That reminds me of the RICO Act, which was pretty successful in prosecuting organized crime by holding higher-ups accountable for crimes that they ordered, but didn't commit personally. If the team managers were encouraging, facilitating, and perpetuating doping, then I can see the value in holding every rider and individual in the team's infrastructure accountable, assuming you could prove that each individual was aware of what was going on, and remained complicit.

A widespread, team-organized doping program, doesn't seem likely to occur again in my opinion, and a situation in which management turns a blind eye to all of their riders doping on their own watch and dollar seems really difficult to prove and prosecute.

In the case of a rogue doper, I think it is completely unjust to prosecute a team or its management, as others have suggested here, but that can certainly be difficult to differentiate from a doped up team with one idiot who broke the team doctor's orders on the doping program (to take an extreme example). The team management will obviously, at that point, claim him to be a rogue doper, but hopefully, that rider would then spill the beans on the entire team's doping program, a scenario which I think is more likely today compared to a decade ago.

If the tests can get good enough and fast enough to detect out of spec results in real time, they could stop riders from even starting; that prevents ever having to nullify results. I just haven't seen any evidence that harsher penalties have an effect... not in any kind of cheating or law-breaking.

That's the only logical solution for those who whine about demanding an end to doping. For those demanding a "plausible" solution (as above), the answer is "none".

It would be very difficult to dope in competition, without other riders on the team, and management knowing about it. The nature of how they live during stage races is such. Riders eat together in one room, travel on the same bus, stay in the same hotels, often share rooms. When you're traveling like that its fairly intimate and would be difficult to hide doping very long. For one thing soigneurs would see needle marks. There's drug paraphenalia to dispose of. I find it very unlikely you could have any significant "rogue doping" if Management, and the other riders actually were trying to police themselves.

Out of competition would be easier, but you've still got issues of hiding it from your team doctors and trainers, who can see what's going on with your blood chemistry, your power files, and your performance.


So, I think it's unlikely to be a big problem. However, to account for it, you can make the team and the director sanctions escalate with repeat offenses, so that a team doesn't get crushed by a one time act by a rogue rider.

The entire team being pulled from the event would be a start.

There is the problem that you don't want to punish innocent sponsors.

That was in part what I was getting at with the comment about changing the model. In Cycling, unlike many pro sports, the teams don't share in the rights fees from TV, and are dependent entirely on sponsors.

Split TV money from the races with the teams, and you have a more sustainable model. That sustainable model gives teams a stronger footing, and more skin in the game, potentially reducing the incentive to dope, particularly if a Team's share of the rights fee is dependent on doping compliance.


And I do like the DQ the whole team approach.

I can definitely see an argument that he's hypocritical.

However, I give some credit to his contention that he's trying to help build a situation where riders don't feel compelled to dope to stay in the sport, so that riders now will have better choices.

He also says that the idea of trying to promote Garmin as comitted to riding clean is in part the fact that it's good business with getting Sponsors.


As for hiring dopers, Vaughters says that he has two criteria; One, is the rider committed to riding clean, and Two, does the rider's results and performance indicate that he can be successful without doping.

I think it would be more hypocritical for Vaughters to refuse to hire riders who have served their time, solely on the basis of their past doping.

Bolding mine.

That would also ging sanctions to a team real teath if a team had to qualify to get that revenue. Historically I think sanctioning teams was a non starter as teams are shifting and fluid. So what if a team gets sanctioned if they show up next year with a new sponsor and name.

But if the TV rights also go away then things totally change.

Agreed.

+1. Also it would give the team management tremendous incentive to monitor and frequently test their own riders.

...chuckling....Argyle Armada was a good book.

and you friend's kid? just a casualty of war?

I haven't read that one.

I believe that Vaughters let Wiggo go because he was threatened by his fashion sense.

I give up. Pure and simple.

It's the sideburns. They both look like they belong on Carnaby Street circa 1965.

The book was on Garmin two seasons ago....more like q coffee table book, but readable with photos. For those that wanted a look into what goes on with a pro team....the equipment all over the place would make anyone salivate.

The trouble with this is that we've been down this same path with Armstrong. What better way to hide bad-doing by condemning it publicly and building a "culture" that tells everyone "our riders are clean".

Personally, I think it's hypocritical of Vaughters to take on the job. He might be good at what he does, but so was Armstrong.

As I've said, Wide World of Wrestling, but with bikes.

No-one believed WWW was/is for real, and now no-one believes the GTs are for real.

Get rid of the UCI limit on bikes, let the recumbents and the lightest weight bikes in, and let the PEDs run free. Get rid of the niceties on the road, too. Blood and gore is always good for television sport, and some well-placed deliberate biffo would do wonders for the ratings.

More seriously (if you think I was joking above), something else to consider is to review the way the GTs are organised. Maybe they are too long and arduous, not only for the riders, but also the viewing public, with both groups having to resort of PEDs to get through.

It might go against the traditions of these events, but some modification might be in order.

Haven't read it yet, but picked it up at a book signing in Durango before the US Pro Cycling Challenge.

Mark Johnson, and JV's presentation was interesting.

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i1...allenge002.jpg

No where did I mention that kids should be allowed to dope. We're talking about adult men.

That was my first thought too.

The safe play? After the stage is completed, claim dehydration, and get some IV saline. You don't even have to time your EPO use that critically.

One of the oldest sayings in sports is that drug tests are really IQ tests---you only flunk if you're stupid.

I wasn't addressing you.

[QUOTE=Jed19;14866191]Yep, I think the current two year ban for the first offence is a joke. For starters, a 4-5year ban is some serious time, considering the time-length of the typical racing career. And then, make the second offence a career-killer. A doper comes back, is caught again, then he is out. No racing license, nor any other licence. Should not even be able to work as a mechanic nor any other job in pro cycling. That kind of risk-reward calculus is what is gonna get racers' attention.[/QUOTE]

No different that what it currently is for second offense. It is a lifetime ban, not just from racing but working with teams, riders, etc.

So, the athlete dopes for his (mandatory) VO2 max test. He tests at Lemonds (unattainable without doping) VO2 max of 92. Yes, this makes absolute sense.

Its really rather simple. One person pops, the whole team is banned for a year and the person that pops is banned for life. Second person pops, you go after management for a perma ban.

Suspensions are a joke. Personal integrity is clearly non-existent. Larger penalties are required. That and test everyone on every leg. If its that important to have a clean peloton, then you can't just test the winners.

That would work. Professional cycling as we know it would be out of business and therefore the non-existent pro peleton would technically be clean. The reality of your solution simply doesn't work as the tests are not cheap and cycling isn't profitable enough to both test every rider and stay in business- unless a government pays for the test and good luck with that.

The idea that professional sport ( where the participants get paid ), can ever be cheat free is just naive. The idea that the players/riders/teams/etc. that are looking for any advantage, however slight, will stay within either the spirit or the letter of the rules when there is any amount of reward for pushing the boundaries is simply silly and ignores the entire history of sport. If the choice is between staying clean for personal integrity and winning by cheating, the people that cheat and win will keep their job while those that finish last but clean go home- it is not how I want the world but how it is.

Just a reality check- there was a cheating scandal with the Olympic badminton competition this year. If badminton isn't cheat free do you honestly think that cycling will ever be?