Kayle Leogrande Busted for Doping Again

[shovelhd]

Originally Posted by Ti Designs

Explain that to me. It's pretty clear that doping isn't allowed. Some guy gets caught doping, and there's no "maybe" about the results - how is that not a lifetime ban? Making anything less means it's an acceptable risk to half the idiots out there looking for fame on two wheels. The 2nd offense rule is even dumber. Clearly they're not getting the message, you don't want them in the sport in 8 years, just skip to the lifetime ban...

If that sounds harsh, it's probably because you didn't spend 25 hours a week training only to be trounced by dopers. Let's be clear on who the dopers are cheating, cause it's not the fans. The fans want drama and entertainment, doping delivers just that. The guys who've made the investment in training want a level playing field, to them they should just drag the doper out behind the hotel and shoot them.

I can't argue with anything you said, except for the frontier justice. I agree completely. I'd like to see four years first, lifetime after that. However, your "beef" is with WADA. It should not be with USAC or the UCI. It's imperative that the governing bodies be separate from the drug enforcement agency. It's not a perfect system, but by doing that, there's less of an opportunity for a "wink-wink" scenario.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by Ti Designs

Explain that to me. It's pretty clear that doping isn't allowed. Some guy gets caught doping, and there's no "maybe" about the results - how is that not a lifetime ban? Making anything less means it's an acceptable risk to half the idiots out there looking for fame on two wheels. The 2nd offense rule is even dumber. Clearly they're not getting the message, you don't want them in the sport in 8 years, just skip to the lifetime ban...

Okay, so doping is cheating, cheating harms those who don't cheat, so cheating should be punished. But doping is not the only way to cheat. Its also not the only way to cheat with forethought (other ways include corking bats, course cutting, under inflating footballs, etc.). Are you suggesting that everyone that is caught cheating should get automatic lifetime bans?

[Ti Designs]

Originally Posted by shovelhd

I can't argue with anything you said, except for the frontier justice.

When I was 17 I could have been on the junior national team, but I wanted no part of Eddie B's "blood boosting" program. About 5 years ago I heard about the death of Mark Whitehead. He was 3 years ahead of my in their program, his suggestion to me was to "play the game". He earned lots of national titles, got really sick from their way of doping back then, and died by the time he turned 50. We really don't have to shoot the dopers, our sport has a long history of them killing themselves. I just think we should do it BEFORE they cheat the hard working athletes out of their goals.

The decision to cheat on some level has to come down to a risk/reward assessment. To bring that decision percentage down you need to make the risk totally unacceptable. I've seen the term "zero tolerance" used, but in practice it's "a little tolerance" - there's a huge difference there. They're saying that one and done is an unfair policy, the people who have made the sport unfair for those who raced clean, and the idiots who support them, are saying it's unfair. This is why there is cheating in everything.

[shovelhd]

Whitehead was one hell of a trackie. He did crits as well.

[ptourkin]

Originally Posted by shovelhd

Some love a conspiracy theory, but it's BS. Read the WADA Code. 2nd offense is 8 years. 3rd is lifetime.

Noted. Thanks.

Originally Posted by shovelhd

Whitehead was one hell of a trackie. He did crits as well.

Still legendary here for his battles both on the track and off.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by Ti Designs

When I was 17 I could have been on the junior national team, but I wanted no part of Eddie B's "blood boosting" program. About 5 years ago I heard about the death of Mark Whitehead. He was 3 years ahead of my in their program, his suggestion to me was to "play the game". He earned lots of national titles, got really sick from their way of doping back then, and died by the time he turned 50. We really don't have to shoot the dopers, our sport has a long history of them killing themselves. I just think we should do it BEFORE they cheat the hard working athletes out of their goals.

The decision to cheat on some level has to come down to a risk/reward assessment. To bring that decision percentage down you need to make the risk totally unacceptable. I've seen the term "zero tolerance" used, but in practice it's "a little tolerance" - there's a huge difference there. They're saying that one and done is an unfair policy, the people who have made the sport unfair for those who raced clean, and the idiots who support them, are saying it's unfair. This is why there is cheating in everything.

I think your comments point out a big part of the problem: Team management and racing promoters have the lowest risk and highest reward for doping, so in the risk/reward assessment they will always have an incentive to implicitly or explicitly promote doping.

Doping rules are often based on strict - it doesn't matter how the drugs got into the athlete, they are still responsible and must bear the consequences. These rules may also have to extend up through the team management - it doesn't matter what the team did or didn't do or did or didn't know about one of the athlete's doping, they should be responsible the responsibility for one of their athletes doping and bear the consequences. Without that, the teams will continue use the athletes like cannon fodder, and have no incentive to quash doping.

[Ti Designs]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

I think your comments point out a big part of the problem: Team management and racing promoters have the lowest risk and highest reward for doping, so in the risk/reward assessment they will always have an incentive to implicitly or explicitly promote doping.

Yeh, there is that...

When I was at the OTC for junior national selections, we were all 16 or 17, yet we all understood what cheating was. When Eddie B's assistant Walter started talking to us about drawing blood, one of the other kids turned to me and said "that's cheating, right?". That same kid raced for 7-11... It's still a decision on the rider's part. There's plenty of blame for the teams as well, but it's harder to convict them. The team can push a rider into doping (I think they call it "going to see the doctor"), they can imply that they have their back (they don't), but short of being caught with a bus load of EPO, they're never going to test positive themselves.

I still say make the anti-doping policy so strict that riders will refuse to ride for dirty teams. If there were more (any??) clean riders, who were determined to stay that way, you would have cases of athletes backing out of their contracts because their team had a doping policy.

[earlfoss]

Don't worry, he'll test positive again in 8-9 years during his comeback.

[54ny77]

Surely doping stops at the 50+ masters level, so he'll be on equal playing field by the time he's allowed to race sanctioned events again.

[GregL]

Velonews had some funny words about this subject on their website today. If you scroll down to the bottom of the linked page:

"Either the guy never learned his lesson, or the lure of amateur cycling glory was too strong. How many sock primes would (it) take for you to dope? Would you pop some raloxifene if it meant you’d be ranked top-three in your ZIP code according to USA Cycling? Amateur doping remains one of humanities (sic) biggest mysteries — right up there with the Bermuda Triangle."

Greg

[m4rk540]

Some dudes are just addicted to destroying other dudes.