How's this for unrepentant?

[dbrower]

This is funny. Getting hit by a car is more likely than having ill effects from doping so doping is ok. I never thought of it that way, but somehow it doesn't sway my position much.

Somebody eating right and training right, you know food and stuff, has arbitrariliy been given an advantage over those that want to take PEDs.

Are you serious?

Never said the things being slammed. It's a common enough technique -- misrepresent something said, then attack the misrepresentation.

I said getting hit by a car is dangerous, and a rational consideration of risks to cyclists would take that into account. It doesn't say doping is "ok", it says it has a risk that can be quantified and considered.

Say that the risk of one thing is X, and of another Y, and X is muck riskier than Y. Say that if you do Y, the risk of X decreases more than the risk of Y, so there is a net reduction of risk. Why then would Y be wrong to do from a standpoint of risk? I believe you have to bring in other considerations to make the case that Y should still not be done.

Addressing the second point,

At what point does "eating right" cross a line? At what level of processing a food-stuff turn it into a PED? Why isn't chewing coca-leaves as "ok" as eating lettuce? If the coca leaves are cooked, with extract put into a drink, why is that worse than turning corn into HFCS for a sports drink?

I come back to the conclusion that the rules are just arbitrary.

-dB

 

[stephens]

Will you guys please stop quoting part of a sentence of mine without the rest that gives it context. I'd appreciate it. We disagree enough, so there is no need for you to misrepresent my position.

 

[ChrisE]

Never said the things being slammed. It's a common enough technique -- misrepresent something said, then attack the misrepresentation.

I said getting hit by a car is dangerous, and a rational consideration of risks to cyclists would take that into account. It doesn't say doping is "ok", it says it has a risk that can be quantified and considered.

Say that the risk of one thing is X, and of another Y, and X is muck riskier than Y. Say that if you do Y, the risk of X decreases more than the risk of Y, so there is a net reduction of risk. Why then would Y be wrong to do from a standpoint of risk? I believe you have to bring in other considerations to make the case that Y should still not be done.

Addressing the second point,

At what point does "eating right" cross a line? At what level of processing a food-stuff turn it into a PED? Why isn't chewing coca-leaves as "ok" as eating lettuce? If the coca leaves are cooked, with extract put into a drink, why is that worse than turning corn into HFCS for a sports drink?

I come back to the conclusion that the rules are just arbitrary.

-dB

For the record, I never buy into the "risk" POV in terms of legalizing doping or not. If somebody wants to abuse something to the extent it could kill them, then I have no problem with that. Darwin is alive and well. I admit I jabbed you with a diversion with the car accident statement; your point has nothing to do with my opinion anyway.

I do have a problem when PED use gives them an advantage over clean cyclists. That is where I draw the line.

Arbitrary? So you think it is just a coin flip? Heads, Centrum vitamins not ok, tails EPO ok, etc?

You know where the line is drawn and should be drawn in the terms of sport and fair play. Me thinks you and others are just being deliberately argumentative with this whack take on legalization of PEDs.

 

[Anonymous]

How about manorexic pro cyclist's shaving their legs and putting creme in their underpants? Would that attract sponsors more?

So in your universe the above represents the moral equivalent to tranfusing blood.

Got it.

 

[buckwheat]

For the record, I never buy into the "risk" POV in terms of legalizing doping or not. If somebody wants to abuse something to the extent it could kill them, then I have no problem with that. Darwin is alive and well. I admit I jabbed you with a diversion with the car accident statement; your point has nothing to do with my opinion anyway.

I do have a problem when PED use gives them an advantage over clean cyclists. That is where I draw the line.

Arbitrary? So you think it is just a coin flip? Heads, Centrum vitamins not ok, tails EPO ok, etc?

You know where the line is drawn and should be drawn in the terms of sport and fair play. Me thinks you and others are just being deliberately argumentative with this whack take on legalization of PEDs.

Yeah, but you'd agree that those somebody's are oftentimes impressionable kids. Heck, I know what an imbecile I was when I was twenty....No jokes.....

I agree with the bottom bolded portion 100%.

 

[buckwheat]

Never said the things being slammed. It's a common enough technique -- misrepresent something said, then attack the misrepresentation.

I said getting hit by a car is dangerous, and a rational consideration of risks to cyclists would take that into account. It doesn't say doping is "ok", it says it has a risk that can be quantified and considered.

Say that the risk of one thing is X, and of another Y, and X is muck riskier than Y. Say that if you do Y, the risk of X decreases more than the risk of Y, so there is a net reduction of risk. Why then would Y be wrong to do from a standpoint of risk? I believe you have to bring in other considerations to make the case that Y should still not be done.

Addressing the second point,

At what point does "eating right" cross a line? At what level of processing a food-stuff turn it into a PED? Why isn't chewing coca-leaves as "ok" as eating lettuce? If the coca leaves are cooked, with extract put into a drink, why is that worse than turning corn into HFCS for a sports drink?

I come back to the conclusion that the rules are just arbitrary.

-dB

As to the first part. Training on a bike to race a bike, and the danger of crashing is inherent in the whole endeavor of riding a bicycle. The danger is an inherent part of the sport. The risks of drawing your own blood and reinfusing it, are inherent to nothing except cheating.

It's kind of like insider trading. It's legal to trade on publically available information. If it's restricted, it's a no no.

Cocaine and lettuce? Tell me you're joking.

HFCS is not banned in any amount is it? Better yet, go eat a 5lb bag of sugar before a race.

I was going to try to say something witty but this offering from ChrisE sums it up.

Me thinks you and others are just being deliberately argumentative with this whack take on legalization of PEDs.

Please stop for your sake.

 

[Polish]

So in your universe the above represents the moral equivalent to tranfusing blood.

Got it.

In a universe where infusing your own blood is allowed and controlled, yes.

But I am against PEDs. Like aussiegoddess said, the blood could be screened and rescreened for any evidence of PEDs. Harsh penaties, banishment, if PEDs are found.

 

[Anonymous]

In a universe where infusing your own blood is allowed and controlled, yes.

But I am against PEDs. Like aussiegoddess said, the blood could be screened and rescreened for any evidence of PEDs. Harsh penaties, banishment, if PEDs are found.

Ok then, let's make it public.

What's the limit on the blood bag volume? 250, 500 or a full litre? How often can one transfuse? Every day... Every other day? Can riders hook up to a bag in the feed zone? Maybe Camelbak can make a 'blood-only' version where riders can get a drip all stage long.

 

[dbrower]

Cocaine and lettuce? Tell me you're joking.

Me thinks you and others are just being deliberately argumentative with this whack take on legalization of PEDs.

Guess I'm gonna have to go slow, one point at a time.

Why is asking about coca leaves joking? Widely used in Peru for millenia to handle altitude. Completely natural consumption of a plant, just like lettuce, or coffee, or tea. On what basis did we decide it was not ok?

-dB

 

[buckwheat]

Guess I'm gonna have to go slow, one point at a time.

Why is asking about coca leaves joking? Widely used in Peru for millenia to handle altitude. Completely natural consumption of a plant, just like lettuce, or coffee, or tea. On what basis did we decide it was not ok?

-dB

It's joking because of the approach you're taking. Cycling is an endurance test with certain rules. It's not a pharmacological test to find a substance which undermines the whole reason for existence of the particular competition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca

Some proponents have claimed that cocaine itself is not an active ingredient when unprocessed coca leaf is chewed or brewed as an infusion. However, studies have shown that small but measurable amounts of cocaine are present in the bloodstream after consumption of coca tea.[2] Addiction or other deleterious effects from the consumption of the leaf in its natural form have not been documented.

Cocaine is banned. Are coca leaves banned? Marijuana is banned even though it's not performance enhancing. Why? Why? Why??????

 

[Polish]

Ok then, let's make it public.

What's the limit on the blood bag volume? 250, 500 or a full litre? How often can one transfuse? Every day... Every other day? Can riders hook up to a bag in the feed zone? Maybe Camelbak can make a 'blood-only' version where riders can get a drip all stage long.

Of course it would be public, under ASO control (TdF)

Say each rider can choose only three times during the Tour to infuse blood.
Qty 250 a pop? Stored, inspected for peds, and administered by the Tour Organization.
(I would trust the Tour organizers more than most Dr's lol. They run a tight ship lol again)

The rider decides which days as the race progressess. Some will want to save their blood for the final week. Others may need it sooner. Before a stage that is targeted for another example.....

 

[buckwheat]

Of course it would be public, under ASO control (TdF)

Say each rider can choose only three times during the Tour to infuse blood.
Qty 250 a pop? Stored, inspected for peds, and administered by the Tour Organization.
(I would trust the Tour organizers more than most Dr's lol. They run a tight ship lol again)

The rider decides which days as the race progressess. Some will want to save their blood for the final week. Others may need it sooner. Before a stage that is targeted for another example.....

So, it would be like when a Nascar driver comes in for a pit stop.

Got it!

 

[ChrisE]

Of course it would be public, under ASO control (TdF)

Say each rider can choose only three times during the Tour to infuse blood.
Qty 250 a pop? Stored, inspected for peds, and administered by the Tour Organization.
(I would trust the Tour organizers more than most Dr's lol. They run a tight ship lol again)

The rider decides which days as the race progressess. Some will want to save their blood for the final week. Others may need it sooner. Before a stage that is targeted for another example.....

Why not just not allow any transfusions and let the best rider win? That's so much simpler. All this other logistical stuff is so confusing.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Then why not just allow several days between mountain stages so everybody can get back to their natural levels?

Part of winning a GT is recovery and having the best natural ability to withstand the rigors of multiple stages. If it was just a sprint up a mountain or an idividual timetrial, at everybody's normal levels, then Cancellara and somebody like Boogard who could pull a one-off in the mountains would be the winners.

Flicker! I can't say I'm disappointed in your sudden wisdom, but what have they done with your body?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Sorry about that, ChrisE;

Just got off a ban, and solely looked at the avatar (not the name). Keep it up, according to me you've got a good handle on the issue. Take that for what it's worth. Apparently I'm crazy, and with a vicious streak to boot. Wait a minute... I sound like a bike racer!

 

[Anonymous]

Of course it would be public, under ASO control (TdF)

Say each rider can choose only three times during the Tour to infuse blood.
Qty 250 a pop? Stored, inspected for peds, and administered by the Tour Organization.
(I would trust the Tour organizers more than most Dr's lol. They run a tight ship lol again)

The rider decides which days as the race progressess. Some will want to save their blood for the final week. Others may need it sooner. Before a stage that is targeted for another example.....

Why stop at only three? And why only 250? 250 will surely help a midget like Levi more than someone the size of Cancellara, so it's not (again) fair.

Maybe we can just do percentages of estimated blood volume based on size. Or just not have a limit. We could have race jerseys re-made with blood bag pockets on the shoulder. Riders could get their blood bags in every feed zone, plug in to a permanent IV port and just let it flow.

 

[flicker]

Why stop at only three? And why only 250? 250 will surely help a midget like Levi more than someone the size of Cancellara, so it's not (again) fair.

Maybe we can just do percentages of estimated blood volume based on size. Or just not have a limit. We could have race jerseys re-made with blood bag pockets on the shoulder. Riders could get their blood bags in every feed zone, plug in to a permanent IV port and just let it flow.

Sorry that was only allowed for a certain Mr. Keith Richards at the Finestera Hotel in Cabo and and certain Swiss regeneration clinics for Richards.

 

[dbrower]

It's joking because of the approach you're taking. Cycling is an endurance test with certain rules. It's not a pharmacological test to find a substance which undermines the whole reason for existence of the particular competition.

...

Cocaine is banned. Are coca leaves banned? Marijuana is banned even though it's not performance enhancing. Why? Why? Why??????

No fair, I asked first! Please explain why coca leaves are banned. They are completely natural, and could be seen as "eating right" or "eating smart".

I am trying to figure out what is believed to be the rationale for some things being banned, but others not. Here, I've chosen an example that isn't taken via injection, not processed by a factory, has been in use as a natural part of diet for thousands of years, and has no particular history of dangerous risk, and is banned.

-dB

 

[buckwheat]

No fair, I asked first! Please explain why coca leaves are banned. They are completely natural, and could be seen as "eating right" or "eating smart".

I am trying to figure out what is believed to be the rationale for some things being banned, but others not. Here, I've chosen an example that isn't taken via injection, not processed by a factory, has been in use as a natural part of diet for thousands of years, and has no particular history of dangerous risk, and is banned.

-dB

And I'm asking, are coca leaves banned?

When you chew them what gets into your system?

As I said, you're approaching this from the wrong direction. Why don't you write to the UCI, WADA, IOC, Don Catlin, Greg LeMond, anti doping experts. USOC......

Call up Gary Wadler...516 365 9600

http://www.garywadler.com/

Tell us about how he laughs at your propostions and questions. You owe us that after you've tortured us with your unrelenting silliness.

http://www.espn.go.com/special/s/drugsandsports/coca.html

edit;

I just called his office but he wasn't in. I was explaining your attempted justifications to the receptionist and even she was exasperated with your nonsense. You can send an email with your ethical and sociological theories or make a media request to him if you'd like.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Seems to me the argument being put up is that one owns untainted blood, withdrawn, stored and re enfused at a later stage because it introduces NO foreign substance is NOT doping because of that very fact.
"Natural" ..though the methodolgy isnt.

So realy what we need to look at is defining naturual in human behavior..cus one thing is certain it differs considerably from almost all other sentiant creatures. the great Apes being the creatures that show the nearest behaviour but "near" is a dam big gulf.
" Natural" for human behavior is "natural" in a vast amount of differant ways from all other creatures for three reasons.., complex language,the extent of our capacity for cognitive reasoning and our use of tools.
These three aspects mean human beings live the most "unatural" lives of any species...stick us naked in a field without tools or language and we`would struggle to survive.
We "create" our inviorement like no other creature and so discussion about whats naturual for human beings should not be compared to natural in the animal kingdom.
Human "natural" is tool use...and society deems some tools ( doping and Iv) out of bounds in sports.
The argument that its because of "safety" concerns is largely bogus...cycle sport , as with many sports carries inherent risks...the real reason is the desire to see competition based on a strict critera designed to make the winners and lossers be on an even playingfield in there tool use.
In that respect no differant to enforcement of F1 regs re there cars.
If you gave the F1 designers total free reign gawd only knows how fast ( and dangerous) some cars would be.

 

[ChrisE]

And I'm asking, are coca leaves banned?

When you chew them what gets into your system?

As I said, you're approaching this from the wrong direction. Why don't you write to the UCI, WADA, IOC, Don Catlin, Greg LeMond, anti doping experts. USOC......

Call up Gary Wadler...516 365 9600

http://www.garywadler.com/

Tell us about how he laughs at your propostions and questions. You owe us that after you've tortured us with your unrelenting silliness.

http://www.espn.go.com/special/s/drugsandsports/coca.html

edit;

I just called his office but he wasn't in. I was explaining your attempted justifications to the receptionist and even she was exasperated with your nonsense. You can send an email with your ethical and sociological theories or make a media request to him if you'd like.

Yeah, let him call up Wadler and he can start the conversation by giving his credentials.....ringleader of the search for truth website TBV.

That way they can start off the conversation on even ground, one expert to another.

 

[dbrower]

Hmmm, the answer seems to be: coca leaves are banned because they contain cocaine.

Let's try to play along


Q: Why is cocaine banned?
A: It enhances performance unnaturally.

Q: Why isn't coca cola banned?
A: Because it doesn't improve performance unnaturally.

Q: So coca leaves are more unnatural than coca cola?
A: That's not the point.

Q: So coca leaves aren't unnatural?
A: No they aren't unnatural. They unnaturally enhance performance.

Q: How is the unnatural enhancement different than the enhancement provided by a Coca Cola?
A: Because it contains a prohibited substance the Coca Cola (no longer) has.

Q: So why is that substance banned?
A: Because it is unnatural.

Q: But it naturally occurs in coca leaves.
A: We can't distinguish between natural coca leaf cocaine from unnatural pharmaceutical cocaine, so we ban both.

Q: So, we ban things because we don't like the concentrated, processed form?
A: Not just that.

Q: Because if we did, why not ban energy gels or Coca Cola for the HFCS content, which have unnatural, processed concentrated stuff?
A: Because they don't contain anything banned.

Q: So why is cocaine banned?
A: Because some forms are dangerous, and it is illegal.

Q: But coca leaves in Peru are not illegal, and not dangerous, why ban them?
A: Because we can't distinguish them from the dangerous, illegal other places kind.

Q: So we're OK banning harmless, natural things because we can't tell them apart from things we think might be harmful?
A: yup.

Rather than go through the charade of 'unnatural' and 'dangerous' and 'we can't distinguish', I'd feel better if we just said

Q: Could it be we just ban stuff because we don't like it, and the reasons offered beyond that may be smoke?

My point has not been to defend doping, but to point out that it is not any more a moral failing than running an underweight bike. It's a sporting rule violation, and the rules are essentially arbitrary.

I'm just frustrated by the moralizing and moral hypocrisy about it all.

We don't make the same moral judgments about faking being hit by a pitch, a knockdown pitch, a late hit out of bounds, taking a flop on the soccer pitch or basketball court, or a hard intentional foul, or getting a red card. Those are all sporting violations, and all of them can effect the outcome of the competition. But they don't have the stigma about them that doping does, and really, I don't see much difference.

The rules, violations and punishments are all made up, as far as I can tell.

-dB

 

[TubularBills]

My point has not been to defend doping, but to point out that it is not any more a moral failing than running an underweight bike. It's a sporting rule violation, and the rules are essentially arbitrary.

I'm just frustrated by the moralizing and moral hypocrisy about it all.

We don't make the same moral judgments about faking being hit by a pitch, a knockdown pitch, a late hit out of bounds, taking a flop on the soccer pitch or basketball court, or a hard intentional foul, or getting a red card. Those are all sporting violations, and all of them can effect the outcome of the competition. But they don't have the stigma about them that doping does, and really, I don't see much difference.

The rules, violations and punishments are all made up, as far as I can tell.

-dB

Poor use of the word arbitrary. They are carefully considered parameters, motivated by a search for equality and historical and scientific precedent - to which all of the participants agree by signing and agreeing to be licensed for participation. To then consume a product which all licensees agreed not to, is then cheating and violates an explicit agreement.

"faking being hit by a pitch, a knockdown pitch, a late hit out of bounds, taking a flop on the soccer pitch or basketball court, or a hard intentional foul, or getting a red card." are simply examples of poor sportsmanship, and though ethically suspect, are not in violation of codified law.

Though "a late hit out of bounds" or a "a hard intentional foul" that results in injury could be cause for a suit.

Kind of a naive argument and perhaps better suited to the WWF.

 

[Oldman]

Poor use of the word arbitrary. They are carefully considered parameters, motivated by a search for equality and historical and scientific precedent - to which all of the participants agree by signing and agreeing to be licensed for participation. To then consume a product which all licensees agreed not to, is then cheating and violates an explicit agreement.

"faking being hit by a pitch, a knockdown pitch, a late hit out of bounds, taking a flop on the soccer pitch or basketball court, or a hard intentional foul, or getting a red card." are simply examples of poor sportsmanship, and though ethically suspect, are not in violation of codified law.

Though "a late hit out of bounds" or a "a hard intentional foul" that results in injury could be cause for a suit.Kind of a naive argument and perhaps better suited to the WWF.

All of these actions have direct consequences and penalties meted out on the playing field. Doping is the big lie that upsets all equities in the playing field. Even if "everyone is doing it" is the justification the inequities of program costs, mitigating crooked officials and promoters completely unbalances the competition. That's a major moral and physical difference.

 

[stephens]

But at the end of the day, what we're talking about here is a ****ing sport, a game!

None of this crap rises to the level of corruption perpetrated by governments and businessmen, that has real, measurable, tragic effects on the lives of billions of people around the globe. So the amount of time and money spent chasing down this stuff is pretty embarrassing. Fun to talk about, sure, but pretty frivolous.