Anti-Doping: Sporting Policy or New Religion?

[Oldman]

Originally Posted by Escarabajo

You are right. I should not have asked that question. Besides, regardless of the names, nothing would surprise me anymore (well, almost nothing).

I apologize for asking. Frenchfry also made a good comment related with many riders with similar stories like that. They just keep it quiet for the many reasons that we already know.

Yes, there are many. Unfortunately most of those talented individuals leave the sport entirely after facing the hard reality of their dream. That loss is greater for all of us who still participate.

[ludwig]

Originally Posted by Not Riding Enough

It is the Omerta, the dishonesty and taking away of choice for an athelete (if they want to stay in a sport) that I most dislike about doping. But that is only because of my love of the idea of fair play in sport (as we can't get it in real life).

Unfortunately the closer one examines the problem the more logical omerta becomes. As is evidenced by countless threads here, society in general and cycling fans in particular can't or won't accept doping is part of the sport. Yet doping is necessary to win. And doping can't be stopped by testing. So cyclists have a choice--they can either try to ride clean and hope their competitors don't or are caught (not likely to work) or they can adhere to a strict code of silence on the issue (what we have).

If the former was seriously practiced, you can imagine the chaos and recriminations in the peloton as these honest non-doping athletes would potentially get frustrated and call out the dopers. But since no one can prove anything absent physical evidence, it would create a ****storm that harms everyone involved in the sport.

So given the factual dilemna (most doping isn't detectable and doping is necessary to compete at the highest level) omerta is the best option for cyclists as a group.

Needless to say omerta stinks to high heaven in practice. Such is life.

[rgmerk]

As I understand it, it's a fairly well-established result from criminology that the key for punishment to deter crime is that it's swift and likely, not so much that it is harsh.

Assuming the same would hold here, it suggests that increasing the suspension from two years is actually not particularly useful; what *would* work is if the chances of getting caught were increased.

Of course, increasing the chances of getting caught is hard...

The other thing that occurs to me is that sports authorities should look at how cops deal with criminal omerta in other circumstances. Somewhat contradicting what I've said above, but it might just be that having harsher punishments available, with the flexibility to negotiate deals if somebody talks and gives up bigger fish, might help.

[rata de sentina]

In my opinion there is insufficient focus on those who supply and administer these doping products and techniques. On the whole Ferrari, Fuentes and co seem to get off scot free and continue to profit even when exposed. These are the individuals who need to be targeted to move things forward. Even in the absence of criminal charges deregistration as doctors would hit them in the hip pocket. Then they might think twice.

[quiensabe]

Originally Posted by rata de sentina

In my opinion there is insufficient focus on those who supply and administer these doping products and techniques. On the whole Ferrari, Fuentes and co seem to get off scot free and continue to profit even when exposed. These are the individuals who need to be targeted to move things forward. Even in the absence of criminal charges deregistration as doctors would hit them in the hip pocket. Then they might think twice.

I agree with you. The individual riders carry the can, while the suppliers and enablers continue to fill their wallets. For anyone who thinks that the cyclists have a free choice on doping, I recommend that you read the book 'Rough Ride' by Paul Kimmage. He comes over as a bit naive, but he explains how he was subjected to a kind of mental blackmail. Something like "If you want to ride with us, you use what we use." Trying to hold out against this pressure, he struggled off the back of the peloton. It's all very well to talk about breaking the omerta; but if it's you that's being bullied, ostracised, not spoken to, you need huge mental strength to cope with the pressure. The choice is less easy than you might think.

[ludwig]

Originally Posted by quiensabe

I agree with you. The individual riders carry the can, while the suppliers and enablers continue to fill their wallets. For anyone who thinks that the cyclists have a free choice on doping, I recommend that you read the book 'Rough Ride' by Paul Kimmage. He comes over as a bit naive, but he explains how he was subjected to a kind of mental blackmail. Something like "If you want to ride with us, you use what we use." Trying to hold out against this pressure, he struggled off the back of the peloton. It's all very well to talk about breaking the omerta; but if it's you that's being bullied, ostracised, not spoken to, you need huge mental strength to cope with the pressure. The choice is less easy than you might think.

It's issues like this that make it so frustrating that cycling's leadership never changes, but rather has been essentially the same since Festina. On Puerto, McQuaid postures as if its Spanish Justice blocking the investigation, but then turns around and puts his weight behind Jaksche being blackballed from the sport for talking about Fuentes. The truth is McQuaid is doing everything possible to keep Puerto under wraps, and for good reason.

Take this latest doping scandal around Losa. His record as a doping doc was well publicized in 2006, but he has remained active and apparently serves one of the most successful teams (Caisse). There are also rumors that Fuentes has been active too.

[pedaling squares]

Originally Posted by SpeedWay

Unless these role models admitted to wanting to be "role models for kids" you have no one to blame but yourself. Parenting tip #481 - Don't let strangers be role models for your kids (unless, of course, their names are Danny Donhaue and Anson Wheeler).

Strangers will be role models for our children as long as we have television, advertising, and live sporting venues. Athletes who perform on dope will continue to influence our children in the same way that dirty and clean athletes have influenced you and me.

Originally Posted by filipo

As regards the original poster's question, here's why I'm against doping in a nutshell from today's news:

This is the argument in a nutshell for me. If we accept doping practices, it is a natural progression to accept doping for younger athletes. How many times have you heard of parents of 12 year old kids interfering with coaches, even using the legal system to secure some opportunity or advantage for their child? If doping became accepted for a 25 year old, it would certainly become accepted for a 12 year old whose body is still developing, and who cannot be expected to make a sound, rational decision for him/herself.

[Murray]

I have two thoughts on this:

1) I don't think this is about informed adults making a choice of what to take and knowing the risks. Most elite athletes start out in the system at a young age when they are very impressionable. In terms of damage to health, if an adult wants to take PED's and knows the risks we should let them. Just like we let people smoke, drink alcohol and eat fatty foods... but we should be protecting the youth.

2) In any system of competition, there have to be rules and boundaries in order to "level the playing field". I don't think that any method of enhancing performance is inherently good or bad. Doesn't matter where the lines are drawn, it matters that they ARE drawn.

[Oldman]

Originally Posted by Murray

I have two thoughts on this:

1) I don't think this is about informed adults making a choice of what to take and knowing the risks. Most elite athletes start out in the system at a young age when they are very impressionable. In terms of damage to health, if an adult wants to take PED's and knows the risks we should let them. Just like we let people smoke, drink alcohol and eat fatty foods... but we should be protecting the youth.

2) In any system of competition, there have to be rules and boundaries in order to "level the playing field". I don't think that any method of enhancing performance is inherently good or bad. Doesn't matter where the lines are drawn, it matters that they ARE drawn.

A local rider who has won many amateur races just sent out a note regarding a positive test to our racing community. The details will eventually hit the news links so it will be added discussion fodder. In short: he doesn't deny the violation, but adds some notes on the influences that led him to take PEDs. He is a master that didn't start in the sport as an ignorant or impressionable dude. He is also coaching many younger riders. As a former teammate I know he would never make any recommendations to these younger riders but the major issue is still-can you cross that line at any age for any justification?
More later.