|
News in May
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 14-05-2013 12:23
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Ian Butler wrote:
Still, it feels wrong that every offense is punished by the same 4 years. Surely every rider has the right to be heard and than trialed according to the seriousness of his crime, no?
You dope you dope, there is no difference. No such thing as accidental doping or "light" doping.
Of course repeat offenses are dealt with more harshly.
|
| |
|
|
| cactus-jack |
Posted on 14-05-2013 12:26
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3936
Joined: 31-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
I don't agree. Yes, non-lifetime bans will allow for people like Millar to come back, but it also opens for people like Ricco.
People who are genuinly sorry can always find other ways of making their appologies known and heard. He doesn't need to be activly involved in cycling to do so. If the choice is to either let everyone back or no one back, I'll vote for the latter one. Millar did dope, afterall, even though he has redeemed himself.
There's a fine line between "psychotherapist" and "psycho the rapist"
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 23-11-2024 15:39
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 14-05-2013 12:30
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Doping causes health problems and people still do it.
So why on earth would a 4 year suspension change people's minds?
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 14-05-2013 12:31
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
Ian Butler wrote:
Still, it feels wrong that every offense is punished by the same 4 years. Surely every rider has the right to be heard and than trialed according to the seriousness of his crime, no?
You dope you dope, there is no difference. No such thing as accidental doping or "light" doping.
Of course repeat offenses are dealt with more harshly.
Couldn't agree more with your final sentence, however, for the first part, I have a problem with this. You say there is no accidental doping. I think there is. Maybe not a lot, maybe even only 1/100. But that one man would be punished for 4 years or life-long, that's just harsh.
Take Contador for example. I'm not saying it's so, but if his steak-story was true, that's just cruel for an innocent man. I'm not saying let everyone go free or reduce sentence, but they should investigate better, have trials and ban the right riders for the right time for the right offence. |
| |
|
|
| ianrussell |
Posted on 14-05-2013 12:32
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3440
Joined: 09-10-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ian Butler wrote:
Lachi wrote:
It is not criminal law, therefore your point isn't valid.
You cannot judge how much of an advantage somebody gains from a certain violation of the anti-doping rules. Also it is almost certain that no athlete ever did one-time-doping. So IF you can prove it, then you have to sanction it.
BTW: If they would implement different degrees of sanctions, then athletes would just do these things more often.
Still, it feels wrong that every offense is punished by the same 4 years. Surely every rider has the right to be heard and than trialed according to the seriousness of his crime, no?
Well yes in principal but it's very difficult to determine the seriousness of the crime in doping offences in many cases.
It gives those caught an avenue to use as escape - I didn't intentionally take it, it wasn't much, it was something I ate/medication etc etc. For example (making no judgement  ) did Contador eat a dodgy steak or was he caught out on the very margin of what was detectable on that particular occasion?
Many times all you can be sure of is they have the substance there in some amount and the rest is highly subjective. It quickly becomes a mine field of explanation, justifications, arguments and lots of time spemt arguing the toss.
It's there, therefore you are guilty can occassionally be harsh but it necessarilly makes it clear cut imo.
Edited by ianrussell on 14-05-2013 12:34
|
| |
|
|
| ianrussell |
Posted on 14-05-2013 12:37
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3440
Joined: 09-10-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
Doping causes health problems and people still do it.
So why on earth would a 4 year suspension change people's minds?
I think it would change some people's minds. Not a majority but if even 1% reconsider it is worth it. Physicologically losing 4 years of competition may just nudge some (admitedly only some) over the edge.
If people are doing it to win they aren't going to win for a lot of their career if caught. If for money they aren't going to be earning for a long time. Many reasons and motivations and I'm not suggesting that everyone will be deterred.
Edited by ianrussell on 14-05-2013 12:39
|
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 14-05-2013 12:39
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Good point. It's a success if even 1 person stops doping because of it.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 14-05-2013 12:39
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Ian Butler wrote:
TheManxMissile wrote:
Ian Butler wrote:
Still, it feels wrong that every offense is punished by the same 4 years. Surely every rider has the right to be heard and than trialed according to the seriousness of his crime, no?
You dope you dope, there is no difference. No such thing as accidental doping or "light" doping.
Of course repeat offenses are dealt with more harshly.
Couldn't agree more with your final sentence, however, for the first part, I have a problem with this. You say there is no accidental doping. I think there is. Maybe not a lot, maybe even only 1/100. But that one man would be punished for 4 years or life-long, that's just harsh.
Take Contador for example. I'm not saying it's so, but if his steak-story was true, that's just cruel for an innocent man. I'm not saying let everyone go free or reduce sentence, but they should investigate better, have trials and ban the right riders for the right time for the right offence.
You have a banned substance in your system, that is breaking the rules. Therefore you have to be treated according to the rules for doping. If you're a clean rider you will make sure you don't associate with anyone that could put you in that situation.
You cannot ban 1 person for x amount and another person for y amount. Person 2 would appeal to CAS, win, and be banned for x amount anyway. Set the entire system to z amount and stick with it. (for me z would be 2 years).
If we talk about different lengths, the people who miss out of competition tests should be treated lighter, as they havn't actually failed a test.
|
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 14-05-2013 12:42
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
Ian Butler wrote:
TheManxMissile wrote:
Ian Butler wrote:
Still, it feels wrong that every offense is punished by the same 4 years. Surely every rider has the right to be heard and than trialed according to the seriousness of his crime, no?
You dope you dope, there is no difference. No such thing as accidental doping or "light" doping.
Of course repeat offenses are dealt with more harshly.
Couldn't agree more with your final sentence, however, for the first part, I have a problem with this. You say there is no accidental doping. I think there is. Maybe not a lot, maybe even only 1/100. But that one man would be punished for 4 years or life-long, that's just harsh.
Take Contador for example. I'm not saying it's so, but if his steak-story was true, that's just cruel for an innocent man. I'm not saying let everyone go free or reduce sentence, but they should investigate better, have trials and ban the right riders for the right time for the right offence.
You have a banned substance in your system, that is breaking the rules. Therefore you have to be treated according to the rules for doping. If you're a clean rider you will make sure you don't associate with anyone that could put you in that situation.
You cannot ban 1 person for x amount and another person for y amount. Person 2 would appeal to CAS, win, and be banned for x amount anyway. Set the entire system to z amount and stick with it. (for me z would be 2 years).
If we talk about different lengths, the people who miss out of competition tests should be treated lighter, as they havn't actually failed a test.
So it's all about facts, not about intention and character? Well, I can't accept that. Luckily, neither of us have anything to say about this. And at this point we just differ in opinion greatly, so probably end of discussion. I understand and respect your opinion, though. We both would like a doping-free sport. I just feel that riders are already under a lot of stress, whereabouts, tough life, lots of sacrifice. If a rider gets punished and is innocent, that really gets to me, see? |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 14-05-2013 12:46
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Ian Butler wrote:
So it's all about facts, not about intention and character? Well, I can't accept that. Luckily, neither of us have anything to say about this. And at this point we just differ in opinion greatly, so probably end of discussion. I understand and respect your opinion, though. We both would like a doping-free sport. I just feel that riders are already under a lot of stress, whereabouts, tough life, lots of sacrifice. If a rider gets punished and is innocent, that really gets to me, see?
All true and agree. Apart from innocent rider. I cannot think of a single instance where a rider has been banned who was innocent (perhaps isso can offer one up). If you have some sort of substance in your system there is a reason. Either it is you, or the people you associate with, and the rider always has the ability to disassociate with anyone.
|
| |
|
|
| ianrussell |
Posted on 14-05-2013 12:47
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3440
Joined: 09-10-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ian Butler wrote:
So it's all about facts, not about intention and character?
I would love to be able to reliably judge intention and character in such matters but I can't. How do you propose that we can? 
All that is sure is the substance is there...
It will be harsh on some yes, but that's the price paid, there is no other way short of it being a 90% guessing game (I do wish there were though).
Edited by ianrussell on 14-05-2013 12:55
|
| |
|
|
| cactus-jack |
Posted on 14-05-2013 13:04
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3936
Joined: 31-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Why should we bring "intention and character" into this? Since when was the judicial system based upon "character"?
Do you propose we say to someone "You doped and broke the rules, but since you seem like such a good guy we're going to give you 6 months and not 2 years".
The rules are there for everyone and we can't start bringing face value into it. That tarnishes everything the system is built upon.
There's a fine line between "psychotherapist" and "psycho the rapist"
|
| |
|
|
| Alesle |
Posted on 14-05-2013 13:06
|
Stagiare
Posts: 192
Joined: 30-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
Ian Butler wrote:
So it's all about facts, not about intention and character? Well, I can't accept that. Luckily, neither of us have anything to say about this. And at this point we just differ in opinion greatly, so probably end of discussion. I understand and respect your opinion, though. We both would like a doping-free sport. I just feel that riders are already under a lot of stress, whereabouts, tough life, lots of sacrifice. If a rider gets punished and is innocent, that really gets to me, see?
All true and agree. Apart from innocent rider. I cannot think of a single instance where a rider has been banned who was innocent (perhaps isso can offer one up). If you have some sort of substance in your system there is a reason. Either it is you, or the people you associate with, and the rider always has the ability to disassociate with anyone.
Not quite innocent, but the Fofonov case was a bit peculiar. In my mind that is a scenario where I doubt there was much intent, and a shorter suspension was probably fair.
Edited by Alesle on 14-05-2013 13:07
|
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 14-05-2013 13:09
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
I also believe Vanspeybroeck had no intent. |
| |
|
|
| Malkael |
Posted on 14-05-2013 13:29
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1697
Joined: 02-08-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Funnily, what is getting your sentence reduced for good behavior if not something of a character test? As for intent, isn't that often used in Law to revolve matters such as Self-Defense and whether someone has committed manslaughter or murder? |
| |
|
|
| Spilak23 |
Posted on 14-05-2013 13:30
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 22-08-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
After DCM yesterday, Vacansoleil also stops as main sponsor for the cycling team. They want to stay with the team as a minor sponsor though.
Managar Daan Luijkx is apparently taking to some companies and hopes to have good news by the end of the week.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 14-05-2013 13:35
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
@Alesle
"much" intent... any intent is very very bad. Might be a bit odd (depends on your view), but the guy doped. If it was peculiar, then a 2 year is a good thing, as it allows him to come back and compete at a decent level.
And if it is viewed as odd or unfair, then the community will forgive and the rider will continue.
@Ian
Was waiting for Vanspeybroeck 
|
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 14-05-2013 13:45
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
cactus-jack wrote:
Why should we bring "intention and character" into this? Since when was the judicial system based upon "character"?
Do you propose we say to someone "You doped and broke the rules, but since you seem like such a good guy we're going to give you 6 months and not 2 years".
The rules are there for everyone and we can't start bringing face value into it. That tarnishes everything the system is built upon.
Character does actually come into sentencing in the judicial system
|
| |
|
|
| jsh312mufc |
Posted on 14-05-2013 13:47
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 794
Joined: 05-02-2012
PCM$: 300.00
|
Crommy wrote:
cactus-jack wrote:
Why should we bring "intention and character" into this? Since when was the judicial system based upon "character"?
Do you propose we say to someone "You doped and broke the rules, but since you seem like such a good guy we're going to give you 6 months and not 2 years".
The rules are there for everyone and we can't start bringing face value into it. That tarnishes everything the system is built upon.
Character does actually come into sentencing in the judicial system
that's why the lovely and apologetic valverde served less than two years |
| |
|
|
| Spilak23 |
Posted on 14-05-2013 13:49
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 22-08-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Valverde got suspended for two years. His results between Jan 2010 and end May were nullified.
Edited by Spilak23 on 14-05-2013 13:49
|
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
