stephens said:
Is saying that the riders now know how much they can get away with before being deemed "positive", the same thing as saying that the riders are doping in a fairly controlled manner now that has much less health risk than in the past, either because they are using doctors or are simply using much safer dosages of anything potentially damaging? Certainly we don't hear much about anyone suffering ill effects these days, and the poster child "super responder" himself is now so healthy he can even impregnate women with his previously sterile "juan pelota".
If so...are we just left with the "fairness" argument?
Well there's a reason the various Dr. Conconi's, Ferrari's, Santuccioni's Fuente's have found such a well paying clientel within the sport world. Fuente's defense was brilliant. He said he was merely safegaurding a riders health! Given that pro cycling is so punishing on the human organism, Fuente's "therpies," in accelerating recovery and enhancing power output, protected the athlete form the adverse health effects events such as the Tour inflicted upon the rider. Rather than prosecuting the man, Fuentes argued the world of sport whould be greatful for protecting the athlete's health his work was accomplishing.
Conconi was paid by the Italian Olympic Fed. back in the 80's to test the effects of EPO in riders' performances. His ground breaking research went on to dramatically change bike racing. Conconi was the mentor of Ferrari, who went on to become the most sought after preparatory medic for pro riders in the 90's till he was stopped by CONI. For a legal technicality, the Italian court wasn't able to punish Ferrari for illegal medical practice by doping his clients (among whom agt the time was Lance Armstrong), but the evidence was stacked against him enough for it to prohibit Ferrari from dealing with athletes again.
These doctors exist because athletes know they are taking health risks by doping, but also know that they must dope to be competative at the Tour and the other major events. The doctors in addition to monitering the client's/riders' health, also try to ensure, as much as possible, that the client won't get busted at the anti-doping controls. Thus they provide an indespensible service and probably have taken doping to a scientific level such that the athlete truly does risk little health wise and that this has probably "standardized" doping practice to a fairly "fair" level within the peleton.
The catch is, as BigBoat has correctly stated, not every body reacts to in the same way to doping products. In this sense, then, there is an inherent advantage/disadvantage treatment outcome which means that there is never really a level playing field. But Nature works that way too in giving some bodies mor cilindars than others, so I suppose the concept of a "level playing" field doesn't really exist.
The other problem with how doping works given it's illegality, is that the higher paid athletes get to be on the latest, most expensive and most effective products before the lesser paid athletes do. Or can afford the services of the most expensive medics to ensure the highest possible chance for effective therapy. Kind of like insider trading. So I believe that until doping remains an underground and to a certain degree elitest practice, the benefits which some riders enjoy from it will be to the disadvantage of others performances. So either doping is defeated, which isn't very realistic, or else it becomes democratic, accessible to all and on a socialized basis.
By the way rumor has it that there is a new doping substance being used this year in the peleton, for which no test exists yet. Cera was evidently a real flop. Next!
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram