Truth and Reconciliation
Richmond Racer
Posts: 8,561
Ok. So its very fashionable for the likes of Vaughters and Millar, Tygart, WADA's Howman, CNN, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all to push the Truth & Reconciliation agenda. Get it all of your chest and we'll draw a line in the sand and move on from that point for zero tolerance.
But here's the thing. Out of the recent spate of confessions, most of them forced by the USADA investigation, here are question marks and scepticism over the honesty of at least some of the confessions. Certainly it was marked that 2005 was the same year given by TD, CVV, MB, GH and DZ as the last year in which they all doped (cant remember what Matt White said). Out of this lot, we have:
Leipheimer - his confession conveniently neglects to take his postive from his amateur days (as does his 6-month sanction, for that matter)
Danielson - some of the US pros clearly believe that he confessed to a shorter period of doping than was actually the case
also
Rick Crawford - Bottle's coach back in the day, outed in the USADA report as having provided Bottle as well as O'Bee (already banned for life) with PEDs. He confessed to a specific time period and just to these two riders, and was allowed to keep his current job as head coach at Colorado Mesa on the basis that he'd admitted to everything. But now another rider has come forward and said he was provided with PEDs too - and the university's fired him.
So...exactly how effective is this Truth agenda ever likely to have been? People own up to the minimum they can get away with even with the safety net of not losing their jobs if they 'speak the truth'. So just where does that get people in the great task of 'cleaning up the sport and making sure history isnt repeated' - which is the argument pushed by the pro-TR lobby?
But here's the thing. Out of the recent spate of confessions, most of them forced by the USADA investigation, here are question marks and scepticism over the honesty of at least some of the confessions. Certainly it was marked that 2005 was the same year given by TD, CVV, MB, GH and DZ as the last year in which they all doped (cant remember what Matt White said). Out of this lot, we have:
Leipheimer - his confession conveniently neglects to take his postive from his amateur days (as does his 6-month sanction, for that matter)
Danielson - some of the US pros clearly believe that he confessed to a shorter period of doping than was actually the case
also
Rick Crawford - Bottle's coach back in the day, outed in the USADA report as having provided Bottle as well as O'Bee (already banned for life) with PEDs. He confessed to a specific time period and just to these two riders, and was allowed to keep his current job as head coach at Colorado Mesa on the basis that he'd admitted to everything. But now another rider has come forward and said he was provided with PEDs too - and the university's fired him.
So...exactly how effective is this Truth agenda ever likely to have been? People own up to the minimum they can get away with even with the safety net of not losing their jobs if they 'speak the truth'. So just where does that get people in the great task of 'cleaning up the sport and making sure history isnt repeated' - which is the argument pushed by the pro-TR lobby?
0
Comments
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again. TRC type concept is a stupid idea and really smacks of people having no idea what to do next.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
If it was to happen, put your self in a riders position. Would you tell the whole truth?
Let's us Bertie* as an example. He still holds up seven fingers even though he has been officially tried and convicted for doping during 2 of them.
Now imagine he told the truth and confessed that he'd won the other 5 using illegal methods be they EPO, Fuentes and his Bags or whatever. He would receive no sanction and would keep the 5 tours.
How would you feel if he held up 8 fingers on the top step of his next GT podium? Could you "reconcile" that? Would you buy bikes he rode or shorts he wore or use banks he rode for? The vast majority of riders haev nothing to gain and everything to lose in a TRC...
(*or replace him with anyone you choose)We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Yeah, I'm with you both (just didnt make it clear enough in my post).
TRC was a dumb and frankly gobsmackingly naive idea right from the start.
Also if - in some bizzarre parallel universe - many, many riders had/did actually come out even with half truths, the results would be sponsors pulling out en masse and a bullet to the head of procycling.
And what the hell WADA were doing making generally approving if vague noises...you cant just introduce a policy of kiss, tell and be forgiven, and for a single sport. Makes a whole mockery of war on doping.0 -
I have yet hear anyone suggest any sort of framework as to how a T&R commission would work.
Who presides, what is there legal authority, who gets called, what is the time frame, what are the possiblities for sanctions, can ''purgery' be punished, is it public, what will be done with any information, what will motivate chance-taking dopers to not take another chance, and how does it benefit cycling?
I wouldn't expect answers to all of those - but one or two might be nice.
This leads me to believe that people who want such a commission are just interested in hearing gossip and viewing the dirty laundry. Try suggesting to the advocates of it that it should be a closed inquiry to protect witnesses - just for WADA etc, not the public - and see how they react.Twitter: @RichN950 -
iainf72 wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again. TRC type concept is a stupid idea and really smacks of people having no idea what to do next.
While it may not be great idea at least it's an idea.
I haven't been following this concept at all but from reading the posts on the subject it makes me wonder how or why someone confessing to something he's already been found doing is going to have any relevence? While confession may be good for the soul, it's only good for the soul of the person confessing. Even if they add "oh yeah, and I'll never do it again, I promise", then everyone who hears it will say, at best, "ok, we'll see" or "yeah, right". And do you really want to hear a, basically, forced confession?0 -
dennisn wrote:iainf72 wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again. TRC type concept is a stupid idea and really smacks of people having no idea what to do next.
While it may not be great idea at least it's an idea.
I haven't been following this concept at all but from reading the posts on the subject it makes me wonder how or why someone confessing to something he's already been found doing is going to have any relevence? While confession may be good for the soul, it's only good for the soul of the person confessing. Even if they add "oh yeah, and I'll never do it again, I promise", then everyone who hears it will say, at best, "ok, we'll see" or "yeah, right". And do you really want to hear a, basically, forced confession?
It's OK Dennis, we're not actually discussing Lance here at all. Personally I think it would be nice if it stayed that way.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
I don't think anything is the right answer other than a LOT of testing (start line in mass numbers and GC contenders and stage winners at the finish each day) and very public censure with long bans for riders and staff - DSs who are responsible for dopers need to be kicked out of the sport to deter the usual mealy mouth excuses of 'oh I didn't know what they were up to, I'm not their dad/wife'
having a TRC wouldn't break the omerta, but I'm not sure what would..."I get paid to make other people suffer on my wheel, how good is that"
--Jens Voight0 -
Put money into testing, both volume, locations and what to test for, and into specialist police.
Sports doping funds more traditional organised crime (apparently) and the industry is a type of organised crime in its own right.
The police have a pretty good track record at getting people nabbed when they get involved.
That way you cover both angles - you reduce the advantage doping gives by making it harder and harder to do so. - look at the lengths guys like Hamilton had to go to after an EPO test was introduced for what was ultiamtely less gain - and then make the cost of being caught much more severe.
That way the value added soon is dwarfed by the downside.
Stick at that. F*ck T&R. It's just a lot of guilty people feeling bad about what they did.
Sod that. We need sponsors and support to fund the above. T&R won't do that.0 -
Rick, you mention funding, and that's a key isn't it. Do sponsors want to fund programs that ultimately can deliver bad news, I don't think they do. In terms of the police until there is zero street crime I'm not particularly interested in any effort being directed towards sports doping investigations. How does this work if the funding comes from within the sport. Isn't this a crucial problem with what's happened previously. What interest did the UCI have in clean cycling, very little, especially as compared to expanding cycling into new markets and to new audiences. Who funds things is key, a governing body that has to promote a sport is not the place to have responsibility for bad news, which is essentially what a doping story is.
As always it's easier to see problems that solutions.0 -
The sport's governing body having responsibility for AD controls is hardly unique to cycling - pick a sport where that's not the case. Also worth remembering that national AD agencies also carry out OOC tests, not just the UCI - though I appreciate that the effort put in by the nationals varies hugely from country to country - and countries like Spain certainly dont help inspire confidence. But still it doesnt all rest with the UCI.
I feel that the sport is cleaning up. Most of the younger riders seem to have the right idea, and as each year goes by the percentage of the peloton that has no problem with doping, will hopefully continue to decrease.
I'm certainly not a buyer of this thing that CCN push so heavily which is that if everyone who's done something in the past doesnt 'fess up, it'll all happen again. Where's the evidence for this assertion?
Personally I'm quite cheered by the Carlos Barredo news - done by the biological passport and retires almost immediately. More of that would help enormously.0
