aero Data
  • rayjay
    rayjay Posts: 1,384
    ShinyHelmut wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    As for contamination. The samples would be sealed and stored straight away in front of the athlete and also his team manager or team Dr would witness this. Once sealed and stored there can be no contamination. They are then only opened at a verified LAB.

    Isn't this what already happens?
    But for a rider to get banned for life it has to be very clear that he has been doping or like Millars case caught red handed.

    Had Millar not confessed there was no positive test to condemn him, just a bit of circumstantial evidence, enough to condemn him beyond reasonable doubt?
    We know it's very hard to get caught as so many riders have proved and have never been tested positive.

    You would hope that the testing would get better but the dopers will always be one step ahead.

    IMO it's the only way any sport may deter a young athlete from doping/PED'S if they realise their competitive sporting life will be over. IMO

    So a young rider would have a choice, not dope and give up on their dream, back to stacking shelves. Or dope and, as you claim above there is very little chance of actually getting caught, have a shot at being a pro. If they do get pinged then it's back to stacking shelves.

    You are defeating your own arguments.

    Ps if you think you've been bullied here you've led a very sheltered life.

    First off I said I will not be bullied. that's a very different thing. You don't know me so please don't make assumptions about me.

    As for your points

    Supposedly

    Well if Millar did not get caught he would have got away with it :roll:

    Well if you dope you make a choice.
    Non sporting job or dope or try and ride clean. That's your choice.
    You take the same chance now only you will get a shorter ban. I'm not defeating my argument just making a point.

    Other wise lets carry on as we are with some riders getting off with off season bans and some riders never riding again for the same offence. Is that fair?

    I have said it before how do you know that a rider who has been caught only once has not been doping more than a rider who has been caught 3 times? You don't, yet the rider caught only once will get a short ban.

    I say lets try a life ban and see if it has an effect or lets just make PED'S Legal and then not have to worry or spend a fortune on trying to find doping riders.
  • rayjay
    rayjay Posts: 1,384
    nic_77 wrote:
    I think you may be missing an important nuance of this particular argument.

    No tA Doctor is arguing that life bans do not represent a significant deterrent to prevent cheating. Your example of DiLuca supports this - he knew he would face a life ban for a third offence and this did not stop him.

    We haven't really discussed whether a life ban is an appropriate punishment once cheating has been proven.

    A deterrent and a punishment are different things.


    Every individual will make their own decision. I never said it would be perfect. I could not imagine Ricco not doping for instance but maybe once a few riders do get banned it may have a significant effect.


    Di Luca started riding when doping was the norm. Would he have started if he knew he would never ride again if he got caught?
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,438
    rayjay wrote:
    First off I said I will not be bullied. that's a very different thing. You don't know me so please don't make assumptions about me.

    No

    You accused me of bullying you when you said
    rayjay wrote:
    Tailwind and coriander, Go and look back at some of the things you have said on my previous posts and threads. I am never rude or abusive yet because you have a difference of opinion you feel you have the right to try and insult and bully me. Your behaviour is appalling, so go bully someone who give's a fu%% because I don't give a sh%t about people who cannot respect another persons view that is not hurting anyone .

    THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU .
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,438
    rayjay wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    I'm disagreeing with you and pointing out the fundamental flaws in what you are proposing.

    Have I misunderstood your proposal somewhere?


    If you can read. then you will realise your previous question was answered .

    So my interpretation is correct then.

    As I've said before you are entitled to express your opinion and post it on here. Don't be surprised however if other people think your suggestion is stupid and tell you this.

    You crack on though.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • rayjay
    rayjay Posts: 1,384
    TailWindHome wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    I'm disagreeing with you and pointing out the fundamental flaws in what you are proposing.

    Have I misunderstood your proposal somewhere?


    If you can read. then you will realise your previous question was answered .

    So my interpretation is correct then.

    As I've said before you are entitled to express your opinion and post it on here. Don't be surprised however if other people think your suggestion is stupid and tell you this.

    You crack on though.


    No what you do is say I am entitled to my opinion, but then you don't just disagree with it you try and put in a smart ass comment or imply that I or someone else who has a different view is stupid, which you have just done again. Your like a weird stalker, you do the same thing to WBT infact anyone who disagree's with you , i.e. if you do your due diligence then you would know that a lot of high profile athletes have called for a life ban . Are they idiots ? or are they just expressing a different view to yours. Lets see if you can crack on .
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,438
    rayjay wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    I'm disagreeing with you and pointing out the fundamental flaws in what you are proposing.

    Have I misunderstood your proposal somewhere?


    If you can read. then you will realise your previous question was answered .

    So my interpretation is correct then.

    As I've said before you are entitled to express your opinion and post it on here. Don't be surprised however if other people think your suggestion is stupid and tell you this.

    You crack on though.


    No what you do is say I am entitled to my opinion, but then you don't just disagree with it you try and put in a smart ass comment or imply that I or someone else who has a different view is stupid, which you have just done again. Your like a weird stalker, you do the same thing to WBT infact anyone who disagree's with you , i.e. if you do your due diligence then you would know that a lot of high profile athletes have called for a life ban . Are they idiots ? or are they just expressing a different view to yours. Lets see if you can crack on .


    You have gone a lot further than suggesting a life time ban.

    You suggest setting up a fool proof lab, with no right to challenge the result and no legal recourse.

    I'd be surprised if any athlete has ever suggested that.

    Am I misrepresenting your opinions or suggestion?
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • rayjay
    rayjay Posts: 1,384
    Ok ,I will bite :lol:

    First point being that if life time bans are going to be brought in then a fool proof system from the athlete to the lab would be needed.

    If there is NO DOUBT that the sample is positive then the rider gets a life ban.

    If those 2 objectives could be done then a lawyer would have no recourse. He could not argue contamination or anything else

    A situation say like Contador or even Rodgers with clen poses a doubt, so a life time ban would not be appropriate.

    There would have to be no doubt.


    I never said it would be easy but it would have to be fool proof and IMO independent analysis would be crucial.

    I don't know if the many athletes from Chris Hoy to Denise lewis etc who have called for life bans have thought about the application of the law . You would have to ask them .

    It was not meant to be a big deal. I was just throwing an idea around. It may stop a young athlete from doping it may not. How can anyone know until it has been tried. When that first young athlete gets banned for life it could have a big impact. Like I said would Di Luca have doped at an early age if he knew the consequences would be that he would never race again? That has huge significance for an ATHLETE
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,656
    rayjay wrote:
    It was not meant to be a big deal. I was just throwing an idea around. It may stop a young athlete from doping it may not. How can anyone know until it has been tried. When that first young athlete gets banned for life it could have a big impact. Like I said would Di Luca have doped at an early age if he knew the consequences would be that he would never race again? That has huge significance for an ATHLETE

    The point is, that it (increasing punishment) has been tried, in a huge variety of scenarios, and it doesn't work. This is actually a FACT. If you want to argue that cyclists and PED taking are in some way different from all the other cases of crime/punishment, which in turn is just a subset of risk taking, then go ahead, but please tell us why.

    Cyclists take PEDs because they don't think they'll get caught, not because the existing penalty is so small it's worth the risk. Which is exactly the same psychology as teenage lads in a souped-up Mazda tearing round at 90mph thinking crashes happen to other people.
    Einstein(attributed at any rate) wrote:
    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • rayjay
    rayjay Posts: 1,384
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    It was not meant to be a big deal. I was just throwing an idea around. It may stop a young athlete from doping it may not. How can anyone know until it has been tried. When that first young athlete gets banned for life it could have a big impact. Like I said would Di Luca have doped at an early age if he knew the consequences would be that he would never race again? That has huge significance for an ATHLETE

    The point is, that it (increasing punishment) has been tried, in a huge variety of scenarios, and it doesn't work. This is actually a FACT. If you want to argue that cyclists and PED taking are in some way different from all the other cases of crime/punishment, which in turn is just a subset of risk taking, then go ahead, but please tell us why.

    Cyclists take PEDs because they don't think they'll get caught, not because the existing penalty is so small it's worth the risk. Which is exactly the same psychology as teenage lads in a souped-up Mazda tearing round at 90mph thinking crashes happen to other people.
    Einstein(attributed at any rate) wrote:
    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results


    Yes I know you have said it as thousand times.

    Athletes take PEDs to run faster, lift more weight, ride a bike quicker etc. That's their focus for taking PED's.
    To be better than the next guy to become a champion or in the case of Body builders get a better physique.


    They do not take them for the thrill of not getting caught.

    IMO If it was possible to bring in life bans for first time offence then the impact of not being able to do the thing you have worked for all your life could possibly deter or make a few athletes think about doping.

    If you steal a car you get caught get released and you can steal another one.
    I just don't think your analogy fits into the mind set of all young professional athlete's who would not be allowed to ever to compete again.

    Athletes are not young criminals looking for a cheap thrill.

    I do not know the impact it would have, Chris Hoy does not know the impact it would have. You do not know the impact it would have even Einstein would not know.

    You could well be right and I could be wrong but you don't know this for sure.

    At present In cycling we have teams with ex doped riders racing. Managers that run teams have been ex dopers.

    Riders are banned for different amount of times for the same offence and some have not raced again and now Di Luca has been banned for life.

    It has never been tried and the athletes calling for life bans are fed up with seeing cheats competing and feel this could have some impact.

    I totally understand your point. I just don't fully agree.

    Agree to disagree as they say and move on.
  • nic_77
    nic_77 Posts: 929
    Again, the likes of Hoy have called for life bans as a punishment for people who break the rules and are caught.

    That is not the same as calling for life bans in order to deter a rider from making that choice.

    As it happens, I have no problem with a life ban in a case where there is no doubt... but I wouldn't expect it to serve as a meaningful deterrent to someone with the mindset to cheat.
    Strava
    Race reports
    Bike Aero Data
  • Bo Duke
    Bo Duke Posts: 1,058
    I don't disagree with the lifetime ban for proven cheats however, what about other sports? Surely athletics, tennis, football, rugby and other sports should agree to uniform sanctions?

    That said, I suggest our cricket team take advantage of any loophole opportunities before they're closed.
    '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.' TSP
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    Bo Duke wrote:
    I don't disagree with the lifetime ban for proven cheats however, what about other sports? Surely athletics, tennis, football, rugby and other sports should agree to uniform sanctions?

    That said, I suggest our cricket team take advantage of any loophole opportunities before they're closed.


    All sports under WADA Code would have to agree to lifetime bans for first offences - which is never going to happen. Otherwise, the athlete goes straight off to CAS and the lifetime ban would be overturned as contravening the Code.
  • Paulie W
    Paulie W Posts: 1,492
    rayjay wrote:
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    It was not meant to be a big deal. I was just throwing an idea around. It may stop a young athlete from doping it may not. How can anyone know until it has been tried. When that first young athlete gets banned for life it could have a big impact. Like I said would Di Luca have doped at an early age if he knew the consequences would be that he would never race again? That has huge significance for an ATHLETE

    The point is, that it (increasing punishment) has been tried, in a huge variety of scenarios, and it doesn't work. This is actually a FACT. If you want to argue that cyclists and PED taking are in some way different from all the other cases of crime/punishment, which in turn is just a subset of risk taking, then go ahead, but please tell us why.

    Cyclists take PEDs because they don't think they'll get caught, not because the existing penalty is so small it's worth the risk. Which is exactly the same psychology as teenage lads in a souped-up Mazda tearing round at 90mph thinking crashes happen to other people.
    Einstein(attributed at any rate) wrote:
    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results


    Yes I know you have said it as thousand times.

    Athletes take PEDs to run faster, lift more weight, ride a bike quicker etc. That's their focus for taking PED's.
    To be better than the next guy to become a champion or in the case of Body builders get a better physique.


    They do not take them for the thrill of not getting caught.

    IMO If it was possible to bring in life bans for first time offence then the impact of not being able to do the thing you have worked for all your life could possibly deter or make a few athletes think about doping.

    If you steal a car you get caught get released and you can steal another one.
    I just don't think your analogy fits into the mind set of all young professional athlete's who would not be allowed to ever to compete again.

    Athletes are not young criminals looking for a cheap thrill.

    I do not know the impact it would have, Chris Hoy does not know the impact it would have. You do not know the impact it would have even Einstein would not know.

    You could well be right and I could be wrong but you don't know this for sure.

    At present In cycling we have teams with ex doped riders racing. Managers that run teams have been ex dopers.

    Riders are banned for different amount of times for the same offence and some have not raced again and now Di Luca has been banned for life.

    It has never been tried and the athletes calling for life bans are fed up with seeing cheats competing and feel this could have some impact.

    I totally understand your point. I just don't fully agree.

    Agree to disagree as they say and move on.

    Rayjay, the point is there are analogous situations in which punishments have been made as prohibitive as they can possibly be and this has had no impact on offending rates. This is not a case of 'we disagree' - you are arguing a position that is very difficult, nigh impossible, to defend. All evidence suggests that your proposal would not only be unworkable and probably unenforcable in reality but it wouldnt have the desired effect.
  • rayjay
    rayjay Posts: 1,384
    Paulie W "Rayjay, the point is there are analogous situations in which punishments have been made as prohibitive as they can possibly be and this has had no impact on offending rates. This is not a case of 'we disagree' - you are arguing a position that is very difficult, nigh impossible, to defend. All evidence suggests that your proposal would not only be unworkable and probably unenforcable in reality but it wouldnt have the desired effect"


    I'm moving on. I have stated things quite clearly so there is no point in making a reply.

    nic_77, I did say that I doubt it would stop someone like Ricco or someone who has a self destructive mind set that they cannot control.
    But most of us are not self destructive to such a high degree.

Categories