I'm not trying to play Devil's advocate, I just really don't understand this mentality, nor do I understand the "make doping mandatory" folks. It makes me wonder how people feel about the eighth amendment, and if they're the type of people whose solution to any felon is to "give 'em the chair".

Yes, if the penalty for bouncing a check was death by firing squad people would be more careful, but really? Banning an entire team for a year cause of one guy's positive test? That seems iatrogenic to the sport as a whole.

The UCI still doesn't want to admit any fault.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012...-forgotten-uci

In this article, Pat McQuaid refers to Landis and Hamilton as "scumbags". They're the the main ones pointing fingers at the UCI.

Maybe we should cancel next year's season after all.

The way i see the things is that the UCI wont recognize anything because there is no proves of anything against them, everything we can say about them is because of what the LA case brought up, and the documents just make them look bad. IMO ferrari's case would bring more things up but since italians work super fast maybe the UCI head will be gone off the position when the italians get ready splatter everybody with the evidence.

I'd agree that's over the top. Perhaps something along these lines: 1) a positive test on the team DQ's the entire team, 2) Second positive test in a year, and the team is suspended for a month, 3) Third positive test and team, and all management is suspended for a year.

There's a balance in there where the incentive for the team is high enough they start self policing, but not a death penalty for just a rogue rider.

It may take tweaking to find the balance. Right now the rules encourage teams to allow doping, or at least turn a blind eye, because all they have to do is throw the rider uner the team bus.

We all mostly watched these past events for the intertainment value anyway. I still liked the excitment any way, didn't you? I doubt anybody, dopeing or not can say there were better riders in LA's era. He still was/is the best Bike racer in modern times.

I assume you are talking in competition tests. Seems to me one obvious tweak is a ban from the race involved for next year. That makes doping ion more important races riskier. A one month ban is not much for doping in the TDF, but banned from the TDF for a year or 2 is.

Also how about taking a page from the NCAA football sanctions. Drug bust and all riders not implicated are free to jump teams for the rest of the year!

And I still say at teh least additional tsting for at least the rider and perhaps the whole team for borderline tests. Oh and if there is a queue to get samples guess who is last in line? (time lost from recovery does make a difference in a Tour). Heck why not treat borderline tests like strikes, 3 borderline and it is a failure. It might not stop doping, but it just might put the levels down far enough to make it not dangerous to the riders health.

And just when do "modern times" start? 1999?

That comment is far from accurate. Especially considering the information available today. Lance was a one race wonder (the race he cheated on). No Giro, no Vuelta, but I believe he did dominate the Kmart West Virginia Classic a couple times.

^I was racing back when Lance came up, 89-92. He was a bad motor scooter on domestic soil. I don't know how deeply Carmichael and those dirtbags on the national team were doping, steroids and bags of blood probably. Weisel was around back then - subaru montgomery was 91 as I recall. Eddie B. was their coach, he was E. German. When they went over to Europe, Lance did well. A few years into the pro scene and he was head and shoulders above the domestic scene.

Don't forget, he won the world championship at age 21, (in 93) He did a few races on home soil back in the day, and trust me, he was crushing souls.

Huge talent. He and his handlers have their cash. They don't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks. Another American success story - to the greedy *******s that run this nation. Sad, really.