UCI & Doping- Soution???

[Jan]

As you all are probably aware Pro Cycling is going through a difficult time.
Over at the Eurosport forums the drug issue has been discussed and discussed
again. One of our members has come up with the following, which has been
emailed to the UCI. I hope that upon reading this you too, with slight
alteration will forward it to . Thanks Jan


As a member of the Eurosport Cycling forum, I too would like to propose an
idea of an amnesty for drug takers in the sport. As is plainly obvious, the
current system is not working, with credibilty in cycling diminishing day by
day. Therefore, I feel that an amnesty would be a good option. It allows
those who have doped in the past to come out and admit it, without fear of
being reprimanded and sponsors pulling out, as is happening right now. Give
them until a date to get clean, then anyone caught should be thrown out of
cycling for good. This gives them no excuse and can make cycling credible
again. I would dearly love to see clean riders battling it out heart and
mind against each other in the knowledge that this is their physical limits
and they really are trying.

[raisethe]

On 24 May, 13:58, "Jan" > wrote:
> As you all are probably aware Pro Cycling is going through a difficult time.
> Over at the Eurosport forums the drug issue has been discussed and discussed
> again. One of our members has come up with the following, which has been
> emailed to the UCI. I hope that upon reading this you too, with slight
> alteration will forward it to . Thanks Jan
>
> As a member of the Eurosport Cycling forum, I too would like to propose an
> idea of an amnesty for drug takers in the sport. As is plainly obvious, the
> current system is not working, with credibilty in cycling diminishing day by
> day. Therefore, I feel that an amnesty would be a good option. It allows
> those who have doped in the past to come out and admit it, without fear of
> being reprimanded and sponsors pulling out, as is happening right now. Give
> them until a date to get clean, then anyone caught should be thrown out of
> cycling for good. This gives them no excuse and can make cycling credible
> again. I would dearly love to see clean riders battling it out heart and
> mind against each other in the knowledge that this is their physical limits
> and they really are trying.

Nonsense. If riders admitted doping then the sponsors would pull out.
If riders admit to doping then they should be punished.

It is easy to solve the doping problem. Any cyclist who has been found
to take performance enhancing drugs should have the following
punishments:

1. Life ban from the sport.
2. Return all money received from sponsors and prizes.
3. Race record expunged.

The burden of proof should be high, but there should be no grey area.

Sponsors should then be encouraged to sue the riders for damage done
to their company's reputation.

[[email protected]]

On 24 May, 14:42, raisethe > wrote:
> On 24 May, 13:58, "Jan" > wrote:
> > ... I feel that an amnesty would be a good option. It allows
> > those who have doped in the past to come out and admit it, without fear of
> > being reprimanded and sponsors pulling out, as is happening right now.

> It is easy to solve the doping problem. Any cyclist who has been found
> to take performance enhancing drugs should have the following
> punishments:

Wow, that is quite spectacularly naive (on so many, many levels...).

Cheers,
W.

[raisethe]

On 24 May, 14:59, wrote:
> On 24 May, 14:42, raisethe > wrote:
>
> > On 24 May, 13:58, "Jan" > wrote:
> > > ... I feel that an amnesty would be a good option. It allows
> > > those who have doped in the past to come out and admit it, without fear of
> > > being reprimanded and sponsors pulling out, as is happening right now.
> > It is easy to solve the doping problem. Any cyclist who has been found
> > to take performance enhancing drugs should have the following
> > punishments:
>
> Wow, that is quite spectacularly naive (on so many, many levels...).
>
> Cheers,
> W.

Such as?

[[email protected]]

On 24 May, 15:03, raisethe > wrote:
> On 24 May, 14:59, wrote:
>
> > On 24 May, 14:42, raisethe > wrote:
>
> > > On 24 May, 13:58, "Jan" > wrote:
> > > > ... I feel that an amnesty would be a good option. It allows
> > > > those who have doped in the past to come out and admit it, without fear of
> > > > being reprimanded and sponsors pulling out, as is happening right now.
> > > It is easy to solve the doping problem. Any cyclist who has been found
> > > to take performance enhancing drugs should have the following
> > > punishments:
>
> > Wow, that is quite spectacularly naive (on so many, many levels...).
>
> > Cheers,
> > W.
>
> Such as?

Pro cyclists are under pressure to perform, they probably don't know
what is in the "nutritional supplements" they are given by their
teams, the testing regimes do not inspire confidence, the environment
engenders collusion, there's a lot of money involved, there are a
large number of powerful vested interests and on top of this the
perception of the sport, the sponsors, the teams and the cyclists
themselves is crucial to everyone involved and associations with
"drugs" end up with mud sticking to all and sundry.
Look at Alain Baxter's Olympic skiing bronze, for example- a trace
quantity of a banned drug that would, if anything, have degraded
rather than improved his performance. Taken in error with every reason
to believe it was safe, but he's remembered and in the record books as
disqualified due to taking banned drugs.
This solution is not a solution- it just raises the stakes for the
poor guys at the bottom of the heap who have little control over their
situation anyway. There isn't an effective, reliable testing regime
that is capable of controlling the use of "drugs" in cycling and the
one that is in place is suffering a severe credibility attack at the
moment.
I don't have a solution, but I'm confident that if such a thing
exists it won't be simple and it won't put the onus on some poor
domestique who can be replaced at the drop of a hat.

Shall I shut up now? I think I'm probably only scratching the surface
but I'm not convinced it makes for interesting reading!

Cheers,
W.

[Simon Brooke]

in message . com>,
raisethe ') wrote:

> On 24 May, 14:59, wrote:
>> On 24 May, 14:42, raisethe > wrote:
>>
>> > On 24 May, 13:58, "Jan" > wrote:
>> > > ... I feel that an amnesty would be a good option. It allows
>> > > those who have doped in the past to come out and admit it, without
>> > > fear of being reprimanded and sponsors pulling out, as is happening
>> > > right now.
>> > It is easy to solve the doping problem. Any cyclist who has been found
>> > to take performance enhancing drugs should have the following
>> > punishments:
>>
>> Wow, that is quite spectacularly naive (on so many, many levels...).
>
> Such as?

It's endemic, very easy to cover up, the testing labs are under-resourced
and not very competent, and the international body responsible for testing
is more interested in grandstanding than in cleaning up sport.

A limited period amnesty seems at least worth trying. It won't /stop/
doping, but it may get it down within manageable levels. Mind you, the
alternative would be the FIFA approach. Doping? What doping?

Fuentes himself said that the majority of his customers were footballers.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing we could do but wait
patiently for the RAC to arrive.

[Bonzo]

Jan wrote:
> As you all are probably aware Pro Cycling is going through a
> difficult time. Over at the Eurosport forums the drug issue has been
> discussed and discussed again. One of our members has come up with
> the following, which has been emailed to the UCI. I hope that upon
> reading this you too, with slight alteration will forward it to
> . Thanks Jan
>
> As a member of the Eurosport Cycling forum, I too would like to
> propose an idea of an amnesty for drug takers in the sport. As is
> plainly obvious, the current system is not working, with credibilty
> in cycling diminishing day by day. Therefore, I feel that an amnesty
> would be a good option. It allows those who have doped in the past to
> come out and admit it, without fear of being reprimanded and sponsors
> pulling out, as is happening right now. Give them until a date to get
> clean, then anyone caught should be thrown out of cycling for good.
> This gives them no excuse and can make cycling credible again. I
> would dearly love to see clean riders battling it out heart and mind
> against each other in the knowledge that this is their physical
> limits and they really are trying.


nothing esle seems to work- so why not? I'll send a copy to them.

bonzo

[Dan Gregory]

raisethe wrote:
> If riders admitted doping then the sponsors would pull out.
> If riders admit to doping then they should be punished.

It is not too difficult to see see which teams have "turned a blind eye"
to their riders doping.
The sponsors of Soccer, US Football, Tennis, and basketball don't seem
to be too bothered by doping either.
I would have said a return to National Teams would be a solution but in
Amateur Cycling it was the Eastern bloc teams that started using drugs
in a scientific way...

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

Jan wrote on 24/05/2007 13:58 +0100:
>
>
> As a member of the Eurosport Cycling forum, I too would like to propose an
> idea of an amnesty for drug takers in the sport. As is plainly obvious, the
> current system is not working, with credibilty in cycling diminishing day by
> day. Therefore, I feel that an amnesty would be a good option. It allows
> those who have doped in the past to come out and admit it, without fear of
> being reprimanded and sponsors pulling out, as is happening right now. Give
> them until a date to get clean, then anyone caught should be thrown out of
> cycling for good. This gives them no excuse and can make cycling credible
> again. I would dearly love to see clean riders battling it out heart and
> mind against each other in the knowledge that this is their physical limits
> and they really are trying.
>

They would need to sort out the drugs testing systems too before it
would be of any use. Vide the following from the summing up at the
Floyd Landis hearing:

"In March of this year there was a discovery dispute, and LNDD produced
in March. This was one dealing with preparation of reference solutions.
We saw some strange things. This is supposed to be a living documents.
Supposed to be a contemporaneous log, but the handwriting is the same
all the year.

How often in March to you write previous year? I have never written the
subsequent year. We got it in March 2007. We think this is fraudulent
and made up in response to our request."



--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

Simon Brooke wrote on 24/05/2007 17:29 +0100:
>
> It's endemic, very easy to cover up, the testing labs are under-resourced
> and not very competent, and the international body responsible for testing
> is more interested in grandstanding than in cleaning up sport.
>

Having followed the Landis hearing day by day I was struck by the
difference in approach. The USADA went after Landis' character when you
think they would have defended their data whereas Landis' team
systematically dismantled the results. The two British expert witnesses
were superb.


--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

[raisethe]

On 24 May, 16:00, wrote:
> On 24 May, 15:03, raisethe > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 24 May, 14:59, wrote:
>
> > > On 24 May, 14:42, raisethe > wrote:
>
> > > > On 24 May, 13:58, "Jan" > wrote:
> > > > > ... I feel that an amnesty would be a good option. It allows
> > > > > those who have doped in the past to come out and admit it, without fear of
> > > > > being reprimanded and sponsors pulling out, as is happening right now.
> > > > It is easy to solve the doping problem. Any cyclist who has been found
> > > > to take performance enhancing drugs should have the following
> > > > punishments:
>
> > > Wow, that is quite spectacularly naive (on so many, many levels...).
>
> > > Cheers,
> > > W.
>
> > Such as?
>
> Pro cyclists are under pressure to perform, they probably don't know
> what is in the "nutritional supplements" they are given by their
> teams, the testing regimes do not inspire confidence, the environment
> engenders collusion, there's a lot of money involved, there are a
> large number of powerful vested interests and on top of this the
> perception of the sport, the sponsors, the teams and the cyclists
> themselves is crucial to everyone involved and associations with
> "drugs" end up with mud sticking to all and sundry.
> Look at Alain Baxter's Olympic skiing bronze, for example- a trace
> quantity of a banned drug that would, if anything, have degraded
> rather than improved his performance. Taken in error with every reason
> to believe it was safe, but he's remembered and in the record books as
> disqualified due to taking banned drugs.
> This solution is not a solution- it just raises the stakes for the
> poor guys at the bottom of the heap who have little control over their
> situation anyway. There isn't an effective, reliable testing regime
> that is capable of controlling the use of "drugs" in cycling and the
> one that is in place is suffering a severe credibility attack at the
> moment.
> I don't have a solution, but I'm confident that if such a thing
> exists it won't be simple and it won't put the onus on some poor
> domestique who can be replaced at the drop of a hat.
>
> Shall I shut up now? I think I'm probably only scratching the surface
> but I'm not convinced it makes for interesting reading!
>
> Cheers,
> W.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Nothing you have written above shows my post to be 'spectacularly
naive on many, many levels'. You are just making excuses for cyclists
who choose to take drugs. The simple answer is that if they are found
out, then they are guilty of a considerable fraud and should be
punished.

Did you actually read my post? I said that the burden of proof should
be high. If you are correct about Baxter, then he shouldn't have been
found guilty. How does that make me naive?

What on earth do you mean 'the poor guys at the bottom of the heap who
don't have much control over their situation'? These are highly paid
elite athletes. Are you talking about Zabel, Virenque, Basso?

If they don't know what is in the stuff they are given by their team,
then they shouldn't consume it. No one is forcing them to dope. It is
their decision to cheat.


What you have written is just a load of waffle designed to excuse a
bunch of cheats.

[raisethe]

On 24 May, 17:29, Simon Brooke > wrote:
> in message . com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> raisethe ') wrote:
> > On 24 May, 14:59, wrote:
> >> On 24 May, 14:42, raisethe > wrote:
>
> >> > On 24 May, 13:58, "Jan" > wrote:
> >> > > ... I feel that an amnesty would be a good option. It allows
> >> > > those who have doped in the past to come out and admit it, without
> >> > > fear of being reprimanded and sponsors pulling out, as is happening
> >> > > right now.
> >> > It is easy to solve the doping problem. Any cyclist who has been found
> >> > to take performance enhancing drugs should have the following
> >> > punishments:
>
> >> Wow, that is quite spectacularly naive (on so many, many levels...).
>
> > Such as?


>
> It's endemic,

It won't be under my system due to the risk of their career being
ruined and also their inevitable bankruptcy.

>very easy to cover up,

Seems to me that they can be caught when a bit of an effort is made.
As they have shown they can't be trusted, what is wrong with DNA
tests, midnight visits for dope tests during stage races etc etc?



> the testing labs are under-resourced
> and not very competent,

then give them money and train them!

and the international body responsible for testing
> is more interested in grandstanding than in cleaning up sport.
>
> A limited period amnesty seems at least worth trying. It won't /stop/
> doping, but it may get it down within manageable levels. Mind you, the
> alternative would be the FIFA approach. Doping? What doping?
>
> Fuentes himself said that the majority of his customers were footballers.

Irrelevant.

>
>

[raisethe]

> Should we cut their legs off as well?
>
> --
> Mike
> Van Tuyl titanium Dura Ace 10
> Fausto Coppi aluminium Ultegra 10
> Raleigh Record Sprint mongrel

Nice that there is someone else out there thinking on the same lines
as myself today.

:)

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Tony Raven
') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote on 24/05/2007 17:29 +0100:
>>
>> It's endemic, very easy to cover up, the testing labs are
>> under-resourced and not very competent, and the international body
>> responsible for testing is more interested in grandstanding than in
>> cleaning up sport.
>>
>
> Having followed the Landis hearing day by day I was struck by the
> difference in approach. The USADA went after Landis' character when you
> think they would have defended their data whereas Landis' team
> systematically dismantled the results. The two British expert witnesses
> were superb.

Let's clear the decks by saying that it's my personal, not very well
informed opinion that Landis probably doped - certainly on the day in
question, possibly systematically.

However, what's even more clear is that Dick Pound and WADA haven't been
very interested in the truth or the facts, they have been going for a
scalp: to get a conviction at all costs, regardless of the evidence.
Landis' character is evidence, of course, and this hearing has thrown
appalling light on it. USADA were entitled to examine Landis' character.
But what the anti-drug administrations were not entitled to do was trial
by media - the constant drip of damaging information since the first
highly unprofessional revelation of the A sample result.

The problem is that while the cyclists may be dirty, the anti-drug people
are dirtier, and neither we the public nor the cyclists can trust the
investigating authorities, and until we clean up that act, attacking the
cyclists is really looking at the wrong target. Quis Custodiet Ipsos
Custodes?

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GP/CS s++: a++ C+++ ULBVCS*++++$ L+++ P--- E+>++ W+++ N++ K w--(---)
M- !d- PS++ PE-- Y+ PGP !t 5? X+ !R b++ !DI D G- e++ h*(-) r++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

[[email protected]]

On 24 May, 23:38, raisethe > wrote:

> Nothing you have written above shows my post to be 'spectacularly
> naive on many, many levels'.

I'm not going to get into an argument about it, but perhaps I can try
and expand on why I think it's a complicated situation.

> ...You are just making excuses for cyclists
> who choose to take drugs. The simple answer is that if they are found
> out, then they are guilty of a considerable fraud and should be
> punished.

Yes. I'm making excuses for cyclists who take drugs. I don't think
they should, but the current regime is not effective in stopping it
and I don't think that increasing the punishments for those who are
caught out in the current environment is the right approach.

> Did you actually read my post? I said that the burden of proof should
> be high. If you are correct about Baxter, then he shouldn't have been
> found guilty. How does that make me naive?

Yes, I read your post. I believe I understood it, too. I also think
that the problem is more intractable than you are acknowledging.

> What on earth do you mean 'the poor guys at the bottom of the heap who
> don't have much control over their situation'? These are highly paid
> elite athletes. Are you talking about Zabel, Virenque, Basso?

No, I'm not. Though there are apparantly some who have "made it" who
are still falling into the trap.

> If they don't know what is in the stuff they are given by their team,
> then they shouldn't consume it. No one is forcing them to dope. It is
> their decision to cheat.

You see, that's why I think you are naive. Try to put yourself in the
position of being an aspiring pro-cyclist, who has committed himself
totally to achieving all he can (because your arn't going to make it
to the top if you dont). You are offered a (very rare) place on a
professional cycling team which has nutritionists, masseurs, bike
technicians, sponsors: the works. You are under enormous pressure to
fit in and not to make waves. There are dozens of guys, just like you,
desperate to usurp your place in the team. You havn't "made it", yet
but this is, quite possibly, the only break you're going to get.
Maybe, just maybe, if you can deliver the performance needed you will
be able to reach the goals you have dreamed of.
Now, this team you have joined has experts who will help you maximise
your potential: training schedules, race preperation, diet, sports
scientists and so on. They are there to help you perform, that's their
job and you have yours. Everyone in the team knows this, and everyone
is beholden to the sponsors who will probably fund the team as long as
the results come in.

Now: Just how "difficult" are you going to be when Dr Diet insists
that you drink the "isotonic energy-packed electrolyte balanced
rehydration mix" that he has mixed up for todays race?

Now, the scenario above is written on the presumption that the team
wants to maintain some level of plausible deniability. We can run
through the same scenario with the starting assumptions that all the
teams that you are competing with are likely to be using whatever
tools they can get their hands on to beat you, that no-one is really
desperate to try and find out whether your team has compromised its
ideals slightly and that the team is going to stick together and keep
its damn mouth shut rather than rock the boat and **** off everyone
who is involved in the sport from the sponsors who are paying Real
Money for the circus to the guys in the cheap seats watching the
crashes.

In that scenario, things are likely to be a bit less subtle, and our
aspiring pro-cyclist will have known damn well what the score was
before he was approached to see if he was interested in making his
dream come true...

> What you have written is just a load of waffle designed to excuse a
> bunch of cheats.

Quite possibly so, but it's not a simple problem and it's not
amenable to a simple solution. In fact in my humble opinion, as they
say around here, I would say it was naive to think so and hence, I
did.

Cheers,
W.

PS. I still think I'm only scratching the surface of the issues here-
this is just one aspect of a very large and very complex set of
problems (look at the apparant issues with the current drugs testing
scheme, for example).

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

Simon Brooke wrote on 25/05/2007 10:04 +0100:
>
> USADA were entitled to examine Landis' character.
>

Yes they were entitled but it was disappointing they did. The approach
was Landis is a nasty cyclist, nasty cyclists dope, therefore Landis
doped and is guilty irrespective of whether we actually caught him doing
it. What I would have liked to have seen given their role is we took
his blood samples, here is unimpeachable evidence that they contained
drugs therefore he has been caught and is guilty. As it was they did
not defend their multiple mistakes, bad science, errors and sometimes
fairly evident fraud but instead said as long as it looks like he might
have its enough because we know he did it. So find him guilty and ban him.


--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

[Dan Gregory]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote on 25/05/2007 10:04 +0100:
>>
>> USADA were entitled to examine Landis' character.
>>
>
> Yes they were entitled but it was disappointing they did. The approach
> was Landis is a nasty cyclist, nasty cyclists dope, therefore Landis
> doped and is guilty irrespective of whether we actually caught him doing
> it. What I would have liked to have seen given their role is we took
> his blood samples, here is unimpeachable evidence that they contained
> drugs therefore he has been caught and is guilty. As it was they did
> not defend their multiple mistakes, bad science, errors and sometimes
> fairly evident fraud but instead said as long as it looks like he might
> have its enough because we know he did it. So find him guilty and ban him.
>
>
Yeah it's only the nice one's like Riis

[raisethe]

On 25 May, 16:13, Dan Gregory
> wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
> > Simon Brooke wrote on 25/05/2007 10:04 +0100:
>
> >> USADA were entitled to examine Landis' character.
>
> > Yes they were entitled but it was disappointing they did. The approach
> > was Landis is a nasty cyclist, nasty cyclists dope, therefore Landis
> > doped and is guilty irrespective of whether we actually caught him doing
> > it. What I would have liked to have seen given their role is we took
> > his blood samples, here is unimpeachable evidence that they contained
> > drugs therefore he has been caught and is guilty. As it was they did
> > not defend their multiple mistakes, bad science, errors and sometimes
> > fairly evident fraud but instead said as long as it looks like he might
> > have its enough because we know he did it. So find him guilty and ban him.
>
> Yeah it's only the nice one's like Riis- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Riis has just admitted to taking epo throughout his period at the top.
It looks like he will not be prevented from continuing to work in
cycling. Nothing much is changing really.

[Simon Brooke]

in message . com>,
raisethe ') wrote:

> Riis has just admitted to taking epo throughout his period at the top.
> It looks like he will not be prevented from continuing to work in
> cycling. Nothing much is changing really.

It's hardly news that Mr 60% doped. It is, of course, news that he's come
clean about it. But what I'd really like to know is what he was saying in
private to Ivan Basso three years ago. Was it:

(i) If you dope you're sacked? or
(ii) If you're caught doping you're sacked?

Was it:

(a) This is where you get the good stuff, but don't say I said so? or
(b) Stay away from these guys at all costs?

In other words, was this legendarily canny and hands-on manager really
deceived about Basso's doping, or was he complicit and then let Basso take
the fall? Neither's easy to believe.

I do think there's something ethically different between an athlete who,
from a quite young age, was given PEDs by his team management in an age in
which it was clearly winked at by the authorities, and a team manager
either supplying drugs or turning a blind eye. In other words, I can quite
easily forgive Bjarne that he doped when he was racing, but I can't
forgive him if he introduced a new generation to dope.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

I shall continue to be an impossible person so long as those
who are now possible remain possible -- Michael Bakunin