Doping

[mortailcoil]

Doping will always be present whatever the situation. In whatever sport.

Why are folks so fixated about it? Too many wheels have already been, and always will be dropped.

No such thing as being clean. There are different levels of doping and indeed different levels of cleanliness. Some athletes are dirtier than others, but who complained at not bathing.

Doping will always be there, pushing the frontiers of what's possible.

In order to justify, or at the very least acknowledge the moral standpoint on this issue of doping. How should one measure it given the graduation of doping? It is not simply a black and white issue. Cycling/Racing in itself is inherently very unclear-cut on a range of fronts when it really comes down to it.

One example of performance-enhancing might be say a caffeine hit or amphetamines. But these are no where near the top-end of illicit substances and practices. Yet both scenarios are cases considered as Doping.

I am afraid it takes more than winning races to get a professional contract. It has to do with being in the right place at the right time. Indeed lucky, and those few who are, became lucky. Once there, it's then about perseverance.

 

[Paco_P]

Folks don't like that words like 'hero' and 'survivor' and 'champion' get applied to someone whose performances were physiologically impossible without blatant assistance, and who is, moreover, a really big jerk. This guy, in particular, made millions off his fraud. These guys almost ruined an entire sport, taking out of it all of the heroism and vitality. They took it down the path of professional wrestling and baseball - a bunch of inflated clowns pantomiming athletic competition for the consumption of adolescents who don't know any better.

 

[mortailcoil]

'hero' and 'survivor' and 'champion.

These are terms and labels coined by other people. Why should you believe these terms and labels which have been applied without you knowing the facts for yourself from the outset. This is sheer ignorance.

Define 'Fraud'. What do you mean by this? Even the Feds investigation has not yet defined it, if we think who it is you are referring to.

The culprits of fraud are equally to blame as the victims for letting it happen.

 

[Benotti69]

This thread should be deleted immediately. There is no excuse for doping. There is no excuse to allow for doping because others are or it has always been the case.

Mods please delete.

Trolling.

 

[mortailcoil]

Hi Trolling.

You have no say what should be done to this thread. It is my thread as I started it.

If you paused to think for a second, the OP is purely observational, not an excuse for doping. Clearly you skipped this step.

By the looks of it, and reading some of the other threads even you can't agree on many things with the subject of doping.

 

[callac]

It is my thread as I started it.

As a new member with a low number of post myself (long time lurker though), I tend to view opening a new thread when you're new to a board as pretty arrogant, whatever the topic. Entering a board is like stepping in in the middle of a group having an already started conversation. You can either try to put a few words here and there where you feel that you have something to add, or just yell "Hey guys! Let's talk about that!!"... And the group will react in the appropriate way.

 

[mortailcoil]

When there are no other open discussions on the appropriate topic of interest, one opens a new topic instead. It would be better than hijacking another topic and going off topic. Which is worse?

Each thread is its own separate conversation/discussion. All threads combined are not one conversation. It matters not if there is a New Topic/Thread/Discussion open amongst many others. Pitch in if you'd please.

 

[top_tenz_finish]

As a new member with a low number of post myself (long time lurker though), I tend to view opening a new thread when you're new to a board as pretty arrogant, whatever the topic. Entering a board is like stepping in in the middle of a group having an already started conversation. You can either try to put a few words here and there where you feel that you have something to add, or just yell "Hey guys! Let's talk about that!!"... And the group will react in the appropriate way.

That is quite a strange point of view imo... On an open discussion board everyone can and should be encouraged to start up conversations and discussions, especially if they are different from the norm. With a variety of views will come the best discussion, do you not agree? For it is when you are challenged by someone who opposes you that you will develop arguments and thoughts.Towing the party line isn't always the best way is it?




Back to the original post, well I always wonder how you can really draw the line when it comes to doping. How far is too far when it comes to say caffeine? I mean why is that even allowed or thought to be ok?

 

[dr_wok]

It's really quite simple.

If it's banned in the rule book, it's cheating / doping. Amphetamines, epo, blood manipulation, gh etc.

If it's not banned, then it isn't doping. Carbo shots, altitude, even iv fluid (I don't think there's a rule) and Coffee/caffeine. Call WADA. I think they'll be able to explain this concept if you're still struggling.

Finally, the op'er doesn't seem to feel that clean cycling is something to aim / strive for. Again, my old argument. I love cycling. If my kids choose to take it up, I hope in the future they could be at least half competitive without doping, for their health and conscience's sake. So keep chasing and catching dopers, I say. We might never win, but hopefully we'll keep a cap on things.

 

[dr_wok]

Sorry to the last poster for being sarcastic. I was aiming that higher.

There used to be a caffeine blood concentration limit, it may have changed in the last 10 years. Again, if the WADA rules change, then what is and isn't doping changes, and I can accept that.

 

[mortailcoil]

The rule book is good enough. The rule book contains the list of exclusions, say; excluded PED's.

In that case all that are PED's, not in the rule book are untestable and effectively allowed.

This is the issue which is at stake. There will always be known 'unknowns' and unknown 'unknowns'.

What stopping someone practicing grandma's long tradition laboratory recipe? It may well be good, too good, but not in the rule book.

No one.