Dopers suck

[Gen]

Well, I don't know, I'm no legal eagle. I just think if this get's tested in a court, the "banned" cyclist might just have a case. If you ban someone to enter a race, on what grounds do you do it. The person has served his time, he is no longer a doper so how can you treat him as a doper still. I know, it is human, we don't like cheaters and we don't want anything to do with them afterwards, but legally, if you served your time and you don't cheat (dope) anymore, why should you still be punished?

Most races have the whole. .reserve the right to deny entrance in their t&c's.

 

So pretty much up to them and I don't think there would be legal issues because it is in their t&c's

Edited May 10, 2016 by Gen

[rouxtjie]

Well, I don't know, I'm no legal eagle.  I just think if this get's tested in a court, the "banned" cyclist might just have a case.  If you ban someone to enter a race, on what grounds do you do it.  The person has served his time, he is no longer a doper so how can you treat him as a doper still.  I know, it is human, we don't like cheaters and we don't want anything to do with them afterwards, but legally, if you served your time and you don't cheat (dope) anymore, why should you still be punished?

right of admission reserved

[Gen]

Like the "Right of admission sign" above many club/pub etc doors. It's your race, you are a private entity... you can choose who you receive money from. CSA might be obliged to let them race, but for the rest of us - we will let our feelings be known.

????????

 

Question

 

How many crater cruises were won by dopers? As an organiser it must p you off immensely that you handed over a bucket load of prize money to cheaters.

[Andrew Steer]

 

Question

 

How many crater cruises were won by dopers? As an organiser it must p you off immensely that you handed over a bucket load of prize money to cheaters.

 

Kevin Evans won 3 alone... prize money just on him I would guess around the R150k - R200k mark over the years   

I've also done two Ride Magazine covers with him on at least... more   

 

I was a big fan of Kevin, really nice guy, part of me kind of hopes he was late into the doping game, but it wouldn't surprise the slightest if not.

[Eldron]

The more I think about this and the more I read some comments on this thread the more I like the idea of races banning dopers.

 

There was discussion on rights - it is the right of any private race/organistation to ban whomever they want. That's the rights problem solved.

 

I'm all for ex dopers riding their bikes - no law against it. I just think they should not be allowed to make money and/or fame out of cycling.

 

My personal opinion of course - and the personal opinion of more and more race organisers :-)

 

Good on you lot for taking a stand against doping. The UCI/CSA rules are way too lenient on doping. This private intervention is making potential dopers think many more times about doping and that to me means way more than some "it was an honest mistake guvnah" doper being caught.

 

If we can convince current riders that the downside of doping is way more than a 6 month rest cycle then we will eventually win the war on doping. The UCI/WADA/CSA hasn't managed that at all.

[Skubarra]

I was a big fan of Kevin, really nice guy, part of me kind of hopes he was late into the doping game, but it wouldn't surprise the slightest if not.

 

That is the thing for me, a lot of the big busts (KE, DG, BS) were okes at the tail-end of their career struggling to keep up with the youngsters. And especially with KE & BS they got desperate & reckless with their TUE's (amateur hour) rather than getting cought in some sophisticated Dr Ferrari doping scheme.

 

Would a potential life ban have made much of a difference in their decisions? I very much doubt it. Life bans is not the silver bullet that is going to rid us of this scourge.

[fandacious]

That is the thing for me, a lot of the big busts (KE, DG, BS) were okes at the tail-end of their career struggling to keep up with the youngsters. And especially with KE & BS they got desperate & reckless with their TUE's (amateur hour) rather than getting cought in some sophisticated Dr Ferrari doping scheme.

 

Would a potential life ban have made much of a difference in their decisions? I very much doubt it. Life bans is not the silver bullet that is going to rid us of this scourge.

 

didnt BS just win marathon champs?

[Gen]

Kevin Evans won 3 alone... prize money just on him I would guess around the R150k - R200k mark over the years

I've also done two Ride Magazine covers with him on at least... more

 

I was a big fan of Kevin, really nice guy, part of me kind of hopes he was late into the doping game, but it wouldn't surprise the slightest if not.

Sjoe.. a lot of money and a lot of exposure for him with just the crater cruise alone.. now add all the other winnings/advertising etc..

 

And it's not just first places hey..

 

Not saying he doped throughout his career but one will always wonder how much was clean..if any.

[BDF]

Who? The organiser's or the doper's?

 

If I own a race, and I say that I dont want officially sanctioned dopers to participate, that is my right. I am under NO obligation to allow people in just because they want to ride. I cant just walk into your house because you let other strangers in.

Just to clarify the perception that cycle races (in the main) are private events. They are not. They are indeed very much public events. As such, any form of unfair discrimination is prohibited under the Constitution. Unfair would be for example not allow entry for a cyclist on the basis that they were caught doping, sanctioned and served their sanction. (Ex-doper). They have therefore resumed cycling life as a fully fledged licenced cyclist and are no longer under sanction. If this is what some of the race organisers are doing, they are at risk of being at odds with the constitution (Section 2 - Bill of rights). They could potentially be charged criminally and sent to jail for a maximum period of 2 years.

 

No problem refusing entry to dopers who are currently serving out their sanction.

 

A private event would need to be by invitation only and also make ZERO use of any public property. Then one has the liberty to just not invite on almost whatever grounds one likes.

[fandacious]

Just to clarify the perception that cycle races (in the main) are private events. They are not. They are indeed very much public events. As such, any form of unfair discrimination is prohibited under the Constitution. Unfair would be for example not allow entry for a cyclist on the basis that they were caught doping, sanctioned and served their sanction. (Ex-doper). They have therefore resumed cycling life as a fully fledged licenced cyclist and are no longer under sanction. If this is what some of the race organisers are doing, they are at risk of being at odds with the constitution (Section 2 - Bill of rights). They could potentially be charged criminally and sent to jail for a maximum period of 2 years.

 

No problem refusing entry to dopers who are currently serving out their sanction.

 

A private event would need to be by invitation only and also make ZERO use of any public property. Then one has the liberty to just not invite on almost whatever grounds one likes.

 

I'm pretty sure cape-epic has the money to see this through court... They're the first one's to take the stance

[Thor Buttox]

Just to clarify the perception that cycle races (in the main) are private events. They are not. They are indeed very much public events. As such, any form of unfair discrimination is prohibited under the Constitution. Unfair would be for example not allow entry for a cyclist on the basis that they were caught doping, sanctioned and served their sanction. (Ex-doper). They have therefore resumed cycling life as a fully fledged licenced cyclist and are no longer under sanction. If this is what some of the race organisers are doing, they are at risk of being at odds with the constitution (Section 2 - Bill of rights). They could potentially be charged criminally and sent to jail for a maximum period of 2 years.

 

No problem refusing entry to dopers who are currently serving out their sanction.

 

A private event would need to be by invitation only and also make ZERO use of any public property. Then one has the liberty to just not invite on almost whatever grounds one likes.

I have refrained from commenting cos I am torn between my personal view that they should be banned for life, and my considered version that agrees that what BDO says is correct.

 

The is no right to ban someone from a public event even if they are past dopers, if the legislation says they can compete. We have to lobby the rule makers to change the rules to ban all dopers from competing for prize money in future (or by extension making doping the equivalent of criminal fraud).

[Gen]

I have refrained from commenting cos I am torn between my personal view that they should be banned for life, and my considered version that agrees that what BDO says is correct.

 

The is no right to ban someone from a public event even if they are past dopers, if the legislation says they can compete. We have to lobby the rule makers to change the rules to ban all dopers from competing for prize money in future (or by extension making doping the equivalent of criminal fraud).

So t&c's then don't apply?

[Skubarra]

didnt BS just win Masters marathon champs?

 

I cringe when I see his name there and wouldn't shed a tear if he wasn't allowed to compete - but would the threat of not being able to do master's competitions have stopped him?

[Thor Buttox]

So t&c's then don't apply?

Not quite sure what you mean, but if I get you right, T's and C's only apply until such time as they are tested in court. I suspect if someone with deep pockets challenged the Epic's decision, they'd have a decent chance of winning.

 

(But I would never be so glad to be proved wrong!)

Edited May 10, 2016 by Thor Buttox

[Gen]

Not quite sure what you mean, but if I get you right, T's and C's only apply until such time as they are tested in court. I suspect if someone with deep pockets challenged the Epic's decision, they'd have a decent chance of winning.

 

(But I would never be so glad to be proved wrong!)

Yes you got me right..

 

I am a bit speechless atm

[fandacious]

I cringe when I see his name there and wouldn't shed a tear if he wasn't allowed to compete - but would the threat of not being able to do master's competitions have stopped him?

 

 

he was overall winner as well, not just masters category