8 ms·

> promoting bike brands and riding bikes provided by their sponsors Therein lies an answer - change the disincentives - instead of banning cheating riders, ban

> promoting bike brands and riding bikes provided by their sponsors Therein lies an answer - change the disincentives - instead of banning cheating riders, ban all of the sponsors of those riders for a time. Now the onus is on the sponsors to discourage cheating.

kelseyfrog 2y ago
I don't know much about sponsorship. How would a sponsor be banned? What sort of activities or relations would be off-limits during a ban?
- floam 2y ago
  I imagine they would be unable to sponsor participants in that organization for a time, and their name would be dishonored.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
  Maybe it's a bit circular but the organizers could disqualify the racers being sponsored which would mean either the banned sponsor doesn't sponsor anyone or it's done under wraps. The latter would defeat the advertising purpose the sponsor would have for the sponsorship.
- labcomputer 2y ago
  You wouldn’t ban a sponsor, but a team. People typically refer to a cycling team by a sponsor’s name, but teams can (and do) change sponsors from season to season (or sometimes even within a season like “Jumbo Visma” -> “Visma Lease a Bike” did this year between the Giro and the Tour). Jumbo Visma is the same team as Visma Lease a Bike. They have the same riders, managers, athletic director, staff, etc. Just a different name on the jersey. As for how a team is banned: you simply ban them. In most of cycling you need to be a member of a team (professional) or club (amateur) to even enter a race. Your racing license will name your team/club. If your team is banned you may not register for the race. Also, at the World Tour professional level, your team would have several cars driving within the race to support riders with food, bottles, and mechanical assistance. Since the race will be on a closed course, only official vehicles can drive with the riders. Even if started the race, you would be at a serious disadvantage to race with no team support.
  - kelseyfrog 2y ago
    How does it work now? Are teams banned if caught cheating?
    - labcomputer 2y ago
      They can be. For example, Team Astana’s license was initially not renewed for 2007 following a doping scandal. Unfortunately, the UCI usually reissues the license if the team pinky promises not to dope again. Team Astana signed Lance Armstrong in 2009 and we all know how that went.
  - roelschroeven 2y ago
    (Just an aside, doesn't invalidate any of your reasoning) The name change from Jumbo Visma to Visma | Lease a Bike didn't happen between the Giro and the Tour, it was a lot earlier. I would say, but I'm not 100% certain of this, that the name change happened between the 2023 and 2024 seasons. I think teams have to register their name with the UCI, and can't change it during the season. For example here is a photo of Jan Tratnik finishing first in Omloop Het Nieuwsblad on 2024-02-24, long beclearly wearing a Visma | Lease a Bike shirt. The team did change the design of the shirts before the Tour, because their old shirts had a lot of yellow which conflicts with the yellow jersey of the GC leader. Maybe that's what you were thinking of?
  - ben7799 2y ago
    UCI has barely ever had the willpower to do this. Tons of teams are still run by folks who were heavily involved in the 1990s and 2000s doping scandals. They all claim they're all clean and reformed but most of them were never really punished.
floam 2y ago
“Red Bull caught cheating at $event in sprawling plot; banned for 6 years” - they might invest some dollars to avoid such a disaster. According to the quote in the article, curbing this is only a matter of will and $$$.
- Aerroon 2y ago
  Of course it's a matter of $$$. Sports doesn't actually make anything. It's entertainment that's paid for via ads. But that's also why hitting the sponsors wouldn't work, because without them the (professional) sport might not survive.
OtherShrezzing 2y ago
Surely this just moves the incentive from the sportsperson/team to the sponsor - who have significantly deeper financial resources to undermine WADA's testing regimes. WADA's budget is something like $50m. The likes of Ineos & Red Bull have sports marketing budgets well into the billions.
- hervature 2y ago
  It is important to separate the teams vs. the company itself. The Ineos cycling team has a total budget closer to $50M. That's the budget to support 20+ riders and all the support staff.
- adolph 2y ago
  I had to look up Ineos bc I’m only familiar with the Grenadier truck. Turns out to be a 20b English chem/energy chaebol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineos
- extr 2y ago
  Seems like they would have a lot more to lose as well. A scheme where Red Bull is helping athletes cheat is front page news. It would be catastrophic to their reputation. Much bigger deal than the athlete themselves getting caught.
  - ars 2y ago
    They would just funnel it through some other company that they can blame.
    - dooglius 2y ago
      In GP's proposed scheme, the sponsor gets punished whether or not it knew or assisted
      - usrusr 2y ago
        The sponsor isn't punished when their reputation gets associated with a cheat? US Postal sued Armstrong for $100M (settled for $5M) after he got caught. Guilty by association with a PED athlete is the dominant economic risk of sports sponsoring. At least in sports that have dropped the "just pretend we did not notice" attitude that's still going strong in e.g. football (both of them, I suppose)
eitally 2y ago
Because the Olympics organization would never want to pay to outfit athletes with non-sponsored gear (whether for cycling or any other sport).
pdxandi 2y ago
It’s hard enough for bike teams to get sponsorship. Adding that burden on the sponsor could kill the sport.
scosman 2y ago
The sponsors aren't partners who are tuning up the bikes. It's companies who cut a cheque and expect logos everywhere. Individual riders/teams are motivated to win and get sponsor dollars, so may resort to cheating. They know they will lose sponsors forever and be banned if caught, so they try to hide it from sponsors and officials. Basically: the same disincentives exist today. They just need to catch folks. It's just doping v2.

kelseyfrog 2y ago

I don't know much about sponsorship. How would a sponsor be banned? What sort of activities or relations would be off-limits during a ban?

floam 2y ago
I imagine they would be unable to sponsor participants in that organization for a time, and their name would be dishonored.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
Maybe it's a bit circular but the organizers could disqualify the racers being sponsored which would mean either the banned sponsor doesn't sponsor anyone or it's done under wraps. The latter would defeat the advertising purpose the sponsor would have for the sponsorship.
labcomputer 2y ago
You wouldn’t ban a sponsor, but a team. People typically refer to a cycling team by a sponsor’s name, but teams can (and do) change sponsors from season to season (or sometimes even within a season like “Jumbo Visma” -> “Visma Lease a Bike” did this year between the Giro and the Tour). Jumbo Visma is the same team as Visma Lease a Bike. They have the same riders, managers, athletic director, staff, etc. Just a different name on the jersey. As for how a team is banned: you simply ban them. In most of cycling you need to be a member of a team (professional) or club (amateur) to even enter a race. Your racing license will name your team/club. If your team is banned you may not register for the race. Also, at the World Tour professional level, your team would have several cars driving within the race to support riders with food, bottles, and mechanical assistance. Since the race will be on a closed course, only official vehicles can drive with the riders. Even if started the race, you would be at a serious disadvantage to race with no team support.
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  How does it work now? Are teams banned if caught cheating?
  - labcomputer 2y ago
    They can be. For example, Team Astana’s license was initially not renewed for 2007 following a doping scandal. Unfortunately, the UCI usually reissues the license if the team pinky promises not to dope again. Team Astana signed Lance Armstrong in 2009 and we all know how that went.
- roelschroeven 2y ago
  (Just an aside, doesn't invalidate any of your reasoning) The name change from Jumbo Visma to Visma | Lease a Bike didn't happen between the Giro and the Tour, it was a lot earlier. I would say, but I'm not 100% certain of this, that the name change happened between the 2023 and 2024 seasons. I think teams have to register their name with the UCI, and can't change it during the season. For example here is a photo of Jan Tratnik finishing first in Omloop Het Nieuwsblad on 2024-02-24, long beclearly wearing a Visma | Lease a Bike shirt. The team did change the design of the shirts before the Tour, because their old shirts had a lot of yellow which conflicts with the yellow jersey of the GC leader. Maybe that's what you were thinking of?
- ben7799 2y ago
  UCI has barely ever had the willpower to do this. Tons of teams are still run by folks who were heavily involved in the 1990s and 2000s doping scandals. They all claim they're all clean and reformed but most of them were never really punished.

floam 2y ago

“Red Bull caught cheating at $event in sprawling plot; banned for 6 years” - they might invest some dollars to avoid such a disaster. According to the quote in the article, curbing this is only a matter of will and $$$.

Aerroon 2y ago
Of course it's a matter of $$$. Sports doesn't actually make anything. It's entertainment that's paid for via ads. But that's also why hitting the sponsors wouldn't work, because without them the (professional) sport might not survive.

OtherShrezzing 2y ago

Surely this just moves the incentive from the sportsperson/team to the sponsor - who have significantly deeper financial resources to undermine WADA's testing regimes. WADA's budget is something like $50m. The likes of Ineos & Red Bull have sports marketing budgets well into the billions.

hervature 2y ago
It is important to separate the teams vs. the company itself. The Ineos cycling team has a total budget closer to $50M. That's the budget to support 20+ riders and all the support staff.
adolph 2y ago
I had to look up Ineos bc I’m only familiar with the Grenadier truck. Turns out to be a 20b English chem/energy chaebol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineos
extr 2y ago
Seems like they would have a lot more to lose as well. A scheme where Red Bull is helping athletes cheat is front page news. It would be catastrophic to their reputation. Much bigger deal than the athlete themselves getting caught.
- ars 2y ago
  They would just funnel it through some other company that they can blame.
  - dooglius 2y ago
    In GP's proposed scheme, the sponsor gets punished whether or not it knew or assisted
    - usrusr 2y ago
      The sponsor isn't punished when their reputation gets associated with a cheat? US Postal sued Armstrong for $100M (settled for $5M) after he got caught. Guilty by association with a PED athlete is the dominant economic risk of sports sponsoring. At least in sports that have dropped the "just pretend we did not notice" attitude that's still going strong in e.g. football (both of them, I suppose)

eitally 2y ago

Because the Olympics organization would never want to pay to outfit athletes with non-sponsored gear (whether for cycling or any other sport).

pdxandi 2y ago

It’s hard enough for bike teams to get sponsorship. Adding that burden on the sponsor could kill the sport.

scosman 2y ago

The sponsors aren't partners who are tuning up the bikes. It's companies who cut a cheque and expect logos everywhere. Individual riders/teams are motivated to win and get sponsor dollars, so may resort to cheating. They know they will lose sponsors forever and be banned if caught, so they try to hide it from sponsors and officials. Basically: the same disincentives exist today. They just need to catch folks. It's just doping v2.