The Only way to clean up Pro Cycling is to Ban the teams, the management and the coaches

Triathlon Forum
1

It seems that every time an athlete gets nailed for A and B sample positives, the teams distance themselves from the athletes and fire them.

Somehow, I find it hard to believe that the teams have no knowledge of what is going on. Doping does not happen in isolation. It has been pretty systemic in pro cycling for decades.

If the teams and management were fined/tossed/banned, things would change in a hurry. First of all teammates would apply peer pressure for everyone to stay clean lest they lose their ticket to race (like Vino with no team this year). The team management would apply huge pressure to the riders to stay clean instead of being in collusion up and until riders are caught.

Right now, the teams have an incentive to actually administer dope to get results. The upside, is you get on the podium and don’t get caught…downside, is you fire your rider. The upside seems to be more attractive than the downside. Winning gets sponsors. Losing means you have no sponsors. Getting caught for doping means no sponsors, which is the same as losing…so there is no downside for team management to NOT DOPE.

Nailing management would be the fastest route to clean up sport. First time, the rider gets 2 year ban, team gets a big $$$$$ fine, second time, team gets banned for 2 months, next time, out for a year. Suddenly the whole sport will turn clean.

The co called “board of directors” of these teams need to be accountable for their employees, just like a public corporation!

That’s my peanut gallery view of what it will take to clean up cycling! They need a form of Sarbanes Oxley for Pro Cycling to make management accountable.

Dev

2

You quoted Sarbanes-Oxley? So I guess you’re not just a, ahem, pretty face after all.

3

But what about cases where the team/management truly does not know about or have reason to suspect doping?

I have no problem with consequences to teams and management when their riders are caught. What might work, to make the process and consequences fair, is to allow teams to present and affirmative defense that they took reasonable precautions to prevent it. At a minimum, the team would have the burden of showing that it conducted random, out of competition testing. This testing would be in addition to and independent of testing conducted by UCI. The team would also have the burden of showing that it’s testing program was not a sham and that it did not overlook signs and rumers of PED use outside of the testing. To be valid, a minimum number of team members would have to be randomly tested each month – the number should be high enough so that each rider can expect to be tested at least a few times each month. If a rider tested positive in this internal testing, the team would be required to report to UCI. If the team cannot meet its burden, then the affirmative defense is not available, and sanctions are imposed.

As part of fairness to riders, I wouldn’t have any problem with a moratorium on any random, out of competition testing during a certain period, say November 1 through January 5. This would at least give them a couple months of freedom.

4

Check this editorial from canadiancyclist… I think its the right direction to be headed

http://www.canadiancyclist.com/dailynews/July/7.29.063.34PM00.shtml

5

Good idea…but the general needs to be accountable for his troops :-). This is why I suggested a $$$$ fine for the first occurrence. It gives the team a chance to clean house without putting them out of business.

Vantriathlete…I do run a product line in a publicly traded tech company, but I certainly am not pretty (or handsome for that matter) :frowning:

6

Paul, Wow, this was exactly what I was thinking while running at lunch (at the Mitch Gold approved 7.5-8.5 min per mile pace…)

Dev.

7

Bill Clinton once suggested that gun control came down to an analogy with a 40 gallon drum full of marbles in the middle of a basketball court. Do you control the the marbles while they’re still in the 40 gallon drum? Or wait for someone to knock the drum over and then try to control them?

With all the power that the IOC and WADA have, diplomatically as well as in co-enforcement, why haven’t they reached an accord with pharmaceutical manufacturers (40 gallon drum) or at least gained their co-operation? These are controlled substances that are clearly getting away from the legitimate supply chain.

I’ll admit, it’s easier, intellectually, to go after the “kids” (marbles) who use. Probably better press too.

8

It has been pretty systemic in pro cycling for decades.

Nuh-uh. It’s been a french conspiracy for decades.

9

I think it is a step in the right direction to make the owners/doctors/teams more accountable for the actions of their cyclists, but I’m not sure if sanctioning them in the way they suggest is necessarily the right way to go. Yes they should take a far greater interest in the affairs of their troops but you cannot hold them accountable for their actions in totality. Even if teams were interested there would still be scope for riders to procured PED’s by other means, even if simply through a trainer under contract like Ferarri or Chechini. The only way for a team to be completely certain that riders did not dope would be to perform their own testing of riders. In all likelihood that would become prohibitively expensive and force many of the sponsors to bow out, dealing cycling a significant blow.

Perhaps it would be better, in addition to applying sanctions to teams and owners, it would be possible to force riders to pay back sponsorship amounts or wages if they got caught. Certainly this represents a much harsher sanction than a two year ban and or getting fired from the team and may represent a far greater pressure on cyclists to monitor themselves in a closer fashion. No more “I didn’t know what was in the supplement” arguments.

The trouble with any form of sanction is by simply applying the sanction to the entire team you are enforcing guilt by association. It would then be up to the team etc to prove they had nothing to do with this. While I agree that this might represent additional pressure, I’m not sure it would stand up to legal scrutiny under the innocent until proven guilty ideal. A rider who has banned substances in their blood is guilty unless they can prove otherwise which is acceptable by the fact that prohibited substances were found in their blood. However you can’t make the same assumptions about the team’s complicity. Again I agree that the teams at the moment probably do know about the systemic doping programs, but could you say that in the future if these sanctions were to be introduced. What if a team takes every measure financially available to them to prevent doping and a rider still gets caught? How do you prove they knew about it… or more to the point, how do they prove that they didn’t.

I think the real issue with any change to the system must answer the question “Would you prefer a very strict system where the occasional innocent party is sanctioned, or do you let the occasional cheat get off to protect those few innocents who might otherwise face punishment”?

10

Good idea…but the general needs to be accountable for his troops :-). This is why I suggested a $$$$ fine for the first occurrence. It gives the team a chance to clean house without putting them out of business.

Vantriathlete…I do run a product line in a publicly traded tech company, but I certainly am not pretty (or handsome for that matter) :frowning:
I don’t disagree that the “general needs to be accountable.” But I believe there is an element of fairness that is also necessary. Simply making them strictly liable for their riders, with a warning, fine or whatever for the first occurrence doesn’t address the fairness question when the rider is doping behind the team’s back. That’s why I say impose strict liability, but allow the teams an affirmative defense.

11

It makes it very difficult as you are asking a company to cut into it’s profit margin by a) selling fewer guns to people due to restrictions or b) spending hevaily in R&D to add more safety mechenisms which would stop certain people buying guns and reduce the profit margin.

It would be nice to go after the source, however the source makes a lot of money on people buying their product for ligitimate purposes. EPO is a good example for this as it is often given to cancer patients to cope with the effects of Chemo. Introducing markers for example to aid in detection is extremely expensive and requires a new round of FDA approvals. I don’t think you could find a drug company that would be willing to finance the offensive against what is comparitively a small side war. I think it is cheaper in this case to go after the users rather than the source, unless the PED is solely used for enhanced performance rather than other medical purposes. Even then, if the drug compnay is making the product solely for the purpose of sporting enhancement, do you really think they want to cut into their margin by making it easier for their product to be detected? BALCO is a good example of this… I’m sure they wanted to keep the authorities as far away from them as possible.

12

I’m not sure it would stand up to legal scrutiny under the innocent until proven guilty ideal.

Legal scrutiny where? Innocent until proven guilty is popular stateside, but I’m not sure the same standard is applied everywhere these guys race. Further, the teams have already agreed to some level of guilty until proven innocent standard. As I understand it, the ProTour teams signed agreements that they’d ban cyclists from competition if they are under investigation. Look at Vino’s team. In the end, most (all?) of them were cleared enough that they’d be considered innocent, but the team didn’t start because they were under investigation.

In the same way that corporations and owners can be held accountable for their employees’ actions, holding the team and management responsible makes sense. I don’t think you need to prove they knew about it, just that they didn’t do enough to stop it. Downward pressure can be very very effective.

13

I agree. Here is an address where T-Mobile will test their own athletes. I think that WADA should make it mandatory that the teams are responsible for their athletes and if one gets through the cracks and is caught doping by WADA/UCI/whatever, kaput for the team. Brilliant idea

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/10672.0.html

14

Corporations may be held to account under that ideal because there is a paper trail that provides evidence of the mis-deed. There is usually someone who can be held accountable as the person to blame because they allowed it to happen with their knowledge. That’s the kicker here… the only evidence of wrong doing that a team MAY have is the result of the test.

In a way I think you are correct in that you have to be accountable for the actions of your riders, but how do you decide what is enough when it comes to duty of care? Do you mandate a sum that they have to spend?

However, what other pressure may a team exert other than the threat of suspending a rider, something they already do? When you consider that the difference in payments and sponsorship for a mediocre and a good rider can be substantial, I don’t know as that pressure is sufficient. Nor am I convinced that sanctions for the team will change that situation in the slightest.

As to your last comment about various legal systems… it may be that the innocent until proven guilty ideal isn’t held up everywhere, but I think it should be and I’m perfectly willing to be idealistic and naive enough to say that I hope it will be one day. In the meantime you didn’t answer my question, would you prefer to sanction the occasional innocent, or let the occasional guilty rider get away?

15

I agree wholeheartedly. I brought this up when the whole Operacion Puerto thing went down.

Look at the NCAA (college athletics in the U.S.). A player gets caught accepting money - the whole team gets sanctioned. In some cases they get the “Death Penalty” and are banned from competition. A lot of times the coaches don’t know about it, but that’s tough shit. There’s cases where coaches, players, and AD’s have long been gone, but the current team still gets sanctioned when proof comes out years later. Take Michigan basketball for example.

It doesn’t stop players from accepting money, but it adds people closer to the players to police it and more importantly not encourage it or use it. Cycling needs to start attacking this from the top, not just the bottom.

16

That’s a nice concept, but somewhat unrealistic because of the variation b/w athletes. Every person is different.

Until the drug testing procedures catch up, this can’t happen…

17

I think there are some important points in here.

Its very much a Freakonomics type argument - take a hard look at the risk /rewards of decision by each party involved, then step back and ask yourself what you would really expect to happen.

I think we can all agree that the teams do have an incentive to let the riders dope. Further, riders have an incentive to allow their fellow teammates dope. It is important to note that this does not mean that the team actively encourage doping, or that they even want doping, it just means that in many cases the team benefits more from having riders dope, then for not. Nobody wants it - but went it comes down to it, thats the way it shakes out.

So, that said, now you have the WADA and other bodies out chasing a thousands of individuals all over the globe, with the teams and teammates with a built in incentive to turn a blind eye. On top of that, for the WADA to catch someone, they have a pretty high legal standard to meet. This makes it so that even if you are doping, you still may get away with it after being caught.

Now consider what happens when the situation and environment is changed such that the team and teammates have an incentive to not have doping. That effectively adds and army thousands of other individuals - managers, sponsors, doctors, riders, coaches - to help the WADA and enforcement bodies. Better yet, these additional “agents of enforcement” have a broader set of tools nor do they need to meet the burden of proof that the WADA does. You can have a manager that gets indirect info on a rider that is doping, and has the chance to sit down with them an lay down the law.

As to a couple of other reactions in this thread. One is the claim that you have to prove the team knew about the doping. I disagree. The WADA tests the athlete, if he’s positive, then the team and the athlete are punished. If everyone agrees to that upfront, then that’s it. The key here is that it changes the risk / reward situation with respect to the team. Now the team has an incentive to have clean riders.

The other comment was about the acceptability of convicting innocent parties. It may actually work out, that in this arrangement, that the burden of proof placed on the WADA could be very high. They might not get as many convictions on doping, but everyone could be very confident with the ones they do get, and the punishments would be farther reaching.

Again the key here is to change the risk / reward environment is such a way as to enlist the assistance of teams and teammates in controlling doping.

18

As to a couple of other reactions in this thread. One is the claim that you have to prove the team knew about the doping. I disagree. The WADA tests the athlete, if he’s positive, then the team and the athlete are punished. If everyone agrees to that upfront, then that’s it. The key here is that it changes the risk / reward situation with respect to the team. Now the team has an incentive to have clean riders.

If everyone agrees upfront, then of course it’s fair. But do you really think you’ll get agreement when some pretty drastic consequences can be imposed notwithstanding how hard teams and managers may work to prevent doping?

If sanctions are unilaterally dictated, without agreement, then you’ve got a pretty unfair system. Teams and managers that are doing all that can reasonably be expected from them to prevent doping shouldn’t be sanctioned simply because their efforts failed. Set some pretty strict standards for what is to be expected from them, and I’ll have no problem with sanctions when they fail to follow those standards and a team member gets caught.

19

Speardog wrote: "As to a couple of other reactions in this thread. One is the claim that you have to prove the team knew about the doping. I disagree. The WADA tests the athlete, if he’s positive, then the team and the athlete are punished. If everyone agrees to that upfront, then that’s it. The key here is that it changes the risk / reward situation with respect to the team. Now the team has an incentive to have clean riders.

The other comment was about the acceptability of convicting innocent parties. It may actually work out, that in this arrangement, that the burden of proof placed on the WADA could be very high. They might not get as many convictions on doping, but everyone could be very confident with the ones they do get, and the punishments would be farther reaching.

Again the key here is to change the risk / reward environment is such a way as to enlist the assistance of teams and teammates in controlling doping."

Two key points that eloquantly ecapsulated what I was trying to say: Risk-Reward Scenario Creating a worldwide army of anti doping policemen

Risk-Reward: Today the riders are like meat…only as good as their last race. If they lose they are no more use to a team than a guy who gets tossed for doping. So there are high rewards to be gained by doping and for the teams ZERO risk. The riders have a higher risk, but their their option is to ride in anonymity, as tier 2 domestiques, with miniscule contracts and eventually fade back to laying bricks in Flanders, or working in a cube farm at a call centre in Memphis. The teams need to have the risk factor jacked up big time so that they earnestly stop doping in its tracks long before a positive drug test.

Army of Anti Dope Policemen: If you threaten to ban the teams, then all team members, coaches, doctors and management have an incentive to nail their own riders before WADA even does a drug test. This alone raises the overall level of “cleanliness” of the peleton likely by several orders of magnitude. A guy can’t dope in isolation. There are doctors, agents, possibly teammates, coaches and management that are part of the picture…either actively or passively. The moment you threaten to fine or ban teams/management, suddenly, all those who are implicit in the doping culture flip the other way and go to WADA’s side and become anti doping policemen. Right now, the only ones fighting the fight are WADA and some outspoken athletes like Beckie Scott (wrong sport…XC skiing, but there are few like her so loud and vocal in cycling). If this makes the peleton cleaner, than riders might actually believe there is a chance to win sans dope and suddenly you have virtuous cycle with riders/teams policing themselves and more importantly riders believing they can win naturally!

Personally, I think Phonak’s team management should be nailed. First the Tyler Hamilton-Santiago Perez fiasco (did they get each other’s blood…) and now the Floyd fiasco.

The Tour de France is too big a prize to have tainted in this manner. Personally I hope that Floyd is clean. My 10 year old son asks about the latest on Floyd every day. We sat and watched that incredible stage 17. I told my son that it was the perfect example of working hard, fighting like a dog and never giving up. I left out the part of racing from the heart, which to me implies racing to the letter of the rules. Now we have to wait and see. That’s just 1 ten year old. To him, Floyd is still a hero, but that illusion is slipping. There are millions of kids in Europe and thousands of kids in North America who have had the illusion of a champion go up in smoke.

20

Perhaps it would be better, in addition to applying sanctions to teams and owners, it would be possible to force riders to pay back sponsorship amounts or wages if they got caught.

Patrick Lefevere (manager of QuickStep) is thinking about filing a complaint against dopers that damage the sport such as Landis (if proven guilty). The reason is that the managers are experiencing large difficulties to get their sponsorship deals. If doping decreases the market value of his team, then he wants a compensation for that.

This is not to say that he is against sanctioning the teams as well. A sporadic solo-doper could be overlooked, in his reasoning, with regard to team responsibility. However, repeated doping abuse, such as in the Phonak team, should not be left unpunished. He suggested a ProTour ban, just as the riders themselves get one.