When does it cross the line?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 8, 2009
837
0
0
In my opinion the banned substances list should be based on danger to an athlete's health, rather than whether a substance is "performance enhancing". It's only the use of this vocabulary that creates ethical dilemmas like this, pain killers are not dangerous (taken in the correct dosage) so should be allowed (in the correct dosage). Asthma medication is similar. If WADA desires to ban anything that is "performance enhancing" then they will have to ban training.
 
auscyclefan94 said:
Pain killers are used a lot for the injuries of AFL players. I remember in the 2003 AFL GF that it was found by MCG staff that about 20 syringes in a rubbish bin in the brisbane Lions area. My personal belief is that the pain killers and even simple drugs such as paracetemol should not be taken unless a prescription is required for the particular drug on a day of competition. That would eliminate the performance enhancing issue. Players may whinge about it and it does seem unfair but they would be more certain of a level playing field.

Are pain killers really used much in cycling? I didn't think so. I thought it was more in ball sports were tissue injuries are common
were those syringes only pain killers for the Lions?

As for usage in cycling, you can't tell me that Cadel wasn't using some form of pain killer for his broken elbow during the Tour. same for every other crashed rider during any tour...
I reckon that pain killers will be used widely in cycling.

damon wyans character in Last Boy Scout touches on the painkiller usage/addiction of NFL players - no reason to believe this doesn't translate across other sports...
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Arnout said:
And what about taking pain killers during a time trial? It happens on a wide scale and you cannot tell me it is not performance enhancing, but it is also legal.

That's why I think the whole doping discussion is a bit arbitrary and pathetic.
No it isn't arbitrary- all banned substances are widely listed and available on the WADA website and on the IF website.

If an athlete has a genuine medical condition a TUE can be sought for various products.

Bumeington said:
In my opinion the banned substances list should be based on danger to an athlete's health, rather than whether a substance is "performance enhancing". It's only the use of this vocabulary that creates ethical dilemmas like this, pain killers are not dangerous (taken in the correct dosage) so should be allowed (in the correct dosage). Asthma medication is similar. If WADA desires to ban anything that is "performance enhancing" then they will have to ban training.
While I can see your overall point the underlined is the dilema.

It is rarely the drugs themselves that are the danger - it is how (& how much) it is administered.
Adding to this is that PEDs are usually used with other PEDs and you have a cocktail of substances that has never been studied or published on the effects it has on the athlete as these drugs are being used for a different reason than there original purpose.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
No it isn't arbitrary- all banned substances are widely listed and available on the WADA website and on the IF website.

If an athlete has a genuine medical condition a TUE can be sought for various products.


While I can see your overall point the underlined is the dilema.

It is rarely the drugs themselves that are the danger - it is how (& how much) it is administered.
Adding to this is that PEDs are usually used with other PEDs and you have a cocktail of substances that has never been studied or published on the effects it has on the athlete as these drugs are being used for a different reason than there original purpose.
Banned substances are listed, yeah. But why are they banned? Why is coke banned and massage not? Massage helps reducing the lactic acid (If I'm not mistaken) more quickly, EPO helps regenerating your blood values more quickly. What's the fundamental difference?

You cannot tell me that's unhealthy. My granddad used it for years.

That's why the biological passport is actually quite a nice tool. Simply let the cyclists free and control their values in race. As long as they don't deviate too much from their base values, who cares? It's probably better, as they are allowed to recover in a way logical after a 200+ full-speed day of racing.

It also reduces the point of using all kind of vague substances to increase recovery or speed or whatever for little bits. Actually, EPO is one of the few banned substances which really makes a big difference in performance, all the other PEDs are not really that PE for cycling.

And the good thing is, is that cycling itself imposes a limit. Many substances have side-effects, such as sleepiness, weight gain etc, things you don't need when cycling. Building excessive muscles won't help too much uphill when you gain an equal amount of weight.

It's also better when cyclists are ill, as they are now not allowed to use many substances which have an healing effect. World turned around for me.

So just control the blood passport and when they deviate a significant amount warn them. That means all riders get access to decent recovery and it also allows the UCI to control all the riders, because they can now give team doctors a certificate. This team doctors then can help the riders optimally (again, within rather strict limits imposed by the passport). That means both the cyclists will be more healthy and the doping problem will be gone (and also associated problems as contaminated food, if it happens one time, doctor will control your health and values more closely for a while and that's it).

When used properly, doping is no more dangerous than eating (and certainly less dangerous than cycling) and it will actually increase the health and well-being of the cyclists. And when used properly, there is no fundamental difference between doping, massage, gel food, or whatever, as all are artificial things to increase the speed and performance of the cyclist).
 
Arnout said:
Banned substances are listed, yeah. But why are they banned? Why is coke banned and massage not? Massage helps reducing the lactic acid (If I'm not mistaken) more quickly, EPO helps regenerating your blood values more quickly. What's the fundamental difference?
Massage doesn't kill.

I see your point, that the doping regs a kind of artifice with varied inconsistencies. That's life. You won't get anywhere trying to construct a 'consistent' sporting environment. Even if you could reach 'consistency' your version 'consistent' raises inconsistencies with others.

Arnout said:
You cannot tell me that's unhealthy. My granddad used it for years.
I'm pretty sure you are referring to EPO your granddad used? If so, it was used to prolong his life. Athlete's aren't in a phase of life where prolonging is the desired outcome.

Arnout said:
That's why the biological passport is actually quite a nice tool. Simply let the cyclists free and control their values in race. As long as they don't deviate too much from their base values, who cares? It's probably better, as they are allowed to recover in a way logical after a 200+ full-speed day of racing.
And there you have the kinder-gentler version of Hein and Pat's doping approach. Except it fails the simple and obvious test of "human limits."

You fail to understand how boring managed PED use would make racing. Go back to the "blue train" days at the TdF. Boring. Boring. Boring.

You also fail to acknowledge the history of the introduction of new pharmacology to the peloton. People die due to inexperience *and* until some obvious **testable** limits are put in place.

Arnout said:
And the good thing is, is that cycling itself imposes a limit.
False. Better drugs, new limits. See EPO.

Arnout said:
It's also better when cyclists are ill, as they are now not allowed to use many substances which have an healing effect. World turned around for me.
First, if you are sick, get your priorities in order and get better. TUE's are specifically used for this purpose.

Arnout said:
When used properly, doping is no more dangerous than eating (and certainly less dangerous than cycling) and it will actually increase the health and well-being of the cyclists.
The key words, "when used properly." When is that? When Tom Simpson died? Because before he died, every time prior to his death he used them properly. This is a logic that works until it doesn't. Fail.

Arnout said:
And when used properly, there is no fundamental difference between doping, massage, gel food, or whatever, as all are artificial things to increase the speed and performance of the cyclist).
Again with the "when used properly." You and other like you use this phrase as an indefensible way to forward an argument. It's not a valid argument because you alone become the arbiter of "properly." It doesn't work in real life.

No one is going to change your opinion. But you can't come up with a viable argument to convert many of the regulars who fully comprehend the consequences/externalities of doping.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
It is a good question, as I'm certain that I would have been able to turn-in better performances had pain been removed as a limiting factor. I just wonder how much of a "buffer-zone" exists between extreme pain and, you know, death and such.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Arnout said:
Banned substances are listed, yeah. But why are they banned? Why is coke banned and massage not? Massage helps reducing the lactic acid (If I'm not mistaken) more quickly, EPO helps regenerating your blood values more quickly. What's the fundamental difference?
Getting a massage is not Performance Enhancing. Overdoing massage will not kill you.

Arnout said:
You cannot tell me that's unhealthy. My granddad used it for years.
I'm going to take a wild guess here and assume that your Grandfather didn't go online and buy EPO to help him cycle better?
I assume he is using it to treat a medical condition under the direction of a physician - which is why these products were developed.

Arnout said:
That's why the biological passport is actually quite a nice tool. Simply let the cyclists free and control their values in race. As long as they don't deviate too much from their base values, who cares? It's probably better, as they are allowed to recover in a way logical after a 200+ full-speed day of racing.

It also reduces the point of using all kind of vague substances to increase recovery or speed or whatever for little bits. Actually, EPO is one of the few banned substances which really makes a big difference in performance, all the other PEDs are not really that PE for cycling.

And the good thing is, is that cycling itself imposes a limit. Many substances have side-effects, such as sleepiness, weight gain etc, things you don't need when cycling. Building excessive muscles won't help too much uphill when you gain an equal amount of weight.

It's also better when cyclists are ill, as they are now not allowed to use many substances which have an healing effect. World turned around for me.

So just control the blood passport and when they deviate a significant amount warn them. That means all riders get access to decent recovery and it also allows the UCI to control all the riders, because they can now give team doctors a certificate. This team doctors then can help the riders optimally (again, within rather strict limits imposed by the passport). That means both the cyclists will be more healthy and the doping problem will be gone (and also associated problems as contaminated food, if it happens one time, doctor will control your health and values more closely for a while and that's it).

When used properly, doping is no more dangerous than eating (and certainly less dangerous than cycling) and it will actually increase the health and well-being of the cyclists. And when used properly, there is no fundamental difference between doping, massage, gel food, or whatever, as all are artificial things to increase the speed and performance of the cyclist).
You're advocating the Biological Passport........ which the riders are circumventing by using products like EPO..... see the problem.

Even if the Bio Passport wasn't being circumvented it would not take in to account all other products and in particular new products, that again no-one could say what the effects of are when used as a PED in sports.

Again - those that have a genuine medical condition can get a TUE for it.
 
Mar 20, 2009
406
0
0
thehog said:
Drug use is never really a conscious decision. I remember when I was riding at a high level in the junior ranks. We were at a mini-stage race in Adelaide and some guy read that baking soda can offer substantial gains. So we went out at night looking for baking soda. Next morning we’re all consuming large amounts with our Nutra-Grain. Can’t say it helped but a lot of us spent a lot of time on the roadside leaving the effect of the baking soda on the side of the road and down our legs. We also got into vitamins and amino acids. Someone suggested that if you inject the vitamins you get more of an effect. So we did that. Never ever did we think it was drug use or even thought we were crossing a line. The things I saw later at the AIS shocked me. That’s when I knew it was wrong but most carried on as if it was completely normal. I remember hand written memos used to go out that if there was a “state visit” to the AIS from a politician or something like that the rooms and sports centres were to be kept clean. It would say something along the lines of “ensure dirty clothes, old bandages and used needles should be placed in the appropriate containers and out of sight”. Crazy days. One big step that the UCI is taking today is the “education program”. This is very important. A lot of juniors have no idea what’s accepted drug use and what is not. If a doc gives you an iron shot in the rear how is that any different that an EPO shot?. Its just liquid.
so in saying that, why are you so anti-cheat/drugs?

thankyou for confirming my thoughts about you.
you not only are a moron, but a hypocryte to boot.
 
DirtyWorks said:
Massage doesn't kill.

I see your point, that the doping regs a kind of artifice with varied inconsistencies. That's life. You won't get anywhere trying to construct a 'consistent' sporting environment. Even if you could reach 'consistency' your version 'consistent' raises inconsistencies with others.



I'm pretty sure you are referring to EPO your granddad used? If so, it was used to prolong his life. Athlete's aren't in a phase of life where prolonging is the desired outcome.



And there you have the kinder-gentler version of Hein and Pat's doping approach. Except it fails the simple and obvious test of "human limits."

You fail to understand how boring managed PED use would make racing. Go back to the "blue train" days at the TdF. Boring. Boring. Boring.

You also fail to acknowledge the history of the introduction of new pharmacology to the peloton. People die due to inexperience *and* until some obvious **testable** limits are put in place.


False. Better drugs, new limits. See EPO.


First, if you are sick, get your priorities in order and get better. TUE's are specifically used for this purpose.


The key words, "when used properly." When is that? When Tom Simpson died? Because before he died, every time prior to his death he used them properly. This is a logic that works until it doesn't. Fail.



Again with the "when used properly." You and other like you use this phrase as an indefensible way to forward an argument. It's not a valid argument because you alone become the arbiter of "properly." It doesn't work in real life.

No one is going to change your opinion. But you can't come up with a viable argument to convert many of the regulars who fully comprehend the consequences/externalities of doping.
The whole point of the more laid back bio passport attitude is, is that team doctors are allowed to control and guide riders. When these doctors are only allowed to be team doctor when certified by an independent organization, the overdose and overuse problem is largely gone, because the team doctor has the incentive to guide the rider properly, as his job is in the balance.

When forbidding everything, you cannot control. That's actually why our drugs policy in the Netherlands is working quite decently. Same reasoning.

You were right about my granddad. But that was only to say that EPO is not killing in itself. Every substance is killing if used improperly, even H2O. And what to think of painkillers? Take too many and we all know the result. It is how you use it. And in my opinion the best way to make sure it is used properly is by guidance.

The blue train was more an issue of race tactics than of EPO. Remember Pantani, Jimenez? I liked them quite a lot, attack after attack.

Finally, is competing in the Tour healthy? I doubt it. Cyclists are often too skinny even before the Tour, and during those heavy weeks they will lose another 6 pound or so. Is it healthy that your blood value decreases from 40 to 35 during those weeks? I doubt it. That's why I say health is not an issue when using doping guided.

I see the point about human limit. That's a good point. But for me, doping is logical when used to recover and to stay healthy, just as eating is, or as massage is, or as a painkiller after a MTF is. Because I don't see a difference between banned substances and allowed substances. But I guess that's personal.

By the way, Simpson died from a combination of problems, of which alcohol combined with heat was the biggest. I don't consider that as a pure doping death.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
1
0
Archibald said:
were those syringes only pain killers for the Lions?

As for usage in cycling, you can't tell me that Cadel wasn't using some form of pain killer for his broken elbow during the Tour. same for every other crashed rider during any tour...
I reckon that pain killers will be used widely in cycling.

damon wyans character in Last Boy Scout touches on the painkiller usage/addiction of NFL players - no reason to believe this doesn't translate across other sports...
well clearly the pain killers didn't help him that much.

It was known that it was only the lions. My point was that they would be more used in physical sports due to the amount of injuries that occur in sports such as AFL.
 
thehog said:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/body_and_soul/article4539000.ece

A teaspoon was meant to be enough but we took a cache load of it under the premise the more you took the faster and longer you'd go.
I have worked in & around the triathlon industry for years & had the pleasure of meeting an Olympic swimmer who had some interesting stories to tell. One of them was that there was a baking soda fad amongst some of the swimmers - the reason was that the baking soda acted like a 'base' & it was supposed to offset lactic acid build up. Apparently one false started deliberately (before the DQ rule) so he could throw up in the water instead of throwing up whilst on the blocks!

Another story (rumour) was that along with doing whatever they could lay their hands on, the Chinese women would have air injected in their rear, just before they were marshalled to race, which supposedly gave them a slight advantage because it sat them marginally higher in the water...:eek:
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Arnout said:
The whole point of the more laid back bio passport attitude is, is that team doctors are allowed to control and guide riders. When these doctors are only allowed to be team doctor when certified by an independent organization, the overdose and overuse problem is largely gone, because the team doctor has the incentive to guide the rider properly, as his job is in the balance.
So Team Doctors would be encouraged to dope athletes (which goes against medical ethics) within the Bio Passport (which can be manipulated) and they lose their jobs if anyone dies?

Arnout said:
When forbidding everything, you cannot control. That's actually why our drugs policy in the Netherlands is working quite decently. Same reasoning.
Again - not "everything" is forbidden, there is a list of items that are prohibited.
Are you allowed buy heroin in the local store in the Netherlands?

Arnout said:
You were right about my granddad. But that was only to say that EPO is not killing in itself. Every substance is killing if used improperly, even H2O. And what to think of painkillers? Take too many and we all know the result. It is how you use it. And in my opinion the best way to make sure it is used properly is by guidance.
Is your Grandfather self medicating?
Of course not, he is only taking EPO under medical supervision to keep him alive as he is obviously anemic.
It is a preventative measure - not a luxury or an enhancing measure.

Arnout said:
The blue train was more an issue of race tactics than of EPO. Remember Pantani, Jimenez? I liked them quite a lot, attack after attack.
The tactic? Give their leader an armchair ride to the final hill - a tactic possible when fueled by PEDs.

Arnout said:
Finally, is competing in the Tour healthy? I doubt it. Cyclists are often too skinny even before the Tour, and during those heavy weeks they will lose another 6 pound or so. Is it healthy that your blood value decreases from 40 to 35 during those weeks? I doubt it. That's why I say health is not an issue when using doping guided.

I see the point about human limit. That's a good point. But for me, doping is logical when used to recover and to stay healthy, just as eating is, or as massage is, or as a painkiller after a MTF is. Because I don't see a difference between banned substances and allowed substances. But I guess that's personal.

By the way, Simpson died from a combination of problems, of which alcohol combined with heat was the biggest. I don't consider that as a pure doping death.
Riding a GT puts serious demands on riders but how many riders have died - (that are not attributed to PEDs) because of riding a GT??
 
auscyclefan94 said:
Pain killers are used a lot for the injuries of AFL players. I remember in the 2003 AFL GF that it was found by MCG staff that about 20 syringes in a rubbish bin in the brisbane Lions area. My personal belief is that the pain killers and even simple drugs such as paracetemol should not be taken unless a prescription is required for the particular drug on a day of competition. That would eliminate the performance enhancing issue. Players may whinge about it and it does seem unfair but they would be more certain of a level playing field.

Are pain killers really used much in cycling? I didn't think so. I thought it was more in ball sports were tissue injuries are common
If you recall, the Brisbane Lions were also using IV drips for hydration at half time & after games for the last 10 weeks of the 2001 season.
I always thought that premiership should have been taken off them.
 
Arnout said:
When forbidding everything, you cannot control. That's actually why our drugs policy in the Netherlands is working quite decently. Same reasoning.
Okay, I see your point. You will not stop humans from hurting themselves with laws. I agree with the ideas as a social policy. But bike racing is not social policy. Again, the simple test of sports contests constrained by human limits (no PED!) is a core belief to very many people regardless of sport.
Arnout said:
You were right about my granddad. But that was only to say that EPO is not killing in itself. Every substance is killing if used improperly, even H2O. And what to think of painkillers? Take too many and we all know the result. It is how you use it. And in my opinion the best way to make sure it is used properly is by guidance.
Your ideals don't work in Pro Athletics. Athletes will be killed by their teams if a more permissive doping policy were employed. Go back to the very early days of EPO and the Juniors/U23's dying of heart attacks. It is wrong to die like that. Being any more permissive with doping will needlessly kill athletes. History has shown this to be true and we know history has a funny way of repeating itself.

Arnout said:
The blue train was more an issue of race tactics than of EPO. Remember Pantani, Jimenez? I liked them quite a lot, attack after attack.
Pantani and Jimenez did not have the same team-wide doping policy and captured advanced doping technology. Let's agree to disagree on this detail.
 
BotanyBay said:
It is a good question,
No, it's not. It looks like one, but it is employed to shift your position over time such that the permissive doping policy becomes more agreeable. The key is to find something to engage you, then your opinion can be manipulated. Read the book "Influence."


BotanyBay said:
I just wonder how much of a "buffer-zone" exists between extreme pain and, you know, death and such.
Extreme pain is not a deadly condition. It's what comes with the pain. Loss of blood, damaged organs that's deadly.

What damage is created by masking pain (it's a protective mechanism!) is a better question.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
the delgados The Clinic 19

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS