Dave5N
Über Member
- Location
- Outside The Little Nibble
That's right, best cover it all up...
Should he have got longer....?
- Thread starter yenrod
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
doyler78
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Co Down, Ireland
Dave5N said:
The converse of this is that anyone can say anything about anyone and have it taken seriously. Good way to get rid of your rivals!
What this does is set a precedent whereby someone who is caught knows they can do a deal, be back in the sport in a year instead of 2 or more and in his bitterness can decide to name anyone that he doesn't like, sees as a rival, or for whatever reason he wants. I don't see how this is a much better system than relying on science trying to play catchup with science.
What you could say is that such a system could make doping more likely as riders out to save themselves will say anything if they think it will get them back in the sport sooner and if riders are seen to have a quick route for return then the threat from being banned for an extended period dissipates somewhat. Is that good for the sport?
Mac66
Senior Member
- Location
- Newbury-ish
I know that in theory everyone deserves a second chance.
However, lets not be blinded here by sentiment. Pro cycling is a mess because of the cyclists.
If I was 19-20 y/o pro I'd dope on the grounds that if I get caught and "fess up", I'd only get a 1 year ban which is nothing. If a get a two year ban so what, still not an issue.
IMO dopers require a life ban, regardless of the pressures/reasons for taking stuff. Doctors and soigniers also implicated require a life ban as well. Harsh and possibly unjust I suspect, but they have brought it on themselves.
Appeals should also be 3 months in duration, not 2 years.
Rant over.
However, lets not be blinded here by sentiment. Pro cycling is a mess because of the cyclists.
If I was 19-20 y/o pro I'd dope on the grounds that if I get caught and "fess up", I'd only get a 1 year ban which is nothing. If a get a two year ban so what, still not an issue.
IMO dopers require a life ban, regardless of the pressures/reasons for taking stuff. Doctors and soigniers also implicated require a life ban as well. Harsh and possibly unjust I suspect, but they have brought it on themselves.
Appeals should also be 3 months in duration, not 2 years.
Rant over.
You make a fair point Doyler but no-one actually gets banned on somebody's say-so although I concede they may get tarred. Wild accusations are obviously not a good thing but I can't see what's wrong with informing on other criminals provided some proof is given.
doyler78
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Co Down, Ireland
rich p said:
I wouldn't ever disagree with anyone bringing forward allegations of wrong doing however I just don't think there is any value in offering incentives for doing so for the reasons outlined. If anything I think it muddies already muddy waters potentially creating more problems than it solves.
As to the part about accusations not leading to banning then yes I agree that this doesn't happen however the spat between ASO and the UCI does highlight a potentially worrying development in that whilst allegations will not lead to you being banned by the UCI on unfounded allegations it now seems that event organisers will be prepared to bar teams/riders on the basis of allegation. In that climate allegations could have the same impact as a ban.
