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

[BikeCentric]

To say that sponsors would be scared off if doping were allowed is not really true.

On what basis do you make that statement? We see sponsors being scared off because of doping scandals in the sport all the time, for example Festina, Phonak, Mapei, iShares, just to name a few off the top of my head.

 

[Polish]

On what basis do you make that statement? We see sponsors being scared off because of doping scandals in the sport all the time, for example Festina, Phonak, Mapei, iShares, just to name a few off the top of my head.

There are plenty of Sponsors currently lining up to replace the ones that drop-out. And if Cycling gets more of a "badboy" image, the foofoo watchmakers and hearing-aid companies will be replaced by Jack Daniels and Viagra oh my.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Ok, if we all think we should allow doping at the tour because "everyone's doing it", lets justify murder because lots of people are doing and lets not punish those who take/deal drugs because everyones doing it. it sends out a bad message to the young people of the community by saying if lots are doing drugs for example lets just make it legal because we can't catch every drug taker or cheat.
Surely as most of you are adults you would understand the message that sends out to young people and having that attitude is a very pesimistic attitude to the fight against doping.

 

[ludwig]

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

Yet one cannot seriously claim cycling has a zero tolerance policy when McQuaid, Verbruggen, Bruyneel, Riis et all are running the show. It also seems highly likely that the experiences of 06-08 soured the pro cycling community on testing as part of the competitive process. What emerges is a capricious system where the athletes are basically obligated to dope yet have no real protections if they are caught.

Better than regulation? Maybe. But not really fair to those who don't have access to the best medical regimes.

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.

Fair enough... I guess it's a matter of perspective. But from my perspective neither the 07 nor the 08 Tour was very satisfying in the end result given how many riders were ejected, though they had their moments as they were played out. 06 was better, but then that was marred. 09 was essentially a return to 00-05, of which only 03 was a truly exciting spectacle. Maybe if there was some more parity in terms of doping regimes it would shake things up.

Beyond that I'd point out the OP advocates regulation of PEDs by medical professionals rather than blanket legalization. I think that's a pretty significant distinction, as over time some of these PEDs will likely prove to be safe enough to be allowed.

 

[ChrisE]

Ok, if we all think we should allow doping at the tour because "everyone's doing it", lets justify murder because lots of people are doing and lets not punish those who take/deal drugs because everyones doing it. it sends out a bad message to the young people of the community by saying if lots are doing drugs for example lets just make it legal because we can't catch every drug taker or cheat.
Surely as most of you are adults you would understand the message that sends out to young people and having that attitude is a very pesimistic attitude to the fight against doping.

Agreed.

Funny how alot of these threads devolve into legalization because all dopers can't be caught. Last time I checked all speeders don't get caught, there was probably some insider trading going on today that will not be punished, maybe a rape or two that will not be reported, etc. Nobody is proposing legalizing that.

You have to have parameters within which fair play and justice can at least give some resemblance to being the norm instead of the exception. Else, you have chaos and a downward spiral. Same thing is true with cycling on this subject. Yes, some people will get away with things but that is no reason to do away with the rules.

 

[pmcg76]

Agreed.

Funny how alot of these threads devolve into legalization because all dopers can't be caught. Last time I checked all speeders don't get caught, there was probably some insider trading going on today that will not be punished, maybe a rape or two that will not be reported, etc. Nobody is proposing legalizing that.

You have to have parameters within which fair play and justice can at least give some resemblance to being the norm instead of the exception. Else, you have chaos and a downward spiral. Same thing is true with cycling on this subject. Yes, some people will get away with things but that is no reason to do away with the rules.

+1....Agree with this.

I understand the argument for partial regulation on PEDs, sounds idealistic but there has always been and always will be people who will push the envelope that bit further and the whole thing starts over again. Its an unending cycle that will never end.

The only way is to have the system so perfect that it is the minority cheating, not the majority which is a pipe-dream to be honest. We would need the riders, managers, race organisers, sponsors, testers, national federations, police, drugs companies ad infitum all involved to have any sort of effective system and that aint gonna happen anytime soon.

The biggest problem will always be human nature and ethics and there are a lot more areas surrounding these matters that I would give priority over professional sport.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yet one cannot seriously claim cycling has a zero tolerance policy when McQuaid, Verbruggen, Bruyneel, Riis et all are running the show. It also seems highly likely that the experiences of 06-08 soured the pro cycling community on testing as part of the competitive process. What emerges is a capricious system where the athletes are basically obligated to dope yet have no real protections if they are caught.
.........

Let me clarify a couple of things on this - quite simply Savulescu's argument is unattainable because the rules to enforce his 'modest doping' are the same rules used in anti-doping.
He is therefore reliant on athletes, Doctors, DS's and coaches fairness and honesty -we have seen what happens as all of their livelihoods are dependent on winning and being competitive.

I am against legalizing doping - however if Savulescu's position had been to allow certain 'recovery products' be administered under careful controlled independent supervision to replace what riders lose throughout a Tour then he may have been able to have a a debate worth considering. I am not advocating this - however it is a more pragmatic consideration.

From your above statement I think that we agree there is little confidence in the current Anti-doping system. This is what needs to be changed not the changing of rules to legalize 'cheating'.

 

[eigenvalu2]

originally posted by ludwig: Yet one cannot seriously claim cycling has a zero tolerance policy when McQuaid, Verbruggen, Bruyneel, Riis et all are running the show. It also seems highly likely that the experiences of 06-08 soured the pro cycling community on testing as part of the competitive process. What emerges is a capricious system where the athletes are basically obligated to dope yet have no real protections if they are caught.

Better than regulation? Maybe. But not really fair to those who don't have access to the best medical regimes.

I agree-life in cycling, is, like life in general, currently not fair. however, a day will come when the weasels are not running the show-naive perhaps but that's how i see it. taking a step back, thou, these same weasels are going to be allowing shenanigans no matter what the policy on PEDs. so the issue of the "best" medical program doesn't get resolved using JS's approach.

originally posted by ludwig: Fair enough... I guess it's a matter of perspective. But from my perspective neither the 07 nor the 08 Tour was very satisfying in the end result given how many riders were ejected, though they had their moments as they were played out. 06 was better, but then that was marred. 09 was essentially a return to 00-05, of which only 03 was a truly exciting spectacle. Maybe if there was some more parity in terms of doping regimes it would shake things up.

check-i hear you on the issues. personally i rejoiced with the ejections, and hope they continue. i prefer the imperfect struggle, potentially less exciting, than the exciting, but chemically enhanced race. but i can see this is just personal preference.

originally posted by ludwig: Beyond that I'd point out the OP advocates regulation of PEDs by medical professionals rather than blanket legalization. I think that's a pretty significant distinction, as over time some of these PEDs will likely prove to be safe enough to be allowed.[/QUOTE]

check-thats what i heard too, but still have the same issues as previously outlined. note that regulation by MPs doesnt come close to solving the issue of corruption, or even necessarily parity in doping. the same weasles and cheaters will be in action, trying to go beyond the "regulated" program. the spiral doesn't seem to end. one thing i cant really comment on is, that you have mentioned, is whether it might be healthier for the riders to have some sort of PED support. intuitively this seems unlikely to be correct, but i dont have hard data, so i concede that this may be a valid point.

 

[poupou]

Maybe we are close of the solution:

ban of all PED + extented biopassport for a check of a large number of health parameters...

Seems to already exist

 

[blackcat]

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.

but the "donation" was never given until 2007ish, around the Vriemen report going in and it was found the 30k pledge for the Mayo blood machine (see: Lyler Hamilton and Santi Perez) that 30k was never received.

Are we talking the 500k bribe tho? Where was that? Did Verbruggen get any in a swiss account. Who should we ask? Gorski or Wiesel?

 

[OJ....]

- Legalizing doping would be against the criminal laws in many countries.
- Legalizing doping would mean that sport organization would tell all the athletes "Dope or don't be competitive". Yes, the situation may be similar at the moment, but at least something is being done to keep it cleanish. EPO use is getting very difficult.
- IOC would kick cycling out of games. This is happening already and olympics isn't really that huge race outside of english speaking world so UCI might be better of pulling the plug before getting kicked out.
- Leglized and non-tested doping would lead to a situation where riders would have crit at 60% and that's just not healthy. Huge doses of many other conventional drugs would actually hinder the cycling performance but EPO would be a real issue.

Establish 30 minute guarantees before the start of the race during which blood samples would be taken.

 

[Berzin]

On what basis do you make that statement?

On the basis that the sponsors you mentioned left the sport, and others quickly came in to take their place. The revolving door will keep revolving, even in these hard economic times. But sponsors will always be there.

We see sponsors being scared off because of doping scandals in the sport all the time, for example Festina, Phonak, Mapei, iShares, just to name a few off the top of my head.

The gloom and doom scenarios people tend to paint whenever there is a doping scandal in cycling never arise. NEVER.

1) Sponsors never leave in droves. If one or two leave they are quickly replaced by someone else.

2) The peloton never changes it's ways, it just adapts to whatever new protocols are instituted by the governing bodies.

3) The governing bodies, with a decrease in the number of positives at their most prestigious races can facetiously claim the tougher testing being implemented is actually working, when we can see now that the bio-passport system is nothing but a blueprint for the doctors behind the scenes to manipulate said parameters while avoiding positive test results. This makes said parameters absolutely useless in the fight against doping, and renders the results meaningless.

4) And why are the results meaningless? Because cats like Armstrong can manipulate their blood parameters (see the differences in blood profiles of his Giro in comparison to his Tour) and all you get are vague statements from the so-called "experts" who can't make sense enough of the results to definitively state "yes, this guy was doping".

5) If we are going to continue on with this debate, we should call for the cessation of hysterical, nonsensical arguments and ridiculous comparisons.

The argument postulated that because murder occurs and we can't seem to stop it then it should be legalized" in comparison to the realm of doping in cycling is absurd. The comparison is ridiculous and has no place within the topic being discussed. It only serves to obfuscate the topic at hand.

At some point we are going to have to collectively throw up our hands and say, "we've lost". Let's go on to fight a battle that has more importance in the grand scheme of things than this. Because as long as riders like Armstrong keep winning, the sport as we love it will continue to lose.

I will tell you this-I'd rather have legalized doping than the cynical, hypocritical charade we've been watching ever since these biological passports have been administered.

No one is forced to agree with me, I'm just making some points that I believe have been overlooked.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Oxford Prof: backs doping in sport - BBC Radio Tue 15 Nov 2011 22:00GMT

Julian Savulescu - Professor of Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01757kg#blq-content

In a talk entitled The Moral Obligation to Improve, he argues that it is time to enhance humans by altering their genes. Professor of Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford and Editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu has some controversial opinions that challenge assumptions. He believes drugs should be allowed in sport, and that we should harness the incredible genetic revolution currently taking place and use technologies such as genetic manipulation and selection to improve our lives.

BBC Radio Tue 15 Nov 2011 22:00GMT

 

[Cloxxki]

Like an Environment and Nature professor calling to keep using petrol cars in order to avoid damage to the environment from new to be built wind turbines and electric cars.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Julian Savulescu has been brought up before in this thread called "It is time to allow doping at Tour de France" - the thread was started by Polish, so........

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Julian Savulescu has been brought up before in this thread called "It is time to allow doping at Tour de France" - the thread was started by Polish, so........

Well spotted Dr Maserati - perhaps some kind moderator could merge these two threads.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Simple Answer

If Julian Savulescu says it's time to start overtly allowing doping, then he should be the first one. After him, any progeny he may have. After the progeny, some extended family. And he should start doping his kids young too. I bet one could come up with a great EPO/psychoactive/stimulant drug combo to make the kid a superstar on and off the field. Never mind the health complications that might follow. Why not? He's for controlled doping.

As soon as it becomes personal to these yokels, the rules are suddenly different. Mr. Savulescu replies with, "Oh, I didn't mean it that way...", "no thank you... " and then the whole discussion breaks down into affirming the guy's failed opinions.

 

[blackcat]

Savulescu studied an ethics unit as part of his undergrad medicine degree, the ethics class was taught by one Peter Singer, when he was at Monash university in Australia I do believe.

 

[Benotti69]

If Julian Savulescu says it's time to start overtly allowing doping, then he should be the first one. After him, any progeny he may have. After the progeny, some extended family. And he should start doping his kids young too. I bet one could come up with a great EPO/psychoactive/stimulant drug combo to make the kid a superstar on and off the field. Never mind the health complications that might follow. Why not? He's for controlled doping.

As soon as it becomes personal to these yokels, the rules are suddenly different. Mr. Savulescu replies with, "Oh, I didn't mean it that way...", "no thank you... " and then the whole discussion breaks down into affirming the guy's failed opinions.

You mean like Ferarri and his daughter

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

If sports doping is "legalized", altheletes will still need to get their stuff from somewhere. It makes no sense to legalize doping, if the supply isn't legalized and athletes still use dodgy black market rubbish. Legalizing supply would mean a change was required to medical ethics.

For example, it is possible to present a medical reason for "re-balancing hormones", but there can be no medical reason for prescribing drugs to elevate a hematocrit of 44. AFAIK, prescribing drugs with known risks to a healthy person is totally unethical, within the current medical ethics framework.

Legalizing sports doping poses a bigger challenge medical ethics than sports ethics. How keen are we to go there?

 

[Berzin]

What a fantastic idea! We should apply this everywhere. Crime rates would be zero if we legalized murder, robbery, fraud etc. Instant success!

Seriously though, whatever the 'ethics' are that this guys teaches I hope he's not being allowed to infect children with it.

Absolutely.

It's an anti-ethical stance, a nihilistic point of view posted by a member of this forum who will do anything to rationalize the behavior of his hero.

Totally and completely pathetic, but it makes sense in a twisted way. Think about it-when you have a society full of amateur riders who willingly dope regardless of future health issues, imagine what the pressure is like when big-time money is at stake.

Human nature in regards to this matter illustrates how petty and low-brow many average people are. That's just how it is.

 

[Poursuivant]

I hate this attitude, "let them all dope."

And he is supposed to be smart. Idiot.

 

[cocteau_ireland]

I think the term 'practical ethics' is hilarious. Universities (even Oxbridge-tho i stil cant find it on google maps) pump out this kind of gumpf purely to manufacture/stir up interest. Having said that,been noticing a lot of sky sports news features on british athletes preparing, such as sleeping nightly in oxygen tents. Djokovic is doing some very seminal prep work.

 

[Ferminal]

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).

 

[ustabe]

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.