A Rational Argument To Not Legalise Doping

[stephens]

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

It is a bit of a stretch, sure. But it is also debatable about how anemic a person has to become before you'd find medical treatment acceptable to maintain quality of life. I know I'd jump at the chance to live at 45% instead of the low 30s! It would improve my life so much. I'm not sure there is a clear place to draw the line, but I find it easier and more defendable to draw the line at how high we allow people to boost rather than drawing the line at how low one must be before what they have is a true medical condition that it is legitimate to treat.

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.

I agree it is a slippery slope. But one exists on your side of the argument as well: do you allow people to correct their eyes or must they just race with the eyesight they were born with? Do you allow them to have surgeries to correct less than perfectly formed bone structure or wear devices that even out their leg lengths or must they just race with what their genes have given them?

And so on... and because we are ignoring the "safety" argument for a minute and just focussing on the "fairness" argument, I see no real clear difference between allowing certain medical treatments like laser eye surgery or joint repair but not others that correct deficiencies in blood production.

 

[Benotti69]

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

-dB

Too many in my opinion. As we can all die from the natural hazards we face in our daily lifes. Taking unnecessary chemicals to add to those risks is crazy. We can never know how many die due to the illegality of them. Which DS is gonna admit their team doc injected/transfused a cyclist the evening before his death. A young Belgium cyclist died recently and the family refused an autopsy, why? i believe because they knew or strongly suspect he was using PEDs...

I wonder did anyone ask Fignon if the PED use was worth it? I dont know if his cancer was caused due to PED use, but considering it started in his pancreas, which i imagine can suffer greatly from some of the PEDs pros were using. But i am not a cancer specialist, nor a doctor, nor do i have evidence more than the common sense of not putting into your body that which is not necessary..

 

[stephens]

Fignon's cancer originated in his lungs.

And here is what Fignon and his doctor's had to say about the link you are alleging:

"There is nothing that proves that it is linked, but you cannot exclude it, either. In principle, it's not, because then all cyclists would have cancer! When I got ill, I spoke to the doctors about it, and it made them smile. Taking into account the doses, they think it is not linked. But is it an aggravating factor? Maybe."

It sounds like Fignon regretted his PED use and his conscience caused him to connect it to his cancer. But it seems that there is no medical basis for that connection.

 

[Benotti69]

Fignon's cancer originated in his lungs.

i stand corrected.

And here is what Fignon and his doctor's had to say about the link you are alleging:

"There is nothing that proves that it is linked, but you cannot exclude it, either. In principle, it's not, because then all cyclists would have cancer! When I got ill, I spoke to the doctors about it, and it made them smile. Taking into account the doses, they think it is not linked. But is it an aggravating factor? Maybe."

It sounds like Fignon regretted his PED use and his conscience caused him to connect it to his cancer. But it seems that there is no medical basis for that connection.

It takes a long time to prove medical connections to certain things that are not healthy for us. Think smoking

 

[ChrisE]

It takes a long time to prove medical connections to certain things that are not healthy for us. Think smoking

Yes, who would have thought putting smoke into your lungs could be bad for you.

I have little sympathy for smokers or anybody that puts anything that could potentially be harmful to themselves into their body. Any rational person should weigh the risks and take ownership of their decisions. I am sure YMMV.

 

[buckwheat]

Yes, who would have thought putting smoke into your lungs could be bad for you.

I have little sympathy for smokers or anybody that puts anything that could potentially be harmful to themselves into their body. Any rational person should weigh the risks and take ownership of their decisions. I am sure YMMV.

Do you drink? Eat fast food? Smoke weed?

Smoking is one of the most addictive bad habits there is. People smoke for a variety of reasons.

I have tremendous sympathy for anyone who is an addict or whose life is out of control.

You're not one of those people who feel the passive/aggressive need to remind people that they shouldn't be smoking?

I'll feel bad for you too if you happen to bring about your own downfall in some way.

 

[dbrower]

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

Too many in my opinion. As we can all die from the natural hazards we face in our daily lifes. Taking unnecessary chemicals to add to those risks is crazy. We can never know how many die due to the illegality of them.

Not really answering the question. From an epidemiological standpoint, the statistics matter more than the purported morality. No one dies from the illegality of a substance, but from what it actually does. Many people take unnecessary chemicals -- say for instance, excessive multivitamins, or ice cream.

Worldwide, its likely that thousands of cyclists are killed on the road each year. It is unlikely there's been a hundred PED-related deaths in cycling in 20 years. Almost every competitive cyclist has had broken bones; most know someone who got killed riding. If one is rationally computing actual risks of physical harm, the risk of going out on the road in lycra at all vastly overwhelms the risks of risks of a sane PED program. Which is not to say all PED programs are sane, but that the statistics show not many are as insane as the hyperbolic moral rhetoric would say.

-dB

 

[ChrisE]

Do you drink? Eat fast food? Smoke weed?

Smoking is one of the most addictive bad habits there is. People smoke for a variety of reasons.

I have tremendous sympathy for anyone who is an addict or whose life is out of control.

You're not one of those people who feel the passive/aggressive need to remind people that they shouldn't be smoking?

I'll feel bad for you too if you happen to bring about your own downfall in some way.

If I bring upon my physical downfall in some way I have only myself to blame.

To get addicted to something one must "try" it first.....that is a choice.

 

[buckwheat]

If I bring upon my physical downfall in some way I have only myself to blame.

To get addicted to something one must "try" it first.....that is a choice.

Regardless, if you screw up and repent, or ask for assistance, I'll help you to the best of my ability.

 

[ChrisE]

Regardless, if you screw up and repent, or ask for assistance, I'll help you to the best of my ability.

Oh, I've got alot of stuff in my closet and I add to it every day. If you are tight with somebody that can save me then this is a formal release to help me to the best of your ability.

I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.

Heal me, brother buckwheat!

 

[buckwheat]

Oh, I've got alot of stuff in my closet and I add to it every day. If you are tight with somebody that can save me then this is a formal release to help me to the best of your ability.

I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.

Heal me, brother buckwheat!

I'd buy you a Big Mac....