I think that 6 year punishment is far too severe for the crime.
I think it should be the other way round. 6 years for blood doping and 2 years for mechanical doping. Blood doping is dangerous as well as cheating so the punishment should be greater. As has been said, mechanical doping is ridiculous more then anything else.
I think the fact it's the first case and they want to make an example is a big factor. It will probably be reduced upon appeal at a later date.
ringo182 wrote:
I think that 6 year punishment is far too severe for the crime.
I think it should be the other way round. 6 years for blood doping and 2 years for mechanical doping. Blood doping is dangerous as well as cheating so the punishment should be greater. As has been said, mechanical doping is ridiculous more then anything else.
I think the fact it's the first case and they want to make an example is a big factor. It will probably be reduced upon appeal at a later date.
Couldn't disagree more, I think mechanical cheating is far, far worse than EPO or whatever they are taking atm
ringo182 wrote:
I think that 6 year punishment is far too severe for the crime.
I think it should be the other way round. 6 years for blood doping and 2 years for mechanical doping. Blood doping is dangerous as well as cheating so the punishment should be greater. As has been said, mechanical doping is ridiculous more then anything else.
I think the fact it's the first case and they want to make an example is a big factor. It will probably be reduced upon appeal at a later date.
Another way to look at it is that with blood doping you pay the price for it when it damages your body, with mechanical doping there's no repercussions if you don't get caught. SO maybe the punishment for that should be higher.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
ringo182 wrote:
I think that 6 year punishment is far too severe for the crime.
I think it should be the other way round. 6 years for blood doping and 2 years for mechanical doping. Blood doping is dangerous as well as cheating so the punishment should be greater. As has been said, mechanical doping is ridiculous more then anything else.
I think the fact it's the first case and they want to make an example is a big factor. It will probably be reduced upon appeal at a later date.
Couldn't disagree more, I think mechanical cheating is far, far worse than EPO or whatever they are taking atm
If you have a 16 year old cyclist aspiring to go professional, which is worse for cycling and for the uindividual:
a - Taking EPO
b - sticking a motor in his bike
Which is worse? Doping has far reaching health impacts and so is far more dangerous then a motor in your seat stem.
Also drugs have a long lasting effect after the rider stops taking them. A rider whose been taking drugs and stops will still have benefits even though he is "clean". A rider with a motor who stops will have no long lasting benefits.
I don't follow this logic that punishment should be greater if you do something that is only dangerous to you. Surely, people wouldn't call for putting people in jail, if they cut off their arm (for example).
I don't know about the supporting team though. For sure they played an essential role here. But even if it was possible to prove their involvement, can (should) they be punished within law? What about if someone helps perform or cover the use of PEDs. Are they violating the anti-doping rules and are they liable?
togo95 wrote:
I don't follow this logic that punishment should be greater if you do something that is only dangerous to you. Surely, people wouldn't call for putting people in jail, if they cut off their arm (for example).
Because most riders who cheat are coerced into it by trainers, teams and team-mates. Coercing a young rider into blood doping and risking his life is far greater a crime then coercing them into having a motor.
Therefore the punishment for all involved for blood doping should be greater.
This is my opinion. It's neither right or wrong, it's my opinion.
"Mechanical Doping" is a term that annoys me, precisely because of the connection it brings to "normal Doping". Depsite the two being very different in practice and in the UCI rules.
Femke was found guilty of breaches to 1.3.010. "The bicycle shall be propelled solely, through a chainset, by the legs (inferior muscular chain) moving in a circular movement, without electric or other assistance." As far as UCI rules go, this is one of the clearest they've got.
And to 12.1.013. "Technological fraud is an infringement to article 1.3.010.
bis
Technological fraud is materialised by:
The presence, within or on the margins of a cycling competition, of a bicycle that does not comply with the provisions of article 1.3.010. The use by a rider, within or on the margins of a cycling competition, of a bicycle that does not comply with the provisions of article 1.3.010.
All teams must ensure that all their bicycles are in compliance with the provisions of article 1.3.010. Any presence of a bicycle that does not comply with the provisions of article 1.3.010, within or on the margins of a cycling competition, constitutes a
technological fraud by the team and the rider. All riders must ensure that any bicycle that they use is in compliance with the provisions of article 1.3.010. Any use by a rider of a bicycle that does not comply with
the provisions of article 1.3.010, within or on the margins of a cycling competition, constitutes a technological fraud by the team and the rider.
Any technological fraud shall be sanctioned as follows: 1. Rider: disqualification, suspension of a minimum of six months and
a fine of between CHF 20'000 and CHF 200’000.
2. Team: disqualification, suspension of a minimum of six months and a fine of between CHF 100'000 and CHF 1’000’000.
Basically, clear cut breaking of some of the UCI's clearest rules. Now the interesting parts comes with the sacntion. Minimum 6months + 20k fine. Femke picked up the minimum fine but a massive ban.
You look and read aroudn the big ban comes because the UCI thinks she's had a motor in her bike in a number of other events, but they've been unable to prove those elements separately. So they've treated it like multiple rules infringments rather than a one-off. Think of it like being caught once, then again and then again. Hence 6 years but only 20k because it is only caught once.
The interesting part to me is that her team has gotten off clean. I know in CX a "team" is very different to what a "team" is in the WT. But regardless a team still has certain responsibilities and is still very culpable under the clear rules. I guess the UCI didn't want to ban an entire team for 6+months, so they couldn't give a fine without also giving a ban. Pretty cheap cop out from the UCI to me.
Although i would re-write the rule so that the ban and fine can be separated.
Doping is rather different for a number of reasons, primarily the fact that doping falls under different jurisdictions. Whether that be WADA or national ADA's or national federations. Mechanical Doping is solely UCI jurisditcion so they can slap out a big punishment without real worries of a CAS case. It makes for one hell of a detterent they can't apply to dopers.
I don't think many people would argue against 6 years bans for Doping cases if they were as clear cut as having a motor in your bike. But issues arise in that doping is not as clear cut and sometimes is actually accidental, hence bans are shorter for some good reasons. The sport and teams themselves could do a lot more by not hiring a previously banned rider, would be very easy for them to do. Won't happen though, so slightly unfairly more pressure gets applied to the UCI/WADA/etc.
Because most riders who cheat are coerced into it by trainers, teams and team-mates. Coercing a young rider into blood doping and risking his life is far greater a crime then coercing them into having a motor.
Therefore the punishment for all involved for blood doping should be greater.
But why should it be the riders who are punished more if the riders themselves are being damaged. That is something I can't understand. Ok, a punishment for UCI, WADA, supporting team etc would be understandable (idk if correct, I haven't thought about this). But punishing the riders more, just because they are damaging themselves?
This is my opinion. It's neither right or wrong, it's my opinion.
I am not saying you should change your opinion or that it is wrong I am just interested in how you came to it and how you think about the issue. Edited by togo95 on 27-04-2016 11:52
What is the point of this discussion about young cyclists and doping. Much like it is the fault of a cyclist, it is also the fault of any young cyclist to choose to do doping. It is not the fault of other dopers or its idols when they choose to do so. Remember, you don't jump a bridge when your friends.
I can understand well the sentiment of Avin's reasoning of a culture of doping that threatens the health and especially endangers ambitious young athletes, however let's not oversell it for the argument. The crime itself is cheating and breaking the rules. With doping you still train and have to pedal yourself. With motor bike, you might as well ride an e-bike at ease.
Additionally, anti-doping has a hard stance because at times they have to act and rule on indication but not pure evidence, thinking Contador's clenbuterol or the many cases where riders were found guilty of blood passport but then freed. Remember, you have to prove the riders guilty.. If someone is caught with a motor in the bike as in Van Driessche's case, it's pretty simple to condemn and punish. A motor is a motor, blood is a different story tho.
I also think it's not helping when people treat motodoping as a joke. There were people who also thought about blood doping that it's only a fluke and that only idiots do it.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
ringo182 wrote:
I think that 6 year punishment is far too severe for the crime.
I think it should be the other way round. 6 years for blood doping and 2 years for mechanical doping. Blood doping is dangerous as well as cheating so the punishment should be greater. As has been said, mechanical doping is ridiculous more then anything else.
I think the fact it's the first case and they want to make an example is a big factor. It will probably be reduced upon appeal at a later date.
Couldn't disagree more, I think mechanical cheating is far, far worse than EPO or whatever they are taking atm
If you have a 16 year old cyclist aspiring to go professional, which is worse for cycling and for the uindividual:
a - Taking EPO
b - sticking a motor in his bike
Which is worse? Doping has far reaching health impacts and so is far more dangerous then a motor in your seat stem.
Also drugs have a long lasting effect after the rider stops taking them. A rider whose been taking drugs and stops will still have benefits even though he is "clean". A rider with a motor who stops will have no long lasting benefits.
It's backwards.
I see where you are going, but I simply disagree with that. Its probably as immoral, but to me, putting a motor in your bike goes against the basic principle of you, the rider, being the driving force. Doping after all has been a part of the peloton for 100 years, motors haven't, and I would much rather watch a bunch of doped out cyclists and a bunch of cyclists with motors in the frames. Its just wrong. Doping is wrong as well, but mechanical cheating is a whole new level, to me at least.
While we are at it, apart from Femke, which are the most eye raising performances where you have thought to yourself, probably after Femke was caught, that that might have been a motor? I have 2, probably the 2 most famous:
From 2.30. Note how he just sits and drops Boonen as the steepest gradients with ease, but the most impressive is the gap he has got afterwards.
Frome 28.15. Note his cadence is above 120 at some point, and as well as Cancellara, he is just sitting in the saddle. His HR never is above 162 after that monster effort which is quite astonishing as well.
EDIT: Whops, also note the hand movement at 28.15 as some user on youtube pointed out, I missed that one.
Edited by Riis123 on 27-04-2016 12:03
The UCI have two main things to think about when it comes to cheating and the punishment it gives out. 1 is the integrity of the sport, the other is the welfare of the cyclists.
There are also two ways of looking as a fan. Either as seeing the cyclists as robots and all cheating is the same. Or seeing cyclists as human beings who will be affected physically and mentally by different forms of cheating in different ways.
In terms of integrity, all cheating is the same and so the same ban should apply, whatever that length is, to any form of cheating.
However, the UCI also needs to protect the welfare of all cyclists and so an additional ban should be applied to drugs bans for the danger, to not only the cheating cyclist, but to all cyclists in the peleton by the drug culture it creates. As far as I'm aware mechanical doping has never killed anyone. Banning blood dopers for longer will not only protect the doper from themselves, it will protect other riders by reducing the drug culture in the peleton and so less riders would become involved.
How are the UCI protecting the welfare of cyclist by having a greater ban for mechanical doping then for life threatening blood doping? They are basically saying "if you're gonna cheat then take EPO because the benefits are long lasting and you get less of a ban".
UCI is imo by far more responsible for the drug culture in cycling than any cyclist ever. Therefore I suggest, let's ban UCI (and I'm only half-joking).
togo95 wrote:
UCI is imo by far more responsible for the drug culture in cycling than any cyclist ever. Therefore I suggest, let's ban UCI (and I'm only half-joking).
Well obviously I'm looking at things from the "ideal world" which we all know the UCI/Professional Cycling is not
Shonak wrote:
What is the point of this discussion about young cyclists and doping. Much like it is the fault of a cyclist, it is also the fault of any young cyclist to choose to do doping. It is not the fault of other dopers or its idols when they choose to do so. Remember, you don't jump a bridge when your friends.
True, but maybe you expect too much. There's a reason why we have juvenile law, for example, or restrictions for advertisement for cigarettes etc. Minors don't have the same level of responsibility and foresight as adults. And even for adults, drugs are illegal, even though they tend to harm the consumer much more than the society.
If you're a teenager aspiring to become a pro cyclist, maybe seeing it as your best chance to financially contribute to your family or something like that, I'm pretty sure it matters whether the answer to "What's the worst that could happen" is a lifetime ban and the destruction of every chance at a career at all, and not a two-year-ban.
In this case, I guess, the more important part of the penalty is the deterrent rather than the punishment.
Following on from Jess Varnish, who was then backed-up by Pendleton and Cooke, now apparently he's been calling Para-cyclists names as well... f*cking moron.
Following on from Jess Varnish, who was then backed-up by Pendleton and Cooke, now apparently he's been calling Para-cyclists names as well... f*cking moron.
it's not two years anymore, it's four years we are talking about and ofc that's an improvement. Thus a difference of two years between earlier sentences and current rule. Past sentences pre-2015 should not matter in comparison imo because it's an updated, harsher sentencing now. Law is evolving and it should be put in comparison too. https://www.uci.ch...rocedures/
I get the sentiment - if you want a clean sport give out lifebans.. although I'm wary of the backslash and think it's shortsighted to implement that sort of rule.
In case of blood doping there's often room for doubt and it could potentially and always will probably ruin someone's life (but what do you care about a doper, eh?). In fact there is so much doubt that even guys like Kreuziger and Impey got away with some of the stupidest excuses.
Me thinks: 4 years is a solid mix between not ruining an existence and imo a long enough sentence and giving them a second chance. Mentioning names like Contador or Valv.. blood in fridge.. where circumstantial and not hard enough evidence led to a ban does not help, even less so when you say that the bans were too short.. I reply with names such as Di Luca, Armstrong and Ricco.. names who have got (almost) lifetime bans in cycling as result of blood transfusions. They too have been made an example off and thus should be the names to compare to for Van Driessche. Illustrous company indeed. It's an statute of example (see TMM post) but it's also clear evidence. It's her bike and no tears in the world can change that.
The UCI have two main things to think about when it comes to cheating and the punishment it gives out. 1 is the integrity of the sport, the other is the welfare of the cyclists.
Actually they have to think about how much the impact of the cheating is, thus motocheating is always the worst because it manipulates the performances the most and makes anyone into some Cancellara 60kph machine.
I don't follow the logic of cheating is cheating. Riding on the sidelines of pave is cheating too, according to the rules, but you wouldn't ban someone for lifetime. Some rules are stupid, some rules arn't handled well enough. But going strict against motocheating is pivotal because it's something that hasn't been tackled so far, it is even by cycling fans considered to be funny, childish and just a lil joke basically - but it needs to be made aware off and an example helps in that way.
(I don't agree with this point but theoretically you could even argue that motocheating costs very little in comparison to blood doping.. you don't risk your life, you have no running costs.. just buy a motor, install it, stay healthy and get rich. Apply this logic and you see why tough sentences are necessarcy!)
I agree on the welfare of cyclists, however they are a) individuals who have to be responsible for their own actions, b) current examples of career long dopers (Rogers, Basso) clearly show (again) the negative health impact. I hope peloton learns from that. UCI and Anti-Doping have been preaching for years and decades of the negative impacts of doping, it's nothing new and when riders still do it it's their own damn fault and risk.
The societal aspects that cunego mentioned are worth considering but if someone wants to contribute to his family and uses EPO as a reasoning behind it, I have little concern for that because EPO costs money that the family can spend way better. Like on educating your children that doping is bad.
I think the prospect of sentence can change a lot, thus why 4 years is a good new rule since 2015 and maybe 5 years is the best number.. I'd love if they eradicte the problem, doping itself, but: the attractive thing of doping is that you hardly get caught anyway. It's damn effective. In choosing your form of cheating the penatly isn't so important, it's how it works for you. If someone has to feed his family and needs a contract for next year he still would dope for a result to get a contract -- not because of the prospect of a short ban but because it's a proven system for him. I doubt that cyclists are lifelong criminals who do their crime for minimal punishment. Penalty has little effect in that regard imo.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
ringo182 wrote:
I think that 6 year punishment is far too severe for the crime.
I think it should be the other way round. 6 years for blood doping and 2 years for mechanical doping. Blood doping is dangerous as well as cheating so the punishment should be greater. As has been said, mechanical doping is ridiculous more then anything else.
I think the fact it's the first case and they want to make an example is a big factor. It will probably be reduced upon appeal at a later date.
Couldn't disagree more, I think mechanical cheating is far, far worse than EPO or whatever they are taking atm
If you have a 16 year old cyclist aspiring to go professional, which is worse for cycling and for the uindividual:
a - Taking EPO
b - sticking a motor in his bike
Which is worse? Doping has far reaching health impacts and so is far more dangerous then a motor in your seat stem.
Also drugs have a long lasting effect after the rider stops taking them. A rider whose been taking drugs and stops will still have benefits even though he is "clean". A rider with a motor who stops will have no long lasting benefits.
It's backwards.
Health problem is cyclist's own fault.
You are right about your paragraph though,drugs have benefits even when the rider stops doping.
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
