UCI IC 2
They really may as well have put the money it's costing in a suitcase and thrown it in the river for all the use it's going to be.
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDe ... LangId%3D1
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDe ... LangId%3D1
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
0
Posts
UCI should give me the 3m instead to buy a place I saw in Deia this morning. I'll promise to sponsor a local amateur team and it'll do more good for cycling's future than this.
Sorry totally off-topic Spanish property price whinge.
Hey but if the UCI won't front you the money RR, you could always set up some sort of support fund for someone or other on PayPal.
Hmmm...*strokes chin in deep thinking manner*
The CIRC will have the authority to propose reduced sanctions to any License Holder [e.g. riders, officials, agents, organisers, team staff etc] who admit to Anti-Doping Rules Violations [ADRVs]
So you can stay in blissful anonymity and keep your comfy job commentating/presenting/DSing/whatever else without being banned, or tarnish your reputation by naming names, all for a reduced ban?
I know which one I'd choose
1. The greatest deterrent to doping is the fear of being caught. It doesn't matter when the person is caught.
2. They might actually find something that relates to high level officials or high profile individuals that will improve the sport.
1. This is unlikely to catch anyone. They would be better of spending half the $3m on retroactive testing and holding the other half for similar testing in future. They'll catch more people that way than asking people to own up.
and
2. They'll get more information from leveraging people caught due to my point 1.
This sort of reminds be of when police forces have a gun amnesty. They always seem to get an array of antique muskets and rifles from middle-class couples and not many semi-automatics from drug dealers.
Taking your analogy one step further, I think the idea (in this case) is to find out who supplied the middle class couples the guns. They are more likely to do this by offering an amnesty.
Take for example Kloden*. He should be given two indirect choices: tell the truth as part of the amnesty or risk the truth materialising when everyone else uses the amnesty. Clearly the game theory approach would be for no riders to talk, but I'm confident they are not game theorists. Maybe you need to throw in some retroactive tests just to up the fear levels.
*For the purposes of this I'm assuming he doped. He hasn't failed...
There is absolutely no point in penalising people for the past when it was so totally ingrained in the culture.
Penalise people from this point on. Big time.
And as for my gun amnesty analogy - it wasn't meant to be taken too far. I just remember seeing pictures like this and thinking they don't look like the sort of guns I see gangs use in the movies:
I've always wanted to see CIRC du Vacansoleil
Not every winner is able to be tested due to there being no samples to test, so riders like Hinault, Big-Mig and Lemond (I use Lemond as an example because he raced against, and bested, self confessed dopers) can live without fear of losing titles, regardless of what may or may not have been going on ...
Also, not every federation treats doping offences the same ...
Perhaps if they also promised some the budgetted 3 million to beanspillers ….
Anyway, if “members of the CIRC will operate on a completely independent basis” and
“investigations will be on a strictly confidential basis” (quotes from the press release), why are they at all even mentioning sanctions for those who admit doping?
And then there’s the matter of proving that what these 'crown witnesses' relate is true.
Mind you, this could all be a windfall for lawyers. I'd better start looking up websites offering law degrees from the University of Nowheresville, for just $7,999 plus p&p
If i had left the sport and had done naughties, I'd keep shtum. If I'd stayed in the sport, I'd still keep shtum.
I'd totally take the risk on being outed by several people and it sticking, rather than out myself.
Apologies, it was 1998 (was too tired/lazy to check that last night) ... and Stuart O'Grady is currently standing in the corner facing the wall ...
Add a financial incentive to shopping people currently doping. 100K for a tip that leads to a conviction or something.
I still don't know why anyone would want to talk to the CIRC.
There, do you feel better now?
- @ddraver
By contrast, do you mean agreement. Nobody on the HI podcast thought it was a good idea citing many of the reasons discussed here. A new one for me was each new 'revelation' unfairly tarnishing the reputations of the younger generation of riders.
Overall it was a fantastic nuanced discussion of the doping issue.
- @ddraver
I think it shows that proper journalists can express things properly / and think about their position.
At the same time though, I think if you have a podcast, you're effectively a journalist, just most of them a rubbish journalists.
With my hair, I'm scared of being in the same general space as Friebe