UCI doping suggestion

[Jan]

Hi Guys
I hope you will all be able to help us, this is gathering momentum on the UK
message boards.
Thanks 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 .


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.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 24 May 2007 14:56:16 +0100
Jan > wrote:
> 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

The "caught" is the problem. As it is now.

When money is riding on winning, then cheating happens. THe more
money, the more technology goes into the cheating. The catchers never
has the money or the incentive the cheaters do, so are always behind.

Zebee

[Michael Warner[_2_]]

On Thu, 24 May 2007 14:56:16 +0100, Jan wrote:

> 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

Fear of the money drying up is what caused the problem in the first place.
It might be painful, but losing sponsors is probably the only thing that
will produce a real change in the sport. They're the ones who ultimately
determine what's acceptable and what isn't, by signing or not signing the
cheques.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 25 May 2007 08:55:00 +0930
Michael Warner > wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 14:56:16 +0100, Jan wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> Fear of the money drying up is what caused the problem in the first place.
> It might be painful, but losing sponsors is probably the only thing that
> will produce a real change in the sport. They're the ones who ultimately
> determine what's acceptable and what isn't, by signing or not signing the
> cheques.

What is acceptable is winning. Admittedly being caught cheating is
bad for business but the doping's been going on since at least the
1950s so it obviously isn't *that* bad for business...

Zebee

[Graeme Dods]

On May 25, 8:13 am, Zebee Johnstone > wrote:

> What is acceptable is winning. Admittedly being caught cheating is
> bad for business but the doping's been going on since at least the
> 1950s so it obviously isn't *that* bad for business...

In the time scale you've given it's been a very shifting target
though. What was permitted then (or at least turned a blind eye to) is
banned and fairly closely monitored now. Often the dopers are ahead of
the ability to detect performance enhancing substances, e.g. EPO,
giving them an opportunity to cheat undetected. Once a rider goes down
that route I'd imagine the desire to keep that advantage is pretty
strong so they'll try to keep one step ahead of the detection game.

An amnesty might be a way of bringing everything out in the open, but
what are the chances that if there's something currently undetectable
that people will stay quiet about it?

Graeme

[MikeyOz[_68_]]

This whole thing amazes me..... these people are supposed to be admired
and looked up to they are supposed to be idols for kids who look up to
them.

They are cheats and as defined by law they are criminals, all it comes
down to money, either for the rider or the team, winners mean
sponsorship.

I hope the entire circuit collapses on its ass and they all wind up
with no circuit.

I actually admire Erik Zabels' guts for coming out and finally
admitting it in public, if only the rest of the cowards who are doing
it would come out and admit it. Amnesty..... geeesh, they have a
choice, they made it.


--
MikeyOz

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 25 May 2007 15:48:10 +1000
MikeyOz > wrote:
>
> This whole thing amazes me..... these people are supposed to be admired
> and looked up to they are supposed to be idols for kids who look up to
> them.

No, they are professionals, doing a job. If people teach kids to look
up to them, it's hardly the rider's fault.

THese guys have to win. It's their living. Anyone who doesn't teach
kids what that means is a fool.


>
> They are cheats and as defined by law they are criminals, all it comes
> down to money, either for the rider or the team, winners mean
> sponsorship.

Exactly. So why be surprised at the outcome? If you want cheat free
races, then you remove the money because in the end it is easier to
win by cheating, and you can't remove the cheating while the money's
there.

Of course if there was no sponsorship, no money, then no full time racers,
so not as much training, and not as much searching for new talent.
No sponsorship no massively expensive bicycles. No sponsorship no team
medics, no massuers, no hotels.

And much slower and less interesting races....

Even making doping legal and so dropping this fiction about how it's
about unaided human effort when everyone knows that's not been so for
over 50 years won't help as there will still be people trying to use
stuff the others aren't. So they won't disclose in the hope they can
get that edge on the other teams. But if you do remove the
anti-doping rules then at least it will stop these farcical
investigations.

Zebee

[MikeyOz[_70_]]

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>
> No, they are professionals, doing a job. If people teach kids to look
> up to them, it's hardly the rider's fault.
>
> THese guys have to win. It's their living. Anyone who doesn't teach
> kids what that means is a fool.
>

Hang on a minute, kids are not that stupid, I don't remember my father
or mother teaching me to look up to somone. Kids choose their idols,
as soon as you decide to enter into a professional sport like that
which garners so much public attention, you know that is the case. Why
do you think clubs/teams have codes of conducts written into their
contracts, just to fill up pieces of paper, the teams know it and
expect it, but anyway that is another topic.

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>
> Exactly. So why be surprised at the outcome? If you want cheat free
> races, then you remove the money because in the end it is easier to
> win by cheating, and you can't remove the cheating while the money's
> there.

I did not say I was suprised by it, amazed by it, it does not surprise
me at all. Personally I ride/do exercise to push myself harder and
challenge myself physically I could not care less if there is or is not
a UCI tour.

Give me amateur drug free competition anyday! At least you know it
comes down to given ability/training/dedication of a person.

Maybe we need 2 ciricuits.... the doping circuit and the drug free
circuit and let the public decide, what they want to see.

Out of curiosity does the Surfing Pro Tour have random drug testing ???
:)


--
MikeyOz

[TimC]

On 2007-05-25, MikeyOz (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> This whole thing amazes me..... these people are supposed to be admired
> and looked up to they are supposed to be idols for kids who look up to
> them.
>
> They are cheats and as defined by law they are criminals

I don't understand why they are criminals. What does the law care
about someone trying to gain an unfair advatange at their sport?

In fact, I don't understand sporting law courts at all. Real lawyers,
real judges being wasted on things as unimportant as sport? Or am I
misunderstanding what these courts are composed of?

--
TimC
What did you type in wrong to get it to crash?

[TimC]

On 2007-05-25, MikeyOz (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>>
>> No, they are professionals, doing a job. If people teach kids to look
>> up to them, it's hardly the rider's fault.
>>
>> THese guys have to win. It's their living. Anyone who doesn't teach
>> kids what that means is a fool.
>
> Hang on a minute, kids are not that stupid, I don't remember my father
> or mother teaching me to look up to somone. Kids choose their idols,
> as soon as you decide to enter into a professional sport like that
> which garners so much public attention, you know that is the case.

I'm just glad scientists I had as idols don't take performance
enhancing drugs. Apart from caffeine.

And the guy who comes up here regularly, but I don't know whether the
weed "enhances".

> Why do you think clubs/teams have codes of conducts written into
> their contracts, just to fill up pieces of paper, the teams know it
> and expect it, but anyway that is another topic.

No they don't. The sponsors expect it (but secretly want their team
to take drugs so they'll win, but not get caught, getting positive
exposure), the teams need the contract to say that so they'll get the
sponsorship deal, but again, couldn't care less if their members took
enhancing substances as long as they never get caught.

>> Exactly. So why be surprised at the outcome? If you want cheat free
>> races, then you remove the money because in the end it is easier to
>> win by cheating, and you can't remove the cheating while the money's
>> there.
>
> I did not say I was suprised by it, amazed by it, it does not surprise
> me at all. Personally I ride/do exercise to push myself harder and
> challenge myself physically I could not care less if there is or is not
> a UCI tour.

I like watching it. Last year's was really excellent to watch,
despite it being so heavily tainted.

Meh. I don't have heros in the sporting arena. Hence, I have no
heros who can dissapoint me by such behaviour, but I can still enjoy a
fascinating sport. I suggest you take the sport less seriously, and
perhaps discard some of your heros, if that is indeed the case.

> Out of curiosity does the Surfing Pro Tour have random drug testing ???
>:)

Dude, weed doesn't enhance, man.

--
TimC
The gedanken experiment failed. I couldn't reproduce the results -- TimC

[Donga]

On May 25, 6:49 pm, TimC -
astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
> On 2007-05-25, MikeyOz (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>
>
> > This whole thing amazes me..... these people are supposed to be admired
> > and looked up to they are supposed to be idols for kids who look up to
> > them.
>
> > They are cheats and as defined by law they are criminals
>
> I don't understand why they are criminals. What does the law care
> about someone trying to gain an unfair advatange at their sport?
>
Fraud. Money at stake, break rules to win, fraud. Think how much money
people put in as sponsorship, betting, prizemoney, entry fees etc.
It's reasonable for them to expect the game to be played straight.
It's surprising that some of the people who have been cheated haven't
personally sued the cheats for damages.

Donga

[Michael Warner[_2_]]

On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:48:10 +1000, MikeyOz wrote:

> This whole thing amazes me..... these people are supposed to be admired
> and looked up to they are supposed to be idols for kids who look up to
> them.

Supposed by whom? The purpose of professional sport is to sell our
attention to sponsors and advertisers. There's no more reason (and
often less) why a professional athlete should be a role model than
anyone else who works for a living.

If you want a deserving idol, look for someone who volunteers their
time and effort to help others for nothing.

> They are cheats and as defined by law they are criminals

Generally not - see the history of the current "bags of blood" scandal.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

[John Stevenson]

Donga wrote:
> On May 25, 6:49 pm, TimC -
> astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
>> On 2007-05-25, MikeyOz (aka Bruce)
>> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>>
>>> This whole thing amazes me..... these people are supposed to be admired
>>> and looked up to they are supposed to be idols for kids who look up to
>>> them.
>>> They are cheats and as defined by law they are criminals
>> I don't understand why they are criminals. What does the law care
>> about someone trying to gain an unfair advatange at their sport?
>>
> Fraud. Money at stake, break rules to win, fraud.

It's sport. Someone is going to win, someone is going to end up with teh
prizemoney that's already been allocated. If everyone's juicing - and
it's getting hard to believe they're not - then the playing field is level.

> Think how much money
> people put in as sponsorship, betting, prizemoney, entry fees etc.
> It's reasonable for them to expect the game to be played straight.
> It's surprising that some of the people who have been cheated haven't
> personally sued the cheats for damages.

The prizemoney and sponsorship money was all going to be spent anyway.
No drug-using cyclist has persuaded someone to send them an advance fee
to secure 14.5 million US dollars that was languishing in a Nigerian bank.

As for betting, well, I come from a family of bookies. Gambling on
sport, horse racing etc is a way for those who understand probability to
legally steal from those who don't. If you're that stupid, you deserve
everything you get.

The war on drugs in sport, like the war on drugs in society, is *lost*.
They're adults; let them take what they like.

[TimC]

On 2007-05-26, John Stevenson (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> As for betting, well, I come from a family of bookies. Gambling on
> sport, horse racing etc is a way for those who understand probability to
> legally steal from those who don't. If you're that stupid, you deserve
> everything you get.

Although I agree almost completely with you, the same thing could be
said about cigarettes and smokers, except that they cause damage to
innocent third parties. As do gamblers.

--
TimC
TELESCOPE, n.
A device having a relation to the eye similar to that of the
telephone to the ear, enabling distant objects to plague us with a
multitude of needless details. Luckily it is unprovided with a bell
summoning us to the sacrifice.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"