"From a moral point of view, from what cycling is trying to achieve, from what cycling's been through the last few years, for what the Olympics stand for, he should never be able to do the Olympics again."
5 months ago
William H
59 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Oh Please!
David riding clean for how many years already?
Not a strong believer in the second chances, are you Mr. Wiggins?
" I like that Cav got his wins…"
JJY 10/20/11
.
Well said!
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
I think he should be banned and my reasoning is that the rule was in place before his infraction.
The BOA policy was introduced in 1992 and has been in place for the past nine Olympics.
via espn article
It might be trite, but, “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”. I’d feel differently if this was retroactive punishment (sort of like what Italy has proposed, if I recall correctly).
I don't know what a sawbum is
Stephen Farrand posted a link to the video interview the quotes are supposed to come from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cycling/16414621.stm
(Might be geo-restricted to the UK)
Aka Pigeons!
I don't get his denials, because it's pretty clear from the vid
it’s clear what he said in the article was what he said!
(Apologies, the link in fanshot gives the vid, I’m not v bright today!)
Aka Pigeons!
by Sarah Connolly on Jan 4, 2012 12:56 PM EST up reply actions
I'd say that the headline is wrong
Based on everything he said, it sounds more like his view is “I don’t know”.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Jan 4, 2012 1:41 PM EST up reply actions
This
From a selfish POV, he wants him in the road race to help Cavendish.
Then he says “From a moral point of view, from what cycling is trying to achieve, from what cycling’s been through the last few years, for what the Olympics stand for, he should never be able to do the Olympics again.”
And immediately follows that up with I’m conflicted, I don’t have an opinion. Then he rambles for a minute about how there’s so much stuff going on that he used to worry himself sick over—now he just worries about himself.
The headline is misleading.
\V/ for Villanova
by dees ees en drama on Jan 4, 2012 3:35 PM EST up reply actions
I definitely got the impression that if Wiggins was writing the rules, Millar wouldn't be riding the olympics
IIRC previously, he’s supported lifetime bans from everything, not just the olympics.
But he doesn’t write the rules, so he doesn’t want to get involved.
um
was Millar a candidate for the team? ITT I suppose. Or Cav’s leadout. But he’s hardly indispensible, and rules are rules. It seems like a shame, but can you imagine if we started going back on rules because “he seems like he learned his lesson”? I can assure you, this is shaky parenting.
De cross gaat out that door.
by Chris Fontecchio on Jan 4, 2012 4:33 PM EST reply actions
It is an issue because
WADA said that the lifetime ban is non-compliant with the anti-doping rules. Then the British Olympic Association appealed to CAS, BOA wants to keep the rule.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Jan 4, 2012 4:50 PM EST up reply actions
BOA ban has been around for about 9 years or so, IIRC
WADA say it’s unfair cos it’s harsher in GB than other places – BOA says it’s been well publicised, if Brits chose to dope, they knew the penalties
Aka Pigeons!
by Sarah Connolly on Jan 4, 2012 5:52 PM EST up reply actions
ah
OK. But I don’t fully understand why WADA is against this.
De cross gaat out that door.
by Chris Fontecchio on Jan 4, 2012 5:59 PM EST up reply actions
Cause, maybe they concern about their job security? :)
Yeah, Right! We all wish!
" I like that Cav got his wins…"
JJY 10/20/11
.
They exist to harmonise the anti-doping system
people making up their own punishments messes with that. I think they feel that if they allow them to add new punishments, then they start being able to subtract them. As well as the risk of the French deciding by themselves that Contador can’t ride, or that Valverde needs to sit out an extra couple of years.
Yeah
but country A punishing a rider from country B is problematic. Country A giving its own rider a license but not an Olympic spot seems like a much more reasonable choice on their part. WADA should be able to accept the latter.
De cross gaat out that door.
by Chris Fontecchio on Jan 4, 2012 8:17 PM EST up reply actions
For The Code to work fully it's important that the rules are the same for everyone
Harsher penalties in one country are as detrimental as laxer penalties in one country. Equal consequences for equal crimes is the whole basis of the system.
Therein lies the debate about whether it is an additional sanction or a selection issue
BOC byelaw passed 1992, Millar cheats in 2001 & 3, it catches up with him in June 04 and banned Aug 2004, and by virtue of that becomes ineligible for nomination to the Olympics. (Chambers, the other much named affected athlete in the UK cheated and banned 2003).
WADA code comes into being 2004, only properly in force by Oct 05.
BOC deemed compliant, regardless of the rule, for many years until the game changing decision this year on Merritt
One one side, it is a selection issue, they got what was coming to them as per the rules in operation at the time – not necessarily that hard done by, the consequences by then had been known for a decade, and these days there is practically no UK athlete still competing that hasn’t known about the byelaw their whole sporting career.
Also may still be determined it is a selection issue by CAS (which an individual OC has a much better chance of winning than the IOC as a whole).and be deemed compliant once more.
On the other side it is a sanction, all countries should be the same re punishments, it hampers the anti doping effort by dissuading people to take advantage of the rule to reduce their ban by sharing info etc (main reason UK Anti-Doping disagrees with BOC position and why it cosigned an amicus curia brief in the Merritt case).
This
I’m having trouble seeing Olympic exclusion as the equivalent of a suspension. He’s allowed to race for his trade team with no restriction. I agree, we need standardized sanctions. I just think national team selection is a more discretionary matter. Hope that doesn’t sound too inconsistent of me.
De cross gaat out that door.
by Chris Fontecchio on Jan 5, 2012 4:00 AM EST up reply actions
Frankly I do to
I would put it on par with any other Olympic selection criteria (participation is not a right in my book but a privilege) but the general consensus seems to be that it it simply an extension of a doping ban so I see why WADA would have a problem.
end up in much the same place also
an Olympic wide decision probably does need a rule change etc and vieable as a sanction, individual OC more of a selection issue per se. BOC selects the team nothing more, UKAD the anti-doping body for all sports in the UK and they are compliant, so the sanctions are issued as per the code and all rules in force and abided by.
It must be particularly galling, though, for any national fed/body to be told they have to scale BACK their sanctions!
I think one of BOA’s points is that getting to represent the country in the Olympics is an honour not a right. It’s not a career-breaker, it’s saying what kind of person they want to represent the country. I don’t know what it’s like in other countries, but that kind of thing happens across sports in the UK, eg the recent banning of rugby players from playing for England because of drunken off-pitch behaviour.
Aka Pigeons!
by Sarah Connolly on Jan 5, 2012 8:03 AM EST up reply actions
So, if a team, Sky say, says outright "we're not hiring ex-dopers"...
… you think WADA should step in to make sure the rules are the same for everyone? I know there are issues about discrimination (for instance, I’d feel uneasy if the Katyusha, for instance, said explicitly ’we’re not hiring black people’), but you also have to consider the rights of the people creating the team. There’s nothing wrong, it seems to me, with not wanting to be represented by known cheats. Teams, including national teams, are allowed to exclude people for, say, non-doping-related criminality, or inappropriate public behaviour, or arguments with the coaches and team management, or whatever. How can it be sane to have a situation where we say: “dwarf-tossing? out of the team! having an affair with a teammate’s wife? out of the team! punching the coach? out of the team! denying the holocaust? out of the team! exposing yourself in public? out of the team! defrauded pensioners? out of the team! What, oh, you’ve been taking performance-enhancing drugs? Well then, I guess you’re guarenteed a place (no matter what else you do)!”
He's harder to do without when Thomas, Kennaugh and Swift may be riding Team Pursuit
And Wiggins would rather not kill himself with a crazy effort like at the Worlds before the TT.
Our leadout options with them out start looking either distinctly old – Hammond or Hunt – or very young and inexperienced for such a long event
Maybe I am old-fashioned (OK, no maybe about it), but...
In my world, if you say, “The selfish point of view is A, but the moral point of view is B,” you are implicitly coming down in favor of B.
Not that I necessarily agree with Wiggins’s B, but if he thinks that’s the moral point of view, it’s disappointing that he’s reluctant to own it.
Start fast, finish fast, and hope you're fast enough-- Cadel Evans
Agree. You're . . . uhm . . . how's this? . . . Old School.
Wiggins remarks caught my attention as well. Morality is kind of like a zombie in the public culture of the West. It appears to be dead, but yet it doesn’t seem you can kill it or escape it. Now, If you truly think X is morally right or wrong, you say X is “appropriate” or “inappropriate”, as if it were a matter of etiquette. Now, more and more people, like Wiggins apparently, use the term “moral” to refer to what would be nice, or what is supererogatory.
Morality is not kind of like a zombie in the public culture.
It is in fact transient to the culture, region, and ethnicities of the moment.
In this day in age where cultures and ethnicities are blending now more then ever, what is defined as ‘moral’ seems to be shifting faster then in the past.
What would Deming do? (+8:00 GMT)
I understand you point...
… but, being charitable to Wiggins, what he may have meant by “moral” might have been “prima facie moral in an ideal world”, contrasted with “pragmatically for the best, all things considered”.
Is not Wiggins saying
that it is prima facia moral in this world that Millar should not be able to compete? Anyway, that’s the way I read it.
"for what the Olympics stand for"
What would that be? Payola for the site selection committee from cities all over the world, along with lots of free travel and other perks? Big time money for the Olympics themselves and local businesses? Huge television revenues and spectacular ad campaigns? Chicken feed for the athletes taking part in a jingoistic exercise in warped nationalism?
Yeah
It has degenerated beyond all recognition, for me, too. Hardly watched anything in 2008 or 2010.
"Beer helps." -- Ant1.
i still like watching them though
i don’t buy the hype but i just like watching sporting events – the coverage in france is really good too.
here
The competitions can still be great, but the “Olympic movement” is a quaint memory. I mean, for god’s sake, George Steinbrenner was in charge of the USOC once.
De cross gaat out that door.
by Chris Fontecchio on Jan 5, 2012 4:02 AM EST up reply actions
the lost drug samples at the LA Olympics is one of the most under-reported sports scandals ever
Women sprinters seem less muscular these days.
moo
That caused a real hullabaloo in Oz... 'our' girls against those 'monsters'.
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
Oh dear
I was 18, and 100% oblivious…
De cross gaat out that door.
by Chris Fontecchio on Jan 5, 2012 4:31 PM EST up reply actions
I must admit, it wasn't front and centre in my life at the time either,
but it was actually around that time that I and many other Australians probably became aware that athletes
enhanced their performances, albeit that for some it was government approved.
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
plus tons of doping
among the athletes and olympic committees in each country all looking the other way.
my head hurts
De cross gaat out that door.
by Chris Fontecchio on Jan 5, 2012 4:02 AM EST up reply actions
That one is mine! Hands off.
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
Meh
My head gets colder in my office than it does lugging myself up a hill on a pair of oversized plastic noodles. But then, in the Northwest, we really, really don’t know cold.
De cross gaat out that door.
by Chris Fontecchio on Jan 5, 2012 4:33 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Podium Cafe
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Celebrate the Giro d'Italia at Podium Cafe!
Check our Giro Section for race updates, on-the-scene reports, and other hijinx.
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
