The Middle Path: make cycling easier or allow some doping

[Francois the Postman]

This could make for an interesting debate. So less wall-space for exchange killing put-downs (verbal or pictorial) and keep it to argumentation please.

 

[Altitude]

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.



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 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.

So you legalise certain products/methods and set a limit to the amount you can take/how often you can transfuse. Then "doped" riders are the ones who push the envelope and take more than they are allowed.

So it would go from "there's no way that guy is clean" to "there's no way that guy is within the limits of allowed doping". Same problem as they have now, just slightly modified.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.



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 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.

Training is not "unhealthy" - training does indeed enhance performance, but naturally.

Were are discussing Performance Enhancing Drugs.

Again what is a 'legal' or "healthly controlled and open" situation?

I have 'sanitizer' on EPO - its only meant to be at 55% but I told him it was 50% and if called to a test to take some solution and drink lots which he thinks is for helping him to urinate.
The HGH he thinks he is on is actually a new drug that we are testing - if his headaches persist we might stop it.


Seriously - how does a 'healthy controlled' system work. How does that get rid of (your final point) 'dishonesty and cheating' when any system that allows doping (even limited) would immediately cast aside the ethical doctors and athletes that would be needed to implement such a system.

 

[Sanitiser]

Safe doping has been occurring for several decades. It is not beyond the realm of reality that guidelines could be made to constitute what is 'safe doping'.

It's better than Ferrari et al. treating people like guinea pigs.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Safe doping has been occurring for several decades. It is not beyond the realm of reality that guidelines could be made to constitute what is 'safe doping'.

It's better than Ferrari et al. treating people like guinea pigs.

Really - did you ask the families of Sermon, Zanoli, Vermaut, Neves, Rose, Nolf, Galetti etc who died over the lst 10 years for their opinion?

What makes you think Ferrari (& the rest) who do not adhere to the present rules would suddenly abide by new rules?

 

[Sanitiser]

Yet Bruyneel, Landis, Ullrich, Riis, Vaughters are still alive and well. Your point being?

Ferrari et al. would not be part of the system.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yet Bruyneel, Landis, Ullrich, Riis, Vaughters are still alive and well. Your point being?

Ferrari et al. would not be part of the system.

I gave you a list of riders who have died in the last 10 years - all young fit athletes, do you really need me to point out how absurd it is to say PEDs can be administered safely.

How do you stop the Ferraris of this world? What Doctors or medical personnel would violate their Hippocratic oath to administer 'safe PEDs'?

 

[Sanitiser]

PEDs have been administered safely in most cases otherwise the majority of cyclists would be ill or dead.

If you want to argue about the safety about PEDs at least go on the long term side effects. Then you might have some credence.

To your last point- plenty. Because they would be legitimised by the system.

 

[erader]

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.

so you think that if transfusions were "allowed" no other doping would take place...really?

erader

 

[Sanitiser]

No but you now have a reason to change the system and enforce harsher punishments.

 

[Ferminal]

By the way, the idea that the difficulty of certain cycling events encourages doping is an absolute fallacy. It was discussed rather extensively in "The Giro is so hard that it encourages doping" thread.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

PEDs have been administered safely in most cases otherwise the majority of cyclists would be ill or dead.

If you want to argue about the safety about PEDs at least go on the long term side effects. Then you might have some credence.

To your last point- plenty. Because they would be legitimised by the system.

Ahhh, I see - a safe system is where less than the majority of people die.
So, 'unsafe drugs' would be drugs that 'have long term side effects'.....wouldn't you be a while finding out that the safe drugs had 'long term side effects'?

As to your last point - look up the term 'Hippocratic oath'.

No but you now have a reason to change the system and enforce harsher punishments.

Or why not just try and change the system, enforce harsher punishments etc on a system without requesting people to dope?

 

[Sanitiser]

Ahhh, I see - a safe system is where less than the majority of people die.
So, 'unsafe drugs' would be drugs that 'have long term side effects'.....wouldn't you be a while finding out that the safe drugs had 'long term side effects'?

Why would we do anything then? Cycle, drive cars, cross the road etc. Everything is inherit with risk. The long term side effects for most drugs regularly used by the peloton are already known so it could be carefully managed.

As to your last point - look up the term 'Hippocratic oath'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
Do you?

Or why not just try and change the system, enforce harsher punishments etc on a system without requesting people to dope?

Because that's not how real life works. It's carrot and sticks not just sticks.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Why would we do anything then? Cycle, drive cars, cross the road etc. Everything is inherit with risk. The long term side effects for most drugs regularly used by the peloton are already known so it could be carefully managed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
Do you?

Because that's not how real life works. It's carrot and sticks not just sticks.

Yes everything is inherent with risk.

But guess what in the 3 examples you give...
When I cycle I wear a helmet.
Which is why there are speed limits when we drive.
We look both ways before we cross the road.

But you fail to appreciate that PEDs and what they do for enhancement is not a choice even remotley similar to any of your examples.

If you want to run across a busy road, or not wear a helmet when you ride it has no effect on me or anyone else - however if you get an advantage in compeition (which is a Pros livelihood) than that then forces many to have to make a choice.

Your view of 'safe doping' is taking away the only safegaurd there is for those who do not share your view on what constitutes 'safe doping'.


In real life there are rules and consequences for breaking those rules - in UCI life there are some rules.

 

[Sanitiser]

The UCI rules are arbitrary even the UCI doesn't follow them.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The UCI rules are arbitrary even the UCI doesn't follow them.

All rules are arbitary - but that is not the reason why the UCI does not follow the rules (WADAs or their own).

But why introduce new rules when you acknowledge that the problem is that the authority that is supposed to enforce the current rules does not?
Why not just fix the problem instead of introducing new (& meaningless) rules?

 

[Sanitiser]

Change the UCI, change the system.

 

[lean mean &green]

Because that's not how real life works. It's carrot and sticks not just sticks.

i don't know what carrots and sticks have to do with it. is that supposed to be a clever way of saying you want to manipulate incentives/disencentives?

dr M was right. you're just moving the goal posts and quite arbitrarily i might add. as some have said, it puts you RIGHT back where you started. why not just have very low tolerances so as to give athletes who want to compete without drugs the opportunity to do so?

i won't overstate the risks of PED use. there will always be risk but i can certainly imagine an athlete with the help of a well qualified medical professional using performance enhancing drugs/methods with relatively few long term effects. it IS apparent they sometimes do. they would have to be monitored carefully and all involved would need to show restraint. it's the restraint part i don't think will ever work tho. it also opens up antidoping authorities and those providing medical assistance to a smorgasboard of liabilities. then there's the question of whether this new system would be unattractive to sponsors? i could go on and on. it just doesn't work. every month or two someone meanders into the clinic having realised the easter bunny doesn't exist looking for a quick fix to alleviate this new anxiety they feel. they think they've cracked the case - we'll just "legalize" doping and closely monitor it, mission accomplished! ...and everytime the discussion resolves itself the same way. everyone realises drugs have always been and will continue to be "legal" to a point. it's extremely naive to think the goal of antidoping efforts is to eradicate doping in all its forms, it's not. the sporting utopia will never exist. where there's competition there will be cheating. the goal is to narrow the gap and to once again make participating drug free a realistic option. arbitrarily loosening tolerances will accomplish nothing.

 

[Sanitiser]

No this is the one forum that I think most people are so naive about the real world. It's like the Bassons thread. Sure applaud the feel good nature but **** like that doesn't work in the real world. The logical extension of his statements is to forgive murderers because they have 'daddy issues'.

I never sad legalise all doping just parts of it hence 'middle path'.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No this is the one forum that I think most people are so naive about the real world. It's like the Bassons thread. Sure applaud the feel good nature but **** like that doesn't work in the real world. The logical extension of his statements is to forgive murderers because they have 'daddy issues'.

I never sad legalize all doping just parts of it hence 'middle path'.

Actually if you had said legalize doping it would be a more manageable and practical solution to the one you raise - however as LMG said that would not be palatable to either the sporting authorities or indeed the general public as sport would be a chemistry test.

Also, you have completely missed Bassons point - address the inherent weakness to dope (which is in most of us) and you have gone a longer way to changing the attitudes to dope in the first incidence then putting in rules that no-one enforces.

 

[Maxiton]

Actually if you had said legalize doping it would be a more manageable and practical solution to the one you raise - however as LMG said that would not be palatable to either the sporting authorities or indeed the general public as sport would be a chemistry test.

Also, you have completely missed Bassons point - address the inherent weakness to dope (which is in most of us) and you have gone a longer way to changing the attitudes to dope in the first incidence then putting in rules that no-one enforces.

For a cartoon character you're pretty wise. As far as drugs go, I agree it's all or nothing. If you're going to allow certain PEDs to be used, you pretty much end up having to allow any and all PEDs. And who is going to watch that? Nothing to believe in there, nothing to be impressed by, no one to root for.

But what about this: legalize autologous transfusion. Everything else, upon denial of one appeal, brings lifetime ban. Two lifetime bans from one team within, say, a ten year period brings revocation of license. Also, introduce criminal penalties. Surely these steps would all but eliminate doping after a short time, yet allow the riders some relief from having to race GTs flat out with no other assistance.

 

[Sanitiser]

Recreational drug use and PED use are similar. Society deems one necessary to live, athletes deems one necessary to make a living.

Prohibition does not work. Hence society and the government in their collective wisdom deems alcohol and cigarettes legal and other drugs are not. That has to do with cultural reasons and issues about public health (debatable) but they are legal anyway.

Similarly all PEDs are not the same. You can allow some and prohibit others set on some criteria.

I'd be happy with Maxiton's last paragraph.

 

[Maxiton]

Lifetime bans, license revocations and criminal penalties will all but eliminate doping. Once these things are in place and accepted, and once there is a reliable test to detect autologous transfusion, then that too can be added to the list of prohibited practices.

 

[lean mean &green]

But what about this: legalize autologous transfusion. Everything else, upon denial of one appeal, brings lifetime ban. Two lifetime bans from one team within, say, a ten year period brings revocation of license. Also, introduce criminal penalties. Surely these steps would all but eliminate doping after a short time, yet allow the riders some relief from having to race GTs flat out with no other assistance.

I'd be happy with Maxiton's last paragraph.

um, no.

autologous transfusions are only minimally effective without synthetic EPO to stimulate erythropoiesis, especially after a withdrawal. because red cells can only be stored for about 2 months, the penalty for withdraw offsets much of the benefit of reinfusion. freezing instead of refrigerating cells would be one work-around but then you create inequities based upon access to healthcare professionals and more complex procedures. also, remember that WADA code applies to all, pro's, elite amateurs, and over competitive masters alike. no one, absolutely NO ONE, is going to adhere strictly to autologous transfusions and little else. in fact, there are all kinds of ripple effects i don't care to go into, think about the interpretation of blood profiles that consist of these wild fluctuations - just thinking of those makes me laugh and then kind of gives me a headache. legal auto transfusions in isolation is a fantasy.

 

[Ferminal]

Lifetime bans, license revocations and criminal penalties will all but eliminate doping.

Not really...

Making it more likely to be caught will reduce doping.

I mean, tougher penalties will have a bit of an effect, but will not "all but eliminate doping". It becomes fairly irrelevant when the chance of being caught is rather low. There needs to be a greater likelihood of being sanctioned combined with tougher penalties across the board.

But that is not considering justice issues with harsher penalties.