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

[frenchfry]

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.

Even though the Festina scandal remains the "reference" in terms of organised team doping, I was more shocked by the t-mobile affair. Imagine that at the same time their spokesman was in front of the TV cameras explaining how Ullrich was doping on his own, the rest of the team was being transported to Freiburg for their blood injections. I still can't get over that.

 

[Glaucon]

WTF? Only 9 of 48 posts are ad hominems or just name-calling?! That's well shy of the 33% minimum threshold for personal attacks on discussion boards. Perhaps extra credit should be given for wholesale attacks on academics in general and ethicists in particular? Even so, we're all going to have to do our part to lower the quality of discussion. Remember: when you disagree with an author's conclusions, don't scrutinize his reasons or offer reasoned counter-arguments, just call him a name or question his motives ("idiot" and "douche" are serviceable; only advanced players should strive for something as stylish as "puffed up attention-seeking blowfish").

And if you do decide to go beyond name-calling, by all means make sure your counter-arguments fail to show any sensitivity for obviously relevant distinctions (e.g., between adults and children, between conduct harmful to others and conduct harmful to self, etc.).

Carry on!

 

[Polish]

Back-Room Doping Clinics

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.

If I recall correctly, no Festina riders died. Suffered mental damage , sure.

Haven't MOST Doping Deaths in Cycling happened AFTER doping controls were put in place?

If you start to view doping controls and bio-passports as a way to protect the riders health instead of a means to throw them in jail - the riders would be healthier both physically and mentally.

But I must admit that even though I am doping Pro-Choice, I still wish the dopers would not dope

 

[flicker]

Hope

I see the anti-doping is going to hopefully be successful. Anyone who thinks it is OK and should be legal I beg to differ.
However as I said before we could have the top-fueler class.
That could be DeLucca.Rebellien,Gerlsteiner,Vino and compatriots,Valverde, Saunier Duval resurrected etc.
I must say the top-fuelers would be entertaining.
Also about Dr. Ferrari, if he is everything that I heard about him he is pretty darned good eh? Has any of his clients dropped dead, gotten cancer,or had serious health issues.
Basiclly the dopers need to race seperately in their own catagory.

 

[Race Radio]

Haven't MOST Doping Deaths in Cycling happened AFTER doping controls were put in place?

Really? There were doping controls for EPO in the early 90's? There was testing for Amphetamine in 1967 when Simpson died?

 

[Race Radio]

Also about Dr. Ferrari, if he is everything that I heard about him he is pretty darned good eh? Has any of his clients dropped dead, gotten cancer,or had serious health issues.

I can think of one

 

[Anonymous]

WTF? Only 9 of 48 posts are ad hominems or just name-calling?! That's well shy of the 33% minimum threshold for personal attacks on discussion boards. Perhaps extra credit should be given for wholesale attacks on academics in general and ethicists in particular? Even so, we're all going to have to do our part to lower the quality of discussion. Remember: when you disagree with an author's conclusions, don't scrutinize his reasons or offer reasoned counter-arguments, just call him a name or question his motives ("idiot" and "douche" are serviceable; only advanced players should strive for something as stylish as "puffed up attention-seeking blowfish").

And if you do decide to go beyond name-calling, by all means make sure your counter-arguments fail to show any sensitivity for obviously relevant distinctions (e.g., between adults and children, between conduct harmful to others and conduct harmful to self, etc.).

Carry on!

And by all means, make sure when you point out the foibles of other posters, you never acknowledge the irony of your post. Its from the handbook.

 

[petethedrummer]

Haven't MOST Doping Deaths in Cycling happened AFTER doping controls were put in place?

So what are you suggesting? That its safer to allow athletes to dope with impunity?

 

[Mellow Velo]

Haven't MOST Doping Deaths in Cycling happened AFTER doping controls were put in place?

(

Off the top of my head, I'd suggest most doping deaths have occurred out of competiton.
So where that leaves legalisation and careful monitoring, I'm not sure.

Forgetting the fact that any individual sport going down this line would become a pariah; outcast from the sporting world and completely banned in virtually every civilised country, the cost of such a scheme would drive the sport into oblivion.

Many of us have debated this topic, on other forums, ad infinitum.
The usual conclusion is that any supporting arguments generated, are more suited to a university thesis, or a paper, such as the one that started this thread.

 

[Polish]

Doping Deaths

Really? There were doping controls for EPO in the early 90's? There was testing for Amphetamine in 1967 when Simpson died?

Doping was allowed at the Tour de France from its inception (1903?) until the doping controls were put in place during the 1960's. Seems most doping deaths have occured since the 1960's.

Tom Simpson died when it was illegal to use barbituates - he could not get them legally from a Doctor I imagine?

During Coppi's time it was legal to use them, but he died from Malaria

 

[BikeCentric]

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.

Ludwig, here is something for you consider: the sport existed for approximately 80 years prior to the introduction of blood boosting drugs (EPO, Actovegin, etc.) and "serious" recovery drugs such as HGH and Steroids. In the olden days the riders also had much longer stages.

The reason I highlight this is because those aforementioned drugs (and more broadly, types of drugs) have an absolutely huge effect on performance and recovery. They alone have changed the sport dramatically in the so-called "modern era." So I don't think the argument that the sport is not possible without PED's holds any water given that the PED's in existance for the first 80 years of the sport were close to useless on a relative basis when compared to the far more powerful drugs available today.

 

[BikeCentric]

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.

And Speedway shows up again with yet another drive-by insult directed at the entire discussion board.

To the Moderators: if you look at this guys posting history you will see that every single one of his 100 useless posts is exactly the same: just a one-sentance insult at the entire discussion board. He should be banned.

 

[flicker]

Cance patient

If you can prove that the photo of the cancer patient pictured in your blog was caused by Dr. Ferrari please show proof.
I am tired about the people who snivelle about Lance Armstrong.
I would use EPO or transfussion blood for myself if it were a medical condition.
I and you are responsable for ourselves only.
Please remember cycling is an entertainment.

 

[Race Radio]

Doping was allowed at the Tour de France from its inception (1903?) until the doping controls were put in place during the 1960's. Seems most doping deaths have occured since the 1960's.

Tom Simpson died when it was illegal to use barbituates - he could not get them legally from a Doctor I imagine?

During Coppi's time it was legal to use them, but he died from Malaria

You did not answer my question

 

[Race Radio]

If you can prove that the photo of the cancer patient pictured in your blog was caused by Dr. Ferrari please show proof.
I am tired about the people who snivelle about Lance Armstrong.
I would use EPO or transfussion blood for myself if it were a medical condition.
I and you are responsable for ourselves only.
Please remember cycling is an entertainment.

You asked

Also about Dr. Ferrari, if he is everything that I heard about him he is pretty darned good eh? Has any of his clients dropped dead, gotten cancer,or had serious health issues.

And I gave you an example. That is a picture of Armstrong. You can also add Pantani, another Ferrari customer who abused EPO and testosterone to such an extent that his body could not produce it naturally.

Hard to ignore that 4 of Armstrong's teammates who were doped by Charmichel on the U23 squad developed health issues that all have relation to Cortisone use. Also hard to ignore that Armstrong admitted using HGH, Cortisone, and Testosterone. These are all powerful cellular multipliers. To pretend that these substances could not excellerate the spread of cancer, as happened in Armstrong's case, is myopic.

 

[buckwheat]

Even though the Festina scandal remains the "reference" in terms of organised team doping, I was more shocked by the t-mobile affair. Imagine that at the same time their spokesman was in front of the TV cameras explaining how Ullrich was doping on his own, the rest of the team was being transported to Freiburg for their blood injections. I still can't get over that.

But you gotta admit that Klodi is a real professional team player. That's why he's appreciatiated so much by the Hog and Pharmstrong.

 

[buckwheat]

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.

Oh exactly, plus about a million. Not that the issue of stopping doping for many varied reasons is such a dilemma to the sentient among us.

 

[Polish]

You did not answer my question

Yes, the doping controls that were in place at the time of Simpson's death were ineffective.

Yes, the doping controls that were in place in the late 90's were ineffective.

Yes, the doping controls that are now in place are ineffective.

Yes, the doping controls 10 years from now will be ineffective.

Yes, more rider's will probably die due to illegal back-room doping clinics

 

[flicker]

Sorry, I didn't know that Armstrong has admitted to using the substances you mentioned. Did he say if he used those substances to enhance his performances?
When it comes to doping Pantani takes the cake. Speaking with my friends who raced in US and Europe Pantani was basicly not the greatest rider unless he was doping. I believe he used many substances at once. Pantani an example of a top-fueler. The horse trainers do that to their race horses.
Pantani also was a cocaine user which they say makes you crazy. Funny thing about Pantani is the coke didn't kill him he had a heart condition no?
Frankie and Jonathon have bad blood with Armstrong and I could see why they would want to implicate Lance whether true or false.
The Postal riders took enhancements on their own accord no?
From what I understand about European pro riders is that they are rough and wild....Johann could have had the pistol at their temple during the doping sessions saying go go go go.
I wasn't there but like I said I am responsible for me. I hope those pro cyclists are responsible and honest.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Once again, Flicker brings down the curtain on reasoned debate with his myopic, xenophobic bullshit.
Time to raise the curtain on another Lancecentric, head up the ass session.

 

[Digger]

Sorry, I didn't know that Armstrong has admitted to using the substances you mentioned. Did he say if he used those substances to enhance his performances?
When it comes to doping Pantani takes the cake. Speaking with my friends who raced in US and Europe Pantani was basicly not the greatest rider unless he was doping. I believe he used many substances at once. Pantani an example of a top-fueler. The horse trainers do that to their race horses.
Pantani also was a cocaine user which they say makes you crazy. Funny thing about Pantani is the coke didn't kill him he had a heart condition no?
Frankie and Jonathon have bad blood with Armstrong and I could see why they would want to implicate Lance whether true or false.The Postal riders took enhancements on their own accord no?
From what I understand about European pro riders is that they are rough and wild....Johann could have had the pistol at their temple during the doping sessions saying go go go go.
I wasn't there but like I said I am responsible for me. I hope those pro cyclists are responsible and honest.

And Emma O'Reilly, her motivation?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Pantani - like Armstrong - had never tested positive for any PED and indeed like Armstrong has never had a sporting sanction brought against him.

@Polish - again history does not back up your assertions.
Tom Simpson died in 1967 - a test for amphetamines was not brought in until 1968.
EPO abuse started in the early 90's - with most deaths associated with it during this time - the 50% HCT rule did not come until 1997 and a test for it was not available until 2001.

Athletes who take PED's do so to gain an advantage - so they are some who are willing to be the 'lab rat' of new products without knowing the effects of these new products on their health.

 

[hfer07]

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."

That statement must be awarded as "the most stupid opinion ever offered on the face of earth"

 

[Race Radio]

Yes, the doping controls that were in place at the time of Simpson's death were ineffective.

Yes, the doping controls that were in place in the late 90's were ineffective.

Yes, the doping controls that are now in place are ineffective.

Yes, the doping controls 10 years from now will be ineffective.

Yes, more rider's will probably die due to illegal back-room doping clinics

I fail to see how the doping controls have contributed to the death of any riders. The riders who died from EPO did so during a time when there was no test and it was debatable if it was even against the rules.

 

[Hugh Januss]

That statement must be awarded as "the most stupid opinion ever offered on the face of earth"

I think we can all agree on this. As I said back about page 2:

I don't know if you are trying to set a forum record for stupid posts, but you got my vote.