"It is time to allow doping at Tour de France"/Julian Savulescu thread

[MarkvW]

This libertarian-sounding argument keeps coming up, usually from observers who know nothing about the sport beyond the Tour de France (and maybe the Olympic games), or recreational riders who have never competed and have little contact with those who have. They seem to have no patience for the process of fighting doping, so they propose legalization in order to make it go away.

Among my acquaintances and friends, competitors and ex-racers are invariably against doping. They understand how it corrupts competition, that it is dangerous, and that it would be impossible to conduct ethical youth and amateur development programs with legalized doping at the top levels.

For many spectators sport is just entertainment. For those who have participated, though, in any sport and at any level, it is a serious and honorable endeavor. For those who are impatient with doping controversies I'd like to say shut up and enjoy the story, you aren't paying for it anyway.

I guess doping needs to be """""""illegal""""""" so that more young men can be seduced into joining the dope-saturated professional ranks (like Zabriskie, for example). That argument, to me, just reinforces the in-your-face hypocrisy of the "serious and honorable" "sport" of professional cycling. That argument is ridiculous to me.

The only argument that makes sense to me is that we MUST regulate professional cyclists because they are dishonorable people who will literally dope themselves to death to win unless they are carefully regulated. Many of them are literally too stupid to live without adult supervision.

The bottom line is that I agree with you. Doping must be "illegal."

 

[Ferminal]

I really don't have an answer to this problem and giving it a little thought I too saw the following as the best of an unsatisfactory bunch of options.

The bottom line is that I agree with you. Doping must be "illegal."

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Thought provoking paper written by Julian Savulescu, a Professor of Practical Ethics at the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University:

http://www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/Media/telegraph_dopingtourdefranceJuly07.pdf

"The use of drugs to accelerate recovery and to enhance the expression of human ability and will are a part of the spirit of sport. Some drugs, such as modest use of EPO or growth hormone, can enhance the expression of physical excellence in sport. The challenge is to understand the spirit of each sport, and which drugs are consistent with this. But performanceenhancement per se is not against the spirit of sport; it is the spirit of sport. To choose to be better is to be human.

What is ruining sport is cheating. But cheating can be reduced by changing the rules.
Cheating can be better reduced by allowing drugs rather than banning them."

This is the most illogical and absurd thing I have ever heard about sport. Drugs do not enhance sport, they unfairly enhance performance giving drug users an unfair advantage over competitors. To chose to be better by natural means is the essence of sport. This guy is spouting nonsense.

 

[martinvickers]

I really don't know why we need give Savelescu the time of day.

Let's be clear for starters; he's basically a believer in eugenics. Read his stuff on IVF and stem cells; he's a hardcore eugencist of the type most thought permantly discredited in the 1940's.

More to the point, he may understand medicine. He doesn't understand sport. Not even slightly.

The point of sport is never some objective measure of artificial excellence. The point, the only point really, is competition, the test of one human v another.

Or put it another way. If we allow random chemical enhancement, ethically we may as well allow random physical enhancement. I.e. an engine on a bicycle. After all humans have "advanced" way beyond walking and running.

If the test, as Savelsecu deems it is optimising human capacity, well the optimised human on the Alpe is one who's driving a very fast car...much faster than twits trying to cycle.

The whole argument is a mockery of sport by a radical eugenecist pushing that agenda. We'd be as quick taking ethical instruction from Goebels.

 

[blackcat]

I guess doping needs to be """""""illegal""""""" so that more young men can be seduced into joining the dope-saturated professional ranks (like Zabriskie, for example). That argument, to me, just reinforces the in-your-face hypocrisy of the "serious and honorable" "sport" of professional cycling. That argument is ridiculous to me.

The only argument that makes sense to me is that we MUST regulate professional cyclists because they are dishonorable people who will literally dope themselves to death to win unless they are carefully regulated. Many of them are literally too stupid to live without adult supervision.

The bottom line is that I agree with you. Doping must be "illegal."

if you believe Dave Z.

I am more inclined to believe Matt Decanio's anecdote on the hypodermics spilling out of his bag. In the refrain of david hume on religion, it is a more plausible lesser miracle to believe.

 

[blackcat]

blackcat's mancrush was on Hardtalk this week apparently (via @ringsau).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01m5rg5

I'm sure you can find the full episode if you want (or iPlayer).

I have disagree with Savelscu on some elements of his thesis. He pertains to know what talents and abilities to be measured, but it does not come down as much less or more than arbitrary.

He is fine for epo, and obviously sees the invisible talent of O2 carrying capacity as inconsequential, not not a legit discreet talent.

He is correct in the top 20 will have neutralised that thru winning with performance enhancement techniques for July (tour).

So he does not want beta blockers in darts or chess, or ampetamines or diazapams in combat sport.

Seems most of the peds he wants outlawed, are just the peds the athletes pursue for enhancement. except epo.

 

[blackcat]

The only argument that makes sense to me is that we MUST regulate professional cyclists because they are dishonorable people who will literally dope themselves to death to win unless they are carefully regulated. Many of them are literally too stupid to live without adult supervision.

The bottom line is that I agree with you. Doping must be "illegal."

I only agree with anti-doping insofar as it creates a handcuff on riders from going alien. The system as it is spruiked, tells that testing exists, therefore, athletes not doping. but this is not the case as we have first recognised in cycling.

I dont agree with anti-doping to scapegoat landis, ricco, vino. and shock horror, even armstrong.

 

[martinvickers]

I only agree with anti-doping insofar as it creates a handcuff on riders from going alien. The system as it is spruiked, tells that testing exists, therefore, athletes not doping. but this is not the case as we have first recognised in cycling.

I dont agree with anti-doping to scapegoat landis, ricco, vino. and shock horror, even armstrong.

A failure to reach perfection is no argument for giving up. We never stop all crime - we don't therefore abolish the police.

And, with the best will in the world, there's one surefire way to avoif being a scapegoat.

Don't dope in the first place.

 

[ustabe]

I guess doping needs to be """""""illegal""""""" so that more young men can be seduced into joining the dope-saturated professional ranks (like Zabriskie, for example). That argument, to me, just reinforces the in-your-face hypocrisy of the "serious and honorable" "sport" of professional cycling. That argument is ridiculous to me.

No, young men are not "seduced" into the sport. Young men (and women) take up the sport for various personal reasons that are for the most part honorable. Some get to the top and some remain amateurs until other interests take over. But nobody enters the sport with the intention of cheating to get to the top.

Cheating happens when the pressure to get to the top exceeds the pressure to honor one's own best intentions. Best intentions are what must be honored by keeping doping illegal.

 

[MarkvW]

No, young men are not "seduced" into the sport. Young men (and women) take up the sport for various personal reasons that are for the most part honorable. Some get to the top and some remain amateurs until other interests take over. But nobody enters the sport with the intention of cheating to get to the top.

Cheating happens when the pressure to get to the top exceeds the pressure to honor one's own best intentions. Best intentions are what must be honored by keeping doping illegal.

Aspiring to be a cyclist is a good thing. Aspiring to be a professional cyclist, not so much.

 

[ustabe]

Aspiring to be a cyclist is a good thing. Aspiring to be a professional cyclist, not so much.

That's a sweeping judgement I'm having a little trouble with.

Let's leave it at that. At least we agree that doping should be illegal.