Will this have an effect?

4 years bans

good
5
50%
bad
0
No votes
life bans for all
5
50%
 
Total votes: 10
User avatar
RICHARDH
Posts: 1306
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:46 pm
Location: adelaide

Will this have an effect?

Postby RICHARDH » Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:04 pm

Following the positive A sample tests for CERA by Tour de France stars Stefan Schumacher and podium-finisher Bernhard Kohl, UCI President Pat McQuaid has confirmed that the UCI will double its maximum sanction for doping cases next season.

A four-year suspension could effectively end the career of positive riders and should act as a strong deterrent. McQuaid told Cyclingnews on Tuesday that he’d personally opt for life bans if possible, but that WADA rules had to be followed.

"I have said before that I would like to see them out of the sport for good. That is purely on a personal level," he stated. "However, we are obliged to follow the world anti-doping code, and that is what the UCI will do. Currently the world anti-doping code gives a maximum two-year sanction in the case of a positive test. From the first of January there is a bit more flexibility in it, and we can go up to a four year ban in the cases of something regarded as willful cheating.


I know alot of people have said the bans are too short but will this have an effect, should they have gone a life ban. (even though they legally cant.)
We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works (Douglas Adams)

User avatar
sittingbison
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 4:44 pm
Location: Subi, WA
Contact:

Postby sittingbison » Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:25 pm

the "legally cant" has to be challenged. Its B$.

Or make it 25 years. That will effectively end their career, but still give them the opportunity to race again (and ruin the Masters no doubt)
I have a cunning plan, as cunning as a fox who's just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University

User avatar
RICHARDH
Posts: 1306
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:46 pm
Location: adelaide

Postby RICHARDH » Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:29 pm

I think theres got to be degrees of it though. Life bans have to be for the chases where there is no reasonable doubt, EPO use etc. tests coming back for chamois creams and such cant be that harsh. But thats were you get that grey line, are we willing to sacrifice some innocent athletes to get the system right? Or is there a way to do both.
We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works (Douglas Adams)

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 28219
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Postby Mulger bill » Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:51 pm

I'd like to see life bans for guaranteed cases. Problem is, there's always gonna be false + and - results, UCI and WADA will have to be careful.

Shaun
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

User avatar
sittingbison
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 4:44 pm
Location: Subi, WA
Contact:

Postby sittingbison » Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:04 pm

so ban them for life, and if they win the appeal because of a false positive or whatever excuse/plausible deniability they can come up with (I sucked on my ventolin 1200 times in the last two km's :wink: ...I have a saddle sore, the doctor didn't know the cortisone cream had cortisone in it :oops:...I thought it was turtle blood syrum :? etc etc), let 'em back in.

Its not a DEATH sentence (oops :shock: sorry about that old chum, the real culprit has just confessed) for goodness sake (death to their career though).
I have a cunning plan, as cunning as a fox who's just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University

Return to “International and National Tours and Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users