Cheating (therefore Doping) Will ALWAYS Exist

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
There are the widely reported false negatives. It's impossible to examine the the idea of false positives.
Do you have links to these widely reported false negative results?

That's not a facetious question. I suspect what you are thinking is a false negative is the lack of an appropriate test, which is not a false negative, but an example of the cheaters being a step ahead of the testing. The development of validated testing regimes takes time and the labs are always playing catchup on the cheats.

The concept of a false positive in drug screening at the laboratory does not make much sense. If a drug is found in both the A and B, it is because it is present.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
DirtyWorks said:
There are the widely reported false negatives. It's impossible to examine the the idea of false positives.
I think you mean that the thresholds required to declare a test "positive", quite often allow cheaters to escape.

See Ashenden's comments regarding HWMNBN's '99 samples. Even though there is proof of PEDs, they did not rise to the level required to be declared positive.
 
BotanyBay said:
Deterrents only work in partnership with consequences. Actually, the consequences ARE the deterrents.
Of course. But as I stated before, it's the certainty of punishment more than the severity that is the key element of any deterrent. Hence, if drug dealers are fairly certain they won't get caught, even though in the off chance they get caught the punishment is harsh, they'll continue to do so. We see this in society every day.

Same with cycling. You could make it one positive equals a life-time ban and people will still dope about the same they do now, because it's so rare the dopers are caught.
 
Apr 13, 2010
14
0
0
Exactly- I saw this movie also.

Nice point, Choocher.

They say it nicely in that movie, and frankly watching Freakonomics had me thinking of Lance, Floyd and their ilk, along with many other top sportsmen in other sports also. I find it interesting that it's really Americans who have this righteousness about 'cheating' in competitive situations.

I was moved by the human-ness inherent in the sumo's cheating. These are men who live in close quarters with each other for most of their lives. They have a blood father, but closer to them is their 'ringmaster', who trains them, and you can see why you would lose a match against a man whose has much more to gain by it than you do, if you've already won your allotted amount. Being ruthless in a small pen with other humans makes you less human.

Let's honestly take a look at the competitive landscape. For athletes, the situation is particularly bleak. A friend of mine is making a documentary on head trauma-related football injuries right now within the context of the NFL, and interviewing former players, their wives, neuroscientists currently trying to address the problems facing the athletes, and let's face it- in almost every situation, save the 1% who make SERIOUS money (usually in endorsements outside their salaries)- and sometimes not even them- pay the price. It's a HUGE price, and often in the least understood form- mental illness.

Sadly all modern society's most "successful" companies (Wal-mart) externalized almost all their costs, hiding behind faceless corporations who run them (UCI anyone), who create lots of wealth, yet the athletes who provide the 'entertainment' are largely left out in the cold, bearing most of the human costs.

In the NFL, it's no different- 50 years of having an alternate word for concussions (getting your bell rung) doesn't make it NOT a concussion. I've seen footage of one of the hard-to-say-he's-lucky men whose (now ex-)wife still hangs around the hospital to feed him food, like a baby. He looks like one too, head hanging, completely out of it.

Other former NFL athletes with wives and kids who are scared about the CTE they have, and what it might mean- they are HUGE powerful men without full command of their minds. Several NFL players have lost their lives after the fact- 75% of NFL players lose their wives and families 3 years after leaving the NFL and very few can adapt to post-NFL life, much of which has to do with their participation in the sport itself created such brain damage.

Translate this into cycling terms. Witness right now the efforts the rider's union has to make in order to be heard regarding their own safety in races (radios). It's ridiculous. If you watch cycling's political landscape, you can see more clearly what is happening with this modern 'externalize-everything' viewpoint. Modern is not always better- especially THIS trend.

So, the athletes pay ALL the costs in staggering life-changing and superhuman performances (which are truly so physically and mentally difficult that it often takes a serious spiritual life to endure), broken bones, broken lives (after their career) and so on, yet we accuse them of CHEATING? Who is cheating WHO, exactly, here?

It's EASY to be a governing body or an armchair critic, but you don't SUFFER like the pro athletes themselves do. But it's not just them, it's their wives and families also who are sacrificing HUGELY.

So, please understand the context of what you're saying when you call someone a cheater. THINK about it a little. These are people, not characters in a film.

Be a human being in your thinking, not an idealist. Idealism is violence, a place far from the field beyond right and wrong-doing (to paraphrase Rumi). and it's incredibly honorable the work that all athletes do, ESPECIALLY cyclists and endurance athletes.

They SUFFER FOR A LIVING. Try to be a human toward them, as their humanity is what you're witnessing while watching bike races. Competition is really an inhuman system, inherently violent, and cycling is the ultimate macho sport- in order to win, you must suffer MORE than the next guy. Think about that for a second, will you? Now call someone a cheater. You can't.

I think what we call cheating simply lessens their suffering to some extent, lessens the cost that it takes on their lives. In the small world of pro cycling, one has to respect even their cheating and understand it in the fuller sense of what. they. do.

Thanks.

Choocher said:
I just saw the movie version of Freakonomics, which I would highly recommend to anyone who hasn't read the book or already seen the movie. One of the sections, called Pure Corruption, centered on match fixing in sumo wrestling and the mathematical analysis of results to prove it. There was an interesting discussion regarding incentives and benefits, and the thought was put forward that, given a corrupt system, some personalities (sociopathic, one might argue) would very quickly realize how the system worked and have a very fluid moral compass. This really made me think of Lance.

There was also a portion that described how the sumo regulatory federation was complicit and this complicity went all the way up through law enforcement to the top of Japanese society. The UCI and Pat M., the IOC and Hein Verbruggen, among others, of course.

The topic of whistle blowers also came up. I couldn't help but think of Floyd. The whistle blowers in sumo encountered the same resistance that Floyd has, despite having credible experience to back up their claims (much like Floyd). It was very interesting to see the same pattern of corruption I see in cycling but in a sport I know nothing about (sumo). If you haven't seen it, check it out.
 
Apr 13, 2010
14
0
0
Cheating is wrong? Or just short-sighted? Or neither?

So think about your ideas of wrongness a little differently, please. Consider more than you might otherwise. Cyclists are humans, needing human understanding, not black and white ideals, and even those are selective in their focus. That focus is determined by the UCI, but there is much the UCI has to answer for too. Let's not forget this.

I would like to weigh in on "rightness" and "wrongness", and I think that Star Trek fans would be familiar with the Kobayashi Maru:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru

It's interesting that the "cheater" in this case (Captain Kirk) was given a commendation for figuring out how to "beat" the test, which was for it's participants, inherently un-winnable. Kirk dared to say otherwise, and he was a wise man because he understood that LIFE IS NOT THAT WAY.

There are no un-winnable situations, there are simply situations who eventualities aren't always understood. When one looks past the obvious, one can see why he was given a commendation by a high-minded commanding officer. I hope to live in a society who rewards thinking outside the boxes, and has a mentality that accepts things with a wise viewpoint.

I like to think in terms that are beyond "right" and "wrong" because wisdom lies there, not reactiveness, nor guilt, nor justice. In non-violent communication we're taught to 'never give them the power to make you submit or rebel'. THIS is what we need to teach to everyone, including pro cyclists, but also including the UCI who leaks doping tests in seemingly EVERY CASE.

I wonder if anyone was fired from the UCI for leaking doping results, however preliminary, before due process has happened? Why, why, why, why don't we ask THESE questions? We should be, Cyclingnews.com should be and many other news agencies should be. Take your focus off the athlete for a moment and look at the larger picture.

Why aren't we as outraged about the "wrongness" of the UCI in consistently leaking positive tests before due process is complete? Why aren't we outraged by the human rights cyclists have to give up by daring to call themselves pros? Because we are taught to cower before authority, and other such arbiters of "right" and "wrong".

Bow to The RuleMakers. Rulemakers are inherently cowardly, reactive bodies. Only when the public demands it will changes take place, and then only slowly. They react with a slowness that is itself a travesty. Why not, veganrob, demand such righteousness from their conduct also?

The UCI- the teflon governing body. No one will question them, no one will demand the kind of transparency DEMANDED from a pro cyclist. WHY NOT?

Let's have a witch hunt bac through history also! For the heads of Coppi, Bartali, Maertens and Anquetil also! Let's revise ALL cycling history! Why not crucify the many other cyclists who cheated-when-it-wasn't-called-cheating like Moser? Those who blood doped (they called it preparation then) to win an world hour record- but Moser still is a national hero in Italy, I've seen them adoring him there, untainted by any idea of wrongdoing. His hour is now surpassed, but it's STILL THERE in the history of the sport, as are SO MANY of the wins we all celebrate.

Tell me more about how "wrong" it is to cheat, I dare you.

veganrob said:
Agreed. Just because there is cheating, and often rampant, doesn't mean it should be allowed or less stringent rules. It is wrong. Cheating is wrong.
 
Apr 13, 2010
14
0
0
I was with you until the last paragraph. Enforcement CAN'T work in any capacity beyond making the efforts to cheat more subtle, a lessening of humanity from the equation or both, until one has to examine one's willingness to keep asking for an increase in both.

Try to consider the OTHER unpleasant consequences. The ones other than getting caught "cheating".

mtb Dad said:
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
durgadas said:
So think about your ideas of wrongness a little differently, please. Consider more than you might otherwise. Cyclists are humans, needing human understanding, not black and white ideals, and even those are selective in their focus. That focus is determined by the UCI, but there is much the UCI has to answer for too. Let's not forget this.

The UCI- the teflon governing body. No one will question them, no one will demand the kind of transparency DEMANDED from a pro cyclist. WHY NOT?

Let's have a witch hunt bac through history also! For the heads of Coppi, Bartali, Maertens and Anquetil also! Let's revise ALL cycling history! Why not crucify the many other cyclists who cheated-when-it-wasn't-called-cheating like Moser? Those who blood doped (they called it preparation then) to win an world hour record- but Moser still is a national hero in Italy, I've seen them adoring him there, untainted by any idea of wrongdoing. His hour is now surpassed, but it's STILL THERE in the history of the sport, as are SO MANY of the wins we all celebrate.

Tell me more about how "wrong" it is to cheat, I dare you.
I had to excise some of your novella to get to the parts you need to research better. Forum members have been very vocal about the UCI's facilitation and manipulation of riders for the sake of the "show". They're similar to the NFL, just more primitive.
As for why it's wrong...having ridden alongside pros that I could drop on a hill one week and then get crucified by them two weeks later is part of the answer. Not having pro aspiratation it bothered me some but it tore up the ambitions of younger clean amateurs. They weren't stupid and wanted to live their entire life in health. The riders that were cheating had no f*cking altruism or heroism guiding their hands; just the idea they could make money. You only need to be laughed at by a juiced pro once for being naive before you understand that.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
StyrbjornSterki said:
For the record, I do not wish ill on Lance or anyone else, I simply believe he'd be a much more effective cancer spokesman as a martyr.
Post of the Month (and we're only 2 days into it).
 
Aug 24, 2010
101
0
0
durgadas said:
I was with you until the last paragraph. Enforcement CAN'T work in any capacity beyond making the efforts to cheat more subtle, a lessening of humanity from the equation or both, until one has to examine one's willingness to keep asking for an increase in both.

Try to consider the OTHER unpleasant consequences. The ones other than getting caught "cheating".
One of the myths of the UCI is that they have been doing lots in their anti-doping programs. They haven't. The list is very long of "scuse me, please drive your truck through here" loopholes.

Race radio announcements. Incomplete banned lists (Delgado 1988). "It's ok, it was in the spectator water bottle, we believe you" defenses (Eddy got off this way once I think.) Postdated TUE's for cortizone. No chaperones till 2007, when every other sport had this for years. Never mind bribes. It's a long long long way from a draconian enforcement system.

Other unpleasant consequences? Everyone goes on about false positives and disturbing the riders sleep. Have we really seen any false positives? And you mean those same riders riding trainers in the middle of the night to keep their blood from coagulating? How about that unpleasant consequence of dying in your sleep?

Passport as 'early warning system, not sanction system' is only the latest example of window dressing anti-doping.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
SpeedWay said:
That's what makes this forum so entertaining. Fantasy world 24/7/365.
Do you ever actually discuss a topic? Most of your posts are blanket insults directed at those you do not agree with.
 
SpeedWay said:
That's what makes this forum so entertaining. Fantasy world 24/7/365.
After noting what you've said today on a couple of threads, I took a look through your posting history and it seems to me that you rarely contribute anything to these threads other than general criticisms of the Clinic or other users.

If you're not here with the intention of trolling - and I'm not suggesting you are - could you not try to offer something more useful to the debate? If you have arrived at the conclusion that it's all so one-sided here, why not try to offer another perspective? :)

EDIT: Race Radio put it more bluntly, but that's what I more or less wanted to say. ;)
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Race Radio said:
Do you ever actually discuss a topic? Most of your posts are blanket insults directed at those you do not agree with.
I was going to call him a Gremlin

 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
durgadas said:
Here's my statement: deterrents DON'T WORK.
Deterrents do work, if the goal is to minimize the impacts of doping rather than eliminating it altogether. Riders used to have hematocrits in the 60s; can't do that anymore. Riders used to have ridiculously high testosterone levels; can't get away with that anymore. Riders used to inject EPO with no fear of it being detected; can't do that anymore, either.

Riders can (and obviously do) still dope, of course - microdosing EPO for eg, or autologous transfusions, low-levels of testosterone, etc - but they are restricted to "working" within certain parameters now, which (ideally) minimizes the impact of doping. And those parameters, while still far from perfect, are far more restrictive than they used to be. That should be the real goal, ie not to stamp out doping by catching dopers, but to create an environment where there's so little advantage in doping that riders decide it's not worth the cost or the risk.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 12
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS