Anti-Doping: Sporting Policy or New Religion?

[HoustonHammer]

The heat that's generated by the debates here in the Clinic make it, for me, the most entertaining part of the CN forums. I marvel at the passion that people bring to the subject, and particularly at their righteous indignation toward doping and boiling scorn for dopers.

What powers it? Is this is a discussion of sporting policy, with roots in a desire to create a safe competitive environment for athletes, to set bounds around how they will vie against each other? Or is this a more fundamental question of aesthetic preference, a kind of religious belief system?

What do you think? Why are you against doping? Or, if you're not against it, why not?

 

[Escarabajo]

I am against doping because:

- Health related issues. During racing times and long term (Pantani, VDB).
- Fair play. Not everyone has the same advantages, not to mention the clean(ish) riders.

I thought all this was obvious.

 

[ChrisE]

I am against it because I don't think an individual should be forced to take drugs, illegal ones at that per the rules of sport, to be able to be competitive. People have the right IMO to compete in a trade or sport without cheating or potentially harming themselves.

I guess it is more of a human rights-ish issue to me, if that makes any sense.

 

[BikeCentric]

I am against it because I don't think an individual should be forced to take drugs, illegal ones at that per the rules of sport, to be able to be competitive. People have the right IMO to compete in a trade or sport without cheating or potentially harming themselves.

I guess it is more of a human rights-ish issue to me, if that makes any sense.

Totally agree. It's an exploitative system for the majority of the athletes.

 

[python]

athlete's right and obligations should be in balance. overemphasizing right over personal responsibility and obligations would lead to the same distorted unworkable solution as over doing enforcement. zealots should cancel each other not win.

 

[pmcg76]

I guess a lot of people including myself are brought up with the idea of fair play in life in general but as we grow up we realise this is some unreal idelaistic dream and that life is not fair. I think sport is just a reflection of general society but we have a notion that sport is somehow more noble when in fact it isnt.

To me doping, especially modern doping can distort the natural talent. Bjarne Riis is the prime example, he was at the same level as Paul Kimmage for the first few years of his career but they went completely different directions post 1989, Kimmage retired to become a journalist and Riis went on to be a Tour champion. Maybe that was not purely down to doping but Kimmage clearly didnt want to have to face the doping elephant and as someone else mentioned, young athletes should not be faced with these decisions.

People talk about a level playing field in sport but I would ask anyone to define what a level playing field is. Years ago, there were no Africans at the major international Athletic events but now they dominate most distance events. They just never had the opportunity before and now that they compete they have a natural advatage. If they had been around since the start, there is a good chance there would never have been a non African winner. I never had the opportunity to play a number of sports, perhaps I could have been a world champion in downhill skiing or something but never got the chance.

Look at international football, recently French football coach Raymond Domenech belittled the Irish football team as being the English B team. Ireland ard due to play France in a world cup play-off next month. Lets compare, France 60 million+ population, football main sport, Ireland 4 million population, Gaelic games main sports. Thats hardly a level playing field. We like to mock the English when they fail but their usual riposte is, well the Irish are even more rubbish. Yeah, of course, but how could we even be in the same league.

 

[ludwig]

Good original post, nice comments so far.

I don't disagree with any of the reasons to ban doping listed above--they are all good ones. Naturally athletes ought to be able to practice sport without endangering their health.

But I think the current policies bear a strong dose of irrationality and dishonesty. For example, it's absurd for the UCI to demand that cyclists sign a code of honor on doping that few riders take seriously. The rationale, we can deduce, is that it's important for the sport's image and credibility to appear as anti-doping as possible, and thus these sorts of measures are necessary. However, when doping scandals continue to emerge, despite the seemingly earnest proclamations for the authorities, then cycling develops a reputation for cynicism and dishonesty. This "omerta" culture--forcing professional sportsmen to be dishonest--is what irritates me the most about doping, though concerns for the health and human rights of cyclists are clearly much better reasons to be against doping.

As a general principle, if there are rules that are impossible to enforce, and do not change how the sport is practiced, but rather form the backdrop for a media circus that damages the sport's viability, then it might be better to drop these rules. Rules and regulations should be enforceable, and the majority of the pro peloton ought to agree that they are just and necessary.

So I guess my opinion is that cycling fans have an unfortunate tendency to deify the athletes, and form unrealistic expectations about the virtues of these cycling gods. For good reasons, cycling tries to hide the long history of doping in the sport, and the advantages of blood doping methods in endurance sports. To make a "religion" of fair play and anti-doping gives cyclists additional reason to cling to omerta for dear life. More moderate and realistic attitudes and policies are urgently needed....or cycling can just continue with omerta and we fans can hope they are taking adequate safety precautions.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Is this is a discussion of sporting policy, with roots in a desire to create a safe competitive environment for athletes, to set bounds around how they will vie against each other? Or is this a more fundamental question of aesthetic preference, a kind of religious belief system?

Great thread.

My anti-doping views fall into the bold category, but I think both perspectives you identified do exist.

In addition to physical health, a 'safe environment' also has a psychological aspect. The quasi-religious anti 'drug' attitude is quite prevalent in western culture.....but does not appear very prevalent in the cycling sub-culture. Cyclists have to interact with both mainstream and cycling culture. I think the disconnect between the two puts many of them under unacceptable levels of pressure, and I don't see the anti drug attitude in mainstream culture disappearing any time soon.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The heat that's generated by the debates here in the Clinic make it, for me, the most entertaining part of the CN forums. I marvel at the passion that people bring to the subject, and particularly at their righteous indignation toward doping and boiling scorn for dopers.

What powers it? Is this is a discussion of sporting policy, with roots in a desire to create a safe competitive environment for athletes, to set bounds around how they will vie against each other? Or is this a more fundamental question of aesthetic preference, a kind of religious belief system?

What do you think? Why are you against doping? Or, if you're not against it, why not?

For me certainly it has nothing to do with religion, morals or righteous indignation - for me those who take PED's and in particular blood boosting get a massive unfair advantage over those who do not want to risk their health.
Here is my story:

I am quite friendly with a rider who has enormous natural talent which was evident from an early age. It was no surprise to see him rise swiftly through the ranks and settle in Europe with a top amateur team that acted as a feeder team for one of the Pro Tours biggest names.
His natural talent meant he was competitive, a pro contract with the ProTour team was being mentioned and other big teams made inquiries to his availability.

He was told some more good performances would seal the deal. The amateur team suggested he work with their 'medical' personnel to ensure the good results. He politely refused but said he work hard and professionally. He rode well in the races - yet when he inquired about a contract there was always some difficulty. The DS was away, or busy, the roster was full, limited budget - yet two team-mates who had not performed as well as he had were signed.

He eventually signed for a very small team while his two former team-mates had successful and lucrative careers - one is a big star and a hero in his home country.

My belief is had he either played with the hot-sauce or it was a clean(ish) peloton he would have earned a very good contract and would have been reasonably wealthy but he also would have got the acknowledgment, recognition and respect that his talent and dedication deserve.

 

[Escarabajo]

Here is my story:

...

Maybe you should tell us the names or at least give us some hints. I am getting very interested.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

One thing that none have mentioned:

These drugs are designed and manufactured for people who are sick, in many cases dying, and need them.

 

[ggusta]

Maybe you should tell us the names or at least give us some hints. I am getting very interested.

I would advise against that unless he has proof. While slander and libel place a very high burden of proof on the person claiming damages, it still needs to be defended in court which starts out in the thousand$.

It's a minefield. He said enough.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Except this is a message board, where one can post anything they want, as we've seen many times.

The burden of proof lies only in that if he spits out a bunch of names with no evidence, he'll make himself look like he either has an axe to grind, or is running fools errands. Or is just an trolling idiot.

Oh, and there's a good chance his cycling friends won't speak to him ever again.

 

[HoustonHammer]

For me certainly it has nothing to do with religion, morals or righteous indignation - for me those who take PED's and in particular blood boosting get a massive unfair advantage over those who do not want to risk their health.
Here is my story:

I am quite friendly with a rider who has enormous natural talent which was evident from an early age. It was no surprise to see him rise swiftly through the ranks and settle in Europe with a top amateur team that acted as a feeder team for one of the Pro Tours biggest names.
His natural talent meant he was competitive, a pro contract with the ProTour team was being mentioned and other big teams made inquiries to his availability.

He was told some more good performances would seal the deal. The amateur team suggested he work with their 'medical' personnel to ensure the good results. He politely refused but said he work hard and professionally. He rode well in the races - yet when he inquired about a contract there was always some difficulty. The DS was away, or busy, the roster was full, limited budget - yet two team-mates who had not performed as well as he had were signed.

He eventually signed for a very small team while his two former team-mates had successful and lucrative careers - one is a big star and a hero in his home country.

My belief is had he either played with the hot-sauce or it was a clean(ish) peloton he would have earned a very good contract and would have been reasonably wealthy but he also would have got the acknowledgment, recognition and respect that his talent and dedication deserve.

This is a really good example of why doping is a problem. I agree that your friend should not have had to dope to follow his dream, and it seems doubly unfair that he might have missed his chance not because of his lack of performance, but because he refused to go with the crowd.

The unfairness of it seems most stark when thinking of amateur racing. There was a thread on here a while back about an amateur here in Texas that got popped for drugs and I my feeling at the time was definitely one of anger that this guy had brought it into our little racing fraternity.

On the other hand, I share some of Ludwig's suspicion of the anti-doping movement. I might feel differently if opposition had sprung up organically from within the peloton, but reading the comments of some the old greats like Merckx, that doesn't seem to have been the case. Anti-doping rules look like they were imposed on the cyclists by the bureaucrats and businessmen on the non-competitor side of the business. And so I wonder, is it really fair to say that dopers are 'cheats' when they break rules that they don't seem to have agreed to? The omerta that exists within cycling, while being ruthless to violators, seems heavily buttressed by the resentment of the riders themselves for the bureacratic machinery arrayed against them.

I agree with ChrisE that riders shouldn't have to harm themselves to compete, but to some degree that's the landscape of cycling, with or without drugs. We train on public roads, and face constant danger from cars; we race at high speeds while covered only in lycra. It's not like we all don't have to face potentially life-changing or life-ending risks even if we never dream of popping a pill or putting a needle in our arm.

These are just some of the things that make me scratch my head. I don't want to race against anybody on the gear, but I hate the idea of some nerd in Aigle telling me what I can and can't do with my body. In the end, I'm always left feeling ambivalent about the subject, and hence the question in my mind of how others can get so riled up about it.

 

[luckyboy]

And so I wonder, is it really fair to say that dopers are 'cheats' when they break rules that they don't seem to have agreed to?

Oh, come on. Really? I have no words.

 

[Anonymous]

To me, I don't like doping because it defies the logic of having belief in your own abilities...

Growing up, I always watched and love endurance based sports. There was something about seeing a guy win a marathon, triathlon or endurance based bike race that made me think, hey I could do that.

Having a culture of doping suggests to the aspiring athlete, well actually buddy, you can do that, but you must take this first.

Regardless of the rules made by the authorities, I think taking doping products is just wrong in every sense of what sport is. To me, sport is about doing the absolute best YOU can naturally, with good ol' fashioned hard work, training and dedication...

When doping becomes a must-do activity to achieve a goal, it takes away the natural belief system of an aspiring athlete, and the sport suffers to a great degree.

As an observer, I want to see real human beings suffer like dogs over the toughest terrain, and the best man come out on top, rather than the jacked up pocket rocket who breathes through his nose, wins a stage, points at himself and says look what "I" did (Ricco comes to mind here, I just dont understand how they can celebrate when they have cheated)

 

[HoustonHammer]

Oh, come on. Really? I have no words.

Well, it's a question. When I watch pros talking about their opposition to doping, I always have the feeling they're just talking to the camera, making the right noises. Fans and politicians throw the word 'cheat' around a lot, but I don't remember hearing it on the lips of a pro. If the competitors themselves don't see it in that light, why should fans?

 

[Anonymous]

I would advise against that unless he has proof. While slander and libel place a very high burden of proof on the person claiming damages, it still needs to be defended in court which starts out in the thousand$.

It's a minefield. He said enough.

I don't think he would be breaking any legal rules if he mentioned the name of the cyclist who has become very popular in his home country.

He never called this cyclist a doper, or even suggested it, the Doc just pointed out that there were two cyclists whos results were not as good as the athlete in question, and since then, one of those cyclists has been successful

The Clinic is full of slander without proof becoz everything that is said here is a personal opinion, rather than facts based on evidence, and as such it is merely freedom of speech that is enacted in this forum which should not be punishable by law.

So for the Doc, personally I would also be interested to know who those two cyclists are (especially the one who has become very popular in his home country) but there is no need to tell us if you don't want to

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't think he would be breaking any legal rules if he mentioned the name of the cyclist who has become very popular in his home country.

He never called this cyclist a doper, or even suggested it, the Doc just pointed out that there were two cyclists whos results were not as good as the athlete in question, and since then, one of those cyclists has been successful

The Clinic is full of slander without proof becoz everything that is said here is a personal opinion, rather than facts based on evidence, and as such it is merely freedom of speech that is enacted in this forum which should not be punishable by law.

So for the Doc, personally I would also be interested to know who those two cyclists are (especially the one who has become very popular in his home country) but there is no need to tell us if you don't want to

A couple of clarifications:

In August a court in NYC ordered Google to reveal the identityof a 'blogger' who had 'bad-mouthed' a New York model.
But any legal ramification would not bother me - although CN could have a very different view on that.

Ultimately though I will not reveal any details of either the riders or the team - this is primarily because it is his right to reveal the names and details, not mine.

Also the rider I know is still actively involved in cycling. So even a hint could reveal his identity.

 

[frenchfry]

Maybe you should tell us the names or at least give us some hints. I am getting very interested.

This story has been played out countless number of times, and the scores of names that can be inserted are, in a sense, unimportant. Of course it could sharpen our awareness of the problem by putting faces to the actors, but that isn't the point. Anyone that has been involved in competitive cycling (or sports for that matter) has examples of this type of story and if they say they don't they just haven't been paying attention or are outright lying.

I think Chris E did a good job of summarising the problem. Riders with potential shouldn't have to be faced with the decision of doping and succeeding or fading into obscurity. Of choosing between the well documented potential physical and psychological risks of doping or maintaining a healthy approach.

And what is so wrong with wanting a certain amouont of "purity" in sports, where the athletes face off with no PEDs to inject doubt into the outcome.

I don't think taking an anti-doping stance is a "religion", it is just good sense.

 

[350Watts]

I guess a lot of people including myself are brought up with the idea of fair play in life in general but as we grow up we realise this is some unreal idelaistic dream and that life is not fair. I think sport is just a reflection of general society but we have a notion that sport is somehow more noble when in fact it isnt.......

I couldn't agree more with the bold above. When you take highly competitive individuals, no matter the profession, they will bend or break the rules to advance above the others.

On the pro level I personally don't agree with doping based strictly on fair play. On the junior level well... lets just say I think that crimes against minors should be punishable by death, they are just to easy to exploit.

I had my chance and chose to pass but I've never really held that much ill will toward those that did, there are plenty of other things to do in life but its probably that same attitude in me that didn't force me to win at all costs and that ultimately held me back doping or not. Having said all that it is starting to irritate me that Masters riders are showing up after visiting the anti-aging clinics and ripping the fields, that is just sad.

 

[350Watts]

A couple of clarifications:

In August a court in NYC ordered Google to reveal the identityof a 'blogger' who had 'bad-mouthed' a New York model.
But any legal ramification would not bother me - although CN could have a very different view on that.

Ultimately though I will not reveal any details of either the riders or the team - this is primarily because it is his right to reveal the names and details, not mine.

Also the rider I know is still actively involved in cycling. So even a hint could reveal his identity.

I may not agree with all your posts but your last one and this one are very good, you are so right it is not your place to reveal the names and details, there is no reason to feed peoples voyeuristic nature.

 

[python]

if one defines doping as an illegal performance enhancement than we need to recognize that many ’legal’ enhancers are either not yet on the list or were removed or became ‘monitored’ substances. some are so borderline that even a good chemist could be confused.

what i am saying is that the illegal enhancement is not an easily defined black and white issue and therefore should not stir strong indignant emotions ('i hate doping’) unless a person involved is attempting to cover up by abusing truth and insulting everyone’s intelligence. In those case I start thinking not so much about disliking doping but a doper who takes me for a complete fool.

it probably does not make sense for the phylosofically inclined majority here but i have a problem with armstrong, landis, schumacher, hamilton.. not because they cheated chemically but because they cheated intellectually and became entrenched liars. some compounded these lies by becoming role models for my kids. it is this type of abusive dishonesty that draws doping lines for me.

 

[Escarabajo]

...

Ultimately though I will not reveal any details of either the riders or the team - this is primarily because it is his right to reveal the names and details, not mine.

Also the rider I know is still actively involved in cycling. So even a hint could reveal his identity.

You are right. I should not have asked that question. Besides, regardless of the names, nothing would surprise me anymore (well, almost nothing).

I apologize for asking. Frenchfry also made a good comment related with many riders with similar stories like that. They just keep it quiet for the many reasons that we already know.

 

[Escarabajo]

I may not agree with all your posts but your last one and this one are very good, you are so right it is not your place to reveal the names and details, there is no reason to feed peoples voyeuristic nature.

350Watts. Relax, you don't know me very well.