How's this for unrepentant?

[dbrower]

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.

A flop that results in the red card of someone else who is then DQ'd for some period of time is right up there, in my view. A hard foul that results in injury usually results in nothing worse than an ejection, a fine, and a brief suspension.

If we took the video of an NFL game to the lab and looked at it for weeks, we could probably retroactively find an offensive hold on every play, but no one is willing to hand out fines or penalties as a result -- even if uncaught holds may have changed the outcome of the game. No one wants to do that kind of retro-active analysis, but doping is "different.' I don't get it.

What the critics of what I've said still seem to miss is that I have NOT been defending breaking the rules, whatever they are. I'm just saying they are rules of a game, and at their essence, arbitrarily selected. One might claim that the things put on the banned list are there for good reasons, carefully considered in all cases, and one reason given is 'health risk', which doesn't hold up to scrutiny as well as some might like. Similarly, 'natural' turns out to be harder to make sense of than many would claim.

About the only thing there is probably general agreement on is that needles are over whatever line anybody would be willing to make -- largely because of the 'ick' factor. I think the only folks who would allow needles are in the 'anything should go' camp, and I'm not one of those

-dB

 

[ChrisE]

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.

The punishment takes into account the severity of the crime. Things shouldn't be overlooked just because somebody does something worse. Should we let people that steel stereos from Best Buy get away with that since there are other things like Enron going on?

And what about people that want to do something in life without having to resort to putting drugs in their body to be competitive? How about if in your job everyday you had to do unethical or illegal things to stay employed? People should have a right to work by using their natural abilities on an ethical playing field. YMMV.

 

[ChrisE]

A flop that results in the red card of someone else who is then DQ'd for some period of time is right up there, in my view. A hard foul that results in injury usually results in nothing worse than an ejection, a fine, and a brief suspension.

If we took the video of an NFL game to the lab and looked at it for weeks, we could probably retroactively find an offensive hold on every play, but no one is willing to hand out fines or penalties as a result -- even if uncaught holds may have changed the outcome of the game. No one wants to do that kind of retro-active analysis, but doping is "different.' I don't get it.

What the critics of what I've said still seem to miss is that I have NOT been defending breaking the rules, whatever they are. I'm just saying they are rules of a game, and at their essence, arbitrarily selected. One might claim that the things put on the banned list are there for good reasons, carefully considered in all cases, and one reason given is 'health risk', which doesn't hold up to scrutiny as well as some might like. Similarly, 'natural' turns out to be harder to make sense of than many would claim.

About the only thing there is probably general agreement on is that needles are over whatever line anybody would be willing to make -- largely because of the 'ick' factor. I think the only folks who would allow needles are in the 'anything should go' camp, and I'm not one of those

-dB

So, if drugs are allowed are you for any maximum thresholds?

 

[delbified]

doping is worse than more spontaneous types of prohibited acts, such as fouls, because it is premeditated. it is completely fraudulent, rather than a spur-of-the-moment misjudgment. it also tilts the playing field too much.

 

[TubularBills]

doping is worse than more spontaneous types of prohibited acts, such as fouls, because it is premeditated. it is completely fraudulent, rather than a spur-of-the-moment misjudgment. it also tilts the playing field too much.

Great point. Doping intentionally violates the competitive spirit, whereas the other offenses are committed in the heat of battle.

 

[dbrower]

Great point. Doping intentionally violates the competitive spirit, whereas the other offenses are committed in the heat of battle.

Corked bat. Oversized engine. Extra fuel capacity. Rim at 10' 2". Spitball.

-dB

 

[buckwheat]

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


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

-dB

Charles Manson used many of these "arguments" out at Spahn Ranch.

How many followers do you have at this point in time?

 

[dbrower]

Some people seem to be thinking that because I think the rules are made up, I think breaking them is OK. That's not the case. Breaking rules is breaking rules.

What I'm trying to explore are two points that are different. (1) why are some things banned while other things that don't seem that different are fine; and (2) when rules are broken, what is the right thing to do to the perp?

-dB

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

Do you think the widow of Johannes Draaijer (or any of the other riders that died taking PED's) share your view thats its "pretty frivolous"?

<snipped for brevity>

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

The reason you cannot see the difference is you are viewing this as solely 'cheating' without taking in to regard the consequences it places on others. If someone dives in the penalty box it does not mean the other side have to - but if your rival has just juiced up then it becomes a necessity to retain your livelihood.

As I am sure you aware - top level athletes are on a sophisticated cocktail of PED's. Certainly some of the substances banned carry little heath risk but in their quest to get an advantage those that wish to dope will try and find any new product or method without consideration for their own health.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Do you think the widow of Johannes Draaijer (or any of the other riders that died taking PED's) share your view thats its "pretty frivolous"?



As I am sure you aware - top level athletes are on a sophisticated cocktail of PED's. Certainly some of the substances banned carry little heath risk but in their quest to get an advantage those that wish to dope will try and find any new product or method without consideration for their own health.

Perhaps someone else may have a link to research conducted at the LA Olympics in 84 , one question posed somat along the lines of " if you could take something that would guarantee you a Gold Medal and not be detectable but would likley cause your premature demise would you do so?"
An alarmingly substantial number of athletes replied "yes".
When it comes to needing protecting from there own stupidity athletes can be like schoolkids in there rationality.
Sometimes I think the answer might be that we applaud the also ran a bit more and drop the obsestion with "first at any price"..at some leval most of us are complicit in the circumstance that creat doping culture.
Though it isnt easy to understand that.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Perhaps someone else may have a link to research conducted at the LA Olympics in 84 , one question posed somat along the lines of " if you could take something that would guarantee you a Gold Medal and not be detectable but would likley cause your premature demise would you do so?"
An alarmingly substantial number of athletes replied "yes".
When it comes to needing protecting from there own stupidity athletes can be like schoolkids in there rationality.
Sometimes I think the answer might be that we applaud the also ran a bit more and drop the obsestion with "first at any price"..at some leval most of us are complicit in the circumstance that creat doping culture.
Though it isnt easy to understand that.

It was known as the 'Goldman dilema' - take a drug that would insure victory but it would kill you in 5 years -around half of the respondents said yes.

Whats interesting is that this was done on competitive athlethes - so it would not consider the view of many who had packed in their respective sports long before. When it was repeated amongst the general population only 2 out of 250 respondents said they would take it.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Perhaps someone else may have a link to research conducted at the LA Olympics in 84 , one question posed somat along the lines of " if you could take something that would guarantee you a Gold Medal and not be detectable but would likley cause your premature demise would you do so?"
An alarmingly substantial number of athletes replied "yes".
When it comes to needing protecting from there own stupidity athletes can be like schoolkids in there rationality.
Sometimes I think the answer might be that we applaud the also ran a bit more and drop the obsestion with "first at any price"..at some leval most of us are complicit in the circumstance that creat doping culture.
Though it isnt easy to understand that.

Based upon the ideals of sport, and how it CAN be one of the last pursuits of a true meritocracy in our collective cultures, I have to disagree with your last paragraph. No applauding the 'also-rans'.

The first time I was at an American National Championships I was utterly apalled that the 'podium' went five deep. Seriously, this is what they do! Five deep!

I sort of got in trouble for publicly stating that they should just give medals to everyone who signed up. Afterall, 'you're all winners in my book!'. What a load of crap. And that was after one of our riders 'medalled'. They got fourth.

The doping laws are there to try to salvage the last vestige of honest, truly human performance. Do what you can, as hard as you can.

It's not about athletes hurting themselves (which, ironically, they all train so hard to do), but about keeping the arena held to a level that all humans can potentially compete in. If you can't compete in that arena, that's too bad. Life sucks... get a helmet. I'm not great at math, but I'm not trying to b*tch my way into a physics degree.

Sport MUST maintain its 'first counts' attitude. It's up to dog-f*cking corrupt governing bodies to hold this ideal up to society at large as an example of what humans can do, and not be rolled over with something as banal as a wad of cash and a little bit of power.

'First' does count! It's up to the general public to keep that explicitly clear, and thank god there's something like the internet and forums to globalize the fans' frustration with what's been going on for too long.

Man, I wish this techy kid sh*t was around when I was young! How's that for a rant?

 

[dbrower]

Do you think the widow of Johannes Draaijer (or any of the other riders that died taking PED's) share your view thats its "pretty frivolous"?



The reason you cannot see the difference is you are viewing this as solely 'cheating' without taking in to regard the consequences it places on others. If someone dives in the penalty box it does not mean the other side have to - but if your rival has just juiced up then it becomes a necessity to retain your livelihood.

As I am sure you aware - top level athletes are on a sophisticated cocktail of PED's. Certainly some of the substances banned carry little heath risk but in their quest to get an advantage those that wish to dope will try and find any new product or method without consideration for their own health.

We've been over the risk consideration before -- I personally know more cyclists killed by cars than from doping; and know of many more high level pros killed by crashes than from doping. The health issue, is, I believe, self-regulating in Darwinian ways, and from reasonable limits like the 50% hct. How many EPO victims have there been since the HCT limit was put in place?

-dB

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

We've been over the risk consideration before -- I personally know more cyclists killed by cars than from doping; and know of many more high level pros killed by crashes than from doping. The health issue, is, I believe, self-regulating in Darwinian ways, and from reasonable limits like the 50% hct. How many EPO victims have there been since the HCT limit was put in place?

-dB

You're pedantic and your arguments are pointless.

 

[buckwheat]

We've been over the risk consideration before -- I personally know more cyclists killed by cars than from doping; and know of many more high level pros killed by crashes than from doping. The health issue, is, I believe, self-regulating in Darwinian ways, and from reasonable limits like the 50% hct. How many EPO victims have there been since the HCT limit was put in place?

-dB

Spare me the pedantics!

Thanks, JMBeaushrimp

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Right on, Buckwheat!

 

[Darryl Webster]

Based upon the ideals of sport, and how it CAN be one of the last pursuits of a true meritocracy in our collective cultures, I have to disagree with your last paragraph. No applauding the 'also-rans'.

The first time I was at an American National Championships I was utterly apalled that the 'podium' went five deep. Seriously, this is what they do! Five deep!

I sort of got in trouble for publicly stating that they should just give medals to everyone who signed up. Afterall, 'you're all winners in my book!'. What a load of crap. And that was after one of our riders 'medalled'. They got fourth.

The doping laws are there to try to salvage the last vestige of honest, truly human performance. Do what you can, as hard as you can.

It's not about athletes hurting themselves (which, ironically, they all train so hard to do), but about keeping the arena held to a level that all humans can potentially compete in. If you can't compete in that arena, that's too bad. Life sucks... get a helmet. I'm not great at math, but I'm not trying to b*tch my way into a physics degree.

Sport MUST maintain its 'first counts' attitude. It's up to dog-f*cking corrupt governing bodies to hold this ideal up to society at large as an example of what humans can do, and not be rolled over with something as banal as a wad of cash and a little bit of power.

'First' does count! It's up to the general public to keep that explicitly clear, and thank god there's something like the internet and forums to globalize the fans' frustration with what's been going on for too long.

Man, I wish this techy kid sh*t was around when I was young! How's that for a rant?

I think you overstated my meaning there...Im not sugesting 1st isnt important or that everyone finisher deserves the same credit.
What I am sugesting is that if only first counts small wonder theres so much presure to dope..and other forms of cheeting, and the ideal of fair play suffers as a result.
A little more credit and recognition to those who make it a race...the runners up ....who generaly in there turn are also winners... might go someway to making for a better sporting ethic.
"The winner takes it all" attitude permeates to much of our society creating the aproach in life that 2nd is for "losers". Not, in my view, a healthy attitude.
If we want drug free sport we do well to look at the elements of society that create a better attitude to sporting excellence in all ways not just being first.
A desire for that does not equate to a wish to see top leval sport reduced to the "non competitive" junior school sports day.

 

[ChrisE]

You're pedantic and your arguments are pointless.

He is right on with this one. "What about the poor dead riders who willingly took this stuff" crocodile tears should not even register as a reason to outlaw PEDs.

 

[JPM London]

It was known as the 'Goldman dilema' - take a drug that would insure victory but it would kill you in 5 years -around half of the respondents said yes.

Whats interesting is that this was done on competitive athlethes - so it would not consider the view of many who had packed in their respective sports long before. When it was repeated amongst the general population only 2 out of 250 respondents said they would take it.

I think you see the same problematic dilemma with the current generation of young kids in the sports centres who pump up on all kinds of drugs just to get big - they know they doing something that could hurt them long term, but the prefer being big now... The problem has moved from pro sports to, well, anybody with an internet connection and an address.

 

[TubularBills]

I think you see the same problematic dilemma with the current generation of young kids in the sports centres who pump up on all kinds of drugs just to get big - they know they doing something that could hurt them long term, but the prefer being big now... The problem has moved from pro sports to, well, anybody with an internet connection and an address.

Yep, it all comes down to selfishness, greed, narcissism and an unwarranted/unearned feeling of entitlement - look at cheating in schools, competition and fabrication for college entry, bonuses and ethics in banking, business and wall street, doping from high school sports through the pro ranks... it's a win at any cost/method society without guilt or conscience... shameless.

i.e. "I'm a mediocre talent, but I deserve so much more."

Wahhh!

 

[Darryl Webster]

Yep, it all comes down to selfishness, greed, narcissism and an unwarranted/unearned feeling of entitlement - look at cheating in schools, competition and fabrication for college entry, bonuses and ethics in banking, business and wall street, doping from high school sports through the pro ranks... it's a win at any cost/method society without guilt or conscience... shameless.

i.e. "I'm a mediocre talent, but I deserve so much more."

Wahhh!

And whats realy gauling is the responsiblity for creating such a culture rests generally with those over 35, 40.
Any society that blames it`s young for its ills in some serious trouble!

 

[stephens]

Yep, it all comes down to selfishness, greed, narcissism and an unwarranted/unearned feeling of entitlement - look at cheating in schools, competition and fabrication for college entry, bonuses and ethics in banking, business and wall street, doping from high school sports through the pro ranks... it's a win at any cost/method society without guilt or conscience... shameless.

i.e. "I'm a mediocre talent, but I deserve so much more."

Wahhh!

I don't think you can look at drug-cheating in sports the same way as cheating in business. Business cheats really are looking to get something for nothing. But for athletes, remember that lots of guys take the drugs not to make their competition life easier, but to allow them to train even harder. They're looking for a way to put in more, not less.

Perhaps they are attempting to make up for their "mediocre talent" but only if you understand that phrase to be the same as "genetic disadvantage," they have compared to their competitors. The cheats have to train more and harder to get the same results, and so they use the drugs to allow them to work harder, to grow to the same size, or build their endurance up or to boost their chemistry up to levels some guys got by birth. This is not the same to me as cheating people in a business scam.

It's still "cheating," sure, but much more ethically complex than you're making it.

 

[TubularBills]

DW and Stephens - good points and elaborations - interesting to consider the motivations and the instigators...

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I think you overstated my meaning there...Im not sugesting 1st isnt important or that everyone finisher deserves the same credit.
What I am sugesting is that if only first counts small wonder theres so much presure to dope..and other forms of cheeting, and the ideal of fair play suffers as a result.
A little more credit and recognition to those who make it a race...the runners up ....who generaly in there turn are also winners... might go someway to making for a better sporting ethic.
"The winner takes it all" attitude permeates to much of our society creating the aproach in life that 2nd is for "losers". Not, in my view, a healthy attitude.
If we want drug free sport we do well to look at the elements of society that create a better attitude to sporting excellence in all ways not just being first.
A desire for that does not equate to a wish to see top leval sport reduced to the "non competitive" junior school sports day.

Sorry, I didn't mean to overstate your meaning. But I certainly meant to overstate mine.

I agree that at a socio-cultural level our collective culture does place 'winning' above all else, and that that can end up being socially destructive. But that's an issue that elite sport is meant to be apart from.

My contention is that elite sport needs to be kept ultimately clean because it is venue that can be our last cultural expression to explicitly hold up meritocracy as an inherent human ideal.

We can't just walk over to someone's desk, club them on the head, and steal their stapler because we're bigger and stronger than they are. Although that is an attitude that has allowed humans to proliferate and create some awesome (and evil) feats, it is not really socially acceptable. I would argue that although it's not acceptable, it's certainly a psycho-social need that humans share.

That's where elite sport comes in. It is the one socially acceptable venue in which we can kick the p*ss out of each other, where one person wins and the rest have been beaten. That is also why I'm such a lunatic about the anti-doping thing... Sport is something absolutely necessary to society (as is art), and it is something that must be kept as pure as possible.

Look how cynical the various posters' views of riders' performances are now... That sucks! I would love to see a sporting scene where there is no doubt about someone's performance, where we could be amazed and inspired by what an only slightly different human is capable of. Beautiful!

Man, am I f*cking idealist or what?

 

[Darryl Webster]

Sorry, I didn't mean to overstate your meaning. But I certainly meant to overstate mine.

I agree that at a socio-cultural level our collective culture does place 'winning' above all else, and that that can end up being socially destructive. But that's an issue that elite sport is meant to be apart from.
My contention is that elite sport needs to be kept ultimately clean because it is venue that can be our last cultural expression to explicitly hold up meritocracy as an inherent human ideal.
While agreeing sport should be clean its a odd priority to sugest meritocracy in sport is somehow a great importance while all around us we witness much of the world in much more important ways, being so blatantly unjust..

We can't just walk over to someone's desk, club them on the head, and steal their stapler because we're bigger and stronger than they are. Although that is an attitude that has allowed humans to proliferate and create some awesome (and evil) feats, it is not really socially acceptable. I would argue that although it's not acceptable, it's certainly a psycho-social need that humans share.


That's where elite sport comes in. It is the one socially acceptable venue in which we can kick the p*ss out of each other, where one person wins and the rest have been beaten. That is also why I'm such a lunatic about the anti-doping thing... Sport is something absolutely necessary to society (as is art), and it is something that must be kept as pure as possible.

Look how cynical the various posters' views of riders' performances are now... That sucks! I would love to see a sporting scene where there is no doubt about someone's performance, where we could be amazed and inspired by what an only slightly different human is capable of. Beautiful!

Man, am I f*cking idealist or what?

On a few points, Elite leval sport cannot exist outside of the society in which it takes place.

Your thoughts on "true" human nature are basicly the Raymond Dart "Killer Ape" theory of human evolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_ape_theory now widely rejected by scollers.

You probably are an Idealist but dont let the xxxxx drive ya down ... ...it`s Idealism that drives change...best served with a healthy dose of humanistic understanding rather than at the barall of a gun. .