'98 retro testing...

oneof1982

FJS wrote:

There's nothing odd with organisations firing employees who lied to them. A blanket 'all dopers out' is unworkable and counterproductive. When they're open about it, regret it as a mistake and actively work to help others avoid making the same mistake, why not?

The problem is how many "open about it, regret it as a mistake....(+done their time/served thier punishment?)" riders can you name? Other than David Millar, I'm struggling - and I've certainly not got Lance in the basket.

As for "all dopers out" is unworkable, ask Sky. Can you imagine the roasting they would have got if Yates et al. had still been on board as Froome kicked off up Ventoux? Also, you say a blanket ban is unworkable and counter productive. They won the TdF.

tailwindhome

oneof1982 wrote:

Also, you say a blanket ban is unworkable and counter productive. They won the TdF.

Are there enough clean ex-pros to go around?

oneof1982

iainf72 wrote:

oneof1982 wrote:

I want the dopers identified, and I want them out. At last this is what is happening. It won't be long before we see more teams adopting a "no ex-dopers" recuritment policy.

Shouldn't they just adopt a "no one who was a pro in the 90s and 00's" in that case? Because all that will happen is something will come out of the woodwork later

The retro testing, and how it has been used by the French judiciary has changed the game. With the right contracts in place (i.e damages for non-disclosure), anyone with a squeaky bum should be thinking twice about taking that job in the team car.

So the answer to you question is no, but they should make it clear to anyone they do hire, that in the event of a future finding against them, then the employer will want their money back, plus damages.

iainf72

oneof1982 wrote:

As for "all dopers out" is unworkable, ask Sky. Can you imagine the roasting they would have got if Yates et al. had still been on board as Froome kicked off up Ventoux? Also, you say a blanket ban is unworkable and counter productive. They won the TdF.

You believe there are no ex-dopers working at Sky?

Interesting, I doubt even Brailsford would commit to that

ddraver

oneof1982 wrote:

As for "all dopers out" is unworkable, ask Sky. Can you imagine the roasting they would have got if Yates et al. had still been on board as Froome kicked off up Ventoux? Also, you say a blanket ban is unworkable and counter productive. They won the TdF.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the Sky are dopers thread or the Ventoux stage spoiler thread...

The usual answer to your question - and Garmin's view - is that if you get people that have genuinely come clean to the team and then commited themselves to never do it again, then their presence can serve as a warning to younger riders and also recognise the signs of a team set up/atmosphere or the situation a rider is in that might tempt them into doping. I'm not sure how much I agree with them but Vaughters seems to be walking the line quite well. That said his staff only come clean to him rather than the UCI/WADA etc

The trouble is why would any rider come clean to anyone, there is nothing to be gained and everything to lose, hence why a T&R won't work!

Edit - hmm there was some sense to that post review thingum... :twisted:

Macaloon

oneof1982 wrote:

The retro testing, and how it has been used by the French judiciary has changed the game. With the right contracts in place (i.e damages for non-disclosure), anyone with a squeaky bum should be thinking twice about taking that job in the team car.

And for staff with pre-existing squeaky bums, what's to stop the UCI enforcing a ban on a staff with past indiscretions, with all but 6 months suspended if they make a full statement of PED use? Limited one-time offer.

TheBigBean

ddraver wrote:

The trouble is why would any rider come clean to anyone, there is nothing to be gained and everything to lose, hence why a T&R won't work!

6 month ban for telling the truth versus 2 years or more for lying or failing to come forward.

ddraver

TheBigBean wrote:

ddraver wrote:

The trouble is why would any rider come clean to anyone, there is nothing to be gained and everything to lose, hence why a T&R won't work!

6 month ban for telling the truth versus 2 years or more for lying or failing to come forward.

And if you ve got away with it for 15 years, your retired/retiring?

Smart money is still on staying silent!

RichN95.

TheBigBean wrote:

ddraver wrote:

The trouble is why would any rider come clean to anyone, there is nothing to be gained and everything to lose, hence why a T&R won't work!

6 month ban for telling the truth versus 2 years or more for lying or failing to come forward.

The threat of a two year ban wasn't a deterent when they were taking the drugs, so why would it be now?

TheBigBean

ddraver wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

ddraver wrote:

The trouble is why would any rider come clean to anyone, there is nothing to be gained and everything to lose, hence why a T&R won't work!

6 month ban for telling the truth versus 2 years or more for lying or failing to come forward.

And if you ve got away with it for 15 years, your retired/retiring?

Smart money is still on staying silent!

Not if all the 6 month ban people telling the truth result in a silent person getting a two year ban. A lot of them still work in cycling so can still be banned.

oneof1982

ddraver wrote:

oneof1982 wrote:

I refer the honourable gentleman to the Sky are dopers thread or the Ventoux stage spoiler thread...

The usual answer to your question - and Garmin's view - is that if you get people that have genuinely come clean to the team and then commited themselves to never do it again, then their presence can serve as a warning to younger riders and also recognise the signs of a team set up/atmosphere or the situation a rider is in that might tempt them into doping. I'm not sure how much I agree with them but Vaughters seems to be walking the line quite well. That said his staff only come clean to him rather than the UCI/WADA etc

The trouble is why would any rider come clean to anyone, there is nothing to be gained and everything to lose, hence why a T&R won't work!

Edit - hmm there was some sense to that post review thingum... :twisted:

The latest batch of riders did not "come clean". They were caught, or at least outed, admittedly somewhat retrospectively. But is is this issue of being caught further down the line which changes things.

As for coming clean, but only within a team. I don't buy that.

So anyway, you argue no coming clean, no Truth and Reconciliation? What is your solution?

RichN95.

TheBigBean wrote:

Not if all the 6 month ban people telling the truth result in a silent person getting a two year ban. A lot of them still work in cycling so can still be banned.

They can only be banned if the offense is within the statute of limitiations (i.e. post 2005) and they are going to have to have something a little more substantial that a witness staement to legally make a ban stick.

The choice is take a certain 100% six month ban or risk a less than 10% chance of getting a 2 year ban. (Probably much less than 10%)

The threat of a two year ban is one they already face anyway. You have to offer someone more than the status quo if you want them to reveal their dirty secrets.

TheBigBean

RichN95 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Not if all the 6 month ban people telling the truth result in a silent person getting a two year ban. A lot of them still work in cycling so can still be banned.

They can only be banned if the offense is within the statute of limitiations (i.e. post 2005) and they are going to have to have something a little more substantial that a witness staement to legally make a ban stick.

The choice is take a certain 100% six month ban or risk a less than 10% chance of getting a 2 year ban. (Probably much less than 10%)

The threat of a two year ban is one they already face anyway. You have to offer someone more than the status quo if you want them to reveal their dirty secrets.

That is all true, and WADA's statute of limitations does get in the way.

knedlicky

RichN95 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

People losing their jobs over this is stupid. It actually makes me angry.

The private sector is sanctioning people in the way that the UCI should be. No anger from me. USADA proved you can still ban someone even if they don't hold a licence.

No, that's self-righteous horseshit. These people weren't unusual - they were standard. That's what happened. And anyone with a brain knows it. To single out individuals is stupid.

So if someone hires a successful rider from the late 90s then unless they have rocks for brains, they have to know that there is a very good chance that they doped. So unless they specifically asked the question - and I'm guessing few did - then they have no right to sack them. It's like people who buy $100 Rolexes and then complain when they turn out to be fakes.

What people did 15 years ago isn't a reflection on what they do now. If you feel that everyone should carry around their sins until punished then there is no incentive to change.

Yes, on top of which it’s like bingo except that the numbers (names) called out aren’t the winning ones, rather the losers. Those not called out are the winners.

As others have said, the teams/organisations see things from a PR view. After the first few took action, others, which may have agreed with Rich above, changed tack in order not to stand out. NetApp actually went back on their original intention to keep Heppner on board.
Initial statement: “The retro-tests from 1998 have nothing to do with the successful work which Jens Heppner has done in our team since 2010”. Statement a week later: “… the overwhelming interest on both sides is that the new generation of riders strive for their season’s goals unaffected by the current situation in cycling”

Without there being a bandwagon-type behaviour by teams/organisations, I suppose Katusha may even have kept Zabel, after all Ekimov is his boss.

knedlicky

oneof1982 wrote:

I want the dopers identified, and I want them out.

If you go this route very strictly, you can probably get rid of a good 25 or more of the DS’s and asisstant DS’s currently working for the top teams, so maybe 30% of the total, but if you also apply it to the general managers you might actually eliminate some of the teams.
The way I understand it, the general manager is more than the team coordinator, often practiclly the team owner. So, unless he were to sell the team to someone else, if he goes so does the team.
At the moment I think that would mean losing Astana, BMC, Euskatel, FDJ, Garmin, Katusha, Lampre, Movistar and Omega-Pharma, so half the Pro Teams.
I don’t think that’s the way to go.

Macaloon

TheBigBean wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

The choice is take a certain 100% six month ban or risk a less than 10% chance of getting a 2 year ban. (Probably much less than 10%)

The threat of a two year ban is one they already face anyway. You have to offer someone more than the status quo if you want them to reveal their dirty secrets.

That is all true, and WADA's statute of limitations does get in the way.

Does it have to be a WADA sanction? The UCI has evaluates ethical matters prior to issuing a license. Why can't they lifetime ban un-confessed dopers on discovery, after allowing a short window for the confession of misdemeanours and a 6 month exclusion from the sport?

knedlicky

Rick Chasey wrote:

Have to say, sitting back from it occasionally, observing and trying to guess who the forum will pardon and who they won't is a kind of interesting.

Here’s one to observe, not from the 98 retro-testing but one which may experience the fall-out from the retro-testing:
Grischa Niermann outed 6 months ago, during the Dutch investigation into Rabobank, only a week after having first denied doping.
The Dutch Cycling Federation, by whom Niermann is employed in their youth programme, decided to ban him for 6 months, so theoretically he should start work again for them in about 2 weeks time.
But I can imagine them now possibly joining the bandwagon and dismissing him.

RichN95.

TheBigBean wrote:

That is all true, and WADA's statute of limitations does get in the way.

No it doesn't get in the way. It draws a line and keeps things in proportion. It stops zealots conducting endless witch hunts and allows people who may have made mistakes to quietly move on with their lives.

These riders just cheated at sport - at a time when everyone else was cheating at sport. They didn't create that environment and it wasn't in their power to end it. Most of them had made great sacrifices in their lives to get that far in the first place and were reluctant to give all that up. Few would have done it enthusiastically and many will have resented what they had to do. Such people are those likely to effect change, and demanding that they are publically flayed is not going to help.

The way some of you go sanctimoniously bang on, you would think they had raped children or something.

TheBigBean

Macaloon wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

The choice is take a certain 100% six month ban or risk a less than 10% chance of getting a 2 year ban. (Probably much less than 10%)

The threat of a two year ban is one they already face anyway. You have to offer someone more than the status quo if you want them to reveal their dirty secrets.

That is all true, and WADA's statute of limitations does get in the way.

Does it have to be a WADA sanction? The UCI has evaluates ethical matters prior to issuing a license. Why can't they lifetime ban un-confessed dopers on discovery, after allowing a short window for the confession of misdemeanours and a 6 month exclusion from the sport?

Bans are issued by each country's cycling agency. For them to be respected around the world they need to adhere to the WADA rules. Otherwise, British athletics could ban Bolt from the 100m because they feel like it (slightly ridiculous example)

oneof1982

knedlicky wrote:

oneof1982 wrote:

I want the dopers identified, and I want them out.

If you go this route very strictly, you can probably get rid of a good 25 or more of the DS’s and asisstant DS’s currently working for the top teams, so maybe 30% of the total, but if you also apply it to the general managers you might actually eliminate some of the teams.
The way I understand it, the general manager is more than the team coordinator, often practiclly the team owner. So, unless he were to sell the team to someone else, if he goes so does the team.
At the moment I think that would mean losing Astana, BMC, Euskatel, FDJ, Garmin, Katusha, Lampre, Movistar and Omega-Pharma, so half the Pro Teams.
I don’t think that’s the way to go.

Another argument for doing nothing?
What is the way to go then? (And I am not saying that I believe the implications are as you say.)

And you didn't mention Riis.

timoid.

FJS wrote:

There's nothing odd with organisations firing employees who lied to them. A blanket 'all dopers out' is unworkable and counterproductive. When they're open about it, regret it as a mistake and actively work to help others avoid making the same mistake, why not?

^This. Take the Garmin route. Come clean and show contrition and you get to be part of the solution. Say nothing and get rumbled, lose your job.

VdV, Danielson, Z, Jullich, Barry all fessed up and can now benefit the sport and keep the new guys on the straight and narrow. Millar did too by another route (although the only doped a couple of times and kept the syringes out of guilt thing still doesn't sit right in my mind).

Zabel, O'Grady and other continue to live a lie and I don't have any sympathy for them.

Oh another thing. All this talk of the nineties being the "dark period" is BS. Doping didn't stop in 99. Doping still hasn't stopped. It's probably reduced today, but until relatively recently it was almost as bad as the nineties, just more sophisticated.

Macaloon

TheBigBean wrote:

Bans are issued by each country's cycling agency. For them to be respected around the world they need to adhere to the WADA rules. Otherwise, British athletics could ban Bolt from the 100m because they feel like it (slightly ridiculous example)

I get that for riders. I'm suggesting a beefed-up 'Fit and Proper' test for team staff which is evaluated each license cycle, while acknowledging it might be wildly impractical. Guys are losing their jobs unfairly (just their bad luck to be outed this time) because of lying, not doping. If nothing is done, it surely won't be long before those unfairly fired start to turn on their peers still in employment. A confession window may avoid this 'spectacle'.

knedlicky

oneof1982 wrote:

knedlicky wrote:

oneof1982 wrote:

I want the dopers identified, and I want them out.

If you go this route very strictly, you can probably get rid of a good 25 or more of the DS’s and asisstant DS’s currently working for the top teams, so maybe 30% of the total, but if you also apply it to the general managers you might actually eliminate some of the teams.
The way I understand it, the general manager is more than the team coordinator, often practiclly the team owner. So, unless he were to sell the team to someone else, if he goes so does the team.
At the moment I think that would mean losing Astana, BMC, Euskatel, FDJ, Garmin, Katusha, Lampre, Movistar and Omega-Pharma, so half the Pro Teams.
I don’t think that’s the way to go.

Another argument for doing nothing?
What is the way to go then? (And I am not saying that I believe the implications are as you say.)

And you didn't mention Riis.

No, not an argument for doing nothing, but like others have said, I think a blanket approach is wrong. If ex-dopers come clean and seem the right man for a job, why not employ them? People change, professional cyclists too. I’m sure some will actively help younger riders from falling into the same hole.
Sacking named dopers from 98 is also unfair when those lucky enough not to be tested did the same. It’s different if riders continue to deny when presented with evidence; then there is a trust issue.

Retro-testing was done on the 99 TdF samples too, and in some ways, I'd be more interested in those names, because they might show who were 'real' dopers, the percentage of positive tests in 99 being far lower than in 98 because the peloton registered the warning shots.
But if the result will be like seems to be happening this time, i.e. all those named are fired from their jobs, maybe the 99 results should remain hidden. A vendetta is the wrong approach.

Riis is a DS so he’s included in my estimate of 25+.

rick_chasey

FJS wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

some of the commentators who never doped should lose their job.

Ha. Actually, Tim Krabbe (of 'The Rider') accounts in one of his non-fiction books how Jean Nelissen and another TV commentator once doped themselves to test the effect of doping on (untrained fat middle aged men's) performance for themselves. Nonsense of course. That was the in the late 70s/early 80s. Not sure what they took - at that time amphetamines probably

Karl Vanniuewkerk tried to turn pro for a year or two for journalistic reasons in the '90s. He cites regretting not taking any doping when he was at peak fitness to see the effects.

ddraver

oneof1982 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

oneof1982 wrote:

I refer the honourable gentleman to the Sky are dopers thread or the Ventoux stage spoiler thread...

The usual answer to your question - and Garmin's view - is that if you get people that have genuinely come clean to the team and then commited themselves to never do it again, then their presence can serve as a warning to younger riders and also recognise the signs of a team set up/atmosphere or the situation a rider is in that might tempt them into doping. I'm not sure how much I agree with them but Vaughters seems to be walking the line quite well. That said his staff only come clean to him rather than the UCI/WADA etc

The trouble is why would any rider come clean to anyone, there is nothing to be gained and everything to lose, hence why a T&R won't work!

Edit - hmm there was some sense to that post review thingum... :twisted:

The latest batch of riders did not "come clean". They were caught, or at least outed, admittedly somewhat retrospectively. But is is this issue of being caught further down the line which changes things.

As for coming clean, but only within a team. I don't buy that.

So anyway, you argue no coming clean, no Truth and Reconciliation? What is your solution?

The reality is that there is no magic wand, that period of cheating will disappear into the past with some people having escaped punishment, some people having been given a token punishment (e.g USPS doms) and some people being flayed over a gun carriage (Armstrong, Ullrich etc).

I think now we have shown that retroactive testing does reveal cheaters, I think there should be a system in place that makes it clear that athlete's samples WILL be tested in the future, that would be a significant deterrent and remove some of the "uncatchable" feeling that pervaded the EPO era peloton

I don't feel that uncomfortable with Erik Zabel giving Cavendish Sprinting tips, but I do feel more concerned about people like Riis or Vinokourov running teams. Even if they don't run a doping program, they re still more than capable of leaving the possibility open. The trouble is I don't see any legal why such a ban could be enforced or even determined. Where i think there is real scope for change is that doping doctors, soigneurs or care staff should be removed (if found to have doped) as they really can have an influence.

What is also important is that everyone should face the same sanctions, Why can Riis run a team but not Bruneeyl, why can Erik Zabel still race (should he want to) but not Armstrong or Ullrich?

mididoctors

I think when you stand back and look at things what is happening is that everyone touched by doping is getting phased out over time.. as more and more genuinely clean types get into the sport the need to keep the old guard acquired knowledge becomes less important... I just see them all being slowly squeezed out. how one gets "exited" depends on a plethora of stuff, a lot of it perception and timing.


tough on some justice on others but whatever...

Why take the chance of hiring some bad PR ex doper when I can either have someone who was not even there in the 90's eg kerrison or some good PR doper who has spun it well eg Garmin... in another 5 years will teams turn to the knowledge of guys in the peloton in the 1993-2006(?) era?

these guys all have a shelf life of usefulness that is running out, if they want to stay in the sport they better start getting a bit more savvy

even more so if the knowledge they bring is outdated.

Richmond Racer

mididoctors wrote:

I think when you stand back and look at things what is happening is that everyone touched by doping is getting phased out over time.. as more and more genuinely clean types get into the sport the need to keep the old guard acquired knowledge becomes less important... I just see them all being slowly squeezed out. how one gets "exited" depends on a plethora of stuff, a lot of it perception and timing.


tough on some justice on others but whatever...

Why take the chance of hiring some bad PR ex doper when I can either have someone who was not even there in the 90's eg kerrison or some good PR doper who has spun it well eg Garmin... in another 5 years will teams turn to the knowledge of guys in the peloton in the 1993-2006(?) era?

these guys all have a shelf life of usefulness that is running out, if they want to stay in the sport they better start getting a bit more savvy

even more so if the knowledge they bring is outdated.

^this

An entire period of cycling when coaching methods advanced not one milimetre and when really good DS tactical skills (see Peter Post and Cyrille Guimard) became redundant to the power of the doctors....

When riders retired and moved into back room roles but had not the first idea how to coach - as all they'd known in the way of performance management was dope...

A sport where - until Sky came along - it was totally inconceivable that management and back room staff could be anything other than ex-pros....

Time to evolve, peeps...

Yellow Peril

RichN95 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

That is all true, and WADA's statute of limitations does get in the way.

No it doesn't get in the way. It draws a line and keeps things in proportion. It stops zealots conducting endless witch hunts and allows people who may have made mistakes to quietly move on with their lives.

These riders just cheated at sport - at a time when everyone else was cheating at sport. They didn't create that environment and it wasn't in their power to end it. Most of them had made great sacrifices in their lives to get that far in the first place and were reluctant to give all that up. Few would have done it enthusiastically and many will have resented what they had to do. Such people are those likely to effect change, and demanding that they are publically flayed is not going to help.

The way some of you go sanctimoniously bang on, you would think they had raped children or something.

Really? what was their day job then? I could have sworn it was pro cycling.

You're full of hypocrysy here Rich on the one had you saying get over it they just cheated at sport, then you are banging on about the great sacrifices they made to get there.

It strikes me that the sanctimonious ones on here are the cool school who want to be Vaughters mini-me

RichN95.

Yellow Peril wrote:

Really? what was their day job then? I could have sworn it was pro cycling.

You're full of hypocrysy here Rich on the one had you saying get over it they just cheated at sport, then you are banging on about the great sacrifices they made to get there.

I'm not full of hypocracy at all. I'm one of the few that has some empathy for these riders.

There seems to be some idea with some that these riders doped in isolation entirely of their own free will. They didn't.

They didn't introduce doping to cycling
Mostly they didn't encourage it
They were in the large majority, not a minority
They were powerless to change it
If they hadn't done it, someone else would
In the main they were victims of the system, not perpetrators

So people should get off their high horse expecting apologies and confessions from riders who they've barely heard of for doping in races they never watched.

FJS

In the 90s, and this returns time and again in all the confessions coming out recently (like this one http://nos.nl/artikel/533379-blijlevens ... brief.html (google translate will work)), for most riders there was a choice of either doping and remaining a successful pro, or stay clean and become unemployed and lose everything their whole life, parents' sacrifices, friendships, etc had been built on. Doping was still the wrong choice, and riders should be condemned for it, but like Rich says, it wasn't a decision to cheat made in isolation.
Much better to admire the few who did make the ethical choice and lost their careers