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

[DirtyWorks]

As far as I can tell, they are not suggesting any specific action at all.

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 statement leads to specific action.

My gift to you today: We agree that intellectually, allowing doping no problem. It's just performance technology if we are to believe the authors.

Oh, but let's bring it home Mrhender. Deregulate doping per the author's intentions and your child becomes an elite Junior cyclist in this system. The only option forward, as a teenager, is for your child to dope. What's first? EPO? HGH/Test? When does your child start transfusions? When is your child permitted to do the injections themselves? Got medical supplies? Got peptides? Got money for peptides? Is buying regulated drugs and using them in an uncontrolled manner a crime in your country? It is in mine.

No problem. Right?

Mostly they are critical to current administrations, the execution and efficiency of powers in hand.

Execution is owned by the sports federation 99.999% of the time. It's why Wonderboy "never tested positive." The authors are blaming a NADO for the UCI completely missing the tiny gap that granted USADA the opportunity to use testimony to deliver a sanction.

The article takes the sport back to 1990-something. Just after the Hct threshold is established. Please tell me, what happened in the sport after that?

 

[mrhender]

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.

To no. 1. They do consider that, and it is one of the cardinal points in their criticism:

we use the case of cycling to demonstrate the unplanned consequences of the current
sanction system and show how it diminishes the meaning of sport

To no. 2 Not sure I understand you correctly but:That is again exactly what they do when they say:

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.

I may be interpreting the stable-part wrongly.
So please elaborate if so.

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.

To the first bolded. Yes and that is exactly the problem. Verner Møller for example, is known for calling out authorities/ big players on the PR bull****... And it's not just overlaps in doping control they are arguing. As i read it there's a subtle reference to the UCI "scheme" which of course and understandably is toned down in this kind of publication where carreers can get destroyed..
They have to apply some sort of cautious formulations in the lack of concrete evidence...

To the second bolded... I couldn't agree more. And i can't see the logic in altering race results on the desk. Awarding on dopers prize to another doper.. In the Armstrong case they didn't award anything, but that is a one hit wonder.. And a debatable one..

 

[mrhender]

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 statement leads to specific action.

And what specific action do you read they propose from this?

Notice the word "spirit".
They argue that the incentive of level competetion is a fatamorgana.

My gift to you today: We agree that intellectually, allowing doping no problem. It's just performance technology if we are to believe the authors.

No thanks cause I'am not advocating to allow doping.

Oh, but let's bring it home Mrhender. Deregulate doping per the author's intentions and your child becomes an elite Junior cyclist in this system. The only option forward, as a teenager, is for your child to dope. What's first? EPO? HGH/Test? When does your child start transfusions? When is your child permitted to do the injections themselves? Got medical supplies? Got peptides? Got money for peptides? Is buying regulated drugs and using them in an uncontrolled manner a crime in your country? It is in mine.

No problem. Right?

My gift to you: I will ignore the bolded remarks.

Again, you are making false assumptions to my intentions.
Any answer I give would be the same as to concur with your interpretation.

But... Speaking in general terms I will say this.
The past and current generation of riders are probably under enormous
psychological pressure. The constant playing games, lying and secrecy has driven some to depression and even worse.
Do you really think that the current state of things doesn't come with a price?
Do you think that the kids/youth's entering the sport with foul preconceptions only to get dissapointed or feel forced to dope not to dissapoint should be discarded.
My point is that arguing Anti-doping as working against the purpose is perfectly fair. We both know that anti-doping is only sharpening the knives of the cheaters and the enablers. Just because we don't have a bully like Lance to blaim for it all it doesn't fundamentally change anything bad that still resides in this "sport".

Execution is owned by the sports federation 99.999% of the time. It's why Wonderboy "never tested positive." The authors are blaming a NADO for the UCI completely missing the tiny gap that granted USADA the opportunity to use testimony to deliver a sanction.

I grant you that. But you are only focusing to the details that fits your narrative. You either refuse/ignore or can't see the wider point.

The article takes the sport back to 1990-something. Just after the Hct threshold is established. Please tell me, what happened in the sport after that?

And what do you think is happening in the sport now? Healthy?

 

[D-Queued]

...

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.

I may be interpreting the stable-part wrongly.
So please elaborate if so.

...

... Yes and that is exactly the problem. Verner Møller for example, is known for calling out authorities/ big players on the PR bull****... And it's not just overlaps in doping control they are arguing. As i read it there's a subtle reference to the UCI "scheme" which of course and understandably is toned down in this kind of publication where carreers can get destroyed..
They have to apply some sort of cautious formulations in the lack of concrete evidence...

...

Thanks for your post.

Just going to focus on these statements.

As I understand it, and as I understand your highlights: Their argument is that the anti-doping efforts/controls have too many players involved and that they are overzealous to the point of damaging the sport.

Unfortunately, they are pointing their fingers at the wrong players. Even worse, their lumping the UCI in with WADA and the ADAs can be viewed as an attempt to deflect criticism due the UCI. WADA and the ADAs were created to overcome the mess that the UCI had created and was ineffective in dealing with.

1. The UCI has minimally worked at cross-purposes in the most inflammatory and most extreme 'sport damaging' cases. In fact, it is due to their culpability that the sport has been damaged. NOT due to their overzealous anti-doping efforts. They hid doping while pretending to be doing something about it.

2. WADA was created as an independent body (along with the ADAs) to try and avoid exactly that kind of inherent conflict of interest. WADA was also created because the UCI completely failed to police doping in the sport in the Festina disaster.



If these authors fail to observe the depth of the conflict of interest in general, the extent of the damage it created and the complicity of the UCI specifically, then they are missing the true damage to the sport.

The damage that has been done cannot be laid on the anti-doping efforts.

the damage to the sport can, however, be laid on the UCI for its duplicity in aiding doping, its complicity and financial dealings with Armstrong (and probably others), and its capriciousness in enforcement.

Dave.

 

[Oldman]

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.

Some of us cherish a "sport" and others want to improve a sport. My personal concern is that steroid rejuvenation and "natural" epo are in mainstream advertising. Joe Gymrat is obviously using street obtained stuff to get bigger although he has no aspirations to be a real athlete. Kids see this and take it as the norm without any consideration for long term health consequences. That's a problem and if the "sport" I'm interested in can be smoothly or painfully regulated to represent a better, cleaner and healthier activity I am in favor of that.
The current fervor over spousal abuse in the US is a direct reflection of scrutiny landing on NFL players. That's not a bad thing yet you have marriage fundamentalists defending Ray Rice's behavior as a personal matter. Adrian Peterson can apparently whip his part-time four-year old son and he feels that is "parenting". At least he's open to the idea that there might be another way but not until his multiple children with multiple mothers is revealed. Fans decry the damage done to the game but everyday folks and members of Congress are responding to the negative images because they can have an impact.
I am very far from wanting government intervention into my behavior but protected Monopoly franchises that make massive amounts of money should have rules to govern them. They do have an impact on others.

 

[mrhender]

Thanks for your post.

Just going to focus on these statements.

As I understand it, and as I understand your highlights: Their argument is that the anti-doping efforts/controls have too many players involved and that they are overzealous to the point of damaging the sport.

Unfortunately, they are pointing their fingers at the wrong players. Even worse, their lumping the UCI in with WADA and the ADAs can be viewed as an attempt to deflect criticism due the UCI. WADA and the ADAs were created to overcome the mess that the UCI had created and was ineffective in dealing with.

1. The UCI has minimally worked at cross-purposes in the most inflammatory and most extreme 'sport damaging' cases. In fact, it is due to their culpability that the sport has been damaged. NOT due to their overzealous anti-doping efforts. They hid doping while pretending to be doing something about it.

2. WADA was created as an independent body (along with the ADAs) to try and avoid exactly that kind of inherent conflict of interest. WADA was also created because the UCI completely failed to police doping in the sport in the Festina disaster.



If these authors fail to observe the depth of the conflict of interest in general, the extent of the damage it created and the complicity of the UCI specifically, then they are missing the true damage to the sport.

The damage that has been done cannot be laid on the anti-doping efforts.

the damage to the sport can, however, be laid on the UCI for its duplicity in aiding doping, its complicity and financial dealings with Armstrong (and probably others), and its capriciousness in enforcement.

Dave.

Thanks Dave...

I think we are approaching this from very different baselines.

That doesn't mean i disagree that UCI were/are bull****..

The article is a study of specific anti-doping efforts and consequences of same since the creation of WADA. It is not about identifying the worst players...
Is your claim that without the UCI everything would be fine?
If we are only to focus on what your post implies as the "real" problem, by discarding every other aspects of information/opinion, then discussion at all is meaningless.

In the article they are pointing out how cycling has become an unfortunate credibility test for the riders, rather than an example of anti-doping efforts beeing executed in accordance with rules and regulations....
That is, however only one of the points.. Same as the "too many players" you mention above.
They specifically target the "sporting" side of the matter, in which they repeat that results in cycling were beeing tampered with to an extent of ridicule, hence the "end of sport" phrase...
That argument of course doesn't exclude yours about the UCI.. And this is the core pillar of my post. Despite the possibly narrow approach of the article, they are treating issues that correlates with the points of your post and the aspect of anti-doping as a whole. It is not a contest of what was or is the worst thing...

I have had the opportunity to read the full article.
I would appreciate if you would do the same and tell me if it changed anything for you...

 

[D-Queued]

Thanks Dave...

I think we are approaching this from very different baselines.

That doesn't mean i disagree that UCI were/are bull****..

The article is a study of specific anti-doping efforts and consequences of same since the creation of WADA. It is not about identifying the worst players...
Is your claim that without the UCI everything would be fine?
If we are only to focus on what your post implies as the "real" problem, by discarding every other aspects of information/opinion, then discussion at all is meaningless.

In the article they are pointing out how cycling has become an unfortunate credibility test for the riders, rather than an example of anti-doping efforts beeing executed in accordance with rules and regulations....
That is, however only one of the points.. Same as the "too many players" you mention above.
They specifically target the "sporting" side of the matter, in which they repeat that results in cycling were beeing tampered with to an extent of ridicule, hence the "end of sport" phrase...
That argument of course doesn't exclude yours about the UCI.. And this is the core pillar of my post. Despite the possibly narrow approach of the article, they are treating issues that correlates with the points of your post and the aspect of anti-doping as a whole. It is not a contest of what was or is the worst thing...

I have had the opportunity to read the full article.
I would appreciate if you would do the same and tell me if it changed anything for you...

Yes, I read it. No, it didn't change anything.

If their argument does not include a reasonable assessment of the UCI's complicity and culpability (last ISO to sign onto the Code), then they are avoiding the central issue with doping in cycling.

We have discussed this at length in various earlier threads (e.g. on the UCI, on McQuaid, etc.). What the UCI failed to respect is that by trying to avoid a full commitment to anti-doping they would damage their own credibility and that of the athletes. They would also be inviting ever increasing scrutiny from other organizations.

With Festina, the Gendarmes put cyclists in jail.

Hein bailed them out, slapped their wrist, and reduced their bans to a point of inconsequence. His next trick was to accept a back-dated and falsifed TUE from Lance.

He.Didn't.Get.It.

You note that the authors are citing the numerous authorities with blame for damaging athlete credibility. With estimates (e.g. JV, TH, LA) of 80%+ doping in the peloton, what credibility was there anyways?

Only if there had been credible anti-doping measures from the UCI could there have been credibility to preserve. Had there been such measures, WADA and all of these other anti-doping authorities would not even exist.

Whether the chicken or egg comes first can be debated. In anti-doping, though, it was the UCI that birthed WADA.

Dave.

 

[mrhender]

Yes, I read it. No, it didn't change anything.

If their argument does not include a reasonable assessment of the UCI's complicity and culpability (last ISO to sign onto the Code), then they are avoiding the central issue with doping in cycling.

We have discussed this at length in various earlier threads (e.g. on the UCI, on McQuaid, etc.). What the UCI failed to respect is that by trying to avoid a full commitment to anti-doping they would damage their own credibility and that of the athletes. They would also be inviting ever increasing scrutiny from other organizations.

With Festina, the Gendarmes put cyclists in jail.

Hein bailed them out, slapped their wrist, and reduced their bans to a point of inconsequence. His next trick was to accept a back-dated and falsifed TUE from Lance.

He.Didn't.Get.It.

You note that the authors are citing the numerous authorities with blame for damaging athlete credibility. With estimates (e.g. JV, TH, LA) of 80%+ doping in the peloton, what credibility was there anyways?

Only if there had been credible anti-doping measures from the UCI could there have been credibility to preserve. Had there been such measures, WADA and all of these other anti-doping authorities would not even exist.

Whether the chicken or egg comes first can be debated. In anti-doping, though, it was the UCI that birthed WADA.

Dave.

Thanks

To the bolded part.. I may not have been clear enough when I said the whole article. What i meant was the original paper/article/study which the link was based on. Can you re-confirm as to this, to eliminate potential misunderstandings?

I do not disagree with your points...
My point was that the study is more narrow, than the bigger picture that you pan out..
So the reason for me to ask if you had read the full thing, was that I could not see your opinion to the specific points they made, other than something else was/is more crucial.. Hence the phrase where I say that one thing doesn't rule out the other..

 

[D-Queued]

Thanks

To the bolded part.. I may not have been clear enough when I said the whole article. What i meant was the original paper/article/study which the link was based on. Can you re-confirm as to this, to eliminate potential misunderstandings?

I do not disagree with your points...
My point was that the study is more narrow, than the bigger picture that you pan out..
So the reason for me to ask if you had read the full thing, was that I could not see your opinion to the specific points they made, other than something else was/is more crucial.. Hence the phrase where I say that one thing doesn't rule out the other..

Ok, sorry.

I will try and get some time and go back and look at that.

Dave.