What to do

[Murray]

The subjective probability I attach to the event that degradation caused the EPO signature to occur in Lance's gels is less than 0.01

You've proven my point for me.... you've attached a value of <0.01 based on no data, just your opinion. That's why we test things.... our opinions are very often wrong.

 

[Realist]

To carry the desire for a clean peleton another step - what would pro tours look like if the capability is found to guarantee a clean peleton? First off it seems illogical that the distances covered per avg. day of the GT's could be maintained, unless audience is excited by wasted riders weaving in @ 10 min intervals. So I think the per day distances would need to come down for one.

While the aim is good and true I believe there would become much collateral damage to the various tours financially if the !Wow! high cadence fast climbing factor cannot be maintained. Just look at the tours back pedal after the fan attrition after O.P.,Rasmussen,Landis,etc to regain audience from the many who became disallusioned and lost interest. IMO this is a catch22 for the Pro Tour as a industry, and I take a middle of the road opinion due to the difficulty of maintaing the business aspects given the complexities in play.

All pro sport depends on audience. Audience is made up of mostly average folk who go to watch someone they wish they could be. For better or worse.

Personally I'd prefer for sure an honest transparency in all sports. Primarily so physiology and devotion, integrety, and honor to ones sport are the determinate factors. Sadly human history and nature indicate as soon as cleanliness is achieved, the dirt reappears. Some call it survival. The real champs and heroes buck that, but typically are never 'known'. Most are out here living honestly and go about for the pure experience, not to be adulated upon.

I agree human nature is fickle and dirt will always appear. I think the challenge is to keep it to a minimum. As to having to reduce the length or difficulty of protour races or face "wasted riders weaving in @ 10 min intervals", I am not convinced of this. I have seen enough power data from good riders I know to say that pro tour riders are a lot better than amateurs, but not so much better that I would think you have to dope to be within 10% of the best pro tour riders.

I see people suggesting 'oh it is impossible to do this, to do that' and talking about numbers like 400w being really high. That's a lot of power for an hour, but I have done it for a touch over 10 minutes several times, training an average of 10-12 hours a week. I'm a little overweight at ~78kg but if I was a real athlete I could imagine getting down to 72kg. I don't think I'd ever maintain it for an hour, but I'll never run a four minute mile either. The good U23's I've seen (who I know are clean) do this kind of power or more in a 10 minute test, but they do the 10 minutes after they have done 3 short sprints and then a 30s, a 60s and a 4 minute maximal effort with only five minutes recovery between each one. These are guys who are training seriously but still going to college. You would expect better performances from the top 200 athletes in the world. I don't think eliminating (or at least minimising...) dope makes the tour impossible - it just makes it fairer.

Nb: When I say I know these riders, know as in... they are my close friends, I eat dinner with them regularly, I train with them regularly and sometimes race with them when we are in the same country. There is no doubt they are clean. For a start, they couldn't afford the gear if they wanted it.

 

[dbrower]

I think getting rid of the UCI in its current form is not a bad idea. I am not convinced we can leave so much control in the hands of the riders though. If the wrong riders get close to power, we get the same situation as we have now all over again. That is part of the problem isn't it? That some riders and ex-riders are extremely influential? I would prefer that there was greater movement towards control of the sport by all licensed racing cyclists.

I believe the riders must have something working for their economic interests, and I believe it needs to be in tension with just one agency acting for the business interests. Those two parties need to work together to satisfy legal requirements. What I don't see a place for is the confused baggage brought by the IOC/WADA/UCI parties.

Like it or not, Le Tour is the crown jewel of the sport, and it is not controlled by the UCI, so the UCI really doesn't need a seat at the table.

-dB

 

[Realist]

You've proven my point for me.... you've attached a value of <0.01 based on no data, just your opinion. That's why we test things.... our opinions are very often wrong.

As a debating point, you might win on that, but you seem to be reasonably educated, so I'm sure you realise that one can express one's opinion as a probability. There is no contradiction between using a number and having that number summarise my opinion. I never represented the number to be anything other than an opinion - in fact I explicitly said it was that. I have clarified my position with a precise statement of what I believe. It is not based on no data, but incomplete data. It is based on (i) the fact that it is unlikely that a molecule would degrade over time to have the same signature (equals, basically, mass-charge ratio) as epo and (ii) I believe in the expertise of Ashenden. It would be better to have a study. I don't disagree.

Hence I can form a subjective view of the probability of an event and express that view, and express that view. The probability I expressed was exactly my opinion - that is the point of expressing it.

See here for a general discussion of this in the context of a far more important problem: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/12/climate_skeptic.html

By the way, we do this stuff all the time... I am currently running an experiment. In order to work out sample size (do power calculations) I have to 'guess' (an informed guess, based on past research) the probability distribution of different effect sizes. In the absence of data we use intuition, analogy with past work and known results applied in different contexts to hone our parameter and probability estimates. Then we check them as best we can. Similarly, in choosing to gamble or make financial decisions, we implicitly estimate probabilities with incomplete information.

I can't check what happens to frozen samples of urine right now, so I'll have to rely on the best information I can get and make a guess. There is some uncertainty. I have clarified the extent to which I think it is uncertain - not very, hence my low estimate. I can provide my reasoning but I think it would be entirely fair to take a different view to me. Out of fairness, perhaps you could let us know your view with the same level of precision as I have?

Just your opinion of course, but expressed with the clarity and exactness that only numbers can provide...

 

[JFDavis]

Realist- Yes I agree with you regards my weaving in @ 10 mins example. Was a hyped statement more for effect than particular accuracy. Indeed if all are on the same level the group comes in similar/same regardless. I do wonder about back to back 180-200km stages 3-5 days a week being doable clean? Especially as a rider gets older.

Also my opinions are as a life time rider of 2 wheels-both road and trail and commuter, but never been a racer, and now past 50. So I grew up on Schwinns, then Puegoet, mavic, vittoria, wool tights and campy bits. Thus some of my opinion is based on conjecture and antique philosophies, and open to correction in these days of analytical number crunching-and corrections willingly accepted ;]

The only point I feel I can reliably make is to the nature of ambition, achievement, and the desire to be first,best,get the food, get the whatever, etc etc, that propels us all, especially in our younger ages. All species. And the challenge of getting rid of an 'undesired' aspect of nature- the Hydra thing-chop off one head and two new heads spring forth. Then your battle compounds.

Reading the comments again I must add that I do believe it is worthwhile to push for a purge of PED's as best as possible and keep the issue on the front burner. If not then the sport will become the WWF on wheels. It already is getting kind of strange out there-headbutts being todays new form...nice 'style'. Bet the Sponsors are getting a bit tired of there name being associated with these 'tactics'??? Maybe it doesn't matter. But if it were me in their shoes as sponsors I'd be very un happy. The Cav issues at TdS and now this. Thor H is much more my style of rider to encourage.
Go Scandia...

 

[Realist]

Realist- Yes I agree with you regards my weaving in @ 10 mins example. I thought it obviously innacurate after I went back to work. Was a hyped statement more for effect than particular accuracy. Indeed if all are on the same level the group comes in similar/same regardless. I do wonder about 180-200km stages 4-5 days a week being doable clean?

Also I have opinions as a life time rider of 2 wheels-both road and trail and commuter, but never been a racer, so some of my opinion is based on conjecture, and open to correction.

The only point I can reliably make is the one to the nature of ambition, achievement, and the desire to be first,best,get the food, get the whatever, etc etc, that propels our species. All species. And the old saw about the Hydra-chop off one head and 100 new appear.

Another interesting aspect to ponder, although impossible realistically, is a side-by-side pro tour of clean saint peleton, and the criminal gladiators peleton. Who would get more attention, air time and $$$$'s. Hard to go back maybe to the good ol' Coffe and coka days now. Amgens ToC for example...

Reading the comments again I must add that I do believe it is worthwhile to push for a purge of PED's. If not then the sport will become the WWF on wheels. It already is getting kind of strange out there-headbutts being todays new form...nice 'style'.

Nice thread discussion...thanks.

Indeed. I think the hope is that, rather than changing people, you change the game. Shift incentives and change rules and enforcement techniques until it doesn't make sense to cheat. But you will not do it on a case by case basis I don't think. So yes, +1 to most of this.

 

[rhubroma]

I don't think the problem can be fixed, for it's human nature to try and improve in all aspects of life. The world of sport is simply a venue that merely makes it more evident the human desire to always obtain greater results. Doping lives in various forms among us. Was not the so called creative finacing, that led to the economic crisis, a form of doping at Wall Street? Isn't plastic surgery a form of cosmetic doping? Or the pill craze to hone one's skills and sharpen one's consentration in the office or classroom a form of psychological doping?

I cite these examples to make the point that for human beings, in the market-gains cultural model we have created and live with, doping is a pervasive, common everyday practice. Either we change the model, or we have to except (or at least comprehend) the consequences of such a reality. And part of that model comes in the form of gargantuan funds. It is admirable to pursue a "purer" world in sport, though this is ultimately a goal, as with any moralistic quest, that is illusory.

 

[Realist]

I don't think the problem can be fixed, for it's human nature to try and improve in all aspects of life. The world of sport is simply a venue that merely makes it more evident the human desire to always obtain greater results. Doping lives in various forms among us. Was not the so called creative finacing, that led to the economic crisis, a form of doping at Wall Street? Isn't plastic surgery a form of cosmetic doping? Or the pill craze to hone one's skills and sharpen one's consentration in the office or classroom a form of psychological doping?

I cite these examples to make the point that for human beings, in the market-gains cultural model we have created and live with, doping is a pervasive, common everyday practice. Either we change the model, or we have to except (or at least comprehend) the consequences of such a reality. And part of that model comes in the form of gargantuan funds. It is admirable to pursue a "purer" world in sport, though this is ultimately a goal, as with any moralistic quest, that is illusory.

I respect your position as a philosophically consistent one, yet disagree in the strongest possible terms. I agree there are aspects of the model that we currently live under that push people towards bad behaviour. I do not think that these things will ever be entirely removed. Yet the fact that attempt at improvement may not yield perfection does not justify ignoring the possibility that they might make the world a better place. If you think the pursuit of morals is illusory, your worldview is distant from mine, and most of humanity. The one inconsistency is, I'm not sure how you can see something as admirable yet also see the pursuit of moral/ethical behaviour as illusory? What does admirable mean to you?

 

[JFDavis]

I don't think the problem can be fixed, for it's human nature to try and improve in all aspects of life. The world of sport is simply a venue that merely makes it more evident the human desire to always obtain greater results. Doping lives in various forms among us. Was not the so called creative finacing, that led to the economic crisis, a form of doping at Wall Street? Isn't plastic surgery a form of cosmetic doping? Or the pill craze to hone one's skills and sharpen one's consentration in the office or classroom a form of psychological doping?

I cite these examples to make the point that for human beings, in the market-gains cultural model we have created and live with, doping is a pervasive, common everyday practice. Either we change the model, or we have to except (or at least comprehend) the consequences of such a reality. And part of that model comes in the form of gargantuan funds. It is admirable to pursue a "purer" world in sport, though this is ultimately a goal, as with any moralistic quest, that is illusory.

Very well said. On the day to day level change for a PED free Pro Tour does appear daunting and impossible. And it may be. But in the face of so many historic issues of same apparent impossibilities Humans have pushed through to improve in many and various venues of our collective standards.

For example - The Moon was once believed to be made of cheese. Then in the hope it was due to the enormous volumes involved and potential to compete with the great french cheeses we sent some guys to check it out. It was disappointing, but we did get Tang out of the deal.

But seriously it is a large and daunting endeavor to try to get truth into the sport. As you say the issue is very well rooted in the cultural bias and preferences, which I label as the GreedComplex of our modern times. I was young when one heard regularly things like 'the golden rule' , 'do unto others' etc. Today the visual media projects subliminals 24/7 that give no room to consider other than the message being injected. And it ain't about fairness IMVA.
Nice thread Realist---tnxs. GoodDay

 

[JFDavis]

I respect your position as a philosophically consistent one, yet disagree in the strongest possible terms. I agree there are aspects of the model that we currently live under that push people towards bad behaviour. I do not think that these things will ever be entirely removed. Yet the fact that attempt at improvement may not yield perfection does not justify ignoring the possibility that they might make the world a better place. If you think the pursuit of morals is illusory, your worldview is distant from mine, and most of humanity. The one inconsistency is, I'm not sure how you can see something as admirable yet also see the pursuit of moral/ethical behaviour as illusory? What does admirable mean to you?

Agree 1000. It is only a half argument that it is unchangeable. The whole argument is that it appears to be unchangeable. Like my ludicrous Moon analogy. And yet to move into any issue guantees change. So the diff between half and whole is to do something if one wants a different condition to evolve. In the final I agree that this is the solution. But we never know what the outcome will be. But to get in a do something is crucial to advance and improve.

On another aspect of this particular subject, I believe vilifying and too strong punishment of the sport and individual riders is counter productive, and contains the Hydra dilemma-the building of resentments etc which turn around and bite back.

Honestly I have no answers for how to fix it on the street level as the myriad available technologies and product are so fluent that again - the Hydra thing. My view is that you'd need to tackle it on the technology and production level, but that horse was already rounding turn 3 twenty years ago. Where as now it may be possible (likely)to manu'ftr clandestine. Similar to the guns debate, outlaw them and ma and pa will start turning Uzi barrels in the basement.

Now it is a ? of how to live with it, reduce it, etc. Police State for the Pro Tour? In the old Gladiator days those boys lived in 'controlled' conditions. We're along way from that reality. Forward is obviously the only way. The key is keep turning the screws and it will evolve...IMO

Or do nothing and let the fans who want to support a freak show do that, and when more guys begin to drop then perhaps fewer athletes will go that route, and hearken to honest living and let the chips of fortune fall where they will in their personal life. Pursuing FameFortune is never what one expects anyway. All downhill after the momentary zenith. What's that saying-all heros become bores...

 

[rhubroma]

I respect your position as a philosophically consistent one, yet disagree in the strongest possible terms. I agree there are aspects of the model that we currently live under that push people towards bad behaviour. I do not think that these things will ever be entirely removed. Yet the fact that attempt at improvement may not yield perfection does not justify ignoring the possibility that they might make the world a better place. If you think the pursuit of morals is illusory, your worldview is distant from mine, and most of humanity. The one inconsistency is, I'm not sure how you can see something as admirable yet also see the pursuit of moral/ethical behaviour as illusory? What does admirable mean to you?

I simply point out that "moralistic quests" have always proved illusory throughout history. And they have often been, though obviously not in the case of trying to rid cycling of the scourge of doping, more evil than that which they were trying to combat. From the Inquisition, to the Witch Hunts, to the racial purity goals (which among the perpetrators, was considered a "moral" objective) of the XX century ideologues.

Thus many times moral/ethical quests can be far from admirable, at other times they really are (as in our case). However they are all illusory. For the bad can never be alltogether removed. It can be combated, but never completely eliminated. To achieve otherwise would be utopia.

PS: I'm not advocating not putting up a fight, though, as your forum name states, being a realist about the probable results.

 

[Realist]

I simply point out that "moralistic quests" have always proved illusory throughout history. And they have often been, though obviously not in the case of trying to rid cycling of the scourge of doping, more evil than that which they were trying to combat. From the Inquisition, to the Witch Hunts, to the racial purity goals (which among the perpetrators, was considered a "moral" objective) of the XX century ideologues.

Thus many times moral/ethical quests can be far from admirable, at other times they really are (as in our case). However they are all illusory. For the bad can never be alltogether removed. It can be combated, but never completely eliminated. To achieve otherwise would be utopia.

PS: I'm not advocating not putting up a fight, though, as your forum name states, being a realist about the probable results.

Not that I'm saying doping is even a millionth as important as these things, but:

Moralistic quests like...

Civil rights movement?
Women's suffrage (and rights generally)?

This kind of debates can get a little semantic. I think these things generally have to be made specific. What can be done, and will it or won't it work in a given situation?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I simply point out that "moralistic quests" have always proved illusory throughout history. And they have often been, though obviously not in the case of trying to rid cycling of the scourge of doping, more evil than that which they were trying to combat. From the Inquisition, to the Witch Hunts, to the racial purity goals (which among the perpetrators, was considered a "moral" objective) of the XX century ideologues.

Thus many times moral/ethical quests can be far from admirable, at other times they really are (as in our case). However they are all illusory. For the bad can never be alltogether removed. It can be combated, but never completely eliminated. To achieve otherwise would be utopia.

PS: I'm not advocating not putting up a fight, though, as your forum name states, being a realist about the probable results.

'Rhubroma', it may be your view that it is some sort of 'moral quest' - for me it is not.

In earlier posts you are correct - there will always be those that try to gain an advantage. But you pointed out that the way to combat this is to remove the money-and then in your next post talk about 'cosmetic surgery' as 'doping'- where is the financial gain in having better boobs?


Where I come from 10 years ago drink & driving was a way of life - while there were efforts at 'education' & 'advertising campaigns' neither made any great change to peoples behavior.
But some years ago a new law came in - cops could now do random checks, anywhere, anytime on anyone.
The effect was immediate - on every level, incidents and accidents were down, road deaths were down - and probably more importantly the tolerance to DUI changed overnight.
There morals of DUI had not changed - just the application of law and enforcement. Of course there are those who still risk it - but the penalties (legal and social) act as deterrent to most.

 

[sars1981]

I honestly dont even care that much. Doping is part of sports. Sports is entertainment. Who gives a toss. There's plenty of other things in the world to be more concerned about.

 

[Animal]

Similar to the guns debate, outlaw them and ma and pa will start turning Uzi barrels in the basement.

Bad analogy. Nobody over here privately manufactures automatic weaponry in their workshops.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I honestly don't even care that much. Doping is part of sports. Sports is entertainment. Who gives a toss. There's plenty of other things in the world to be more concerned about.

I don't understand this view that "sport is entertainment"?

Entertinment: something affording pleasure, diversion, or amusement, esp. a performance of some kind:

Everything is entertainment - I have even been to funerals that were 'entertainment'.

In sports the entertainment is usually in seeing something done that is 'humanly attainable' - through hardwork, dedication, focus.. yada yada..

But the entertainment in Pro Cycling is mostly received from the performances and in particular the battles - the use of PED's in cycling offers little to the entertainment value of it.

 

[FactChecker]

The problem with the way doping is treated is that it is treated as a sports issue. Bans from the sport are not enough deterrent, and only hit half the target.

The dopers are taking prizes from other people. They are defrauding them, and they should be charged with fraud. Floyd Landis attempted to deprive Oscar Pereiro of a LOT of money. If he had done it by stealing it out of his bank he would have got jail.

Not only the riders, but all the associated people need to be charged with accessory to fraud. Doctors particularly. There is no way someone giving a professional rider EPO can argue that they don't know what the effect will be. A doped rider will deprive a clean rider of money.

How would it be worthwhile for a doctor to give the drugs if they faced jail and being deprived of their licence to practice? Likewise the trainers? They are the soft targets.

There's no particular need to write any new laws, although I dare say they could be made more specific. There is a need to stop considering it merely a sporting issue.

 

[sars1981]

I don't understand this view that "sport is entertainment"?

Entertinment: something affording pleasure, diversion, or amusement, esp. a performance of some kind:

Everything is entertainment - I have even been to funerals that were 'entertainment'.

In sports the entertainment is usually in seeing something done that is 'humanly attainable' - through hardwork, dedication, focus.. yada yada..

But the entertainment in Pro Cycling is mostly received from the performances and in particular the battles - the use of PED's in cycling offers little to the entertainment value of it.

The definition of entertainment I am talking about is that of the entertainment industry. Sport is a product for people to consume much in the same way sitcoms, cartoons and fizzy drinks are.

 

[rhubroma]

'Rhubroma', it may be your view that it is some sort of 'moral quest' - for me it is not.

In earlier posts you are correct - there will always be those that try to gain an advantage. But you pointed out that the way to combat this is to remove the money-and then in your next post talk about 'cosmetic surgery' as 'doping'- where is the financial gain in having better boobs?


Where I come from 10 years ago drink & driving was a way of life - while there were efforts at 'education' & 'advertising campaigns' neither made any great change to peoples behavior.
But some years ago a new law came in - cops could now do random checks, anywhere, anytime on anyone.
The effect was immediate - on every level, incidents and accidents were down, road deaths were down - and probably more importantly the tolerance to DUI changed overnight.
There morals of DUI had not changed - just the application of law and enforcement. Of course there are those who still risk it - but the penalties (legal and social) act as deterrent to most.

If you are a hooker...or billionaire opportunist I suppose.

Well to me, looking at things from my vantage, the campaign against doping in sport is a bit like the so called "War Against Drugs," which has done nothing to alter US consumers mania for narcotics. To the contrary it has placed the drug market in the hands of organized crime, resulted in a huge arms trade between the US gun manufacturers and the Mexican drug cartel, and witnessed unprecedented quantaties of drugs enter the nation's borders, etc. Like prohibition in the 30's, the camapaign to make the country a more "wholesome place," only gave the Al Capones a perfect opportunity.

Stiffer penalties in curbing people's drinking and driving habits is a poor comparison to make here. In the first place because drinking and driving isn't a huge profit industry the way sport is. In the second place because we are dealing with a practice targeted at obtaining a winning result with huge financial insentives at stake. Thus the insentive to try and dodge the system will allways be greater than the one to refrain from doping. Whereas drinking and driving only gets you in trouble. The way you deal with doping in sport is to eliminate the financial insentive. Though if you do that, you do away with modern sport and you arrive at my original syllogism above.

Ultimately we think we are out to "make the world a better place," by prohibition agendas, when all we really achieve is the illusion of such justice.
I'm for fighting doping, though it is a moral agenda. How else would you call it?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If you are a hooker...or billionaire opportunist I suppose.

Well to me, looking at things from my vantage, the campaign against doping in sport is a bit like the so called "War Against Drugs," which has done nothing to alter US consumers mania for narcotics. To the contrary it has placed the drug market in the hands of organized crime, resulted in a huge arms trade between the US gun manufacturers and the Mexican drug cartel, and witnessed unprecedented quantities of drugs enter the nation's borders, etc. Like prohibition in the 30's, the campaign to make the country a more "wholesome place," only gave the Al Capones a perfect opportunity.

Stiffer penalties in curbing people's drinking and driving habits is a poor comparison to make here. In the first place because drinking and driving isn't a huge profit industry the way sport is. In the second place because we are dealing with a practice targeted at obtaining a winning result with huge financial insentives at stake. Thus the insentive to try and dodge the system will allways be greater than the one to refrain from doping. Whereas drinking and driving only gets you in trouble. The way you deal with doping in sport is to eliminate the financial insentive. Though if you do that, you do away with modern sport and you arrive at my original syllogism above.

Ultimately we think we are out to "make the world a better place," by prohibition agendas, when all we really achieve is the illusion of such justice.
I'm for fighting doping, though it is a moral agenda. How else would you call it?

I don't believe my view on why PED's within sport is 'moralistic'.

This is what I do not get in your argument.
There will always be an incentive to circumvent the rules and gain an advantage - it is not just financial, as we have seen 'Masters' & 'juniors' get popped to.
So eliminating the financial side will not curb the enthusiasm to cheat.


With or without PED's in cycling - there will be winners and losers, exposure for teams and great stories - the sport won't change, just the name of the characters.


Again -your making a moralistic argument -where I had not - by brining up recreational drugs. Except the words drugs they have little in common - as the motivations to use are completely different and the use in itself only harms the end user.

But in sport PED's are Performance Enhancing - if you want to snort coke, then go right ahead, it has little effect on me.
But if we were competitors and you use PED's (Pretending we are exactly the same physical characteristics) then the advantage you would gain does impact me.
When there is little chance of getting caught and only a small penalty then it becomes a choice - either arm up or lose out.

 

[rhubroma]

I don't believe my view on why PED's within sport is 'moralistic'.

This is what I do not get in your argument.

Moralistic in a sense that doping goes against sport ethic. Moralistic in a sense to clean up the bildge. Moralistic in a sense to make wholesome a vile environment.

 

[rhubroma]

There will always be an incentive to circumvent the rules and gain an advantage - it is not just financial, as we have seen 'Masters' & 'juniors' get popped to.
So eliminating the financial side will not curb the enthusiasm to cheat.

If you take the financial insentive away, you take away a major reason to dope.

Financial resources have been inextricably connected to the phenomenon of doping. To kill the tree you have to take up the roots, not cut the branches. I see it like this: doping is fundamentally connected to an economic phenomenon (the roots), the pros make best use of the source first (the trunk), then it finds its way to the amatuers (masters and juniors) the branches.

The trick is being willing to seriously go after the roots. This, to me, seems what will always be lacking.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Moralistic in a sense that doping goes against sport ethic. Moralistic in a sense to clean up the bildge. Moralistic in a sense to make wholesome a vile environment.

Then no - my views or not 'moralistic'.

PED's in cycling are harmful - in a pursuit to gain an advantage many will experiment with drugs that have not been tested or even given approval to be used within the medical field that they were designed for.

Let me add - that is just my view, there are some here whose view is 'moralistic', ie 'drugs or bad', its cheating etc I don't particularly subscribe to that view - but if it is their view they are entitled to that, but you (& I) would quickly expose weaknesses in their argument.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If you take the financial insentive away, you take away a major reason to dope.

Financial resources have been inextricably connected to the phenomenon of doping. To kill the tree you have to take up the roots, not cut the branches. I see it like this: doping is fundamentally connected to an economic phenomenon (the roots), the pros make best use of the source first (the trunk), then it finds its way to the amatuers (masters and juniors) the branches.

The trick is being willing to seriously go after the roots. This, to me, seems what will always be lacking.

"To the victor, the spoils"
..... it is not just financial, it is social standing, recognition, and even the plain thrill of being successful - those incentives will always be there in every aspect of life.

If the incentives were just purely financial then the easy solution would be massive financial penalties.

 

[rhubroma]

Then no - my views or not 'moralistic'.

PED's in cycling are harmful - in a pursuit to gain an advantage many will experiment with drugs that have not been tested or even given approval to be used within the medical field that they were designed for.

Let me add - that is just my view, there are some here whose view is 'moralistic', ie 'drugs or bad', its cheating etc I don't particularly subscribe to that view - but if it is their view they are entitled to that, but you (& I) would quickly expose weaknesses in their argument.

I think most people's stance against doping in sport has to do with the cheating aspect, and hence a "moralistic" perspective, than as a public health threat (although one could classify this as 'moralistic too'--but I get your point).

I disapprove of the corruption and the culture of omertà surrounding doping in cycling, more than I do of an athlete taking health risks. What one chooses to put into their bodies (or not to put in) is their responsibility. It would simply be nice to have everything exposed, just to see the faces of people who have been believing in the myths for years suddenly confront reality.