The Middle Path: make cycling easier or allow some doping

[Sanitiser]

This comes from two perspectives in the sport. The first from an Italian official who said tours should be easier so that riders feel less inclined to dope (I can't find the quote). The second is from Bassons:

That’s why it’s a mistake to fight the war on doping in terms of health – because, if you actually analyse it, doping responds to a need there too, because you can be healthier doing the Tour de France on drugs than without anything.”

I'd be for blood transfusions.

 

[BotanyBay]

You'd be just as exhausted if the Pro circuit involved your doing four 120 minute crits per week for 9 months.

The riders will always dope to find an edge. They could care less about it being too hard.

 

[pnwrider]

Just from a purely medical perspective, EPO (with blood parameters) is a lot safer than doing transfusions.

I offer no comment on the suggestion, or any other health risks (acceleration of tumor growth)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This comes from two perspectives in the sport. The first from an Italian official who said tours should be easier so that riders feel less inclined to dope (I can't find the quote). The second is from Bassons:

That’s why it’s a mistake to fight the war on doping in terms of health – because, if you actually analyse it, doping responds to a need there too, because you can be healthier doing the Tour de France on drugs than without anything.”

I'd be for blood transfusions.

Careful with the Bassons quote - he is not advocating a relaxation of doping, he is stating that one of the reasons often given is that doping harms health.

However the doping issue is much more complicated than just saying it is "wrong", "cheating", "immoral", "unhealthy" etc.

As a quick example - you are "for blood transfusions", well lets say I am not, would it be fair that I could not compete because I don't share your viewpoint?? The different motivations to dope and the ways to tackle that are not always as simple as saying its "wrong" etc.

 

[Granville57]

I can appreciate the spirit and intent of the OP, but if we have Masters racers doping for local crits (and we do) than obviously the correlation between the suffering of a Grand Tour and doping is difficult to explain.

 

[Sanitiser]

The first quote was related to the health of the riders as well if I remember correctly.

For me autologous transfusions are produced by the riders own body there is nothing really extraneous about it (subjective). Those transfusions could be then used when it was deemed it was healthy to however the process was transparent and even.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The first quote was related to the health of the riders as well if I remember correctly.

For me autologous transfusions are produced by the riders own body there is nothing really extraneous about it (subjective). Those transfusions could be then used when it was deemed it was healthy to however the process was transparent and even.

Yes - and you are talking about "health", which is only one aspect of doping.

What drugs are healthy? A little, not a lot of EPO. A dash of HGH.......

To the first part about making races easier.
If races were beyond what can be done naturally then reduce them - but even 300km races like MSR could be done naturally although it might need to start an hour earlier.

 

[Altitude]

It wouldn't level the playing field at all - some would be willing to push it further than others. You'd have guys walking around with 60% crits again. Then you'd have to regulate the transfusions and put a limit on HCT which complicates things even further. It wouldn't work.

 

[Sanitiser]

EPO and HGH are already safely administered in other areas. It requires regulations- yes it's not going to be easy and would have to be refined.

 

[Fester]

This is a valuable argument.

I think it's worth noting doping ~ performance enhancement is completely legitimate in most areas of life. The military, acting, police force, models, dancers. People think it's great that Pamela Anderson got "enhanced".

Many substances and methods are true ergogenics: they augment performance and health. With bio technology this list of ergogenics is growing.

Basson feeds the monster by both suggesting people dope for a multitude of reasons and it's possibly healthier.

We need to sieze a tangible meter stick and I feel health is that meter stick. But the athletes, together with a pool of impartial medical professionals should vote.

Taboos need to be left out of the argument, and like the first sex talk with the kids; just tell it like it is.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

EPO and HGH are already safely administered in other areas. It requires regulations- yes it's not going to be easy and would have to be refined.

Yet again you are concentrating on only the "health" issue.

And even that falls apart easily - how much EPO is safe? Are you suggesting that its safe for everyone - if not where is the cutoff?
Who would impliment it - as it is against Doctor ethics. If it falls back on the 'sporting doctors' why would they suddenly abide by new rules when they don't abide by the current ones?

Also - what happens the athlete that does not want to 'enhance performance', why should they have to make that choice?

 

[lean mean &green]

This comes from two perspectives in the sport. The first from an Italian official who said tours should be easier so that riders feel less inclined to dope (I can't find the quote). The second is from Bassons:

That’s why it’s a mistake to fight the war on doping in terms of health – because, if you actually analyse it, doping responds to a need there too, because you can be healthier doing the Tour de France on drugs than without anything.”

I'd be for blood transfusions.

fitness and health aren't the same thing. competitive athletes pursue greater performance at the risk of their health with or without drugs. the risk of serious, permanant, and quality-of-life altering injury from a fall or crash is a thousand times greater than those from over-reaching or over-training.

is doping healthier while competing in a grand tour? possibly, if the timeline your using to make a judgement is just 2 or 3 weeks. i could make a strong case it's false even then but i'd rather not turn this into an endicrinology lecture about tolerance, dependence, and up/down regulation in response to exogenous hormone administration. on the timeline we SHOULD be using to make this judgement, months and years, the answer is obviously no.

EDIT: also, as dr M suggests, bassons' comments are taken quite a bit out of context here.

 

[Sanitiser]

Medical professionals would determine what a safe HCT range would be (for an individual or carte blanche) and then 'administer' EPO to that level.

Also the system would not be just using carrots. Say if riders were found using PEDs outside the system they would get a lifetime ban for instance.

If riders do not want to use the system that would be fine since all the information would be public. Some fans would respect an 'unassited' third than an 'assisted' first.

 

[Fester]

Also - what happens the athlete that does not want to 'enhance performance', why should they have to make that choice?

They make that choice when the sit on a bike for 30hrs a week, they make that choice by whittling down to 3% body fat: Neither of which is "healthy" both of which are more potent than a couple of bags of blood.

 

[BotanyBay]

The whole argument is pointless, as the administration of such substances without a legitimate medical need is (and always will be) prohibited. The team docs are lucky that their respective medical boards have not come for their licenses.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This is a valuable argument.

I think it's worth noting doping ~ performance enhancement is completely legitimate in most areas of life. The military, acting, police force, models, dancers. People think it's great that Pamela Anderson got "enhanced".

Many substances and methods are true ergogenics: they augment performance and health. With bio technology this list of ergogenics is growing.

Basson feeds the monster by both suggesting people dope for a multitude of reasons and it's possibly healthier.

We need to sieze a tangible meter stick and I feel health is that meter stick. But the athletes, together with a pool of impartial medical professionals should vote.

Taboos need to be left out of the argument, and like the first sex talk with the kids; just tell it like it is.

Again you are limiting your view to "health".

Also you're mixing up 'personal enhancement' with 'performance enhancement' in sport.
If Jimbob at the gym wants to do steroids to look good (which goes to Bassons overall point) it has no effect on me, I do not have to do the same.
However if a competitor in my livelihood takes a PED it does force a dilema.

 

[131313]

This comes from two perspectives in the sport. The first from an Italian official who said tours should be easier so that riders feel less inclined to dope (I can't find the quote). The second is from Bassons:


I'd be for blood transfusions.

While I was out training today, that Basson's quote stuck in my head. I think the rest of his comment was awesome, but he's off the reservation on this one, and frankly I have more of a background in the sciency aspect of this stuff than he.

There's no question that doing a grand tour isn't the healthiest thing for one's body, but artificially manipulating endocrinological and/or blood parameters is a fool's errand. Sure, some people will respond OK, maybe even positively, but some won't. The adverse effects can range from the immediate (Manzano) to the long-term (Strock), but they're very real nontheless. They're also unknown to a large degree. Guys messing with this stuff are playing Russian roulette with their heath. We won't even know the true costs for another 10 or 20 years.

The really unfortunate thing is that most guys are too ignorant and/or too stupid to even understand the potential outcomes, and the "doctors" involved only have their own paychecks in mind. I think you could indeed make a "health" argument, but it's a complex one and it involves thinking. My experience is that thinking and bike racing are almost mutually exclusive.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

They make that choice when the sit on a bike for 30hrs a week, they make that choice by whittling down to 3% body fat: Neither of which is "healthy" both of which are more potent than a couple of bags of blood.

Thats not a choice?
So you ride a bike and get in shape = you must dope??

Most pros fall in the 4-8% body fat range - how do you think the ones who go lower get that "unhealthy" level

 

[131313]

We need to sieze a tangible meter stick and I feel health is that meter stick. But the athletes, together with a pool of impartial medical professionals should vote.

Taboos need to be left out of the argument, and like the first sex talk with the kids; just tell it like it is.

The athletes should have no say in this, and please remember that I am one. They're not equipped to make a decision on "what's healthy" and frankly many of them can't think past next week!

This would be akin to asking an NFL player if he "felt like he had a concussion". What do you think he's going to say?

I understand the spirit of asking riders for their input, but they're just not going to be an objective source of information regarding the health effects of various doping products/methods.

 

[Sanitiser]

If that's you're interpretation tell Basson good luck with that since we wouldn't have most human achievements in history.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

While I was out training today, that Basson's quote stuck in my head. I think the rest of his comment was awesome, but he's off the reservation on this one, and frankly I have more of a background in the sciency aspect of this stuff than he.

There's no question that doing a grand tour isn't the healthiest thing for one's body, but artificially manipulating endocrinological and/or blood parameters is a fool's errand. Sure, some people will respond OK, maybe even positively, but some won't. The adverse effects can range from the immediate (Manzano) to the long-term (Strock), but they're very real nontheless. They're also unknown to a large degree. Guys messing with this stuff are playing Russian roulette with their heath. We won't even know the true costs for another 10 or 20 years.

The really unfortunate thing is that most guys are too ignorant and/or too stupid to even understand the potential outcomes, and the "doctors" involved only have their own paychecks in mind. I think you could indeed make a "health" argument, but it's a complex one and it involves thinking. My experience is that thinking and bike racing are almost mutually exclusive.

Aha - but this was Bassons whole point.

By saying doping is 'bad' because of "health", "cheating" etc is missing the entire point - that it is the personality of the athlete that is where the danger to dope or not comes.

I could probably convince any weak minded athlete in a short time that doping was not 'wrong' or 'bad'...
That was his point - that those DS & 'doctors' prey on the athletes weakness and it is that weakness (or arguement) that needs to be addressed.

 

[MacRoadie]

They make that choice when the sit on a bike for 30hrs a week, they make that choice by whittling down to 3% body fat: Neither of which is "healthy" both of which are more potent than a couple of bags of blood.

 

[Fester]

Thats not a choice?
So you ride a bike and get in shape = you must dope??

Most pros fall in the 4-8% body fat range - how do you think the ones who go lower get that "unhealthy" level

No, you misunderstood. Most of the argument against performance enhancing drugs is health and performance related: Augments performance, bad for health. Training has both these affects.

I would not cast judgement on the ultra thin as proof of doping, merely being unhealthily thin, however they got that way.

Again you are limiting your view to "health".

Also you're mixing up 'personal enhancement' with 'performance enhancement' in sport.
If Jimbob at the gym wants to do steroids to look good (which goes to Bassons overall point) it has no effect on me, I do not have to do the same.
However if a competitor in my livelihood takes a PED it does force a dilema.

I am limiting my view to health because I feel it's the most objective and tangible and at the end of the day most important aspect of the argument. The moral argument is endless. The "healthy" doping would eliminate other arguments such as vanity.

-People will cheat. I am not arguing against that. I am arguing for authorities to look at the list and reconsider things.

The athletes should have no say in this, and please remember that I am one. They're not equipped to make a decision on "what's healthy" and frankly many of them can't think past next week!

This would be akin to asking an NFL player if he "felt like he had a concussion". What do you think he's going to say?

I understand the spirit of asking riders for their input, but they're just not going to be an objective source of information regarding the health effects of various doping products/methods.

The only people subject to the system are athlete, you are right they are not equipped to make a decision, they do not even stand up for they're own rights! They are too scared to bite rock the boat.

I am sure if it was put to you "shall we legalize blood doping?" and the inherent risks thereof you could make an objective decision, as could even the thickest.

-Legal doping I would agree with would be in the context of the O.P; healthy, controlled and in the open. There will always be a place for doping control.

It's the dishonesty and cheating that I think should be eliminated, rather than ingesting a particular drug.

 

[BotanyBay]

This one qualifies for a shark PLUS "The McGinley factor" (certain death to any show or thread):

The shark jump is when the show reaches it's absolute peak (it's all downhill from there). McGinley is the angel of death. When they cast McGinley, everyone's soon out of a job. It's in the contract!

 

[Ferminal]

You're forgetting that most of these drugs are actually illegal... Any organisation fostering their use would be taken down very easily.