Dopers suck

[leeubok]

erm... https://www.bikehub.co.za/features/_/news/mtb/sa-mtb/stewart-and-dreyer-clock-fastest-times-at-masters-marathon-champs-r4696?source=topic

Yeah, oops 

[Bloukrans]

aikona....he is a professional, the rest of us are cyclists.....amateurs  

 

The same way I cook the books on my monthly excel spreadsheet to be able to afford that new hope brakeset will land me at worst on the couch for a evening, if I had to do the same in a professional capacity at a company...its fraud

So lay a charge...

[rouxtjie]

Why waste time & money on ex-dopers by testing them more often?

Simply just ban them for life from events.

Problem easily solved without spending a cent.

 

I for one will not enter any event where convicted dopers are allowed to enter, it does not matter how nice or pretty or big the event is and will continue to encourage my buddies and everyone else to the same.

same here...its a simple solution to a problem.

[rouxtjie]

So lay a charge...

Imagine doping was a criminal offence...or sponsors could lay some form of charge...wonder how many dopers we will have?

[Longbarn Killer]

Let me help you out here. Its not about punishing ex-dopers.

 

Its about creating a cullture of not accepting dopers, to help discourage other guys from doping in the future.

 

As Eddy put so well, if you make the price of doping too high, less people will tend to do it.

Isn't the main reason for punishing dopers to discourage other people from doing it?

[Bloukrans]

As long as you keep thinking that this is about punishing ex-dopers, then it wont make sense.

Agree - it should not be about punishing ex-dopers

 

It is about my personal preference to choose which events I wanna do.

 

Whether they allow dopers or not, that is my choice.

 

I cannot see how a list of "dirty / non-dirty events" make the sport cleaner.

 

But, that is just me

[rouxtjie]

Agree - it should not be about punishing ex-dopers

 

It is about my personal preference to choose which events I wanna do.

 

Whether they allow dopers or not, that is my choice.

 

I cannot see how a list of "dirty / non-dirty events" make the sport cleaner.

 

But, that is just me

Easy

 

Action and consequence

[Patchelicious]

Isn't the main reason for punishing dopers to discourage other people from doing it?

That is one of the reasons.

 

Do you think its working?

[Patchelicious]

Agree - it should not be about punishing ex-dopers

 

It is about my personal preference to choose which events I wanna do.

 

Whether they allow dopers or not, that is my choice.

 

I cannot see how a list of "dirty / non-dirty events" make the sport cleaner.

 

But, that is just me

That list simply helps people see which events suit their personal preference

[BDF]

Easy

 

Action and consequence

Make a girl pregnant and there will be a baby. You can say you are sorry to her and her parents, angry brother etc and be forgiven. This is good, but the baby is still there. You have to change what you were planning to do in life because your action had a consequence. For sure, one of the consequences is financial, another is social, another is time and so on. The baby is not punishment but a consequence. Punishment would be the girl's family moering you.

Back to cycling: What you do in your circle of influence given the consequences can either show that you are indeed a dwis or that you really do love the sport.

Edited May 6, 2016 by BDF

[leeubok]

Ok so company X is investing millions in SA Cycling and sponsors an event, lets say Sani2c. Sani2c allows convicted dopers to race. Now 80% of the Sani2c riders are hubbers and have decided to not support the event, so the entire event is a failure. Company X reviews the benefit of their cycling sponsorship and decides its just not worth it with no one showing up for their events. 

 

All theoretically of course. 

 

I would rather not support or do business with a company that supports and directly sponsors a convicted doper. Better than boycotting business X 

[BDF]

Ok so company X is investing millions in SA Cycling and sponsors an event, lets say Sani2c. Sani2c allows convicted dopers to race. Now 80% of the Sani2c riders are hubbers and have decided to not support the event, so the entire event is a failure. Company X reviews the benefit of their cycling sponsorship and decides its just not worth it with no one showing up for their events. 

 

All theoretically of course. 

 

I would rather not support or do business with a company that supports and directly sponsors a convicted doper. Better than boycotting business X 

I agree with this stance.

 

Who needs Telkom anyway

Edited May 6, 2016 by BDF

[milky4130]

Amateurs too or only pro's?

[Patchelicious]

Ok so company X is investing millions in SA Cycling and sponsors an event, lets say Sani2c. Sani2c allows convicted dopers to race. Now 80% of the Sani2c riders are hubbers and have decided to not support the event, so the entire event is a failure. Company X reviews the benefit of their cycling sponsorship and decides its just not worth it with no one showing up for their events. 

 

All theoretically of course. 

 

I would rather not support or do business with a company that supports and directly sponsors a convicted doper. Better than boycotting business X 

Company X has all the right in the world to adopt a stance agaisnt dopers if they so choose. Luckily there are Compnay Ys that dont allow convicted dopers back and therefore they stand to benefit from people who dont like doper friendly events. Money still comes into cycling just events that people choose based on their personal preferences.

 

Ps: sani2c has taken a stance against dopers

 

Look it is all good and well dreaming up theoretical reasons and scenarios as to why this could be flawed, but rather see it for how it could add value.

 

All the information on that site is already available online, that site just collates it for those who want to see it. If you dont want to use it, then dont. We all have choices, as do people who are thinking about doping..... Hopefully The Fand keeps this website going and that some good comes from it.

 

Edit: as the cliche goes, if one kid who was thinking about doping sees that website and says to himself: "you know what, its not worth it".......

Edited May 6, 2016 by Patchelicious

[fandacious]

Ok so company X is investing millions in SA Cycling and sponsors an event, lets say Sani2c. Sani2c allows convicted dopers to race. Now 80% of the Sani2c riders are hubbers and have decided to not support the event, so the entire event is a failure. Company X reviews the benefit of their cycling sponsorship and decides its just not worth it with no one showing up for their events. 

 

All theoretically of course. 

 

I would rather not support or do business with a company that supports and directly sponsors a convicted doper. Better than boycotting business X 

 

br providing a convicted cheat a chance to race again I'd say thats supporting them...

[Patchelicious]

Amateurs too or only pro's?

A few of the names on that list are from Vets.