So Whats the Solution ??
 

Okay after 25,000 threads and posts about past doping and the people who did it, how do we now implement practical and feasible measure to end doping in the sport of cycling ?

I dont really know anything about current measures but what do you guys think SHOULD be done ?

How about testing every single rider after every single stage ?

How about 5 yr ban for first offense ?

How about mandatory forfeiture of any prize money ?

There is no feasible way to "end" doping. It won't happen. If nothing else, there will always be some domestique working his butt off in training, slamming his head against his genetic ceiling, and still needing some help to hang on to the back of the peloton just to keep his job, like the AG2R guy who was busted for EPO recently.

I'm a big believer that the biggest thing that needs to happen, and the only thing that will really make things better, is to have a paradigm shift in how doping is reacted to, within the peloton, amongst the riders themselves, when nobody else is looking, even if the tests can be beat.

Well, punitive actions don't seem to work. Neither does testing as it can so easily be circumvented. Sequestering the racers wouldn't work, because if you can get drugs in prison, you sure's the hell can get drugs to a bunch of racers. Maybe other than trying to stop the drugs, allow up to a certain amount of drugs and test for that. Outside of that, the only way to make things "fair" is to randomly pick a winner out of a hat - but then, it's no longer a race; it's a supported high-speed randonnee...

The UCI decides the USADA has overstepped its authority, Armstrong keeps his titles, cycling continues as you were, and USADA's credibility nosedives to zero.

It's a possible scenario.

Other than that, make the big tours independent of the UCI and therefore WADA (ie, privately run events), and make it into a Wide World of Cycling series where the participants can dope to their heart's content.

Or just support the continued development of testing procedures that will continue to play catch-up to the crafty medicos as they find new ways to dope their riders without detection.

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.

The solution is to not follow racing. No fans = no sponsors = no money = no doping.

You've got to hold teams and management accountable. It's obvious that widespread doping can't occur without the knowledge of the team. Yet, no one has held the Teams accountable.

Now when a rider tests positive, managment throws them under the bus. "we don't tolerate doping, we're shocked, yada yada yada."

Punish the teams, and the managers for positive test of the riders, and you'll see doping diminish substantially.

There's already some hope that doping is decreasing in cycling. With the biological passport, better testing, and non analytical cases being brought, the amount of doping you could reasonably expect to get away with has decreased. For example, it's pretty clear that people aren't just using massive amounts of EPO anymore.

As Jonathon Vaughters puts it, you've got to change the risk reward to the point that more people think about the risk, and you decrease the reward, to the point that it's possible to make the decision to race clean.

You've also got to change the whole business model of professional cycling.

Honestly Jonathan Vaughters is on the long list of guys who can go **** themselves.

Agreed with those saying it will never be completely gone.

Agreed with those saying management and other complicit non-riders need to be punished for helping and/or looking the other way.

One other thing is to start younger riders off with stricter oversight so they are not brought into the world of doping at an early age. For many of the guys riding now doping at some level is just how it's done. They don't know of another way because it's been there their entire career.

Most significant changes in sports work best when you bring them up through from the bottom age wise.

Let them dope.

Problem solved.

No one dopes because the penalties are too lenient, they dope because they think they won't get caught. Harsher penalties won't change that. Better tests will.

If pro cycling is willing to invest a lot more money and other resources, and willing to intrude more into its athletes' lives, then they can create a system that catches all the cheats. I don't believe that will happen though.

Exactly. From everything I've read, it's amazing how easy it is to either avoid testing, simply flush your system, or time your doping just right. I think Hamilton said something along the lines of you only get caught if you get lazy or stupid.

What'd he do? I'm serious, I don't know.

Aside from doping, hiring a bunch of dopers (under the guise of building a dope free team), being utterly in love with the sound of his voice, and dressing like a soho fashion designer? Not much..maybe it's me.

The solution is make doping a criminal offense for professional athletes in countries that host major cycling races. That way, there's no such thing as "nothing to lose". EVERY rider, even riders that would otherwise be forced to quit the sport if they don't dope, have something to lose.

Unfortunately, this is easier said than done, since the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, and it's incredibly difficult at this time to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the rider willfully doped (e.g. Contador's trace amounts of Clenbeuterol).

Maybe the biological passport data should be posted publicly, so dopers in the peloton stick out like a sore thumb.

Agreed, however this punishment must be carried out very carefully.

If the punishment is a huge fine, all this will do is eliminate major sponsorship in cycling and kill the sport.

A better solution would be a full team DQ if a single rider tests positive. That way, if a rider tests positive during a grand tour, he will essentially carry an unwritten lifetime ban, since no team will ever sign him again, yet the team's season is still salvageable to some extent.

Well, better testing protocols and harsher penalties are not mutually exclusive, are they? Why I propose harsher penalties is mostly for the future of the sport re young up and coming cyclists. if they know that a five year ban is the penalty for a first offence, and that the second postive test gets you banned from the sport, then that might help. No guarantees of course, but it is a start. Additionally, I'll say to always reserve the option to test stored samples for future PEDs, as there will always be chemists coming out with newer and better PEDs, with the testing protocols always playing catch-up.

Independent anti doping agency (take it out of UCI's jurisdiction).
Scrap and rebuild the UCI (Get Hein and Pat out of there)
Root out all the "old guard" that is involved with team management
Real and severe penalties that affect TEAMS not just individual riders

And even with all of this enacted there would still be some cheating because human nature is what it is.

WADA is independent of the the UCI

Yes WADA is, but there seems to be very little real cooperation from the UCI. The UCI is also involved with the whole Biological Passport...they need to be completely removed from any testing/monitoring.

LeMond wants to see SRM-type power meters employed to measure riders' power outputs. "In SRMs, we have a quantitative way to do that, but unfortunately there have only been a few riders who have ever given out that personal information," bemoans LeMond. "I talked to [now former] ASO boss Patrice Clerc about having everyone on an SRM that's sealed. It would be controlled and calibrated by doctors, the police – but not the teams.

"You'd get a continuous output of power recorded during a Tour stage and then if you found someone who had a VO2 Max of 80 and he was doing 500 watts for 30 minutes, you'd know that that was statistically and mathematically impossible to do. So then he's positive – boom! – he's out – that's doping. That's it – it's simple."

When it comes to teams like Garmin-Chipotle, who are attempting, like Armstrong, to be transparent by employing their own anti-doping medical programme, LeMond both praises and criticises such efforts. "[Garmin boss] Jonathan Vaughters is doing a phenomenal job," says LeMond. "What they're doing is good, but really that testing has got to be done by an independent group, and not policed from inside. What good is self-policing? It's like a wolf guarding a hen house. You've got to have a group with no self-interest."

"It should be up to a group like WADA. The riders just want to know that they can trust the system – that's all. If a crime's a crime, you're going to get busted. Cycling is so black and white when it comes to watts and we can have that data now – it's not a mystery. Last year there were climbers doing 450 watts but weighing 58-60kg – that's nearly 8 watts per kilo. That's impossible – unless we've all had some kind of genetic mutation over the past 15 years.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/rider...g_lemond_oct08

Sounds kind of like the legendary, "1. Measure guads 2. Get on bike 3. Win" approach... If it's predetermined how much power you'll be able to put out on a hill stage, why even hold the race?

These days a huge percentages of tests are for allowable levels of thigns that occur naturally. When the punishment for a positive test is pushed high then usually so is the allowable level.

What if we kick in a 2nd level of sanctions.

At the least put in get a borderline result and you are tested after every single stage.

Last year there were climbers doing 450 watts but weighing 58-60kg – that's nearly 8 watts per kilo. That's impossible...

What is Greg Lemond on about? That is very easy to do, the question is how long they can keep that power up for. The problem in what he proposes is that wattage will become the new hematocrit level. E.g. Contador knows he [I]should[I] only be able to produce 350 watts over 4 hours, so he times his breakaway so he produces 360 watts over 4 1/4 hours... At what point do you say that he's definitely doping?

The easiest solution is to do what I did years ago; accept they're all doped up to the eyeballs, and sit back and enjoy the racing. When you no longer care whether they're on drugs or not the racing becomes really enjoyable and fun. As for those caught, well it's a little like the Darwin awards, the stupid are culled from the herd so we can enjoy a smarted peloton.

Note that I believe that it's not only cyclists that dope. They're all at it... football, soccer, athletics, swimming.

ok

Certainly everyone is doping. To believe otherwise is to be very naive. Sad that it is what it is. But it is what it is.