Log in:  

Register

"Dr. Mabuse" - Bernard Sainz - VDB - & prison sentences

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

12 Dec 2011 23:05

DirtyWorks wrote:Prostitution: Is this going to fly at your house, "Daddy I want to be a prostitute when I grow up." Really? Just it's cool and no acknowledgment of the corrosive social and public health effects? If it's okay, then you be the first prostitute. Move to one of the counties that allow it in Nevada and go to work.

If taking PED's that have killed is alright, then you go first. What's your program look like? Are you going to do the injections yourself? C'mon now. In your perfect world it's no longer against the law. So, do it.

The point being, I'm sick and tired of pretenders. If you really want these things, then you would be living in Nevada as a prostitute using tricks to buy your PED's for bike racing.


I knew it was as mistake spouting off my opinion about what should or should not be legal, but I was replying to FF lumping it all together. He was just making a point about how the feds could stop this if they chose to.

To respond to your diatribe, alcohol is legal but I do not wish for my daughter to become an alcoholic or start drinking, so your extrapolated strawman doesn't hold up. What people do behind their closed doors, without harming anybody else in the process, is their own business. You deal with your "corrosive social and public health issues" yourself if you can't handle free will and personal responsibility. Leave those of us that can out of your little morality crusade.

Moving on, please find a link or anything where I have ever written that taking PED's should be legal or within the rules. You can do a search on this forum or on DPF under the same username. Good luck, you will need it.

Taking recreation drugs is not the same thing as taking PEDs that are against the rules, denying those that are clean from competing on a level playing field. Or, even if PED use is legal it would just be moving the line in the sand, and that "legal amount" would still be exceeded. Also people shouldn't have to dope to compete, period. Surely you can see the difference between this and paying for a BJ, in even your wildest strawman dreams.

Also, if somebody takes PEDs and dies from it, that is their choice. They knew the repurcussions. I reserve my sympathy for real victims; athletes taking PEDs are not on my victim list. Sorry.
"He called me a baboon, he thinks I'm his wife." - Al Czervik
User avatar ChrisE
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,492
Joined: 18 May 2009 20:14

13 Dec 2011 01:25

ChrisE wrote:.... If you want to lump drug use in sports with recreational drug use and prostitution then go right ahead. For the record, I think both of those should be legalized. If somebody wants to pay somebody to have sex or use drugs that effect nobody but themselves, I don't believe it is the govt's right to legislate against it. YMMV.


You seem to advocate PED use without any reservations whatsoever...

So, you are on for a PED program, right? First you, then a son or daughter. Okay? Because it's all good. You are only affecting yourself and your progeny. What's first? Cera? Some clenbuterol to slim you down?

ChrisE wrote:Also, if somebody takes PEDs and dies from it, that is their choice.


Ask Greg Strock what Chris Carmichael's role was... Go ahead. Those under-23's that died of heart attacks in the 1980's were sourcing the EPO themselves? Oh yeah, it's all on them...

You seem willfully blind to the fact adults have already fed kids PED's and killed a few along the way. By your thinking, it's all the kid's fault. So, everyone take PED's because its ONLY the individual's fault.

If you son/daughter becomes a prostitute, then it's all good. Right? It's their choice and they are doing it behind closed doors. No one is being harmed. Except you and I both know it won't play out like that. No, as careless as you may be in theory, actual practice would be nothing like that.
User avatar DirtyWorks
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,059
Joined: 10 Feb 2010 17:01

13 Dec 2011 01:40

I say both recreational drug use and prostitution should be legal, and you take that as me meaning PED use should be legal or allowed in sport? Project much?

What is it with you that when I say something that is based upon personal choice, that does no harm to anybody except themselves if abused, should be legal that you jump to a conclusion that I want people to become prostitutes and strung out on drugs, and cheat in sport? Is this line of discussion that lost upon you? :confused:

Again, you have an opinion that PEDs should be against the rules because some people that choose to take them end up worse off as a result. That is all fine and dandy if you think that, but that is not my position nor do I care about those people.....my opinion falls along those that choose not to take PEDs should not be at a disadvantage, especially since it is against the rules. YMMV.
"He called me a baboon, he thinks I'm his wife." - Al Czervik
User avatar ChrisE
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,492
Joined: 18 May 2009 20:14

13 Dec 2011 03:50

ChrisE wrote:I knew it was as mistake spouting off my opinion about what should or should not be legal, but I was replying to FF lumping it all together. He was just making a point about how the feds could stop this if they chose to.


Does knowing it was a mistake help you to deal with the inevitable consequences?:)

ChrisE wrote:'...'If you want to lump drug use in sports with recreational drug use and prostitution then go right ahead. For the record, I think both of those should be legalized. If somebody wants to pay somebody to have sex or use drugs that effect nobody but themselves, I don't believe it is the govt's right to legislate against it. YMMV.


At first glance I thought "both" referred to Sports doping and the combination of illegal prostitution/recreational drug use. Obviously not in retrospect.

ChrisE wrote:I agree with the gist of your post in terms of sport; is it supply or demand that causes these poor victim athletes to succomb to the evil of PED use? I think it is demand, as do you apparently. Papp tries to dress it up like the users are the victims, which is typical or somebody of his ilk and thus it justifies his double standard in this thread.


Of course demand is what is driving the trade, but what is driving the demand? If that same group of people were in a different environment, I doubt that many would be habitual illicit drug users. Some might, conversely there are some in cycling who aren't even now. So IMO it's part the person, and part the culture or environment they are in. Victim is not quite the right word, except perhaps for those whose lives are destroyed by it. But pinning all the responsibility on the individual doesn't make sense either IMO.

ChrisE wrote:'...'What people do behind their closed doors, without harming anybody else in the process, is their own business. You deal with your "corrosive social and public health issues" yourself if you can't handle free will and personal responsibility. Leave those of us that can out of your little morality crusade.


Setting aside the fact that the repercussions of some stuff that happens behind closed doors overflows onto people who didn't chose to participate.....the central question is what right or obligation a society has to protect people from their own mistakes? At the very least, I would argue that a just society would not be structured in a way that means poor choices are often hugely rewarded and good choices require sacrificing reasonable personal objectives. So, in my worldview, the corrupt and complicit people in positions of power carry some of the blame for individual cyclists doping, and some of the responsibility for any adverse consequences.

[Please excuse the painfully formal tone. The nanny state swear filter prevents me from communicating in my native dialect - it's culturally insensitive :D]

ChrisE wrote:Also, if somebody takes PEDs and dies from it, that is their choice. They knew the repurcussions. I reserve my sympathy for real victims; athletes taking PEDs are not on my victim list. Sorry.


Not all athletes are intelligent, educated and well informed people. Some of them will know the repercussions, others will have NFI.
User avatar I Watch Cycling In July
Member
 
Posts: 1,030
Joined: 25 Jul 2009 22:57
Location: NZ

14 Dec 2011 22:58

ChrisE wrote:I say both recreational drug use and prostitution should be legal, and you take that as me meaning PED use should be legal or allowed in sport? Project much?


I think what ChrisE is trying to say here is that you can take a moral stance on a subject or activity without it being regarded as a criminal act that will get one thrown in prison.

IE, he might think that getting high (itself) should be perfectly legal, yet injuring another through one's actions as a RESULT of getting high is where one should have legal consequences.

It's (in short form) what people generally call libertarianism.

I myself don't generally agree. I suppose we could allow unlicenced physicians to prescribe EPO as well (so long as they don't kill anyone), but that makes us lose an entire level of societal protection.

Hookers damage more than their vaginas. And so do the Johns that visit them. They both damage families, kids, unwitting individuals that come in contact with the bodies of their clients, etc (HPV can be transmitted condom or no condom). The line of possible victims is long.

Drug abusers also damage more than just themselves.
User avatar BotanyBay
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,965
Joined: 25 Oct 2010 18:18

14 Dec 2011 23:21

BotanyBay wrote:I think what ChrisE is trying to say here is that you can take a moral stance on a subject or activity without it being regarded as a criminal act that will get one thrown in prison.

IE, he might think that getting high (itself) should be perfectly legal, yet injuring another through one's actions as a RESULT of getting high is where one should have legal consequences.

It's (in short form) what people generally call libertarianism.

I myself don't generally agree. I suppose we could allow unlicenced physicians to prescribe EPO as well (so long as they don't kill anyone), but that makes us lose an entire level of societal protection.

Hookers damage more than their vaginas. And so do the Johns that visit them. They both damage families, kids, unwitting individuals that come in contact with the bodies of their clients, etc (HPV can be transmitted condom or no condom). The line of possible victims is long.

Drug abusers also damage more than just themselves.


And that is where laws come into play. Alcohol is legal, but if you drink and drive you go to jail. Owning guns is legal, but if you shoot somebody in most circumstances you go to prison.

There are repurcussions to all decisions, and if the repurcussions of those decisons are restricted to the decider then it is all good IMO.

Your example of the non-dr prescribing stuff is a strawman...he is affecting more than himself from the outset so that is not the same thing. Your description of the John affecting others is a result he chose, and whether there is a law against that or not it will still happen. The chance of affecting his family should be much more of a deterrant than passing laws not allowing somebody to get a BJ for 20 bucks.

You could extrapolate what you are saying to most everything in society. Cars kill, so let's outlaw them. If you take a bottle of sleeping pills you will die, so let's outlaw them. Etc.

My point is that lines are drawn arbitrarily in society, usually based upon religious BS. Ultimately the decision comes down to the individual and they will do something whether it is legal or not if they want to...why restrict those of us that can handle those decisions, instead of making us all act like sheep because of a few that can't? Last time I checked the Dutch weren't strung out in the ditches with herpes.
"He called me a baboon, he thinks I'm his wife." - Al Czervik
User avatar ChrisE
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,492
Joined: 18 May 2009 20:14

15 Dec 2011 19:10

ChrisE wrote:...why restrict those of us that can handle those decisions, instead of making us all act like sheep because of a few that can't? Last time I checked the Dutch weren't strung out in the ditches with herpes.


And it always boils down to this. That basic lack of human humility that exists in so many. "I can handle this. Not like those ADDICTS over there. Go bother them, not me".

Problem is, we can't take the chances to see which people can handle it and which ones can't. And too many innocents get hurt along the way.
User avatar BotanyBay
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,965
Joined: 25 Oct 2010 18:18

15 Dec 2011 20:14

BotanyBay wrote:And it always boils down to this. That basic lack of human humility that exists in so many. "I can handle this. Not like those ADDICTS over there. Go bother them, not me".

Problem is, we can't take the chances to see which people can handle it and which ones can't. And too many innocents get hurt along the way.


Hmmm, well, what makes the Dutch capable then of handling those decisions but Australians not? I'm American, and drugs and prostitution are illegal here (Except that in Nevada you can pay astronomically for over-rated sex at the Bunny Ranch) - but I'm also European - legally so - not Dutch, but still have an EU passport - might I be able to handle hookers and hash w/o bringing about the downfall of society?

I completely disagree w/ the nanny state notion...the Drug War in the US has been a colossal failure and the revenue the state has lost out on through missed taxation/regulatory opportunities has all been collected by the narcotrafficantes in the form of illegal profits. Across-the-board legalization might not be the answer, either, but absolute prohibition hasn't worked. And as for prostitution, again, where it's legal and regulated, the societal harm is minimal - where it's illegal and unregulated is where there is massive human trafficking, rampant disease, the destruction of families when members are either arrested for partaking or serving, or fall ill, etc. In Uruguay, for example, prostitution is regulated by the state, sex workers are individually licensed, subject to bi-weekly medical controls provided by the state, the gov't captures its share of the revenue and 15 year old girls aren't being trafficked-in from Moldavia or Ukraine. The country is principally Catholic and society has hardly fallen apart there (if anything, the family unit is probably stronger than in the USA!).

The reality is that blanket prohibitions aren't nearly as beneficial as one might think, and "we" have the capacity to make responsible decisions concerning recreational drug use and transacting for sex (lol - insert joke re. every relationship ever lol).

Down w/ the nanny state! lol
joepa

"All is ephemeral - fame and the famous as well."

* visit my Twitter
* read my Tweets
User avatar joe_papp
Member
 
Posts: 1,431
Joined: 13 May 2009 15:57
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA

05 Sep 2017 19:11

Nine months for Sainz: http://www.sportstarlive.com/other-sports/doping-doctor-jailed-for-nine-months/article19625824.ece

I wonder if he had his Movistar suitcase packed, ready for this eventuality...

Image (Source)
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,982
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Previous

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests

Back to top