• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

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

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
It is all well and good if Floyd wanted to clean up the sport and point out the cheats. It seems to me he wants it both ways. To paraphrase, here is what he is saying: "hey, that guy over there is a cheat! He did this, he did that." Now he is saying: "But if you ask me, they all cheat so stop ruining our lives just because we have to dope to compete." He is talking out of both sides of his mouth and we are letting him do it.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
**Uru** said:
It is all well and good if Floyd wanted to clean up the sport and point out the cheats. It seems to me he wants it both ways. To paraphrase, here is what he is saying: "hey, that guy over there is a cheat! He did this, he did that." Now he is saying: "But if you ask me, they all cheat so stop ruining our lives just because we have to dope to compete." He is talking out of both sides of his mouth and we are letting him do it.
Where has Floyd ever said he wanted to "clean up the sport"?


Here is his quote from back in May:
"I want to clear my conscience," Landis said. "I don't want to be part of the problem anymore".

He said the reason he confessed was to clear his conscience of having to continue the lie - so to do that he has to name everyone, otherwise it is still a lie.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
He said the reason he confessed was to clear his conscience of having to continue the lie - so to do that he has to name everyone, otherwise it is still a lie.

That's another point that often gets overlooked. If Floyd had come out and said, "This is what I, alone, did." The very first question he would face would be, "Well, who else on your team was doping? Did Lance Armstrong dope? Who else, you must have seen and heard things?"

Bryant Gumble asked him as much in his own weak and horribly edited interview with Floyd a few years back. He would've been hounded to name names, and heavily ciriticized if he didn't. So he comes clean, lays it all on the table, and some people get upset and call him a "rat." Floyd knew that withholding names would only exacerbate the situation even more. One of the main points of his confession was to illustrate just how wide spread the problem is.
 
hektoren said:
????????????
That's your contribution? Well, thank you! Feeling on a roll today, are we?

Yes, well, compared to your "Fine, I'm not going to talk to you guys anymore and I'm taking my toys to a new sand box. Oh yeah, and I know more than you do, so there" comment, it really is quite sufficient.
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
Visit site
MacRoadie said:
Yes, well, compared to your "Fine, I'm not going to talk to you guys anymore and I'm taking my toys to a new sand box. Oh yeah, and I know more than you do, so there" comment, it really is quite sufficient.

And where, exactly, did you find that comment in this thread?
 
hektoren said:
And where, exactly, did you find that comment in this thread?

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.

It's called paraphrasing. Something similar in there maybe?
 
Partial Doping is Not Feasible

"Regulating" doping is not feasible. The first hurdle such a program would have is the mass of laws outlawing doping. The second problem is that no sane sponsor would want to risk legal liability for a badly administered team doping regimen. Leaving it to the racers themselves would be callous and cruel, because most of them don't make enough to afford a safely administered doping program.

Floyd's really a geek.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Visit site
MarkvW said:
"Regulating" doping is not feasible. The first hurdle such a program would have is the mass of laws outlawing doping. The second problem is that no sane sponsor would want to risk legal liability for a badly administered team doping regimen. Leaving it to the racers themselves would be callous and cruel, because most of them don't make enough to afford a safely administered doping program.

Floyd's really a geek.

Yup, and that was roughly my other problem with the position Landis took.

Cycling is a funny old sport, because teams are not followed around by a paying audience.

In the end it has to be something that others will want to attach their name to. And something that is acceptable to "the wider dope politics".

Even if (-if-!) you accept that Floyd comments might make internal sense, he hasn't exactly though through the external side of it. Hence why he is no wider-picture-person, in my book. And probably not the best go-to guy if a journalist wants a thought-through opinion on the future of the sport.

However if you've got headlines to sell, and it is juicy quotes you are after, from a currently red-hot media subject......
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
Visit site
MacRoadie said:
It's called paraphrasing. Something similar in there maybe?

Once again, if I've offended anybody's sensibilities: I'm sorry.
But you've got my intent by what I wrote completely backwards. Nothing I wrote in those sentences was intended as anything but helping myself to large portions of humble pie in full public view. I ended with asking the moderator why he finds the low numbers of PED positives "hilarious" (whereby he's signalling that he knows the numbers are so large that the testing is mere window-dressing or something to that effect).
Either he knows this for sure, or he takes Landis' statements as gospel truth. I'm familiar with some of the upmarket approximations done, and though I agree we'll never catch all dopers under the current system, the number of positives in cycling is nothing to s****** at. And the system is getting better.
 
hektoren said:
Once again, if I've offended anybody's sensibilities: I'm sorry.
But you've got my intent by what I wrote completely backwards. Nothing I wrote in those sentences was intended as anything but helping myself to large portions of humble pie in full public view. I ended with asking the moderator why he finds the low numbers of PED positives "hilarious" (whereby he's signalling that he knows the numbers are so large that the testing is mere window-dressing or something to that effect).
Either he knows this for sure, or he takes Landis' statements as gospel truth. I'm familiar with some of the upmarket approximations done, and though I agree we'll never catch all dopers under the current system, the number of positives in cycling is nothing to s****** at. And the system is getting better.

Fair enough, point well taken.
 
The system may have gotten moderately better against certain drugs and procedures. The situation is undoubtedly better now than it was in the 90's when drug technology spiked and there was no reasonable means of detection. Better procedures and advancements in detection have reinvigorated blood doping as the old answer to the new deterrents. While I am slightly encouraged by the new test for plasticizers as a creative end run for enforcement, a new blood bag material should fix the problem nicely.

In the end I am left with the helpless feeling that a new spike in drug or gene technology is just around the corner, and we will soon be back to the lawless "anything goes" boomtown days of the 90's. Designer drugs are not exclusively a cycling problem. Regardless of any attempts in professional cycling to increase detection and curtail their use, demands from other sports will fuel their development, quality and stealth. I see the problem as having less to do with pharmaceuticals and more to do with human nature.

To put the onus for cleaning up the sport on the athletes is a non stater. We might as well put it back on us as fans. If we all stop watching there will be no sport and no doping. Good luck with that...

I find myself taking Floyd's words and position on this subject very seriously. Of course he is an easy voice to discredit and marginalize, but it doesn't make what he has said any less accurate. Doping is rampant in professional sports, Cycling is as bad as any other. It has always been there and it is not going away, and more than likely it's about to get worse. Even the most vitriolic anti-doping crusader has a cycling hero for whom they have cheered, who has doped. The irony is that even though they won't admit it, in their hearts they know it.

I am inclined to agree with Floyd's position. Back in the 90's when a hematocrit above 50 earned you a non-start and a few weeks of "rest" the peloton learned to cap drug use at a level the the authorities deemed safe. They have gotten much better at it over the time since then. If the goal is to keep riders from permanently damaging their health by establishing some reasonable limitations; that at least seems achievable. If the goal is to remove drugs from sport all together in the pursuit of "fairness" and a level playing field for all; the impossibility of that should be glaringly apparent to all of us by now.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Visit site
hektoren said:
Once again, if I've offended anybody's sensibilities: I'm sorry.
But you've got my intent by what I wrote completely backwards. Nothing I wrote in those sentences was intended as anything but helping myself to large portions of humble pie in full public view. I ended with asking the moderator why he finds the low numbers of PED positives "hilarious" (whereby he's signalling that he knows the numbers are so large that the testing is mere window-dressing or something to that effect).
Either he knows this for sure, or he takes Landis' statements as gospel truth. I'm familiar with some of the upmarket approximations done, and though I agree we'll never catch all dopers under the current system, the number of positives in cycling is nothing to s****** at. And the system is getting better.

If you followed my post over the last years, you will find that I too think that the direction in cycling has changed a bit for the better.

And a side point, we were talking WADA, and I said "across all sports". Nor is it either "knowing for sure" OR "Landis".

It is something else altogether.

But to make it very clear, I am no certified expert, nor do I have "proof". No-one has a complete overview, experts included. So all we have is speculation to various degrees. Always admitted that up front, and have used it in arguments against others, when I felt they were overly speculating.

I do however have seen and read many many anecdotal and official data-points regarding drugs in sports, and cycling in particular. and a mind that can figure out what that "reasonably adds up to".

Dive into the clinic threads and books, documentaries, etc. Even if ignore the assumptions, and filter out purely the verifiable facts and detailed witness reports, you still end up with a very damning picture.

The single most damning thing is that, almost without fail, the people that were unmasked, passed many tests when they were doping. It would be a bigger miracle than Luxembourg winning the World Cup Football, if we managed to smoke out the "few" cheats eventually, but all the other ones were clean all along.

Most sports don't test widely, nor deeply. Dope tests far too often are indeed window-dressing to a large degree.

Doping test are expensive, deep tests even more so. You can make all the rules in the world, it is at the testing level that a lot of the good intentions crumble.

And whenever a doping scandal breaks, institutional corruption or high level blind-eye turning by the people tasked with regulating is often fast on its heels. In Canada it took a government agency to step in before heads rolled, the same in Italy, and the same looks to be taking place in the US. And those are the places where the ball has started to roll at last. Plenty of nations that still have butter on their own national organisations.

Add in all the data-points, and given what we do know, in top sport, when it comes to the ones we caught, it is very reasonable to assume that are only looking at the tip of the ice-berg.

That is not the samje as saying they all do it, and it is not the same as saying that all claims by all players are thrust worthy.

But it is also wrong to suggest that you can only come to that conclusion if you take Landis on his word.

It is scary what "we" do know or can find out if we look at just the bits that are in the public domain, and undeniable. Again, it would be a miracle if that was "all there was". It is scary what has been predicted and turned out to be correct, or truthful to a large and substantial degree. It is scary when you know how far official corruption and self-interest and national pride, etc, has penetrated the "fight for a cleaner sport for all".

I have been following sports, cycling in particular, for decades now. To me, people who don't think that dope is a serious part of most top sports, from billiards to endurance sports, don't appear to put much effort in poking.

And I hope that it isn't bleaker than I think it is, as there is a lot of space to my doping-left, the "room for error" that I build into my own assumptions.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Visit site
Francois,

I think the biggest part of the problem is... none of us really has a good grasp on the full extent of the problem. We can't even identify the problem yet.

We used to think that doping was the problem, but it would appear that rampant corruption is a big part of it. Doping might just be secondary or tertiary to the issue of corruption. And we've not even scratched the surface on that yet. That'll be the bigger fight.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
The system may have gotten moderately better against certain drugs and procedures. The situation is undoubtedly better now than it was in the 90's when drug technology spiked and there was no reasonable means of detection. Better procedures and advancements in detection have reinvigorated blood doping as the old answer to the new deterrents. While I am slightly encouraged by the new test for plasticizers as a creative end run for enforcement, a new blood bag material should fix the problem nicely.

In the end I am left with the helpless feeling that a new spike in drug or gene technology is just around the corner, and we will soon be back to the lawless "anything goes" boomtown days of the 90's. Designer drugs are not exclusively a cycling problem. Regardless of any attempts in professional cycling to increase detection and curtail their use, demands from other sports will fuel their development, quality and stealth. I see the problem as having less to do with pharmaceuticals and more to do with human nature.

To put the onus for cleaning up the sport on the athletes is a non stater. We might as well put it back on us as fans. If we all stop watching there will be no sport and no doping. Good luck with that...

I find myself taking Floyd's words and position on this subject very seriously. Of course he is an easy voice to discredit and marginalize, but it doesn't make what he has said any less accurate. Doping is rampant in professional sports, Cycling is as bad as any other. It has always been there and it is not going away, and more than likely it's about to get worse. Even the most vitriolic anti-doping crusader has a cycling hero for whom they have cheered, who has doped. The irony is that even though they won't admit it, in their hearts they know it.

I am inclined to agree with Floyd's position. Back in the 90's when a hematocrit above 150 earned you a non-start and a few weeks of "rest" the peloton learned to cap drug use at a level the the authorities deemed safe. They have gotten much better at it over the time since then. If the goal is to keep riders from permanently damaging their health by establishing some reasonable limitations; that at least seems achievable. If the goal is to remove drugs from sport all together in the pursuit of "fairness" and a level playing field for all; the impossibility of that should be glaringly apparent to all of us by now.

As I said earlier trying to have a monitoring system does not work - and the highlighted portion confirms that.

The 50% rule did not keep riders under 50% - it kept them in a range of about 54%-55% during competition only, as they were able to dilute their HCT down to 50% if (and only if) they were called for control.

This has evolved somewhat to microdosing more often - but even Frei admitted had he taken a litre of water he would have been riding the 2010 Giro.
 
The nature of the dilemma is in the fact that there are far greater sums of money dedicated to introducing new forms of doping, then there are in detecting what's new out on the market.

Of course you can't devise a new test for anything which isn't known. And by the time it is, there is something new to detect, or some way to thwart evasion of detection.

In the end its always a race to regain the field, after a stop along the side of the road to pee.

Floyd realizes this more than anyone else, because he tried to beat the system but lost, only to find himself roadside helpless without a team to bring him back into the bunch.
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
Visit site
Francois the Postman said:
If you followed my post over the last years, you will find that I too think that the direction in cycling has changed a bit for the better.

And a side point, we were talking WADA, and I said "across all sports". Nor is it either "knowing for sure" OR "Landis".

It is something else altogether.

But to make it very clear, I am no certified expert, nor do I have "proof". No-one has a complete overview, experts included. So all we have is speculation to various degrees. Always admitted that up front, and have used it in arguments against others, when I felt they were overly speculating.

I do however have seen and read many many anecdotal and official data-points regarding drugs in sports, and cycling in particular. and a mind that can figure out what that "reasonably adds up to".

Dive into the clinic threads and books, documentaries, etc. Even if ignore the assumptions, and filter out purely the verifiable facts and detailed witness reports, you still end up with a very damning picture.

The single most damning thing is that, almost without fail, the people that were unmasked, passed many tests when they were doping. It would be a bigger miracle than Luxembourg winning the World Cup Football, if we managed to smoke out the "few" cheats eventually, but all the other ones were clean all along.

Most sports don't test widely, nor deeply. Dope tests far too often are indeed window-dressing to a large degree.

Doping test are expensive, deep tests even more so. You can make all the rules in the world, it is at the testing level that a lot of the good intentions crumble.

And whenever a doping scandal breaks, institutional corruption or high level blind-eye turning by the people tasked with regulating is often fast on its heels. In Canada it took a government agency to step in before heads rolled, the same in Italy, and the same looks to be taking place in the US. And those are the places where the ball has started to roll at last. Plenty of nations that still have butter on their own national organisations.

Add in all the data-points, and given what we do know, in top sport, when it comes to the ones we caught, it is very reasonable to assume that are only looking at the tip of the ice-berg.

That is not the samje as saying they all do it, and it is not the same as saying that all claims by all players are thrust worthy.

But it is also wrong to suggest that you can only come to that conclusion if you take Landis on his word.

It is scary what "we" do know or can find out if we look at just the bits that are in the public domain, and undeniable. Again, it would be a miracle if that was "all there was". It is scary what has been predicted and turned out to be correct, or truthful to a large and substantial degree. It is scary when you know how far official corruption and self-interest and national pride, etc, has penetrated the "fight for a cleaner sport for all".

I have been following sports, cycling in particular, for decades now. To me, people who don't think that dope is a serious part of most top sports, from billiards to endurance sports, don't appear to put much effort in poking.

And I hope that it isn't bleaker than I think it is, as there is a lot of space to my doping-left, the "room for error" that I build into my own assumptions.

I'll keep this short, to make it readable in one go, but I do have to say that some of your tentative conclusions have a lot of built-in assumptions in them. For example, you state that a lot of tests have been passed "when they were doping". That needs qualifying. Says who? And "when they were doping", What does that mean? What kind of dope, when did they shoot up (sometimes converts to the cause can provide very helpful notes to detail exactly when and where), when were they tested in relation to infusions, transfusions, injections, pills etc. etc. Putting this puzzle together is a meticulous job combined with retro-testing, and all intel gathered paints an ever more detailed picture to help with future testing regimens. In short, don't take "tested negative when doping" at face value as an expression of how inefficient the testing regimens are. What one knows isn't necessarily found in published positives/exclusions.

Also, a lot of people, like Landis, stress that the dopers get better at it. Well, not to the tune of the combined budgets of the antidoping community, customs, police authorities, lab-industry and pharma industry working in tandem etc. etc. Even the EU has stepped up to the plate, pledging, what was it, 300 million euro for antidoping? That's a lot of money and brainpower to counteract by the doping community if they want to keep ahead.
 
hektoren said:
I'll keep this short, to make it readable in one go, but I do have to say that some of your tentative conclusions have a lot of built-in assumptions in them. For example, you state that a lot of tests have been passed "when they were doping". That needs qualifying. Says who? And "when they were doping", What does that mean? What kind of dope, when did they shoot up (sometimes converts to the cause can provide very helpful notes to detail exactly when and where), when were they tested in relation to infusions, transfusions, injections, pills etc. etc. Putting this puzzle together is a meticulous job combined with retro-testing, and all intel gathered paints an ever more detailed picture to help with future testing regimens. In short, don't take "tested negative when doping" at face value as an expression of how inefficient the testing regimens are. What one knows isn't necessarily found in published positives/exclusions.

Also, a lot of people, like Landis, stress that the dopers get better at it. Well, not to the tune of the combined budgets of the antidoping community, customs, police authorities, lab-industry and pharma industry working in tandem etc. etc. Even the EU has stepped up to the plate, pledging, what was it, 300 million euro for antidoping? That's a lot of money and brainpower to counteract by the doping community if they want to keep ahead.
Have we learned nothing from prohibition? All that does is raise the stakes, and brings more and more serious, and dangerous, tactics to the arena. If we stay on this course, murder will become part of it too. Floyd is right. It's insanity. Even if it's unthinkable right now, we've got to start talking about that for that to ever change. Kudos to Floyd for bringing it up. Look at the size of this thread already (I'm not caught up). It obviously hits a raw nerve - because it's true. If it was just tripe, it could be largely ignored.
 
hektoren said:
I'll keep this short, to make it readable in one go, but I do have to say that some of your tentative conclusions have a lot of built-in assumptions in them. For example, you state that a lot of tests have been passed "when they were doping". That needs qualifying. Says who? And "when they were doping", What does that mean? What kind of dope, when did they shoot up (sometimes converts to the cause can provide very helpful notes to detail exactly when and where), when were they tested in relation to infusions, transfusions, injections, pills etc. etc. Putting this puzzle together is a meticulous job combined with retro-testing, and all intel gathered paints an ever more detailed picture to help with future testing regimens. In short, don't take "tested negative when doping" at face value as an expression of how inefficient the testing regimens are. What one knows isn't necessarily found in published positives/exclusions.

Also, a lot of people, like Landis, stress that the dopers get better at it. Well, not to the tune of the combined budgets of the antidoping community, customs, police authorities, lab-industry and pharma industry working in tandem etc. etc. Even the EU has stepped up to the plate, pledging, what was it, 300 million euro for antidoping? That's a lot of money and brainpower to counteract by the doping community if they want to keep ahead.

Unfortunately it is a lot easier for doping technology to stay ahead of testing procedures than it is for testing to keep up with new doping technology.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Visit site
hektoren said:
I'll keep this short, to make it readable in one go, but I do have to say that some of your tentative conclusions have a lot of built-in assumptions in them. For example, you state that a lot of tests have been passed "when they were doping". That needs qualifying. Says who? And "when they were doping", What does that mean? What kind of dope, when did they shoot up (sometimes converts to the cause can provide very helpful notes to detail exactly when and where), when were they tested in relation to infusions, transfusions, injections, pills etc. etc. Putting this puzzle together is a meticulous job combined with retro-testing, and all intel gathered paints an ever more detailed picture to help with future testing regimens. In short, don't take "tested negative when doping" at face value as an expression of how inefficient the testing regimens are. What one knows isn't necessarily found in published positives/exclusions.

Also, a lot of people, like Landis, stress that the dopers get better at it. Well, not to the tune of the combined budgets of the antidoping community, customs, police authorities, lab-industry and pharma industry working in tandem etc. etc. Even the EU has stepped up to the plate, pledging, what was it, 300 million euro for antidoping? That's a lot of money and brainpower to counteract by the doping community if they want to keep ahead.

I'll keep it "short" too. There is a wealth of data around, and I am not gonna rehash the history of doping, just to convince you. I'm happy with my reading of the field, and nothing I have heard has given me ground to revise my assumptions downwards on how things were, are now, and will be in the immediate future.

Not sure where you pitch me in your head, but I am too careful to assume many things upwards from where I am as "proven". Still, I would be amazed if reality doesn't lie a lot more in that direction.

And I certainly trust my own judgement and reading skills more than yours. You don't need to tell me I have assumptions, trust me I know. There is a lot on this planet I can't "prove". Doesn't mean I am not damn sure it is or isn't likely.

Still, on the whole, I tend/try to underassume, and it has served me well. Time will tell how well it served me in the next doping chapter in cycling, and sports in general. I might well be wrong.

Still, undeniably, most dopers tend to get caught after passing many test under the influence. "Somehow". Detection efforts and capabilities might be getting a bit better, but positives are still a mere splash on a heat rod plate (even if you just look at those individuals alone). You would be foolish to ignore the observations by those that "fess up to their history" and state over and over again that it was dead easy (and with detailed descriptions of how they go about it).

I have yet to hear one argument from you how known and self-confessed dopers were able to pass "all these wonderful tests that are well ahead of the dopers", and how come we just happened to have caught the dopers more often than not, when we finally caught them on an off-day, whilst "the rest" was of course clean. In case you are curious, I am a long way away from considering that the case that they all dope as made convincingly. Just curious how you stack up the doped riders we know losing against so many other clean riders in the field or head to head? The new generation of dope is pretty good.

Sire, dope in sports is a bit more on the governmental authorities radar than it was, but it isn't exactly a medium priority for a thinly stretched police outfit either, in the vast majority of the nations, if not all.

My "it's all a drop in the ocean" maths and assumptions stack up better, logically, than being bowled over by the magnitude of the new anti-dope fight, certainly based on the evidence for substantial new efforts and money.

A single thorough doping test costs how much? (test alone, ignore the legal side that kicks in if a single positive emerges, etc). How many top sporters are engaged in how many sport events across the EU, on a yearly basis. With how much money at stake? And how much if we included gambling? 300 million? Peanuts. Porbably doesn't even cover football by a wide margin, if you want to test adequately, let alone thoroughly.

Ignoring the fact that good money after bad testing regimes and enforcement policies is just more money mostly wasted on rotten systems. Sure, it will make a difference. But it is too little given the terrain to cover.

What do you think the Contador process is costing, roughly? One event by one rider in one sport. It is scary.

As I said, things are getting a bit better in cycling, we don't disagree on that.

But I am not gonna do your homework for solid data when you are standing on the top of a Clinic that has tons of utterly well researched data collated for you already. Some solid substance, and a lot more speculation and outrageous claims too. Trust me, I know.

I am able to read, weigh, and do my own follow up reading and research for what I think is worth it. I take you trust your own reading skills to figure out what data is good and what data needs a second or third look too.

I made my mind up. I also know enough to know I won't convince you given what you keep pushing back in my direction (basic objections, hurdles long crossed by many, with conclusions that we sometimes agree upon - open doors in particular- and sometimes we don't).

So I am out of this exchange. Too many questions from you for me, most with instantly available answers if you cared to look yourself. Not enough counters on points I raise, just picking the next thing and running with it. I've got better things to do.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Visit site
Ninety5rpm said:
Have we learned nothing from prohibition? All that does is raise the stakes, and brings more and more serious, and dangerous, tactics to the arena. If we stay on this course, murder will become part of it too. Floyd is right. It's insanity. Even if it's unthinkable right now, we've got to start talking about that for that to ever change. Kudos to Floyd for bringing it up. Look at the size of this thread already (I'm not caught up). It obviously hits a raw nerve - because it's true. If it was just tripe, it could be largely ignored.

[A response, not arguing against you].

I agree there are things to learn from prohibition and some pragmatism is needed across the board, but we are already in a place that isn't as draconian as prohibition was. You can micro-dose and stay within "accepted" bands (although the process which you used remained illegal).

But it sounds to me like Floyd is leaning a bit too much into the "x doesn't work, let's go for the opposite" mindset. I don't think that is the wise move either.

Somewhere between the two, I guess. Which might well be in Floyd's direction, but that isn't the same as "towards Floyd".

It is a tough and complex puzzle, but realism and pragmatism tend to have the best results in the real world in the long run. Aiming for idealised and dogmatic goals and black and white thinking tend to have worse results, in the long run.

Maybe it shouldn't be that way. But then again, we are humans.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
hektoren said:
I'll keep this short, to make it readable in one go, but I do have to say that some of your tentative conclusions have a lot of built-in assumptions in them. For example, you state that a lot of tests have been passed "when they were doping". That needs qualifying. Says who? And "when they were doping", What does that mean? What kind of dope, when did they shoot up (sometimes converts to the cause can provide very helpful notes to detail exactly when and where), when were they tested in relation to infusions, transfusions, injections, pills etc. etc. Putting this puzzle together is a meticulous job combined with retro-testing, and all intel gathered paints an ever more detailed picture to help with future testing regimens. In short, don't take "tested negative when doping" at face value as an expression of how inefficient the testing regimens are. What one knows isn't necessarily found in published positives/exclusions.

Also, a lot of people, like Landis, stress that the dopers get better at it. Well, not to the tune of the combined budgets of the antidoping community, customs, police authorities, lab-industry and pharma industry working in tandem etc. etc. Even the EU has stepped up to the plate, pledging, what was it, 300 million euro for antidoping? That's a lot of money and brainpower to counteract by the doping community if they want to keep ahead.

I'm sorry but to the highlighted - if as you're suggesting, that often anti-doping agencies know that someone is doping but are ultimatley not sanctioned then the 300 million being spent is worthless.
 
Francois the Postman said:
[A response, not arguing against you].

I agree there are things to learn from prohibition and some pragmatism is needed across the board, but we are already in a place that isn't as draconian as prohibition was. You can micro-dose and stay within "accepted" bands (although the process which you used remained illegal).

But it sounds to me like Floyd is leaning a bit too much into the "x doesn't work, let's go for the opposite" mindset. I don't think that is the wise move either.

Somewhere between the two, I guess. Which might well be in Floyd's direction, but that isn't the same as "towards Floyd".

It is a tough and complex puzzle, but realism and pragmatism tend to have the best results in the real world in the long run. Aiming for idealised and dogmatic goals and black and white thinking tend to have worse results, in the long run.

Maybe it shouldn't be that way. But then again, we are humans.

Quaerebam unde malum... et non erat exitus
. "I asked myself, from where does evil come...and I couldn't give myself a response." That is, in the sense of whatthe evil is.

From Socrates, to Augustine and a host of others, each has tried to provide a consistent answer to this point. Without success. The point needs to be raised when dealing with this issue, because it does not seem to me we even can find consensus on what constitutes doping or why it is inherently a malum.

Ultimately it is a philosophers game. Now I'm usually for such third ways, because they are often the best we highly flawed, and often rather stupid, humans can come up with, given that they split the difference between two extremes.

It seems to me, however, most interesting the fact that prohibition can be just as a form of an extremism, and hence malus, as complete liberalization (or so it would commonly seem judging by the prevailing sentiment). This would appear, though, to be a rather significant contradiction in properties.

For how can the presence of one thing be considered evil and, at the same time, the total lack thereof (as it undoubtedly can be)?

Is then the middle ground, for which some forms of both states exist simultaneously any "less bad" or, for that reason, "more good"? Could this be even possible?

We humans would indeed be rather flawed, and confused. Nighty5rpm's post reminded us of just how confused we are.
 
Legalizing doping is ****ed-up from the perspective of simply having to tell one's kids - or kid brothers - who compete with Wheeties, orange juice and egg whites in the tank, and not rocket fuel, that, Yes, in order to one day ride the Tour de France you will have to inject yourself with chemicals that, if used incorrectly, can lead to death. Gosh, what signaling is that for the generation to come...abandon all hope ye who enter here - for there is no chance of success without massive farmoconsumption! Leave your dreams at the door as 12 year old's, boys, and work on emulating every facet of your hero's prep.! Down to the black nylon kit bag.
 

TRENDING THREADS