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

[Polish]

Yo YO YO Eddy!

there's gonna be a whole load of rider protests because there the ones always saying they're clean and support a drug-free sport.

Good point!

All the riders will need to be shown a UCI video explaining the benefits of Human Enhancements - benefits not only for the safety of the sport, but also for the good of Human Evolution overall. HGH and EPO and Gene-Doping are not always evil lol.

The spokespeople in the video can be computer-generated-images of Coppi and Young Eddy....Young Eddy a dense "straightman" to a wise-cracking hipster Coppi.
.
.
.

 

[ChrisE]

You made the original point, the onus is on you.

OK, straight from Betsy's post on Podium Cafe. I assume this is Betsy Andreu:

"Thanks everyone.
How did lance get away with it? A number of factors. He testified that he gave Hein Verbruggen, yes head of the UCI (the governing body responsible for testing lance) a contribution to the UCI although he, lance doesn't know how much, how he paid, when he paid, why he paid, where he paid. He spoke to Hein Verbruggen about this donation and under oath guesstimates the donation given to the UCI was $25,000. From lance's deposition:
Q.(legal counsel for SCA): So you have no idea why you gave $25,000 to UCI at all. And you don't even know if you called anyone before --
A. (lance): I don't know.
Kathy LeMond testified to the following (He being lance's personal mechanic Julian DeVries): "He had told us that he knew of a $500,000 payment to the UCI to cover up a positive control for Lance Armstrong in 1999." Julian denies this in an affidavit. "

This was posted July 2, 2007. That even contradicts RR that said he had proof (that I am anxiously awaiting) it was for a machine.

And, I only have issue about how this proof of his doping surfaces. Like I told the good doc upthread, one of my fatal flaws is due process.

I don't need to scour the internet pointing fingers to know what I saw from 99-2005, in a field full of proven dopers, was not natural. This is what I use to conclude what I do, and I even get to keep my integrity in tact on what I feel is right or wrong when it comes to gathering evidence to kick somebody out of a profession by a governing entity. Isn't that neat?

I think the knee-jerk witch hunt on the cycling forums is humorous, and those posters suspend what they know is right and wrong if they were the ones accused.

 

[Polish]

response to cheating

Julian says: "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"

That "stupid statement" is the conclusion of his argument - out of context if viewed by itself...

However, I would disagree with the author - it is NOT the cheating that is ruining the sport of cycling. There has ALWAYS been cheating though GOOD times and RUINIOUS ones.

It is the RESPONSE to cheating that is ruining the sport currently

The author does propose some controversial ways to improve this Respose to Cheating

 

[Race Radio]

OK, straight from Betsy's post on Podium Cafe. I assume this is Betsy Andreu:

"Thanks everyone.
How did lance get away with it? A number of factors. He testified that he gave Hein Verbruggen, yes head of the UCI (the governing body responsible for testing lance) a contribution to the UCI although he, lance doesn't know how much, how he paid, when he paid, why he paid, where he paid. He spoke to Hein Verbruggen about this donation and under oath guesstimates the donation given to the UCI was $25,000. From lance's deposition:
Q.(legal counsel for SCA): So you have no idea why you gave $25,000 to UCI at all. And you don't even know if you called anyone before --
A. (lance): I don't know.
Kathy LeMond testified to the following (He being lance's personal mechanic Julian DeVries): "He had told us that he knew of a $500,000 payment to the UCI to cover up a positive control for Lance Armstrong in 1999." Julian denies this in an affidavit. "

This was posted July 2, 2007. That even contradicts RR that said he had proof (that I am anxiously awaiting) it was for a machine.

And, I only have issue about how this proof of his doping surfaces. Like I told the good doc upthread, one of my fatal flaws is due process.

I don't need to scour the internet pointing fingers to know what I saw from 99-2005, in a field full of proven dopers, was not natural. This is what I use to conclude what I do, and I even get to keep my integrity in tact on what I feel is right or wrong when it comes to gathering evidence to kick somebody out of a profession by a governing entity. Isn't that neat?

I think the knee-jerk witch hunt on the cycling forums is humorous, and those posters suspend what they know is right and wrong if they were the ones accused.

The UCI and Armstrong need to get their lies straight.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2005/tour05/news/?id=jul05/jul01news2

 

[ChrisE]

The UCI and Armstrong need to get their lies straight.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2005/tour05/news/?id=jul05/jul01news2

RR that's nice. But it doesn't jive with your earlier post that he gave the $500k 5 years before it came to light. "One of the last things he did..." kinda screws up that timeline. It also doesn't say "$500k".

I do concede I wasn't aware of the info in this link you posted (puts on **** helmet for what I will receive from the audience for admitting that). My argument was always in the light that the donation(s) he gave to the UCI when he was riding were not that high, and I pointed to SCA to prove that.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

RR that's nice. But it doesn't jive with your earlier post that he gave the $500k 5 years before it came to light. "One of the last things he did..." kinda screws up that timeline. It also doesn't say "$500k".

I do concede I wasn't aware of the info in this link you posted (puts on **** helmet for what I will receive from the audience for admitting that). My argument was always in the light that the donation(s) he gave to the UCI when he was riding were not that high, and I pointed to SCA to prove that.

He -- yes, he gave a donation
to the UCI three or four years
ago. I think he's done that
maybe once or twice, with a -
- with a request to refine the --
I believe -- we'd need to look
at the letter, but I believe it
was to further do research
into the EPO test.
Bill Stapelton - Armstrongs Manager & Lawyer
Sworn deposition - September 2005

 

[ChrisE]

How is it so difficult for you to accept that the 6 samples containing EPO are equally viable. There are 6 simples containing EPO that have been identified as belonging to Lance, period. There is as much proof as doping as with those 99 samples as there is in a haematocrit level of above 50. In other words, neither are 100% full-proof.

People throw out the conspiracy theory against Lance but not against Pantani, Rasmussen. None of them ever tested positive but are all equally guilty in my eyes.
.

I have always maintained that I didn't take the 6 samples into account as proof. They were not done in accordance with testing procedures enacted at the time nor does the rider have any recourse to challenge the results. Nor were they to be made public.

I have no idea if they are legitimate or not and neither do you. You just choose to crow about them and I don't because of one simple reason. Also, I have never stated my opinion on whether I thought they contained EPO or not....

My reasoning is the chicken was AWOL and thus violated those rules. Pantani, however you want to spin it, was unable to continue the giro due to the 50 hct under the terms of the rules at the time.

If you can point me to documentation by any governing body with jurisdiction in the TdF showing the retested 99 samples 5 years later during EPO testing experiments should have resulted in discipline to LA like Ras or Pantani then I am all ears. If you can show me newspaper articles are a basis for suspension then I am all ears. You get my drift.

I'm not one to change the rules or make them up as I go along to get the results I want. Sorry.

 

[Race Radio]

RR that's nice. But it doesn't jive with your earlier post that he gave the $500k 5 years before it came to light. "One of the last things he did..." kinda screws up that timeline. It also doesn't say "$500k".

I do concede I wasn't aware of the info in this link you posted (puts on **** helmet for what I will receive from the audience for admitting that). My argument was always in the light that the donation(s) he gave to the UCI when he was riding were not that high, and I pointed to SCA to prove that.

once again, they need to get their lies straight. The Payoff was made in October 1999

 

[ChrisE]

He -- yes, he gave a donation
to the UCI three or four years
ago. I think he's done that
maybe once or twice, with a -
- with a request to refine the --
I believe -- we'd need to look
at the letter, but I believe it
was to further do research
into the EPO test.
Bill Stapelton - Armstrongs Manager & Lawyer
Sworn deposition - September 2005

No argument from me on that. This thread evolved from what RR implied about $500k as some type of hush money so the UCI would not find LA with any AAF's. Now it seems that donation may have been made late in his career.

Maybe LA has a time machine so that late payment could work retro-actively? Since I am part of his PR machine maybe he will let me use that time machine.

I could use it to go back and time to give some of your parents some information about birth control, but I digress.

 

[ludwig]

I think there is a logical confusion running through this thread.

The author of the article in the OP argues that regulating drug use is preferable to the cops and robbers show we have now.

The primary objection seems to be that drug use in sport opens up a slippery slope. Therefore, it is better if drug use is banned, even if it can't be enforced. It's better if everyone acts as if there aren't any drugs, in order to preserve the illusion and social stability etc. So if testing can't get the job done, then we should have omerta etc.

It seems that the scope of the article didn't extend to these objections, which is why people find it stupid. So lets concede that Savulescu's article doesn't begin to address the overall impact to society of allowing doping in sports and that fully addressing this context is essential to the issue.

But does this inadequacy refute Savulecu's actual argument?

The core is the following


The rules of a sport are not God-given, but are there for reasons: they define the nature of a particular display of physical excellence, allow fair competition, protect health, provide a spectacle - and they are enforceable. The current zero tolerance to drugs fails on the last three grounds. The rules can be changed. We can better protect the health of competitors by allowing access to safe performance-enhancement and monitoring their health. We provide a better spectacle if we give up the futile search for undetectable drugs, and focus on measurable issues relevant to the athlete's health.

Savulescu is correct when he claims that the current policies harm fair competition (under omerta, doping inequality is likely to be greater, and bold risk-takers will frequently edge out more naturally gifted athletes), harm the spectacle of cycling, and cannot be adequately enforced. The questionable part of his argument is whether regulating drugs would better protect the health of the riders than what exists now. I think there are arguments on both sides that issue, and that is probably where a productive debate could take place.

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.

First, it is knee-jerk to describe Salescu's approach as "capitulation", since that is not what he is advocating. But another thing that disturbs me about this (non)debate is the apparent assertion that performance enhancement in sport is uniformly wrong across the board and that no compromise on the issue is worthwhile. If this is one's opinion then there is a great deal of cognitive dissonance involved in being fan of cycling in a capitalist sports market. As long as there are profits to be made, and as long as doping conveys advantages, it will continue to happen. A truly purist "clean" sport is not likely to be one where profits can be made, unless some benevolent entity ensured foolproof testing and the athletes were prepared to submit to such testing.

I'm open to the possibility that either continuing with omerta or ending pro cycling altogether are better alternatives to making compromises on PED use in cycling. But will need to be more debate and discussion, and it would be nice if some of this debate could be carried out in the public sphere.

 

[ChrisE]

I'm open to the possibility that either continuing with omerta or ending pro cycling altogether are better alternatives to making compromises on PED use in cycling. But will need to be more debate and discussion, and it would be nice if some of this debate could be carried out in the public sphere.

But no matter where you draw the line on PED use (either disallowing it altogether or allowing it to a certain extent as proposed) there will be those that cross that line no matter where it is. That is unless you have zero doping rules.

The goal posts of omerta just move IMO without full legalization with no controls.

 

[bianchigirl]

The athlete has no recourse to challenge the results? Then why did we have the farce of the Vrijman report (can you imagine that having been done for any other rider?) and the continued refusal to have the remaining b sample tested when it could have proved his innocence beyond doubt http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...ance-urine-samples-French-bid-clear-name.html (and this is from the Daily Heil FFS)?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think there is a logical confusion running through this thread.

The rules of a sport are not God-given, but are there for reasons: they define the nature of a particular display of physical excellence, allow fair competition, protect health, provide a spectacle - and they are enforceable. The current zero tolerance to drugs fails on the last three grounds. The rules can be changed. We can better protect the health of competitors by allowing access to safe performance-enhancement and monitoring their health. We provide a better spectacle if we give up the futile search for undetectable drugs, and focus on measurable issues relevant to the athlete's health.

<Sniped for brevity>.

Savulecu's argument falls down in many areas - imo.
Any measures put in place need to be enforced - if the current rules are unenforceable then why would new rules work?

Athletes cheat to gain an advantage - others then use the same product to catch up. Those willing to cheat will always seek out new products and ways to circumvent the rules.

The Omerta is in place and enforced not to protect the sport- but to protect the doping athletes and more-so the Doctors and Ds's who organize the doping techniques.

 

[ChrisE]

The athlete has no recourse to challenge the results? Then why did we have the farce of the Vrijman report (can you imagine that having been done for any other rider?) and the continued refusal to have the remaining b sample tested when it could have proved his innocence beyond doubt http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...ance-urine-samples-French-bid-clear-name.html (and this is from the Daily Heil FFS)?

BG, I need to just cut/paste my argument on a .doc and just use it as reqd, which seems to be every other post here.

Please provide links to the rules of any governing body involved with the TdF that states this is proper protocol for these samples. LA was right to refuse that IMO. I would have done the same thing. These rule things sure do get in the way, don't they?

The Vriman report is not a farce IMO, for the exact reasons I have stated here. YMMV, and I'm sure it does but that is ok.

 

[OJ....]

Well doping is still rampant in cycling and as long as performance enhancing drugs keep getting developed, cyclists will use them. Riders with ethical standards preventing them from doping are not on the level playing field at the moment. Any action on ProTour level isn't going to change this. You need to start the work at amateur level but so far there is no motivation (money) to do this.

And less talented and clean athlete won't win more talented rider on blood doping no matter how you try to look at it. Hell...talented and clean rider won't beat less talented rider who boosts his/her crit by 10 points. Only if the less talented rider is a sucker with <70ml VO2Max and poor responder to high crit, a rider with 85-90ml VO2Max may have some hope.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Guys, the title of this thread is "It is time to allow doping at Tour de France" , it's not "Who doped more, Lance or Marco? Prove it".

If you want to start a Lance/Marco doping thread, then be my guest, but this argument should not have taken over this thread (that includes you Doc, you know better!).

Thanks Ludwig, OJ and others for trying to stay on track. Future posts not on topic will be deleted!

 

[Polish]

Athletes cheat to gain an advantage - others then use the same product to catch up. Those willing to cheat will always seek out new products and ways to circumvent the rules.

But that is also be the case today, with the non-Savulecu status quo.
Under the Savulecu system at least there would be health/safety monitoring.

Or we can have just one PED rule...
Rule 1: There are no PED rules - cheating is therefore impossible.

That would anger the pathological cheaters big time.
They would have to find another sport so they could cheat.

 

[BikeCentric]

But another thing that disturbs me about this (non)debate is the apparent assertion that performance enhancement in sport is uniformly wrong across the board and that no compromise on the issue is worthwhile. If this is one's opinion then there is a great deal of cognitive dissonance involved in being fan of cycling in a capitalist sports market. As long as there are profits to be made, and as long as doping conveys advantages, it will continue to happen. A truly purist "clean" sport is not likely to be one where profits can be made, unless some benevolent entity ensured foolproof testing and the athletes were prepared to submit to such testing.

I'm open to the possibility that either continuing with omerta or ending pro cycling altogether are better alternatives to making compromises on PED use in cycling. But will need to be more debate and discussion, and it would be nice if some of this debate could be carried out in the public sphere.

Here is some more cognitive dissonance for you regarding legalization of PED's: the sponsors do not want it to happen and most would not continue on in the sport if it were to happen. In other words legalization would kill the sport. Businesses that sponsor the sport want visibility in exchange for their adveritising Dollars yes, but they also do not want to be associated with drugs/cheating/organized crime, etc. A sponsor of cycling is trying to project an image and associate their brand with the positive aspects of cycling.

So the dissonance here is that the sponsor does not want anything to do with the PED's and the PED issue hurts the sponsor. And yet the PED's "help" the individual athlete in terms of helping him win and earn more money and glory.

The bottom line here is that I think legalization is a non-starter because it would scare away the majority of the sponsors. What company would want to tacitly associate itself with being for the promotion of drugs? Furthermore, if we legalization and embrace the "dark side" of cycling we necessarily weaken the positive images of the sport (health, mental strength, nobility, suffering for a goal, etc) and hasten the decline of the sport.

 

[BikeCentric]

But that is also be the case today, with the non-Savulecu status quo.
Under the Savulecu system at least there would be health/safety monitoring.

Or we can have just one PED rule...
Rule 1: There are no PED rules - cheating is therefore impossible.

That would anger the pathological cheaters big time.
They would have to find another sport so they could cheat.

So you are now trying to claim that legalizing PED's would give us an increase in "health/safety monitoring." I think you should volunteer to shoot yourself full of untested drugs before proposing that others be subjected to it.

 

[ludwig]

Savulecu's argument falls down in many areas - imo.
Any measures put in place need to be enforced - if the current rules are unenforceable then why would new rules work?

Athletes cheat to gain an advantage - others then use the same product to catch up. Those willing to cheat will always seek out new products and ways to circumvent the rules.

The Omerta is in place and enforced not to protect the sport- but to protect the doping athletes and more-so the Doctors and Ds's who organize the doping techniques.

First, if the current rules are replaced with a system where athletes are regulated by medical professionals, then maybe there would be more cooperation on behalf of the athletes....seeing as its in their self-interest and all. Indeed, maybe it might be possible for the sport to come to a point where the use of certain PEDs is considered 'cheating'.

You assume that athletes and doping docs will simply continue to push the limits...this is logical enough. But it may also be true that more consensus might emerge on what the dividing line is between healthy and unhealthy doping regimes. Were it possible to talk about this stuff out in the open, then maybe the overall knowledge base would increase and athletes and teams would be able to make more informed decisions.

If in your opinion doping rules are unenforcable, then it makes no practical difference whether the doping is regulated or verboten. The only difference is to the image of the sport and the example to amateurs. Hence the preference for omerta.

 

[ludwig]

Here is some more cognitive dissonance for you regarding legalization of PED's: the sponsors do not want it to happen and most would not continue on in the sport if it were to happen. In other words legalization would kill the sport. Businesses that sponsor the sport want visibility in exchange for their adveritising Dollars yes, but they also do not want to be associated with drugs/cheating/organized crime, etc. A sponsor of cycling is trying to project an image and associate their brand with the positive aspects of cycling.

So the dissonance here is that the sponsor does not want anything to do with the PED's and the PED issue hurts the sponsor. And yet the PED's "help" the individual athlete in terms of helping him win and earn more money and glory.

The bottom line here is that I think legalization is a non-starter because it would scare away the majority of the sponsors. What company would want to tacitly associate itself with being for the promotion of drugs? Furthermore, if we legalization and embrace the "dark side" of cycling we necessarily weaken the positive images of the sport (health, mental strength, nobility, suffering for a goal, etc) and hasten the decline of the sport.

Good arguments; no doubt you are right. However the only viable alternative (omerta) also drives away sponsors because every few years the police or media picks up on a new scandal. I'm not sure if there is an enforceable code of silence on this issue in the Internet age.

 

[Berzin]

To say that sponsors would be scared off if doping were allowed is not really true.
In pro cycling the hypocritical/puritannical crusade against doping can be circumvented depending on how much political/financial pull one rider/team has. This is what is at the heart of the matter, for me at least.

Other major sports leagues have their doping scandals and play them off. In the NFL you are suspended 4 games regardless of the substance and then you come back as if nothing happened. The sponsors, team owners and fans do not get all up in arms about it. They just keep it moving.

Major League Baseball has a 50 game suspension for a first offense, but really-you have to be an absolute idiot to get caught because their testing procedure lets an athlete get everything right beforehand. And the type of testing that is done (urine samples collected on a particular day that the athlete, his agent and doctor know of beforehand) can easily be circumvented using today's masking agents.

My point is, with the issue at hand, cycling has unfairly taken the brunt of the pressure when in other sports it seems to be a distraction at most.

I'm not advocating legalized doping, just addressing some of the problems on a broader scale.

Especially when you have a guy like Armstrong who shows suspicious blood values at one grand tour and not another.

Here's a question-how would he have finished on GC if his blood values for the Giro were exactly like the ones he showed at the Tour?

 

[burninglegs]

This sounds like the argument to make all illegal drugs legal. The human experience can be enhanced by the use of narcotics such as cocaine, heroin, speed.
I remember the old saying, don't knock it until you try it. There are plenty of things I will
not try.
Sports and sporting competitions are set up with certain parameters to keep the competition fair and balanced.
I would also put in the word natural. Only hard work, training, and lots of sweat and dedication along with natural selection should be the basis of success in sports.

 

[eigenvalu2]

Ok to honor ludwigs request for debate, i will examine his statements in detail.

ludwig postulates and i respond below.
1.Savulescu is correct when he claims that:
a. the current policies harm fair competition (under omerta, doping inequality is likely to be greater, and bold risk-takers will frequently edge out more naturally gifted athletes),

i assume you mean current policies=zero tolerance for PEDs. note that these current policies do not "harm" fair competition-the issue is that these polices cannot currently be "perfectly" enforced to always ensure fair competition. this is an important distinction. as other posters have noted it seems like the logical response would be to improve enforcement rather than bending over

b. harm the spectacle of cycling, and

again, the policies do not harm cycling, it is those who would cheat and get caught that cause the problem. change is always a process, and is sometimes ugly to look at, but i dont think it makes the change wrong a priori. moreover the ugliness depends on your perspective. no doubt for the uninformed punter cleaning up the trash and making changes often looks ugly, but for others it is an encouraging sign things are trending in the right direction.

c. cannot be adequately enforced.

perhaps currently, but its seems like cycling is improving (slowly) in this area. this is just a matter of will and not a rational argument for giving up the fight.


2.First, it is knee-jerk to describe Salescu's approach as "capitulation", since that is not what he is advocating.

what evidence do you offer here? on each of the three points (a,b,c) above it sure seems like capitulation is what is being advocated.

3. But another thing that disturbs me about this (non)debate is the apparent assertion that performance enhancement in sport is uniformly wrong across the board ... A truly purist "clean" sport is not likely to be one where profits can be made, unless some benevolent entity ensured foolproof testing and the athletes were prepared to submit to such testing.

yes exactly, that is what is being fought for. of course "foolproof" doesnt exist, but this is a problem with JS's recommended approach as well, as other posters have pointed out. Given this, and the other points raised, i dont think JS's approach is worth engaging.

I'm open to the possibility that either continuing with omerta or ending pro cycling altogether are better alternatives to making compromises on PED use in cycling. But will need to be more debate and discussion, and it would be nice if some of this debate could be carried out in the public sphere.

see responses above

 

[Polish]

Here is some more cognitive dissonance for you regarding legalization of PED's: the sponsors do not want it to happen and most would not continue on in the sport if it were to happen. In other words legalization would kill the sport....

The bottom line here is that I think legalization is a non-starter because it would scare away the majority of the sponsors.

You are right, at least for the foreseeable future...

But think back to 60+ years ago when the sponsors not only knew but expected riders to dope -
to get them the publicity.

Or imagine 50 years from now.... major Pharmaceutical/Medical Labs sponsoring Teams to showcase the safety and benefits of the latest Bio-Technologies.

Alpe d'Huez in less than 20minutes woohoo!
100kph+ TTTs!! NaNoTecH©®™ STEEL Bikes!!!