Anti-Doping is the cure, worse than the disease?

[mrhender]

http://www.theouterline.com/anti-doping-is-the-cure-worse-than-the-disease/

An interesting article on the paper: “Anti-Doping: The End of Sport” published by Professors Paul Dimeo and Verner Møller..

But we would argue that the agencies involved with anti-doping and the approaches employed to date to solve the problem are so overlapping and complex, so inconsistently utilized, and so inequitably applied that, in effect, the cure may be worse than the disease.

A full read might be necessary, hence only the one quote...

 

[Digger]

http://www.theouterline.com/anti-doping-is-the-cure-worse-than-the-disease/

An interesting article on the paper: “Anti-Doping: The End of Sport” published by Professors Paul Dimeo and Verner Møller..



A full read might be necessary, hence only the one quote...

I read it and I couldn't agree more with the inconsistency line - it's a joke.

The USADA case was a joke.


And prior to that the way the UCI dealt with some positives and swept others under the carpet was and is another joke.

 

[D-Queued]

http://www.theouterline.com/anti-doping-is-the-cure-worse-than-the-disease/

An interesting article on the paper: “Anti-Doping: The End of Sport” published by Professors Paul Dimeo and Verner Møller..



A full read might be necessary, hence only the one quote...

Thanks.

It did take some effort to get past the statement, including the bad grammar:

"Why have Armstrong’s Tour de France victories have (sic) been revoked..."

But, there are some good points made:

"...Yet, most of the witnesses – all of whom also doped – received six-month bans and have largely been welcomed back into the fold. George Hincapie owns a prominent developmental cycling team, a successful sports clothing business, an upscale hotel and other economic interests. Christian Vande Velde is now an announcer for NBC Sports, while Tom Danielson has returned to racing for Garmin Sharp. ..."

And:

"...Anti-doping enthusiasts might argue that the pro-doping culture of cycling has now been replaced by a healthier anti-doping culture. Yet, the cyclists have not really slowed down that much, competitive pressures on their bodies and minds have not been reduced, and their livelihood is still precariously dependent upon their day-to-day racing performance. In other words ..."

In other words, doping must still exist?

Heavens, what a surprise.

However, where they see "directionless administration of the rules.." some of us see clear evidence of certain senior officials of the UCI working against the sport itself to cultivate and profit from distortion.

Rather than a directionless administration, it was a purposeful deception - possibly criminal in many jurisdictions - by the Administration itself. Without the anti-doping activities, no matter how imperfect they might be, this black period might well have continued indefinitely.

In other words, they are pointing their fingers at the wrong players. Follow the money and uncover the criminal element that is truly behind any distortion.

Dave.

 

[the sceptic]

I read it and I couldn't agree more with the inconsistency line - it's a joke.

The USADA case was a joke.


And prior to that the way the UCI dealt with some positives and swept others under the carpet was and is another joke.

Yup the omerta didnt go away with Lance, it just changed into another guise.

 

[Beech Mtn]

I read it and I couldn't agree more with the inconsistency line - it's a joke.

The USADA case was a joke.


And prior to that the way the UCI dealt with some positives and swept others under the carpet was and is another joke.

This. Can't even go after McQuaid/Hein or the piddling little USA Cycling folks. Anti-doping agencies don't really have much power, and that appears to be by design. No governance reforms got made out of that, not even in the US.

At least they did ban Johan and the doctors. Not that it will make much difference to the doctors. Probably seen as a badge of honor for them.

 

[Beech Mtn]

And re the OP:
It's interesting that Verner Møller is one of the authors. He wrote the heavily pro-Chicken book "Scapegoat" about MRassmussen and all the twists and turns between UCI, DCU, ASO, and team Rabobank to get rid of the Chicken.

 

[mrhender]

Another thing.

One hopes that we have indeed turned the corner, and that the various international and national anti-doping organizations – WADA, USADA, UKAD and so on

No mention of the UCI.... They must apply to the "and so on" category....

 

[Digger]

I will refrain from talk of JV and the Garmin crew...


let's examine the logic of lance being stripped of the wins whilst Indurain, Eddy and other known dopers paraded in Paris last year.


I personally like Rasmussen - he's articulate and smart.

 

[Granville57]

No mention of the UCI.... They must apply to the "and so on" category....

The UCI is not an "anti-doping agency."

Clearly, there are plenty of jokes to be attached to that fact...

But I hope you understand what I mean.

 

[Oldman]

I will refrain from talk of JV and the Garmin crew...


let's examine the logic of lance being stripped of the wins whilst Indurain, Eddy and other known dopers paraded in Paris last year.


I personally like Rasmussen - he's articulate and smart.

As always folks like it black or white...Armstrong couldn't be any worse...level playing field....bs.
Indurain and Eddy were paraded at the head of the circus cycling is and always has been. It is a promoted professional sport and whatever legacy they can cling to is what is being marketed and that is all it is.

Enforcement is uneven and the Armstrong example is not even close to a good example; rather the different Federations that cheat to protect their National riders. Cleaning house will take time and will always face new challenges. Fortunately people are paying attention and questioning what they see, most of the time. That awareness is a start and to suggest going backward and burning every old, retired pro at the stake or letting them all dope freely is the alternative is not going to fly with some of us. Screw that.

 

[Gavandope]

I will refrain from talk of JV and the Garmin crew...


let's examine the logic of lance being stripped of the wins whilst Indurain, Eddy and other known dopers paraded in Paris last year.


I personally like Rasmussen - he's articulate and smart.

There is no logic there - from Miguel onwards nearly all have blood doped of some sort. In my book without any logic he deserves the wins stripped for what he did to others for challenging his lies - until he decides to blow the sport wide open by telling all completely I will be very happy him never having them back.

Rest In Purgatory LA

 

[Archibald]

don't really want to go into the LA debate over right or wrong he got done and others didn't, but...

he got caught, while Indurain hasn't been. Fair? who cares - not every speeding motorist gets caught and fined either... It wasn't fair to the others what you did either
If LA's not happy with that, then do something about it instead of whinging about it.
snitch, boy, snitch

 

[MarkvW]

Expect nothing honest and true from professional cycling. Everything that happens and has happened in the sport makes considerable sense after that.

When you project your own moral values onto the "sport" of professional cycling, you will develop an unrealistic picture of the sport as well as an unrealistic expectation for what the sport can become--unless you're an amoral schemer of moderate intelligence. In that case, your moral values perfectly mirror the sport.

Liege--Bastogne--Payoff

 

[More Strides than Rides]

don't really want to go into the LA debate over right or wrong he got done and others didn't, but...

he got caught, while Indurain hasn't been. Fair? who cares - not every speeding motorist gets caught and fined either... It wasn't fair to the others what you did either
If LA's not happy with that, then do something about it instead of whinging about it.
snitch, boy, snitch

But the goal of catching speeders is not to make the world fair. The goal of anti doping is to eliminate the variables which manipulate sport beyond what we want to watch, measure, admire, and strive for. More or less, fair.

 

[DirtyWorks]

This. Can't even go after McQuaid/Hein or the piddling little USA Cycling folks. Anti-doping agencies don't really have much power, and that appears to be by design. No governance reforms got made out of that, not even in the US.

In the U.S. the USOC/IOC got their sports government granted monopolies. Along with a very permissive legal/judicial policy regarding doping, it's a powerful combination that encourages doping.

WADA/NADO's was not designed to be an independent agency with oversight powers. They test and sanction at the direction of anti-doping authorities. This should be obvious by now.

We argue that anti-doping has gone too far and now poses more of a threat to the spirit of athletic competition than a solution.

That is insane. The authors wish to further weaken anti-doping. Which, isn't really possible.

The rest of the article is loaded with false assumptions, false statements, false choices.

 

[IzzyStradlin]

let's examine the logic of lance being stripped of the wins whilst Indurain, Eddy and other known dopers paraded in Paris last year.

As Vaughters has said (and he is right): Truly eliminating doping from sports is impossible. Anti-doping is about incentives, making doping so difficult/expensive that it is not worth the benefit.


Is the article a joke? It reads like one.

 

[Benotti69]

In the U.S. the USOC/IOC got their sports government granted monopolies. Along with a very permissive legal/judicial policy regarding doping, it's a powerful combination that encourages doping.

WADA/NADO's was not designed to be an independent agency with oversight powers. They test and sanction at the direction of anti-doping authorities. This should be obvious by now.

We argue that anti-doping has gone too far and now poses more of a threat to the spirit of athletic competition than a solution.

That is insane. The authors wish to further weaken anti-doping. Which, isn't really possible.

The rest of the article is loaded with false assumptions, false statements, false choices.

I agree with all the above. Sport is big business and has gone to far down the business model road to ever clean itself up whether it is cycling, football, tennis, athletics...........

 

[Archibald]

But the goal of catching speeders is not to make the world fair. The goal of anti doping is to eliminate the variables which manipulate sport beyond what we want to watch, measure, admire, and strive for. More or less, fair.

sure.
the example though, is like saying to the cop, "hey officer, he's speeding too, it's not just me", which is effectively LA's complaint
The difference is, though, that LA has a chance to actually have the authorities go after the fellow "speeders" that weren't pulled over... if you get my drift.


on a side note, you could argue that catching speeders is intended for all to be at the same level (or lower)

 

[mrhender]

The UCI is not an "anti-doping agency."

Clearly, there are plenty of jokes to be attached to that fact...

But I hope you understand what I mean.

I do...

The quote was too narrowly selected. Granted. A read of the full article should cast light on my remark though..

I find it troublesome that the promoters of the sport are also policing it.
Enpowered on a level, anti-doping agencies could only dream of...

 

[mrhender]

Expect nothing honest and true from professional cycling. Everything that happens and has happened in the sport makes considerable sense after that.

Are you saying we should just ignore and/or accept it then?

When you project your own moral values onto the "sport" of professional cycling, you will develop an unrealistic picture of the sport as well as an unrealistic expectation for what the sport can become--unless you're an amoral schemer of moderate intelligence. In that case, your moral values perfectly mirror the sport.
Liege--Bastogne--Payoff

That seems a bit black and white... In my opinion the article operates in a grey area. They attempt an approach different from the norm, of just laying down the moral hammer to the riders.. I appreciate this approach, even if disagreeing with some of their presumptions and interpretations...

Our moral values differ. They are not always flawless, or the opposite..
It's not that simple in my opinion...

 

[DirtyWorks]

In my opinion the article operates in a grey area. They attempt an approach different from the norm..

What grey area? The authors are advocating weakening WADA standards.

And "the norm" is not different that what is already going on now.

The authors are mostly mad someone got caught.

 

[Tonton]

What grey area? The authors are advocating weakening WADA standards.

And "the norm" is not different that what is already going on now.

The authors are mostly mad someone got caught.

Agree. This article is pushing the Hinault rhetoric one step further, from "talking about doping is killing the sport" to "doing something against doping is killing the sport". A lot of whining. And the notion that less anti-doping would be good for cycling. Rubbish. Maybe very short term. And then what? Parents won't want their kids to begin in the sport and cycling will be dead.

 

[mrhender]

What grey area? The authors are advocating weakening WADA standards.

And "the norm" is not different that what is already going on now.

The authors are mostly mad someone got caught.

I would say that arguing anti-doping as beeing (in ethical terms) a "cure worse than the disease" is very much a grey area.. They are undertaking a moral point of wiev very different from the broad public norm...

I can understand why the article leads to critical questions.
But to say that "they are mostly mad someone got caught" is at best highly speculative, and a bit presumptuous in my opinion.

So is the claim that they are arguing a weakening of the WADA code.
As far as I can tell, they are not suggesting any specific action at all.
Mostly they are critical to current administrations, the execution and efficiency of powers in hand.


Now as I see it, they are trying to point out a problem that correlates with the notion of cycling reduced to entertainment as the results bear none or very little meaning in the sense of believiabilty anymore..
This is primarily based upon the retrospective altering of results in races, using examples to prove that changing or erasing the books is just as truthfull as it was before the act.

The problem with this line of reasoning is opening the flank to arguments of dope-apologism. That is olso one of the reasons i called it different from the norm and a grey area.

All of this is, however only my interpretation, and I have not read the full study/publishment yet..

I too have questions. Therefore I have contacted the authors and requested a full copy of the study which i recieved today.

I will read the original paper when finding the time, and post some more to this subject.

 

[mrhender]

Agree. This article is pushing the Hinault rhetoric one step further, from "talking about doping is killing the sport" to "doing something against doping is killing the sport". A lot of whining. And the notion that less anti-doping would be good for cycling. Rubbish. Maybe very short term. And then what? Parents won't want their kids to begin in the sport and cycling will be dead.

Where are they arguing that doing something about doping is wrong?

As i see it they are arguing that the current effort is performed in a way that destabilises cycling as a sport.
Maybe you view anti-doping in it's present form as something to hold on to.
I do not...

 

[D-Queued]

Where are they arguing that doing something about doping is wrong?

As i see it they are arguing that the current effort is performed in a way that destabilises cycling as a sport.
Maybe you view anti-doping in it's present form as something to hold on to.
I do not...

What they should consider is whether 1. cycling could justifiably be viewed as sport given the incredible extent of (past) doping. 2. cycling could be viewed as stable - other than as a stable for drugs - particularly given the involvement of the UCI in various schemes.

Taking just one example, tomfoolery like the Vrijman report does/did more to damage cycling's stability and reputation than any overlap in doping control and/or doping authority. It is examples like that which underscore the complete lack of objectivity and the extreme bias and effort of the UCI to maintain an obvious distortion. In fact, the Vrijman report, as just one example, provides the fundamental evidence that doping prosecution was not vigilant enough.

Sport needs to strive for objectivity in how it measures success. No objectivity on the part of the UCI, no ability to sustain a sport.

Dave.