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

[Race Radio]

The race to full *** is on

 

[sida-mot]

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

Isn't the main problem that they dope in the first place. The testing may have failed to get the dopers off the road but the main issue is that several cyclists decided it was OK to cheat. It makes more sense to get more effective testing than to allow it.

There is a reason no open-doping-class exists in cycling or any sport. It is because nobody wants it. If the demands where there, rest assure a circuit like that would be created. But there isn't so it doesn't exist.

 

[131313]

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



Cheating can be better reduced by allowing drugs rather than banning them."

As if I needed a reason to hold those in academe in even lower regard than I do currently...

I dare say the good Professor doesn't really have his head wrapped around the entire concept of cheating.

This is what passes for Oxford professors these days?

 

[Mellow Velo]

OK Polish or Flicker, or any other doping utopianist, a question.
What is the cost of a single, doping de luxe package?
You know, the one that wins Grand Tours.
The type "A" product, that only a rider on a big juicy contract, or major sponsorship deal with a clothing or bike manufacturer, can afford.

Has to be the very top of the range, cutting edge, or else the cheats can still cheat.

Now, multiple that figure by the number of riders in the Pro Tour and Conti peloton.

Has Pat and the UCI got that kind of cash to splash?

Dream on.

 

[Cloxxki]

TdF should become the next level in reality soaps.
ASO picks up 200 non-athletes from the streets. They are randomly distributed between teams. Teams are lead by suspect or outspoken dope docs. Fuentes Racing, Ferrari GC, you get the idea. To have a winner in Paris, the rider's team needs to bring 5 contestants to the finish, alive. No dope controls. Bad conditions, and short recovery will be logical effects of the tour schedule.

The next best thing would be without the dope, but rest assured, the non-athletes will suffer vividly on screen, as the playing field is evened out some by the competing dope docs.

 

[bianchigirl]

They did that with last year's prisoners TdF

 

[ChrisE]

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

Getting kicked out of the Giro is not a sporting sanction?

 

[BikeCentric]

Getting kicked out of the Giro is not a sporting sanction?

Well that's a good point, and Pantani also served the mandatory 2-week suspension that went along with "being declared medically unfit to compete" because of a high hematocrit. But I think Doc meant that Pantani never served a sanction for testing positive for anything which is also true.

 

[Race Radio]

Getting kicked out of the Giro is not a sporting sanction?

Nope. He had to stop racing for "Health reasons"

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

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. 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.

I can agree that some doping might have positive health effects, at least in the short term. However, without data demonstrating the safety of long term use in athletes (and the absence of negative health consequences later in life) it is not possible to know that any substance is safe. If the potential benefits are either riding faster or short term health improvements that could be achieved simply by resting....... I maintain that it is unethical to conduct the experiment which might prove a substance is safe.

Perhaps there could be an argument for trialing drugs to treat known long term health problems in elite cyclists, such as osteopenia. But PEDs to treat short term health issues or wear and tear will just mean the athletes go harder and overload another part of their body........How is that a health benefit? When others in the peloton are obliged to follow suit if they want to compete, how is that ethical?

 

[ChrisE]

Well that's a good point, and Pantani also served the mandatory 2-week suspension that went along with "being declared medically unfit to compete" because of a high hematocrit. But I think Doc meant that Pantani never served a sanction for testing positive for anything which is also true.

That was not the "spirit" of his post. He wasn't splitting hairs.

 

[flicker]

I don't know how much it costs to enhance a rider or a team. I don't suggest it though.
Obviously besides for the anti ethics it is unfair to any riders who can't afford it or are against doping.

 

[Polish]

Make us wiser and less aggressive...

As if I needed a reason to hold those in academe in even lower regard than I do currently...

I dare say the good Professor doesn't really have his head wrapped around the entire concept of cheating.

This is what passes for Oxford professors these days?

"Philosopher and bioethicist Julian Savulescu" sounds like an intelligent person to me.
http://www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/nstaff.htm

Certainly understands the moral impact of gene doping better than most.

So, if you gene-dope a rider in a way that eliminates their "cheater gene",
therefore making them a clean rider, would WADA still consider that cheating?

Julian Savulescu Part 1

Julian Savulescu Part 2

 

[eigenvalu2]

JS-idiot savant or just idiot?

Julian clearly has an axe to grind. his understanding of the technical issues around doping appears limited at best. for example he equates altitude chambers and use of EPO (see video i posted earlier for examples of this and other woolly headed statements). Lack of technical excellence renders his "ethical" analysis suspect at best. he is a font of hot air, not uncommon in academics unfortunately, esp. with the "softer sciences" where controversial points of view vigorously defended can make a career, if not good ethics.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Julian clearly has an axe to grind. his understanding of the technical issues around doping appears limited at best. for example he equates altitude chambers and use of EPO (see video i posted earlier for examples of this and other woolly headed statements). Lack of technical excellence renders his "ethical" analysis suspect at best. he is a font of hot air, not uncommon in academics unfortunately, esp. with the "softer sciences" where controversial points of view vigorously defended can make a career, if not good ethics.

Exactly, I thought that statement alone was enough to render his argument indefensible.

 

[Race Radio]

Julian clearly has an axe to grind. his understanding of the technical issues around doping appears limited at best. for example he equates altitude chambers and use of EPO (see video i posted earlier for examples of this and other woolly headed statements). Lack of technical excellence renders his "ethical" analysis suspect at best. he is a font of hot air, not uncommon in academics unfortunately, esp. with the "softer sciences" where controversial points of view vigorously defended can make a career, if not good ethics.

Good point. He does not understand that the best altitude training may raise your Hct from 40 to 42.5. EPO takes it to 60.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That was not the "spirit" of his post. He wasn't splitting hairs.

Pantani was excluded from the Giro in 1999 because of a 'health check' - it was not a sporting sanction.
My post was an answer to another post - if you read that you can understand the 'spirit' in which it was made.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Cheating can be better reduced by allowing drugs rather than banning them."

yeah... lets change the law and make murder legal because over the world their are lots of murderers.
lets make smoking/dealing drugs legal because lots of people do it over the world.

making a thread for a stupid statement like that is a joke.

 

[ChrisE]

Pantani was excluded from the Giro in 1999 because of a 'health check' - it was not a sporting sanction.
My post was an answer to another post - if you read that you can understand the 'spirit' in which it was made.

Hmmm, you didn't quote a post. When I answer another post I usually quote it, but that's just one of the weird things I do.

"Health check" vs "sanction" definition when you get kicked out of the giro while leading with 3 stages left. Yes, that proves LA is on par with Pantani. Whatever.

 

[poupou]

No quote implicates a response to the direct precedent post.

 

[blackcat]

I thought they did allow doping at the Tour de France. Was I mistaken?

 

[ludwig]

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.

Yet it's well documented that the drug culture in cycling existed long before this. And well before EPO (blood doping is actually pretty old) cyclists didn't believe it was possible to win without PEDs.

It's not that one can't practice the sport without PEDs--one could if it was possible to enforce a strict no doping policy. It's that nobody believes it is possible to be successful in cycling without PEDs. The rules on the books aren't enforceable, the code of ethics is ignored. When this is the case, is a compromise (for example, the author suggests returning to the 50 hct rule) so out of the question?

 

[ChrisE]

No quote implicates a response to the direct precedent post.

The post right before it was about Emma O'reilly. Now I'm really confused.

 

[ChrisE]

Yet it's well documented that the drug culture in cycling existed long before this. And well before EPO (blood doping is actually pretty old) cyclists didn't believe it was possible to win without PEDs.

It's not that one can't practice the sport without PEDs--one could if it was possible to enforce a strict no doping policy. It's that nobody believes it is possible to be successful in cycling without PEDs. The rules on the books aren't enforceable, the code of ethics is ignored. When this is the case, is a compromise (for example, the author suggests returning to the 50 hct rule) so out of the question?

Bingo. Nice post.

 

[Race Radio]

I thought they did allow doping at the Tour de France. Was I mistaken?

As with everything in cycling you need to have the proper license.

Currently these run about $500,000, payable directly to the UCI. Make sure you put "Donation" on the check so there is no confusion when the media finds out 5 years later.