A Rational Argument To Not Legalise Doping

[Not Riding Enough]

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

Not sure if this sarcastic or not.

It seems most of us here believe that in all probability you do have take drugs to be competitive in pro cyclying but I don't believe that most Mums and Dads currently think this. They may not have acctually thought about it but if drugs were legal they would know and most no doubt would discourage their kids riding competively.

 

[progressor]

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.

Are you able to provide a link to that thread, or give me a rough title to search from?

 

[**Uru**]

I believe that professional cycling started testing for drug use because of the negative health effects. This is certainly the ethical thing to do. From a liability perspective, the organizers and sponsors surely would not want to deal with a rider's death. Both of these things are good reasons to take a stand against doping.

However, on the other side of things, I am not sure the current system of controls is worth the price. Cycling is not a wealthy sport in comparison to other sports like football (European, American), Basketball, Baseball, etc. Pro Tour teams pay what--$500,000 to a million $ per year for independent controls? The UCI, WADA, and federations also do their own controls. So, all told, what would you say the total costs are for the controls-- perhaps 20%-30% of the sponsorship dollars? When they find a person who is using EPO, EPO-CERA, etc, there is a direct hit to the sponsor that rider is with. Sponsors leave the sport because they cannot tolerate the negative press (ie T-Mobile). The bickering between UCI, WADA, the federations, and organizers also drives sponsors away and probably costs the sport more money. To resolve excessive cost, I would do away with teams paying for independent controls and streamline the controls to one governing body that has the appropriate authority to test and suspend riders and/or sanction teams.

 

[alpine_chav]

Definitely like to see doping legalised with blood passport measures being the only thing that is looked at. Doping falls into the same bracket as eating well except it's far more effective. If some people react better to doping methods due to their genetics is this not the same as being a stronger clean rider due to genetics? Obviously there has to be limits on doping or else people could die but if the blood passport is strictly adhered to then why not give up on old school doping rules? Perhaps micro-dosage doping could actually be healthier than riding a grand tour clean?

The other argument is that allowing doping within professional sports could speed up innovation in the field in turn vastly benefiting the medicinal world.

I'm fairly tired of hearing about doping and really it makes no difference to me if people are doped or not. Professional sports are a form of theatre and I want to be entertained. Seeing LA, Contador or Schlek ride off the front up the alps is entertaining no matter if they're doped or not.

 

[md2020]

1. For two reasons:

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

I don't buy this reason. Without doping the biggest factor in performance (at the highest level) is due to genetics. How people respond to doping is also due to genetics. Why the distinction? One could even argue that doping is possibly more fair because it evens the playing field between the genetic haves and have-nots.

 

[poupou]

I don't buy this reason. Without doping the biggest factor in performance (at the highest level) is due to genetics. How people respond to doping is also due to genetics. Why the distinction? One could even argue that doping is possibly more fair because it evens the playing field between the genetic haves and have-nots.

So push your argument until the end,... because genetics (and education) decide the abilities of an athlete (training capacities, strength, dedication, spirit,...), to be fair everyone should win the race after leveling the field !

 

[Benotti69]

I don't buy this reason. Without doping the biggest factor in performance (at the highest level) is due to genetics. How people respond to doping is also due to genetics. Why the distinction?

The biggest factor is more than genetics, it is natural ability, training, diet, and mental ability. How many athletes don't train properly or fully, lots. How many don't follow strict diets laid out by trainers, lots, How many give up because they cant suffer for another 10kilometres, lots.....its is more than genetics that makes a winner.

One could even argue that doping is possibly more fair because it evens the playing field between the genetic haves and have-nots.

PED use does level any playing field it makes it extremely unfair, as with natural talent, it is precisely that, natural. With PED no one knows what another athlete has taken, how much, when, where, its effects of strength, endurance, muscle growth, recovery etc....and when a new PED comes out, how long before everyone gets it? 2,3,4 or 5 years which is extremely un-level in the playing field. Not everyone had the access to EPO like Indurain.

So a level playing filed is based on natural ability, training, diet and a mental strength when performing.

 

[md2020]

So push your argument until the end,... because genetics (and education) decide the abilities of an athlete (training capacities, strength, dedication, spirit,...), to be fair everyone should win the race after leveling the field !

That's not a logical conclusion and that's not what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that differences in genetics is unfair. What I'm saying is that IMO genetic differences are integral to sport, so how people react genetically to doping is an invalid argument against doping.

 

[md2020]

The biggest factor is more than genetics, it is natural ability, training, diet, and mental ability. How many athletes don't train properly or fully, lots. How many don't follow strict diets laid out by trainers, lots, How many give up because they cant suffer for another 10kilometres, lots.....its is more than genetics that makes a winner.

PED use does level any playing field it makes it extremely unfair, as with natural talent, it is precisely that, natural. With PED no one knows what another athlete has taken, how much, when, where, its effects of strength, endurance, muscle growth, recovery etc....and when a new PED comes out, how long before everyone gets it? 2,3,4 or 5 years which is extremely un-level in the playing field. Not everyone had the access to EPO like Indurain.

So a level playing filed is based on natural ability, training, diet and a mental strength when performing.

How is genetics different from natural ability and mental strength?

I'm not arguing FOR allowing PEDs. I just don't believe that the fact that people respond differently to them is a valid reason for outlawing them. People respond differently to many things (altitude, heat, training methods, ...). Where do you draw the line?

 

[Polish]

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 doping were illegal and performed in back room clinics, would you buy your son or daughter their first race bike and encourage them to turn pro or get to the Olympics?

At the Pro Level there will always be doping right? The Fame and Fortune drives it. Whether it is legal or illegal, there WILL be doping at the Pro Level.
And I am talking about all pro sports, not just cycling.

Luckily, I guess, very very few of our sons and daughters will turn Pro.
That said, many parents and kids THINK they have what it takes to turn Pro, and may be tempted to dope if they see the Pro's doing it. And Doping at kid level would be terrible, so many more kids than Pros!

So it is important to at least pretend that Doping is Bad at the Pro level. But also monitor the athletes health for sure. Take good care of the few that actually turn Pro......BioPassport whatever.

Pretend and BioPassport. That is they key to Healthy Kids and Healthy Sport.
The UCI is a great model.

 

[Benotti69]

How is genetics different from natural ability and mental strength?

I'm not arguing FOR allowing PEDs. I just don't believe that the fact that people respond differently to them is a valid reason for outlawing them. People respond differently to many things (altitude, heat, training methods, ...). Where do you draw the line?

where it becomes manufactured in a lab, would be a good place to start.

allowing people to train at altitude aint a problem. heat can make a difference to northern europeans as can cold make a difference to those from hot countries. training methods are continuously being looked at how to improve performance but its tends to be based on making the body perform better and if done without PEDs great

Genetically some may be good at sports, larger Vo2, etc but that does mean they can translate that too bike racing...

but i believe the best reason to outlaw PEDs is health. it is not needed to compete. There will always be competitive people out there in every sport. Why bring PEDs into it. you wanna race? train to race, east to race, get your head together to race. enjoy it for what it is.

its when money comes into it that really fooks peoples heads.

 

[flicker]

If doping were illegal and performed in back room clinics, would you buy your son or daughter their first race bike and encourage them to turn pro or get to the Olympics?

At the Pro Level there will always be doping right? The Fame and Fortune drives it. Whether it is legal or illegal, there WILL be doping at the Pro Level.
And I am talking about all pro sports, not just cycling.

Luckily, I guess, very very few of our sons and daughters will turn Pro.
That said, many parents and kids THINK they have what it takes to turn Pro, and may be tempted to dope if they see the Pro's doing it. And Doping at kid level would be terrible, so many more kids than Pros!

So it is important to at least pretend that Doping is Bad at the Pro level. But also monitor the athletes health for sure. Take good care of the few that actually turn Pro......BioPassport whatever.

Pretend and BioPassport. That is they key to Healthy Kids and Healthy Sport.
The UCI is a great model.

Do not let your kids become pro cyclists right. Try to stop them. I do not think it is possilbe to stop doping in cycling.

 

[ChrisE]

Where you draw the line in the sand, people will cheat to exceed it. Legalizing doping is just moving the goal posts.

 

[stephens]

1) If you allow boosting, all you do is favour the best responders,

If you allow training, you favour the best responders.

Or...if you don't allow EPO, you favour those lucky enough to be born with high hematocrit and penalize those with low hematocrit who no matter how hard they train will never make up for their unlucky birth. (mine rarely gets over 35 and my son is the same: if we were prescribed epo to boost to 45, I'd do so without hesitation).

And so on...


The most interesting topic along the lines of this thread is the distinction between some substances being "drugs" and others being food or supplements or vitamins or allowed medicines or whatever. Is there really a very clear way to draw that line? Or has it been done somewhat arbitrarily?

 

[Benotti69]

If you allow training, you favour the best responders.

Or...if you don't allow EPO, you favour those lucky enough to be born with high hematocrit and penalize those with low hematocrit who no matter how hard they train will never make up for their unlucky birth. (mine rarely gets over 35 and my son is the same: if we were prescribed epo to boost to 45, I'd do so without hesitation).

And so on...


The most interesting topic along the lines of this thread is the distinction between some substances being "drugs" and others being food or supplements or vitamins or allowed medicines or whatever. Is there really a very clear way to draw that line? Or has it been done somewhat arbitrarily?

i think that those who do not respond well to training are now in IT

I dont see a fine line between food and PEDs. PEDs are not naturally produced. It is widely believed that manufactured vitamins have little or no effect on the body, maybe they do on the body are 200km of racing!

The line is very easy to draw, those who cannot see that, in my opinion are excusing the use of PED use. To accept that they do it anyway no matter what so let's leave them to it is advocating PED use.

People cheat, lie, steal etc in real life. Let's drop the laws that protect us from such people.

In reference to hematocrit levels being unfair, well that as they is life. What about those who can use the mathematical part of their brain better than others. Should we penalise them down to a level the same as others. We have to accept what we are born with and try to do our best with it, using our intelligence, guile and spirit. To think any other way is just ridiculous.

Fausto Coppi's famous quote; “Age and treachery will overcome youth and skill”, springs to mind in the sporting arena.

 

[alpine_chav]

Where you draw the line in the sand, people will cheat to exceed it. Legalizing doping is just moving the goal posts.

Legalize doping within preset biometric limits and ban for life from all sports/hefty jail sentences all those who still decide to cheat.

 

[ChrisE]

Legalize doping within preset biometric limits and ban for life from all sports/hefty jail sentences all those who still decide to cheat.

Jail terms for cheating in sports? Count me out on that bandwagon.

How about just not legalizing doping and doing what you say, sans the jail terms? It's the same thing just moving the goal posts like I say.

People will cheat no matter what. You either raise the incentive for them not to cheat (tougher sentencing) or give them incentive to out the network (lesser sentencing for cooperation).

 

[stephens]

In reference to hematocrit levels being unfair, well that as they is life. What about those who can use the mathematical part of their brain better than others. Should we penalise them down to a level the same as others. We have to accept what we are born with and try to do our best with it, using our intelligence, guile and spirit. To think any other way is just ridiculous.

No, it's not like that at all. It's more like being a diabetic. And no one objects to diabetics injecting themselves to put their body chemistry back to where most people are naturally. So why should not the individual whose body makes fewer red blood cells than is normal (or whose body destroys them), be able to remedy that illness so that they could keep up with those who do not suffer from such deficiency? I'm not talking about allowing unlimited hematocrit spiking: but to maintain levels in the "normal" 40-50% range seems like a totally legitimate medical treatment to me.

 

[Benotti69]

No, it's not like that at all. It's more like being a diabetic. And no one objects to diabetics injecting themselves to put their body chemistry back to where most people are naturally. So why should not the individual whose body makes fewer red blood cells than is normal (or whose body destroys them), be able to remedy that illness so that they could keep up with those who do not suffer from such deficiency? I'm not talking about allowing unlimited hematocrit spiking: but to maintain levels in the "normal" 40-50% range seems like a totally legitimate medical treatment to me.

Diabetes can kill if not treated properly. Taking EPO is not proven but very suspect in the death of lots of sports people.

As for legitimatising EPO, get real, why put anything not needed in your body. Winning isn't everything and especially if you've got to cheat to win. makes sense to the sociopaths and people with a screw loose but to others it comes back at them, go read steven swart.

You cannot compare that to some guy who is unhappy that his hematocrit level is low compared to another. Live with it. Be glad you can compete at a professional level and keep training, working hard and maybe you'll get a break and win. What do you want your kid to win the TdF 7 times and anything less is not acceptable. Only a few win and not always those whose bodies are best suited to winning. So many things can affect a race that it does not matter and i am talking before EPO made the impossible possible.

if people cannot accept what they are born with and do their best with that, then i suggest they don't have the right mentality for competitive sport or maybe life for that matter.

 

[ChrisE]

No, it's not like that at all. It's more like being a diabetic. And no one objects to diabetics injecting themselves to put their body chemistry back to where most people are naturally. So why should not the individual whose body makes fewer red blood cells than is normal (or whose body destroys them), be able to remedy that illness so that they could keep up with those who do not suffer from such deficiency? I'm not talking about allowing unlimited hematocrit spiking: but to maintain levels in the "normal" 40-50% range seems like a totally legitimate medical treatment to me.

Comparing crit levels in sports participants to diabetics trying to maintain quality of life or survival seems to be a stretch to me.

Hct is just one parameter that allows athletes to accel. Cunego would win everything if it was so important.

"Legitimate medical treatment".....does manipulating crit levels for sporting events to bring everybody even or in some type of "normal" range count as that? I'm not sure how many would agree with that.

Sports should be about determining the best with the physical tools they possess. Heavier people are not good climbers, so should we put weights on Ricco's bike to even things out? Making things "even" is a slippery slope argument IMO; I know you are not making this argument and I made an absurd analogy but one could start taking things a step further in determining what is fair.

 

[oldandslow]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-h-hibbard/the-ripple-effect-of-dopi_b_693078.html

I don't know if anyone has seen this article or if it has made its way to the Landis links thread, but the argument made here seems against legalizing doping seems to be decent.

Basically the claim seems to be that all of the "let them dope" arguments assume that all pros are already doping and that there is no turnover among the pool of pro riders...

 

[dbrower]

Taking EPO is not proven but very suspect in the death of lots of sports people.

How many, compared to the number of cyclists that die every year from "normal" acceptable hazards?

-dB

 

[Polish]

One man's "illegal dope" is another man's "FDA Approved Miracle Drug".

The FDA has yet to approve "Gene Therapy".
They are working on it, however....

"FDA has not yet approved any human gene therapy product for sale. However, the amount of gene-related research and development occurring in the United States continues to grow at a fast rate and FDA is actively involved in overseeing this activity. FDA has received many requests from medical researchers and manufacturers to study gene therapy and to develop gene therapy products."

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/CellularGeneTherapyProducts/default.htm

 

[Oldman]

Jail terms for cheating in sports? Count me out on that bandwagon.

How about just not legalizing doping and doing what you say, sans the jail terms? It's the same thing just moving the goal posts like I say.

People will cheat no matter what. You either raise the incentive for them not to cheat (tougher sentencing) or give them incentive to out the network (lesser sentencing for cooperation).

I've been gone a few days and return to find your sensible statement. Something's wrong with one of us but it's OK.

 

[ChrisE]

I've been gone a few days and return to find your sensible statement. Something's wrong with one of us but it's OK.

The only thing wrong with you is that you are just blinded by your hatred so much that you can't see how smart I am.

I'm glad we think along the same lines that doping should not be allowed in sports. Woo-Hoo!