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

[flicker]

Cut the South Park Crap

Everybody knows that doping in cycling has been allowed for a long time.
Its time to wake up and smell the coffee. Don't ask and don't tell.

 

[rata de sentina]

Going straight to the "think of the children," strawman this time, huh? Impressive play.

I don't think that's the 'strawman' I think it's the 'slippery slope'.

 

[ludwig]

Huh...some funny posts on this thread. Running the gamut from "WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" to "everyone knows ethicists are morons"....

Knee-jerk reaction to doping in sport is what convinces cycling to stick to omerta. Because, guys, cyclists can't do without the dope and the science is not good enough to detect it. So they are going to dope. The question is simply whether they can do it somewhat out in the open, whether they have to lie about it, and/or whether they have access to all the medical attention needed. The only way it can be stopped is foolproof testing...or really radical measures like having every cyclist earn the same same salary and/or truly ejecting all the DSes and doctors who perpetuate the culture. Given the public mood on doping, it's understandable why a code of silence is the preferred option.

I think if we really love this sport than we have to take legalization arguments more seriously--Polish ought to be praised rather than castigated for having the sense to put it up for discussion. Do you guys really want to insist that these athletes have to lie and cheat to be successful at their profession? I suppose that in the big picture the 'example' to others is more important then maintaining one's honor. This is one of the strongest justifications for omerta--doping is necessary, but with omerta at least nobody has to be aware of it outside the profession. So both for the cyclists as well as for the knee-jerk crowd, omerta is honorable because it allows everyone to maintain their illusions and gives the teams and managers a certain plausible dependability.

There is a classic article on doping in cycling that emerged out of the Festina scandal by John Hoberman that is always worth revisiting...
http://www.mesomorphosis.com/articles/hoberman/tour-de-france-doping-scandal.htm

In it he considers whether cycling can carry on in "modernity", where no real compromise can be imagined on an issue like performance enhancement in sport. Hoberman concludes...

The sad thing about the Tour's sudden disgrace is that the ordeal it requires is, beyond a doubt, a venue for shared heroism. For as Hans Wilhelm Gäb pointed out, the solidarity of these drug-assisted riders expressed "the ethos of a group that in the last analysis becomes a conspiratorial community, not through doping, but through a shared adventure in a type of extreme sport. Even the riders who do not dope have up to now accepted the rules of this business. That is why they do not criticize other riders but rather sympathize with the ones who are thrown out." (25) While the ethical dangers of this kind of male-bonding are well known, its profound appeal cannot be denied. "Who still believes," one disillusioned sportswriter asked, "in the beautiful fairy tale about the heroic struggle against 4000 kilometers of highway?" As a matter of fact, the appeal of the heroic myth is much stronger than this credulous skeptic seems to think. For the surreal chaos of the 1998 Tour should not be mistaken for a permanent condition.

There is, in fact, a case to be made for quietly ignoring the virtually universal doping that goes on in this "extreme sport," an argument that accepts and even embraces the medically extreme and potentially fatal character of the ordeal itself. It is an argument that is (from its own perspective) properly contemptuous of medical humanitarianism and fastidious concerns about sportsmanship in the traditional (and here outmoded) sense of the term. This argument was boldly launched into the midst of the Tour madness by the German journalist, physician, and cycling fan Hans Halter, who presented it with the precisely correct doses of principled defiance and ironic pathos that this philosophy of "sport" requires. "No one can seriously expect," Halter wrote, "that these extreme athletes, tortured by tropical heat and freezing cold, by rain and storm, should renounce all of the palliatives that are available to them." (26) Indeed, no one can, for those who accept the ordeal must concede to the martyrs at least a measure of relief. What the Tour scandal tells us is that modern society does not even know how to begin to draw the line.

 

[buckwheat]

Huh...some funny posts on this thread. Running the gamut from "WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" to "everyone knows ethicists are morons"....

Knee-jerk reaction to doping in sport is what convinces cycling to stick to omerta. Because, guys, cyclists can't do without the dope and the science is not good enough to detect it. So they are going to dope. The question is simply whether they can do it somewhat out in the open, whether they have to lie about it, and/or whether they have access to all the medical attention needed. The only way it can be stopped is foolproof testing...or really radical measures like having every cyclist earn the same same salary and/or truly ejecting all the DSes and doctors who perpetuate the culture. Given the public mood on doping, it's understandable why a code of silence is the preferred option.

I think if we really love this sport than we have to take legalization arguments more seriously--Polish ought to be praised rather than castigated for having the sense to put it up for discussion. Do you guys really want to insist that these athletes have to lie and cheat to be successful at their profession? I suppose that in the big picture the 'example' to others is more important then maintaining one's honor. This is one of the strongest justifications for omerta--doping is necessary, but with omerta at least nobody has to be aware of it outside the profession. So both for the cyclists as well as for the knee-jerk crowd, omerta is honorable because it allows everyone to maintain their illusions and gives the teams and managers a certain plausible dependability.

There is a classic article on doping in cycling that emerged out of the Festina scandal by John Hoberman that is always worth revisiting...
http://www.mesomorphosis.com/articles/hoberman/tour-de-france-doping-scandal.htm

In it he considers whether cycling can carry on in "modernity", where no real compromise can be imagined on an issue like performance enhancement in sport. Hoberman concludes...

The sad thing about the Tour's sudden disgrace is that the ordeal it requires is, beyond a doubt, a venue for shared heroism. For as Hans Wilhelm Gäb pointed out, the solidarity of these drug-assisted riders expressed "the ethos of a group that in the last analysis becomes a conspiratorial community, not through doping, but through a shared adventure in a type of extreme sport. Even the riders who do not dope have up to now accepted the rules of this business. That is why they do not criticize other riders but rather sympathize with the ones who are thrown out." (25) While the ethical dangers of this kind of male-bonding are well known, its profound appeal cannot be denied. "Who still believes," one disillusioned sportswriter asked, "in the beautiful fairy tale about the heroic struggle against 4000 kilometers of highway?" As a matter of fact, the appeal of the heroic myth is much stronger than this credulous skeptic seems to think. For the surreal chaos of the 1998 Tour should not be mistaken for a permanent condition.

There is, in fact, a case to be made for quietly ignoring the virtually universal doping that goes on in this "extreme sport," an argument that accepts and even embraces the medically extreme and potentially fatal character of the ordeal itself. It is an argument that is (from its own perspective) properly contemptuous of medical humanitarianism and fastidious concerns about sportsmanship in the traditional (and here outmoded) sense of the term. This argument was boldly launched into the midst of the Tour madness by the German journalist, physician, and cycling fan Hans Halter, who presented it with the precisely correct doses of principled defiance and ironic pathos that this philosophy of "sport" requires. "No one can seriously expect," Halter wrote, "that these extreme athletes, tortured by tropical heat and freezing cold, by rain and storm, should renounce all of the palliatives that are available to them." (26) Indeed, no one can, for those who accept the ordeal must concede to the martyrs at least a measure of relief. What the Tour scandal tells us is that modern society does not even know how to begin to draw the line.

Huh?

Again

The guy is an idiot.

 

[Hugh Januss]

What major Sport doped as profusely as Cycling 1900 - 1960's?
Any sport even close?

What sport dopes as profusely as cycling now?

Being proud of being the "first to introduce doping controls"?
C'mon.

You are just too stupid for words. The question you want to be asking is "what other sport has ever tried to uncover any of the doping in it's past as much as cycling?"
If you think baseball players and boxers and weightlifters and runners and football players (both kinds) etc were not doing everything that cyclists were doing at every point in time then I wonder how you are able to brush your own teeth.
Some of those athletes always made more money than cyclists. You don't think they were up on the latest advancements?
It is most certainly not time to allow doping in cycling for the simple reason that we now have at our disposal the most effective and most dangerous performance enhancers ever.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

The classic false dilemma. This isn't a cut and dry either/or some are making it to be. Where either we find a way to somewhat safely allow it, or they'll just keep doing it anyway. To me, this is tantamount to allowing "fair" slavery.

Ludwig says it in his posts, he just isn't thorough, and misses a point. First, you could socialize all the earnings, and people would still dope, in order to gain glory. But he's right in that there are radical measures that can, and should be taken. We've talked about them before. Harsher penalties, infiltrating doping circles with moles who gather covert information, not allowing anyone associated with doping in any way associated with the sport who refuses to give known information, and opening up the leeway for testing, which right now is heavily weighted in favor of the athletes. Many more ideas worth discussing - we discuss them all the time.

This also has the problem as noted, that it means it will be impossible to compete clean. If you wish to compete clean, sorry, you have to dope. Is that really a sport you're interested in?

There's another big ethical breach here, in that these drugs are designed and manufactured for sick people who truly need them. Do we really want companies like Amgen, Roche, Biopure, etc. in business for supplying doping to athletes, legally, as a primary reason for their research?

Additionally, there truly is no safe doping, because there are no thorough long-term trials on doping use in healthy young people. As mentioned, these drugs are designed for the infirm, sick people, cancer patients, etc. who truly need it. What are the long-term ramifications of doping with these products? No one knows. Joe Papp has studied himself about as much as anyone, and he doesn't have anything positive to say about doping, and has posted some alarming numbers right on here on these boards.

Finally, before we allow everyone to dope, we need to tell the families of the following riders that we think doping is okay: Frank Vandenbroucke, Marco Pantani, Jose Maria Jiminez, Valentino Fois, Jobie Dajka, Luca Gelfi, Thirey Claveyrolat, Vincente Lopez-Carril, Marc de Meyer, Bert Oosterbosch, Joachim Halopczok, Paul Haghedooren, Connie Meije, etc. (granted, not all of these people directly died due to doping, but common reasoning would lend one to deduce this would be a primary reason for their tragic fate).

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What major Sport doped as profusely as Cycling 1900 - 1960's?
Any sport even close?

What sport dopes as profusely as cycling now?

Being proud of being the "first to introduce doping controls"?
C'mon.

Where did I say anything about being 'proud' that cycling was first to introduce doping controls??
I was responding to your incorrect original statement:

The Tour de France is the only Major Sporting Event that HAS allowed doping for most of its History - brutal times for sure 1903 through the 1960's...

Cyclists from the earliest days have been using illegal substances and cyclists were the willing 'lab rats' of many of the new doping procedures that are used today - but a lot of other sports at their top level are equally as involved in PED abuse.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

What the Tour scandal tells us is that modern society does not even know how to begin to draw the line.[/i]

Interesting post. Even Savulescu accepts that there needs to be a line drawn, with his insistence on safe limits.

Drawing the line on the grounds of athlete health has some appeal. But his attitude that safe new pharmaceutical products will be developed is naive. The whole ethical basis for testing new drugs is that there is a potential health advantage which outweighs the risks. For a supremely healthy athlete, what health advantage could outweigh the health risks?

 

[Mellow Velo]

Allowing doping in sport essentially outlaws clean competition. Obviously not in the legal sense, but from a practical standpoint... If this 'scholar' knows anything about ethics, then he knows about equity, and there is nothing equitable about a sport in which those who hold higher ethical attachment to sport do not have a level playing field on which to participate.

You should look no further than this.
It is a sick world that proposes to reward cheating at the expense of honesty.
Only a complete fool could miss the fact that natural athletic ability would become secondary to the ability to respond to dope.
As for ridiculing the idea that we would be damaging the long term health of young sportspersons, not to mention corrupting moral and social beliefs, is quite staggeringly perverted.

I have a young family member, competing at the very highest level of this sport, but were they faced with having to dope to win an Olympic gold, or another rainbow jersey, I would plead with them to get out of the sport and never look back.

Polish's thread is really an admission that his hero cheats, so he seeks to justify his actions. Nothing more and should be treated as such.
No point in holding an immoral, theoretical debate about rules that are only going to get stiffer, not go away.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Interesting post. Even Savulescu accepts that there needs to be a line drawn, with his insistence on safe limits.

The cheats will always cheat. Set limits and they will get broken. (witness the bio passport readings)
Remove the limits altogether and it become all about money and technological advances.
San Remo 2001. Dario Frigo caught with a PED that was still in the clinical testing phase. very healthy.

Only delluded nuts might advocate this path of the least form of resistance.

 

[WD-40.]

It does seem without doubt that the VAST majority of those commenting on issues of doping/doping produce do not have the slightest idea if what they are talking about. Joe Public has NO business preaching on about doping issues.

Not that I know everything either but do have a good knowledge of endocrinology, complex health issues and anti-ageing medicine which isn't a million miles from doping in endurance sports as things are today. ie, the human body isn't designed to live over 35-40 years old as evolution never quite got that far and it can be argued that it is not natural for humans to be living any longer than this. What could be considered "doping" (Human growth hormone, testosterone, DHEA, possibly EPO) can greatly improve the health of people as they age AND what few people seem to want to believe is that pro road cyclists get one hell of a beating that takes quite a toll on their bodies. I have no doubt that it is healthier to be "doping" under times of extreme pressure than it is to be clean. Obviously depending on what the doping methods are.

I am not by any means saying that all doping is safe or a good idea but to say that it is always negative to the athletes health is just not true.

Its not worth losing the great sport we have just to doping when the athletes respect the situation.

The sad thing about the Tour's sudden disgrace is that the ordeal it requires is, beyond a doubt, a venue for shared heroism. For as Hans Wilhelm Gäb pointed out, the solidarity of these drug-assisted riders expressed "the ethos of a group that in the last analysis becomes a conspiratorial community, not through doping, but through a shared adventure in a type of extreme sport. Even the riders who do not dope have up to now accepted the rules of this business. That is why they do not criticize other riders but rather sympathize with the ones who are thrown out." (25) While the ethical dangers of this kind of male-bonding are well known, its profound appeal cannot be denied. "Who still believes," one disillusioned sportswriter asked, "in the beautiful fairy tale about the heroic struggle against 4000 kilometers of highway?" As a matter of fact, the appeal of the heroic myth is much stronger than this credulous skeptic seems to think. For the surreal chaos of the 1998 Tour should not be mistaken for a permanent condition.
[/i]

I absolutely agree with what is is bold and have the same respect for athletes who dope as I do for the clean ones. On the whole I probably appreciate the efforts of the dopers more, not because they dope but because the hardest working athletes are more likely to be doping.

 

[python]

<.> the human body isn't designed to live over 35-40 years old as evolution never quite got that far and it can be argued that it is not natural for humans to be living any longer than this.

not passing any judgment (yet) but would you be so kind and produce some supporting evidence or biological studies/observations supporting the above statement.

<..> pro road cyclists get one hell of a beating that takes quite a toll on their bodies. I have no doubt that it is healthier to be "doping" under times of extreme pressure than it is to be clean.

again, not passing a judgment but your pov is essentially what fuentes advocates as the basis for his services. except we know he was a gynecologist turned hematologist. I hope your endocrinology knowledge is applied in the field you claim.

 

[sida-mot]

Just a stupid article some idiot wrote to get a few minutes in the spotlight.

If you are not in it to compete, to measure yourself with the best, then you have no business being in any sports.

There is nothing wrong with expecting a higher morale from athletes. It comes with the job. Certain professions require certain additional "rules". A policeman can't probably have my "liberal" view on where I can park or what I should be allowed to download, a priest probably don't share my thoughts on casual sex, etc. As a sportsman you should respect sportsmanship.

Yes there is a doping problem in cycling and no the answer is not to legalize. Take the fight, let other sports hide the problem, they will have to deal with it eventually. It is wrong to dope, medically and ethically. The "everyone else does it" argument doesn't hold any water. We don't let our kids get away with that BS so why should adults do?

 

[Shropshire Lad]

Gslater & Mellow Velo have put it perfectly in a nutshell :

gslater:
"Allowing doping in sport essentially outlaws clean competition. Obviously not in the legal sense, but from a practical standpoint... If this 'scholar' knows anything about ethics, then he knows about equity, and there is nothing equitable about a sport in which those who hold higher ethical attachment to sport do not have a level playing field on which to participate."


Mellow Velo:
"It is a sick world that proposes to reward cheating at the expense of honesty."

This malaise impacts us all much more widely than 'the use of performance-enhancing drugs in *******' (Enter practically any sport in the space provided). It is about society's obligation, in every arena of endeavour, to ensure fairness to all, so that each participant/candidate/entrant can always be 100% confident that his/her honest efforts and talent will never be overtaken and frustrated by those of lesser abilities who resort to cheating.

In professional cycling's middle years, the unspoken acceptance of the drug culture was undoubtedly self-procreating. An honest and talented athlete, constantly beaten to the laurels by palpably lesser mortals boosted by mysterious powders, could either leave the sport or join them. Unless he didn't care about getting a contract next year, and being able to pay his mortgage, that is.

For me it is clear; we absolutely must establish a sporting (and every other) environment where the natural cream rises to the top, and extinguish the lingering notion that cheating can sometimes work instead.

 

[Anonymous]

To be fair, that wasn't done because they wanted to allow people to dope to a certain level (even if that's what resulted), but they had to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

Cheers
Greg Johnson

And the bio passport wasn't supposed to set the limits within which a cyclist could dope, but....

 

[buckwheat]

Or we could

The classic false dilemma. This isn't a cut and dry either/or some are making it to be. Where either we find a way to somewhat safely allow it, or they'll just keep doing it anyway. To me, this is tantamount to allowing "fair" slavery.

Ludwig says it in his posts, he just isn't thorough, and misses a point. First, you could socialize all the earnings, and people would still dope, in order to gain glory. But he's right in that there are radical measures that can, and should be taken. We've talked about them before. Harsher penalties, infiltrating doping circles with moles who gather covert information, not allowing anyone associated with doping in any way associated with the sport who refuses to give known information, and opening up the leeway for testing, which right now is heavily weighted in favor of the athletes. Many more ideas worth discussing - we discuss them all the time.

This also has the problem as noted, that it means it will be impossible to compete clean. If you wish to compete clean, sorry, you have to dope. Is that really a sport you're interested in?

There's another big ethical breach here, in that these drugs are designed and manufactured for sick people who truly need them. Do we really want companies like Amgen, Roche, Biopure, etc. in business for supplying doping to athletes, legally, as a primary reason for their research?

Additionally, there truly is no safe doping, because there are no thorough long-term trials on doping use in healthy young people. As mentioned, these drugs are designed for the infirm, sick people, cancer patients, etc. who truly need it. What are the long-term ramifications of doping with these products? No one knows. Joe Papp has studied himself about as much as anyone, and he doesn't have anything positive to say about doping, and has posted some alarming numbers right on here on these boards.

Finally, before we allow everyone to dope, we need to tell the families of the following riders that we think doping is okay: Frank Vandenbroucke, Marco Pantani, Jose Maria Jiminez, Valentino Fois, Jobie Dajka, Luca Gelfi, Thirey Claveyrolat, Vincente Lopez-Carril, Marc de Meyer, Bert Oosterbosch, Joachim Halopczok, Paul Haghedooren, Connie Meije, etc. (granted, not all of these people directly died due to doping, but common reasoning would lend one to deduce this would be a primary reason for their tragic fate).

get behind, and have the backs of people like LeMond who are risking an awful lot to expose doping. Why not? If Armstrong takes a fall (which he should) and is disgraced it will have a gigantic chilling effect on the cheats.

One of the problems is that we get people like Wiggins who welcome Pharmstrong back to the sport with open arms and all of these other dopes(the "fans") who worship at the altar of Pharmstrong.

It's a societal problem, which is bad enough, but then you have all of the weak pieces of $hit who are attacking LeMond for being abnormally strong.

Ah, I guess it's always been that way.

 

[bianchigirl]

No one knows the long term risks of abusing EPO but some of the news that came out of the old East Germany wasn't good http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4341045.stm

However, MV is dead right - this is simply Polish's way of admitting Armstrong's guilt

 

[ludwig]

Ludwig says it in his posts, he just isn't thorough, and misses a point. First, you could socialize all the earnings, and people would still dope, in order to gain glory. But he's right in that there are radical measures that can, and should be taken. We've talked about them before. Harsher penalties, infiltrating doping circles with moles who gather covert information, not allowing anyone associated with doping in any way associated with the sport who refuses to give known information, and opening up the leeway for testing, which right now is heavily weighted in favor of the athletes. Many more ideas worth discussing - we discuss them all the time.

Good post.... I'm not really for legalizing doping, I simply loathe the knee-jerk ignorance that refuses to even consider it. I can see that the cons of legalization exceed the pros. However, I will continue to follow cycling even if I see no hope for its redemption with regard to doping. So I feel these athletes should be able to lead honorable lives and not be labeled as criminals. The hypocrisy of the omerta compromise sullies the clarity and beauty of this sport....so I feel that a decision ought to be made to either ban or tolerate; rather than the PR facade we currently have.

As long as I've been following cycling, all of the solutions you mention above have been rejected by cyclists and cycling. Pro cycling has made its position clear--they are sticking with the same leadership come hell or high water. This suggests that no one in cycling believes that the sport is possible without PEDs. Some within cycling may, like us, dream of a future where fool-proof testing allows clean(er) athletes to compete. But it isn't a tangible possibility. Given these conditions, I think it is prudent to reassess one's assumptions and consider whether there isn't a better way of doing things.

Finally, before we allow everyone to dope, we need to tell the families of the following riders that we think doping is okay: Frank Vandenbroucke, Marco Pantani, Jose Maria Jiminez, Valentino Fois, Jobie Dajka, Luca Gelfi, Thirey Claveyrolat, Vincente Lopez-Carril, Marc de Meyer, Bert Oosterbosch, Joachim Halopczok, Paul Haghedooren, Connie Meije, etc. (granted, not all of these people directly died due to doping, but common reasoning would lend one to deduce this would be a primary reason for their tragic fate).

But if the medicine was mainstream, would there really be as many fatalities? Would PED use and recreational drug use go hand in hand? I'm just throwing this stuff out there--I don't know the answer. But it seems to me that illegality and risk/danger tend to flock together.

 

[bianchigirl]

The greatest scandal in the sport was the Festina Affair - yet Festina had a properly organised team wide doping programme which was administered by doctors with riders undergoing health checks. Yet Festina - and Virenque - remain a byword for dirty, rotten dopers. Sorry, but the sport can't have it all ways. And whilst I accept that some of the decision on what are and aren't banned substances (the on again, off again, on again status of caffeine, for example) are purely arbitrary do we really - cycnics and ostriches alike - want to see the sport get any more of a bad rap? You think sponsors will stick around to be associated with the sport that said 'cheating is good'? All sponsors are buying into a little of the Corinthian ideal and the myth that sport is clean and noble - take that away and the big money will be out of there quicker than a very quick thing.

 

[petethedrummer]

Cycling should be split into two divisions.

One with strict doping controls and the other where they can go crazy. Fans can follow which ever they prefer and the cyclists can join their preferred option too.

 

[red_flanders]

Good post.... I'm not really for legalizing doping, I simply loathe the knee-jerk ignorance that refuses to even consider it.

Why do you consider it knee-jerk? It's not like this is a new idea, and many people have gone (rather quickly) though investigating this scenario before, and there is simply no useful practical reality to it. Nor is moral relativism on this scale desirable for most people. Nor is "throwing up your hands" because a problem is difficult to impossible to solve.

Sometimes it doesn't take long to figure it out. Just because people don't elaborate on the arguments against the capitulation approach doesn't mean it's not a considered opinion. This approach has been discussed for decades now. It's a bad idea.

 

[petethedrummer]

All sponsors are buying into a little of the Corinthian ideal and the myth that sport is clean and noble

I dunno, I think they are buying advertisement space and associations with popular superstars.

 

[poupou]

Cycling should be split into two divisions.

One with strict doping controls and the other where they can go crazy. Fans can follow which ever they prefer and the cyclists can join their preferred option too.

But everyone would say he is clean... isn't it?

 

[SpeedWay]

Just a stupid article some idiot wrote to get a few minutes in the spotlight.

Stupid articles appeal to stupid people. I can name at least one site where this "idiot" will get a lot more than a few minutes in the proverbial spotlight.

 

[petethedrummer]

But everyone would say he is clean... isn't it?

I suppose I didn't think it through. At least in the clean division they couldn't b!tch and moan about the testers. If they do they get sent to the free-for-all.