Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Some Cycling Teams never learn… two new team managers with an admitted doping history
Quote | Reply

In 2017 both Bjarne Riis and Jeroen Blijlevens will (again) be leading World- and Continental Teams.



Blijlevens steps in (Womens) WM3 Pro Cycling Team (ex Rabobank-Liv) with a two year contract. This is only three years after being sacked by Dutch team Belkin as their team manager, after admitting he used PED’s during his active cycling career. This was a breach of contract, since he signed a statement when joining Belkin, saying he “never used doping”.



The second name on the list makes an even greater comeback. Bjarne Riis will be at the helm of two teams. Another Womens WorldTeam (BMS Birn) an a Danisch Continental Team will be able “to benefit from the tons of experience he (Riis) brings into the team, to take it to a higher level”. Dixit Michael Rasmussen. Indeed, the same Rasmussen who was expelled from the TdF when wearing the leader jersey, after messing around with his whereabouts to avoid out-of-competition-testing.



Apparently all common sense goes out of the window, and the credibility of cycling is of no concern to the people who are hiring these types of guys.



A life-time ban for any position in any sport is appropriate, and the only logical solution.


Edit: title

Last edited by: 18Argon: Nov 8, 16 9:47
Quote Reply
Re: Cycling never learns… two new team managers with an admitted doping history [18Argon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
18Argon wrote:
Apparently all common sense goes out of the window, and the credibility of cycling is of no concern to the people who are hiring these types of guys.

For Riis, technically speaking he's the one doing the hiring/buying. It's hard for a fighting-for-scraps team to turn down Riis money.

It happened here in the U.S. - team supported by doping money. And I'm not talking about Vaughters (who also admitted doping).


Quote Reply
Re: Cycling never learns… two new team managers with an admitted doping history [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
18Argon wrote:

Apparently all common sense goes out of the window, and the credibility of cycling is of no concern to the people who are hiring these types of guys.


18Argol wrote:
trail wrote:

For Riis, technically speaking he's the one doing the hiring/buying. It's hard for a fighting-for-scraps team to turn down Riis money.

It seems to me it's of no concern to the UCI as well then...
Quote Reply
Re: Cycling never learns… two new team managers with an admitted doping history [18Argon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think there's two ways to look at it.
1) If someone is known to have used drugs, ban them. After all we only want the clean guys involved.
2) Everyone with significant experience is likely to have used or been involved with the use of drugs and to think otherwise is naive. Therefore, one should accept that your candidates will either be inexperienced in the world of cycling or will have a history of association with drugs. The only question is whether it's public knowledge or they managed to evade detection and kept under wraps.

While option 1 looks better on the surface of it. I think it's probably more harmful in the long run as it amounts to pretending you're solving the problem when you are not. At least in option 2 there's hope that the person selected no longer has anything to hide, can speak more openly and credibly on the subject should they be inclined to do so, and perhaps there's less scope for corruption too.
Quote Reply
Re: Cycling never learns… two new team managers with an admitted doping history [18Argon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Considering that pretty much all of them doped up until a few years ago, it's going to be a while before you get ex-riders moving into management positions who weren't part of that culture.
Quote Reply
Re: Cycling never learns… two new team managers with an admitted doping history [Ai_1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ai_1 wrote:
I think there's two ways to look at it.
1) If someone is known to have used drugs, ban them. After all we only want the clean guys involved.
2) Everyone with significant experience is likely to have used or been involved with the use of drugs and to think otherwise is naive. Therefore, one should accept that your candidates will either be inexperienced in the world of cycling or will have a history of association with drugs. The only question is whether it's public knowledge or they managed to evade detection and kept under wraps.

While option 1 looks better on the surface of it. I think it's probably more harmful in the long run as it amounts to pretending you're solving the problem when you are not. At least in option 2 there's hope that the person selected no longer has anything to hide, can speak more openly and credibly on the subject should they be inclined to do so, and perhaps there's less scope for corruption too.


I think you are underestimating the omerta in the peloton. Not a lot of (ex)-riders have come forth and revealed the complete picture (team structure, suppliers, etc…). In Operaciòn Puerto, even after 10 years, not all the blood samples are accounted for.


Which proves your point on banning the old crocodiles and the fact that it might not solve the problem right away. But at least it creates an opportunity for the youngster to step in, and hopefully to a better job…


I strongly believe that cycling has a future. The fact that relatively young riders are able to hold their own in the peloton is a good sign. Plus they have a very outspoken opinion about PED’s.


Quote Reply
Re: Cycling never learns… two new team managers with an admitted doping history [Ai_1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ai_1 wrote:
I think there's two ways to look at it.
1) If someone is known to have used drugs, ban them. After all we only want the clean guys involved.
2) Everyone with significant experience is likely to have used or been involved with the use of drugs and to think otherwise is naive. Therefore, one should accept that your candidates will either be inexperienced in the world of cycling or will have a history of association with drugs. The only question is whether it's public knowledge or they managed to evade detection and kept under wraps.

While option 1 looks better on the surface of it. I think it's probably more harmful in the long run as it amounts to pretending you're solving the problem when you are not. At least in option 2 there's hope that the person selected no longer has anything to hide, can speak more openly and credibly on the subject should they be inclined to do so, and perhaps there's less scope for corruption too.

Another problem with 1) is that it creates a huge incentive to never admit to doping, since it means that you will be permantly banned from the sport. Lance was caught by a bunch of ex-riders talking to authorities, if they knew that if they talked they would never work in the sport again, maybe they would have not talked, since USADA could not legally force them to talk. This sort of zero tolerance policy just enforces everyone to continue to lie.
Quote Reply
Re: Cycling never learns… two new team managers with an admitted doping history [18Argon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm not sure what you want here. We want people to admit to doping and to be able to move on with their lives. Right?






Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Cycling never learns… two new team managers with an admitted doping history [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Exactly.

I have experience of this is other fields too.
I work in a heavily regulated industry. Compliance with regulations is a huge priority with companies since a breach could cost them millions or even billions.

Some companies I've worked for, go the zero tolerance route. They insist that you must never make a mistake. This may give the veneer of a company that has the highest standards and the utmost respect for quality and the regulations. However the reality is that employees become terrified they will screw up. They become uncooperative because the more you do or say the more opportunity there is for a mistake to occur for which you may be made suffer. Most of all, problems are not identified and resolved because the people who generally know about or find mistakes are the people who made them. Zero tolerance = secrecy, rule breaking and denial.

Other companies explicitly claim a zero blame culture and many of them actually practice that. If you find a problem and flag it, the focus is on finding a solution, not finding a scapegoat. If this becomes trusted and real, it is the real route to compliance. You find a problem, you flag it, it gets solved. Only simple problems can be solved in secrecy, and normally by cheating. Honesty = progress and fairness.

Revenge doesn't solve anything and believing not being caught means nothing happened is just stupid.
Quote Reply
Re: Cycling never learns… two new team managers with an admitted doping history [18Argon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
18Argon wrote:
Ai_1 wrote:
I think there's two ways to look at it.

1) If someone is known to have used drugs, ban them. After all we only want the clean guys involved.
2) Everyone with significant experience is likely to have used or been involved with the use of drugs and to think otherwise is naive. Therefore, one should accept that your candidates will either be inexperienced in the world of cycling or will have a history of association with drugs. The only question is whether it's public knowledge or they managed to evade detection and kept under wraps.

While option 1 looks better on the surface of it. I think it's probably more harmful in the long run as it amounts to pretending you're solving the problem when you are not. At least in option 2 there's hope that the person selected no longer has anything to hide, can speak more openly and credibly on the subject should they be inclined to do so, and perhaps there's less scope for corruption too.



I think you are underestimating the omerta in the peloton. Not a lot of (ex)-riders have come forth and revealed the complete picture (team structure, suppliers, etc…). In Operaciòn Puerto, even after 10 years, not all the blood samples are accounted for.


Which proves your point on banning the old crocodiles and the fact that it might not solve the problem right away. But at least it creates an opportunity for the youngster to step in, and hopefully to a better job…


I strongly believe that cycling has a future. The fact that relatively young riders are able to hold their own in the peloton is a good sign. Plus they have a very outspoken opinion about PED’s.


I think your response is quite ironic.

You've titled the thread "Cycling never learns....."
If they pretend there's an easy solution and that those not caught are clean, that will be true. I think your position is actually more guilty of not having learned.
You say I underestimate omerta but my approach does not make any comment on omerta, it simply avoids reinforcing it. You're the one saying those who've been caught should lose out. What could do more to consolidate the omerta culture? The more people have to gain by lying the more they will lie. That much is pretty simple.

Excessive punishment is just revenge. It's never a solution in itself and it usually obscures the solution by incentivising secrecy and dishonesty.

You've also said:
"The fact that relatively young riders are able to hold their own in the peloton is a good sign. Plus they have a very outspoken opinion about PED’s."


I find this very confusing. Lance Armstrong was able to hold his own and was very outspoken about PEDs. What is the good sign that you speak of?
If your position is that cycling never learns, surely you would concede that the past has taught us something about "clean riders"? i.e. Some of today's "clean riders" will become tomorrow's villains. If you think these "clean riders" are holding their own with dirty riders then that's a bit confusing. Are PEDs just not that effective, or are we talking about one or two clean riders so exceptional that they can compete despite being at a disadvantage?
It seems to me you are making the very mistake you accuse professional cycling of making... Failing to learn.


The current crop of successful younger riders who espouse an anti PED view may be clean, may be using PEDs, or it might be a mixture. I don't know and I don't believe you do either. In the long run the best chance we have to change this, is to stop looking for villains to blame, and quick solutions. The culture in cycling needs to change. While it might seem that new faces would help bring in a new culture, they'll just end up doing the same stuff as the current guys if the same incentives apply. Changing the culture is going to take time if it happens at all.
Last edited by: Ai_1: Nov 8, 16 8:38
Quote Reply
Re: Cycling never learns… two new team managers with an admitted doping history [Tri-Banter] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tri-Banter wrote:
I'm not sure what you want here. We want people to admit to doping and to be able to move on with their lives. Right?

Firstly, I have absolutely no problem them pursuing another career, but preferably not in any kind of sport, and definitely not in cycling. It's just too much of a risk.

Secondly, I too would like to hear athletes admitting they have used/are using PED's. However, that's rarely the case, and if there are, I bet it's going to be a handful only. Even if coming clean spontaneously means reduced sentences.

The vast majority only have admitted using PED's after being confronted with evidence.
Quote Reply
Re: Some Cycling Teams never learn… two new team managers with an admitted doping history [Ai_1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I guess you're right about the name of the thread, I will change it into "Some Cycling Teams never learn". Just mentioning cycling is an unjustified generalization. And because I feel a lot of riders and teams are heading into the right direction.

However, the discussion remains the same. Is it desirable to have these people in cycling again?

When mentioning the omerta, I was referring to your comment regarding the fact that you expressed the hope the person selected no longer has anything to hide, and can speak more openly. A lot of them already have admitted, but only after being confronted with evidence. It gives me an uncomfortable feeling when they start managing a team again. Because without the evidence no-one would have come clean (pun intended).

Punishment is not revenge, it's a consequence of previous actions. I think in the world of sport using and, in case of Riis, promoting the use of PED's (see Team Telekom), is a severe violation. Hence the excessive punishment of a lifetime ban.

Regarding the new young riders holding their own, not so long ago in the era of doping, the neo-professionals were doomed to hang onto the peloton for dear life. I doubt they had less talent than this generation, so cycling must be much cleaner than previous times. But you're right. Only time will tell.

And as you state, the culture of cycling needs to change. But bringing in the old guys is not the way to create the much needed change.
Quote Reply
Re: Cycling never learns… two new team managers with an admitted doping history [Ai_1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The middle ground for me is whether they're repentant or not. No issue with somebody like Vaughters or Millar being involved in cycling. Do have an issue with riders like Vino or Riis being involved, who basically are completely unrepentant.

It's somewhat subjective of course, but I reckon most people who follow the sport would be fairly consistent on which riders and ex-riders passed the smell test, and which didn't.
Quote Reply
Re: Cycling never learns… two new team managers with an admitted doping history [18Argon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
18Argon wrote:



I think you are underestimating the omerta in the peloton.




I wouldn't have agreed with this, but slipped a bit while reading Phil Gaimon's "retirement" essay and his claim that a lot of teams don't want him because of his "CLEAN" tattoo. I don't know if that's legit, or just an expression of butthurt and self-pity for being barely being a ProTour-grade rider. But he's generally not prone to butthurt or self-pity, so I take it as a fairly ominous sign that both omerta and doping are pretty entrenched.
Last edited by: trail: Nov 9, 16 6:53
Quote Reply
Re: Cycling never learns… two new team managers with an admitted doping history [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
18Argon wrote:



I think you are underestimating the omerta in the peloton.




I wouldn't have agreed with this, but slipped a bit while reading Phil Gaimon's "retirement" essay and his claim that a lot of teams don't want him because of his "CLEAN" tattoo. I don't know if that's legit, or just an expression of butthurt and self-pity for being barely being a ProTour-grade rider. But he's generally not prone to butthurt or self-pity, so I take it as a fairly ominous sign that both omerta and doping are pretty entrenched.

I could see lots of teams not wanting to bring any attention to doping, even anti-doping. They just want everyone to forget about it. It is not so much that they want riders who dope, they just want everyone to stop talking about it. I think the teams would also prefer their riders not dope for the same reason, if they get caught all this doping talk comes back. Lots of teams believe, probably partially correctly, that the reason that cycling is suffereing when other sports are skyrocketing in value, is that because of the specter of doping.
Quote Reply