How's this for unrepentant?

[Maxiton]

Drink your own blood then. Are you kidding me with this bs?

There's one idiot on this board who thinks I mean the opposite of what I say - but you are definitely not him. So, no, buckwheat, I'm not kidding. Was your little rhetorical gesture supposed to answer my points?

 

[stephens]

Buckwheat sure posts a lot for someone who isn't interested in discussing the issue at hand!

 

[buckwheat]

Buckwheat sure posts a lot for someone who isn't interested in discussing the issue at hand!

There is no issue regarding blood doping. It's closed and it's closed for a reason. It's unethical and dangerous and defeats the purpose of endurance sport. Your name isn't Perico, is it?

 

[buckwheat]

There's one idiot on this board who thinks I mean the opposite of what I say - but you are definitely not him. So, no, buckwheat, I'm not kidding. Was your little rhetorical gesture supposed to answer my points?

I didn't go thru the whole thread and if I misinterpreted what you wrote I'm sorry. If you're justifying blood doping, you're kidding yourself.

 

[buckwheat]

How can putting your own blood back in your own body be called doping? I'm aware of the effect this practice has on a rider but if everyone is free to do it, who cares? It's still the rider's unadulterated blood, produced by his body, and nothing but that. So what's the problem?

If drinking your own urine were shown to have a significant energizing effect on a rider, you can bet they'd all be doing it - and it would be banned. Now try testing for it. I seem to recall reading that some national federation or other had banned altitude tents, and others were planning to do so. Can you see what a stupid rule that is?

Such bans are a formula for corrupting everyone. They can't be tested for and they can't be enforced. Knowing this, the rider contravenes them and in doing so is put on a slippery slope. Once he's stepped across the threshold of law breaking (however stupid the law), the other laws he might break become only a matter of degree. If those whose job it is to care about such matters really cared, or were thoughtful, they wouldn't put riders in this position.

(You might argue, regarding the blood ban, that it can - obviously - now be tested for; but the test is really only for the bag not the rider's own blood. How hard do you think it will be to find a workaround for this? Right, not very.)

this is just silly stuff.

 

[forty four]

But there are tons of (legal) things that athletes do that raise their performance above what it would "naturally" be. That you've chosen to put using their own blood into the "not allowed" side is arbitrary until you make a compelling distinction between it and the currently allowed substances/methodologies. It's "cheating" only because it's on the prohibited methods list, but that's not what the topic of this thread is. People here are wondering if it should be.



Well, they could use the same way they try to enforce epo or blood transfusions with the ridiculous blood passport system: by saying that if one's hematocrit doesn't drop like a rock during a stage race, then they must be doing something that's banned. But of course this is crazy since the winner of a stage race will most likely be the one whose body suffers the least over the stages and whose hematocrit remains the highest: the anti-dopers will say this is because he cheated. But it could just as easily be because he is just a better genetic specimen who naturally maintains body chemistry or has trained the best so that the efforts he has to make are not as taxing on his body chemistry as the other riders. You'd expect such an individual to win. This is why the blood passport system is fatally flawed. It makes suspects out of the most genetically gifted or most perfectly trained athletes.

wow the delusion never a shock on here anyways back to reality hematocrits drop when you ride tdf's at 25mph same for all humans wake up. 'naturally maintains body chemistry' rofl its clear you know nothing of human physiology.

 

[Maxiton]

Your argument is thoughtful, your logic unassailable, and the thread of your points intricate. Let me see if I can sum up your position:

Drink your own blood then . . . Are you kidding me with this bs? . . . It's banned for cripes sake . . . Get over it and stop rationalizing nonsense . . . Stop thinking so much . . . this is just silly stuff.

Well, I don't know about you, but I'm convinced. For a minute there I thought we were having a discussion, but I see now that the world is set in stone and thinking is . . .well, almost a kind of doping, really. Glad you cleared that up. Carry on.

 

[stephens]

Read a book about sporting ethics for goodness sake. It's natural to drain your own blood, store it, spin off some RBC's , and then reinfuse them with an IV?

Seems pretty natural to me.

Is it natural to raise a cow, treating him with all sorts of chemical injections and "supplements" mixed into his feed, kill that cow, take its hide, immerse it for a month in a vat of lime, then dump it in acid, wash it water, then cook it, to convert the collagen content of said animal into a powder that can be made into a gelatinous goo. Now take that goo and mix in all sorts of other ingredients specially formulated by laboratory folks and wrap it in wrapper made from oil pumped from the depths of the earth. As you ride along, you take that wrapper and open it and squirt said goo into your mouth and digest it.

Is this not a more complicated and industrialized operation that withdrawing one's own blood, spinning it in circles, and allowing it flow back into the body at a later date? What, then, makes one declare the industrial manufacturing and eating of gooey nutritional supplements "natural" and the injecting of blood "unnatural"?

(and please don't answer "it's illegal!")

And again, I'm not making the point that blood doping is natural and therefore should not be illegal. I'm just saying that those of you who want it to be illegal because it isn't natural need to have a compelling argument for why it isn't natural and why being unnatural is sufficient to make it worthy of being illegal.

 

[buckwheat]

Your argument is thoughtful, your logic unassailable, and the thread of your points intricate. Let me see if I can sum up your position:



Well, I don't know about you, but I'm convinced. For a minute there I thought we were having a discussion, but I see now that the world is set in stone and thinking is . . .well, almost a kind of doping, really. Glad you cleared that up. Carry on.

Bro, this IS set in stone. There is no discussion. The argument is over. I already answered but I'll answer again. Blood doping is unethical, dangerous, and defeats the purpose of the contest.

There comes a point where one can't answer the "why" question anymore, and if you can't understand the reasoning why blood doping is banned, you can't be helped.

My condolences.

 

[Race Radio]

How can putting your own blood back in your own body be called doping?

How can writing something absurd in order to get a response be called trolling?

 

[buckwheat]

Seems pretty natural to me.

Is it natural to raise a cow, treating him with all sorts of chemical injections and "supplements" mixed into his feed, kill that cow, take its hide, immerse it for a month in a vat of lime, then dump it in acid, wash it water, then cook it, to convert the collagen content of said animal into a powder that can be made into a gelatinous goo. Now take that goo and mix in all sorts of other ingredients specially formulated by laboratory folks and wrap it in wrapper made from oil pumped from the depths of the earth. As you ride along, you take that wrapper and open it and squirt said goo into your mouth and digest it.

Is this not a more complicated and industrialized operation that withdrawing one's own blood, spinning it in circles, and allowing it flow back into the body at a later date? What, then, makes one declare the eating of gooey nutritional supplements "natural" and the injecting of blood "unnatural"?

(and please don't answer "it's illegal!")

Injecting blood back into your body to ride a bicycle faster seems natural to you?

There's not much I can do for you then.

I drink a coke. I myself don't eat goo, continue eating it if you like, but you're not injecting it, are you?


You've reached the point where asking and answering the "why" question doesn't provide anymore enlightenment. Apparently you think blood doping is ok. It's not, most people think it's not ok, experts also think it's dangerous and it's banned.

You want to rationalize it to being ok? The logistics of doping are pretty nauseating. Read Tyler Hamilton's doping calender.

 

[Maxiton]

Bro, this IS set in stone. There is no discussion. The argument is over. I already answered but I'll answer again. Blood doping is unethical, dangerous, and defeats the purpose of the contest.

There comes a point where one can't answer the "why" question anymore, and if you can't understand the reasoning why blood doping is banned, you can't be helped.

My condolences.

At the risk of further doping, I'll ask again: if everyone is allowed to do it, what's unethical about it? If it's in the open and thus supervised by qualified personnel, how is it more dangerous than hurtling down a mountain at 95 km an hour? If it's only your own blood how does it defeat the purpose of the contest?

If it can't be enforced, is there some reason to keep it banned? If keeping it banned leads to actual doping, is it still a good idea? If making it legal leads to less doping, would you still be opposed to it?

You can lead a horse to rhetoric, but you can't make him get the point. If you can't understand why these questions are worth asking, you can't be helped.

 

[stephens]

Apparently you think blood doping is ok. It's not, most people think it's not ok,

"Most people," except apparently the people who actually ride the bicycles, their coaches, and their doctors. As for me, I haven't said I think it is ok. It's really none of my business: the athletes must decide for themselves what the rules of their game are (not those that profit off the riders: the riders themselves should decide! well, they have haven't they...)

One thing is for sure though: I don't think blood "doping" is anymore "unnatural" than all the other stuff we do to our bodies. I also don't think it is any more dangerous than a lot of the things we expect our pro athletes to do to themselves. So if it is to be banned, I think it really needs to be for some other reason.

... and it's banned.

back to that circular argument again, huh?

 

[Polish]

How can putting your own blood back in your own body be called doping?

It should NOT be called "doping" or a "PED".

Because it ISN'T doping or a PED, it is a Blood Transfusion.
An Illegal procedure under current rules.

But maybe someday own-blood transfusions will be allowed?
Gosh, imagine that!

1) Good for the riders health. Re-vitalizing. Your own blood only of course!
2) Could be banked and monitored by WADA etc. Strict Procedures.
3) Design tougher stages after the transfusion/rest days. "Assassins!" II.

It is impossible to RACE the TdF on Mineral Water alone.
Pure Water? No way.

 

[buckwheat]

"Most people," except apparently the people who actually ride the bicycles, their coaches, and their doctors. As for me, I haven't said I think it is ok.?

no you said

seems pretty natural to me

It's really none of my business: the athletes must decide for themselves what the rules of their game are (not those that profit off the riders: the riders themselves should decide! well, they have haven't they...)

The fox guarding the henhouse!

One thing is for sure though: I don't think blood "doping" is anymore "unnatural" than all the other stuff we do to our bodies. I also don't think it is any more dangerous than a lot of the things we expect our pro athletes to do to themselves. So if it is to be banned, I think it really needs to be for some other reason..

A lot of people do a lot of fcuked up stuff to their bodies; reinjecting their own blood to ride a bike faster qualifies. What you think, or what you expect, isn't the standard. If you want to find out the philosophical reasons why blood doping is considered unethical do a google search or get a book. People write books and papers on this stuff. Maybe if you're persistent enough you can change the thinking. I hope not.

back to that circular argument again, huh?

are you Perico? Their can't be two of you who think like this, can there?

 

[buckwheat]

How can writing something absurd in order to get a response be called trolling?

Why do I get caught up in this nonsense?

 

[simo1733]

It should NOT be called "doping" or a "PED".

Because it ISN'T doping or a PED, it is a Blood Transfusion.
An Illegal procedure under current rules.

But maybe someday own-blood transfusions will be allowed?
Gosh, imagine that!

1) Good for the riders health. Re-vitalizing. Your own blood only of course!
2) Could be banked and monitored by WADA etc. Strict Procedures.
3) Design tougher stages after the transfusion/rest days. "Assassins!" II.

It is impossible to RACE the TdF on Mineral Water alone.
Pure Water? No way.

of course blood transfusions should be banned.Its the thin end of the wedge that leads to all the other stuff and its a turn off to the general public/sponsors

 

[flicker]

of course blood transfusions should be banned.Its the thin end of the wedge that leads to all the other stuff and its a turn off to the general public/sponsors

they are giving shots and transfusions of all sorts of other things. Vitamins, iron rehydration by iv. please where does one draw the line with a transfusion?

Or what is known as a transfusion +

 

[Maxiton]

How can writing something absurd in order to get a response be called trolling?

Why do I get caught up in this nonsense?

Look, religious arguments that consist of names like "trolling" and "nonsense" prove only that you are incapable of forming your own thoughts, and that you want to shut down those who can. If that's all it takes to shut down discussion in this forum, I'd rather not be here. Not impressive.

of course blood transfusions should be banned.Its the thin end of the wedge that leads to all the other stuff and its a turn off to the general public/sponsors

If, as is so often quoted, insanity consists of performing the same act over and over and expecting a different result, we must ask whether the approach to doping control in cycling fits the definition. How long has this been going on? How many riders have died on account of it? A fresh approach is clearly needed.

At the very least it is time to bring certain things out of the dark, even if it's only questioning the standard operating procedure. Is autologous transfusion the thin wedge? Or is it only the illegality that is the wedge?

It seems clear that asking this question will shock and upset many, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be asked.

 

[HoustonHammer]

Seems to me this is also similar to the difficulty of distinguishing between fair and unfair advantages - what's the difference between "genetically lucky" (Taylor Phinney) and "unfairly advantaged" (Castor Semenya, probably). There are gray areas and somehow there have to make rules that draw line somewhere, in as fair a way as possible.

In many other sports (soccer, hockey, golf, tennis) athletes depend not just on a range of physical attributes, but also the intelligence and creativity to combine and deploy them in competition. While this is also true in cycling, I wonder if success isn't determined too much by just the 'genetic luck' to produce high wattage for extended periods of time and recover quickly from exhaustion. It seems maybe the grand tours are just such a long physical grind that they reduce creativity, intelligence and individual strategy to almost immaterial factors. In this circumstance, if it's only the innate ability to deliver oxygen to muscles (or similar chemical operations) that matters, then the profits to doping become much greater.

Of course intelligence, experience and luck all have their part to play. But they seem to be much less important in a race like the TdF than in one-day races like the classics. Anything can happen in the World Championship road race, or say Milano San Remo. But the TdF winner has almost become predictable before the race even starts.

Maybe the grand tours are just too hard? Or maybe cycling needs to do more to shift emphasis back to skills beyond just the legs and lungs. Banning race radios has been discussed. How about reducing team sizes? Or restructuring/increasing intermediate time bonuses? Is this totally crazy?

 

[stephens]

Buckwheat, to be clear: i did not say i think blood doping is ok. i just said i think it is at least as "natural" as a lot of other things that are legal, such as the farming and industrial preparation of gelatinous nutritional substances packaged in petroleum based wrapping as described above.

There may indeed be other arguments for continued banning of blood transfusions that I find compelling. But the "it's unnatural" argument isn't one of them. I think people who find it unnatural are just afraid of needles or something. To me, injecting isn't any less natural than ingesting through the mouth or through the skin.

 

[buckwheat]

Look, religious arguments that consist of names like "trolling" and "nonsense" prove only that you are incapable of forming your own thoughts, and that you want to shut down those who can. If that's all it takes to shut down discussion in this forum, I'd rather not be here. Not impressive.



If, as is so often quoted, insanity consists of performing the same act over and over and expecting a different result, we must ask whether the approach to doping control in cycling fits the definition. How long has this been going on? How many riders have died on account of it? A fresh approach is clearly needed.

At the very least it is time to bring certain things out of the dark, even if it's only questioning the standard operating procedure. Is autologous transfusion the thin wedge? Or is it only the illegality that is the wedge?

It seems clear that asking this question will shock and upset many, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be asked.

The test of an endurance event is to parcel out your effort over the duration of the event. The point isn't to circumvent the test.

What you're saying in effect, is that if people get hurt weightlifting, because of the strain of the heavy weights, injecting something that may prevent injuries by making the athletes stronger, should be considered..

Golf is a silly game as are most games or athletic events. Cheating is frowned upon in golf though and golfers call penalties on themselves and accept penalties when they are not aware they've committed an infraction. Do all of those rules necessarily make sense? For example, Dustin Johnson grounding his club in the sandy area. WTF difference did it make? Well, it was a rules infraction because it's a rules infraction.


I'll conclude that your argument is just not sensible. The test of cycling is to take everything into consideration, training, recovery, diet, and racing the race to see who gets to the line first. You want to change the test to cater to people who are already circumventing it. That's the circular logic and I will say it's quite stupid.

Later trolls!

 

[buckwheat]

Buckwheat, to be clear: i did not say i think blood doping is ok. i just said i think it is at least as "natural" as a lot of other things that are legal, such as the farming and industrial preparation of gelatinous nutritional substances packaged in petroleum based wrapping as described above.

There may indeed be other arguments for continued banning of blood transfusions that I find compelling. But the "it's unnatural" argument isn't one of them. I think people who find it unnatural are just afraid of needles or something. To me, injecting isn't any less natural than ingesting through the mouth or through the skin.

WTF do petro chemical containers have to do with anything?

Oh yeah, are you Perico?

Transdermal drugs are natural?

Damn, the highlighted portion doesn't speak well to your....I don't even know how to put it diplomatically because it's just nuts.

The only thing I'm interested in is if you're Perico?

 

[stephens]

I don't even know what Perico is. If you mean Delgado, that's pretty funny.

As for injecting, you do know that there are millions of people for whom injections are a fact of life no less necessary than eating/drinking, right? There is nothing inherently "unnatural" about that method of taking on chemicals into our body compared to using our mouths or the medicines we use by rubbing them on our skins (cyclists use lots of oils and creams for muscles). Nothing is "unnatural" about any of this to me. It may be dangerous, it may be unfair, but it isn't unnatural.

You said above "The test of cycling is to take everything into consideration, training, recovery, diet, and racing the race to see who gets to the line first. " Well, all we are trying to discuss here is what sorts of things qualify as "training," and what sorts of things fit under "diet." Currently the lines are drawn somewhere, but we are discussing whether that is the best spot to drawn them and what the reasoning is.

 

[Maxiton]

The test of an endurance event is to parcel out your effort over the duration of the event. The point isn't to circumvent the test.

What you're saying in effect, is that if people get hurt weightlifting, because of the strain of the heavy weights, injecting something that may prevent injuries by making the athletes stronger, should be considered..

Golf is a silly game as are most games or athletic events. Cheating is frowned upon in golf though and golfers call penalties on themselves and accept penalties when they are not aware they've committed an infraction. Do all of those rules necessarily make sense? For example, Dustin Johnson grounding his club in the sandy area. WTF difference did it make? Well, it was a rules infraction because it's a rules infraction.


I'll conclude that your argument is just not sensible. The test of cycling is to take everything into consideration, training, recovery, diet, and racing the race to see who gets to the line first. You want to change the test to cater to people who are already circumventing it. That's the circular logic and I will say it's quite stupid.

Later trolls!

OK, thanks for that response. That's the most thoughtful thing you've said so far and you make a good point:

The test of an endurance event is to parcel out your effort over the duration of the event. The point isn't to circumvent the test.

You want to change the test to cater to people who are already circumventing it.

You're probably right. But the point is, they are circumventing it. Any number of riders are

circumventing the test. We don't know how many because there is really no way to test for it. If there is no way of testing and no way of knowing, then maybe we should

stop making cheats out of all of them - and make no mistake, when we tell them its against the rules, don't do it, you're on your honor, and they do it anyway, we have

made a cheat, who will then find new ways to cheat because he's a cheat, after all -; stop making cheats out of all of them and tell them, look, we know you do this, it's

out in the open and we are closely monitoring. Then, we can institute a lifetime ban for the first incident of true doping, i.e., introducing a banned, foreign drug into the system, or gene doping,

or whatever else they come up with.