Great blog by Vaughters

EKIMIKE

Well, seems like there are several different things being talking about different things here. Vaughters is talking about drug testing. Some of the discussion here is about punishment for doping. Two entirely different things.

Punishment entails a focus on the drugs supply itself. In which case perhaps something ex-ante (before the event, prevention) rather than ex-post (after the event, punishment) would be better. Tightening up the outward supply lines of big pharma my be the way to go. Strict accounting of supply would make identifying black market trade easier in theory. At the moment it seems fairly liberal and lacking in regulation. That story about Amgen and Johnson & Johnson is a good example. It's quite a high ideal but if you're going to find the funding for something like this, big pharma isn't a bad shout (the level of funding is hardly profit destroying). Think of it as a 'polluter pays' initiative.

Maybe? Like I said though, it's a high ideal. Doubt it would ever happen.

At any rate it beats criminalisation considering the jurisdictional nightmare that is international sport. Or international law for anything for that matter.

EKIMIKE

Also forgot to mention, testing would still require a prominent position.

You could look at it from the perspective that if you get big pharma onside in terms of supply then you're more likely to get them onside for testing, particularly developing tests. That would be massive. Afterall, that is where the knowledge is.

deejay

RichN95 wrote:

(Can you guess what I do for a living?)
Patent Examiner is the correct answer.

Where do you do that. ?
In Holborn, London perhaps, or has it moved to Wales now. ?

I was very close in the Cycling World to Dixie Dean of the Bec CC and he did the same job at Holborn.
He taught me a lot about Handicapping and Timekeeping.
I'll get my coat.

RichN95.

deejay wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

(Can you guess what I do for a living?)
Patent Examiner is the correct answer.

Where do you do that. ?
In Holborn, London perhaps, or has it moved to Wales now. ?

It moved to Newport over twenty years ago.

micron

The UCI attempted to implement a 2 year ban from teams signing riders returning from a suspension - as iainf points out, it wasn't compliant with WADA code. Instead, perhaps, a probationary period where riders submit to additional testing?

I don't think Vaughters abandons the 'magical thinking' of TRC in this piece at all - as a long time and very vocal supporter of a T&R process, why would he? He embeds the idea of 'truth' at the core of his plans to move the sport forward. Question is, how do you get at the 'truth'?

Macaloon

micron wrote:

I don't think Vaughters abandons the 'magical thinking' of TRC in this piece at all ...

Team Independent Test Squad is surely completely decoupled from any TRC. It's a practical means to free today's riders from today's compromised testing regime, and its' sketchy administrators. Meanwhile, completely in parallel, those who can handle the truth can have at it. The rest of us can enjoy the racing with slightly more confidence.

micron

Of course independent testing is uncoupled from TRC - he's outlining the road map for what happens after that process. He seems to be as committed to it as ever though, of course it's not a) a magic bullet b) infallible and c) the devile most certainly in the details (though the USADA draft outline plan was simple enough to implement). Personally, I'd like to see the anti doping fund being contributed to by all sports - let tennis and football and all the rest contribute to paying for the testing innovations a much poorer sport, owning up to its past, have instituted.

Yellow Peril

EKIMIKE wrote:

Well, seems like there are several different things being talking about different things here. Vaughters is talking about drug testing. Some of the discussion here is about punishment for doping. Two entirely different things.

Punishment entails a focus on the drugs supply itself. In which case perhaps something ex-ante (before the event, prevention) rather than ex-post (after the event, punishment) would be better. Tightening up the outward supply lines of big pharma my be the way to go. Strict accounting of supply would make identifying black market trade easier in theory. At the moment it seems fairly liberal and lacking in regulation. That story about Amgen and Johnson & Johnson is a good example. It's quite a high ideal but if you're going to find the funding for something like this, big pharma isn't a bad shout (the level of funding is hardly profit destroying). Think of it as a 'polluter pays' initiative.

Maybe? Like I said though, it's a high ideal. Doubt it would ever happen.

I can't agree with this Ekimike. If I manufacture something that is say a licensed cure for cancer and it also turns out it is a PED I don't see why I should be held accountable if a person or persons unknown get their hands on it and use it as such.

Who is at fault in that situation If however I start knocking it out like lucozade then I would accept som eform of accountability. Big Pharma should not necessarily be held accountable for the actions of others, there has to be a reasonable level of culpability. The end users are grown ups and capable of distinguishing between right and wrong.

At any rate it beats criminalisation considering the jurisdictional nightmare that is international sport. Or international law for anything for that matter.

dave_1

JV1973 is the real JV I take it...if so saying some noteworthy stuff down in the clinic. Anyone had a look? e.g.




Originally Posted by JV1973
I play the long game. The slow, uncool, uninspired and sometimes hated, long game. Someday that story will be told in its entirety.
I wish, too, I could just hit the gates of Aigle with a bazooka. Trust me.

________________________________________


#3402
Today, 05:35 JV1973 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 460

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galic Ho, When did either Wiggins or Cadel win the Dauphine twice? They've both won it once, the same year they won the Tour. Cadel tried numerous times to win to no avail. It wasn't through lack of trying on his behalf. More likely that Valverde wasn't there to deny him AGAIN. Edit: my bad...I thought Evans won it in 2011. Your point stands Blackcat. But I was referring to the years before either won a GT. Pre 2011. But it doesn't matter.

Agree on the other part though. Doesn't need to go as hard as he did because of the family side. I think all of BMC had an easy 2012, but more so because of team orders stemming from USADA's work. They had funded Floyd for years hadn't they? Is BMC's team license in the States or Europe?
ahhhh....Phonak... home of "I didn't know he was transfusing himself during the Tour...while I was directing/managing."

If I ever say "I didn't know!" please, look up my address and come and shoot me. I will make sure legal repercussions are minimized.

Thanks, JV

danlikesbikes

Rick Chasey wrote:

As the Aussie scandal shows doping IS linked to crime so the solution is straightforward.

Force every professional sports team, regardless of sport pay 5% of total expenditure to fighting doping and cheating. Make that a state run thing. 1/3 goes to testing the other goes into criminal policing of sports cheating.

Make it very criminal.

That'll be most effective.

Seen as harsh by some, but I tend to agree and think its the right way to go.

Crankbrother

Danlikesbikes wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

As the Aussie scandal shows doping IS linked to crime so the solution is straightforward.

Force every professional sports team, regardless of sport pay 5% of total expenditure to fighting doping and cheating. Make that a state run thing. 1/3 goes to testing the other goes into criminal policing of sports cheating.

Make it very criminal.

That'll be most effective.

Seen as harsh by some, but I tend to agree and think its the right way to go.

Trouble is they'll all just go down the Contador route of citing something that can't be proven (unless daily poo tests become mandatory) ... Sure, they'll risk a ban as there is rider responsibility but there won't be enough evidence to convict them criminally ...

Look at that skiing dude that used the wrong Vicks ... pretty harsh to be mistaken for a paedo when you're moved cells one Tuesday morning just because you were a bit snotty over the winter ...

danlikesbikes

Crankbrother wrote:

Trouble is they'll all just go down the Contador route of citing something that can't be proven (unless daily poo tests become mandatory) ... Sure, they'll risk a ban as there is rider responsibility but there won't be enough evidence to convict them criminally ...

Look at that skiing dude that used the wrong Vicks ... pretty harsh to be mistaken for a paedo when you're moved cells one Tuesday morning just because you were a bit snotty over the winter ...

True but the Bertie case was an extreme one really (DO NOT MISSTAKE MY NEXT STATEMENT FOR AGREEING WITH OR AGAINST BERT'S BAN) as the item was at such a low level and most research does seem to state if would not have made any benefit in performance at that level.

But if making it a criminal offence, which could easily be extended to team staffers, medical staff etc you are tackling the issue from one end. Whilst at the other end you are making teams financially pay more to regulate the testing.

There have been several cases (quite often things like vics) where I think any governing body would think more lightly on the infringement but any masking agent is still that and could just as easily hide a PED from current testing.