Cheating (therefore Doping) Will ALWAYS Exist

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
joe_papp said:
Have you all read and studied "The Doping Dilemma," which appeared in the publication Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-doping-dilemma)?

It goes some way to address the motivation for doping/cheating and why it's not going away...
The basic motivation for doping/cheating has always been there and will always be there.

It doesn't have to be athletes it extends to federations who allow it and perpetrate it to tester's who accept a 'coffee' while the athlete takes a long long shower to DS who encourage it to families who turn a blind eye to it.

We have to try and make it a level playing field in the fairest possible manner for the fans and that is to allow the athletes to train to the best of their ability without pharmacuticals, to use their wit and intelligence to race the best that they can. if that means some wont win the GT they have dreamed about since they were a young teen, welcome to the club.
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Alright, can we get this thread out of the Armstrong talk?

Really that has nothing really to do with the article.


Also the article is badly written and I am not really able to take it serious, especially due to the use of punctuation which makes it read as though it is written by some random internet user.
 
Andynonomous said:
Why try to stop CHEATING, if there will always be some CHEATS that make it through ?

Deterence. The greater the deterence, the less the CHEATING.

There will always be rapists, murderers, extorionists, kidnappers,... getting away with their crimes, but we still try to catch, and punish them, to deter future crimes.

In today's sports arena, there is VERY LITTLE effort to catch the CHEATS. The national authorities (RFEC) do everything they can to PROTECT their homeboys. The sporting authorities (UCI) have no interest in catching the stars (since it would reduce viewership). The courts are more concerned with "athletes rights" (Belgium courts protected a tennis player who missed three out of competition tests - Wickmayer), than keeping sports from becoming corrupt. The sports media is more concerned with promoting sports (poor Lance is an American hero, leave him alone) than keeping sports clean.


If the authorities actually tried they could cut out most of the doping. The problem is they can't be bothered to do their job.
I must disagree with you here. All those you mention whom law enforcement tries to catch, is performed simply to do just that: enforce the law so that "justice" can run its course. However bringing a rapist or doper to task for his crime is not, nor will it ever be, an effective deterrent in the absolute sense. It is wishful thinking to believe that it ever was or could be, judging by the continued number of rapists and dopers the world produces annually.

In this the original poster was admitting to human weakness and fallibility.

On the other hand your last comment is, unfortunately, probably quite truthful.
 
Apr 13, 2010
14
0
0
No, deterrents don't work.

Your comment is full of the assumptions perfectly suited to this post, but I think I already refuted all of them already when I posted originally, so in the words of the Prime Minister of Britain "I refer the right honorable gentleman to the response I gave some moments ago."

Andynonomous said:
Why try to stop CHEATING, if there will always be some CHEATS that make it through ?

Deterence. The greater the deterence, the less the CHEATING.

There will always be rapists, murderers, extorionists, kidnappers,... getting away with their crimes, but we still try to catch, and punish them, to deter future crimes.

In today's sports arena, there is VERY LITTLE effort to catch the CHEATS. The national authorities (RFEC) do everything they can to PROTECT their homeboys. The sporting authorities (UCI) have no interest in catching the stars (since it would reduce viewership). The courts are more concerned with "athletes rights" (Belgium courts protected a tennis player who missed three out of competition tests - Wickmayer), than keeping sports from becoming corrupt. The sports media is more concerned with promoting sports (poor Lance is an American hero, leave him alone) than keeping sports clean.


If the authorities actually tried they could cut out most of the doping. The problem is they can't be bothered to do their job.
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
durgadas said:
Your comment is full of the assumptions perfectly suited to this post, but I think I already refuted all of them already when I posted originally, so in the words of the Prime Minister of Britain "I refer the right honorable gentleman to the response I gave some moments ago."
I'm sorry but a large part of criminological evidence show that deterrence in many cases do not have a significant impact on whether offences occur. However a large part of this has to do with the fact that the change of getting caught, especially in more rational offences such as doping. In that case deterrence might work
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
durgadas said:
Your comment is full of the assumptions perfectly suited to this post, but I think I already refuted all of them already when I posted originally, so in the words of the Prime Minister of Britain "I refer the right honorable gentleman to the response I gave some moments ago."
Was that the post when you refuted what no-one actually said or suggested?
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
durgadas said:
Here's my statement: deterrents DON'T WORK.
If you ever come to know or study addiction, you'll come to the place of knowing that deterrents never work.

Only "consequences" work. So you need to sit down, think real hard and choose your real goal.

•*If your goal is to end the practice of doping, then you're wasting your time. People will forever get caught-up in the vicious cycle of addiction and "acting-out" kinds of behavior.

•*If your goal is to help people turn the ship around, and help end the escalation and continuance of the self-destructive (and collateral damage) effects of doping, then pull up a chair and join the fight. The more people you expose, the more lives you potentially save. Because bringing a person's world crashing down around them is usually the only thing that makes even a dent in the behavior.
 
May 26, 2009
460
0
0
Benotti69's first coment on tis thread agrees with my views on "Sporting Fraud" !
Glad to see Administrator stop the "L bashing" as many views are arriving here to enliven the debate rather than more of the" SSDD syndrome"!
Met up with Toschnig today and asked if he has been offered a "deal". Seems like the same guy i met in 2000( see my blogs) although he rarely rides a race bike these days .
Austrian Laws introduced since "kohl" will change the mentality over time but my Doc who is treating a reoccurrence of Embulisms thinks that ALL top flight Athletes CONSIDER that to win needs the best "pharmacist" in addition to the TALENT that some are born with .

4 year suspensions with two years of "ankle monitoring in the house" will help discourage "Sporting Fraud" ! Banned from all Sports Venues and Sport related work will also deprive the " mentally ill equiped to refuse sporting Aids" of a source of alternative income !

See how many want to lose their livelihood and lifestyle for the podium girls and momentary glory ?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
i think it might be worth mentioning that prison is a deterrent for most of society, while not all it is a tiny % that end up there and they tend to have come from places not much better than prison in the first place.

Cycling is full of sporting criminals who face no sanctions for their actions. It is time to change that. If the anti doping was stringent and the bans hard, then we would see a majority of athletes competing clean. There will always be the Ricco's, LA's and others with dysfunctional characters who think they can beat the system, but even in the current shambles of anti-doping both are proven and known dopers. So imagine if the anti doping testing was done properly how clean the sport could be.
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
Benotti69 said:
... So imagine if the anti doping testing was done properly how clean the sport could be.
This part intrigues me because it is much more difficult to stay a step ahead of the cheaters than it is for the cheaters to stay ahead of the testers.

So what is it about current testing regimes that is so broken it is thought of as not being done properly?
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
BotanyBay said:
If you ever come to know or study addiction, you'll come to the place of knowing that deterrents never work.

Only "consequences" work. So you need to sit down, think real hard and choose your real goal.

•*If your goal is to end the practice of doping, then you're wasting your time. People will forever get caught-up in the vicious cycle of addiction and "acting-out" kinds of behavior.

•*If your goal is to help people turn the ship around, and help end the escalation and continuance of the self-destructive (and collateral damage) effects of doping, then pull up a chair and join the fight. The more people you expose, the more lives you potentially save. Because bringing a person's world crashing down around them is usually the only thing that makes even a dent in the behavior.
I skipped ahead since the subject has been discussed before but I agree with you on continuing some sort of vigilance as a fan and a participant.

The sociopaths and unrepentant will always be around but the organization that makes controlling the "guilty" as part of the business plan is the current issue. The UCI and all bodies making money without putting their lives in jeopardy are the real villains.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Oldman said:
I skipped ahead since the subject has been discussed before but I agree with you on continuing some sort of vigilance as a fan and a participant.

The sociopaths and unrepentant will always be around but the organization that makes controlling the "guilty" as part of the business plan is the current issue. The UCI and all bodies making money without putting their lives in jeopardy are the real villains.
It reminds me of CBS and the Charlie Sheen situation. Until the last 2 weeks, CBS totally was complicit. Despite the fact that Sheen was melting down and heading toward a flat spin, his show was still netting $1MM profit per episode for CBS. So even though he's getting arrested in NYC with hookers, porn stars and a pound of blow on the table, so long as he's showing-up for work, they're happy to proceed.

In my view, it was CBS' job to pull the plug. Moving forward was sending the wrong message. Some profits are not worth earning.

 
Oct 23, 2010
20
0
0
BotanyBay said:
It reminds me of CBS and the Charlie Sheen situation. Until the last 2 weeks, CBS totally was complicit. Despite the fact that Sheen was melting down and heading toward a flat spin, his show was still netting $1MM profit per episode for CBS. So even though he's getting arrested in NYC with hookers, porn stars and a pound of blow on the table, so long as he's showing-up for work, they're happy to proceed.

In my view, it was CBS' job to pull the plug. Moving forward was sending the wrong message. Some profits are not worth earning.

You are absolutely right. Pull the plug on a show that grossed more than 155 million in ad revenues alone last season. All that they have to do is reach into that magic hat and instantly produce another show that generates 14.7 million viewers.

Oh ... gotta go ... Natalie is at the door ... or is that Bree? Who am I kidding? :)
 
Complicit in what?

Why Sheen, because he's a public figure? What if he were just a clerk at Wal Mart, or an engineer at Exxon, but still managed to show up to work every day, and do a good job? Should they fire him then? Or is it because more people know who Sheen is than an average worker, so we can therefore judge him and his employer?

Reminds me of Tom Sizemore and his problems. Drugs, hookers, etc. But he still got work because he'd almost always show up on sets on time, memorized his lines, and acted well (better than Sheen IMO).

Anyway, now I'M getting off topic.
 
Oct 23, 2010
20
0
0
BotanyBay said:
It reminds me of CBS and the Charlie Sheen situation. Until the last 2 weeks, CBS totally was complicit. Despite the fact that Sheen was melting down and heading toward a flat spin, his show was still netting $1MM profit per episode for CBS. So even though he's getting arrested in NYC with hookers, porn stars and a pound of blow on the table, so long as he's showing-up for work, they're happy to proceed.

In my view, it was CBS' job to pull the plug. Moving forward was sending the wrong message. Some profits are not worth earning.
You are absolutely right! Pull the plug on a show that grossed more than 155 million in ad revenues alone last season. All that they have to do is reach into that magic hat and instantly produce another show that generates 14.7 million viewers.

Oh ... gotta go ... Brooke is at the door ... or is that Natalie? Who am I kidding? :)
 
Back to the subject at hand. As I stated before it's almost always the certainty of punishment that's a deterrent, more so than the severity of it. This is the same in crime as it is doping. If people think it's highly likely they'll get caught stealing/doping if they try it, they are much less likely to do it than if you make it a harsh punishment, but there's little chance they'll get caught.

As far as the UCI and governing bodies goes, I think it's most often an issue of collusion, power and greed that's a big issue, as Oldman noted a few posts ago.
 
Feb 15, 2011
27
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Back to the subject at hand. As I stated before it's almost always the certainty of punishment that's a deterrent, more so than the severity of it. This is the same in crime as it is doping. If people think it's highly likely they'll get caught stealing/doping if they try it, they are much less likely to do it than if you make it a harsh punishment, but there's little chance they'll get caught.

As far as the UCI and governing bodies goes, I think it's most often an issue of collusion, power and greed that's a big issue, as Oldman noted a few posts ago.
Could the testing ever be improved to the stage where it's 100% full proof? I doubt that it could, so some will always gamble. And if other's know others are gambling, that makes it more likely they will gamble as well.

Sport is so often about taking a gamble. It's part of the mindset of sport to gamble on victory.
 
Aug 24, 2010
101
0
0
Cheating may be part of human nature, but so is avoiding unpleasant consequences. There have historically been few consequences for doping in cycling. It's better now than it was when the race radio announced there was testing and who was selected for testing.

But even when we flash forward 30 years, and WADA's independant observer report from the 2010 tour says that the top two riders for risk of doping (from the passport), weren't even tested after the first three days of the tour.

Who wouldn't dope with that kind of giant loophole available? The problem isn't the dopers. It's the enforcement.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Cheat Or Be Cheated said:
Could the testing ever be improved to the stage where it's 100% full proof? I doubt that it could, so some will always gamble. And if other's know others are gambling, that makes it more likely they will gamble as well.

Sport is so often about taking a gamble. It's part of the mindset of sport to gamble on victory.
A 100% test would be good for that substance, at that time. Because the means/methods of cheating are a moving target your analogy of gambling is true to a point. Now that DNA samples could be stored the game has changed; you not only need to provide the current punitive deterrent but one that is fearsome for the future. Up to this point the worst offenders would merely "retire". Now that the Austrians are pursuing Totschnig on a older doping infraction at least one country is thinking even old heroes aren't above the legal system. Having mentioned that case I have no clue on the motivation or chance of success in that case.
Fast forward to 6 months from now: USADA tests Lance's '99 samples as part of their case and, perhaps prosecute using evidence from those samples and you have a serious disincentive for high profile athletes. While that avenue would hardly be worth a major government agency to pursue for the lower tier cheaters of the world it might give the truly talented and ambitious cause to consider the gambling aspect of PEDs.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Complicit in what?
You can't divorce Sheen's massive problems with addiction from his very public and mass-media job. CBS had a responsibility to provide consequences for his actions. To not do so is (in my view) very irresponsible when you have millions of very young viewers tuning-in each week (that also happen to read newspapers). CBS was very much an enabling entity.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
durgadas said:
Reading this article today made me think that people who write about and think about doping are not considering this topic in a really rational way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/26/AR2011022604083.html

.......
Here's my statement: deterrents DON'T WORK.
Centuries of modern and ancient civilizations suggest that you're wrong. Deterrents definitely work.

Life doesn't operate on the honor system. Are banks open air markets where you deposit your money, then walk in and withdraw cash based on what's in your account? Of course not. Yet most banks (at least in my neighborhood!) don't have armed guards there. And yet, most people don't walk back to the safe and run out with fist fulls of cash which doesn't belong to them??

Sure, every now and then someone will try it, but the difficulty is pretty high, the chances of getting caught are very good and the punishment is pretty steep. Those 3 factors are, indeed, effective deterrents to prevent most people from robbing banks.

It's the same with cheating via doping. Some people are going to cheat no matter what, and some people will never cheat. It's that fat bell curve in the middle which can be swayed by the ease/difficulty in engaging in the activity, the likelihood of getting caught and the subsequent punishment for being caught. As to those who will always cheat? Well, that's where proper enforcement comes in.

Saying "deterrents don't work" flies in the face of the most very basic proven conventions of every recorded society which has ever existed.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
131313 said:
Centuries of modern and ancient civilizations suggest that you're wrong. Deterrents definitely work.
Deterrents only work in partnership with consequences. Actually, the consequences ARE the deterrents.
 
peterst6906 said:
This part intrigues me because it is much more difficult to stay a step ahead of the cheaters than it is for the cheaters to stay ahead of the testers.
Because the UCI is aiding the cheaters. Apparently WADA is sitting on +/- 8 years of samples. Let's go back and test some using current tests! We know the UCI won't do that because they lose control of doping. The resulting transparency in dope testing is bad for Pat and Hein's personal interests.

peterst6906 said:
So what is it about current testing regimes that is so broken it is thought of as not being done properly?
There are the widely reported false negatives. It's impossible to examine the the idea of false positives.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 12
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 9
Invicituz The Clinic 0

ASK THE COMMUNITY