- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Chris Boardman (copyright Simon MacMichael).jpgChris Boardman calls for one year bans for teams whose riders are caught doping
Chris Boardman has called for WorldTour teams to be banned from the sport for a year if any of their riders test positive for performance enhancing drugs. He also described the UCI as a mess and was equally scathing about its president, Pat McQuaid.
Speaking exclusively to road.cc in London today, Boardman said the evidence gathered by the USADA of organised and sustained doping surrounding Lance Armstrong was "a massive blow for cycling, just when things have been so positive following on from the lovely summer of sport at the Olympics and Brad winning the Tour."
He also called on cycling's law makers to seize the opportunity presented by the Armstrong scandal to push through tough measures - statements of intent aren't enough to restore credibility," he said.
"Personally I've always been in favour of life bans, but they are very hard to enforce. I really believe in the concept of making the risk greater than than the reward. For cycling to become credible whatever comes next has to have proper teeth."
Boardman's solution is an immediate one year ban for any WorldTour team if one of its riders tests positive.
"You have a single positive and you're out for a year.
"The implications of that are huge. The sponsor is going to have a clause in the contract and the team will have contract with the rider saying 'if you're caught for doping you're going to be penniless.' So the rider's got no incentive to do it, the team's got no incentive to do it. The sponsor is going to police the team, and everybody self polices.
"The penalties are so harsh for everybody in the chain. and that's the kind of thing when you've got the ProTour and it belongs to you, it's the kind of harsh measure you can push through."
Boardman believes that this moment of weakness for the sport caused by the Armstrong revelations is exactly the time when the UCI could get teams to sign up to the sort of strong measures they would usually shy away from.
However whether the current leadership commands the authority within the sport to push through such changes remains in doubt. Amongst the evidence compiled by USADA in its case against Armstrong were details of payments from the rider of $125,000 to cycling's governing body, mot of which the UCI later spent on a blood analysis machine.
Amongst the rider testimony given to USADA were claims that the UCI leadership covered up a suspect test for EPO.
Boardman was equally trenchant on the subject of the UCI, describing cycling's world governing body as "a mess" and while he fell just short of saying that the UCI president, Pat McQuaid should resign, the implication was clear - the Irishman's time is up as the head of world cycling - or it should be.
"There has to be a world governing body, and it's the UCI. It’s a mess right now and how we fix it I don't know, but in most companies when things go badly wrong, people are so emotional about it. They need to see some change and generally the person who leads it resigns,” Boardman told road.cc.
Pressed on whether he was saying that McQuaid should go, Boardman responded:
"Pat McQuaid staying in his position after this… it doesn't give you a great deal of credibility."
road.cc's founder and first editor, nowadays to be found riding a spreadsheet. Tony's journey in cycling media started in 1997 as production editor and then deputy editor of Total Bike, acting editor of Total Mountain Bike and then seven years as editor of Cycling Plus. He launched his first cycling website - the Cycling Plus Forum at the turn of the century. In 2006 he left C+ to head up the launch team for Bike Radar which he edited until 2008, when he co-launched the multi-award winning road.cc - finally handing on the reins in 2021 to Jack Sexty. His favourite ride is his ‘commute’ - which he does most days inc weekends and he’s been cycle-commuting since 1994. His favourite bikes are titanium and have disc brakes, though he'd like to own a carbon bike one day.
Latest Comments
- levestane 3 sec ago
Three time less means one third of (divide by 3)? Would need a subtraction to go negative?
- FionaJJ 54 min 57 sec ago
Just yesterday I saw a driver (in 4x4) take a slightly sharper corner at speed, very tight to the kerb. In this place there's a high wall parallel...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 19 min ago
Apologies - you're quite right! Something about presentation and comprehension...
- wtjs 1 hour 40 min ago
You can find out whether they're lying about 'taking action' by asking them what they actually did. When they refuse to tell you, citing various...
- chrisonabike 6 hours 25 min ago
Also don't forget - Sustrans are a charity *....
- chrisonabike 6 hours 36 min ago
Yes ... but (just due to the large numbers of people affected) this likely would only proceed in the UK at a very ... cautious ... pace....
- EK Spinner 6 hours 54 min ago
Arsehole in the van not with standing, how did they manage to get a risk assessment allowing a race (a group not a TT) group to be competing on ...
- RafaDy 6 hours 49 min ago
I think reviewer completely missed the point here trying to match bike's name with what it can do. Ribble is namin git's bike weirdly, the...
- Moist von Lipwig 10 hours 15 min ago
Bit of googling gone wrong in the article - the JAT is the Junction Assessment Tool, the Joint Approval Team appears to be a coutner terrorism...
Add new comment
42 comments
To be fair he's probably been asked about nothing else for weeks. I don't think someone in his position as one of the highest profile cycling "celebs" in the wider media would get away with not having an opinion on doping.
Thats a fair point - I think my gripe is that he never spoke out before.
I take SimonE's point that he had a lot to lose is valid but that was the whole problem of the Ometra. He's doing alright out of his bike range, commentating gigs and BC job so why rock the boat?
Bearing in mind the *worst* thing that could happen is he's ostracised from cycling and has to get a real job like the rest of us I think more could have been expected of him in the past.
It's not realistic. If sponsors are exposed to that level of risk and are expected to actively police the team then they'll just walk away.
Sounds good, but all you'd need is one going nowhere domestique with little to lose to take a punt and the whole team goes down....not sure about the fairness of that.
I think its collective responsibility that Chris is talking about rather than collective punishment - and to be fair it is something that he has been talking about for a few years.
The idea is that it removes the incentive to dope because as he says the risk outweighs the reward - maybe a refinement of it could be that if a rider tested positive the team's sponsorship contracts would be considered broken and instead of a ban the team would be forced to ride in plain kit for a year - even if the sponsors wanted to continue to have their logos on the team strip. So the clean riders would then at least be able to keep racing.
OR, if a team was banned for a year, the riders could break their contract if they wanted to and other teams would be allowed to sign them whatever time of year it was.
It's probably the best way to progress at the moment. The system puts all the responsibility on the rider, the team has no incentive to check the rider is clean. OK they lose a rider but sure as hell there is another waiting in the wings - unless you're Saxo Bank.
If a team could show that they took all possible precautions against the rider taking PEDs then that could be mitigation but not release from all responsibility, perhaps leaving a fine or banning from the next race.
Sponsors also have to look at themselves. Teams are under pressure to get results, the sponsors want exposure but no risk. They have to encourage the teams they sponsor, through contracts, to prevent doping. Partly through long term deals that mean the teams don't feel pressured to get results at certain races and also through administration and organisation which it seems so many teams really lack.
Finally the UCI points that go with riders has to stop, it is just making the matter worse.
I can see this working. Clean riders could insist on clauses in their contracts that made them liable to compensation and the right to break their contract for free if a team was disqualified. Festina, UPS etc where team organised doping efforts not just individuals doping.
I would also make anyone who is caught doping have to wear something on their team kit when they that return after serving their ban.
This would be some symbol or a particular colour that indicates that they have doped in the past. I would imagine that most sponsors would not want their logo or name associated with such identification and would probably request the team sack the rider or risk losing their sponsorship.
In effect that would be a lifetime ban without it being an official ban. There may be some sponsors who would not be too bothered by being associated with previous dopers but i don't think it would be too many.
It might help reinforce this collective responsibility if there is a threat to the team's existence if one person is caught doping as well as stopping a team from hiring previous dopers.
Just a thought.
I agree with some harsh penalties, but to say a year's ban for the team is a bit OTT when some cases the team knew nothing about it.
Just look at the Steve Houanard incident, He used EPO off his own back to try and gain a contract after being told he was not getting another from AG2R
Agreed, it's harsh, especially where teams are oblivious. As ever, it's not black and white. It never is. It's same with banning ex-dopers from running teams. It all sounds so good when you're talking about Vino or Ekimov but when you talk about Vaughters it's different.
Perhaps, where a rider is caught doping the major races have the option of not letting a team compete in their race thus voiding the automatic entry from the World Tour license? That way, it's discretionary on behalf of the race so where a team can prove innocence or they take the correct action quickly ASO might let the team compete in the following TdF but where a team can't prove they were unknowing or where there's been a few positives over the years the race can say no, sorry, you're not competing in my race next year.
That has the same effect with teams losing out and sponsors potentially pulling the plug without effectively closing the team down.
Wrote to Chris Prudhomme , 17th oct ( tourdafrance.blogspot ) recommending that he take the initiative at this year's presentation of the 100th edition of " Le tour "! ASO were recommended to " Choose " which Teams they invite , BY a demand that ALL Racers and Support Staff , issue a personal declaration that they do not indulge or encourage PED Products !
What clearer evidence is needed to BAN for Life , any that contravene their " Self admitted Pledge "? Anyone in Cycling that does not wish to work at the ASO Events , can find some excuse , to avoid offering their " Pledge of Honesty "!
Chris was also asked to consider " Vacating Results " for the period 1990 to 2012 , since these are the " EPO Era " and thus 2013 would be the START of the period that Each Athlete is personnaly , and Team Support Staff also , are liable to Draconian Punishments !
Though it seems that CB is jumping on the band wagon he has some very valid points and are definately worth looking at (take note UCI!).
If one person in a WorldTour team wants to jeopardise everyone else's livelyhood then they must have balls the size of whatever.
Pages