Well, I sincerely disagree. Sport is not about admiring the genetics of some rare specimens. Rather it is about working with what you have and making the most of it. As an engineer I always like challenges and I dislike any "lucky starting conditions" - such as being born a king, having billionare parents or rare genetics.
Yes, what is not banned is not doping. Using your brain to gain an advantage is exactly what is the basis of Homo Sapiens. We didn't compete with lions with our muscles but with our intellect.
I have nothing whatsoever against using anything that works. I'm all for strict adherence to the rules, the common moral principles as not destroying other people. I'm also all for innovation and don't fear pharmacological, physical, genetical, psychological, .. other methods.
(please don't ask about motors - it is silly - using motors in cycling comp is like using computers in a human chess match - changes the whole point of it)
While most people accept using wind tunnels and fluid dynamics to engineer new helmets, bikes, skinsuits, positions etc, most people also frown at anything administered using a syringe. Not me. Medicine/pharmacy is 80% of our quality of life; our genetics has actually gotten worse since the dark ages.
Going into the future, we're going to rely on it more and more. People will start using neural implants, prostethics, aestethic surgery, genetic modification more and more.
So for sport to not turn into modern luddism, the thinking and acceptance will need to adapt as well.
I don't even know where to begin, so I shall limit myself to a few casual observations. According to the IOC Athletes' Rights and Responsibilities: 2. Be part of a transparent, fair and clean sporting environment, particularly one that fights against doping and competition manipulation...This is the basis of what constitutes "fair play". It is built into the guiding principles of the World Anti-Doping Agency and the Olympic Charter. So, yes, sport is "officially" (note the quotation marks) about relying upon genetics as the primary deteriminant of excellence, within the context of transparency during preparation and practice in the sporting environment. Hard work, using your mind, etc., to overcome natural handicaps is all fine and to be encouraged of course. But by your logic we may as well allow them to put anything in their bodies that is deemed pharmachologically beneficial to performance enhancement, so long as it's not banned and hence against the "rules" at the time. The obvious problem with this philosophy, which is riddled with cynicisim and moral causistry, is that it doesn't meet even the basic criteria of "fair play" or the fight against doping by any standards, not to mention the potential health risks involved. And it's one thing to take access to medical advancements for legitimate health reasons, entirely another for the purposes of doping. This is so basic that it shouldn't be necessary to restate; while doping, yes, exists even before taking a substance is prohibited, based on the rule of retroactive testing. Anything else is vapid sophistry. For the rest see Raest's most excellent post.
You are advocating a kind of pharmachological relativism, a "Far West" of the sport environment, in which ethical standards only need to meet a criteria of "if it will improve my performance and isn't prohibited (yet), then it is just and even virtuous to use it", in a carte blanche driven, frenzied quest to reach ever further performance horizens. Well I'd say this accurately describes the present state of affairs. Let anyone make what they want of it, but no philosophy of ethics (save Machiavelli's of course) has ever approved of it. If the antithesis of modern sport luddism in the medical sense means adhearing to this Machiavellian state, which it largely already has, then I'm definitively out thank you. Pogacar may even be the catalyst for my exit, out of sheer boredom and lack of enthusiasm.
Unfortunately there are those who are simply better than us, who were simply born with superior genetics and, all other things being equal, should come out on top. We must accept this, but what you promote is rising to the challenge through any means available, just because it's available, which sanctions a "the ends justify the means" principle. It is dangerous and potentially immoral. But, hey, I'm following the rules, so my conscience is clean isn't that right? All the other stuff is performance science and tech related, which, as long as it doesn't constitute illicit practice, shall be consented (even if the market has distorted the effects and outcomes to such a degree, through unequal access and distribution, that it makes me wonder about the fate of sport). But I wouldn't want your take on things to be the applied mental habits behind the principles that govern us. Oh God, no. The world, including that of sport, is already in a perilous enough state.
PS: When you have been on a group training ride and someone out of the blue falls down and dies on the spot, because his heart could no longer pump blood that turned sludge, you might gain a different perpective (or raced clean against dopers who got busted, depriving you of the actual result you deserved on the day). Just a thought or perhaps a cautionary anectode to the disappointed idealist inside every cynic.
Are we sure that a motor in Pogacar's bike can't be part of the explanation? A rich team with access to official control equipement (x-ray, tablets...) and a lab to test the e-bike in all possible conditions could find ways to hide the motor, battery and gears.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram