Doping Life Bans
Comments
-
There's that pest again. :roll:
Funnily enough, I was going to add, but went for brevity, that
nobody need come back with the caught once, but probably multiple user spin.
Rules is rules. Test results not guesswork.
Besides, given a LTB for admitting to more than one offence would
have everybody adopting the Zabel 2008 gambit.
"Only once, guv, only once."
At this point, I would just like to remind folks that Armstrong's lifetime ban
isn't for doping to win Le Tour."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Macaloon wrote:rayjay wrote:Simple point.
One rider rides for 10 years and is doping at every big race and he gets caught once and is allowed to carry on riding.
Another rider has been riding for 5 years has just doped on the odd occasion but has been caught twice and gets banned for life ....is that fair?
...
Otherwise let them Dope.
The unfairness stems from the failure to detect rider 1s doping. Increase the likelihood of detection and you've solved the fairness question. Capital punishment - the ultimate life ban - is ridiculously expensive, prone to injustice, and a questionable deterrent.
Don't let them dope. It's a sport not Bill Smart's big top freak show.
One reviewer talking about the Armstrong film said that riders might as well admit they dope and name their Dr as Well. The point he was making is that nobody cares, most people think riders dope anyway.0 -
rayjay wrote:Macaloon wrote:rayjay wrote:Simple point.
One rider rides for 10 years and is doping at every big race and he gets caught once and is allowed to carry on riding.
Another rider has been riding for 5 years has just doped on the odd occasion but has been caught twice and gets banned for life ....is that fair?
...
Otherwise let them Dope.
The unfairness stems from the failure to detect rider 1s doping. Increase the likelihood of detection and you've solved the fairness question. Capital punishment - the ultimate life ban - is ridiculously expensive, prone to injustice, and a questionable deterrent.
Don't let them dope. It's a sport not Bill Smart's big top freak show.
One reviewer talking about the Armstrong film said that riders might as well admit they dope and name their Dr as Well. The point he was making is that nobody cares, most people think riders dope anyway.
Who is this reviewer? Where did he say it? What are his expertise and knowledge of cycling or any other sport?
Otherwise, my mate down the pub said they're all at it, so they may as well be.
That's just a stupid argument. It's like saying if everybody thinks I cheat on my taxes, I should start"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Oh well if a film reviewer gives the green light....
...filll your boots, everyone0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:rayjay wrote:Simple point.
One rider rides for 10 years and is doping at every big race and he gets caught once and is allowed to carry on riding.
Another rider has been riding for 5 years has just doped on the odd occasion but has been caught twice and gets banned for life ....is that fair?
The bans are inconsistent.
The rules need to be the same for all and favours not given for riders who do deals to name other riders to save their own ass.
What's the incentive for riders to give information then?
I take it you don't agree with plea bargaining for organised crime either?
What's the incentive for doped riders to give information ? to save their own ass.
Organised crime is not the same as a few riders trying to pedal quicker. :roll:0 -
rayjay wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:rayjay wrote:Simple point.
One rider rides for 10 years and is doping at every big race and he gets caught once and is allowed to carry on riding.
Another rider has been riding for 5 years has just doped on the odd occasion but has been caught twice and gets banned for life ....is that fair?
The bans are inconsistent.
The rules need to be the same for all and favours not given for riders who do deals to name other riders to save their own ass.
What's the incentive for riders to give information then?
I take it you don't agree with plea bargaining for organised crime either?
What's the incentive for doped riders to give information ? to save their own ass.
Organised crime is not the same as a few riders trying to pedal quicker. :roll:
So where do these drugs come from? Are they bought legally and administered against their licensed use? Because that sounds like a crime. Are they stolen and bought on the black market because that sounds like a crime. Is one doctor running a clinic that caters to the illegal use of medicines to enhance athletic performance, because that sounds like a crime.
All of which you never get to know about by saying "2 years for you! What's that? You've got more to tell me? Well you better seriously compromise your future employment prospects to do it for absolutely no return!""In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:rayjay wrote:Macaloon wrote:rayjay wrote:Simple point.
One rider rides for 10 years and is doping at every big race and he gets caught once and is allowed to carry on riding.
Another rider has been riding for 5 years has just doped on the odd occasion but has been caught twice and gets banned for life ....is that fair?
...
Otherwise let them Dope.
The unfairness stems from the failure to detect rider 1s doping. Increase the likelihood of detection and you've solved the fairness question. Capital punishment - the ultimate life ban - is ridiculously expensive, prone to injustice, and a questionable deterrent.
Don't let them dope. It's a sport not Bill Smart's big top freak show.
One reviewer talking about the Armstrong film said that riders might as well admit they dope and name their Dr as Well. The point he was making is that nobody cares, most people think riders dope anyway.
Who is this reviewer? Where did he say it? What are his expertise and knowledge of cycling or any other sport?
Otherwise, my mate down the pub said they're all at it, so they may as well be.
That's just a stupid argument. It's like saying if everybody thinks I cheat on my taxes, I should start
The review show BBC 2 . It is his opinion. I never said but do you really think anyone apart from a few cycling fans really give a sh%%. There are so many ex doped riders still racing that it's a joke to think that people would get so upset over a rider getting busted. SHOCK NEWS DOPED CYCLIST
0 -
I reckon a team full of ex dopers ran by a ex doper is a good thing.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
disgruntledgoat wrote:rayjay wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:rayjay wrote:Simple point.
One rider rides for 10 years and is doping at every big race and he gets caught once and is allowed to carry on riding.
Another rider has been riding for 5 years has just doped on the odd occasion but has been caught twice and gets banned for life ....is that fair?
The bans are inconsistent.
The rules need to be the same for all and favours not given for riders who do deals to name other riders to save their own ass.
What's the incentive for riders to give information then?
I take it you don't agree with plea bargaining for organised crime either?
What's the incentive for doped riders to give information ? to save their own ass.
Organised crime is not the same as a few riders trying to pedal quicker. :roll:
So where do these drugs come from? Are they bought legally and administered against their licensed use? Because that sounds like a crime. Are they stolen and bought on the black market because that sounds like a crime. Is one doctor running a clinic that caters to the illegal use of medicines to enhance athletic performance, because that sounds like a crime.
All of which you never get to know about by saying "2 years for you! What's that? You've got more to tell me? Well you better seriously compromise your future employment prospects to do it for absolutely no return!"
Your right . lets clamp down on these speedy cyclists and not worry about the slave trade or the drug running or the murders or the child abusers or abuse of the media to get a story or the horrific illegal injustice's that are going on around the world....lets get those bad cyclists.0 -
Can't we do both?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
iainf72 wrote:So at Sochi there is an insulin type drug being used - WADA admit it's not detectable. I'd rather money was spent on finding a test for it than on legal fee's for daft punitive measures.
If you can detect things reliably doping drops off. Life bans or making people listen to Coldplay albums isn't going to stop anyone when there is bigger all chance of being caught
Keep spending money on detecting a drug and while you are doing that the dopers move on and find a new drug.
You may as well flush that money down the toilet.
The athletes who dope keep moving forward. The testers are just playing catch up and it's costing a lot of money for what.
The Coldplay albums thing could work .....all though I bet Blazing & RR have all their albums and think Chris Martin is a edgy frontman 0 -
rayjay wrote:iainf72 wrote:So at Sochi there is an insulin type drug being used - WADA admit it's not detectable. I'd rather money was spent on finding a test for it than on legal fee's for daft punitive measures.
If you can detect things reliably doping drops off. Life bans or making people listen to Coldplay albums isn't going to stop anyone when there is bigger all chance of being caught
Keep spending money on detecting a drug and while you are doing that the dopers move on and find a new drug.
You may as well flush that money down the toilet.
The athletes who dope keep moving forward. The testers are just playing catch up and it's costing a lot of money for what.
Fairer and more even competition ensuring that young athletes don't have to destroy thier health to compete in an era where the blurring between sport and the entertainment industry makes the pressure to perform ever greater in order to ensure that sponsors who fund said competition won't be driven away?
Just a thought, like."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
But this is mostly a myth. They don't move on to new drugs, because usually those drugs don't exist. Dopers are still using EPO, transfusions and testosterone, which have been around for 25 years or longer.rayjay wrote:Keep spending money on detecting a drug and while you are doing that the dopers move on and find a new drug.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
But this is mostly a myth. They don't move on to new drugs, because usually those drugs don't exist. Dopers are still using EPO, transfusions and testosterone, which have been around for 25 years or longer.rayjay wrote:Keep spending money on detecting a drug and while you are doing that the dopers move on and find a new drug.
The banned list gets bigger and you won't even know of any new drugs . If you know the testers know. But some do come to light as stated above.
EPO (erythropoietin)Blood Doping ,Human Growth Hormone, Pharmacological,chemical and physical manipulation: SteroidsStimulants Gene Doping Amphetamines NarcoticAnalgesics Diuretics
Variations are tried and tested and keep being improved upon, google and you will find some and if you have enough cash you can buy them.
0 -
Which is why the agencies are starting to put emphasis and more resource into intelligence gathering, to nail dopers
And why the bio passport - for all its faults - has a role0 -
It's easy to find out what new drugs there are - just monitor patent applications. For all people saying that the dopers will always be a step ahead the ones that have spoken about it seem to be using the same stuff they used twenty years ago. What changes is not the drugs but methods of evading detection - often by using less drugs. (And a lot of the talk of new drugs is created by dealers trying to flog some crap to the gullible and desperate).rayjay wrote:RichN95 wrote:
But this is mostly a myth. They don't move on to new drugs, because usually those drugs don't exist. Dopers are still using EPO, transfusions and testosterone, which have been around for 25 years or longer.rayjay wrote:Keep spending money on detecting a drug and while you are doing that the dopers move on and find a new drug.
The banned list gets bigger and you won't even know of any new drugs . If you know the testers know. But some do come to light as stated above.
EPO (erythropoietin)Blood Doping ,Human Growth Hormone, Pharmacological,chemical and physical manipulation: SteroidsStimulants Gene Doping Amphetamines NarcoticAnalgesics Diuretics
Variations are tried and tested and keep being improved upon, google and you will find some and if you have enough cash you can buy them.Twitter: @RichN950 -
ddraver wrote:Does anyone know if there is a need for a new blood boosting drug? Are the newest variants of EPO good enough for those that need it?
Spotted a gap in the market have we?
That's the other consideration... The pro sports use is never going to be a profitable enough use of a drug company's resources on its own. You'd have to find something with uninteded consequences."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:I'm OK with strict liability. To move from strict liability, you start to get into the alternative which is for the federation in question to have to prove that the athlete took the substance intentionally to benefit.
I'm not against strict liability, but I think its existence needs to be considered when deciding punishments. Imagine Rogers was younger and he accidentally digested the clen - does he deserve a ban for his stupidity? I think he does, but not a lifetime one.0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:ddraver wrote:Does anyone know if there is a need for a new blood boosting drug? Are the newest variants of EPO good enough for those that need it?
Spotted a gap in the market have we?
That's the other consideration... The pro sports use is never going to be a profitable enough use of a drug company's resources on its own. You'd have to find something with uninteded consequences.
ddraver's finding it very expensive living back in London
0 -
RichN95 wrote:It's easy to find out what new drugs there are - just monitor patent applications. For all people saying that the dopers will always be a step ahead the ones that have spoken about it seem to be using the same stuff they used twenty years ago. What changes is not the drugs but methods of evading detection - often by using less drugs. (And a lot of the talk of new drugs is created by dealers trying to flog some crap to the gullible and desperate).
That only works so far, Viagra wasn't patented for its performance enhancment.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:I reckon a team full of ex dopers ran by a ex doper is a good thing.
I agree, IF everyone involved is up front and served whatever penalty tne system decrees ... then go about being the best you can be, on and off tne bike ...
No-one is expecting them to involve others unless it is tneir want, just man-up and accept the consequences of your team's self-proclaimed jingoism ...
FWIW, I had started to warm to Garmin and Millar as they had started to take up column inches for results rather than politicking ... Then the scale of the sham unfolded, with the tipping point being Ryder ...
To get back on track, I don't want more severe bans ... I want more consistency in bans, and that goes for individual cases and federations (Schleck's 1 year ban being an example of the skewing that exists) ...0 -
But it's existence was there for all to see. It was in the public domain a long time before any human took it. There aren't secret drugs. Even the Balco drugs were from old and neglected patentsTheBigBean wrote:RichN95 wrote:It's easy to find out what new drugs there are - just monitor patent applications. For all people saying that the dopers will always be a step ahead the ones that have spoken about it seem to be using the same stuff they used twenty years ago. What changes is not the drugs but methods of evading detection - often by using less drugs. (And a lot of the talk of new drugs is created by dealers trying to flog some crap to the gullible and desperate).
That only works so far, Viagra wasn't patented for its performance enhancment.Twitter: @RichN950 -
TheBigBean wrote:RichN95 wrote:It's easy to find out what new drugs there are - just monitor patent applications. For all people saying that the dopers will always be a step ahead the ones that have spoken about it seem to be using the same stuff they used twenty years ago. What changes is not the drugs but methods of evading detection - often by using less drugs. (And a lot of the talk of new drugs is created by dealers trying to flog some crap to the gullible and desperate).
That only works so far, Viagra wasn't patented for its performance enhancment.
Just a woman's point of view - but doesn't Viagra enhance endurance rather than performance??? 0 -
Not sure if that needs a high 5 or a commiseration hug?Richmond Racer wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:ddraver wrote:Does anyone know if there is a need for a new blood boosting drug? Are the newest variants of EPO good enough for those that need it?
Spotted a gap in the market have we?
That's the other consideration... The pro sports use is never going to be a profitable enough use of a drug company's resources on its own. You'd have to find something with uninteded consequences.
ddraver's finding it very expensive living back in London
Well that's the point really - these drugs are not made secretly by people trying to knock 5 secs off the Alpe d'huez record. There is no benefit to keeping their existence secret, quite the opposite in fact...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:I'm OK with strict liability. To move from strict liability, you start to get into the alternative which is for the federation in question to have to prove that the athlete took the substance intentionally to benefit.
I'm not against strict liability, but I think its existence needs to be considered when deciding punishments. Imagine Rogers was younger and he accidentally digested the clen - does he deserve a ban for his stupidity? I think he does, but not a lifetime one.
One of the points I was trying to make is that there is no automatic across-the-board ban of say 2 years - it that is, the athlete chooses to put up a defence. If its credible enough the panel can give the athlete a reduced sanction - eg 6/12/18 months - or in some cases, no ban at all. And that does happen.
If I were a betting RR, I'd lay a monkey on Rogers, maybe Breyne too, getting a reduced sanction. Now whether Tinkov will have him back at the end of whatever that term is, dunno.0 -
So what about not letting ex dopers back into pro teams?0
This discussion has been closed.
