Floyd says...you've got to legalise doping

[rhubroma]

No, he's just disillusioned and overly simplistic, possibly stressed out and/or drunk. There are other ways of organizing society than "the american way". There are no quick-fixes, no simple solutions. The 5 second sound-bite may be in sync with the attention-span of large segments of society, just look at the success of "the-right-to-bear arms"-mantra one would think was the lost part of the eleven commandments, but sometimes five seconds just ain't enough, as my wife likes to point out.
Giving up on the fight against PEDs means you've lost. I believe there're enough couch-potatoes around. With PEDs as an integral part there'd be no point in letting your kids take up sport. Brilliant.
How's this for an alternative soundbite: Winners never quit, quitters never win.

Nope, he was just being honest before a war that has already been lost. Doesn't make it necessarilly an agreeable honesty, however that doesn't make it less sincere. And I'm not for doping.

If there is justice in this world, which there is not, the problem should resolve itself. Given that there are too many forces that unremittingly work against seeing justice done, however, we can only count on near misses and half achievments.

While Flandis' suggestion may seem superficially cheap and outlandish, it was I think meant to be taken for the provocative and rhetorical effects it had been based upon. Provocative and rhetorical. A nice foil to the hypocritical and sinister remarks we usually hear from the cynics.

 

[Magnus]

Hate to break it:
Doping is substances that are banned.
Legalized doping is a contradiction.

 

[hektoren]

If there is justice in this world, which there is not, the problem should resolve itself.

You've probably heard the term "fight for justice"? That's just what it is. A fight. Pleading nolo contendere inevitably leads to greater injustice.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Hate to break it:
Doping is substances that are banned.
Legalized doping is a contradiction.

If you look at how the word is commonly used you will find that doping is shorthand for performance-enhancing drugs in sport, full stop. Whether "it" is legal or illegal is simply a value that gets added to doping by official bodies.

So when someone says "legalised doping", the idea they are conveying is crystal clear to many people here, rather than a contradiction that we just can't get our head around, or a forum-call for nitpicking.

 

[python]

Kind of strange that you're that confused. Performance enhancing drugs isn't allowed. Period. The amounts allowed will vary over time, as will our medical knowledge. Limits are determined by consensus, not by dictate. But to state that this moves in a random fashion, following whims, is nonsensical.
Some medicines double as therapeutic and/or performance enhancing, usually at varying levels. Determining the exact level where therapeutic use ends and performance enhancement begins is difficult because of the amount of variables involved, but one tends to err on the side of caution. But, you need a diagnosis and a TUE to use most of these substances. One example is Salbutamol, once totally disallowed at any concentration, now allowed if at normal therapeutic concentrations, because there's new evidence to the fact that using salbutamol at these concentrations has no performance enhancing effect.
These processes are evolutionary, and will get better over time. Have faith.

the reason you are confused is that you deluded yourself that the world is black and white by consensus. don't know you if you that blind but if you cant see the point of how limited and contradictory our knowledge in many areas of science, medicine and nutrition is, so much so that we keep banning and unbanning certain substances, i can't help you. nonsensical is you lack of perspective on wider issues.

 

[rhubroma]

You've probably heard the term "fight for justice"? That's just what it is. A fight. Pleading nolo contendere inevitably leads to greater injustice.

Now this is being far too simplistic. In some cases, like the Mexican-US drug market I mentioned above, the illegality and ineffectiveness only leads to greater injustices.

First one has to agree upon a concept of "illicit" in the moral and ethical sense. To me guns are potentially for more immoral than smoking weed, for example. Yet one is legal the other isn't.

But this is a philosophers game, which will never achieve universal concensus.

The comment, though, about the inconsistency of "legalized doping" is merly ridiculous, becuase it would be enough to legalize it for it to be perfectly congruous.

 

[Francois the Postman]

moot point - doping is ALREADY legalized, yes as we speak. im serious.

there are dozens and dozens of substances that are ok 'if you take this much' but not 'that much'.

and 'this much' keeps moving around making some substances legal some years and illegal other years. caffeine is but one simple example...there are many others.

the very fact that the authorities are confused (though they'll never admit it) says it's really irrelevant where the line is drawn or how you term the phenomena - 'controlled doping'/legalized doping' whatever...it's here to stay and the 'this-much-but-not-that-much' will always randomly move or beter said in sync with the societal fashions, whims and ethical currents.

same old. but some may feel good deluding themselves...again and again.

I pretty much had the same response when I read what Landis said. The moment you start to work with no sanctions within this band of values for substance A, something we do, you create a tolerated doping zone for substance A. Or for substance B, if A doubles as a masking agent or as a (bio-passport) trip-wire to look at substance B.

I would suggest that we might have to revisit some of the bands currently in use, especially zero tolerance ones, written when the question how much an innocent mugger can pick up by simply being alive in the 21st century was mute, since we had no instruments that were that precise (we now do). And a question that, now in that 21st century, we probably haven't even got good answers to. Not that it will stop us from determining where someone's career and income source will end up. Well, the one or two lucky ones that arbitrarily get to be scrutinized to that level, anyway.

Reasonable and workable pragmatism usually gets people far closer to an ideal than a dogmatic solution. Although I would probably applaud the people that insist on dogmatic solutions on the principle behind their stance.

I guess Landis' pov also floats somewhere within that terrain.

Saying that, I don't think that Landis "solution for EPO" is wise, or his words were well-chosen.

I guess he gets the mic on it because he has suddenly become an obvious go-to spokesmen about drugs in sport to "the media".

But he is no expert, and as far as I can see, not a great direction-of-the-sport philosopher either. His opinion on the future of dope in the sport, right now, attracts added weight that it really doesn't have. For some reason, certain people perceive that his opinion matters more than it does, or has uncomfortable implications for people who agree that Lance is dodgy.

He is a rider with experiences of usage, and a witness to a general climate. He is a bit player. A potentially useful one in key areas. But a bit player nevertheless. (respectable? Leader? Hero? Pfah!)

And he sure as hell is not the spokesman for people who want to see a different way to deal with drugs in cycling. he is worth listening to. A rider with a past and experiences. But it sounds like other people are better suited to figure out what that means for all of us going forwards.

 

[hektoren]

the reason you are confused is that you deluded yourself that the world is black and white by consensus. don't know you if you that blind but if you cant see the point of how limited and contradictory our knowledge in many areas of science, medicine and nutrition is, so much so that we keep banning and unbanning certain substances, i can't help you. nonsensical is you lack of perspective on wider issues.

I'm not delusional at all, thank you. The point is that you should get your head around the concept of evolution. Small incremental steps towards stable, workable solutions, (and there comes the meteor, wiping out the dinosaurs!) WADA was established in 1999. PED's date back to at least 400 BC. That's what I'd call a head start. Yet you're willing to give up the fight now, claiming that Landis is right: it's best to bend over and learn to enjoy it?? 11 years after the inception of WADA? I'm impressed. You're obviously a sprinter and not in for the long haul.

 

[hektoren]

Now this is being far too simplistic.

The pot calling the kettle black? Well, you started it, claiming that "If there is justice in this world, which there is not, the problem should resolve itself". You play the music, I'll do the dance.

 

[python]

I pretty much had the same response when I read what Landis said. The moment you start to work with no sanctions within this band of values for substance A, something we do, you create a tolerated doping zone for substance A. Or for substance B, if A doubles as a masking agent or as a (bio-passport) trip-wire to look at substance B.

snip

i think, francois, you understood my point - the concept of what constitutes doping under the present rules, though well codified, is less than straightforward and may even look like 'allowed doping' (to a point) for so-called threshold substances. not advocating pro-doping mentality, just calling attention to a complexity of the issue.

even for currently 'non-threshold' substances carrying 'zero-tolerance' verdict, some anti-doping scientists advocate rethinking due to widespread low-level contamination. clenbuterol would be a perfect example.

academic consensus is what we currently go by, but it often is shaky and controversial...but still resulting in black and white conclusions (guilty/not guilty).

as to landis, i honestly think he's been through too many extremes too recently to take his point as settled.

 

[Francois the Postman]

The point is that you don't understand the concept of evolution. Small incremental steps towards stable, workable solutions, (and there comes the meteor, wiping out the dinosaurs!) WADA was established in 1999. PED's date back to at least 400 BC. That's what I'd call a head start. Yet you're willing to give up the fight now, claiming that Landis is right: it's best to bend over and learn to enjoy it?? 11 years after the inception of WADA? I'm impressed. You're obviously a sprinter and not in for the long haul.

I think you misread Python. Landis says we should start to legalize PEDs. Python says we already do. Nothing to do with "giving up the fight or bending over". It is an observation.

And you might like or not, but to some, accepting some legalization or tolerance of certain levels of some drugs might well be an integral part of that "evolution" route to workable and stable solution. People advocating it might actually be in for a much more determined and considered haul (long or sprint) that leads to an actual finish line of sorts, that will always require amendments, as PEDs evolve.

If Python sees it that way or not is not for me to say. But he certainly doesn't advocate in any of the posts you react to that he is willing to bend over and give up, nor that he agrees 100% with Landis. Poo-poo him all you want, Python's thoughts on the matter run much deeper than your misguided mischaracterisation suggests.

You are not the only one who cares about the long haul, and you obviously do. Don't insinuate that people who see it differently are not as worthy and upstanding as those that have your pov. It's silly.

 

[python]

I'm not delusional at all, thank you. The point is that you should get your head around the concept of evolution. Small incremental steps towards stable, workable solutions, (and there comes the meteor, wiping out the dinosaurs!) WADA was established in 1999. PED's date back to at least 400 BC. That's what I'd call a head start. Yet you're willing to give up the fight now, claiming that Landis is right: it's best to bend over and learn to enjoy it?? 11 years after the inception of WADA? I'm impressed. You're obviously a sprinter and not in for the long haul.

this post proves that you are delusional.

you hear sounds in your own head attributing to me things never written or assumed - at no point i claimed landis is right or i was 'willing to give up a fight' - i was only bringing attention to the complexity of some issues

yes, you are delusional and 'self-actuated' if you can see so much into someone you don't know.

as to wada, perhaps by reading some of my posts in the relevant threads you could figure i'm aware what they do.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Since you are both hovering around accepting the reality of "small incremental steps towards stable, workable solutions", I suspect your actual opinions and reading of desirable are not far removed from each other (not the misread versions).

Both of you appear to want to have as little PEDs as possible (workable).
Both of you accept whatever is in place is an evolutionary process, where rules get improved as our understanding and nature of substances change.

And both of you use language that is ott when it comes to telling what the other person "is".

 

[rhubroma]

The pot calling the kettle black? Well, you started it, claiming that "If there is justice in this world, which there is not, the problem should resolve itself". You play the music, I'll do the dance.

Need lessons in irony?

 

[hektoren]

this post proves that you are delusional.

you hear sounds in your own head attributing to me things never written or assumed - at no point i claimed landis is right or i was 'willing to give up a fight' - i was only bringing attention to the complexity of some issues

yes, you are delusional and 'self-actuated' if you can see so much into someone you don't know.

as to wada, perhaps by reading some of my posts in the relevant threads you could figure i'm aware what they do.

No, it was you, actually, that claimed that the "doping is already legalized....authorities are confused.....it's irrelevant where the line is drawn.......legalized doping is here to stay........limits randomly floating about whimsically...." all of which is able to confuse and hinder enlightenment.

Now, if you truly believe that the thresholds are set at random (reading tea-leaves, flipping a coin or whatever?) you are patently wrong.
If you believe that authorities are confused (which authorities? Aren't you mistaking ordinary academic discussions towards a consensus-policy with confusion?)

The best knowledge one has, consensually, is written into WADA code. What constitutes "the best knowledge" will vary over time, but that doesn't mean that it's randomly floating about.

 

[rhubroma]

I think the point that was tried to be made, was that given the corruption, inherent flaws, inconsistency and costs: the amount of injustice committed by doping being illegal vs. that which would occur if doping were legal is arguably in favor of the latter in the lesser sense. Because the injustice of doping is further compounded by the other factors above.

I don't dispute that, even if the latter proposition does not leave us with much comfort. This is what I meant by the lack of justice in the world. All sarcasm aside.

 

[**Uru**]

Landis is right and wrong at the same time. He is right in arguing that the testing is not having the desired effect. If anything, the sport of cycling is more of a joke than it ever was (from the perspective of the general public's perception that it is full of dopers).

Instead of arguing that drugs should be legalized within cycling, what Landis should be arguing is that they stop making such a grand jury case about the whole issue in the press. Keep testing, find the cheats, and deal with them. Just do it in a more orderly and low key fashion. This is what cycling needs to stop being the laughing stock of professional sports.

 

[hektoren]

I think you misread Python. Landis says we should start to legalize PEDs. Python says we already do. Nothing to do with "giving up the fight or bending over". It is an observation.

And you might like or not, but to some, accepting some legalization or tolerance of certain levels of some drugs might well be an integral part of that "evolution" route to workable and stable solution. People advocating it might actually be in for a much more determined and considered haul (long or sprint) that leads to an actual finish line of sorts, that will always require amendments, as PEDs evolve.

If Python sees it that way or not is not for me to say. But he certainly doesn't advocate in any of the posts you react to that he is willing to bend over and give up, nor that he agrees 100% with Landis. Poo-poo him all you want, Python's thoughts on the matter run much deeper than your misguided mischaracterisation suggests.

You are not the only one who cares about the long haul, and you obviously do. Don't insinuate that people who see it differently are not as worthy and upstanding as those that have your pov. It's silly.

Oh, but there's a difference. We aren't there (where Landis wants to go, and Python says we're at already). Let's just use Salbutamol as an example.
It used to be a banned Beta-2 Agonist, but as its use at normal therapeutic levels for asthmatics is now revealed to be not-performance-enhancing above your normal functional you, it's allowed. For asthmatics. Now this is exactly where the difference is.
Following Landis' advice, any and everybody would be able to use Salbutamol at this "therapeutic" level because it would be deemed safe, and Python says that's where we are already? Well, we're not, and the thinking behind this is definitely not random and whimsical, which, if you think about it for a sec. would lead one to think that "if it's random, we might just accept any- and everything."

Now, If I've misunderstood Python completely and I'm to blame, then, I'm sorry. What irked me was the normative statement that "its irrelevant where the limit is set". It's not irrelevant, it's a result of ethical and medical, careful deliberations. It might appear whimsical, like the movements of the stars, until you understand more of the underlying processes.

 

[NashbarShorts]

I think it's safe to say good judgement has not been one of Floyd's strong suits of late. I would just put this down to one more example of the same..

I personally feel really sad for the guy. I think in there some where is a good guy trying to get out. But it pretty difficult to see that right now. He just comes across as at best random and at worst a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

How so? Pls list what you percieve to be Floyd's bad/irrational/"crazy" decisions.

Denying his '06 positive and fighting it? That was the logical, right decision. From a moralistic standpoint, you as a fan think it was "wrong". But as a professional who wants to make a livelihood and stay in the sport, it was the correct decision. Recent history of those who told the truth (Sinkewitz, Jaksche) confirms this. Either blackballed or relegated to the bush leagues.

Floyd's only misstep was the Fund -- taking money from dupes. This makes him greedy. But crazy??

Finally confessing and blowing the whistle on Armstrong & Co. You think that was a bad idea? You'd have preferred him to keep quiet??

Filing the whistleblower suit -- crazy? I'd say damn savvy. Armst/Bruyneel think they'd written Floyd off as the perfect patsy, the fall guy. Penniless and powerless. Wrong they were. Maybe Floyd comes out of this w/ a few pennies in his pocket after all. Damn brilliant, actually...

Speaking his mind, saying the testers are always two steps behind, the "bad guys" will never play by the rules, and even in 2010 you can use EPO w/ little care of getting caught. So this is what makes him 'crazy'?

Maybe you're crazy. Ever consider it?

 

[Francois the Postman]

No, it was ...actually....irrelevant ....doping is here to stay.......authorities... are ...randomly ...reading tea-leaves, flipping a coin.

You are so wrong! Doping is not here to stay and authorities don't flip coins at all.

Instead of trying to score points by picking snippets and omitting quantifiers out of the quotes, even words that immediately state that the chosen words are imperfect, your and our time is far more fruitfully spend if you tried to understand what someone is trying to say, rather than what they actually say if you take individual snippets and take them to their absurd and extreme interpretation. I know it's the internet and all, but you don't have to do that.

Python's point is that

a) we already have rules that tolerate/de-facto-legalize some drugs to some levels, so Landis' suggestion that we should start doing that is mute
b) the best of our knowledge might be consensual now, but it isn't over time, neither are many pov undisputed. Best understanding has sometimes made a complete somersault. Rulings based on imperfect understanding of things that aren't black and white, however, keep drawing black and white lines that make people black or white. The rules are black and white, the world ain't.

All of these are observations. Neither of these comments by Python suggest that it's desirable in his eyes to pack in on the fight against drugs. Your central objection to his post (and now ignored in your latest reply).

You now try to pin him down on other things that he doesn't state.

He didn't say it was irrelevant where the line is drawn, he said it is irrelevant where the line is drawn if you consider it against the statements that Landis made. As the bit you left our is... [Python:] as it's here to stay and the 'this-much-but-not-that-much' will always randomly move or beter said in sync with the societal fashions, whims and ethical currents.


His word "randomly" might be ill-chosen, as it is clear that he sees it as something with "reasons" behind them. He even states right away that the word itself is imperfect, inviting people to listen beyond the actual word. Yet you quote it to nail him, rather than spend that energy on trying to actually hear him.

The general idea he is throwing into the discussion, that "what is illegal doping" fluctuates over time, is crystal clear, and true. So is the statement that although he accepts it isn't meant to be a signal to dope to a certain level, something he personally doesn't want to see either, it does set an upper level up to which readings are acceptable. A threshold is a green-ish light to dope to a certain level as it will probably be without consequences, even if you don't want it to be seen or used that way. Cheaters will, and that's the folk clean minds are up against.



And the issue that you don't address, the actual effectiveness of the WADA rules and testing regimes in place, is another interesting discussion point.

It is hilarious how few positives we get, across all sports. You can have all the brilliant scientific consensus by a well-meaning body at the top (tainted with some not so well-meaning concessions) - all that matters, in the end, is how those rules actually impact the doping climate.

So far, Landis seems to be hitting this one out of the ball-park: testing is so far behind the curve it makes a mockery of the rules. Dope appears to be here to stay.

I suspect I won't agree with the exact height for the bar for drug tolerance that he now appears to be advocating.

But the only way forwards if you want to keep fighting the PED fight, as you put it, is to come up with something workable and effective. WADA, so far, is mostly failing in my book on that last account too (not saying they are at fault, nor do I suggest that they thus should vacate the arena).

I'm in it, you are in it, WADA is in it, and -surprise- Python is in that too.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Following Landis' advice, any and everybody would be able to use Salbutamol at this "therapeutic" level because it would be deemed safe, and Python says that's where we are already?

No he didn't. You appear to be making the same mistake over and over. You invent what he says and then argue over it.

He says that we have some PEDS which can -in effect- be used within bands without having to worry at all about the chance of getting nailed for it. That doesn't make it a blanket statement for all -potential- PEDs, or applicable to all individuals for all known substances.

Well, we're not, and the thinking behind this is definitely not random and whimsical, which, if you think about it for a sec. would lead one to think that "if it's random, we might just accept any- and everything."

See above post. He ain't using those words to get an idea across in the way you interpret them.

Now, If I've misunderstood Python completely and I'm to blame, then, I'm sorry. What irked me was the normative statement that "its irrelevant where the limit is set". It's not irrelevant, it's a result of ethical and medical, careful deliberations. It might appear whimsical, like the movements of the stars, until you understand more of the underlying processes.

I thought this indeed might be a storm in a teacup. You will both agree on this, mostly, if not completely.

But you misread what was irrelevant, and why. He didn't mean that it is irrelevant in all possible contexts, but in one specific context. And that's the one that followed immediately behind it (and the bit you left off).

It all adds up to: that regardless of what levels they set and how much of the star movement they have figured out so far, that in the end, it's irrelevant, as we don't know all, so it will keep being adjusted. But we do know enough to know that all "set levels" (black and white) are arbitrary to some degree. It is a one size fits all solution to a system where everyone has individual sizes (in most cases).

We are dealing with complex chemical interaction in a unit that we don't fully understand, the human body. It's highly personal, sometimes making unnatural indistinguishable from natural processes (for now). Or deliberate use indistinguishable from (humanly) unavoidable contaminations in one individual but not in another, etc. Where we even are no longer sure what presence at micro-levels actually means, yet have rules that were written in an age when we didn't need to consider that.

I think, and I'm sure Python will agree: if any levels are set to eliminate the chance of false positives, some doping will survive, or will be tailored or invented for maximum benefit within the tolerated/legislated environment of the day, legal and illegal, in public or on the sly (depending on the rules).

Has always done so, will always do. WADA or no WADA.

 

[hektoren]

It is hilarious how few positives we get, across all sports.

I won't make a lengthy answer in order not to embarass mahself even further, I've signed up for a class in reading comprehension, (Come again? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3QDKVxpuCE at 2:08)but with regard to the sentence you wrote: Do you know anything I don't know regarding prevalence of doping in sports since it is so "hilarious"?
Or do you take Landis' and other admitted dopers' words to your heart in that respect?
I do believe I've got info you're most likely not privy to, since I don't laugh at all.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

moot point - doping is ALREADY legalized, yes as we speak. im serious.

there are dozens and dozens of substances that are ok 'if you take this much' but not 'that much'.

and 'this much' keeps moving around making some substances legal some years and illegal other years. caffeine is but one simple example...there are many others.

the very fact that the authorities are confused (though they'll never admit it) says it's really irrelevant where the line is drawn or how you term the phenomena - 'controlled doping'/legalized doping' whatever...it's here to stay and the 'this-much-but-not-that-much' will always randomly move or beter said in sync with the societal fashions, whims and ethical currents.

same old. but some may feel good deluding themselves...again and again.

Hmmm, yes & no.

There is no such thing (or ever will be) as 'legalized doping'.
(I will happily add I am splitting hairs - but it is a point to distinguish in finding solutions - so we will have a hair each to tickle ourselves with )


Certain PEDs will always be allowed to a threshold level and this will change as better understanding of the PEDs and better testing for PEDs evolve - I think that is a good and proper system.

To briefly expand this point - certain sports make a big deal that they have a zero tolerance to doping by 'catching' and sanctioning athletes for recreational drugs like marijuana. While this may be banned under WADA rules it very often has little enhancing quality for that sport.
That is not anti-doping - its window dressing.

So, I don't quite agree that "authorities are confused" - I think the IFs know what they are doing by cherry-picking what they test for and what they sanction for.

Again this goes back to the big failure of the system which is that the sports authorities of each sport do their own anti-doping.

 

[MacRoadie]

I won't make a lengthy answer in order not to embarass mahself even further...

No, you went with a poor attempt at snarkiness instead.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

As for Floyd's comments.

It does not matter if he is trolling for a reaction or even having a laugh - it is a worthy subject to debate in an attempt to identify solutions.

While I don't agree with Floyd on legalizing doping - he is consistent with his view's and entitled to them.
He has admitted to doping and that he volunteered, understood and accepted what he was doing and that he has no regrets about doping - so I can't see why anyone is surprised that he would believe sports should 'legalize doping'.

As an aside - it is amusing to see certain posters show outrage that Floyd would say this, even though they often say that "everyone is doping" and Floyd should not be trusted as he has no credibility.
Floyd's comments looked to be borne from frustration with the complete hypocrisy of the system - which is a point that I agree with.