Doping in other sports?

[King Boonen]

Re:

Some ex nba stars casually shooting the breeze about a ped.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPCn_raDJf0&t=6m50s

Sounds quite powerful this Viox. Couldn't play without it, was like a youth with it.

Thank god PED's don't work like this in clean sports like cycling, soccer and athletics.

While Vioxx may enhance performance, just like any other NSAID, it has never been banned under the WADA code, just like ibuprofen and naproxen and as such anyone was free to take it and it cannot be considered doping.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Some ex nba stars casually shooting the breeze about a ped.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPCn_raDJf0&t=6m50s

Sounds quite powerful this Viox. Couldn't play without it, was like a youth with it.

Thank god PED's don't work like this in clean sports like cycling, soccer and athletics.

While Vioxx may enhance performance, just like any other NSAID, it has never been banned under the WADA code, just like ibuprofen and naproxen and as such anyone was free to take it and it cannot be considered doping.

Yes it can be considered doping, based purely on what was said in that video.

I know you are going to disagree with me and I don't care. Read up on the Milgram experiment. Just because an authority does or does not tell you something does not make it right or not.

If your performance is enhanced by a drug -- and it patently was, as confessed by those players -- then it is a performance enhancing drug. End of story.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I am sure UFC are pleased for Holly to beat Rhonda but damn if that 6-pack is natural on Holly I'll buy her a burger.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Some ex nba stars casually shooting the breeze about a ped.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPCn_raDJf0&t=6m50s

Sounds quite powerful this Viox. Couldn't play without it, was like a youth with it.

Thank god PED's don't work like this in clean sports like cycling, soccer and athletics.

While Vioxx may enhance performance, just like any other NSAID, it has never been banned under the WADA code, just like ibuprofen and naproxen and as such anyone was free to take it and it cannot be considered doping.

Yes it can be considered doping, based purely on what was said in that video.

I know you are going to disagree with me and I don't care. Read up on the Milgram experiment. Just because an authority does or does not tell you something does not make it right or not.

If your performance is enhanced by a drug -- and it patently was, as confessed by those players -- then it is a performance enhancing drug. End of story.

I didn't say it wasn't a PED, I didn't say it was right, I didn't make any ethical or biological inference at all. I said it wasn't doping. They are very different things. Doping in sport refers, specifically, to the use of BANNED substances. Vioxx has never been banned and it therefore is not doping. To refer to it as such, particularly in the clinic, is a massive shifting of the goalposts and patently absurd as it completely blurs the lines of any discussion.

You can argue all you want that its performance enhancing, unethical, should be banned or at least controlled and I won't disagree with you. But it is 100% not doping.

 

[gooner]

Fair enough calling for substances to be banned but I don't think it's right to be calling people dopers based on these same substances with your own rules of being holier than thou.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Milgram experiment. Just because an authority does or does not tell you something does not make it right or not.

this.


and on a personal level, i would mimic this.

my one caveat and concern, if we expect this from the 95% of lemming population in the Milgram?

but yes, it may become my sig in future

 

[blackcat]

Re:

I am sure UFC are pleased for Holly to beat Rhonda but damn if that 6-pack is natural on Holly I'll buy her a burger.

will you still buy her a burger if it is not natural? beetroot? egg? australian burger? some yank was criticising out burger credibility earlier this year DW

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Milgram experiment. Just because an authority does or does not tell you something does not make it right or not.

this.


and on a personal level, i would mimic this.

my one caveat and concern, if we expect this from the 95% of lemming population in the Milgram?

but yes, it may become my sig in future

I would suggest you both actually read the MIlgram experiment then and understand it before bringing it up. Here is the original paper:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/terrace/w1001/readings/milgram.pdf

It was about whether you would do what an authority figure was telling you to do when it went against your personal conscience. It has no relevance here. WADA are not telling athletes to take Vioxx, any other NSAID or in fact anything that is not on the prohibited list. They do not say it is right to take anything that isn't on the list. You can train on bread and water for all they care. They just outline what you cannot take and do.


In the clinic, to call something doping that is not and never has been against any anti-doping rules is ridiculous because, not only is it wrong, it completely blurs the lines of any discussion. One persons doping is another persons every day life. For instance, I know people how have to take NSAIDs pretty much every single day to function as a normal person and be able to do their job. If people need to do that to work in an office why shouldn't athletes be allowed to do it to do their job? It then becomes a moral and ethical argument which is pretty pointless when discussing professional sport because it is neither. It is business.

As I said, by all means start a thread about what athletes should and shouldn't be allowed to do out-with the current regulations. It would be interesting to know peoples opinions. I actually have very strong views on this, up to and including supplements, but I don't bring it up in discussions about doping because it is not doping.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

It was about whether you would do what an authority figure was telling you to do when it went against your personal conscience.

BS

It is about agency and autonomy.

you can say agency and autonomy with a qualifier: in the face of authority.

I say the authority is less relevant than the agency element.

this is all about agency. You know that catholic aphorism, "when good people do nothing bad things happen".

this aphorism is a logical fallacy, good people put their foot down and DO something. they do something. or they are sacrificed doing something. they are not pusillanimous in the face of authority.

and I believe this is what DW was intimating, but dont let me put words in your mouth DW [sic] (intentional irony)


King Boonen, how does it go against your personal conscience. This is where we diverge, and the perfect exposition of Wiggo's point on blood bagging when blood bagging was not banned.

if it goes against your personal conscience, a manifest example is where you do not act. The problem here is, you are asserting that people do act. So I say, they do not hold an authentic stance on the matter, or, and it may be a confluence of both, they are sufficiently lacking in agency to hold an authoritative position on any matter.

 

[King Boonen]

You do realise I'm referring to the Milgram experiment in the part you quoted, right?

 

[blackcat]

Re:

You do realise I'm referring to the Milgram experiment in the part you quoted, right?

on a meta level?

so Milgram defines the term personal conscience does he?

I think it was implicit was DW and I are defining it as, and we diverge on this terminology

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Some ex nba stars casually shooting the breeze about a ped.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPCn_raDJf0&t=6m50s

Sounds quite powerful this Viox. Couldn't play without it, was like a youth with it.

Thank god PED's don't work like this in clean sports like cycling, soccer and athletics.

While Vioxx may enhance performance, just like any other NSAID, it has never been banned under the WADA code, just like ibuprofen and naproxen and as such anyone was free to take it and it cannot be considered doping.

My point was more about it's impact. Banned or not (the guy claims it was though maybe he's wrong), their first hand testimony is that it had a massive effect.

And that is one of the main points of dispute between the clinic (or asylum as one recurring troll calls it) and the media/ athletes.

We claim drugs are powerful *** that leave anyone who doesn't take them at a perhaps insurmountable disadvantage. The media and especially the athletes dismiss this as conspiracy and act like drugs provide some.minor boost that is easily overcome by "grit".

I think this testimony is good supportive evidence for our side.

 

[Cramps]

Re: Re:

If your performance is enhanced by a drug -- and it patently was, as confessed by those players -- then it is a performance enhancing drug. End of story.

But this tautology can't be a basis for illegal doping, for one thing, it would make placebo effects illegal.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

But this tautology can't be a basis for illegal doping, for one thing, it would make placebo effects illegal.

Ivan Basso got done for "attempting to dope"

I can do time in the bighouse for "attempting to murder"

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

If your performance is enhanced by a drug -- and it patently was, as confessed by those players -- then it is a performance enhancing drug. End of story.

But this tautology can't be a basis for illegal doping, for one thing, it would make placebo effects illegal.

When people start winning bike races or other sporting events due to their consumption of homeopathic remedies, this will be worth considering.

According to WADA there are three reasons for making a product illegal and the product in question has to satisfy two. That's why hypothyroid drugs were not banned. According to WADA. If you can believe that.

The drug (Vioxx) being discussed in that NBA video was quite clearly performance enhancing and violated the spirit of sport (IMO) as without it they not only could not perform at their peak, they could not perform at all.

Just because something is not illegal right now -- like insider trading was not back in the day -- does not mean that it is not wrong. Sure, you sometimes need laws to make the wrongness of it punishable, but in this instance, the product clearly satisfies at least two of those requirements, if not three:

It wasn’t until 2002 that Merck and the FDA agreed to include the cardiovascular risk information on the drug’s label. For years, Merck hounded the FDA to remove the adverse labeling claiming it wasn’t true. However, independent studies now show that Vioxx can cause heart attacks within the first two weeks of taking the drug.
http://www.drugwatch.com/vioxx/

According to the dictionary definition of doping, they were not taking an illegal drug.

But this is where being a stickler for dictionary definitions when it allows someone a pass for wrongful behaviour ends the discussion.

It was doping.

Bottom line: if you need a law to guide you in your decision as to whether something is wrong (doping) when all the attributes of wrongness (doping) are already present, we are in two very different mindsets.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Bottom line: if you need a law to guide you in your decision as to whether something is wrong (doping) when all the attributes of wrongness (doping) are already present, we are in two very different mindsets.

this

x1000


tho, as most times, I do have the caveat. I do think there is the Insider rule versus the (public) Outsider rule. And re:the Insider rule, this is where I have the concern making the value judgements. In a vacuum, in my personal life, yes, 100% with DW. I am 100% with DW on this matter. In the realm of pro cycling, I was this way, but I have had come around to an ambiguity, a realist pov. (foreign relations definition analogy)

 

[Cramps]

Re: Re:

If your performance is enhanced by a drug -- and it patently was, as confessed by those players -- then it is a performance enhancing drug. End of story.

But this tautology can't be a basis for illegal doping, for one thing, it would make placebo effects illegal.

According to WADA there are three reasons for making a product illegal and the product in question has to satisfy two. That's why hypothyroid drugs were not banned. According to WADA. If you can believe that.

Right, WADA sensibly uses criteria other than performance enhancement. This avoid endless arguments along the lines of whether kale and blueberries are "performance enhancing", or "drugs".

Anywho...So why aren't hypothyroid drugs banned? They certainly meet the harmful criteria. And surely taking this kind of drug would be against the "spirit of sport" (whatever that is).

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

If your performance is enhanced by a drug -- and it patently was, as confessed by those players -- then it is a performance enhancing drug. End of story.

But this tautology can't be a basis for illegal doping, for one thing, it would make placebo effects illegal.

According to WADA there are three reasons for making a product illegal and the product in question has to satisfy two. That's why hypothyroid drugs were not banned. According to WADA. If you can believe that.

Right, WADA sensibly uses criteria other than performance enhancement. This avoid endless arguments along the lines of whether kale and blueberries are "performance enhancing", or "drugs".

Anywho...So why aren't hypothyroid drugs banned? They certainly meet the harmful criteria. And surely taking this kind of drug would be against the "spirit of sport" (whatever that is).

Pertinent question.

And the underlying reason why I make the claim that Vioxx is doping upthread: the body that makes a drug illegal or not (WADA) are asleep on the job, and the reason some drugs are not illegal follows no rational reasoning process I can fathom.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Pertinent question.

And the underlying reason why I make the claim that Vioxx is doping upthread: the body that makes a drug illegal or not (WADA) are asleep on the job, and the reason some drugs are not illegal follows no rational reasoning process I can fathom.

cos there are still vested interests?

plus, a bureaucratic lag.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Clear Analogy

Tramadol, not currently banned by WADA (monitored, not banned), nor as far as i can glean anyone other than the MPCC and some other cycling teams


People here and elsewhere have argued that it should be on the WADA list, and may have contributed to crashes in some races,, but no-one has really argued that people should be banned until it is considered a prohibited substance.

VIOXX is in my world view in the same category. Probably should be banned, but isn't right now, so people can take it.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

The video also points to the effect of PEDs on skill sports, punching a hole in the "PED's wouldn't matter in skill sports" myth.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

The video also points to the effect of PEDs on skill sports, punching a hole in the "PED's wouldn't matter in skill sports" myth.

Drugs in Basketball? Nah. No drug is going to make me as tall as Shaq
/nodopinginfootballlogic.

 

[blackcat]

Re:

The video also points to the effect of PEDs on skill sports, punching a hole in the "PED's wouldn't matter in skill sports" myth.

because the game will be won in the last quarter, or the last 10 minutes of the last half.

and... you can make the contests, and make the contests your own if you are stronger and faster and fitter

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re: Re:

The video also points to the effect of PEDs on skill sports, punching a hole in the "PED's wouldn't matter in skill sports" myth.

Drugs in Basketball? Nah. No drug is going to make me as tall as Shaq
/nodopinginfootballlogic.

HGH when you are a kid may do.

Look how well it worked for Messi

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Some ex nba stars casually shooting the breeze about a ped.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPCn_raDJf0&t=6m50s

Sounds quite powerful this Viox. Couldn't play without it, was like a youth with it.

Thank god PED's don't work like this in clean sports like cycling, soccer and athletics.

While Vioxx may enhance performance, just like any other NSAID, it has never been banned under the WADA code, just like ibuprofen and naproxen and as such anyone was free to take it and it cannot be considered doping.

My point was more about it's impact. Banned or not (the guy claims it was though maybe he's wrong), their first hand testimony is that it had a massive effect.

And that is one of the main points of dispute between the clinic (or asylum as one recurring troll calls it) and the media/ athletes.

We claim drugs are powerful **** that leave anyone who doesn't take them at a perhaps insurmountable disadvantage. The media and especially the athletes dismiss this as conspiracy and act like drugs provide some.minor boost that is easily overcome by "grit".

I think this testimony is good supportive evidence for our side.

It's not banned and never has been in any sport that I'm aware of, but the fact he thought it was I think shows that he would be likely to take other things that are (although at the time I'm guessing not much was for him).

Do they really claim that? I don't see how they can when they come out and claim clean athletes are losing medals/wins/prize money etc. to doping athletes if they then go on and claim doping offers no real advantage. Those two statements are completely at odds with one another and surely any journalist would point that out?

My only issue was that it isn't doping, so in essence I felt your post was saying "Look, these guys will pop these pills whenever they need to, therefore they're likely to take banned stuff too" and that doesn't really follow. It would be like saying that because someone follows the rules they are likely to break them. I feel that might not be what you meant though.

The ensuing moral and ethical discussion is pointless and of no relevance as far as I'm concerned, especially when people bring up research that they haven't bothered to read and also has no relevance, so I've bailed.