A Point to Ponder

[slovakguy]

I'm all for testing and for the removal of cheats from the sport.

I look at this entire issue on a cost/benefit basis.
The UCI could easily eradicate doping if it introduced draconian levels of punishment.

Draconian levels would include all of the following ;

1.On being found to have doped, a rider is banned for life from competitive racing.
2.On being found to have doped, all money won by that rider is to be redeemed by the UCI to the riders he has beaten.
3.On being found to have doped, the UCI will have an option to decide whether or not retrospective results were achieved through clean riding and can decide to redeem any/all prize money earned.

In other words make it so prohibitive to dope that any rider who chooses to dope makes their decision in the knowledge that they run the danger of financial and employment meltdown in the sport.

this certainly makes a hash of my opinions. the banishment, very appealing. the vacating of results also very appealing. & i'd certainly like to see the cheats treated to the sternest measures possible, but i think we'd need to pull the trench line back a bit closer to the border. draconian punishment without some chance at "salvation/redemption" makes the punishment fit the crime in a most grotesque fashion. and as for repayment of the winnings, what would be the next step when the convicted just declares bankruptcy? sterner measures (which has been the path taken so far, growing from a few minutes penalty on gc to a two year first time offence banishment with little check against doping being seen for all that) coupled with a reduction in banishment for helping to rip apart the clandestine blackmarket supply chain would be better suited to benefit the community. since these blackmarket suppliers rarely specialise in service to cyclists, the society in general may find benefit in the destruction of the crime networks working in the shadows or our western sociieties. as for the supply chain of legally available ped's which are administered by legally practising physicians, i suppose some sort of professional sanction against them by whatever organisation administers their affairs would be helpful. my thinking being that their help in setting up a treatment/doping regime for a healthy body would put them in opposition to a portion of their hippocratic oath (first do no harm, i believe) or some other portion.

 

[pennstater]

my thinking being that their help in setting up a treatment/doping regime for a healthy body would put them in opposition to a portion of their hippocratic oath (first do no harm, i believe) or some other portion.

I liked your post, but I think of a treatment program as a place where some people go to "dry themselves out". Maybe I read your post wrong, but what are the withdrawl symptoms of some of the PED's that are out there?

 

[slovakguy]

I liked your post, but I think of a treatment program as a place where some people go to "dry themselves out". Maybe I read your post wrong, but what are the withdrawl symptoms of some of the PED's that are out there?

apologies. my use of treatment is used conditionally and a direct result of brainstorming on lim's points. what i was trying to get at is that a physician might try to conceal his involvement in doping by calling his actions a treatment programme in order to avoid sanction.

 

[Chapeau!]

Let's say that everyone in the peleton is doping. Does that mean that the same riders who win all the races while doping would still win all the same races if none of the riders were doping? I bring this up because I hear a lot of people say:

"Who cares if they're cheating? They're all doing it, so the same guys would win anyway!"

I don't believe it's that simple. What do you think?

It certainly isn't that simple.

There is far more to being a successful cycle racer than doping, that is for sure.

In the peleton, knowledge is power. The power was with Armstrong (99-05), the power is with Cancellara during the TT's etc.

 

[steelguy]

This whole area is a moral and logical morass. For example, it used to be very clear what "doping" meant - taking artificial stimulants to defeat the body's normal workings. Think Simpson on amphetamines dying on the Ventoux. Now, however, we are in a new world, where genetic modification makes a mockery of moralistic controls. Twenty years ago EPO began an era of adding to the effectiveness of natural biochemical processes. One doesn't know if the alleged common practice of blood doping can be called "doping" at all. This situation will get worse. There is a huge market for prenatal genetic medicines that will produce a race of superpeople, with simultaneous high IQs and high oxygen-transport rates. How many parents do you think will refuse such aids for their children? Most of us on this board tonight will live to see such people enter athletic competition. How can we keep them out of competition? What test could possibly be devised that could detect what people took before they were three years old? Already some testing is on the border of impracticality, such as the arbitrary assumption that some testosterone levels indicate tampering while others do not. Our whole way of thinking about these issues has to change, but in what direction is not now clear.

 

[pennstater]

This whole area is a moral and logical morass. For example, it used to be very clear what "doping" meant - taking artificial stimulants to defeat the body's normal workings. Think Simpson on amphetamines dying on the Ventoux. Now, however, we are in a new world, where genetic modification makes a mockery of moralistic controls. Twenty years ago EPO began an era of adding to the effectiveness of natural biochemical processes. One doesn't know if the alleged common practice of blood doping can be called "doping" at all. This situation will get worse. There is a huge market for prenatal genetic medicines that will produce a race of superpeople, with simultaneous high IQs and high oxygen-transport rates. How many parents do you think will refuse such aids for their children? Most of us on this board tonight will live to see such people enter athletic competition. How can we keep them out of competition? What test could possibly be devised that could detect what people took before they were three years old? Already some testing is on the border of impracticality, such as the arbitrary assumption that some testosterone levels indicate tampering while others do not. Our whole way of thinking about these issues has to change, but in what direction is not now clear.

I'm a bit ****** off they didn't have these prenatal medicines when I was in the womb. Don't get me wrong my I.Q of 65 and my morbid obesity can still get me on a bike with a little help from a co-worker, but if I had these drugs.... Captain "freakin" America right here.

The point you bring up is a bit scary and should be a concern of society. Could you imagine a world of Dolph Lundgrens?

 

[root]

Let's say that everyone in the peleton is doping. Does that mean that the same riders who win all the races while doping would still win all the same races if none of the riders were doping? I bring this up because I hear a lot of people say:

"Who cares if they're cheating? They're all doing it, so the same guys would win anyway!"

I don't believe it's that simple. What do you think?

Of course not. Different people respond differently to drugs, and they do more for some people, and less for others. So just because all dope doesn't mean that effects are equal for all. It's actually most likely that effects are completely different for all athletes. Esp. when you take into account that they can't just "dope more" to compensate. They have to be subtle and only raise their numbers slightly or just below various thresholds.

 

[limerickman]

I'm a bit ****** off they didn't have these prenatal medicines when I was in the womb. Don't get me wrong my I.Q of 65 and my morbid obesity can still get me on a bike with a little help from a co-worker, but if I had these drugs.... Captain "freakin" America right here.

The point you bring up is a bit scary and should be a concern of society. Could you imagine a world of Dolph Lundgrens?

I like your irony here Penn - and you make an excellent point, do we need a society full of uber efficient/strong/athletic people?
I agree such a society would be scary.

 

[Chapeau!]

A point to take home.

Roy Sentjens can be doped to the gills with EPO, hes never going to contest a clean Contador for a GT.

Just like he wouldn't have contested Igor Anton for the Vuelta.

Drugs 'can't turn donkey's into thoroughbreds'.

 

[EoinC]

I'm all for testing and for the removal of cheats from the sport...

Hi, Lim - Here's another thought which comes directly from the private enterprise World I inhabit (note that it's only applicable to the pro peleton), where employers are required to take responsibility for the behaviour and performance of their flock.
The riders are employed by their Teams. For any infraction, from within a Team, the UCI applies its sanction upon the Team. Teams receive the bulk of their income from commercial sponsorship (...plus selling the occasional bike). To retain that sponsorship, they need to be (a) racing, and (b) generating good publicity. If the UCI sanctions prevent them from doing this, sponsorship departs.
Teams are either knowingly or unknowingly allowing their riders to utilise performance enhancers. If the responsibility for ensuring that their riders don't dope falls to them, and their survival as an entity depends upon it, they are likely to either actively prevent their riders from doping (as opposed to either inducing, or turning a blind eye), or at least ensure that their doping is of a very sophisticated nature.
Unfair to the other riders in the Team? Yes, and to the soigneurs, mechanics, etc. Changing the way that the riders, soigneurs, mechanics, etc view those who dope? Yes. Over the longer term, the incentive is for all of the Team to ensure that none of their members take performance enhancers.
In my industry, safety used to have a low priority. Many people got hurt, or killed, and that was just collateral damage. It all changed when companies started having to be responsible for the safety performance of their personnel. It took a long time to change, and it's not perfect, but there is a very different culture pervades the industry now to that which was prevalent 15 or 20 years ago. Now, not only do I want to act safely, but also I want those around me to act safely, and our clients and shareholders demand that we act safely.
Focusing on the individual (even if they acted on their own) results in minimal damage to the Team, requiring a bit of spin for damage control, and slotting in a new replacement. As long as it continues to be this way, there are large incentives (publicity generation from good results) for Teams to either actively support doping, or at least do little to suppress it.

That's All...

 

[Mattcreed]

If most of the peleton are still doping then obviously the masking agents they are using are working. If this is the case then there has to be an awful lot of people that know about it, an awful lot of riders, of doctors, other team staff. If this is the case surely there would be more times when a rider or a member of staff retire or get sacked and would be happy to tell all they know to the UCI. Obviously there was Floyd Landis but we all know his credibility was easily brought into question. I guess the question is am I wrong and this doesn't happen (People willing to divulge), is doping no long rife or is it still such a huge problem that if the UCI were to really stamp down on it with zero tolerence would it decimate the sport of cycling?

 

[mattp1975]

If most of the peleton are still doping then obviously the masking agents they are using are working. If this is the case then there has to be an awful lot of people that know about it, an awful lot of riders, of doctors, other team staff. If this is the case surely there would be more times when a rider or a member of staff retire or get sacked and would be happy to tell all they know to the UCI. Obviously there was Floyd Landis but we all know his credibility was easily brought into question. I guess the question is am I wrong and this doesn't happen (People willing to divulge), is doping no long rife or is it still such a huge problem that if the UCI were to really stamp down on it with zero tolerence would it decimate the sport of cycling?

Omerta.

 

[swampy1970]

A different result of a Papp smear...


Sources: anti-doping authorities preparing cases against up to two-dozen domestic racers. - VeloNews

Anti-doping authorities have lodged cases against as many as two-dozen domestic racers, sources tell VeloNews.

The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency will announce the findings in the coming weeks, the sources said.

The alleged violations are primarily for possession of performance enhancing drugs, rather than for positive urine or blood samples, and are said to have originated with information provided to USADA and federal investigators by former pro cyclist Joe Papp.

Anywhere from 15 to 25 masters, elite and pro cyclists have been notified of non-analytical violations as a result of having allegedly conspired with Papp, sources said. The names will not be announced publicly until and unless the individual cases are resolved against the riders.

 

[alienator]

A different result of a Papp smear...


Sources: anti-doping authorities preparing cases against up to two-dozen domestic racers. - VeloNews

Anti-doping authorities have lodged cases against as many as two-dozen domestic racers, sources tell VeloNews.

The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency will announce the findings in the coming weeks, the sources said.

The alleged violations are primarily for possession of performance enhancing drugs, rather than for positive urine or blood samples, and are said to have originated with information provided to USADA and federal investigators by former pro cyclist Joe Papp.

Awesome! It's totally fair, transparent, and irrefutably and objectively sound to prosecute people based on what a guys says, right? USADA, WADA, et al should completely do away with all the pretense of being objective and unbiased in what they do and instead rely on the unassailable truth that is found in one busted person's claims. See, going that route will allow 'em to clear out all the dopers in a couple of weeks. All they gots to do is get people to point fingers and say, "They did it!" It works in Iran! Heck, they can also support said claims with "testimony" from cycling forums!

 

[swampy1970]

Awesome! It's totally fair, transparent, and irrefutably and objectively sound to prosecute people based on what a guys says, right? USADA, WADA, et al should completely do away with all the pretense of being objective and unbiased in what they do and instead rely on the unassailable truth that is found in one busted person's claims. See, going that route will allow 'em to clear out all the dopers in a couple of weeks. All they gots to do is get people to point fingers and say, "They did it!" It works in Iran! Heck, they can also support said claims with "testimony" from cycling forums!

Isn't that the pretense behind Armstrongs and Bonds current woes that'll cost the tax payers millions?

Papp obviously felt like Landis was having too much of the limelight of late, given that it was Papp who testified against Landis a few years ago... Must have felt the need to spill the beans some more. Probably needs the money from an interview or two. Working craigslist personals and local bathrooms probably got a bit too much for him