doping hypothetical

[sashimono]

1) Suppose there is a substance X, which enhances athletic performance and is normally produced in a human body with a range of 1 to 2. That is, some people pop out of their mothers with twice as much substance X than others.

2) Suppose there is no amount of dedication, altitude training, tactics, nutrition, et cetera that will make up for a factor of two difference in substance X.

3) Suppose there is a pill any person can take once a day to increase their substance X to the high end of the normal range, but it is banned.

So if everyone follows the rules, genes alone determine winners. Is this really what we want from sporting events? Wouldn't outcomes be more meaningful if everybody in the peloton took the pill?

 

[redtreviso]

1) Suppose there is a substance X, which enhances athletic performance and is normally produced in a human body with a range of 1 to 2. That is, some people pop out of their mothers with twice as much substance X than others.

2) Suppose there is no amount of dedication, altitude training, tactics, nutrition, et cetera that will make up for a factor of two difference in substance X.

3) Suppose there is a pill any person can take once a day to increase their substance X to the high end of the normal range, but it is banned.

So if everyone follows the rules, genes alone determine winners. Is this really what we want from sporting events? Wouldn't outcomes be more meaningful if everybody in the peloton took the pill?

No...it would be the same.. the B group would only be brought up to A level with the substance while the As would become A++s...

 

[VeloFidelis]

1) Suppose there is a substance X, which enhances athletic performance and is normally produced in a human body with a range of 1 to 2. That is, some people pop out of their mothers with twice as much substance X than others.

2) Suppose there is no amount of dedication, altitude training, tactics, nutrition, et cetera that will make up for a factor of two difference in substance X.

3) Suppose there is a pill any person can take once a day to increase their substance X to the high end of the normal range, but it is banned.

So if everyone follows the rules, genes alone determine winners. Is this really what we want from sporting events? Wouldn't outcomes be more meaningful if everybody in the peloton took the pill?

Your premise is flawed by the idea that competition is, or should be fair. It never has been, and it never will be. The reasons we watch are to either witness domination, or to see an adversity overcome.

 

[JPM London]

Your premise is flawed by the idea that competition is, or should be fair. It never has been, and it never will be. The reasons we watch are to either witness domination, or to see an adversity overcome.

Ok, we're getting a bit philosophical now, but this depends on your definition of "fair" I guess.

But anyway; I think we agree. It is unfair in the sense that we all have different capabilities from the outset - whether you talk about physical, mental or other capabilities.

However; it's completely fair in the sense that without doping the best (naturally best) wins - survival of the fittest. Again this goes for all walks and facets of life be it sports, the regular job market, the meat market whatever...

Just because we're constantly getting better at measuring and predicting who's naturally inclined to do good in certain aspects of life doesn't make the natural selection more or less "fair" - only more predictable.

Trying to achieve that everybody would have the same abilities from the outset (simply because we can measure it and confuse knowledge with a moral sensibility) would not have anything to do with fairness - but merely stupidity and silliness: If everybody had the same abilities we might as well draw the winner from a hat...

Anyway; I think we agree - I just wanted to drop my nickel on the topic

 

[VeloFidelis]

Ok, we're getting a bit philosophical now, but this depends on your definition of "fair" I guess.

But anyway; I think we agree. It is unfair in the sense that we all have different capabilities from the outset - whether you talk about physical, mental or other capabilities.

However; it's completely fair in the sense that without doping the best (naturally best) wins - survival of the fittest. Again this goes for all walks and facets of life be it sports, the regular job market, the meat market whatever...

Just because we're constantly getting better at measuring and predicting who's naturally inclined to do good in certain aspects of life doesn't make the natural selection more or less "fair" - only more predictable.

Trying to achieve that everybody would have the same abilities from the outset (simply because we can measure it and confuse knowledge with a moral sensibility) would not have anything to do with fairness - but merely stupidity and silliness: If everybody had the same abilities we might as well draw the winner from a hat...

Anyway; I think we agree - I just wanted to drop my nickel on the topic

I think we do too. My only caveat is that even with doping, I believe there is parity in the Pro ranks. I don't think Andy Schleck comes to the line thinking that Contador's, or any other top contenders "program", is better than his.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I think we do too. My only caveat is that even with doping, I believe there is parity in the Pro ranks. I don't think Andy Schleck come to the line thinking that Contador's or any other top contenders "program" is better than his.

That is not parity though, that is an exclusivity limited to those who can afford it and have no qualms about cheating.
Within the current ranks it may approach parity. Who knows how many as talented or more talented guys were excluded simply because they didn't or couldn't bring themselves to put that crap in their bodies, whether for health or moral reasons.

 

[THISISIT]

I think we do too. My only caveat is that even with doping, I believe there is parity in the Pro ranks. I don't think Andy Schleck come to the line thinking that Contador's, or any other top contenders "program", is better than his.

You may not follow cyclocross but...

when Ben Berden got popped for EPO he said the only reason Nijs and Wellens regularly beat him was because they had better medical programs.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

That is not parity though, that is an exclusivity limited to those who can afford it and have no qualms about cheating.
Within the current ranks it may approach parity. Who knows how many as talented or more talented guys were excluded simply because they didn't or couldn't bring themselves to put that crap in their bodies, whether for health or moral reasons.

Let's assume everyone unwilling to dope is already weeded out, so, fair or not, the issue of whether one is willing to dope or not is not relevant to the pro peloton. I suggest this is not far-fetched.

It's unfair to those who can't compete because they're unwilling to dope/cheat, but the ditch-digging profession is unfair to those who are unwilling to pick up a shovel.

As far as being able to afford it, I'm sure they generally invest the best stuff in those who are most talented. Another thing Lance did was figure out the value of investing in the programs for the domestiques. But it's not like others were not able to do the same. Surely they did, considering all the doping violations among those who were never GC contenders.