what is doping anyway?
What I have been missing on this forum is an intelligent discussion about doping. For one, how is it possible that no one ever tries to give a clear definition or even an understanding of the word 'doping'? Everyone who engages in conversations about doping and dopers i.e. the people who supposedly use 'something' to 'enhance there performance', either makes or denies accusations, spreads rumours or hearsay and pretends to know what the future of cycling holds.
When one goes to the WADA website, I would assume the first thing to encounter on their webpage would be a defintion of doping. I mean, it's their core business around which everything else they do, revolves. Their regulations to prevent people from doping, from whereabouts forms to random testing, strategies to expose dopers and decrease doping in the future, for f**** sake, they even offer workshops at schools to get kids involved in a discussion around doping. But when digs a little deeper, and you try to find some case law in which doping is defined - without a clear definition of what doping is one cannot come to a conviction - there is almost nothing. Doping is reduced to the Code. Whatever is listed in the Code as performance enhancing 'stuff' is considered doping, while consequently there is no clear definition of doping, and hence, to corroborate why that product is listed! Doping gets caught up in a circular argument.
-Doping is the Code.
-A is a substance listed in the Code, hence using A constitues a violation.
-Why is A a doping violation? Because it says so in the Code.
-The Code however, was already synonymous for the definition of doping, hence the logic is circular.
So just to tickle the mind a little
Commonly heard criteria to put some meat to the bones of doping, revolve around performance enhancement, protecting the health/well being of athletes and cheating.
1) Training, practice, exercise are performance enhancing as well. Should we therefore limit the number of hours athletes are allowed to train?
2) If one trains hard, really hard, and even goes on special altitude training camps to increase the amount of red blood cells, and one decides then to harvest some of that blood and store it for later, to inject it before or during an endurance event, why would that be doping. Is it autologous blood doping even when nothing is added to enrich blood? But if one trained to achieve those results, isn't it then just the ultimate form of tapering?
In comparison, the technology of bikes has progressed much from th 1900s, and enhanced the performance of athletes. Why would similar advancements in prepping/treating the human body not be allowed?
3) An article in a dutch newspaper, a year or two ago, dealt with the routine of QST riders during the TdF to take 76 pills per day. They were all supplements, to replenish low levels of about everything the body needs, from iron to zinc to vitamins etc etc etc. They were forced to take these supplements in pill-form, because the anti-doping industry had forbidden the use of syringes. 76*21=1596 pills in one TdF.
Now, I don't know if that - taking so many pills - is healthy for a human body. However, if it is necessary to take so many pills to stay healthy during one event, what does that say about the event itself with regard to the well being of athletes?
On a different note, when someone has supposedly a big heart (LA) or a huge lung capacity (MI), a high VO2max, a lighter weight, more slow or fast twitch muscles, we do not really consider competition between athletes as unfair. Although the genetic differences in terms of heart, lungs, base VO2max, body strucure/build, can be altered by physical exercise, they can only do so up to a certain point. Could voigt be as lightweight as Pantani, could Vansummeren ever actually compete with MI or LA? The answer is no. Why isn't that unfair, or why is it?
However, back to my main point and what connects it with the 1596 pills per TdF story, is this. An athlete is not allowed to become more competitive by injecting red blood cells in his body and to deliver more oxygen to his muscles, at which he has a natural/genetic disadvantage, while at the same time all athletes are allowed to add supplements to their diet to remain competitive for three weeks. But the ability to recover and stay competitive for a long period of time, is also partly determined genetically/naturaly. So why is it that people are allowed to take supplements, which somehow lessens the competitive advantage a person has at staying strong for a long time, but not to inject more red blood cells, to stay similarly competitive at which one has a natural (dis)advantage?
4) why would the use of cocaine be a doping violation. The effects of cocaine are known to be insufficient to boost the results of an endurance athlete. I.e. having cocaine at th estart of Milan San Remo doesn't really make you a faster sprinter 300k later.
5) How is it possible that doping agencies sponsor events, amongst others intermediate sprints in TdF stages. Why, of all organizations, do they want/need exposure? What does that say about their intentions, or their perceived impartiality.
Just on a side note, what is their level expertise if they can't even spell 'Stefan Schumacher' right and refer to him as 'Michael Schumacher'. Exposing dopers is like executing a death sentence. We all know that mistakes are being made everywhere, every time. If that's the case, why would people still consider a life long ban, which is basically the same as killing off a person's career, especially in the case of cycling, which has been a rather long term and intensive commitment, and effectively results in taking away someones purpose of life. So, if we can already agree on the fact that he did something wrong (he doped, whatever that means), why punish him like a criminal.
To draw an analogy, are dopers like any other professional - let's take medical practicioners/doctors - who are employed by an organization - i.e. a hospital - and who did something wrong, willingly and knowingly, in the way they operated and executed their profession - and as prescribed by medical regulations, some of which have turned into law - did something wrong, and perhaps illegal? The consequence for some doctors, who have to appear in selfregulating courts before a medical council, and assume responsibility for what they did, is that they can be ousted from their profession, for life. If they truly did something illegal, a prosecuter would even try them in a real court. Mind you, before one will be ousted from the medical profession, they must have done something seriously wrong
Or are dopers professionals who supposedly cheated, just like an employee, who tries to get ahead, overly ambitious maybe, but only works to advance his career? If there was a code that prevented people from brownnosing, and people were caught doing it, what would be the right thing to do?
The gradual convergence of sports regulations and real law is being tested soon I believe. It's rumoured that the lawyer who challenged the football/soccer transfer rules in Europe, better known as the Bosman arrest, is preparing a case to challenge some of the regulations that athletes have to obey to in order to stay remain in the profession as athlete, which are in conflict with basic human rights as set forth in the European Convention of Human Rights, or EU (trade)law. One of them would be a violation of the freedom to move. The whereabouts regulation is supposedly too strict to achieve the aims it was set up for, as it limits persons to move around freely. Perhaps even the presumption of innocence would be challenged...
In conclusion, in all the doping discussions, everyone seems to be content to discuss it on the terms as presented to us by the so called anti-doping industry. How is it possible that they set the standards and perimeters, and everyone seems to quietly/willingly accept it. Is it because so many vocal protagonists have an interest in an expanding anti-doping industry? *conspiracy alert* If they set the standards, globally, now, they start dictating the standards of many sports, and become, perhaps, even more powerful than the different associations that organize and regulate specific disciplines. Is that what they are doing by being tough on cyclists, trying to establish credibility - street rep in the sporting industry - so that they can be trusted to assume a bigger role in different disciplines. After all, all 'industries' have the tendency to grow, and make it in their interest to expand beyond their base constituency, while simultaneously vehemently defending their right to exist.
I might have phrased some issue incorrectly, used the wrong words, or intentionally taken it to the extreme. I hope however that it leads to a real discussion about doping...
What I have been missing on this forum is an intelligent discussion about doping. For one, how is it possible that no one ever tries to give a clear definition or even an understanding of the word 'doping'? Everyone who engages in conversations about doping and dopers i.e. the people who supposedly use 'something' to 'enhance there performance', either makes or denies accusations, spreads rumours or hearsay and pretends to know what the future of cycling holds.
When one goes to the WADA website, I would assume the first thing to encounter on their webpage would be a defintion of doping. I mean, it's their core business around which everything else they do, revolves. Their regulations to prevent people from doping, from whereabouts forms to random testing, strategies to expose dopers and decrease doping in the future, for f**** sake, they even offer workshops at schools to get kids involved in a discussion around doping. But when digs a little deeper, and you try to find some case law in which doping is defined - without a clear definition of what doping is one cannot come to a conviction - there is almost nothing. Doping is reduced to the Code. Whatever is listed in the Code as performance enhancing 'stuff' is considered doping, while consequently there is no clear definition of doping, and hence, to corroborate why that product is listed! Doping gets caught up in a circular argument.
-Doping is the Code.
-A is a substance listed in the Code, hence using A constitues a violation.
-Why is A a doping violation? Because it says so in the Code.
-The Code however, was already synonymous for the definition of doping, hence the logic is circular.
So just to tickle the mind a little
Commonly heard criteria to put some meat to the bones of doping, revolve around performance enhancement, protecting the health/well being of athletes and cheating.
1) Training, practice, exercise are performance enhancing as well. Should we therefore limit the number of hours athletes are allowed to train?
2) If one trains hard, really hard, and even goes on special altitude training camps to increase the amount of red blood cells, and one decides then to harvest some of that blood and store it for later, to inject it before or during an endurance event, why would that be doping. Is it autologous blood doping even when nothing is added to enrich blood? But if one trained to achieve those results, isn't it then just the ultimate form of tapering?
In comparison, the technology of bikes has progressed much from th 1900s, and enhanced the performance of athletes. Why would similar advancements in prepping/treating the human body not be allowed?
3) An article in a dutch newspaper, a year or two ago, dealt with the routine of QST riders during the TdF to take 76 pills per day. They were all supplements, to replenish low levels of about everything the body needs, from iron to zinc to vitamins etc etc etc. They were forced to take these supplements in pill-form, because the anti-doping industry had forbidden the use of syringes. 76*21=1596 pills in one TdF.
Now, I don't know if that - taking so many pills - is healthy for a human body. However, if it is necessary to take so many pills to stay healthy during one event, what does that say about the event itself with regard to the well being of athletes?
On a different note, when someone has supposedly a big heart (LA) or a huge lung capacity (MI), a high VO2max, a lighter weight, more slow or fast twitch muscles, we do not really consider competition between athletes as unfair. Although the genetic differences in terms of heart, lungs, base VO2max, body strucure/build, can be altered by physical exercise, they can only do so up to a certain point. Could voigt be as lightweight as Pantani, could Vansummeren ever actually compete with MI or LA? The answer is no. Why isn't that unfair, or why is it?
However, back to my main point and what connects it with the 1596 pills per TdF story, is this. An athlete is not allowed to become more competitive by injecting red blood cells in his body and to deliver more oxygen to his muscles, at which he has a natural/genetic disadvantage, while at the same time all athletes are allowed to add supplements to their diet to remain competitive for three weeks. But the ability to recover and stay competitive for a long period of time, is also partly determined genetically/naturaly. So why is it that people are allowed to take supplements, which somehow lessens the competitive advantage a person has at staying strong for a long time, but not to inject more red blood cells, to stay similarly competitive at which one has a natural (dis)advantage?
4) why would the use of cocaine be a doping violation. The effects of cocaine are known to be insufficient to boost the results of an endurance athlete. I.e. having cocaine at th estart of Milan San Remo doesn't really make you a faster sprinter 300k later.
5) How is it possible that doping agencies sponsor events, amongst others intermediate sprints in TdF stages. Why, of all organizations, do they want/need exposure? What does that say about their intentions, or their perceived impartiality.
Just on a side note, what is their level expertise if they can't even spell 'Stefan Schumacher' right and refer to him as 'Michael Schumacher'. Exposing dopers is like executing a death sentence. We all know that mistakes are being made everywhere, every time. If that's the case, why would people still consider a life long ban, which is basically the same as killing off a person's career, especially in the case of cycling, which has been a rather long term and intensive commitment, and effectively results in taking away someones purpose of life. So, if we can already agree on the fact that he did something wrong (he doped, whatever that means), why punish him like a criminal.
To draw an analogy, are dopers like any other professional - let's take medical practicioners/doctors - who are employed by an organization - i.e. a hospital - and who did something wrong, willingly and knowingly, in the way they operated and executed their profession - and as prescribed by medical regulations, some of which have turned into law - did something wrong, and perhaps illegal? The consequence for some doctors, who have to appear in selfregulating courts before a medical council, and assume responsibility for what they did, is that they can be ousted from their profession, for life. If they truly did something illegal, a prosecuter would even try them in a real court. Mind you, before one will be ousted from the medical profession, they must have done something seriously wrong
Or are dopers professionals who supposedly cheated, just like an employee, who tries to get ahead, overly ambitious maybe, but only works to advance his career? If there was a code that prevented people from brownnosing, and people were caught doing it, what would be the right thing to do?
The gradual convergence of sports regulations and real law is being tested soon I believe. It's rumoured that the lawyer who challenged the football/soccer transfer rules in Europe, better known as the Bosman arrest, is preparing a case to challenge some of the regulations that athletes have to obey to in order to stay remain in the profession as athlete, which are in conflict with basic human rights as set forth in the European Convention of Human Rights, or EU (trade)law. One of them would be a violation of the freedom to move. The whereabouts regulation is supposedly too strict to achieve the aims it was set up for, as it limits persons to move around freely. Perhaps even the presumption of innocence would be challenged...
In conclusion, in all the doping discussions, everyone seems to be content to discuss it on the terms as presented to us by the so called anti-doping industry. How is it possible that they set the standards and perimeters, and everyone seems to quietly/willingly accept it. Is it because so many vocal protagonists have an interest in an expanding anti-doping industry? *conspiracy alert* If they set the standards, globally, now, they start dictating the standards of many sports, and become, perhaps, even more powerful than the different associations that organize and regulate specific disciplines. Is that what they are doing by being tough on cyclists, trying to establish credibility - street rep in the sporting industry - so that they can be trusted to assume a bigger role in different disciplines. After all, all 'industries' have the tendency to grow, and make it in their interest to expand beyond their base constituency, while simultaneously vehemently defending their right to exist.
I might have phrased some issue incorrectly, used the wrong words, or intentionally taken it to the extreme. I hope however that it leads to a real discussion about doping...
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram