A Rational Argument To Not Legalise Doping

[cromagnon]

For many people, once the wool gets pulled back from their eyes (in anything but also about doping) they start asking lots of questions.

Generally when people suggest that prevention of doping has failed miserably and then ask "should we even bother" they don't get a rational response, they get an irrational knee jerk response but they rarely get a well-constructed irrefutable argument as to why legalising doping is out of the question. They are just told it's out of the question and to shut their trap.

So, given the informed intelligent posters here what better place to ask that question and hopefully get a rational and convincing response.

The Bio Passport is at least two things, a way to make outrageous and dangerous doping very difficult due to the scrutiny of blood, but it's also like saying "whatever it is you're doing we don't care just stay within these parameters".

The result seems to be a punishing stage race like the tour having competitors whose blood values stay relatively stable, rather than drop off in the way someone like Moerkeberg might expect. They're given a yard so they take it.

So:
1) why should doping not be legalised and

2) why not just say "ok take what you like but don't exceed these values and btw we will take one of you down every now and then sorry nothing personal".

 

[issoisso]

1. For two reasons:

a) It has severe long term complications for your health and that of your children

b) It would in no way be fair, partly because the same drugs have wildly differing performance effects on different people and partly because your salary determines how good the performance enhancers you can buy actually are

2. For the same two reasons above. Different riders will still take very differing gains from it and it'll still be very bad for your health. Add also the fact that even if doping was allowed between certain values, riders would still go far beyond those values to gain an advantage, as they do now.

 

[David Suro]

If doping were legal sponsorship dollars would be lost.

 

[red_explosions]

1) Because the mugs that give up their time to follow the sport want to see a believable spectacle and not a comedy circus act.

2) Issoisso has nailed it. If you allow boosting, all you do is favour the best responders, a situation that has perpetuated since the advent of EPO. Look at the most successful cyclists over the last 20 years and you will see the best responders to boosting therapy. Most of those guys would have been nowhere in a clean fight.

 

[Anonymous]

Legalising doping would create a serious incentive problem.

Why do people dope? To gain a short term advantage, leading to increased fame and financial gains for dopers.

If doping is allowed the sponsors will leave. If the sponsors leave, then there are no financial gains to made (since no-one is being paid) and probably no fame (because the broadcasters would leave). So allowing doping will lead the professional sport to collapse into an amatuer sport, meaning the thousands of cyclists, engineers, manufacturers, broadcasters, team owners, race sponsors all lose what they invested in.

 

[BroDeal]

It mostly comes down to money. The UCI, the organizers, and probably the riders would like nothing better than to go back in time when doping was part of the dirty, semi-secret underbelly of the sport that the public was not too concerned about. Unfortunately for them Pandora's box has been opened, and the public that has seen the open box has different attitudes than they did not very long ago.

Formally sanctioning doping would destroy the credibility of the sport, which would ultimately have catastrophic economic effects. What large corporation would want to fund a bunch of dopers?

Sport relies upon a lot of myths. People want to believe that an athlete won because he worked harder than the others, he wanted the victory more, he was tougher, etc. Free use of drugs would destroy, or at least damage, a lot of those myths.

Sport fandom relies upon a certain amount of vicarious living. Fans like to imagine that maybe if their lives would have taken a different turn, they might have made it as a pro. They fantasize about riding with the big boys while they themselves participate in the sport at a lower level. This is especially true for a sport like cycling where a large portion of the fans ride or used to ride. Allow doping and the connection the amateur fans have with the sport is severed, which again has economic effects.

 

[fruit bars with eyes]

In the past doping was 'legal' i.e. allowed by colluding teams/ riders/organisers/ testers and no outside scrutiny. This even happened after the supposed 'watershed' when willy vogt missed the ferry - e.g. on 4th July1999. Since then, outside scrutiny (with its economic impact) was the driver to have a 'war on PEDs' much as politicians have their own 'war on drugs' for political reasons. Police raids have now tailed off because the authorities can point to serious measures like the passport. So it's part of a drive back towards self policing - then as long as everyone stays within the limits, there'll be no problem again. Plus ca change.......

 

[H_Hansen]

for one pragmatical reason: free choice of occupation

I'd like to prepend I have been following The Clinic for some time and learned a lot of details about how doping is done. This thread got me started to sign up...

For me, doping, i.e. the use of means that may have beneficial effects on performance but may cause undesired health effects must be forbidden in order to keep up some (theoretical) kind of "free choice of occupation".

To explain this: If there is at least one athlete just a bit hesitant to risk his health while making his sport a profession, this athlete has to be given the chance to be pro anyway. This means anti-doping rules must exist, doping legalization would be like a "professional ban".

I am aware that the enforcement of anti-doping measures does not allow to excel in most sports without "enhancements". But if even the theoretical chance was absent (no anti doping rules), any other rule could be questioned as well - why not make cycling a battle with the right to drive your opponents off the road...

I'd like to argue the statement that anti-doping measures keep the playground level. For sure, there may be good and bad responders, but there are as well people with better or worse physical abilities, with a huge variation as well. Only thing is, those without the capabilities of becoming pro will never have to try how well they respond.

As for cheating pros, I am not surprised they exist. Any competitive environment is capable of revealing a person's moral/ethical values. And some with lower standards know how to build up an ensurance - e.g. by engaging in charity. Who in our black/white (media) world would question a benefactor like LA?

My thoughts on the topic so far. Hans

 

[SpeedWay]

For the sake of the cyclingnews forum doping should not be legalized. The overwhelming majority of posters would have nothing to cry about. Not unlike the reefer madness devotees who have nothing to cry about in Oaksterdam ever since measure z passed. Plus, what you'd see is what you'd get, delivering a death blow to this sites life blood - lies and innuendo.

 

[Anonymous]

For the sake of the cyclingnews forum doping should not be legalized. The overwhelming majority of posters would have nothing to cry about. Not unlike the reefer madness devotees who have nothing to cry about in Oaksterdam ever since measure z passed. Plus, what you'd see is what you'd get, delivering a death blow to this sites life blood - lies and innuendo.

Gee, you sound so sure of yourself. I used to think like you and ignorance was bliss. Nowadays even the dope doctors are stunned by performances.

 

[Not Riding Enough]

How many parents would want their kids to grow up to be pro cyclists if doping was legal?

It would also take away that tiny little unrealistic hope that just maybe some are clean.

 

[WD-40.]

1. For two reasons:

a) It has severe long term complications for your health and that of your children

2. For the same two reasons above. Different riders will still take very differing gains from it and it'll still be very bad for your health.

Feel free to explain where you could have heard this. Just because some smart a$$ says its true on a cycling forum and we really, really want to believe its true as we are sooo anti-doping, doesn't mean it is.

I am fully aware that some doping methods and drugs can have nasty health issues when abused (particulary cortisone) but to believe all effective doping can and does have nasty effects is simply untrue and just silly to assume.

 

[RhodriM]

Feel free to explain where you could have heard this.

Or perhaps explain which doping practices are proven to be safe?

 

[RhodriM]

How many parents would want their kids to grow up to be pro cyclists if doping was legal?

Indeed. Who would want their child to do a sport where you would have to take drugs to be competitive?

 

[poupou]

Legalise doping to see the death of athlete in live !

Oh yes... we should just allow some PEDs or limit their use... so we need testing and back to where we are.

Is it easier to test for the use of a banned substance or the use of a certain amount of it?

 

[BroDeal]

Feel free to explain where you could have heard this. Just because some smart a$$ says its true on a cycling forum and we really, really want to believe its true as we are sooo anti-doping, doesn't mean it is.

I am fully aware that some doping methods and drugs can have nasty health issues when abused (particulary cortisone) but to believe all effective doping can and does have nasty effects is simply untrue and just silly to assume.

The problem with this is that even though many things can be used relatively safely at some dosages, they may have ill effects at larger dosages. If doping were legal, the competition would not just take place on the road. It would also take place in the doping arena. Athletes would compete with each other to see much drugs they could consume.

A case in point is professional body building. BBers in the seventies and early eighties used steroids, but they still looked pretty good. Now days the competitors look like freaks. They barely look human.

 

[BroDeal]

For the sake of the cyclingnews forum doping should not be legalized. The overwhelming majority of posters would have nothing to cry about. Not unlike the reefer madness devotees who have nothing to cry about in Oaksterdam ever since measure z passed. Plus, what you'd see is what you'd get, delivering a death blow to this sites life blood - lies and innuendo.

Oh, look. It's Speedway's bimonthly crying jag about people discussing doping.

 

[issoisso]

Feel free to explain where you could have heard this. Just because some smart a$$ says its true on a cycling forum and we really, really want to believe its true as we are sooo anti-doping, doesn't mean it is.

The most enlightening read in this topic is probably the detailed accounts of the east german doping machine. But if you read it, prepare to find that the effects it has in the children of the athletes is far more terrifying than anyone could dream.

That enough from this "smart a$$"?
If not, I can always try to sling mud and insults, but I don't think I can do it quite like you

I am fully aware that some doping methods and drugs can have nasty health issues when abused (particulary cortisone) but to believe all effective doping can and does have nasty effects is simply untrue and just silly to assume.

This part is irrelevant, since you're chastizing me for saying something I didn't say

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

Would legalizing a selection of doping products change anything?

I don't think it would. I think there'll still be competitive people in cycling that are willing to run the risk of using prohibited products and procedures to try to gain a competitive edge or mitigate a perceived disadvantage.

 

[cromagnon]

I appreciate the ethical issues in testing something like this but is there any hard scientific evidence regarding a predisposition to being a "good responder" to EPO? If so via what mechanism?

I remember reading about steroids in bodybuilding, the consensus was some people had no "free receptors" for the surplus hormone to bond to hence they saw little benefit from roids to their muscle building but an improvement in strength (neurological muscle recruitment) and recovery. However that could be a load of BS because no studies were done on it to my knowledge.

 

[dr_wok]

If doping were legal, would you buy your son or daughter their first race bike and encourage them to turn pro or get to the Olympics?

I didn't think so.

 

[cromagnon]

If doping were legal, would you buy your son or daughter their first race bike and encourage them to turn pro or get to the Olympics?

I didn't think so.

If it meant making a lot of money I think a lot of people would. People are generally mentally ill when it comes to money/acquisition.

There would be a LOT of freelance doping doctors opening small and large businesses, insisting they have the highest standards not just of success but of safety.

Advert: "Want to be a winner? We work in conjuction with [major biochemical corporation] to ensure your children become the heroes of tomorrow. Don't take risks with your childs health (notice the hypocrisy there, it's what the west was built on) we have the highest standards of safety unlike some of our competitors. We accept all major credit cards visit http://www.payment-free-happy-healthy-win.com/amgen today to begin your childs' program or call and speak to one of our advisors" Discounts available on baseline testing for identical twins and siblings, parents - tired of being subpar in your leisure activities? try the family package and get coaching right alongside your kids!

Testimonials - "My son was really upset when he wasn't picked for the swim team, I made one call and now he's really happy. He will be swimming in the county championships next week, we're absolutely delighted. Thank you so much!"

Got to love the scary f***ing places rampant capitalism can take you

Then of course Genetic Manipulation would be the sort of utterly despicable cheating that only people with foreign-sounding names do because they have no sense of fair play. Filthy cheats.

 

[craig1985]

Simple:

We will have the very wealthy (ie Lance Armstrong) use their cash to buy the "latest and greatest", whereas you have athletes from poorer countries (Eastern Europe, South America etc.) going on line and buying some random drug from China and putting their health at risk. But in saying that though, if doping were legal in cycling, then I think it would end up being the case in all sports.

 

[Ripper]

Because the drugs will become more pivotol than the athlete.

Because people will die from pushing a new envelope that should not be pushed.

Because genetic manipulation will become the norm.

Because there is no way I could see my kids entering such a sport.

 

[RhodriM]

To be honest I can't see a rational arguement for legalising doping.