Ethics in cycling?

[Mamil]

I think it's the history and culture of the sport that make it particularly interesting, and open to various interpretations as to how doping is viewed both by the sport and by the public. Certainly there are some, perhaps a majority of athletes who will simply think that the rules say what is and isn't allowed, and you're ethical if you don't take any of the disallowed products, and unethical if you do, even if it's just one. For the 'general' public and media it's the same - any pro sport, even cycling despite everything, is viewed and interpreted as prima facie clean, and a doper and a cheat is anyone who dopes and gets caught, or ratted out in Lance's case. The known dopers are the unethical ones. Perhaps cycling is a little different in that there is a large degree of scepticism around the whole sport, even among casual fans. Every time I've ever had a casual conversation with a French person about the Tour they always make a comment, usually a joke, about doping. It's just accepted - the French in particular are realists about their own great event. Compare that to tennis, which is surely full of banned substances, yet no-one ever wants to discuss it and the athletes are all simply presumed to be clean and therefore ethical, at least when it comes to doping.

But for the individual athlete, be they a cyclist or a tennis player, at some point they must determine how they want to build their career and what they are prepared to do to achieve their goals. Some will choose to dope simply because it is deemed necessary, and if they feel it is unethical they simply have to accept that. But there must be some who subjectively rationalise to themselves that it at least is in some way ethical, and therefore acceptable to them, supposedly because of the nature of the 'game' and the activities of the competition, and their feeling that it is therefore only fair to ensure that their talents and hard work are rewarded/honoured, and a financially and personally rewarding career established. If we accept that in the first instance the state of the sport in relation to doping is sad and unethical, is there yet any room for some sort of objective ethics within doping, given its context and perhaps almost inevitability, and if so what is it and what does it deem reasonable?

It was said earlier in the thread that an athlete would be silly to dope only a little, rather than go all out on whatever they think they can get away with, and there is probably truth in that, but it seems pretty clear that this happens and that some dope 'more', in a crude sense, than others. For some, perhaps most, this will definitely be down to economic, access and risk/reward factors, but I wonder if for some it is based on their ethical consideration of what they are and aren't comfortable taking or doing? The public perception/face of the sport would never allow such 'fuzziness' of morals and actions, but in reality and in the background such decisions must be considered and taken all the time.

 

[jmdirt]

Hi, the ‘OP’ here. Yes I am principally interested in this instance in the ethics of using performance enhancing products, or not, in a sport with the history and economic realities of pro cycling. As previously stated, the laws define what is and isn’t doping, in a strict sense. I’m not trying to contest that. There is a grey area around (mis)use of TUEs for performance enhancing purposes, whether as a by-product of some legitimate medical usage, or a straight up deceit, but even there I would concede that the rules do specify what is and isn’t a legitimate need for a TUE, it’s just that it seems that historically it’s been far from difficult to get around that rule, and near-impossible to prove actual misuse.

If Sam wants to stress the legal aspect, that’s fine, but yeah it’s not really what I’m getting at. The anti-doping laws are certainly a factor in shaping an athlete’s determination of what they to consider to be right/ethical/acceptable in regard to what products they take, but it’s far from the only one. I'm certainly NOT interested here in the WADA rules or whether they align with any particular ethical expectations. What I’m looking at is not just the basic ethical decision to dope or not, but also whether there are any ethical considerations left at all, for both the athlete and the fan, both beyond the line of taking or using known prohibited substances in the first instance, and before it in the TUE and ‘experimental’ products spaces. I’ve already noted Wellens as having a particular ethical position on TUEs, and for the experimental stuff maybe think Kittel and his trial early in his career of UV light treatment - are there any ethical considerations in using something that isn't strictly speaking illegal, but is clearly questionable.

Surely there are both objective and subjective ethics. Society, natural law, human rights, whatever you want to base it on, there are certain things that are intrinsically and generally agreed to be either ethical or unethical. A person can also form their own personal subjective ethical system, determining what they think to be right/acceptable or wrong. But that doesn't change the existence of fundamental objective ethical norms. Doping - taking banned performance enhancing products, or undertaking banned procedures like blood transfusions, is prima facie unethical. But a rider can subjectively determine that doping is at least acceptable/justifiable, if not ethical, based on cultural, contextual, motivational and economic factors. That subjective ethical system might only take them so far in terms of what they're comfortable doing - to only take recovery products, for example - or they might think once that line has been crossed then they may as well go all out, and use whatever they think they can get away with and can access/afford. Even that rider may at least superficially believe they are not being particularly unethical, because they believe that everyone else is doing it too. Armstrong is of course the perfect case in point here.

For us as fans and observers, and in principle, is there any objective ethical difference between different levels and types of doping? Because the sport probably still requires doping to succeed, at least at GC level, therefore obliging the individual cyclist, following their dream, seeking a career, good results, and financial reward, to dope or struggle, is there therefore some room for defining objective ethics even amongst doped athletes, and the various things they chose to do or not? Or is it black and white, between doping or not, and therefore anything beyond the line is equally unethical and only a question of resources, access and risk assessment by the individual athlete or team?

Personally I'm still undecided on this. Logically I lean towards doping being straight up unethical, be it a little or a lot, since getting into defining what is considered to be better or worse beyond that quickly becomes convoluted. But I do find myself subjectively, almost self-consciously, drawing distinctions between riders who seem to dope largely because they 'have' to, and do so within some certain limit, and those who appear willing to go all out, prioritising success over everything else. This ties into the equally fraught area of merit - i.e. trying to distinguish one rider as being naturally better, harder working and less augmented by doping, and therefore worthy of accord and respect of ability, over another. As fans, is it really fair or reasonable that we do this, given the multiple factors at play making it so difficult to actual 'read' a rider's natural ability and work-rate, or is it pure self-justification for why we feel comfortable supporting this or that athlete in a broken sport, when it is really just better to see it all as a doped show/construct, and assess it on that basis alone, i.e. the best/most worthy rider, in performance terms at least, is simply the one who wins, no matter how they got there?

I don't know if you watch/follow other sports, but I would argue that cycling is no more 'broken' than any other professional sport. I often wonder why cycling fans seem more passionate about their anti doping views than any other sport, and IMO its because most of them ride bikes too. Personally speaking, I really enjoy watching the NFL knowing full well that most of them are enhanced and it doesn't bother me. For some reason though it bothers me knowing that cyclists are doing he same. Maybe its because I raced professionally, maybe its because I still ride a lot, whereas I have never played football (USA) beyond jr/sr high?

That being said, I know several masters racers who complain about "doper" Froome, Nibali, Sagan..., yet have no trouble taking T to boost their energy levels, and strength. They justify it: "My levels are lower than when I was in my 20s". No, ya don't say! *

Are there ethical questions in simply watching a sport knowing that the athletes are breaking the rules?

*Funny side note about one of the masters Tdopers. The tdopers are roadies, but one of them did some dirt racing in the 90s so he used to join our dirt rides sometimes. T and one of our regulars got into a pretty heated 'discussion' about the fact that using T is cheating. Dirt regular finally said "listen dude, you couldn't win a local masters race clean so you load up on T to move up from 15th to 5th. You even bought your wife boobs for her birthday. You are all about enhancement!" T hasn't ridden with us since...

 

[jmdirt]

At a doping level, ethics are not involved whatsoever in sport. Doping is purely a legal matter of rules for riders, teams, UCI & WADA.
There are simply two categories of rider. Those using 1. Legal performance enhancement and those 2. Illegal performance enhancement. Anything ethical that goes beyond what is legal and into ethics is simply personal ethics outside the rules of anti-doping.

Hey Sam, using your two, IMO if they are not breaking the rules then it is ethical, and if they are breaking the rules it is not ethical. Your assertion that ethics are not involved whatsoever has me wondering what you mean. The gray areas in the three categories of the OP likely include personal interpretations of ethics, but is there someone who would argue that breaking the rules/laws is anything but not ethical?

 

[Alpe73]

At a doping level, ethics are not involved whatsoever in sport. Doping is purely a legal matter of rules for riders, teams, UCI & WADA.
There are simply two categories of rider. Those using 1. Legal performance enhancement and those 2. Illegal performance enhancement. Anything ethical that goes beyond what is legal and into ethics is simply personal ethics outside the rules of anti-doping.

Hey Sam, using your two, IMO if they are not breaking the rules then it is ethical, and if they are breaking the rules it is not ethical. Your assertion that ethics are not involved whatsoever has me wondering what you mean. The gray areas in the three categories of the OP likely include personal interpretations of ethics, but is there someone who would argue that breaking the rules/laws is anything but not ethical?

IMHO, when it comes to professional cycling, "legal=ethical" is good enough ... is as good as it gets, as a cyclist or as a cycling fan.

For example, to maintain that a TUE is somehow "unethical" ... has limited substance with which to make a "meaningful" value judgement on an athlete. On a good day, "Ethics" (over and above legal-procedural directives) can be fraught with so much vaguity/ambiguity ... involving a multitude of contextual and linguo-cultural variables ... that it is rendered impotent as a measure in passing meaningful judgement.

 

[Merckx index]

IMHO, when it comes to professional cycling, "legal=ethical" is good enough ... is as good as it gets, as a cyclist or as a cycling fan.

As I pointed out a couple of months ago, Froome himself doesn't agree with you:

Froome said in a statement released on his personal Twitter account “I take my position in the sport very seriously and I know that I have to not only abide by the rules, but also go above and beyond that to set a good example both morally and ethically,” said Froome, who was speaking for the first time since he and Wiggins had their medical data hacked by Fancy Bears.

Froome clearly recognizes that there's an ethical element that isn't satisfied simply by strictly following the rules. Yet even as he says this, he rationalizes racing with an AAF because the rules allow it, and because other riders allegedly also did it. He pays lip service to ethics, but has no problem discarding them when their consequences are inconvenient.

“It is clear that the TUE system is open to abuse and I believe that this is something that the UCI and Wada needs to urgently address. At the same time there are athletes who not only abide by the rules that are in place, but also those of fair play. I have never had a ‘win-at-all-costs’ approach in this regard,” he said. “I am not looking to push the boundaries of the rules. I believe that this is something that athletes need to take responsibility for themselves, until more stringent protocols can be put in place.” '

Again, this smacks of hypocrisy. He's using every legal trick he can in an attempt to explain a positive that has no obvious explanation involving following the rules. It appears that he's taking the last resort approach of arguing that a long-established test is invalid. This is rather like a driver, caught doing 70 mph in a 50 mph zone and unable to dispute the radar evidence, claiming that 50 mph is too slow a maximum for that stretch of road, that driving 70 on it is perfectly safe. If this isn't pushing the boundaries of the rules, I don't know what is.

So Froome clearly understand the distinction between the rules and ethics, and claims he wants to act ethically as well as legally. It's just that he doesn't really mean it. Ethical behavior is painful, it hurts. If it didn't, there wouldn't be any value to it.

 

[Alpe73]

IMHO, when it comes to professional cycling, "legal=ethical" is good enough ... is as good as it gets, as a cyclist or as a cycling fan.

As I pointed out a couple of months ago, Froome himself doesn't agree with you:

Froome said in a statement released on his personal Twitter account “I take my position in the sport very seriously and I know that I have to not only abide by the rules, but also go above and beyond that to set a good example both morally and ethically,” said Froome, who was speaking for the first time since he and Wiggins had their medical data hacked by Fancy Bears.

Froome clearly recognizes that there's an ethical element that isn't satisfied simply by strictly following the rules. Yet even as he says this, he rationalizes racing with an AAF because the rules allow it, and because other riders allegedly also did it. He pays lip service to ethics, but has no problem discarding them when their consequences are inconvenient.

“It is clear that the TUE system is open to abuse and I believe that this is something that the UCI and Wada needs to urgently address. At the same time there are athletes who not only abide by the rules that are in place, but also those of fair play. I have never had a ‘win-at-all-costs’ approach in this regard,” he said. “I am not looking to push the boundaries of the rules. I believe that this is something that athletes need to take responsibility for themselves, until more stringent protocols can be put in place.” '

Again, this smacks of hypocrisy. He's using every legal trick he can in an attempt to explain a positive that has no obvious explanation involving following the rules. It appears that he's taking the last resort approach of arguing that a long-established test is invalid. This is rather like a driver, caught doing 70 mph in a 50 mph zone and unable to dispute the radar evidence, claiming that 50 mph is too slow a maximum for that stretch of road, that driving 70 on it is perfectly safe. If this isn't pushing the boundaries of the rules, I don't know what is.

So Froome clearly understand the distinction between the rules and ethics, and claims he wants to act ethically as well as legally. It's just that he doesn't really mean it. Ethical behavior is painful, it hurts. If it didn't, there wouldn't be any value to it.

* Late Edit*

First ... this is an open-ended topic/thread, right? .... I mean .... it's not directed in any way towards SKY or Froome, in particular, right. :lol:

Secondly, I could care less what Chris Froome thinks on the matter. He truly is a great rider ... but on the old Ethics vs Rules (supposed) gap debate ... dunno ... he just might leave you prompting for a lot more rigor. Not to disparage our Chris ... most of us don't have much, that is truly meaningful, to offer on this, I reckon.

Highlighted part ... with all due respect, MI ... I'm calling BS. Seriously.

Ethics presents us with no easy job when it comes to major issues like abortion, assisted suicide, etc. ... Cycling ethics ... as an a la carte item ... over an above the ethics already built into rules? (Did you miss the meeting?) For what purpose?

You can say things like .... "Using a TUE is unethical." But that's just a piece of syntax. You might as well say ... "Someone left the cake out in the rain." They're both meaningless unless you can convince a lot of people ... who matter ... to make some sort of decision ... some sort of action based on the essence of the meaning behind the syntax.

Good luck on that.

 

[Mamil]

I don't know if you watch/follow other sports, but I would argue that cycling is no more 'broken' than any other professional sport. I often wonder why cycling fans seem more passionate about their anti doping views than any other sport, and IMO its because most of them ride bikes too. Personally speaking, I really enjoy watching the NFL knowing full well that most of them are enhanced and it doesn't bother me. For some reason though it bothers me knowing that cyclists are doing he same. Maybe its because I raced professionally, maybe its because I still ride a lot, whereas I have never played football (USA) beyond jr/sr high?

I follow quite a few sports. There are plenty that have significant doping issues - athletics, football/soccer, tennis, swimming, and more. It's far from singular to cycling. If cycling is any more 'broken' or damaged by it, it's only a question of degree. Perhaps it is largely because it is the perfect sport for performance-enhancing activities - it's based around pure athletic ability, it requires both power and crazy endurance, it's largely individual, and it's incredibly hard. Probably that is why people have been doping in cycling since forever, taking all sorts of stuff back in the days (not so long ago!) when football players were still smoking and downing beers at half time.

Having said that cycling has rather been a victim of its own realisation of its issues. The omerta in the sport is notorious, and with good reason. But it must also be said that cycling has done more than any other sport, with the possible exception of athletics, to address its doping addiction. Sure, some of it was from outside sources, like the Festina affair, and it's often been a case of two steps forward and one step back, but over the last 20 years there have been genuine efforts in the sport to improve the testing and made it harder to dope. Multiple riders, inc. high profile ones, have been caught, and a whole era completely tarnished. Compare that to tennis where it has been a marginal fringe issue at best, barely whispered about. As a result cycling has unfairly become the pariah of the sporting world, doping central. As I said, it probably is as bad if not worse than any, but it's not really significantly more tainted than others.

But our relatively good knowledge of doping and its history in the sport, and its prominence as an issue within the sport, gives it a unique place as part of the overall culture and narrative of cycling, and probably brings these kinds of thoughts and discussions, on the ethics of the sport and the true nature of what pro cycling and its 'competition' is, to greater prominence than elsewhere.

 

[Alpe73]

I don't know if you watch/follow other sports, but I would argue that cycling is no more 'broken' than any other professional sport. I often wonder why cycling fans seem more passionate about their anti doping views than any other sport, and IMO its because most of them ride bikes too. Personally speaking, I really enjoy watching the NFL knowing full well that most of them are enhanced and it doesn't bother me. For some reason though it bothers me knowing that cyclists are doing he same. Maybe its because I raced professionally, maybe its because I still ride a lot, whereas I have never played football (USA) beyond jr/sr high?

I follow quite a few sports. There are plenty that have significant doping issues - athletics, football/soccer, tennis, swimming, and more. It's far from singular to cycling. If cycling is any more 'broken' or damaged by it, it's only a question of degree. Perhaps it is largely because it is the perfect sport for performance-enhancing activities - it's based around pure athletic ability, it requires both power and crazy endurance, it's largely individual, and it's incredibly hard. Probably that is why people have been doping in cycling since forever, taking all sorts of stuff back in the days (not so long ago!) when football players were still smoking and downing beers at half time.

Having said that cycling has rather been a victim of its own realisation of its issues. The omerta in the sport is notorious, and with good reason. But it must also be said that cycling has done more than any other sport, with the possible exception of athletics, to address its doping addiction. Sure, some of it was from outside sources, like the Festina affair, and it's often been a case of two steps forward and one step back, but over the last 20 years there have been genuine efforts in the sport to improve the testing and made it harder to dope. Multiple riders, inc. high profile ones, have been caught, and a whole era completely tarnished. Compare that to tennis where it has been a marginal fringe issue at best, barely whispered about. As a result cycling has unfairly become the pariah of the sporting world, doping central. As I said, it probably is as bad if not worse than any, but it's not really significantly more tainted than others.

But our relatively good knowledge of doping and its history in the sport, and its prominence as an issue within the sport, gives it a unique place as part of the overall culture and narrative of cycling, and probably brings these kinds of thoughts and discussions, on the ethics of the sport and the true nature of what pro cycling and its 'competition' is, to greater prominence than elsewhere.

To the bolded ... "pure hyperbole."

Less critics were concerned about the doping ... than they were about the nationality and the personality of the high profile rider who was winning the TDF 7 times over. No races were cancelled in the aftermath, cycling thrived, media made a windfall on the 'tragedie' :lol: ... and cycling was just fine. Now ... the high profile tragic hero is a sought after media personality who offers the best pro cycling analysis to millions of listeners.

Cycling is a sucker for self flagellation. Total drama queen island.

 

[Mamil]

Cycling is a sucker for self flagellation. Total drama queen island.

There is some truth in that. The anti-doping efforts have been very haphazard, and built on a multitude of factors beyond any sort of 'pure' desire to stamp out and punish it. But it's sadly still more than most sports have done.

And note I said 'tarnished', not destroyed. I think the nuance may have escaped you...