Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
In the early days of EPO use in the peloton, numerous riders died in their sleep, thus incurring the ultimate life ban with no right of appeal.
Yet still the other riders kept using EPO, or at least enough of them did to keep numbers up in the pro peloton. If the very real risk of dying from EPO use wasn't enough to stop riders using EPO, how is the threat of a life ban going to stop them in significant enough numbers to fundamentally change the sport? If 10% of the pro peloton did stop using PEDs as a result, then a corrosponding number of amateurs would simply step up to fill the pro rosters.
Even if draconian sanctions were effective, the laws in the countries where cycling is popular generally treat drug taking of all sorts as a not overly serious offence (except where corruption of minors is involved) so it would be very hard to get draconian sanctions to stick.0 -
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.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.
Actually, rayjay, I can see you've fundamentally missed my point.
All the time I've been talking about risk-taking you've understood it as thrill-seeking. That's not what I meant at all. This has nothing to do with people taking risks for jollies. This is purely to do with the psychology of assessing the possible positive and negative outcomes of an action.
Obviously my boy racer example clouded the issue, sorry for that.
In situations where the negative outcome is non-negligible (going to jail, crashing your car, copping a two year ban) it's been shown that the decisive factor, statistically, in whether to take the risk or not, is unrelated to how high the penalty is but is strongly correlated to how high a chance you think you have of incurring that penalty. Boy racers driving too fast take the risk because they think it's unlikely they'll crash badly, not because they don't know what will happen to them if they do. Armed robbers robbing a bank do so because they think it's unlikely they'll get caught, not because they don't know they'll go down if they do. And cyclists taking PEDs... same again. Numerous studies and analyses have shown this to be the case in every situation where people are determining risk. People that don't think they'll have to pay a penalty aren't worried about what the penalty is.
Typically, the boy racers also suffer from another problem - which is why they slow down as (if) they grow older and gain experience - they drastically overestimate their driving ability. Young men are cock-sure - bad shit happens to other people who aren't as clever / quick / smart / etc. as them. Effectively they're underestimating the risk of paying the penalty.
You can actually see some of the same psychology in action when you hear phrases like "only the stupid get caught doping" and the famous "it's not a drugs test, it's an intelligence test". While it's true that testing has huge loopholes, there's an arrogance, a young-man's cock-sure attitude, about believing it's near impossible to get caught if you're smart about it.
I hope that's a bit clearer now, I think you got the wrong end of the stick and we carried on from there.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
I have actually given up on this one. But do carry on. Be interesting to see what others think.
But I'm watching Stargate Atlantis. Those Wraith a.0 -
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.
Those who come under the WADA code have uniform suspensions.
4 years will be introduced from 2015 onwards for first offense.
Lifetime ban for first offense would stumble on human rights grounds.
WADA do sanitise their laws via actual law.0 -
300 pages, really? Even LA is over it now0
-
whiteboytrash wrote: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.
Those who come under the WADA code have uniform suspensions.
4 years will be introduced from 2015 onwards for first offense.
Lifetime ban for first offense would stumble on human rights grounds.
WADA do sanitise their laws via actual law.
No. A maximum of 4 years suspension will be introduced from Jan 2015 for a first offence. The new version of the Code will provide plenty of scope - perhaps even more so that the current Code - for the sanction to be less than 4 years, depending on how the Fed or the ADO in question view any defence put up by the athlete and the supporting circumstances.
You will still have inconsistent sanctioned periods being handed down to different athletes by different sanctioning bodies, be they nat feds or NADOs, for the same banned substance. They will never be 'uniform' as things stand.
And of course there will still be the same 75% reduction in sanction on offer for the athlete blowing the whistle, at the discretion of the sanctioning body.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:whiteboytrash wrote: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.
Those who come under the WADA code have uniform suspensions.
4 years will be introduced from 2015 onwards for first offense.
Lifetime ban for first offense would stumble on human rights grounds.
WADA do sanitise their laws via actual law.
No. A maximum of 4 years suspension will be introduced from Jan 2015 for a first offence. The new version of the Code will provide plenty of scope - perhaps even more so that the current Code - for the sanction to be less than 4 years, depending on how the Fed or the ADO in question view any defence put up by the athlete and the supporting circumstances.
You will still have inconsistent sanctioned periods being handed down to different athletes by different sanctioning bodies, be they nat feds or NADOs, for the same banned substance. They will never be 'uniform' as things stand.
And of course there will still be the same 75% reduction in sanction on offer for the athlete blowing the whistle, at the discretion of the sanctioning body.
That's what I said, yes?
Are you upset that I didn't join the forum only a month ago like you stated?
Best thing to do here is just engage in discussion. Don't play the man. I'm not the enemy.
The forum will be better for it. Let it go.
Deal?0 -
^if you think that's playing the man (you)...you really need to get out more0
-
Rigga wrote:300 pages, really? Even LA is over it now
I think this thread should declare when it reaches it's triple centuryIt's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:No. A maximum of 4 years suspension will be introduced from Jan 2015 for a first offence.
Is that right? The current (ie 2009) WADA code has 2-4 year for a first "standard" offence.0 -
It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
haven't we all gone a bit OT and maybe the length of bans etc should either be discussed in the doping thread or in a new topic0
-
Fair do's. And Salsiccia's declared, so its off to the club house for tea anyway.0
-
Wallace and Gromit wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:No. A maximum of 4 years suspension will be introduced from Jan 2015 for a first offence.
Is that right? The current (ie 2009) WADA code has 2-4 year for a first "standard" offence.
It was recently voted on as:
Beginning on Jan. 1, 2015, WADA will enforce the four-year ban on first-time offenders. Currently, first-time offenses carry a two-year suspension. While the first-time ban will increase, WADA will also gain flexibility in application of anti-doping rules per sport.
The updated World Anti-Doping Code, adopted Friday by the WADA board of directors, will read:
The period of Ineligibility imposed for a first violation of Articles 2.1, 2.2 or 2.6 shall be as follows, subject to potential reduction or suspension of sanction pursuant to Articles 10.4, 10.5 or 10.6: 10.2.1 The period of Ineligibility shall be four years where:
10.2.1.1 The anti-doping rule violation does not involve a Specified Substance, unless the Athlete or other Person can establish that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional.
10.2.1.2 The anti-doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance and the Anti-Doping Organization can establish that the anti-doping rule violation was intentional.0 -
RichN95 wrote:^^^ We're lucky that cricketer's not Brian Lara. He'd be looking to push on to four or five hundred from here.
By the way, The Armstrong Lie got nominated for a BAFTA this morning
Alex Gibney is something of an Academy fave
Lance'll love mingling with all the celebs on the red carpet and hanging out at the Vanity Fair party afterwards
Oh.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:RichN95 wrote:^^^ We're lucky that cricketer's not Brian Lara. He'd be looking to push on to four or five hundred from here.
By the way, The Armstrong Lie got nominated for a BAFTA this morning
Alex Gibney is something of an Academy fave
Lance'll love mingling with all the celebs on the red carpet and hanging out at the Vanity Fair party afterwards
Oh.
Aye. Armstrong back in the limelight. Cameras, lights, microphones, I can see his smug smile now.
0 -
mike6 wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:RichN95 wrote:^^^ We're lucky that cricketer's not Brian Lara. He'd be looking to push on to four or five hundred from here.
By the way, The Armstrong Lie got nominated for a BAFTA this morning
Alex Gibney is something of an Academy fave
Lance'll love mingling with all the celebs on the red carpet and hanging out at the Vanity Fair party afterwards
Oh.
Aye. Armstrong back in the limelight. Cameras, lights, microphones, I can see his smug smile now.
Aint gonna happen, Mike. He's not best pleased about the film. He hasnt talked to Gibney since he let Gibney interview him straight after the Oprah interview. From that point onwards, he's not been part of the whole shebang in any way. The film isnt a joint Gibney-Armstrong production.0 -
I see LA in Daily Mail pics...beer gut evident now....re Armstrong Lie, I'll defo go to see it..just the slips on youtube show some rather candid coment from LA re 99 and half life of EPO and such like. This thread also..300 pages!0
-
mike6
"Aye. Armstrong back in the limelight. Cameras, lights, microphones, I can see his smug smile now.[/quote]"
Armstrong is bound to be back in the limelight. I for one would be pleased to see the 7 time tour winner and his views on the film. Best tour rider ever. Absolutely no doubt about it. 0 -
^no point in trying to troll mike, ray - he has you on ignore0
-
Richmond Racer wrote:^no point in trying to troll mike, ray - he has you on ignore
Quite, never been so relaxed and serene.
0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:^no point in trying to troll mike, ray - he has you on ignore
Still Oh well ignorance is bliss as they say. He does get quite wound up over things.
Send him my regards 0 -
I watched the first Oprah again last night, having not watched it since it was first aired.
What a lying toad. I had to switch it off 2/3 of the way through.0 -
Hey Ray,
How do you respond to both the article below but more importantly the response LA gives under oath in the video?
http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2014 ... ions.html/
Koooooooooooooooooling lying or what?'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:Hey Ray,
How do you respond to both the article below but more importantly the response LA gives under oath in the video?
http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2014 ... ions.html/
Koooooooooooooooooling lying or what?
He'll respond in the usual, fan boy with a man crush, manner.
He totally ignore the article and question, repeat 7 Tour wins, best ever rider etc and decorate his post a heap of smilies because it's the closest he can get to humour."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Bo Duke wrote:Hey Ray,
How do you respond to both the article below but more importantly the response LA gives under oath in the video?
http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2014 ... ions.html/
Koooooooooooooooooling lying or what?
That's an old video and even during the Oprah interview he says he would answer differently. Does sho how far he was willing to go to protect him image and the cynical side of me says the apology tour was all part of the same image protection0 -
Oh course it's an old video, 2005 I think during the arbitration mentioned in teh article that cost SCA $12 million that they are now claiming back - becuase the outcome of the arbitration was based on LA's testimony - these blatent lies.
What also stands out aprat from teh fact the ridiculous length LA was willing to lie to 'to keep the dream alive' is the even more ridiculous claim that he was no different from anyone else and should be treated no differently nor singled out.
These comments get over exposed on forums and people say 'Yeah why not...' but when you revert to the physical evidence, LA stands out miles above any other athlete in the way and to the extent to which he not only broke the rules of cycling but the extremes he was willing to go to cover up his crime. There is no 'defence' of his actions, he needs to be fully exposed and punished with whatever the right authorities deem suitable to ensure this kind of sport terrorism doesn't happen again.'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 ,of course he lied. He doped and he won 7 tours. He has to face the consequences of those action not me.
That fact that he and just about all the rest of them doped does not bother me in the slightest.
Riders have been doping/PED's all kinds of crazy drug and alcoholic concoctions well before Armstrong and his rivals were doping. Riders are still getting busted now.
Blazing , just for you ,,,HE LIED AND DOPED . I have never said anything different.
I think that answers your post enjoy
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid ... -my-closet0
