Two Riders Out Of Absa Cape Epic Due To Doping

Doping is a grey area, as is cheating. And you can't apply black and white rules to greay areas. Did you take the corner two meters early? That's cheating. Did you have cough syrup for your sore throat? That's doping. If they want to be as strict and ban for life all doping and cheating offenses then there would be no Epic riders left. As in law, your punishment should fit the crime.

Clearly those two aren't hubbers or they'd have known what a *** idea that was. Thought for sure after that whole MTBaaisikilist fiasco people would take doping more seriously and not take chances/be so negligent. Looong drawn out lesson ahead of these lads.

.

Doping is a grey area, as is cheating. And you can't apply black and white rules to greay areas. Did you take the corner two meters early? That's cheating. Did you have cough syrup for your sore throat? That's doping. If they want to be as strict and ban for life all doping and cheating offenses then there would be no Epic riders left. As in law, your punishment should fit the crime.

its not a grey area. If you're taking something for an ailment then report it. get a Doctors prescription or letter. I did this before the 2008 ACE and didn't have a problem. Part of teh condition of entry is a medical. You have plenty of time to declare everything including chronic medication or even stuff for sinusitis or even a common cold. There is no excuse to getting caught.

Problem is SAFFA's have a K*K FU attitude so let these two twits burn. The rules are clear. If you're ignorant of the rules then where is the grey area? - likely lacking between the ears

Doping is a grey area, as is cheating. And you can't apply black and white rules to greay areas. Did you take the corner two meters early? That's cheating. Did you have cough syrup for your sore throat? That's doping. If they want to be as strict and ban for life all doping and cheating offenses then there would be no Epic riders left. As in law, your punishment should fit the crime.

The more "black or white rules" you apply, the narrower the "grey area" in between them will become!

I will not get into a mudslinging contest around this argument. I will make a statement and if anyone agrees it is fine if not also. Life is not black and white. Case 1 (real life - 2014). Guy in car crash. After years of struggling his whole foot is made stiff with rods screws etc. to control pain and to make it possible to continue his work. Guy was a 3:10 Argus rider before. Operation is successful and the guy starts cycling. His mood and quality of life improves. A week before the Argus he slips and hurts tendons around his fused ankle. Cortisone injections alleviate the pain. Worker class man - no time/ money resources to apply for a TUE. Guy finishes in 6h. Very happy and doesnt feel "disabled" anymore. Yeah he is a doper and the sport really doesnt need him - ban him! Case 2: (2014) : A member of a small club that lives for cycling (arranging small races, running small starter groups - all for free) goes to Cape Town a week early for his annual holiday and Argus. Gets flu. No GP locally. Pharmacist treats him. He does a 3:40 which is his worst time ever. Comes back and finds out he used banned substances. He obviously is bad for cycling and benefitted greatly from doping. Spend money to catch him and ban him. Cheater. Case 3: A man thinks his car is being stolen. He shoots and kills his own daughter. The court considers all facts and does not put him in jail for life. Everybody agrees that this is fair. Life is not black and white.

 

 

its not a grey area. If you're taking something for an ailment then report it. get a Doctors prescription or letter. I did this before the 2008 ACE and didn't have a problem. Part of teh condition of entry is a medical. You have plenty of time to declare everything including chronic medication or even stuff for sinusitis or even a common cold. There is no excuse to getting caught.

Problem is SAFFA's have a K*K FU attitude so let these two twits burn. The rules are clear. If you're ignorant of the rules then where is the grey area? - likely lacking between the ears

 

The more "black or white rules" you apply, the narrower the "grey area" in between them will become!

Do you also believe life is black and white? Should every crime be punished with a life in prison?

Only in theory is this black and white, but practically it's grey.

Can't find it now, but there was a study showing 25% of one manufacturer's supllements were contaminated with illegal substances. Boom, one quarter of fun riders doping. And did you know they make different batches of supplements for pros and the mass market? And no one can guarantee their supplement is clean?

Do you also believe life is black and white? Should every crime be punished with a life in prison?

 

Only in theory is this black and white, but practically it's grey.

 

Can't find it now, but there was a study showing 25% of one manufacturer's supllements were contaminated with illegal substances. Boom, one quarter of fun riders doping. And did you know they make different batches of supplements for pros and the mass market? And no one can guarantee their supplement is clean?

I think Sponser guarantees that their products are clean. Cadence might do the same but I'm not 100% sure.

.....................

 

Only in theory is this black and white, but practically it's grey.

 

..................

I very much agree with you, but I also believe that for the good of cycling we should attempt to narrow down that doping grey area between the black and white. A grey area might well remain forever, but accepting it as a wide open festering wound in the middle of our sports' face is just plain wrong. Applying the rules strictly and consistently to all will contribute to narrowing the uncertainty between right and wrong, that is what I want.

 

I very much agree with you, but I also believe that for the good of cycling we should attempt to narrow down that doping grey area between the black and white. A grey area might well remain forever, but accepting it as a wide open festering wound in the middle of our sports' face is just plain wrong. Applying the rules strictly and consistently to all will contribute to narrowing the uncertainty between right and wrong, that is what I want.

I agree with you completely and don't get me wrong, I'm completely against doping. But you have to be realistic. Obviously steroids and EPO are blatant cheating to get an advantage, but cough syrup or contaminated supplements with some or other obscure element with no performance enhancing capability?

We probably can't have different rules for pros and amateurs, but on the other hand it is difficult to treat them the same and to the same standards. For one it is his job, the other his hobby. The one has a manager and team and resources, the other basically nothing except the internet and the hub.

Most of the over the counter "flu" like symptoms medication are only banned in competition, and then you would need to knock back a whole bottle of Vicks Med Nite the morning of the race to test positive. Have you every tired to cycle drunk?

Amazing how those caught have always got a valid excuse.

It's not excuses, MooToo. It's called reality. Read my posts again.

I would venture that 99% of pros and amateurs have 'doped' or 'cheated' if you want to enforce the rules as strict as it was written.

Why can teams get outside assistance last year, wheel one day and rain jackets the other, when it's against the rules and they know it. Slapped with a small time penalty. Another rule gets broken, life time ban. No consistency.

It's not excuses, MooToo. It's called reality. Read my posts again.

 

I would venture that 99% of pros and amateurs have 'doped' or 'cheated' if you want to enforce the rules as strict as it was written.

 

Why can teams get outside assistance last year, wheel one day and rain jackets the other, when it's against the rules and they know it. Slapped with a small time penalty. Another rule gets broken, life time ban. No consistency.

Are you saying that stealing a loaf of bread is the same as hijacking a armored cash in transit van?

Are you saying that stealing a loaf of bread is the same as hijacking a armored cash in transit van?

Either way it's theft, no sugar coating will change the fact. One by force the another not, still stealing, innit.

Sure, but do you jail both for 5 years?

It's not excuses, MooToo. It's called reality. Read my posts again.

 

I would venture that 99% of pros and amateurs have 'doped' or 'cheated' if you want to enforce the rules as strict as it was written.

 

Why can teams get outside assistance last year, wheel one day and rain jackets the other, when it's against the rules and they know it. Slapped with a small time penalty. Another rule gets broken, life time ban. No consistency.

Perhaps it is up to the cycling "powers that be" (UCI) then to rationalise the banned substance list. A lot of the stuff on there really doesn't seem to be performance enhancing at all, or dangerous. If they can take caffeine off the list (which IS performance enhancing and proved so scientifically), then they can do it for the other red herrings too. That will also create less ambiguity, which can only be good for the sport.

Are you saying that stealing a loaf of bread is the same as hijacking a armored cash in transit van?

Have you read my posts?!

What I'm saying is exactly the opposite in the sense that stealing a loaf is NOT the same as hijacking an armored cash van...

But the Epic is saying that it is exactly the same.

 

Have you read my posts?!

 

What I'm saying is exactly the opposite in the sense that stealing a loaf is NOT the same as hijacking an armored cash van...

 

But the Epic is saying that it is exactly the same.

You were saying that accepting a rain jacket is the same as testing positive for a banned substance when you said that they both should carry the same punishment. I agree that using cough meds and using EPO is different, but the race jacket example cannot feature in the same argument. The race commissar had 2 choices: allow riders to take on extra clothing or neutralize the stage to ensure rider safety.

Again, I'm against taking performance enhancing substances, but even the UCI looks at things like what substance it was, first or second offense, etc. and hands out appropriate punishment. One of the two from the OP's post got three months, the other a year or two? Why does the Epic try to override good common principles and just lay down a blanket life time ban? And how convenient that when the rule came in in 2012 they decided not to do it retroactively?

In my opinion it's more a marketing ploy than actually trying to get rid of dopers. If they feel so strongly about cheating, they should give lufe time bans to everyone breaking the rules of which doping is only one.

You were saying that accepting a rain jacket is the same as testing positive for a banned substance when you said that they both should carry the same punishment. I agree that using cough meds and using EPO is different, but the race jacket example cannot feature in the same argument. The race commissar had 2 choices: allow riders to take on extra clothing or neutralize the stage to ensure rider safety.

You were saying that accepting a rain jacket is the same as testing positive for a banned substance when you said that they both should carry the same punishment. I agree that using cough meds and using EPO is different, but the race jacket example cannot feature in the same argument. The race commissar had 2 choices: allow riders to take on extra clothing or neutralize the stage to ensure rider safety.

A rule is a rule. Of which doping is one. The Epic is

being inconsistent in that breaking one law which could have varying degrees gets one life time ban while the other rules carry different punishments.

...................... Why does the Epic try to override good common principles and just lay down a blanket life time ban? And how convenient that when the rule came in in 2012 they decided not to do it retroactively?

 

In my opinion it's more a marketing ploy than actually trying to get rid of dopers. If they feel so strongly about cheating, they should give lufe time bans to everyone breaking the rules of which doping is only one.

I think it probably is so because the Epic (as a brand) can be damaged very severely by a doping scandal. Less so by other cheating or breaking of rules. If it was my brand, I would also do whatever it takes to protect it. The Tour de France is much bigger and better established and even that can suffer hugely from doping scandals, although it is likely to survive (as Mr Armstrong proved). The Epic is much younger and a lot more likely to be completely killed off by a major doping scandal. I have sympathy for their very hard line stance if seen from this perspective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A rule is a rule. Of which doping is one. The Epic is

being inconsistent in that breaking one law which could have varying degrees gets one life time ban while the other rules carry different punishments.

Sure. Like murder and rape and theft are treated differently. There is a knee jerk about doping and that the amateurs are the martyrs at present. Proposing the same punishment for accepting a jacket on a near sub zero stage (like half of the field did that day) is daft. That said, a lifetime ban for taking cough meds is also not the answer, especially if you are not a pro cyclist. Out of interest, do we know what these 'dopers' tested positive of? The problem with this type of press release is that it creates more uncertainty as no one knows the full story.

This doping stance of the Epic is a pre cursor to it becoming a full pro event the next 5 years. The equation is simple. As soon as the TV rights revenue is high enough the event will go full pro.

Sure. Like murder and rape and theft are treated differently. There is a knee jerk about doping and that the amateurs are the martyrs at present. Proposing the same punishment for accepting a jacket on a near sub zero stage (like half of the field did that day) is daft. That said, a lifetime ban for taking cough meds is also not the answer, especially if you are not a pro cyclist. Out of interest, do we know what these 'dopers' tested positive of? The problem with this type of press release is that it creates more uncertainty as no one knows the full story.

 

This doping stance of the Epic is a pre cursor to it becoming a full pro event the next 5 years. The equation is simple. As soon as the TV rights revenue is high enough the event will go full pro.

The article only said, " SAIDS confirmed this week that the second rider was given a three-month suspension for what Cycling South Africa described last year as an “adverse analytical finding in an in-competition test” in May, 2013."

My gripe is only that they are very selective in enforcing the life time ban. Kevin is very adamant that no cheating is acceptable, but then he focuses only on one rule. If he is so against cheating then any cheating/rule breaking should result in a life time ban according to his own logic (which I think would be wrong).

Hypothetically, if there is a rule that says receiving a wheel from outside is not allowed, and it happens and they still win the Epic even after a time penalty, is it fair? What's the difference then to cheating by taking EPO and winning the Epic? I'm not saying this is what I believe, just sketching a scenario.

This is a storm in a tea cup. If authorities were to enforce antidoping on all levels of sport, then amateur sport would die almost immediately.

From a running perspective, if they did dope control on the bronze medal (and even the back end of silver) at comrades then there would be almost a 70% positive return. But the don't, the focus on the professional runner, the podium finishers.

However, what the Cape Epic is trying to do is to please everyone, they wanting to have an elite UCI event AND a challenging funride as well. This does not mix.

Cyclists must accept that if you enter the Cape Epic you are entering an international UCI sanctioned event, you are now a professional/Elite cyclist. You have to obey the events and the UCI rules. failing to do that makes you a cheat.

So if you enter and cannot do the distance and need a bit of "pick me up" then you are a cheat, fraud and liar. Live with it.

A rule is a rule. Of which doping is one. The Epic is

being inconsistent in that breaking one law which could have varying degrees gets one life time ban while the other rules carry different punishments.

Now you're wanting black and white. Love arguing with yourself don't you.

If is common practice in society to attach a weighting to a crime. A homeless mother stealing a loaf of bread to a feed a hungry child is not the same as a cash in transit van heist. One is a crime of necessity the other of greed. The concept of "reasonableness" comes into the equation.

Doping is considered to be amongst the worst crimes in sport. Therefore sporing bodies are at liberty to attach a different set of incentives to discourage doping up to an including life time bans.

As I have stated before, there are plenty of way for an amateur to declare what medication they have used 6 months prior to the event they intend participating in. Full disclosure never got anyone banned, yet you seem to suggest that it will.

There are plenty of amateurs using EPO in the cycling fraternity and n all facets of sport. its a dirty dangerous practice and should be stamped out. High school kids being pumped with growth hormone so that they can bulk up for rugby results in kids not using being paralysed from the neck down... thats why there should be zero tolerance.

If you have a case of mistaken use then you have the opportunity to present it but les face it, the real cheatshave used every excuse to the hilt and few arbitration committees are going to listen to you tell yourstory retroactively.

Declare up front, and provide documentation including doctors scripts and you'll be standing on solid ground. Without you're rightfully F**ked because you were stupid.

You know the rules, they're the same for everyone participating.