Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

User avatar
herzog
Posts: 2174
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:50 pm

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby herzog » Mon Oct 06, 2014 9:22 am

Time for a changing of the guard in the team management ranks.

UCI needs to bring in an accreditation system for team officials. Anyone with a doping background doesn't get accredited and is out of the sport in any capacity.

Total clean out. It's the only way.

User avatar
wombatK
Posts: 5612
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: Yagoona, AU

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby wombatK » Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:04 pm

herzog wrote:Time for a changing of the guard in the team management ranks.

UCI needs to bring in an accreditation system for team officials. Anyone with a doping background doesn't get accredited and is out of the sport in any capacity.

Total clean out. It's the only way.
The best the UCI can do is flaff about calling it a serious situation. The cycling weekly article reports that
UCI President Brian Cookson said last month at a press conference that he wants the ongoing
Cycling Independent Reform Commission (CIRC) to tackle the issue of former dopers’ involvement in cycling.
Armstrong admitted his use of banned substances in Jan 2013, and was banned for life in August 2012. That's more than 2 years ago.
There is no evidence that the UCI, which was complicit in the transgressions of the Armstrong era has a real intention
of fixing the problems - they've just buried it in a 2 year talk-fest.

The recently announced research that the benefits of steroids can last for decades makes WADA bans look pathetically inadequate.
There is good reason to believe that EPO also produces lasting changes that benefit's the dopers (see long term,
increased mitochondrial output plus ability to train more, harder Erythropoietin Treatment Enhances...
and Erythropoietin activates mitochondrial biogenesis and c..., likely well beyond their brief one or two year bans.

Long term benefits make the risk of doping in the face of short term bans a great proposition.

It'll be decades before we see a clean peloton, and maybe even longer before there's a UCI that
can be more credible than "seriously" looking at Astana.
Last edited by wombatK on Fri Oct 10, 2014 11:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4997
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:33 pm

The existing sanctions (which increase from next year) would be more than adequate if dopers were actually caught. Increasing the sanctions is not going to change the situation while ever detection remains the primary weak link.

As to studies on chronic performance enhancement effect of doping, the biggest impact to chronic performance is how it distorts opportunity.

Dopers make teams, get contracts, resources, support and continue to gain valuable exposure and experience with the sport at a higher level, which in and of itself confers a massive long term performance benefit, compared with those who miss out.

Length of sanctions isn't the issue really, it's catching (or preventing) dopers to begin with.

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 15583
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby AUbicycles » Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:20 am

A year 11 school student has a survey focussing on the Lance Armstrong saga - takes 10 - 20 minutes (depending on how much input you have).
This is the online survey and he welcomes participation: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/DZGHK9L" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Cycling is in my BNA

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10579
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby find_bruce » Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:10 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:The existing sanctions (which increase from next year) would be more than adequate if dopers were actually caught. Increasing the sanctions is not going to change the situation while ever detection remains the primary weak link.

As to studies on chronic performance enhancement effect of doping, the biggest impact to chronic performance is how it distorts opportunity.

Dopers make teams, get contracts, resources, support and continue to gain valuable exposure and experience with the sport at a higher level, which in and of itself confers a massive long term performance benefit, compared with those who miss out.

Length of sanctions isn't the issue really, it's catching (or preventing) dopers to begin with.
Nailed it Alex. The biggest deterrent by a long way is a high perceived risk of being detected - this has been confirmed by plenty of studies in relation to drink driving and more recently, drugged driving, eg
  • Owens KP & Boorman M 2011. Evaluating the deterrent effect of random breath testing (RBT) and random drug testing (RDT): The driver’s perspective. Monograph series no. 41. Canberra: National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund. http://www.ndlerf.gov.au/pub/Monograph_41.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
  • Delaney A, Diamantopoulou K & Cameron M 2006. Strategic principles of drink driving enforcement. Report no. 249. Clayton: Monash University Accident Research Centre. http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/ ... arc249.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
  • Henstridge J, Homel R & Mackay P 1997. The long-term effects of random breath testing in four Australian states: A time series analysis. Report no. 162. Canberra: Federal Office of Road Safety. http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/ ... Random.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
  • Homel R 1988. Policing and punishing the drinking driver: A study of general and specific deterrence. New York: Springer-Verlag
It is not to say that penalties are irrelevant, just that if a person thinks they won't get caught, they won't be concerned about the penalty.

As you say it is presently low risk, high reward behaviour. The prevalence of undisclosed testing by the teams means that riders have a very good understanding of whether they will be detected.

I have no doubt that Astana will undertake a very thorough internal investigation of the Inglinskiy brothers - it just that the question will be "what did we do wrong to get caught", not "what should we have done to stop them doping"

User avatar
herzog
Posts: 2174
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:50 pm

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby herzog » Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:39 pm

find_bruce wrote:As you say it is presently low risk, high reward behaviour. The prevalence of undisclosed testing by the teams means that riders have a very good understanding of whether they will be detected.

I have no doubt that
This is why I think they need to take a leaf out of swimming and Athletics and disqualify entire teams from events if one of their members is pinged.

In a swimming or athletics relay event, if one member of the squad tests positive, the entire team is DQ'ed from the event. This is because the team has benefited from the performance of the doper. This is even the case if it was a squad member that participated in just a HEAT or a Quarter Final.


I think this type of approach would really shake up cycling in a good way. The teams would then be massively incentivised to make sure all their riders are clean.

Similarly a rider considering a rogue doping program would have some massive decisions to make - if he gets caught, all his team mates are DQ'ed from the race, and the team management could sue him for financial damages.

No team would touch that rider in future, lest the same thing occur to them.

This would be a game changer.

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10579
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby find_bruce » Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:38 pm

Nice job Herzog in selectively quoting my post to remove the research that says your focus on penalties is a complete waste of time if we cannot come up with a way to increase the likelihood of being caught doping

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 7001
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby biker jk » Mon Oct 13, 2014 2:18 pm

find_bruce wrote:Nice job Herzog in selectively quoting my post to remove the research that says your focus on penalties is a complete waste of time if we cannot come up with a way to increase the likelihood of being caught doping
This is spot on. I read a research paper by on the economics of doping and the thesis was that it's the expected cost versus the expected benefit that matters (who would have thought?). The expected cost is the probability of being caught multiplied by the likely penalty. So even a four year ban (with associated loss of income) will not be a deterrent to doping if the chance of being caught is tiny (as is currently the case) such that the expected cost of doping is significantly outweighed by the expected benefit.
Last edited by biker jk on Mon Oct 13, 2014 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
wombatK
Posts: 5612
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: Yagoona, AU

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby wombatK » Mon Oct 13, 2014 3:46 pm

Not quit BK. The expected cost is the probability of being caught times the cost of having been caught. Make the cost of being caught big enough (eg whole team disqualification) and it coukd easily outweigh expected benefit, which is prize and sponsorship money times the probability of not being caught. Its another question how people assess low probability events ... look at how much is spent on lotto. Raising the probability of being caught would help more rational decision making, but if the penalties are too low like now the rational decision could still be to cheat
WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 7001
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby biker jk » Mon Oct 13, 2014 4:33 pm

wombatK wrote:Not quit BK. The expected cost is the probability of being caught times the cost of having been caught. Make the cost of being caught big enough (eg whole team disqualification) and it coukd easily outweigh expected benefit, which is prize and sponsorship money times the probability of not being caught. Its another question how people assess low probability events ... look at how much is spent on lotto. Raising the probability of being caught would help more rational decision making, but if the penalties are too low like now the rational decision could still be to cheat
It was a typo which I've corrected. A lifetime ban plus having to repay prizemoney/earnings would also work.

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4997
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Mon Oct 13, 2014 4:44 pm

herzog wrote:
find_bruce wrote:As you say it is presently low risk, high reward behaviour. The prevalence of undisclosed testing by the teams means that riders have a very good understanding of whether they will be detected.

I have no doubt that
This is why I think they need to take a leaf out of swimming and Athletics and disqualify entire teams from events if one of their members is pinged.

In a swimming or athletics relay event, if one member of the squad tests positive, the entire team is DQ'ed from the event. This is because the team has benefited from the performance of the doper. This is even the case if it was a squad member that participated in just a HEAT or a Quarter Final.
The same rule applies to team cycling events, such as road TTT, track team sprint and team pursuit where a positive DQ's the team's result. Road cycling, despite it being team oriented, is still an individual rider result. Same thing if a marathon runner went positive despite helping pace the eventual winner. The winner would not be penalised unless they were themselves shown to be doping.
herzog wrote:I think this type of approach would really shake up cycling in a good way. The teams would then be massively incentivised to make sure all their riders are clean.

Similarly a rider considering a rogue doping program would have some massive decisions to make - if he gets caught, all his team mates are DQ'ed from the race, and the team management could sue him for financial damages.

No team would touch that rider in future, lest the same thing occur to them.

This would be a game changer.
All it's doing is focussing on the penalty, not the detection.

As for teams being "incentivised" (ugh) to make sure their riders are clean, I'd suggest it's much more an incentive to make sure their riders don't test positive. Those are not the same thing. It will encourage driving the problem further underground.

I'll give you an example. One pro I coached some years back was beginning a well earned rest from a long and serious hard season. They were pretty well cooked. Race their schedule and with all the travel around the world and you'd see why. Then they were told they had to ride a grand tour with just two days notice and to get their butt on a plane. It was seriously bad for them, from a health perspective it ruined them but contracts were up for renewal.

So why were they forced to ride? Because the Italian team director was worried one of the others in the team had screwed up their doping protocol and would test positive as increased doping control was announced for the race so they withdrew them for "health reasons". My rider was screwed over because they knew the rider to be squeaky clean, and ended up suffering from real chronic overtraining as a result of starting the GT (they cracked badly mid way after giving their all), and they decided to leave the sport after that. The doping no doubt persists and the team and riders simply used ways to avoid detection.

Most teams have anti-doping clauses in contracts. I have them in my coaching contracts, but I'm not sure whether that would make much difference if someone was determined to use it. All I can do is sack them as a client and lose part of my income.

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4997
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Mon Oct 13, 2014 4:47 pm

biker jk wrote:
find_bruce wrote:Nice job Herzog in selectively quoting my post to remove the research that says your focus on penalties is a complete waste of time if we cannot come up with a way to increase the likelihood of being caught doping
This is spot on. I read a research paper by on the economics of doping and the thesis was that it's the expected cost versus the expected benefit that matters (who would have thought?). The expected cost is the probability of being caught multiplied by the likely penalty. So even a four year ban (with associated loss of income) will not be a deterrent to doping if the chance of being caught is tiny (as is currently the case) such that the expected cost of doping is significantly outweighed by the expected benefit.
You're probably thinking of the study into major league baseball where they did a doping risk assessment and ROI of doping versus not doping. Doping came out so far in front that it wasn't funny.

User avatar
herzog
Posts: 2174
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:50 pm

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby herzog » Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:11 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:The same rule applies to team cycling events, such as road TTT, track team sprint and team pursuit where a positive DQ's the team's result. Road cycling, despite it being team oriented, is still an individual rider result. Same thing if a marathon runner went positive despite helping pace the eventual winner. The winner would not be penalised unless they were themselves shown to be doping.
Grand tours often include a Team Time Trial - in this instance a doper can make a direct contribution to the time of the winning individual.

In any case, I'm not sure the comparison with a marathon is a good one. The effect of team mates in road cycling is FAR more pronounced than in a marathon. A runner can pretty much lead a running race from start to finish with or without team mates.

User avatar
herzog
Posts: 2174
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:50 pm

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby herzog » Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:16 pm

wombatK wrote:Not quit BK. The expected cost is the probability of being caught times the cost of having been caught.
This is my position - precisely *because* it is difficult to be caught, is the reason that the consequences (costs) have to be higher.

I use the same argument for dealing with the texting driver epidemic - it's hard for police to catch them, so the penalties need to be higher eg: immediate driving bans like drink driving.

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 7001
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby biker jk » Fri Oct 17, 2014 6:33 am

UCI to reveiw Astana licence after Davidenok positive. He tested positive for a steriod. This is the third positive in a month. Perhaps Astana will have to miss the TDU.

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10579
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby find_bruce » Fri Oct 17, 2014 7:33 am

biker jk wrote:UCI to reveiw Astana licence after Davidenok positive. He tested positive for a steriod. This is the third positive in a month. Perhaps Astana will have to miss the TDU.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-to- ... ur-licence" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
wombatK
Posts: 5612
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: Yagoona, AU

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby wombatK » Fri Oct 17, 2014 2:22 pm

Just a "full review". Long way to go before their talking withdrawal of license or attachment of conditions to it.
WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 7001
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby biker jk » Fri Oct 17, 2014 2:56 pm

Three positives in 24 months means four week auto-suspension from start of next World Tour race. That means no TDU for Astana.

User avatar
wombatK
Posts: 5612
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: Yagoona, AU

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby wombatK » Fri Oct 17, 2014 5:07 pm

No TDU. Beat me with another feather.
WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 7001
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby biker jk » Fri Oct 17, 2014 5:29 pm

wombatK wrote:No TDU. Beat me with another feather.
Vino bite head off live chicken and eat feather and all. :lol:

Image

toofat
Posts: 551
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:38 am
Location: East Victoria Park,Perth

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby toofat » Fri Oct 17, 2014 5:53 pm

"I think its disgusting the way people are treating Lance Armstrong after he rode his bike to win seven tour de frances while on drugs
when I was on drugs I could not even find my bike"
Willie Nelson
Image

User avatar
toolonglegs
Posts: 15463
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby toolonglegs » Thu Oct 30, 2014 5:24 pm

Apparently one of the guys I raced with in a stage race earlier in the year was caught doing something naughty at that race... No name published but a 3 year ban.
Not sure how he got name suppressed but now I am curious!.

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4997
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Thu Oct 30, 2014 9:40 pm

toolonglegs wrote:Apparently one of the guys I raced with in a stage race earlier in the year was caught doing something naughty at that race... No name published but a 3 year ban.
Not sure how he got name suppressed but now I am curious!.
If it's a doping offence then suppression of such information is in direct contravention of WADA code (2009) section 14.2.2.
3 years is unusual.

User avatar
toolonglegs
Posts: 15463
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby toolonglegs » Thu Oct 30, 2014 9:55 pm

Yeah that's what I would have thought ... but here it is.
https://www.facebook.com/routedesaoneetloire?fref=ts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Edit ... ok after reading the comments the name will be revealed after the appeal time has passed.

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 15583
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby AUbicycles » Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:27 pm

An interview with Matt Cooke on dopers. He is not a fan of Levi Leipheimer. There are no revelations but it is an interesting read and acknowledgement of the effect of cheating on other riders and on the sport of cycling.

http://crankpunk.com/2014/11/10/matt-co ... ken-drugs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Cycling is in my BNA

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users