Ethics in cycling?

[samhocking]

Good points. I'm not saying doping can ever be ethical, simply if what you are doing/taking is legal, for many that is ethical-enough to do it, because the rules decide it for you.
There is obviously a grey area, but it's a pretty small window of very few substances and methods around substances allowed out of competition and a few that can be used within threshold or TUE.
Obviously Wellens refusing a TUE despite his team doctor saying he was allowed to take it is going deeply into personal ethics. I would argue Wellens was perhaps more fearful of being seen like Wiggins despite his condition justifying corticosteroids than effects of Corticosteroids on performance. He did say the reason was, he didn't want to be seen like Wiggins even though he was allowed to take it.

 

[The Hegelian]

Re:

Good points. I'm not saying doping can ever be ethical, simply if what you are doing/taking is legal, for many that is ethical-enough to do it, because the rules decide it for you.
There is obviously a grey area, but it's a pretty small window of very few substances and methods around substances allowed out of competition and a few that can be used within threshold or TUE.
Obviously Wellens refusing a TUE despite his team doctor saying he was allowed to take it is going deeply into personal ethics. I would argue Wellens was perhaps more fearful of being seen like Wiggins despite his condition justifying corticosteroids than effects of Corticosteroids on performance. He did say the reason was, he didn't want to be seen like Wiggins even though he was allowed to take it.

You seem to proposing a position in moral philosophy called psychological egoism. Which basically means, everyone is always acting out of self-interest, even when it appears that they are acting altruistically or for the greater good or for some higher principle etc.

i.e. you give money to a homeless person because it gives you pleasure to help. That is, your feeling of gaining pleasure is the driving force behind the moral action.

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

Good points. I'm not saying doping can ever be ethical, simply if what you are doing/taking is legal, for many that is ethical-enough to do it, because the rules decide it for you.
There is obviously a grey area, but it's a pretty small window of very few substances and methods around substances allowed out of competition and a few that can be used within threshold or TUE.
Obviously Wellens refusing a TUE despite his team doctor saying he was allowed to take it is going deeply into personal ethics. I would argue Wellens was perhaps more fearful of being seen like Wiggins despite his condition justifying corticosteroids than effects of Corticosteroids on performance. He did say the reason was, he didn't want to be seen like Wiggins even though he was allowed to take it.

You seem to proposing a position in moral philosophy called psychological egoism. Which basically means, everyone is always acting out of self-interest, even when it appears that they are acting altruistically or for the greater good or for some higher principle etc.

i.e. you give money to a homeless person because it gives you pleasure to help. That is, your feeling of gaining pleasure is the driving force behind the moral action.

Psychological egoism is an old theory that even Freud challenged. When life was just about staying alive, maybe it was a good theory, but modern life is more complex. Also, its a 'black and white', 'only one', theory. If I buy pizza for a homeless person I certainly feel good about it, but maybe my motivation was to help this guy out too. Making someone else feel good, makes us feel good. The ego theories all seem to exist in a bubble. I'll leave it at that, because I am maxing out my psych 101 knowledge! :lol:

I believe that its argued that all people are egocentric to some level, maybe professional athletes are at the upper end of that scale so they only see their winning/their reward.

 

[The Hegelian]

Well yes, psychological egoism as a coherent moral theory was demolished in the 17th century by Bishop Butler - I can't really think of any modern moral philosophers who defend it. That's why I wouldn't want to lean on those kind of arguments for doping in the peloton.

My own opinion is that pro-cyclists face the same kind of problem we all face: namely, the economic system forces a choice between material well being and living in accord with one's freely chosen moral values. i.e. the choice to dope is often not really about glory, fame, winning etc, but simply about doing what is necessary to succeed (which means: get paid) in one's chosen profession.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

Good points. I'm not saying doping can ever be ethical, simply if what you are doing/taking is legal, for many that is ethical-enough to do it, because the rules decide it for you.
There is obviously a grey area, but it's a pretty small window of very few substances and methods around substances allowed out of competition and a few that can be used within threshold or TUE.
Obviously Wellens refusing a TUE despite his team doctor saying he was allowed to take it is going deeply into personal ethics. I would argue Wellens was perhaps more fearful of being seen like Wiggins despite his condition justifying corticosteroids than effects of Corticosteroids on performance. He did say the reason was, he didn't want to be seen like Wiggins even though he was allowed to take it.

You seem to proposing a position in moral philosophy called psychological egoism. Which basically means, everyone is always acting out of self-interest, even when it appears that they are acting altruistically or for the greater good or for some higher principle etc.

i.e. you give money to a homeless person because it gives you pleasure to help. That is, your feeling of gaining pleasure is the driving force behind the moral action.

I'm not proposing anything. For the majority, their morals and ethics are constrained within a legal set of rules. Drive faster than 30mph in a 30mph you get a fine and points if caught. Illegally dope in sports you get a fine and a ban. All I'm saying is, many don't ethically decide what speed they should drive, they look at the sign and it tells them what speed to drive, same with legal performance enhancement. If WADA allow you to use Corticosteroids legally out of competition, some will use it and feel they are ethically correct. Some won't and feel they are ethically correct, bit both still legally race their bikes.

 

[memyselfandI]

It's just rebranding same old: Pan y aqua, low octane, high octane.

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

Good points. I'm not saying doping can ever be ethical, simply if what you are doing/taking is legal, for many that is ethical-enough to do it, because the rules decide it for you.
There is obviously a grey area, but it's a pretty small window of very few substances and methods around substances allowed out of competition and a few that can be used within threshold or TUE.
Obviously Wellens refusing a TUE despite his team doctor saying he was allowed to take it is going deeply into personal ethics. I would argue Wellens was perhaps more fearful of being seen like Wiggins despite his condition justifying corticosteroids than effects of Corticosteroids on performance. He did say the reason was, he didn't want to be seen like Wiggins even though he was allowed to take it.

You seem to proposing a position in moral philosophy called psychological egoism. Which basically means, everyone is always acting out of self-interest, even when it appears that they are acting altruistically or for the greater good or for some higher principle etc.

i.e. you give money to a homeless person because it gives you pleasure to help. That is, your feeling of gaining pleasure is the driving force behind the moral action.

I'm not proposing anything. For the majority, their morals and ethics are constrained within a legal set of rules. Drive faster than 30mph in a 30mph you get a fine and points if caught. Illegally dope in sports you get a fine and a ban. All I'm saying is, many don't ethically decide what speed they should drive, they look at the sign and it tells them what speed to drive, same with legal performance enhancement. If WADA allow you to use Corticosteroids legally out of competition, some will use it and feel they are ethically correct. Some won't and feel they are ethically correct, bit both still legally race their bikes.

And you want to hold a moral equivalence between the former and the latter? i.e between those who subordinate all moral value strictly to what the rules state, and those who can distinguish between legality and morality?

The slippage between ethically correct and legally correct is not justified in my opinion.

Two drivers drive at 30mph. A drives simply obeying all the rules. B obeys the rules, but also has concern for other drivers, is very cautious passing cyclists, lets people in, waves cordially etc.

B is morally superior. Categorically.

 

[Mayo from Mayo]

Re: Re:

Good points. I'm not saying doping can ever be ethical, simply if what you are doing/taking is legal, for many that is ethical-enough to do it, because the rules decide it for you.
There is obviously a grey area, but it's a pretty small window of very few substances and methods around substances allowed out of competition and a few that can be used within threshold or TUE.
Obviously Wellens refusing a TUE despite his team doctor saying he was allowed to take it is going deeply into personal ethics. I would argue Wellens was perhaps more fearful of being seen like Wiggins despite his condition justifying corticosteroids than effects of Corticosteroids on performance. He did say the reason was, he didn't want to be seen like Wiggins even though he was allowed to take it.

You seem to proposing a position in moral philosophy called psychological egoism. Which basically means, everyone is always acting out of self-interest, even when it appears that they are acting altruistically or for the greater good or for some higher principle etc.

i.e. you give money to a homeless person because it gives you pleasure to help. That is, your feeling of gaining pleasure is the driving force behind the moral action.

I'm not proposing anything. For the majority, their morals and ethics are constrained within a legal set of rules. Drive faster than 30mph in a 30mph you get a fine and points if caught. Illegally dope in sports you get a fine and a ban. All I'm saying is, many don't ethically decide what speed they should drive, they look at the sign and it tells them what speed to drive, same with legal performance enhancement. If WADA allow you to use Corticosteroids legally out of competition, some will use it and feel they are ethically correct. Some won't and feel they are ethically correct, bit both still legally race their bikes.

And you want to hold a moral equivalence between the former and the latter? i.e between those who subordinate all moral value strictly to what the rules state, and those who can distinguish between legality and morality?

The slippage between ethically correct and legally correct is not justified in my opinion.

Two drivers drive at 30mph. A drives simply obeying all the rules. B obeys the rules, but also has concern for other drivers, is very cautious passing cyclists, lets people in, waves cordially etc.

B is morally superior. Categorically.

Driver C is aware that NCCC (ACPO) guidelines are that no action will be taken if he drives at 10% + 2mph over the speed limit. He drives at 35mph. He also has concern for other drivers, is very cautious passing cyclists etc.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

Good points. I'm not saying doping can ever be ethical, simply if what you are doing/taking is legal, for many that is ethical-enough to do it, because the rules decide it for you.
There is obviously a grey area, but it's a pretty small window of very few substances and methods around substances allowed out of competition and a few that can be used within threshold or TUE.
Obviously Wellens refusing a TUE despite his team doctor saying he was allowed to take it is going deeply into personal ethics. I would argue Wellens was perhaps more fearful of being seen like Wiggins despite his condition justifying corticosteroids than effects of Corticosteroids on performance. He did say the reason was, he didn't want to be seen like Wiggins even though he was allowed to take it.

You seem to proposing a position in moral philosophy called psychological egoism. Which basically means, everyone is always acting out of self-interest, even when it appears that they are acting altruistically or for the greater good or for some higher principle etc.

i.e. you give money to a homeless person because it gives you pleasure to help. That is, your feeling of gaining pleasure is the driving force behind the moral action.

I'm not proposing anything. For the majority, their morals and ethics are constrained within a legal set of rules. Drive faster than 30mph in a 30mph you get a fine and points if caught. Illegally dope in sports you get a fine and a ban. All I'm saying is, many don't ethically decide what speed they should drive, they look at the sign and it tells them what speed to drive, same with legal performance enhancement. If WADA allow you to use Corticosteroids legally out of competition, some will use it and feel they are ethically correct. Some won't and feel they are ethically correct, bit both still legally race their bikes.

And you want to hold a moral equivalence between the former and the latter? i.e between those who subordinate all moral value strictly to what the rules state, and those who can distinguish between legality and morality?

The slippage between ethically correct and legally correct is not justified in my opinion.

Two drivers drive at 30mph. A drives simply obeying all the rules. B obeys the rules, but also has concern for other drivers, is very cautious passing cyclists, lets people in, waves cordially etc.

B is morally superior. Categorically.

a) is Driver A 'rat ***' or a pretty close second to morally superior Driver B?
b) once driver Driver B parks ... waves at the neighbors ... he 'could' lay a slap on his wife, right? Just sayin.
c) What kind of leverage, intervention, sanction, hard look would you be looking for ... if you were successful in establishing Sky an an Ethically/Morally bereft pro sports team?

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

Good points. I'm not saying doping can ever be ethical, simply if what you are doing/taking is legal, for many that is ethical-enough to do it, because the rules decide it for you.
There is obviously a grey area, but it's a pretty small window of very few substances and methods around substances allowed out of competition and a few that can be used within threshold or TUE.
Obviously Wellens refusing a TUE despite his team doctor saying he was allowed to take it is going deeply into personal ethics. I would argue Wellens was perhaps more fearful of being seen like Wiggins despite his condition justifying corticosteroids than effects of Corticosteroids on performance. He did say the reason was, he didn't want to be seen like Wiggins even though he was allowed to take it.

You seem to proposing a position in moral philosophy called psychological egoism. Which basically means, everyone is always acting out of self-interest, even when it appears that they are acting altruistically or for the greater good or for some higher principle etc.

i.e. you give money to a homeless person because it gives you pleasure to help. That is, your feeling of gaining pleasure is the driving force behind the moral action.

I'm not proposing anything. For the majority, their morals and ethics are constrained within a legal set of rules. Drive faster than 30mph in a 30mph you get a fine and points if caught. Illegally dope in sports you get a fine and a ban. All I'm saying is, many don't ethically decide what speed they should drive, they look at the sign and it tells them what speed to drive, same with legal performance enhancement. If WADA allow you to use Corticosteroids legally out of competition, some will use it and feel they are ethically correct. Some won't and feel they are ethically correct, bit both still legally race their bikes.

And you want to hold a moral equivalence between the former and the latter? i.e between those who subordinate all moral value strictly to what the rules state, and those who can distinguish between legality and morality?

The slippage between ethically correct and legally correct is not justified in my opinion.

Two drivers drive at 30mph. A drives simply obeying all the rules. B obeys the rules, but also has concern for other drivers, is very cautious passing cyclists, lets people in, waves cordially etc.

B is morally superior. Categorically.

a) is Driver A 'rat ****' or a pretty close second to morally superior Driver B?
b) once driver Driver B parks ... waves at the neighbors ... he 'could' lay a slap on his wife, right? Just sayin.
c) What kind of leverage, intervention, sanction, hard look would you be looking for ... if you were successful in establishing Sky an an Ethically/Morally bereft pro sports team?

You're both missing the point. Doping or not is a legal matter. Driving faster than 30mphn or not is a legal matter. As long as you're not wrecklessy driving, it doesn't matter if you let an old lady out in traffic or are the best driver in the world. All that matters is did you drive above 30mph. Therefore in terms of a penalty, the driver that is abusive to other road users and is never cautious receives the same penalty as the best driver in the world if the speed camera reads over 30mph with whatever adjustment value allowed. WADA is a speed camera. Ethics are not used to decide if doping is illegal or not, what's in your Blood or urine is, your bio passport and wherabouts.

For me, there is no ethics involved if you are illegally doping. It's against the rules. Ethics are only involved when you want to do more than rules require. I would argue it's not even up to riders or teams to decide what should be done above the rules, we have two world governing body of the sport and Anti-doping that should spearhead rules based on ethics though perhaps for the benefit of the sport in a wider context than simply catching illegal dopers

 

[King Boonen]

The idea that someones ethics would be determined by what they can or can't do according to the law is, I must admit, a particularly troubling viewpoint to me. It is completely the wrong way around.

It's also, as far as I'm aware, generally wrong. While ethics inform lawmakers, they are separate. A simple example is the nine alignments in Dungeons and Dragons, where characters can be both good and evil while still being lawful.

 

[samhocking]

Re:

The idea that someones ethics would be determined by what they can or can't do according to the law is, I must admit, a particularly troubling viewpoint to me. It is completely the wrong way around.

It's also, as far as I'm aware, generally wrong. While ethics inform lawmakers, they are separate. A simple example is the nine alignments in Dungeons and Dragons, where characters can be both good and evil while still being lawful.

I totally agree, but unfortunately doping is always a legal matter in terms of who is doing something wrong or not wrong. It cannot be another way unfortubatly. It doesn't prevent personal ethics being applied however. Clearly WADA can use ethical reasoning to decide if eg TUEs should be allowed or not. I would say it isn't the teams or riders jobs to circumvent or navigate beyond what the rules require though. They are there to ride as fast as possible legally and illegally if that is what they want to do.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

The idea that someones ethics would be determined by what they can or can't do according to the law is, I must admit, a particularly troubling viewpoint to me. It is completely the wrong way around.

It's also, as far as I'm aware, generally wrong. While ethics inform lawmakers, they are separate. A simple example is the nine alignments in Dungeons and Dragons, where characters can be both good and evil while still being lawful.

I totally agree, but unfortunately doping is always a legal matter in terms of who is doing something wrong or not wrong. It cannot be another way unfortubatly. It doesn't prevent personal ethics being applied however. Clearly WADA can use ethical reasoning to decide if eg TUEs should be allowed or not. I would say it isn't the teams or riders jobs to circumvent or navigate beyond what the rules require though. They are there to ride as fast as possible legally and illegally if that is what they want to do.

Why are you trying to change the nature of the discussion? The OP is not referring to sanctions or the anti-doping code. They are not trying to argue that ethics should in some way affect decisions about doping cases. They want to have a discussion about where people stand on the ethical issues of doping in cycling.

If I'm wrong then they can correct me but I see no reason to turn this into another argument about the definitions of laws and their limits.

 

[samhocking]

I believe I am completely in line with nature of OP discussion. The discussion is putting forward different ethical categories which is fine. You can class athletes into ethical categories, but in terms of WADA, doping is never an ethical issue, it is one based in rules on what would be illegal and legal to be in your body or you do or not do. Even the ethics of eg applying for a TUE under false pretences of performance enhancement would be decided using rules of evidence of therapeutic need not ethics directly.

 

[King Boonen]

Again, the OP never mentioned WADA. In fact, I see the OP has already pointed out to you that they are not wanting to discuss the rules:

Sam, you've rather missed my point. I'm not debating what is and isn't doping. I accept that the laws are the ultimate arbiter of this, and must be so. What I'm asking is, in the context of pro sport, and pro cycling in particular, is there an objective ethics around the decision to dope or not, or between one 'level' or method of doping and another? Is exploiting the TUE system, or taking controlled products for pure performance rather than illness reasons, also objectively unethical, or is it just smart of even common sense in the context of ruthless competition and financial imperative, or ethical simply because it's legal?

It seems clear to me they want to have a discussion about whether people think that riders, teams etc. are guided by different ethical perspectives in deciding whether to dope and how to dope. Again, why are you trying to turn this into a discussion about the laws and application of those laws?

 

[samhocking]

Re:

Again, the OP never mentioned WADA. In fact, I see the OP has already pointed out to you that they are not wanting to discuss the rules:

Sam, you've rather missed my point. I'm not debating what is and isn't doping. I accept that the laws are the ultimate arbiter of this, and must be so. What I'm asking is, in the context of pro sport, and pro cycling in particular, is there an objective ethics around the decision to dope or not, or between one 'level' or method of doping and another? Is exploiting the TUE system, or taking controlled products for pure performance rather than illness reasons, also objectively unethical, or is it just smart of even common sense in the context of ruthless competition and financial imperative, or ethical simply because it's legal?

It seems clear to me they want to have a discussion about whether people think that riders, teams etc. are guided by different ethical perspectives in deciding whether to dope and how to dope. Again, why are you trying to turn this into a discussion about the laws and application of those laws?

The OP is using WADA rules to categorise ethically. What does 'all out doping program' mean, if it is not relating to prohibited substances and methods accoring to WADA rules? What is the 'clean' category, if not riders doing nothing that is prohibited or against WADA rules?
I'm happy to exit discussion. It doesn't make any sense to me to discuss theoretical ethical categories of doping, semi-doping, no doping, good dopers, bad dopers as I don't view sport like that. To me You're either breaking rules or abiding by them. If you want to abide by rules and abide by your own ethics, fantastic, but I wouldn't categorise those decisions as being morally superior to simply not breaking rules in commercial sport. Amateur sport, your own life and social life, sure, that is a large part of life's happiness, in professional sport and business, not for meas it could never work in any Anti-doping fight anyway.

 

[The Hegelian]

Sam what you're really doing is denying that pro-cyclists have moral agency.

i.e. they are mere automatons who do not have the capacity to make normative judgements about what kind of person they wish to be in their professional lives, and clearly, no capacity to act on the basis of those judgements.

This is contrary to many public admissions made by people who have been caught doping - for example, Tyler Hamilton - who explicitly assert that they discerned the point where they transgressed, and experienced robust negative sentiments for doing so.

Now, please be clear about this: where moral agency can be discerned, it can be discussed. And though it is not fully independent of the legal sphere, it is also not fully dependent on it.

 

[samhocking]

Re:

Sam what you're really doing is denying that pro-cyclists have moral agency.

i.e. they are mere automatons who do not have the capacity to make normative judgements about what kind of person they wish to be in their professional lives, and clearly, no capacity to act on the basis of those judgements.

This is contrary to many public admissions made by people who have been caught doping - for example, Tyler Hamilton - who explicitly assert that they discerned the point where they transgressed, and experienced robust negative sentiments for doing so.

Now, please be clear about this: where moral agency can be discerned, it can be discussed. And though it is not fully independent of the legal sphere, it is also not fully dependent on it.

I simply don't agree that riders and teams doping can or should be judged using ethics by fans when they are judged using only rules by WADA and UCI. I am certainly not denying riders have moral agency either, simply you are either unethically doping (cheating) according to the rules, or you not cheating by abiding by the rules of the game.
The argument here seems to be, not only should riders abide by WADA and UCI rules, but then layer their own set of ad-hoc random ethical standards ontop of this to fill in the gaps (I assume) that people feel are perhaos missing in WADA anti-doping and UCIs rulebook perhaps?By that I assume dont take legal TUEs, dont take legal Corticosteroids OOC, Legal Painkillers, Legal Performance Enhancement etc.
The problem with applying ethics is they are not an absolute measurement of anything other than your own beliefs. It comes back to the fact many riders simply abide by WADAs rules and their personal ethical belief (from the standpoint this is their job/business and a governing body and Anti-doping agency monitor if they are breaking the rules of the sport) breaking rules is unethical, abiding by them is ethical.
I would argue, that if you want higher ethical standards in sport, it's pointless arguing riders and teams should lower their performance level to satisfy fans, which is essentially what higher ethical standards result in. Fans should be demanding WADA and UCI raise their ethical standards first, make those ethical measures part of the rules and then 'categorising' doping or not doping using ethics will be better defined for riders, teams and fans.

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

Sam what you're really doing is denying that pro-cyclists have moral agency.

i.e. they are mere automatons who do not have the capacity to make normative judgements about what kind of person they wish to be in their professional lives, and clearly, no capacity to act on the basis of those judgements.

This is contrary to many public admissions made by people who have been caught doping - for example, Tyler Hamilton - who explicitly assert that they discerned the point where they transgressed, and experienced robust negative sentiments for doing so.

Now, please be clear about this: where moral agency can be discerned, it can be discussed. And though it is not fully independent of the legal sphere, it is also not fully dependent on it.

I simply don't agree that riders and teams doping can or should be judged using ethics by fans when they are judged using only rules by WADA and UCI. I am certainly not denying riders have moral agency either, simply you are either unethically doping (cheating) according to the rules, or you not cheating by abiding by the rules of the game.
The argument here seems to be, not only should riders abide by WADA and UCI rules, but then layer their own set of ad-hoc random ethical standards ontop of this to fill in the gaps (I assume) that people feel are perhaos missing in WADA anti-doping and UCIs rulebook perhaps?By that I assume dont take legal TUEs, dont take legal Corticosteroids OOC, Legal Painkillers, Legal Performance Enhancement etc.
The problem with applying ethics is they are not an absolute measurement of anything other than your own beliefs. It comes back to the fact many riders simply abide by WADAs rules and their personal ethical belief (from the standpoint this is their job/business and a governing body and Anti-doping agency monitor if they are breaking the rules of the sport) breaking rules is unethical, abiding by them is ethical.
I would argue, that if you want higher ethical standards in sport, it's pointless arguing riders and teams should lower their performance level to satisfy fans, which is essentially what higher ethical standards result in. Fans should be demanding WADA and UCI raise their ethical standards first, make those ethical measures part of the rules and then 'categorising' doping or not doping using ethics will be better defined for riders, teams and fans.

You assert: Fans should be demanding WADA and UCI raise their ethical standards first, make those ethical measures part of the rules and then 'categorising' doping or not doping using ethics will be better defined for riders, teams and fans.

Therefore, by your own admission it is both relevant and necessary for fans to have moral discussions about doping in cycling.

Moreover, by this admission, there must be a relationship between "the rules" and the moral values which inform those rules. So we return again to the question of why you insist on collapsing the distinction between these spheres.

You assert: The problem with applying ethics is they are not an absolute measurement of anything other than your own beliefs.

This is a position in moral philosophy called subjectivism. It has very, very few defenders - for the reason being that when we come to more robust moral problems such as rape, murder and torture, few want to defend the proposition that they are morally wrong only in the instances where particular individuals judge them to be morally wrong.

I think ultimately you have a very impoverished sense of what ethics actually is - it is richer, more complex and more important terrain than you assume.

 

[samhocking]

No matter, doping in sport is only ever decided and will only ever be decided using legal argument as the case is in any commercial environment. Ethics are subjective argument only. Just like rape if you want to use that comparison, cannot be decided by something subjective and why there are no ethics in WADA beyond abiding or breaking rules the same as any legal or rule-based system. What I'm saying is ethics can only be applied into the rules at WADA level. Teams and riders cannot and should not be expected to fill in gaps between rules using ethics.

 

[Mamil]

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?

 

[Alpe73]

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?

With all due respect ... you might be more successful in facilitating, generating and cultivating the aforementioned discussion if you were more clear in your questioning, observations and assumptions. This last post is rather “all over the place.” You seem to be having a discussion with your self. You may not fancy Sam’s assertions ... but clarity Is on the doorstep. BTW, I intend this as constructive criticism ... no more ... but ... no less.

 

[Mamil]

Ah Alpe, I have seen more than enough of your posts on here to know that it is a complete waste of time to try and discuss things with you, or to expect you to be able to understand anything more complex than the short, snide, empty sentences that you seem to love so much. Have a good day.

 

[samhocking]

The experimental/legal doping with substances not yet known about is an interesting one, but I don't think it has much hold on the peloton or ever has. Certainly no rider confessing to doping over the last 25 years seems to have used much experimental doping anyway. Even Conconi, Ferrari, Fuentes etc seem rather traditional in using the big four banned substances.
The issue with experimental substances/methods is they are expensive and risky. Any new drug costs nearly $1 billion to develop. Pro cycling simply doesn't have the money to develop or even buy such expensive drugs, not to mention, experimental drugs are just that - hit and miss, unproven and expensive with greater risk to health as probably haven't even commenced trials beyond computer simulation letalone animals and finally humans.

At the end of the day WADA already prohibits every single class of new or existing substance/method within the S1 to S9, M1 to M3 and P1 Classes. And finally S0 which prohibits all pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the above sections already prohibits drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) are all prohibited at all times anyway.

So, coming back to ethics 'ANY' substance or method new or old is prohibited and against the rules. Therefore I would argue it is not possible to dope ethically anyway. Just because a substance is not approved and listed by WADA doesn;'t mean it isn't banned, it simply means it falls under S0 instead and prohibited at all times. You would therefore have to take ethics out of it unless your ethics believe doping and breaking rules meets them of course.

 

[Alpe73]

Ah Alpe, I have seen more than enough of your posts on here to know that it is a complete waste of time to try and discuss things with you, or to expect you to be able to understand anything more complex than the short, snide, empty sentences that you seem to love so much. Have a good day.