Shonak wrote:
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.


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.

The Schleck Fan wrote:
Colored 2-Bah.So you are saying that a rider can't go from being in gruppetto to winning with normal doping

Shonak wrote:

No, I didn't say that at all. I said motocheating gives you the greatest advantage over rivals.

TheManxMissile wrote:
Normal Doping does not give a definite value advantage. It will have varying effects on different riders based on a whole range of factors. Technological Fraud (i now refuse to call it motodoping etc) gives a definite measurable advantages to anyone, the only variable being weight of the rider.

So giving a motor to someone like Cancellara will have a similar effect as to giving it to someone like Masaki Yamamoto. Whereas drugs could have wildly different effects on either rider.
The big difference will come depending on the motor and system used. Generally they'll provide extra power, but still need a certain minimum level of cyclist input first/as well.

Given that there's a huge number of riders who could easily fill a WT peloton, Technological Fraud has the greatest ability to turn a nobody into a champion compared to Doping.

Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Also i am disappointed with your post Shonak. Circumstantial evidence? Come on, it hurts me from someone who is such a cycling fan and endurance sportsman himself.

Contador is as bad cheater as Femke. Valverde too and both are lowlifes that cant even confess to what they did. No character there.

Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Whenever someone robs you for a million, does it matter if he/she stole your briefcase or stole it from your account? (in case he is not caught)

Whever someone bangs your wife, does it matter if it is doggy style or whatever?

TheManxMissile wrote:
Give them a technologically fraudulant bike and they would become instant winners. Especially as e-bike tech continues to improve and the benefits are ever growing stronger.

TheManxMissile wrote:
My second paragraph leads into the start of the third. Being that whilst you need a certain ability to hold a peloton first, there's no shortage of riders who can manage that but would be some way off winning. Give them a technologically fraudulant bike and they would become instant winners. Especially as e-bike tech continues to improve and the benefits are ever growing stronger.

Shonak wrote:

Actually yes. Just think of proof, insurance.. it's way easier when it's from your account. Also explain to the police why you have a million dollar cash lying around.

The Schleck Fan wrote:
I now understand what you say.
With the right drugs they may do that or not.

Avin Wargunnson wrote:
I am Donald Trump, so it was just a change.

TheManxMissile wrote:


TL;DR
Technological Fraud is a measurable and constent advantage that can turn anyone into a pro and any pro into a winner/
Doping is highly variable with no guarantees of it's level of effects.

So technological fraud gives the biggest advantage, rather than standard doping.

Riis123 wrote:


Couldn't disagree more, I think mechanical cheating is far, far worse than EPO or whatever they are taking atm

Tafiolmo wrote:
With Contador supposedly retiring this season and Valverde now 35 you probably won't have too long to wait.

Any updates on what's happening with Sergio Henao?