After reading an old Joe Lindsey column, who in response to Jesus Manzano case advocated shorter stages and races, along with more harsh penalties, to combat doping, the skeptic in me arose. Will this really help anything? I think some writer in CycleSport said the same thing, and even Hein(e) Verbruggen has taken this to heart, limiting the legnth of our beloved classics (except Milano-San Remo.) Will this approach really work?

I say NO. We've got Marion Jones involved in the Balco case, and she runs the 100m; gee, can't think of a bike race shorter than that. Doping, for better or worse, does make you faster, no matter the course or distance.

Personally, I think that ferreting out dopers will become harder and harder, and though they will not ruin the sport, will make it impossible to compete cleanly. I see people "dope" in local races; ephedra, TONS of caffeine (though that is debatable), hell, even weed (but only in 'cross or mtn biking.)

Do any out of the box solutions exist? Train hard and eat lots? Methinks not. I am at a total loss here. Any ideas?

BTW, this was composed on a Apple Powerbook, which i like to call the "Campagnolo of Computers." Interpret that how you please.

Peace,
B. G. F.

After reading an old Joe Lindsey column, who in response to Jesus Manzano case advocated shorter stages and races, along with more harsh penalties, to combat doping, the skeptic in me arose. Will this really help anything? I think some writer in CycleSport said the same thing, and even Hein(e) Verbruggen has taken this to heart, limiting the legnth of our beloved classics (except Milano-San Remo.) Will this approach really work?

I say NO. We've got Marion Jones involved in the Balco case, and she runs the 100m; gee, can't think of a bike race shorter than that. Doping, for better or worse, does make you faster, no matter the course or distance.

Personally, I think that ferreting out dopers will become harder and harder, and though they will not ruin the sport, will make it impossible to compete cleanly. I see people "dope" in local races; ephedra, TONS of caffeine (though that is debatable), hell, even weed (but only in 'cross or mtn biking.)

Do any out of the box solutions exist? Train hard and eat lots? Methinks not. I am at a total loss here. Any ideas?

BTW, this was composed on a Apple Powerbook, which i like to call the "Campagnolo of Computers." Interpret that how you please.

Peace,
B. G. F.

shorter races aren't THE solution, but I think they're part of it. if it's physically impossible to complete races at their current distance without doping (I'm NOT saying that this is the case), then people will certainly dope.

The only way to eliminate doping is to change the culture of sport. As long as sports icons are looked upon by the public with admiration there will be those that will do anything it takes to be sucessful in sport. As long as athletes are paid to perform, as long as sponsors use athletes to sell products and endorse them, as long as the public pays any attention what so ever to sport, there will be cheating. Doping is simply a form of cheating. Anyone who says that there is a solution to the doping problem outside of eliminating the whole of sport is being naive and simplistic. In order to make doping go away, you would have to make sports go away. Or at least make it so that the public no longer cares about sport. If being an athlete had the same social appeal of being a garbage man or a hobo, then maybe you could eliminate doping. But doping is not a new or even remotely modern issue. Doping existed in ancient Rome with the Gladiators and has been around ever since. Even if you found fool-proof drug tests to catch people cheating that way, someone would find another way to cheat. As long as sports involve competition, there will be cheating. It's the ugly side of sports that go hand in hand with all that is good about it and make us so enamored with our athletic heroes. It's part of the duality of sports. The good and the bad, ying and yang, highs and lows....cheaters and honest athletes.

I saw a comment in the velonews article about Camenzind testing positive.

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/6756.0.html
"Every rider that gives a positive test during a race or during training for a product that helps their results, or if they possess a product of this type, is immediately fired by the team," said Phonak team manager Urs Frueler.

Now, I guess it is possible for a cyclist to dope without the knowledge of the team, but does it not seem like it is the teams responsibility to ensure that their riders are not doping and that their team is running clean? I've only recently started to follow cycling in the past couple months, so I'm sure there is a lot which I am misunderstanding and don't know, but a team should standup for it's riders as doping should be as much their problem as the riders problem.

Again, I could be completely ignorant to this entire situation, please enlighten me.

Fine the teams. If a team has any dopers they are fined $100,000 Euros. Make the riders all sign contracts stating they will recind all prize earnings for the last 2 years including all shared prizes, team bonuses, etc...

Or maybe fine all the members of the team if one of their guys get caught. If one guy cheats all his teammates get burned.

I have a feeling if the riders or teams themselves were at risk the matter would be handled pretty quickly.

Fine the teams. If a team has any dopers they are fined $100,000 Euros. Make the riders all sign contracts stating they will recind all prize earnings for the last 2 years including all shared prizes, team bonuses, etc...

Or maybe fine all the members of the team if one of their guys get caught. If one guy cheats all his teammates get burned.

I have a feeling if the riders or teams themselves were at risk the matter would be handled pretty quickly.

that solution would be justifiable if doping is widespread. however, if it is not widespread, if the number of actual dopers is close to the number of dopers that have been caught, then I don't think it's appropriate. either way, it is collective punishment, which is quite dodgy. the Geneva Conventions forbid it in war, mind you.
I have no opinion on whether doping is widespread or limited to a few bad apples, before you ask.

that solution would be justifiable if doping is widespread. however, if it is not widespread, if the number of actual dopers is close to the number of dopers that have been caught, then I don't think it's appropriate. either way, it is collective punishment, which is quite dodgy. the Geneva Conventions forbid it in war, mind you.
I have no opinion on whether doping is widespread or limited to a few bad apples, before you ask.


Shouldn't matter. Make them sign a waiver agreeing to these conditions before they get their professional racing licenses. You want to race, then these are our rules. They already agree to random piss tests where they knock at you door anytime they choose. There's nothing Orwellian about this or more Orwellian than already exists.

The idea is if all the riders have something at stake then they will do a better job at policing themselves. Plus who would want to be the a-hole who caused his teammates to get punished?

Of course no one would enact this, can you imagine the whining and legal bs that would ensue? But honestly, I don't see anything else working to any true effectiveness.

Either live with doping or take the steps to remove it. Nothing serious has been done to date as far as I can see. I mean this year has seen almost as many doping scandals (up to the highest levels) as we have at any time in the past.

This is a very complex problem. One facet of the problem seems to be that there are a lot of riders out there with nothing to lose by doping. There are a small number true stars in the peloton, the rest of the guys are essentially domestiques. If you live the life of a professional domestique, or are an aging star and you see your career fading, what do you have to lose by doping?

There are a 2 options for these guys -

1 - Start doping to improve results, prove your importance to a team and secure a contract for another year or two so you have income to support your family and/or lifestyle. The downside is that if you get caught you're done.

2 - Don't dope, and minimize your chances of getting a contract next season and end up in the same boat as if you had been caught doping.

If you are a rider faced with this dilemna, I can understand how doping may not seem like that bad of a way to extend your career because in either scenario, your career is over.

I believe this is what happened to Comenzind, he didn't feel he could survive in the pack without doping, but the drugs allowed him to continue to earn a living, he gets caught, admits his "error" and retires. I don't know if there are any legal repurcussions for retired riders, or if their name gets drug through the mud and their lives continue without the prospect of them being a pro cyclist.

One part of the solution seems to be to have the legal and/or financial ramifications of doping continue even if the rider retires.

Just my take one aspect of a very wide spread, complex issue.

Fine the teams. If a team has any dopers they are fined $100,000 Euros. Make the riders all sign contracts stating they will recind all prize earnings for the last 2 years including all shared prizes, team bonuses, etc...

Or maybe fine all the members of the team if one of their guys get caught. If one guy cheats all his teammates get burned.

I have a feeling if the riders or teams themselves were at risk the matter would be handled pretty quickly.

I like the idea of fining the team. It would encourage teams to do their testing to make sure they don't run into any surprises. Weekly tests should catch anything detectable. It would be expensive, but as long as testing costs less than the fine, it is a justifiable expense.

One part of the solution seems to be to have the legal and/or financial ramifications of doping continue even if the rider retires.

Just my take one aspect of a very wide spread, complex issue.


One thing they could do is give the UCI and Race organizations the legal right to sue for any prize money that the rider earned during his career. Guys like Camenzind, a former world champion, may well have been clean earlier but as far as anyone knows maybe not. It ruins the sport, it spoils the record books. Obviously whoever came in second to Camenzind in the past has got to feel cheated out of some serious cash.

So if you are caught doping you risk your earnings not just your reputation. Camenzind can probably live with the ingnominy of being a "doper" but could he live with the lawsuits? I think this would give a few guys some second thoughts about "extending their careers" a couple more years by doping.

Too many get away with it. I think the punishment should be severe and maybe on the face of it draconian but at the same time it would get the attention of all the young pros and neo-pros out there. "We the UCI take doping very seriously."

A lawsuit for prize money is not really practical, because I would think you would have to prove you could have beaten the rider in an undoped state. When David Millar uses EPO and wins the Worlds TT by 1.25, it's hard to believe the winning margin was all the result of EPO. David Millar was already one of the best time trialists in the world, so it's totally believable that he would have won anyway. Which just goes to show how stupid the guy is.

The other thing is that prize money is usually shared among the team. You would have to sue the team and all the riders, and good luck with that.

I like the idea, but it isn't practiced much. Look at other sports/professions. One reason that malpractice rates are as high as they are (in some part) is because below avg. docs are covered for. Poor judgement gets corrected for at that patient's next visit and it's all swept away (except for those headline-making gaffs) Few prof. societies actually ferret out the unqualified and therefore the price of doing business is higher for the competent ones.

A sports example: Any one who's a Pro Hockey fan knows that the game is really, really different today vs. the days of old. The stick work just didn't exist like it does today. Mostly because teammates policed eachother. Now, not so much.

BT

A lawsuit for prize money is not really practical, because I would think you would have to prove you could have beaten the rider in an undoped state. When David Millar uses EPO and wins the Worlds TT by 1.25, it's hard to believe the winning margin was all the result of EPO. David Millar was already one of the best time trialists in the world, so it's totally believable that he would have won anyway. Which just goes to show how stupid the guy is.

The other thing is that prize money is usually shared among the team. You would have to sue the team and all the riders, and good luck with that.

You're talking about being legally fair or equivocating based on individual circumstances. I'm not. I would propose that as a condition to race professionally one must agree to these rules in their contract. Simply put, you race doped you put all your winnings in jeopardy not just the races in which you doped. It's draconian, extreme, sure I agree but I think it's the only way to stop the practices. The real benefit is not justice in the individual case but rather the deterring effect it would have on the doping mentallity. People risk doping for money. If you put that money at risk then doping will go down I promise.

If David Millar knew that he not only risked next year's salary but basically a significant portion of his earnings from the past he probably would never have taken the EPO in the first place. What if Millar knew that if he was caught he would not only disgrace his team but would also jeopardize their income? That's another one of my killer ideas.

Another way of looking at it is the guy who was racing clean, shouldn't he have a right to be recompensed for lost earnings? Case in point. Michael Rogers. How much would his earnings and earning potential have risen had it been him that won the Rainbow jersey last year? The simple fact of the matter is dopers have no right to compete and Millar's results are tossed out no matter what percentage the winning margin was a result of dope according to you or anyone else. Michael Rogers was screwed out of 3/4 of a year of wearing the Rainbow Jersey as the world champion correct? As you well know, that is invaluable in a rider's career and Rogers should be able to get money out of Millar who basically stole this earning stream from him. So I propose making it a part of the contract outright instead of running it through a proper legal system. Make it a court of arbiters using a set of UCI rules. Make it legal and binding. I'm sure it's possible.

First, change the format of the banned substances. Having a list of banned substances in effect permits using new things not discovered by the UCI. Instead, and this would be cumbersome, yes, but have a list of what is allowed. If it's not on the list, you can't put it in your body. You can always make provisions for pre-approvals based upon medical necessity.

Second, criminalize the doping. In Italy it's "sporting fraud". Make it a crime to dope to cheat, even if the substance is not otherwise criminalized. Fines and suspensions are one thing, but looking at jail time is something else.

Third, ban for life, not just short suspensions. Make the punishment too severe to risk getting caught; also, make banning retroactive to pull any prizes or titles won.

First, change the format of the banned substances. Having a list of banned substances in effect permits using new things not discovered by the UCI. Instead, and this would be cumbersome, yes, but have a list of what is allowed. If it's not on the list, you can't put it in your body. You can always make provisions for pre-approvals based upon medical necessity.

Second, criminalize the doping. In Italy it's "sporting fraud". Make it a crime to dope to cheat, even if the substance is not otherwise criminalized. Fines and suspensions are one thing, but looking at jail time is something else.

Third, ban for life, not just short suspensions. Make the punishment too severe to risk getting caught; also, make banning retroactive to pull any prizes or titles won.


Hear hear! Serious repurcussions. Jail time is a good one. Cheating is theft and in some cases on a very large scale. Right now guys are getting their wrists slapped. Look at Virenque and Brochard. I'm all for redemption, I like comebacks but I wonder if a stonger stance was taken back in '98 if we would still be having these problems today. To me the idea isn't justice to the individual but justice to the sport. Sometimes you have to cut off a finger to save the hand.

To me the idea isn't justice to the individual but justice to the sport. Sometimes you have to cut off a finger to save the hand.

perhaps (or perhaps not), but remember what happened the second last time the UCI tried to introduce helmet rules? fury, chaos, riots. the riders themselves will need to wake up before they accept anything as drastic as you propose. that will take tragedies, probably plural. I'm not saying I don't want the sport reformed, I'm just saying that it's not going to be that easy. but we all know that.
in any case, I personally think collective punishment is a bit iffy. is there any precedent in any other sport for this?

perhaps (or perhaps not), but remember what happened the second last time the UCI tried to introduce helmet rules? fury, chaos, riots. the riders themselves will need to wake up before they accept anything as drastic as you propose. that will take tragedies, probably plural. I'm not saying I don't want the sport reformed, I'm just saying that it's not going to be that easy. but we all know that.
in any case, I personally think collective punishment is a bit iffy. is there any precedent in any other sport for this?


You are absolutely right. No way would something like I propose ever happen. I think the more likely scenario is the same sort of junk we've been getting in the past. I'm just feeling so cynincal these days about cycling and I hate it because I love the sport so much. Millar, Meirhagge, Camenzind. The Cofidis affair, the Manzano affair. I mean all of this just this year and involving some of the very best in the business. It's demoralizing. I just hate it. It robs me of all the pleasure I used to take out of watching these guys.

It's turned me from being a sports idealist to a realist. I mean how much you want to bet Cunego was doping? Would you be surprised? I sure wouldn't? sad.