Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling
- 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
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.
- 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
The best the UCI can do is flaff about calling it a serious situation. The cycling weekly article reports thatherzog 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.
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.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.
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.
Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia
- 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
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.
- AUbicycles
- 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
This is the online survey and he welcomes participation: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/DZGHK9L" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- find_bruce
- 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
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, egAlex 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.
- 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
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"
- 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
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.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
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.
- find_bruce
- 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
- 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
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.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
- 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
Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia
- 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
It was a typo which I've corrected. A lifetime ban plus having to repay prizemoney/earnings would also work.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
- 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
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: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.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
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.
All it's doing is focussing on the penalty, not the detection.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.
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.
- 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
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.biker jk wrote: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.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
- 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
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.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.
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.
- 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
This is my position - precisely *because* it is difficult to be caught, is the reason that the consequences (costs) have to be higher.wombatK wrote:Not quit BK. The expected cost is the probability of being caught times the cost of having been caught.
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.
- 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
- find_bruce
- 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
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-to- ... ur-licence" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;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.
- 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
Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia
- 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
- 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
Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia
- 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
Vino bite head off live chicken and eat feather and all.wombatK wrote:No TDU. Beat me with another feather.
-
- 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
when I was on drugs I could not even find my bike"
Willie Nelson
- 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
Not sure how he got name suppressed but now I am curious!.
- 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
If it's a doping offence then suppression of such information is in direct contravention of WADA code (2009) section 14.2.2.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!.
3 years is unusual.
- 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
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.
- AUbicycles
- 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
http://crankpunk.com/2014/11/10/matt-co ... ken-drugs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Return to “International and National Tours and Events”
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Cycling Brands
- Cannondale
- Garmin
- Giant
- Shimano
- Trek
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+11:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.