Professional Cycling For the Fans - IF riders are caught and proven doping, what should the penalty be?

Let's make an assumption . . . assumption #1 is that the testing regimen and procedures for handling samples gets cleaned up and handled in a legally- and scientifically-responsible way. (I'm not entirely sure that's being done yet.) Assuming THAT happens . . . what should the penalty be when a rider is caught doping, using banned substances, etc., etc., etc.?

Obviously, the two-year ban is not enough to deter anybody.

Lifetime ban. 1st offense.

At the Pro tour level, you've already got an effective 4 year ban. For many, this amounts to a lifetime ban (do you think you'll ever see Landis in the TDF again?) The punishment doesn't need to be more severe.

Deterrence is a function of 3 things: swiftness, severity, and certainty of punishment. In the current regime we're lacking 2 out of 3.

Severity is the one thing we already have.

The reason a deterrent doesn't work is that most dopers get away with it. Only a tiny fraction get caught by testing.

As it stands, you need to dope to win. The base physiological differences between the top riders in the peloton are smaller than the difference between doping and not doping. It's safe to assume they're all training/working to near the max of their ability. The several % difference made by doping (especially in terms of recovery) is absolutely huge.

Do they just need to test more? Do riders have to give up every shred of privacy? Maybe. Why is it that there is only random testing beyond the stage winner and yellow jersey? Why not have every last rider blood and urine test (or whatever else) after and before every single stage? I know the logistics of doing this may be extremely difficult to pull off but it has to be near bulletproof.

The science of testing will always be behind the science of PED. To much money involved now.

No, they need to punish the teams, and their leadership. Do you think Vino travelled around France for 2 1/2 weeks with blood that needed to be temperature controlled, and all the parephenalia necessary, without people on Astana knowing about it, or least being able to find out about it, if they cared to do so?

Hold management accountable with real penalties, and you've got a shot to get this cleaned up.

If your job and career depends on your riders to stay clean, then you're going to police your riders.

If your job depends on results, and you can toss "rogue" riders under the bus when they do test positive, then you're going to help them dope, or at least turn a blind eye, and it will be the same story as always.

cut off one leg for the first offense.

cut off the other leg for the second offense.

ahh. c'mon , just a flesh wound, I'll drop you like a sack of hammers!

http://www.toymania.com/columns/spotlight/images/ssmontyppairtitle.jpg

The reason a deterrent doesn't work is that most dopers get away with it. Only a tiny fraction get caught by testing.



This would imply that not testing positive is not proof of innocence...wrong forum to believe that.

First offense: one year ban, plus return of salary to sponsor, plus a $100K fine used to support youth cycling.
Second offense: lifetime ban
Third offense: afterlifetime ban, including all animals reincarnated.

This would imply that not testing positive is not proof of innocence...wrong forum to believe that.


Why is that wrong? The vast majority of riders aren't tested. The failure to be tested is not proof of innocence. You win the testing lottery, hence you are innocent? It doesn't follow.

Where's the no punishment option?

Where's the no punishment option?

Ya know....Id almost agree to this at this point. Lets just let-em dope up and then see whos the best of the dopers.

Why is that wrong? The vast majority of riders aren't tested. The failure to be tested is not proof of innocence. You win the testing lottery, hence you are innocent? It doesn't follow.

Why do you hate America?

i think astana pulling out the tour is huge - it not only affected vino, but all his team as well. if this becomes more common place, then that's a pretty big deterent.

At the Pro tour level, you've already got an effective 4 year ban. For many, this amounts to a lifetime ban (do you think you'll ever see Landis in the TDF again?) The punishment doesn't need to be more severe.

Deterrence is a function of 3 things: swiftness, severity, and certainty of punishment. In the current regime we're lacking 2 out of 3.

Severity is the one thing we already have.


But we have Millar, who admitted doping, riding this year.
Not too severe

george

public beheadings. It's france bring back the guillotine

cut off one leg for the first offense.

cut off the other leg for the second offense.
It's the threat of the "third leg" that most would dread - start with that one


It's france bring back the guillotine
and here's the public method.

Why do you hate America?

In America, NOBODY is ever proven "innocent." That's not a part of our legal system. (Although, I'll acknowledge, it IS a part of the parlance of our semi-literate media.)

Some are FOUND "not guilty." There's a huge difference. "Not guilty" only says that there will be no consequences for this particular person -- whether they actually perpetrated the crime or not.

One can be "found" not guilty -- yet still actually BE guilty. It happens all the time. What happens in a courtroom -- any courtroom -- has no bearing on guilt or innocence. They cannot change the facts or the historical events. Jury findings never change whether a person is actually guilty or innocent. They are what they are. Courts only assign consequences.

So . . . one need not "hate America" to see that the lack of a test has no bearing of any kind on whether a person is a cheater or not. All we know for sure -- in the absence of a test -- is that we don't know.

he was caught before the PT came into effect.

More accurately . . . Millar did his time. He was out for two years as the penalty of his indiscretion. Same penalty as today.

This would imply that not testing positive is not proof of innocence...wrong forum to believe that.

First offense: one year ban, plus return of salary to sponsor, plus a $100K fine used to support youth cycling.
Second offense: lifetime ban
Third offense: afterlifetime ban, including all animals reincarnated.

I'd modify it:

First offense: one year ban, plus return of salary to sponsor, plus a $100K fine used to support youth cycling.
Second offense: two year ban, plus return of salary to sponsor, plus a $200K fine for the rider and a $100K fine to the DS used to support youth cycling
Third offense: lifetime ban for rider and DS

If a rider returns to cycling after a first offense, is subject to year-round short notice tests. The rider is responsible for paying for up to one testing each month.

cut off one leg for the first offense.

cut off the other leg for the second offense.

That's good.
What about the third leg?

Do they just need to test more? Do riders have to give up every shred of privacy? Maybe. Why is it that there is only random testing beyond the stage winner and yellow jersey? Why not have every last rider blood and urine test (or whatever else) after and before every single stage? I know the logistics of doing this may be extremely difficult to pull off but it has to be near bulletproof.

Well first off blood is out. Many of the most popular forms of doping consist of getting extra blood (or blood parts) in the system. Blood doping as in Vino's case or EPO to stimulate red blood cell production. Suck blood out of every rider each stage? No way. Just some, markedly unfair, and just how much blood per rider? 200 ccs for a 180 lb sprinter comes out far different than for a 100 lb climber.

Even Urine has almost unsurmountable problems with testing every rider. The rider needs to be accompanied from notification until sample is taken. Oh by someone trustworthy, perhaps 2 people to monoter eachother. Even at the low end if they are testing 10 now this is 179 more people they need. Urine tests BEFORE each stage? And what if someone can't go on demand? Actaully after is a big enough problem. Dehydrated and nothing make it to the bladder for a couple of hours. Bad enough with a handfull of riders, but for 189, no way.

Now increasing the number of randoms and adding an "increased probability class for those who put in work might be worthwhile. But there is a balance.

How about a two-year suspension, which is served in a Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass prison?

Seriously ... everyone involved needs to be looked at CRIMINALLY. From the docs, to the donors, to the riders, to those who bankroll the operation.

How about the same as the NFL -a four game (race) suspension? The testing should also go to NFL levels. In other words, if you're somehow caught in a system that is set up to catch nobody - it's on you for being an idiot. :eek:

... Brad

Lifetime ban. 1st offense.
It won't matter. Their ability to dope and not be caught is too good, and the alternative is too bad.

Consider the true practical choices:


Stay clean but never win, regularly get dropped, have a hard time finding a team, barely make enough to support your family, if that, etc. In other words, fail as a pro cyclist.
Dope so you can win and succeed as a pro cyclist, risking the possibility that you might get caught and be banned for life.


Given that Lance never got caught and managed to win 7 Tours in a row while racing against guys who are now known to have been doping (and not getting caught - many of whom only got caught because of Operation Puerto - not from failing any of the countless drug tests they passed), the chances of being able to dope and not get caught seem quite good.

What rational person would choose option (1)?

Let's make an assumption . . . assumption #1 is that the testing regimen and procedures for handling samples gets cleaned up and handled in a legally- and scientifically-responsible way. (I'm not entirely sure that's being done yet.) Assuming THAT happens . . . what should the penalty be when a rider is caught doping, using banned substances, etc., etc., etc.?

Obviously, the two-year ban is not enough to deter anybody.
Look at this way, here we are 2 1/2 weeks into the Tour, and out of what, 189 riders, only one has tested positive?

Even if only half are doping, that means only 1 out of 90 are caught. With such good odds of getting away with it, what reason do they have to ride clean?

Now, if they imprisoned them for life, and cut off a hand or something, that might work. But simply saying "if you get caught you're banned from bicycle racing for life" will have no effect. The advantage doping provides is way too high, and the odds of getting caught are way too low, for it to matter.

The penalties are steep enough already. What's needed is better testing.

You have to remember the mentality of the pro athlete. In a survey of pro athletes some years ago, they were asked something to the effect of:

If there was a drug you could take that would make you a champion in your sport, but would also kill you within two years, would you take it?

If I recall correctly, over half said yes. Think about that. These guys are of a different breed.



The penalties are steep enough already. What's needed is better testing.
But it's a moving target, and doping technology can always stay ahead of doping detection technology.

The dopers always have an inherent head start. By the time the testers find out about some new substance/method, it's often already been used for years, and then they still have to figure out how to test for it.

How many years have designer steroids been out there? Longer than we know, that's for sure, and they still can't test for them.

Then there is the expense of the testing. It's not clear to me that after every stage they do all the tests on even the three or four guys whose blood/urine they take.

At the Pro tour level, you've already got an effective 4 year ban. For many, this amounts to a lifetime ban (do you think you'll ever see Landis in the TDF again?) The punishment doesn't need to be more severe.

Deterrence is a function of 3 things: swiftness, severity, and certainty of punishment. In the current regime we're lacking 2 out of 3.

Severity is the one thing we already have.

This may be true, But floyd is still allowed to compete in various events.
A life ban at this point from all cycling related events is the only answer to it.
As stated if this doesn't stop them nothing will.

The reason a deterrent doesn't work is that most dopers get away with it. Only a tiny fraction get caught by testing.

As it stands, you need to dope to win. The base physiological differences between the top riders in the peloton are smaller than the difference between doping and not doping. It's safe to assume they're all training/working to near the max of their ability. The several % difference made by doping (especially in terms of recovery) is absolutely huge.

What is the evidence of this?

All proven big time bike race dopers should be sentenced to fight in Michael Vick's ring. The few lucky winners could then be reinstated. But the losers should not be shot. Guns make too much noise and the cops might hear.

consistent testing with swift suspension for a *reasonable* period of time

You could make it a ban on owning / operating any two wheeled vehicle or exercise bike. That way if they're banned, they can't train either.

What happened to that idea made up by an american team (in CA I think?) with DNA profiles, etc. in the program, would that work any better? Because even Le tour thinks UCI is a bunch of bumbling screwups at this point.

How about "test positive and the entire team gets kicked out for that year"? That would certainly put the ball in the team’s hands (and the pressure from the $ponsors would hopefully keep everyone honest).