"Dr. Mabuse" - Bernard Sainz - VDB - & prison sentences

[joe_papp]

So Bernard Sainz, aka "Dr. Mabuse" (and the man who arguably threw Frank "VDB" Vandenbroucke under the bus and turned an unfortunate and searing light upon the fragile Belgian wünderkind), is sentenced to all of three months in prison and fined 7500 euros for doping horses (but not riders) - and still he plans to appeal.

I understand that for many of you who are new to cycling (in the past 5-6 years even) the name "Bernard Sainz" might not mean anything, but anyone who watched doping scandals unfold in the early-2000's probably knows exactly who this evil sorcerer is. According to VeloNation:

"In 2002 Sainz was stopped by police in Belgium for speeding and having no insurance. His car was searched, homeopathic substances were found, and he told police that he had been visiting Vandenbroucke. The latter’s home was searched and there police discovered EPO, morphine and clenbuterol. The rider claimed at the time that they were for his dog. Vandenbroucke later said that Sainz had given him drops and injections over a long period of time, saying that he had trusted him. “I may be considered naïve but I am not a dishonest person,” he said."

Having escaped justice for his part in facilitating VDB's self-destruction, and intent on appealing this conviction (which he called "a parody of justice, an arbitrary prison sentence" - per this website) Sainz is not a difficult man to be repulsed by. Yet I personally have to accept that there are some similarities in the hurt we did to the sport (but I reject direct comparison to Sainz as our roles in doping were very different - he actually took an active role in doping athletes, administering the drugs after supplying them, and not just helping his clients to obtain the products).

I wonder what you think though. Is it "fair" that Dr. Mabuse has thus far paid no debt to society, whether French or Belgian? Should he go to prison? Is a less-than-10,000 euro fine "correct" (keeping in mind the 'victims' were horses, and not athletes)? Again according to VeloNation:

"On 11 April 2008, he was found guilty of administering doping products to athletes and practising medicine without a licence. He was sentenced to three years in prison, with the second half of that sentence suspended. He appealed this, was sentenced to a reduced year’s jail term in 2010, but succeeded in having this dismissed and bounced back to the Court of Appeal.

In the meantime, the 2005 horse racing charges came to trial and he has now been found guilty of that. According to France3, he and four others sentenced yesterday for ‘offences on poisons, on drugs, fraud and attempted fraud,’ plan to appeal."

I can hardly stand-up and say the guy should rot in prison, given the mercy I was shown by the Court here, but it rubs me the wrong way that someone who was such a corrosive and detrimental influence on such a brilliant but tragic person as VDB, and who continued his criminal behavior unabated, without regret or remorse, seems to have suffered no official sanction or punishment nearly a decade after his notoriety was first documented.

 

[shawnrohrbach]

Joe, this sounds like we will be reading more of this?

 

[Cloxxki]

Joe, I'm with you on this. If you commit 2 crimes, both need to be considered in your sentencing.

However.
But step in the shoes of the horse racers, who kept their horses clean, especially from outside sabotage. Horses are easy to lose track of for a second, and give very polar proof. "Yes, I was doped this week, no further comments".
To the horse people, it seems like he facilitated the horses to be vviolated against their wishes. The riders surely were accepting their doping and subsequently gaining greater wealth from it, if not actively asking for it for this specific motive.
The clean horse owners and jockeys were defrauded by him advantaging their direct opposition, no more no less.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

I have considerable sympathy for cyclists that get caught up in the doping culture of cycling and other sports, but no sympathy at all for the doping doctors.

Doctors have huge influence over their patients health decision, far more understanding of the potential risks and consequences and therefor far more responsibility, both legally and ethically. Unless someone held a gun to his head, there is no mitigating excuse for a doctor to illegally supply and administer EPO and morphine. None.

That being said, I did a slight wince at your reference to "the hurt we did the sport". I assume this is just an unfortunate turn of phrase and that you are very aware that damage to the sport is by no means the worst consequence of doping.

 

[joe_papp]

a point of clarification - he's not a doctor

I have considerable sympathy for cyclists that get caught up in the doping culture of cycling and other sports, but no sympathy at all for the doping doctors.

Doctors have huge influence over their patients health decision, far more understanding of the potential risks and consequences and therefor far more responsibility, both legally and ethically. Unless someone held a gun to his head, there is no mitigating excuse for a doctor to illegally supply and administer EPO and morphine. None...

Thanks for your reply.

I just want to make it clear for everyone reading my original post and the follow-ups, that Bernard Sainz is not a medical doctor. I'm not sure the degree to which this would influence how you expressed your feelings above, but nevertheless, it's a detail that I don't want us to overlook. VeloNation unfortunately and incorrectly describes him as a "doping doctor" in the lead to their story, sowing the seeds of confusion, and I should have made clear that the nickname "Dr. Marbuse" is just that, and not a reference to any formal medical qualification (for Sainz had none).

Cyclingnews.com describes Sainz as "A soigneur rather than a medical doctor," and VeloNation goes on to correctly report of Sainz, "he was found guilty of administering doping products to athletes and practising medicine without a licence." Nevertheless, it's obvious that he put himself into a position of responsibility with respect to the health of his athletes and the animals he treated (despite not being a veterinarian, either). So it could still be argued that he violated a possibly-sacred trust by doing potential harm to patients, were it true for example that he administered substances to VDB that he believed to be homeopathic remedies or supplements, but which were in fact powerful anabolics or other pharmaceuticals not described as such.

That being said, I did a slight wince at your reference to "the hurt we did the sport". I assume this is just an unfortunate turn of phrase and that you are very aware that damage to the sport is by no means the worst consequence of doping.

Consider it an unfortunate turn of phrase. I was looking for a way to express the communal guilt that Sainz and I might share, rather than giving a dissertation on how we each committed unique crimes that affected others in different ways while also negatively impacting our own lives and pushing professional cycling further into disrepute in some quarters...

 

[Granville57]

Here's the CN link:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/dr-mabuse-sentenced-to-three-months-in-prison

As far as the "fairness" of the punishment:
I haven't looked into the details of this case yet, but did Sainz offer any helpful information to the authorities that would aid in the battle against doping and cheating? If not, then more serious penalties may certainly be warranted.

With this from Velonation:

On 11 April 2008, he was found guilty of administering doping products to athletes and practising medicine without a licence. He was sentenced to three years in prison, with the second half of that sentence suspended. He appealed this, was sentenced to a reduced year’s jail term in 2010, but succeeded in having this dismissed and bounced back to the Court of Appeal.

If I'm reading that correctly, he has yet to be given any punishment for "practicing medicine without a license" but seems to be doing quite a job of escaping charges.

 

[Le breton]

........
he .............seems to be doing quite a job of escaping charges.

No doubt about it, he is an escape artist. A 50 year long doping career and I don't know if he ever even spent one single day in jail.

He and his friend Lavelot were also cyclists themselves and I remember once discovering that I had raced against the pair in some "cyclosportive" event where Lavelot did pretty well (can't remember which event it was)

Some of his CV can be found here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Sainz

 

[Le breton]

He and his friend Lavelot

I should have added that his friend Lavelot is a ... lawyer (it helps)

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

I just want to make it clear for everyone reading my original post and the follow-ups, that Bernard Sainz is not a medical doctor. I'm not sure the degree to which this would influence how you expressed your feelings above, but nevertheless, it's a detail that I don't want us to overlook. VeloNation unfortunately and incorrectly describes him as a "doping doctor" in the lead to their story, sowing the seeds of confusion, and I should have made clear that the nickname "Dr. Marbuse" is just that, and not a reference to any formal medical qualification (for Sainz had none).

Yeah, I had assumed from the article that he was a medical doctor and that does affect my opinion somewhat. Just charged off on my hobby horse without checking the facts for a moment there.

Cyclingnews.com describes Sainz as "A soigneur rather than a medical doctor," and VeloNation goes on to correctly report of Sainz, "he was found guilty of administering doping products to athletes and practising medicine without a licence." Nevertheless, it's obvious that he put himself into a position of responsibility with respect to the health of his athletes and the animals he treated (despite not being a veterinarian, either). So it could still be argued that he violated a possibly-sacred trust by doing potential harm to patients, were it true for example that he administered substances to VDB that he believed to be homeopathic remedies or supplements, but which were in fact powerful anabolics or other pharmaceuticals not described as such.

So the Voet saga is perhaps a more apt comparison. There might be room for empathy or understanding if he earned it by fessing up everything. Unless he does that, he should be locked up for a stretch IMO. One consolation is that he has already faced a protracted legal battle; that's got to be a punishment in its own right no?

 

[joe_papp]

...There might be room for empathy or understanding if he earned it by fessing up everything. Unless he does that, he should be locked up for a stretch IMO. One consolation is that he has already faced a protracted legal battle; that's got to be a punishment in its own right no?

No doubt the legal process is brutal - at least it was for me, but that was w/ full and total cooperation whereas Sainz is fighting tooth & nail. I have trouble feeling much sympathy at all for him since he's denied 100% his culpability since the beginning and show no remorse or acknowledgement of his role in a corrupt and disgusting system that can destroy the lives of otherwise healthy, enthusiastic young people (extending "young" out to people in their early 30s lol)...

 

[Fatclimber]

So Bernard Sainz, aka "Dr. Mabuse" (and the man who arguably threw Frank "VDB" Vandenbroucke under the bus and turned an unfortunate and searing light upon the fragile Belgian wünderkind), is sentenced to all of three months in prison and fined 7500 euros for doping horses (but not riders) - and still he plans to appeal.

I understand that for many of you who are new to cycling (in the past 5-6 years even) the name "Bernard Sainz" might not mean anything, but anyone who watched doping scandals unfold in the early-2000's probably knows exactly who this evil sorcerer is. According to VeloNation:

"In 2002 Sainz was stopped by police in Belgium for speeding and having no insurance. His car was searched, homeopathic substances were found, and he told police that he had been visiting Vandenbroucke. The latter’s home was searched and there police discovered EPO, morphine and clenbuterol. The rider claimed at the time that they were for his dog. Vandenbroucke later said that Sainz had given him drops and injections over a long period of time, saying that he had trusted him. “I may be considered naïve but I am not a dishonest person,” he said."

Having escaped justice for his part in facilitating VDB's self-destruction, and intent on appealing this conviction (which he called "a parody of justice, an arbitrary prison sentence" - per this website) Sainz is not a difficult man to be repulsed by. Yet I personally have to accept that there are some similarities in the hurt we did to the sport (but I reject direct comparison to Sainz as our roles in doping were very different - he actually took an active role in doping athletes, administering the drugs after supplying them, and not just helping his clients to obtain the products).

I wonder what you think though. Is it "fair" that Dr. Mabuse has thus far paid no debt to society, whether French or Belgian? Should he go to prison? Is a less-than-10,000 euro fine "correct" (keeping in mind the 'victims' were horses, and not athletes)? Again according to VeloNation:

"On 11 April 2008, he was found guilty of administering doping products to athletes and practising medicine without a licence. He was sentenced to three years in prison, with the second half of that sentence suspended. He appealed this, was sentenced to a reduced year’s jail term in 2010, but succeeded in having this dismissed and bounced back to the Court of Appeal.

In the meantime, the 2005 horse racing charges came to trial and he has now been found guilty of that. According to France3, he and four others sentenced yesterday for ‘offences on poisons, on drugs, fraud and attempted fraud,’ plan to appeal."

I can hardly stand-up and say the guy should rot in prison, given the mercy I was shown by the Court here, but it rubs me the wrong way that someone who was such a corrosive and detrimental influence on such a brilliant but tragic person as VDB, and who continued his criminal behavior unabated, without regret or remorse, seems to have suffered no official sanction or punishment nearly a decade after his notoriety was first documented.

Sorry, I'm having trouble reading you here Joe, what's the real crime? The fact that the victim of tragedy was an extreme talent in the name of VDB? After your rampage in Vino's LBL thread I have difficulty giving any credence to your words:


Seriously, you "people" need to get over yourselves, as if you think pro cycling should aspire to be an idealized version of the Catholic Church. How many of you would be so upset if it was an athlete other than Vino I don't know, but I hope that you'll be aiding Jeff Novitzky as he researches the entire history of the f^cking sport to punish every instance where money or favors changed hands in a race to some end.

You're ridiculous.



Maybe you should heed your own words?

Or perhaps you would feel better if it was, say, a fully qualified gynecologist that was administering the drugs? You don't have to be a brain surgeon to run your own doping program, Hell Landis was doing it. His biggest gripe was how much time it took. He ain't no damn doctor. Are you a doctor? Did you run your own program? I doubt VDB and all the other riders that were clients of Sainz weren't aware of his qualifications (or lack thereof). Both were participating in illegal activity, I cannot understand how you can be repulsed by one and not the other.

Of course you're free to be repulsed by whomever you choose, but in this case, I don't see how you think you have a right.

 

[joe_papp]

Sorry, I'm having trouble reading you here Joe, what's the real crime? The fact that the victim of tragedy was an extreme talent in the name of VDB? After your rampage in Vino's LBL thread I have difficulty giving any credence to your words:

Maybe you should heed your own words?

Or perhaps you would feel better if it was, say, a fully qualified gynecologist that was administering the drugs? You don't have to be a brain surgeon to run your own doping program, Hell Landis was doing it. His biggest gripe was how much time it took. He ain't no damn doctor. Are you a doctor? Did you run your own program? I doubt VDB and all the other riders that were clients of Sainz weren't aware of his qualifications (or lack thereof). Both were participating in illegal activity, I cannot understand how you can be repulsed by one and not the other.

Of course you're free to be repulsed by whomever you choose, but in this case, I don't see how you think you have a right.

I make it pretty clear in my first post the ambiguity of my commenting on Sainz but I'm surprised that someone as smart as you doesn't feel any sense of anger over the fact that Sainz, an enabler and facilitator of doping for multiple generations of professional cyclists - including at least one who became a drug addict, attempted suicide, and eventually succeeded in bringing about his own death w/ hookers and blow - isn't even likely to face ANY sanction - never mind prison - for doping horses, never mind athletes.

I do wonder about you though, because what you imply is that just because someone made regretful decisions earlier in their life, even once they've reconformed to society's assumed way of thinking on a matter and taken the acceptable position going forward, they have to continue to defend that same criminal behavior any time it's observed in others - because what? They've lost a right to be an arbiter of decency?

And they way you conflate race-fixing with helping someone to become a mentally-unstable drug addict who tried to take his own life with one of the very products you used to provide him with (insulin)...it's disingenuous. You're not being clever nor are you somehow catching me in a fault of logic. You're just revealing yourself to be unable or unwilling to parse the issues without becoming distracted by what seem to be some pretty petty feelings.

 

[Fatclimber]

I make it pretty clear in my first post the ambiguity of my commenting on Sainz but I'm surprised that someone as smart as you doesn't feel any sense of anger over the fact that Sainz, an enabler and facilitator of doping for multiple generations of professional cyclists - including at least one who became a drug addict, attempted suicide, and eventually succeeded in bringing about his own death w/ hookers and blow - isn't even likely to face ANY sanction - never mind prison - for doping horses, never mind athletes.

I do wonder about you though, because what you imply is that just because someone made regretful decisions earlier in their life, even once they've reconformed to society's assumed way of thinking on a matter and taken the acceptable position going forward, they have to continue to defend that same criminal behavior any time it's observed in others - because what? They've lost a right to be an arbiter of decency?

And they way you conflate race-fixing with helping someone to become a mentally-unstable drug addict who tried to take his own life with one of the very products you used to provide him with (insulin)...it's disingenuous. You're not being clever nor are you somehow catching me in a fault of logic. You're just revealing yourself to be unable or unwilling to parse the issues without becoming distracted by what seem to be some pretty petty feelings.

Thanks for the compliment, be it backhanded or not. Who says I don't feel any anger? I do. My emphasis is on the fact that the "doctor" shouldn't be the one assigned full responsibility here. The "doctor" isn't the one that went to Frank, it was the other way around. At least from what I've read. I have not read his autobiography but it does sound interesting. As far as the lack of punishment goes, it sounds as if Europe's Justice System is just as screwy as it is here in the U.S. If that's the main message that you're trying to convey, I agree.

No, you have not lost any rights, just credibility. I respect the fact that you're repentant about your past criminal behavior, especially since you seem to be trying to help with cleaning up the sport. Kudos. But the fact remains that people such as yourself, Ferrari, Fuentes, etc. cannot undue the damage you have created regardless of how guilty your conscience feels. When you jump all over somebody for crimes you have committed yourself, especially since it has been so recent, I don't think it's much of a stretch to think that somebody might get resentful of your comments.

You were pretty vocal in the Vino LBL thread, and your post was a whopping 2 days prior to you starting this thread. It's not too tough to remember your stance. With regards to your comment: Seriously, you "people" need to get over yourselves, as if you think pro cycling should aspire to be an idealized version of the Catholic Church. Seems to me a pretty broad comment when you refer to "pro cycling." I'm not trying to or even care about catching you being a hypocrite, just suggesting you extend the same leniency towards others that you expect for yourself.

 

[ChrisE]

Thread translation:

Joe Papp is pi$$ed off that he got caught and this other guy didn't.

 

[fatandfast]

Thread translation:

Joe Papp is pi$$ed off that he got caught and this other guy didn't.

Another translation is that using the same blockhead police tactics will yield the same results. The people that Sainz sold to are not victims. You can't just go after one group and expect to win the war on drugs.
EPO, blow, it's all the same. Grabbing and punishing the dealer or dealer doctor is not the answer. If you take the Papp Path you make the doctor roll on everybody he sold to, sure there is death and despair with some customers, another group that used w the fuzzy logic of keeping a job or surviving. The majority of EPO users do so because they are selfish cun-s.

To keep using all the extreme examples, years later in some forensic feel good BS is partially why the problem exists and continues.
If a person does a key bump at a bar while in the company of a hottie, and tons of peer pressure, half drunk, crushing music and they drop dead. I feel a tiny thimble of pity.

EPO takes lots of forethought. Can't buy it in a club, shifty guy on the corner doesn't have it in his stash. You have to think you are smart to even try your own possible deadly home science experiment. EPO is not on a whim.

Why the government doesn't go viral like they do with kid touchers and other John's in prostitution is hard to understand if these drugs and there users are really an important pursuit of prosecutors.
Places adds on craigslist and on bike boards and trash people caught. Don't even let them change out of bike shorts before the original jail stay. Sainz is scum and so are all the needledix that bought from him.

The ober sad about the dead is cool for them, but why no deep dig on all his living customers? They should fry in the cell next to him

 

[ChrisE]

Sorry FF I didn't mean to toss you into a tizzy. If you want to lump drug use in sports with recreational drug use and prostitution then go right ahead. For the record, I think both of those should be legalized. If somebody wants to pay somebody to have sex or use drugs that effect nobody but themselves, I don't believe it is the govt's right to legislate against it. YMMV.

I agree with the gist of your post in terms of sport; is it supply or demand that causes these poor victim athletes to succomb to the evil of PED use? I think it is demand, as do you apparently. Papp tries to dress it up like the users are the victims, which is typical or somebody of his ilk and thus it justifies his double standard in this thread.

 

[fatandfast]

Sorry FF I didn't mean to toss you into a tizzy. If you want to lump drug use in sports with recreational drug use and prostitution then go right ahead. For the record, I think both of those should be legalized. If somebody wants to pay somebody to have sex or use drugs that effect nobody but themselves, I don't believe it is the govt's right to legislate against it. YMMV.

I agree with the gist of your post in terms of sport; is it supply or demand that causes these poor victim athletes to succomb to the evil of PED use? I think it is demand, as do you apparently. Papp tries to dress it up like the users are the victims, which is typical or somebody of his ilk and thus it justifies his double standard in this thread.

I feel ya. My post is about today. Not like Lance posts that have "imagined" convictions. Where all the stuff that he has been convicted of on the interweb is added to to his record using some cool meld of US court system records. Instead of first offense ,he has no passport and is learning to spoon on a prison cot.
People caught with coke, pot, EPO today will get popped. If you ask a woman to rub you out for 20 bucks, and she has a badge you are busted. That's today.
I might want to live where you have retro rules and if the speed limit goes to 40 and it used to be 30, all those that got a ticket for being over the lower speed are now innocent of the previous offense. Cool way to look at things, very progressive. 40 is the old 30

Right now Sainz sold drugs to clowns that squirted his goo for extra speed and maybe cash prizes after the injection. The users need to be hunted, sparing nothing and making them join the ugly group of drug.. user, maker, pusher. I will let Joe keep the sub category of dead and ruined because of addiction. All those folk will get a free pass.
If you have anything and were a drug buyer we should take it, down to your kids sack lunch on her way to school.

I still chuckle at how long the message of if you smoke weed you support the Taliban stayed out there. I see buying a bag of toot that comes across the Mexican border as pretty direct cause and effect on keeping the crime alive. EPO can be had from pharmacies all over the SW United States. The government goes through some strange contortions of what we need to put on a watch list.
Buy too much Sudafed, get watched, buy EPO from a livery driver at a dialysas lab you are under the radar. Be 1 of the 1000's of people buying drugs at a club, go home and go to work. Try that at an airport and you are out of bounds. Cyclists have never been looked at because of who they are, now the government has figured out that skinny salad eaters are also some serious junkies. Who knew? I hope they change all the laws so we can buy and enjoy the "good" drugs and arrest all these "bad" drug people.
Tim Tebow you are ruining everything!!!

 

[DirtyWorks]

You first.

Sorry FF I didn't mean to toss you into a tizzy. If you want to lump drug use in sports with recreational drug use and prostitution then go right ahead. For the record, I think both of those should be legalized. If somebody wants to pay somebody to have sex or use drugs that effect nobody but themselves, I don't believe it is the govt's right to legislate against it.

Prostitution: Is this going to fly at your house, "Daddy I want to be a prostitute when I grow up." Really? Just it's cool and no acknowledgment of the corrosive social and public health effects? If it's okay, then you be the first prostitute. Move to one of the counties that allow it in Nevada and go to work.

If taking PED's that have killed is alright, then you go first. What's your program look like? Are you going to do the injections yourself? C'mon now. In your perfect world it's no longer against the law. So, do it.

The point being, I'm sick and tired of pretenders. If you really want these things, then you would be living in Nevada as a prostitute using tricks to buy your PED's for bike racing.

 

[BotanyBay]

Yet I personally have to accept that there are some similarities in the hurt we did to the sport (but I reject direct comparison to Sainz as our roles in doping were very different - he actually took an active role in doping athletes, administering the drugs after supplying them, and not just helping his clients to obtain the products).

Time for a humility check, Joe.

One could certainly argue that comparitively, both types of roles are equally bad. He acts as supplier and administrator of the drugs. You work only as the supplier. Both sets of clients can end up equally dead.

IMHO, both must be weighed equally by their potential for societal badness.
And the bottom line is that criminal risk rarely ends up being spread equally among those who choose to enter the zone.

 

[BotanyBay]

I make it pretty clear in my first post the ambiguity of my commenting on Sainz but I'm surprised that someone as smart as you doesn't feel any sense of anger over the fact that Sainz, an enabler and facilitator of doping for multiple generations of professional cyclists - including at least one who became a drug addict, attempted suicide, and eventually succeeded in bringing about his own death w/ hookers and blow - isn't even likely to face ANY sanction - never mind prison - for doping horses, never mind athletes.

First, these guys don't "go on to become" drug addicts. They already were addicts. They're just moving the addiction to new, more self-destructive substances. It wasn't the EPO that dragged them down to the new lows. EPO was just one of the bus stops. Just be thankful that you stopped being a bus driver and chose to get off.

Second, (at least as far as I am concerned) anger doesn't enter into the equation. I've already made peace with the true fact that there will always be inequality, and yes, even those who drop their weapons, turn state's evidence and become societal contributors quite often will end-up on the "high" side of the scale of justice. The key is to not bother looking at the scale. Justice is something that you'll find eternally elusive.

Remember, Sainz is still a bus driver. That's a worse place to be than where you are today.

Lance Armstrong might actually die a wealthy man, surrounded by many friends and family. We might die alone, homeless, broke, but perhaps righteous. Nothing we can do about that. Stop paying attention. Doing so will only serve to drag you back someplace bad.

 

[ChrisE]

Prostitution: Is this going to fly at your house, "Daddy I want to be a prostitute when I grow up." Really? Just it's cool and no acknowledgment of the corrosive social and public health effects? If it's okay, then you be the first prostitute. Move to one of the counties that allow it in Nevada and go to work.

If taking PED's that have killed is alright, then you go first. What's your program look like? Are you going to do the injections yourself? C'mon now. In your perfect world it's no longer against the law. So, do it.

The point being, I'm sick and tired of pretenders. If you really want these things, then you would be living in Nevada as a prostitute using tricks to buy your PED's for bike racing.

I knew it was as mistake spouting off my opinion about what should or should not be legal, but I was replying to FF lumping it all together. He was just making a point about how the feds could stop this if they chose to.

To respond to your diatribe, alcohol is legal but I do not wish for my daughter to become an alcoholic or start drinking, so your extrapolated strawman doesn't hold up. What people do behind their closed doors, without harming anybody else in the process, is their own business. You deal with your "corrosive social and public health issues" yourself if you can't handle free will and personal responsibility. Leave those of us that can out of your little morality crusade.

Moving on, please find a link or anything where I have ever written that taking PED's should be legal or within the rules. You can do a search on this forum or on DPF under the same username. Good luck, you will need it.

Taking recreation drugs is not the same thing as taking PEDs that are against the rules, denying those that are clean from competing on a level playing field. Or, even if PED use is legal it would just be moving the line in the sand, and that "legal amount" would still be exceeded. Also people shouldn't have to dope to compete, period. Surely you can see the difference between this and paying for a BJ, in even your wildest strawman dreams.

Also, if somebody takes PEDs and dies from it, that is their choice. They knew the repurcussions. I reserve my sympathy for real victims; athletes taking PEDs are not on my victim list. Sorry.

 

[DirtyWorks]

.... If you want to lump drug use in sports with recreational drug use and prostitution then go right ahead. For the record, I think both of those should be legalized. If somebody wants to pay somebody to have sex or use drugs that effect nobody but themselves, I don't believe it is the govt's right to legislate against it. YMMV.

You seem to advocate PED use without any reservations whatsoever...

So, you are on for a PED program, right? First you, then a son or daughter. Okay? Because it's all good. You are only affecting yourself and your progeny. What's first? Cera? Some clenbuterol to slim you down?

Also, if somebody takes PEDs and dies from it, that is their choice.

Ask Greg Strock what Chris Carmichael's role was... Go ahead. Those under-23's that died of heart attacks in the 1980's were sourcing the EPO themselves? Oh yeah, it's all on them...

You seem willfully blind to the fact adults have already fed kids PED's and killed a few along the way. By your thinking, it's all the kid's fault. So, everyone take PED's because its ONLY the individual's fault.

If you son/daughter becomes a prostitute, then it's all good. Right? It's their choice and they are doing it behind closed doors. No one is being harmed. Except you and I both know it won't play out like that. No, as careless as you may be in theory, actual practice would be nothing like that.

 

[ChrisE]

I say both recreational drug use and prostitution should be legal, and you take that as me meaning PED use should be legal or allowed in sport? Project much?

What is it with you that when I say something that is based upon personal choice, that does no harm to anybody except themselves if abused, should be legal that you jump to a conclusion that I want people to become prostitutes and strung out on drugs, and cheat in sport? Is this line of discussion that lost upon you?

Again, you have an opinion that PEDs should be against the rules because some people that choose to take them end up worse off as a result. That is all fine and dandy if you think that, but that is not my position nor do I care about those people.....my opinion falls along those that choose not to take PEDs should not be at a disadvantage, especially since it is against the rules. YMMV.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

I knew it was as mistake spouting off my opinion about what should or should not be legal, but I was replying to FF lumping it all together. He was just making a point about how the feds could stop this if they chose to.

Does knowing it was a mistake help you to deal with the inevitable consequences?

'...'If you want to lump drug use in sports with recreational drug use and prostitution then go right ahead. For the record, I think both of those should be legalized. If somebody wants to pay somebody to have sex or use drugs that effect nobody but themselves, I don't believe it is the govt's right to legislate against it. YMMV.

At first glance I thought "both" referred to Sports doping and the combination of illegal prostitution/recreational drug use. Obviously not in retrospect.

I agree with the gist of your post in terms of sport; is it supply or demand that causes these poor victim athletes to succomb to the evil of PED use? I think it is demand, as do you apparently. Papp tries to dress it up like the users are the victims, which is typical or somebody of his ilk and thus it justifies his double standard in this thread.

Of course demand is what is driving the trade, but what is driving the demand? If that same group of people were in a different environment, I doubt that many would be habitual illicit drug users. Some might, conversely there are some in cycling who aren't even now. So IMO it's part the person, and part the culture or environment they are in. Victim is not quite the right word, except perhaps for those whose lives are destroyed by it. But pinning all the responsibility on the individual doesn't make sense either IMO.

'...'What people do behind their closed doors, without harming anybody else in the process, is their own business. You deal with your "corrosive social and public health issues" yourself if you can't handle free will and personal responsibility. Leave those of us that can out of your little morality crusade.

Setting aside the fact that the repercussions of some stuff that happens behind closed doors overflows onto people who didn't chose to participate.....the central question is what right or obligation a society has to protect people from their own mistakes? At the very least, I would argue that a just society would not be structured in a way that means poor choices are often hugely rewarded and good choices require sacrificing reasonable personal objectives. So, in my worldview, the corrupt and complicit people in positions of power carry some of the blame for individual cyclists doping, and some of the responsibility for any adverse consequences.

[Please excuse the painfully formal tone. The nanny state swear filter prevents me from communicating in my native dialect - it's culturally insensitive ]

Also, if somebody takes PEDs and dies from it, that is their choice. They knew the repurcussions. I reserve my sympathy for real victims; athletes taking PEDs are not on my victim list. Sorry.

Not all athletes are intelligent, educated and well informed people. Some of them will know the repercussions, others will have NFI.

 

[BotanyBay]

I say both recreational drug use and prostitution should be legal, and you take that as me meaning PED use should be legal or allowed in sport? Project much?

I think what ChrisE is trying to say here is that you can take a moral stance on a subject or activity without it being regarded as a criminal act that will get one thrown in prison.

IE, he might think that getting high (itself) should be perfectly legal, yet injuring another through one's actions as a RESULT of getting high is where one should have legal consequences.

It's (in short form) what people generally call libertarianism.

I myself don't generally agree. I suppose we could allow unlicenced physicians to prescribe EPO as well (so long as they don't kill anyone), but that makes us lose an entire level of societal protection.

Hookers damage more than their vaginas. And so do the Johns that visit them. They both damage families, kids, unwitting individuals that come in contact with the bodies of their clients, etc (HPV can be transmitted condom or no condom). The line of possible victims is long.

Drug abusers also damage more than just themselves.