How do we stop the dopers in our sport?

[gtr1]

First offence - 2 year prison sentence. Then if you manage a comeback after that and get caught again, Another prison sentence followed by Lifetime ban.

 

Oh yes, and recover all winnings and endorsements and use the money to fund anti-doping. Or fund their prison stay so the taxpayer doesn't have to pay.

[bj horn]

While we are at it ,what about Drs,managers ,coaches?

[FrancoisO]

I heard somewhere that Rodger Fed got tested 20times this year of which he missed 8 test. Not fair!!

 

80pos test in SA this year only 1 cyclist. Where is the problem, cycling? I do not think so?

[Icycling]

This may seem like a strange comment - but you have to make it easy for people not to dope. So an example if you buy flue medicine at your local Pick 'n Pay because you have flue then you tested and it turned out to be a banned substance - currently you would be supsended. To many complicated rules for products which have little on no effect on your cycling. So raise these level to a far higher level so been sick and using items like flue medicine will not test you positive! Try and keep this drug list down to say 10 items - not sure if 10 is a good number just the suggestion.

 

You have to have test for what you testing - so if you want to ban somebody for blood doping design a test for it - don't give a guy a 2 year suspension for Clenbuterol 40 times lower than what should be tested for - as you suspect he did blood doping. Test for blood doping simple.

 

As I have started a post on HGH - should drugs that improve your avg Joe's life and possible even make you live longer be on the banned list?

[HandH]

[jcza]

I heard somewhere that Rodger Fed got tested 20times this year of which he missed 8 test. Not fair!!

 

80pos test in SA this year only 1 cyclist. Where is the problem, cycling? I do not think so?

 

You're right, what problem?

 

Jeeez have a word with yourself man!

[jcza]

1. Suspend them for live.

2. Change our laws and let them get a criminal record.

3. All South African sponsors should get together and sign an agreement that should any rider get caught positive then no team will ever except him back. That will mean no more teams for them and this could also be followed world wide.

 

Lets get your opinion

 

Get rid of Verbruggen and McQuaid.

Bring Ashenden back.

Stricter control of DS's - How can we allow all the ex-dopers to be in charge of teams now?

Remember the riders are young and will easily be influenced.

Testing, testing and more testing - I don't care if it is inconvenient. You're earning millions, piss in the bottle!!

Strike 1 - 4 year ban.

Strike 2 - Life ban.

[T-Bob]

Dopers should be kicked out. That is a simple fact.

 

The problems around that are more complicated, what about the director sportive who encourages the new rider to 'fulfil his potental'? There are issues with medication and tainted produce as for all athletes.

 

And as for the UCI... there is an organisation that needs some soul searching and house cleaning.

 

I believe now more than ever the sport is one of the most tested and scrutinised in the world. That dark days when the dopers were richer and more advanced than the commission are gladly behind us that the 'free for all' of that era has tainted almost every cyclist, team and sponsor is no more. Yes I think there are still dopers around for sure but the biological passport and the amount of testing means they are going to get found quicker than ever... even in SA.

 

It's a shame that the guys of today are stained by the horrors of the past and are going to suffer again because of lie-strong and the like. Look at Team Sky, they are enforcing their 'never doped' line and it's costing them. Sure Sean Yates retired of his own free will after his interview but it ha nothing to do with doping and his connection to Armstrong. That aside they have lost a chunk of top coaches because there are very few people from back then who were not involved. Of course you couldn't award Lances tour 'victories' to anyone else because you'd have to start looking at who was in the crowd and give them podium positions...

 

Personally I have been impressed with the way David Millar has conducted himself since being brought back into cycling. A doper, yes, but a stronger and more articulate spokesperson and anti doping crusader you couldn't find. So is it always right to level the 'ban all and throw them in jail' when people can make such a positive impact?

 

Great article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/05/david-millar-cycling

 

Full disclosure and TRC type commission I think would do a lot to draw a line under the excesses of the past. Anything less and there are still questions and rumours that will continue to hurt the sport.

[Baster Brak]

Well the punishment for dopers and cheaters should be the same, wheter you take EPO or take a ride in a car, and then hide in the grass the pinishment should be a lifetime ban,

[Lucky Luke.]

Interesting to see how the top labs can pinpoint almost exactly how prevalent doping is in a given grand tour. This from The Clinic:

 

doping analysts know far more than they can say out loud. They noticed that

even supposedly clean pro-riders often have other blood values than normal people.

Through a series of reference points, a team of the laboratory in Lausanne

developed a model to determine the frequency of blood doping. Pierre-Edouard

Sottas uses here the medical concept of prevalence. Prevalence is the proportion of

people with a given disease (in this case, doping) in a population. "The method is

very accurate," says Sottas. And it works with all forms of blood manipulation: EPO

doping, own blood and foreign blood transfusion." Today, we can determine with

certainty how many doped racers start a tour," says Sottas.

 

(…)

 

When in the 1996 Tour de Suisse blood samples were taken in order to develop the

future UCI test, EPO was an undetectable miracle drug. Martial Saugy, the head of the Lausanne laboratory, says: «At that time, more than 80 percent of the riders was doping.»

 

(…)

 

1996: There are no controls; more than 80 percent of the riders use EPO.

1997 to 1999: The definition of a hematocrit limit causes unease among athletes, the

number of dopers declines slightly.

2000: Everyone knows by now how to manipulate the hematocrit. EPO is again

applied more broadly.

2001: An EPO test is introduced, which has dramatic consequences. «Before the

Tour de France 2001 the peloton was practically clean,» says Pierre-Edouard Sottas.

In the third week, however, again an increase could be identified - the win was at

stake, and obviously they had already recognized the limitations of the test.

2002: At the beginning, the prevalence is still low, towards the end of year, it

increases markedly.

2003: In the Vuelta the riders benefit of the lax attitude of the Spaniards. «You can

almost speak of completely covering doping,» says Sottas. The reason: EPO in

micro-doses and foreign blood transfusions are not detectable.

 

(…)

 

2004/2005: A test for foreign blood transfusions is introduced; Tyler Hamilton and

Santi Perez are caught. This initially leads to a shock, but then they manipulated with

their own blood. Nevertheless, the prevalence declines: around 50 percent of the

riders manipulate, but among the best the percentage is higher. The percentages in

the Vuelta are again higher than those of other races.

2006/2007: With Operación Puerto, the Spanish blood swamp is drained. The

number of dopers is as small as ever since 2001. Less than a quarter of the 180

riders that started in the 2007 Tour de France pedal with manipulated blood.

However Sottas says: «Among the top 30 in the overall classification, the prevalence

is higher than in the lower ranks.»

On the basis of their data, the Lausanne doping investigators assume that there are

no longer teams that systematically manipulate blood. In 2003, that was still the case.

 

(…)

 

The 2007 Tour de France, decried as Tour de Farce and at the end reduced

by the media to doping reporting, was one of the cleanest since long. Even with the

utmost care it can be said: 75 percent of the riders were clean. But recent history

shows how quickly that can change.

 

Full thread is here: http://forum.cycling...503#post1076503

 

It seems to me, that far from being an unwinnable war, the information above points to real and significant responses to anti-doping advances. Although these admittedly didn't last long based on the above, there seems little doubt that by upping the testing budgets and taking testing completely away from the UCI real progress can be made.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Lucky Luke.

[pauloc]

Fully agree with Rouxtjie - look at why the guys are doping - they want to perform better to get into better teams and earn bigger salaries / prize money. If we introduced a rule that said all winnings from their career would have to be returned if they were caught for intentional doping then they'd think twice about it.

 

There's always the grey area where there's a dodgy steak involved, but without conclusive proof it's hard to enforce the above.

[Lucky Luke.]

Great to hear from a clean pro - Candadian cyclist Will Routley on how dopers have effectively stolen from him for 15 years.

 

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Whistler+cyclist+Will+Routley+says+competitors+used+PEDs+aren+just/7502237/story.html

 

This guy sums up why guys like David Millar make me throw up in my mouth every time I read his sanctimonious bull***t.

[Muddy]

Ok maybe I'm naive but are we really this caught up that we want to make criminals of dopers because their fans and sponsors expect them to be abnormal. This coming from a country where the police cannot police themselves so that we have REAL criminals that kill and rape women and children run around our streets, where we have a corrupt government that cost the taxpayer many many millions to support or maybe closer to home; where we have a governing body for our sport that does NOTHING for cycle safety!!! Come on lets get real. It's one thing to take away somebodies income by banning them for live from professional sports, it's something totally different to criminalize a father and husband thereby making sure they will have a very difficult time getting ANY job again.

[Squier]

Public bio passport. Full disclosure of blood values to be scrutinised by anyone at anytime.

[Lucky Luke.]

Ok maybe I'm naive but are we really this caught up that we want to make criminals of dopers because their fans and sponsors expect them to be abnormal. This coming from a country where the police cannot police themselves so that we have REAL criminals that kill and rape women and children run around our streets, where we have a corrupt government that cost the taxpayer many many millions to support or maybe closer to home; where we have a governing body for our sport that does NOTHING for cycle safety!!! Come on lets get real. It's one thing to take away somebodies income by banning them for live from professional sports, it's something totally different to criminalize a father and husband thereby making sure they will have a very difficult time getting ANY job again.

 

Doping at pro level is theft, which is just another crime, plain and simple. The culture tells us everyone does it and the pros need it but this is just BS. The culture needs to change at the top in order to change the popular point of view expressed by yourself above.

 

Once the punishment reflects the reality - that dopers are robbing clean riders - guys who dope will weigh up the risk vs. reward and begin to choose not to.

[Reg Lizard]

Die ou wat wil "dope" sal altyd dope, ongeag wat die "penalty" is-"sad but true"

 

Die vraag is waaroor gaan dit eintlik- "the love of money is the root of all evil".

 

So, solank daar borge en maatskappye is wat bereid is om hul geld te "invest" in die sport, sal daar "dopers" wees.

 

Vat die geld weg en weg is die "dopers"- geen rede meer om te "dope" nie.