# Airing our dirty laundry in public



## omg (Jun 11, 2014)

Your name here — improving sponsorship opportunities in pro cycling￼￼ - VeloNews.com

A thought occurred to me that maybe it isnt best to be so public about doping violations in this sport. I'm all for stiff penalties, and even stiffer penalties that we currently have. Hell, ban someone for life if they dope, but it may not be the best thing for the sport as a whole to air that dirty laundry as publicly as possible. Idk, just a thought. 

It almost seems like now a days, the press can make more $$ off of cycling doping stores than real stories about the sport, and that is a bad place to be. 

I'm sure there are downsides, but if someone tests positive, have them announce that they are retiring from the sport for life? I can see how that may leave more room for corruption, but what price are we paying to air our dirty laundry out in public?

When a rider dopes and gets caught, they hurt themselves and the rest of the sport as well. I'm just saying, why not shift all of the "hurt" to the rider and try to keep cycling as a whole out of it?


----------



## omg (Jun 11, 2014)

Put another way. Let's say your an investor. Company a deals with its issues internally. Someone screws up, fire him. Company b: anytime a bad actor does something wrong, everybody immediately goes to the press about it. 
In this scenario, which company would you put your money behind? 
The scenario gets worse. Let's say your warren buffet and everybody will know your a major investor. To make matters worse, anytime some bad actor does something bad the negative headlines include your name since you back that company. 

There will be snakes in any field of grass, which company do you invest in?


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

omg said:


> I'm just saying, why not shift all of the "hurt" to the rider and try to keep cycling as a whole out of it?


Right shift the hurt to the rider so they become an expendable commodity that teams and sponsors can exploit and then discard when they test positive and even better it will be kept under wraps. Read up we already did that and it didn't work.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

We tried ignoring the issue and keeping it quite.....made the problem worse.


----------



## jspharmd (May 24, 2006)

This is an interesting thread, with interesting comments. I'm not a student of cycling history and thus only know about doping issues since maybe 2000. Something that I struggle with is that other sports manage to do what omg is saying. How can we have a ton of roided up football players running around and no steroid scandals in football? Even more interesting is that the players aren't going so crazy with PED that they are falling over dead (well maybe a few here and there). So, why has cycling been plagued with these issues?


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

jspharmd said:


> This is an interesting thread, with interesting comments. I'm not a student of cycling history and thus only know about doping issues since maybe 2000. Something that I struggle with is that other sports manage to do what omg is saying. How can we have a ton of roided up football players running around and no steroid scandals in football? Even more interesting is that the players aren't going so crazy with PED that they are falling over dead (well maybe a few here and there). *So, why has cycling been plagued with these issues?*


Money, plain and simple. 

As you said, other sports have these issues as well. Cycling unfortunately, is very minor-leagues when compared to the likes of tennis, soccer, NFL, MLB, hell even track and field. 

So after a major bust like Puerto in 2006 we publicly see names like Basso, Ulrich, Valverde being paraded in front of the public, but not from other sports.
Players names from Real Madrid were never mentioned. No tennis pros were ever mentioned either. Why? I think because no one really has the stomach or the resources to mess around with powerful organizations like UEFA/FIFA or pro tennis.


----------



## omg (Jun 11, 2014)

Nobody is proposing to ignore the problem... 

Read the thread on velonews about the team sky rider. A rider cheats and the sponsors name gets dragged into it all over the article and even in the headline... seriously, why would anybody want to sponsor this sport?? Something like that would NEVER happen in any other sport. 

"Adidas sponsored athlete XYZ tests positive" -I think not. Only in cycling.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

32and3cross said:


> Right shift the hurt to the rider so they become an expendable commodity that teams and sponsors can exploit and then discard when they test positive and even better it will be kept under wraps. Read up we already did that and it didn't work.


I'm pretty old and don't remember when riders caught using PEDs were automatically given lifetime bans from the sport. Perhaps you will enlighten us as to where we can "read up".

The thing about life is that we get to choose the path we take. When we decide to take the easy route to success (cheating), we also choose to become expendable. If our employer is caught forcing us to cheat, a lifetime ban is in order for them as well.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

SwiftSolo said:


> I'm pretty old and don't remember when riders caught using PEDs were automatically given lifetime bans from the sport. Perhaps you will enlighten us as to where we can "read up".
> 
> The thing about life is that we get to choose the path we take. When we decide to take the easy route to success (cheating), we also choose to become expendable. If our employer is caught forcing us to cheat, a lifetime ban is in order for them as well.


Lifetime ban no,... made the scapegoats for the system yes and if you can't see that there is no helping you.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

It's never a good thing to hide or keep things under wraps or keep it hush-hush and hope that will bring in sponsors.

Cycling has always been a fringe sport, and hence a small audience reach. So because of this, it's very easy for sponsors to cut ties with cycling and not lose much of an audience reach that was fringe to begin with. And even without doping, sponsors in cyclings are just not as committed like Puma to soccer, or Nike to NFL and the NBA, or Penzoil and Castrol to motorsport racing.

The article mentions this about Belkin:



> The Belkin squad, which took over from Rabobank, has demanded that all members of the team commit to a pledge of zero tolerance as part of its sponsorship agreement with the team.
> 
> ...<snipped>...
> 
> ...


Belkin has pulled out. As you can see, the commitment from sponsors can be shaky even without doping issue.

One thing is for sure. Recreational cycling and amateur cycling is *globally* more popular now than it ever has been. Even in the US, the Armstrong scandal had zero effect on the continued rise of recreational cycling. So it does seem like there is a discordance between the global popularity of cycling and the ability of pro cycling teams to pull in sponsorships. 

But perhaps we (the US and Europe) are being a bit _self-centric_ when we lament about the sponsorship problem in World Tour cycling. I've been to many parts of Asia (eg, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Korea) and find that the cycling communities over there are more grassrooted, but much more expansive than in the West, and they are not at all remotely preoccupied with the issues surrounding World Tour cycling.


----------



## nsfbr (May 23, 2014)

My view is that sunlight is always the best method to address corruption. Doping is a form of corruption and should be viewed that way. The problem with keeping it hush hush is that you are positing that you are not willing to take the short term hit that exposing the problem may cause, and that gives the bad actors leverage. 

One way to really crush doping in team sports like cycling is to make the team pay the penalty of any infraction. Someone on the team fails a test in the TDF, the entire team is out of the race. Two infractions, the entire team is out for a year. The ban follows the people, not just the team. I'm pretty sure that would take care of things.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

nsfbr said:


> My view is that sunlight is always the best method to address corruption. Doping is a form of corruption and should be viewed that way. The problem with keeping it hush hush is that you are positing that you are not willing to take the short term hit that exposing the problem may cause, and that gives the bad actors leverage.
> 
> One way to really crush doping in team sports like cycling is to make the team pay the penalty of any infraction. Someone on the team fails a test in the TDF, the entire team is out of the race. Two infractions, the entire team is out for a year. The ban follows the people, not just the team. I'm pretty sure that would take care of things.



As much as I want to crush doping what you discribed would do nothing but destroy the sport. Its hard enough to get sponsors now the idea that they could put money in and have a rider screw the entire organization (including all the staff that would be out of a job) would have most sponsors walking away. 

Its not such an easy question to answer.


----------



## nsfbr (May 23, 2014)

32and3cross said:


> As much as I want to crush doping what you discribed would do nothing but destroy the sport. Its hard enough to get sponsors now the idea that they could put money in and have a rider screw the entire organization (including all the staff that would be out of a job) would have most sponsors walking away.
> 
> Its not such an easy question to answer.


I don't follow your logic. If I am a sponsor, the thing I want is credibility. Credibility is gained by showing that you've decided to stop with the bullshit. Dropping the nuclear bomb on the entire organization connected with a doping incident is the only way I see to really do that. You have to create the greatest possible incentive for teams to be the policing organization. The sponsors would, very obviously, put draconian terms in the contract with the teams, and with the individuals on the teams. You dope, and are ever found out, we are coming after you for any and all direct and indirect damages to our brand. The message being that you dope, when you get caught, your life financially is over. 

So, the point is, when that all happens and is made very public, do you think the public perception is that this is a sport that may still have a problem? Or do you think the public perception is that this is a sport that has finally dealt with the problem once and for all. My view is that it is the latter. I'm not sure I understand why you think the opposite.

And lastly, if I'm a sponsor, I want to be associated with a sport that has finally gotten serious about putting an end to the problem, for sure, for good. If I'm a sponsor, I work with the other sponsors and spread the word that this is what we are doing as a sport. That is, market the fix. Sell it. They know how to sell. Make them part of the solution. My $.02


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

nsfbr said:


> My view is that sunlight is always the best method to address corruption. Doping is a form of corruption and should be viewed that way.


:thumbsup:

this


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

nsfbr said:


> My view is that sunlight is always the best method to address corruption. Doping is a form of corruption and should be viewed that way. The problem with keeping it hush hush is that you are positing that you are not willing to take the short term hit that exposing the problem may cause, and that gives the bad actors leverage.


Said perfectly. +1


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

nsfbr said:


> I don't follow your logic. If I am a sponsor, the thing I want is credibility. Credibility is gained by showing that you've decided to stop with the bullshit. Dropping the nuclear bomb on the entire organization connected with a doping incident is the only way I see to really do that. You have to create the greatest possible incentive for teams to be the policing organization. The sponsors would, very obviously, put draconian terms in the contract with the teams, and with the individuals on the teams. You dope, and are ever found out, we are coming after you for any and all direct and indirect damages to our brand. The message being that you dope, when you get caught, your life financially is over.
> 
> So, the point is, when that all happens and is made very public, do you think the public perception is that this is a sport that may still have a problem? Or do you think the public perception is that this is a sport that has finally dealt with the problem once and for all. My view is that it is the latter. I'm not sure I understand why you think the opposite.
> 
> And lastly, if I'm a sponsor, I want to be associated with a sport that has finally gotten serious about putting an end to the problem, for sure, for good. If I'm a sponsor, I work with the other sponsors and spread the word that this is what we are doing as a sport. That is, market the fix. Sell it. They know how to sell. Make them part of the solution. My $.02



Great please invest your money in a team, Im telling you right now that sponsors don't think that way its ROI and having the risk that a rider getting popped meaning that your entire investment goes away will make most sponsors looks for another place to advertise.


----------



## omg (Jun 11, 2014)

32and3cross said:


> Great please invest your money in a team, Im telling you right now that sponsors don't think that way its ROI and having the risk that a rider getting popped meaning that your entire investment goes away will make most sponsors looks for another place to advertise.


Exactly. You really think that the sponsors are going around putting clauses in contracts or ordering people to dope?? I'm sorry, but I think we need to understand the actual definition of corruption here. Corruption involves more than one person. It takes one person to dope. Yes, there can be more than one person on the team/organization involved, but in no way shape or form does doping imply corruption. 

Even if the team itself is behind the doping, do we really need to drag the sponsors name through the mud? I could see it if the sponsor was involved with the doping / cover up, but outside of that, leave the sponsors name out of it.

No matter where you stand on the airing the dirty laundry publicly coin, can we all at least agree its dumb to drag the sponsors name through the mud whenever someone they, on good faith, supported does something wrong?


----------



## omg (Jun 11, 2014)

Bluenote said:


> Said perfectly. +1


Its ignorant to assume that people will ever stop cheating. There will always be bad actors. By that logic if we put tax cheats in the news along with their employer who had nothing do with the cheating, we could stop tax cheats... I think not.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Rather than a race to the bottom let's see if other sports can up their testing.


----------



## nsfbr (May 23, 2014)

omg said:


> Its ignorant to assume that people will ever stop cheating. There will always be bad actors. By that logic if we put tax cheats in the news along with their employer who had nothing do with the cheating, we could stop tax cheats... I think not.


You conflate two totally different things. 

Tax cheats do not get ahead on the basis of their cheating, nor is the point simply the exposure. 

Dopers undermine the entire sport, both in the public eye and by attempting (and succeeding until caught) to gain an unfair advantage. Cycling is a team sport, so at some level teams have a perverse incentive to ignore, if not actively encourage, doping by their members. Therefore, the logical way to fight doping is not to JUST impact the individual doper, as at some level they could be viewed as expendable, but to focus on the teams as well. 

It seems to have been lost that the use of the sponsors is as a club, not as a victim. Do you think USPS is happy about Armstrong? No, I don't think so. And while Armstrong is one of the rare cases where the individual is the team and vice versa, in most cases the stronger participant is the team. 

So, the proper analogy would be what should have been done wrt the banking meltdown that put the US into the biggest recession since the great depression. No one has really been held accountable, and as a result it will all happen again. However, liquidating the assets of one or more of the bad actors and putting CEOs and other company officers in jail for a decade would pretty much assure that things changed. Again and to be clear, the important thing is the club, both at the individual and organizational level. And in the case of the banks, the "sponsor" is the institutional investors who would be unwilling to risk their portfolios and would be the drivers of the change.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

MG537 said:


> As you said, other sports have these issues as well. Cycling unfortunately, is very minor-leagues when compared to the likes of tennis, soccer, NFL, MLB, hell even track and field.


Speaking of the NFL, and how rampant steroid/HGH use is, I have to share this. Some here may know that my daytime gig is criminal defense. One of the big news stories in this part of the world is that a former starting tight end for the NE Patriots, Aaron Hernandez, is now in jail awaiting trial for several murders. One of the cases is in the county where I practice, and as it happened, he had a court date yesterday (with a room full of media present) and I had a case on in the courtroom next door. After my case was resolved, I was in the holding cell adjacent to both courtrooms, when a court officer escorted Hernandez in from his courtroom. They were making small talk, while I was standing like 3' away. This was a guy whose playing weight was something like 250-260 pounds. Guy's been in jail now for just over a year, and I have to say, I'd be shocked if he went more than 185-190 right now. Since the press reports every little detail about the case, and the sheriff in charge of the jail holds regular press conferences explaining how "fairly" he's being treated behind bars, I don't think that he's been on any hunger strikes. :wink:


----------



## omg (Jun 11, 2014)

nsfbr said:


> Tax cheats do not get ahead on the basis of their cheating


LOL, try agian.


----------



## nsfbr (May 23, 2014)

omg said:


> LOL, try agian.


Okay, since you seem unable to understand what I meant. 

Cheating on one's taxes is not the thing that allows one to have a competitive advantage in a field of endeavor. Cheating on one's taxes allows one to keep more of whatever one obtains. That is fundamentally different from doping, where others are directly harmed due to an unfair competitive advantage gained by the act of doping.

Is that clear enough for you or are you being intentionally thick here?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

nsfbr said:


> Okay, since you seem unable to understand what I meant.
> 
> Cheating on one's taxes is not the thing that allows one to have a competitive advantage in a field of endeavor. Cheating on one's taxes allows one to keep more of whatever one obtains. That is fundamentally different from doping, where others are directly harmed due to an unfair competitive advantage gained by the act of doping.
> 
> Is that clear enough for you or are you being intentionally thick here?


I don't know about that. 

If a business cheats on its taxes and is able to reinvest the increased profit margin for some competitive advantage, maybe better R&D or marketing, then they are harming their honest competitors.


----------



## omg (Jun 11, 2014)

I guess having more money isn't desirable or an advantage. Also, since tax money is simply used to fill up creeks and rivers with dollar bills... having less tax revenue won't cause everybody to have less or lower government services such as roads (forums.ROADbikereview.com, ever wonder where roads come from? Hint: it's not the asphalt fairy), schools, infrastructure, defense, etc, etc, etc, etc.

So... lol, try again...again


----------



## Winn (Feb 15, 2013)

omg said:


> ... Hint: it's not the asphalt fairy...


Wait there's no asphalt fairy? What's next...


----------



## omg (Jun 11, 2014)

Winn said:


> Wait there's no asphalt fairy? What's next...


im sorry if i literally blow your mind but....

there is no spoon...


----------



## omg (Jun 11, 2014)

Local Hero said:


> I don't know about that.
> 
> If a business cheats on its taxes and is able to reinvest the increased profit margin for some competitive advantage, maybe better R&D or marketing, then they are harming their honest competitors.


OR more simply, the cheat csn slash his prices while still making the same profit, driving everybody else out of business.


----------

