- Jul 25, 2012
- 12,710
- 1,444
- 25,680
Re: Re:
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.
I would suggest you both actually read the MIlgram experiment then and understand it before bringing it up. Here is the original paper:blackcat said:
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.
- Mar 13, 2009
- 16,854
- 1
- 0
Re: Re:
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.
BSKing Boonen said:
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.
- Jul 25, 2012
- 12,710
- 1,444
- 25,680
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 58
- 22,580
Re: Re:
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.
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.King Boonen said:
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.
- Sep 29, 2012
- 12,197
- 0
- 0
Re: Re:
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:
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.
When people start winning bike races or other sporting events due to their consumption of homeopathic remedies, this will be worth considering.Cramps said:
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:
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.
- Mar 13, 2009
- 16,854
- 1
- 0
Re: Re:
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)
thisDear Wiggo said:
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)
- Sep 4, 2012
- 250
- 0
- 9,030
Re: Re:
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).
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".Dear Wiggo said: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.Cramps said:
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).
- Sep 29, 2012
- 12,197
- 0
- 0
Re: Re:
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.
Pertinent question.Cramps said: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".Dear Wiggo said: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.Cramps said:
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).
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.
- Aug 24, 2011
- 4,349
- 0
- 13,480
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.
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.
- Mar 15, 2011
- 2,759
- 71
- 11,580
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.
- Jul 25, 2012
- 12,710
- 1,444
- 25,680
Re: Re:
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.
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).The Hitch said:
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.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/nov/19/michele-ferrari-trial-biathlon
Wasn't sure which thread to put this in, but I guess biathlon is an "other sport". Ferrari to be forced to testify, or can he "no comment" everything? Not sure if that's allowed under Italian law. Can't see him spilling the beans as part of a plea bargain as he's still contesting the USADA case
Wasn't sure which thread to put this in, but I guess biathlon is an "other sport". Ferrari to be forced to testify, or can he "no comment" everything? Not sure if that's allowed under Italian law. Can't see him spilling the beans as part of a plea bargain as he's still contesting the USADA case
- Sep 4, 2012
- 250
- 0
- 9,030
North Korea making impressive gains in weightlighting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/weightlifting/34768507
The reason? According to the BBC report above:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/weightlifting/34768507
The reason? According to the BBC report above:
- Nov 15, 2015
- 180
- 0
- 0
Claudia Gadelha (MMA fighter) looks natural.
Feminine voice too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuFbTkAylzI
Feminine voice too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuFbTkAylzI
- Sep 29, 2012
- 12,197
- 0
- 0
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Doping kills people early on | The Clinic | 3 |
| Similar threads |
|---|
| Doping kills people early on |
TRENDING THREADS
-
Vuelta a San Juan 2023 (January 22-29)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 458
-
Challenge Mallorca 2023 (January 25-29)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 211
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 14K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Transfers and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 6K
-
-
-
Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.- Started by Miburo
- Replies: 19K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram