Kohl fesses up, omerta in full swing...

On Oct 18, 10:01*am, "Robert Chung"
wrote:
Keith wrote:
Very well put, howver I'm afraid this will not fly with the conspiracy
twins and their statistician friend who don't realise their theories
are the best allies of Dopers Inc. "look the tests are not 100%
accurate so why bother testing ?"

BTW, where did you learn your debating technique: from Fox News or from
George W. Bush?

Shut up, Robert. That was beyond lame, and bordered on cliche.

On Oct 18, 7:40*pm, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
LawBoy01 wrote:
On Oct 18, 2:16 am, "Robert Chung"
wrote:
What if I acted alone and there is no enabler? Can I just name some random
guy and get my ban cut in half?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What do you think, Robert? *You can answer that question.

If I ever come up positive I'm blaming Lafferty.

Bob Schwartz

Fair enough!

LawBoy01 wrote:

Then they will be able to name their enablers and get only 2 years.

What if I acted alone and there is no enabler? Can I just name some
random guy and get my ban cut in half?

What do you think, Robert? You can answer that question.

I already have. My approach is untenable because it doesn't involve lifetime
bans, naming names, waterboarding, or public beheadings. It does recognize
that severity of the penalty isn't as good a deterrent as increasing the
probability of getting caught. That's why I've advocated increased testing,
not less, which is why Keith had his head up his ass. You, I'm not sure
about -- perhaps your head is up our President's ass.

Doping for ergogenic benefit is a sporting violation so the penalty should
be a sporting penalty: since cycling is a team sport, all riders on that
team should be given a time penalty regardless of who was the doper. Rather
than fire a doping rider the team has to pay him, plus pay a penalty into a
fund that gets re-distributed to other teams. That gives the team an
incentive to monitor their riders and make sure they're clean.

On Oct 18, 9:30*pm, "Robert Chung"
wrote:
[S]ince cycling is a team sport, all riders on that
team should be given a time penalty regardless of who was the doper. Rather
than fire a doping rider the team has to pay him, plus pay a penalty into a
fund that gets re-distributed to other teams. That gives the team an
incentive to monitor their riders and make sure they're clean.

One asshole who slips by a doping test penalizes his whole team.
That's your solution? That is fascist.

LawBoy01 wrote:
On Oct 18, 9:30 pm, "Robert Chung"
wrote:
[S]ince cycling is a team sport, all riders on that
team should be given a time penalty regardless of who was the doper.
Rather than fire a doping rider the team has to pay him, plus pay a
penalty into a fund that gets re-distributed to other teams. That
gives the team an incentive to monitor their riders and make sure
they're clean.

One asshole who slips by a doping test penalizes his whole team.
That's your solution? That is fascist.

Geez, and I thought you'd think that was a feature, not a bug.

In (American) football when one player jumps offsides the entire team gets
five yards. In hockey when a player gets sent off the ice the team doesn't
get to replace him and has to play a man short. In basketball bonus free
throws are awarded to the opposing team for non-shooting fouls beyond a
certain limit.

In article ,
LawBoy01 wrote:

On Oct 18, 9:30*pm, "Robert Chung"
wrote:
[S]ince cycling is a team sport, all riders on that
team should be given a time penalty regardless of who was the doper. Rather
than fire a doping rider the team has to pay him, plus pay a penalty into a
fund that gets re-distributed to other teams. That gives the team an
incentive to monitor their riders and make sure they're clean.

One asshole who slips by a doping test penalizes his whole team.
That's your solution? That is fascist.

I think it's a good solution. As Robert pointed out, the possible result of being
caught (a ban of 'x' years) has not been enough of a deterrent to doping. When a
rider is forced out of races, he doesn't have any real interaction with the rest of
the peloton - by the time he's back most people will have pretty much forgotten the
issue. If a rider that gets caught causes his entire team to suffer a penalty and
still is in the peloton, he will have to deal with his newly penalized team mates, as
well as the rest of the peloton. I think that might be good incentive to make sure
you weren't doping. Obviously, some riders will choose to gamble but I think more
would think twice.

--
tanx,
Howard

Abandon the Creeping Meatball!

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Robert Chung wrote:
LawBoy01 wrote:
On Oct 18, 9:30 pm, "Robert Chung"
wrote:
[S]ince cycling is a team sport, all riders on that
team should be given a time penalty regardless of who was the doper.
Rather than fire a doping rider the team has to pay him, plus pay a
penalty into a fund that gets re-distributed to other teams. That
gives the team an incentive to monitor their riders and make sure
they're clean.

One asshole who slips by a doping test penalizes his whole team.
That's your solution? That is fascist.

Geez, and I thought you'd think that was a feature, not a bug.

In (American) football when one player jumps offsides the entire team
gets five yards. In hockey when a player gets sent off the ice the
team doesn't get to replace him and has to play a man short. In
basketball bonus free throws are awarded to the opposing team for
non-shooting fouls beyond a certain limit.

And, of course, when one Saudi Arabian guy hiding out in Afghanistan
directed that planes be flown into American buildings, our President decided
to penalize a completely different country.

Howard Kveck wrote:
As Robert pointed out, the possible
result of being caught (a ban of 'x' years) has not been enough of a
deterrent to doping. When a rider is forced out of races, he doesn't
have any real interaction with the rest of the peloton - by the time
he's back most people will have pretty much forgotten the issue. If a
rider that gets caught causes his entire team to suffer a penalty and
still is in the peloton, he will have to deal with his newly
penalized team mates, as well as the rest of the peloton. I think
that might be good incentive to make sure you weren't doping.
Obviously, some riders will choose to gamble but I think more would
think twice.

That's part of it, but the real issue I was trying to get at was team
management telling a rider that next year's contract depends on how he
performs this year (wink wink nudge nudge) and then when a rider is caught
doping the team cuts him loose, claims he was an isolated case, then hires
someone else while telling him that the next year's contract depends on how
well he performs this year (wink wink nudge nudge). A team penalty means the
teams have to make sure their riders are clean.

In article ,
"Robert Chung" wrote:

Howard Kveck wrote:
As Robert pointed out, the possible
result of being caught (a ban of 'x' years) has not been enough of a
deterrent to doping. When a rider is forced out of races, he doesn't
have any real interaction with the rest of the peloton - by the time
he's back most people will have pretty much forgotten the issue. If a
rider that gets caught causes his entire team to suffer a penalty and
still is in the peloton, he will have to deal with his newly
penalized team mates, as well as the rest of the peloton. I think
that might be good incentive to make sure you weren't doping.
Obviously, some riders will choose to gamble but I think more would
think twice.

That's part of it, but the real issue I was trying to get at was team
management telling a rider that next year's contract depends on how he
performs this year (wink wink nudge nudge) and then when a rider is caught
doping the team cuts him loose, claims he was an isolated case, then hires
someone else while telling him that the next year's contract depends on how
well he performs this year (wink wink nudge nudge). A team penalty means the
teams have to make sure their riders are clean.

Yes, I should have also mentioned the (wink wink nudge nudge) part of that.

It does seem to me that a method like this would sort of help change the direction
of peer pressure (whether real or perceived).

--
tanx,
Howard

Abandon the Creeping Meatball!

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Robert Chung wrote:
Kyle Legate wrote:
Robert Chung wrote:
Kyle Legate wrote:
Robert Chung wrote:
LawBoy01 wrote:
On Oct 15, 7:57 pm, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
Keith wrote:
Sure, he went out and procured it on his own...Good old
"omerta", if he wants to come back he needs to serve his time
and stay mum, poor guy...
He gets two years regardless. No reason to talk.

Bob Schwartz
UCI is going to 4 yr ban. For first time offenders who confess,
I'd like to see a two year ban, with the ability after 18 months
for the ability to apply for re-eligibility in the Pro Tour (UCI
could consider cooperation, etc.) For those who don't confess
and bomb the B-sample, they should get a four year ban.

There's your reason to talk.
Why would they need to? The tests are 100% accurate.


Then they will be able to name their enablers and get only 2 years.
What if I acted alone and there is no enabler? Can I just name some
random guy and get my ban cut in half?


You can't make CERA in a kitchen sink.

So you're saying that this rule would only apply in the CERA cases? But it
wouldn't apply in steroid cases or any other doping substance I could score
through the internet?


It would apply in all cases, but with regards to steroids or whatever
the rider would have to name the site and provide receipts. Are you
being deliberately obtuse?