should wtc allow lance to race pending the outcome of the hearing?
i believe contador raced while a hearing was pending.
wtc has this policy: an athlete is ineligible to compete during an open investigation.
this makes eminent sense, in that you poison the atmosphere if a suspected drug taker is racing your pro athletes whom you’re encouraging to race clean.
however, in the case of an athlete who faces a ban for former transgressions - such as armstrong and michi weiss - does that change the calculus?
i don’t know. i’m ambivalent. but at the moment i err on the side of differentiating between suspected current versus historic transgressions that occurred in another sport (as is the case with weiss and armstrong).
what say you all? and what’s your thinking? (and, remember to vote on the poll, at right).
(oh, and, in case you were unaware, there’s an oped on this on the home page.)
Yes let him race. Why penalize the man when he is eventually found innocent again? Burden of proof is on USADA to show that LA doped. Otherwise he is innocent. Same with Contador. Same with Valverde. You let them race until you show that they doped or did something illegal.
A policy is not a law and can be adjusted at the discretion of leadership, so WTC needs to make an exception in this case since this is not a triathlon related allegation and let him race.
Yes let him race. Why penalize the man when he is eventually found innocent again? Burden of proof is on USADA to show that LA doped. Otherwise he is innocent. Same with Contador. Same with Valverde. You let them race until you show that they doped or did something illegal.
x2
If he doped as a cyclist, he should have been nailed then…not years later and if you’re going to nail him years later with hard evidence (not he said, she said, Tyler said, floyd said), then he should only be thrown out of racing when he loses his case, not while an investigation is in process. In fairness, all prize money should be withheld until the investigation is complete.
I agree, let the man race. I think this would be a completely different scenario if USADA had tests from the recent past (days/weeks/several months) that showed LA was doping. Who cares what happened +10 years ago. Just another lynch mob.
From what folks have said, letting him race has nothing to do with USADA. It is 100% WTC who has decided to pull the plug. Surprised there are not more comments
made about WTC who rather than let the process go its course, has decided to dump lance. Remember with Tiger Woods got into trouble. Not all of his sponsors dumped him.
Or how about Rush L. Boy did Rush get the last laugh when some who dumped him and made public comments bashing him then wanted to come back to his show and he said no way.
So yes, I am naive, but I believe in ethics over business. I thought WTC had heart, boy was I wrong.
Just saw this thread. Agreed - I think he should be allowed to continue to compete. He is still tested on a regular basis and aren’t the suspensions retroactive?
If Lance is cleared again (which I think we all suspect he will be) surely he would be well within his rights to sue USADA for stopping him racing as a professional sports person.
He was going to give many Professionals a good scare in Kona. Not now.
Would? I’m not so sure. With respect to corporate sponsors and investors I think the downside risk should Lance be convicted exceeds the benefits.
The ProTour athletes, sponsors and fans, at this point, have a European “but of course” attitude towards doping, so there wasn’t that much risk to letting Contador compete. (even now sponsors and teams are falling over themselves to sign him once he comes off his ban) The WTC promotes more of an American puritanical pure-as-driven-snow attitude that can still be preserved. (Weiss notwithstanding). If Lance wins Kona, then loses to USADA there’s an innocence that is lost forever, an innocence that the TdF never had. (even if the innocence of triathlon is just a pleasant fiction.)
I have always been against the banning of riders while investigations are underway.
Until they are complete, the rider / athlete should be allowed to compete. If found guilty, they are then suspended.
That said, it is WTC’s policy that was in place before LA came along. As I noted earlier,mic anything, they should be applauded for standing by this policy and not making an exception simply because it was Lance.
So while I disagree with their rule, I’ll give credit for standing by it.
Wrong. Still stands, and is still relevant. Races kick out dopers because of the sponsors. Sponsors want the dopers kicked out because they worry the viewers/customers will care if they don’t stand up against dopers/cheaters. But in reality, I am sure most people could care less what the athletes do (already know they dope to the gills). So it still stands.
They had a choice…he’s been under “investigation” the entire time, they had to know this. If you read the official letter he got, link here, the USADA have not recommended a ban to any federation. http://online.wsj.com/...rongcharging0613.pdf
It states on page 14 that they would do so pending the outcome of a hearing or if he does not contest the charges. WTC’s decision. I don’t see how they would lose as many sponsors as they would gain…with Lance being there.
The WTC did not “decide” to ban him. It is in their current policy to not allow athletes with open investigations to race. They are simply enforcing that policy as they should. What’s the point of making a rule if you won’t follow it?
I agree that policies can and should be changed. And I am sure the WTC is considering making changes to this policy because this is something new. A former pro cyclist being investigated for doping while he was a cyclist. Maybe it’s not the intention of the current policy to overlap into sports the athlete (Lance) was involved in previously…maybe it is.
I know of a pro triathlete (and it was discussed on these forums) who was banned by the WTC while his investigation was open. He eventually won his case, and his ban was lifted only after the entire process was settled. He competed in other races (including USAT), but not WTC in the meantime. So there is precedence of the WTC upholding the ban while there is an open investigation (even though the USAT did not enforce the ban during the appeal), and the athlete is proven innocent later. And none of this “innocent till proven guilty” or “let him race in the meantime” was allowed.
ETA: #3 is wrong. Ban was simply shortened to the time of the appeal decision. Still a violation, but was ineligible until his appeal was heard and results prize money from time of the violation to the appeal hearing were disqualified/forfeited.
I think these anti-doping agencies think the public cares about doping amongst public athletes. Isn’t that why they are in existence? However there are sports where doping is very well known (MLB, NFL, boxing) and yet you don’t hear a public outcry. Why is that? Probably cause the public doesn’t care. They pay their money to watch a good game. A good race. But for some reason it is the politicians who make this into a bigger deal than that.
So please tell me why certain sports care about doping vs. others? Is it because of sponsors? Is it because of the viewers? Is it because of the organization?
I’m not sure what all of this hoopla is about cycling and doping and yet other sports have a different standard associated upon them. Who puts that standard? Ultimately the organizations have certain rules in place because they worry sponsors will leave (TdF) and the sponsors are concerned how they will be viewed by the public. But if the public doesn’t care, what is the issue. NFL/MLB/NBA/NCAA have a much higher viewing base than cycling. I doubt the average cyclist enthusiast is any different than the average NFL/MLB/NBA/NCAA fan. If anything, there is a significant amount of overlap.
Some races- including the Tour de France did ban riders under suspicion for a short period- example Operation Puerto. Valverde was under suspicion from Puerto- and actually banned from Italy for 2 years starting in 2009 (including the Tour de France in 2010- b/c it went in Italy)- http://www.bikeradar.com/...for-two-years-21565/ and, since Puerto has been caught up in the screwy court system in Spain- he was always allowed to race and actually won his home grand Tour- Vuelta, while being banned from Italy, and under investigation from Puerto! He was banned from Italy b/c they proved he was tied to one of the puerto blood bags (among other items), but the Spanish courts wouldn’t listen to the evidence that Italy had uncovered. Again, how logical is that?!? He was ultimately banned for 2 years by the UCI worldwide and all his results from 2010 were annulled after the fact.
So, I think it’s good that WTC has taken the high road with their policy. The last thing they want is to annul results of a pro that tests positive. The irony it’s their sponsored athlete.
Now back to the poll-
Now if the allegations are true- having systematic doping charges from 1998 to 2010 with multiple doctors and advisers- what do you think the odds are that the person (s) decided to stop these actions in 2011 or 2012? To give a person with those allegations the benefit of the doubt, would seem quite foolhardy. If it was athlete ‘x’ and you didn’t know his/her name and you read that usada has evidence on a person for all their competing years for over a decade- and allegedly used multiple doctors, extensive doping products, etc, I would think the rational person would say, of course you want to err on the side of protecting the fellow clean athletes.