• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Why doping?

Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Visit site
A question often asked is why people dope.
Nothwithstanding the obvious financial gains often possible it`s clear this alone is not allways the motive.

Friedrich Neitzsche`s "superman" philosophical meanderings may offer the answer:

" I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? [...] All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood, and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is ape to man? A laughingstock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to overman: a laughingstock or painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape...The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth...Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss...what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche

Just a thought.;)
 
Jun 30, 2009
367
0
0
Visit site
Darryl Webster said:
A question often asked is why people dope.
Nothwithstanding the obvious financial gains often possible it`s clear this alone is not allways the motive.

Friedrich Neitzsche`s "superman" philosophical meanderings may offer the answer:

" I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? [...] All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood, and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is ape to man? A laughingstock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to overman: a laughingstock or painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape...The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth...Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss...what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche

Just a thought.;)

alternatively, it could just be the obvious financial gain.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Visit site
ilillillli said:
alternatively, it could just be the obvious financial gain.

Of course...concously thats clearly the motivater in most instances.
However Nietch`s isnt merely talking about sport..hes talking about human desire to go beyond that that went before.
Thats something commen to sports in a big way by both participants and fans and I think thats worth pointing out.
Neitch`s comment dont endorse that aspect of human behaviour they merely try to understand it and bring it into the concious thought.
 
are they trying to improve upon previous riders or just win their chosen events?
is it perhaps ego to be able to declare yourself the best, the greatest or whatever connotation you desire or wish to see yourself as?
to gain that 15 minutes (or more) of notoriety, fame, hero worship, etc... that so many seem to believe is worth something?

I've often wondered how cheats can be content in themselves with winning when you know full well that you wouldn't have won if you didn't cheat. That you really stand there on the podium with a hollow victory...

Or do the dopers just sit there and justify it by adding to their win that they were the best doper, under the assumption (or knowledge) that everyone else is doing it?
 
May 27, 2010
45
0
0
Visit site
Archibald said:
I've often wondered how cheats can be content in themselves with winning when you know full well that you wouldn't have won if you didn't cheat. That you really stand there on the podium with a hollow victory...

Narcissistic personality.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Lets see Overman try and win one two three four five six seven TdFs in a row!

C'mon Overman.
Whatsa matter Overman?
You chicken?

Maybe Overman should take up bowling or golf.....
.
.
 
Mar 19, 2009
832
0
0
Visit site
You have to factor in culture. Sure some people will seek it out completely on their own but the vast majority join in because they are around it. That really minimizes the concept of it being cheating, especially when it's so effective and allows you to work harder. I've never thought of doping as being a shortcut. It's primarily for competitive people who want to become more. That can either be a champion or just somebody who needs to hang on at a certain level.
 
Jun 30, 2009
367
0
0
Visit site
are we really going to get Neitzsche involved in this? really?!

here's a better explanation, Occam's razor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

the short version: the simplest explanation is probably the best one.

what's the simplest explanation? doping lets you win, winning (in addition to being totally fun) gets you tons of money, tons of fame, and probably more women than you had before. all of that stuff is cool. so you dope.

is it really any more complicated than that? (answer: no)
 
Jun 26, 2009
269
0
0
Visit site
Epicycle said:
You have to factor in culture. Sure some people will seek it out completely on their own but the vast majority join in because they are around it. That really minimizes the concept of it being cheating, especially when it's so effective and allows you to work harder. I've never thought of doping as being a shortcut. It's primarily for competitive people who want to become more. That can either be a champion or just somebody who needs to hang on at a certain level.

This pretty much sums it up.
 
ilillillli said:
are we really going to get Neitzsche involved in this? really?!

here's a better explanation, Occam's razor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

the short version: the simplest explanation is probably the best one.

what's the simplest explanation? doping lets you win, winning (in addition to being totally fun) gets you tons of money, tons of fame, and probably more women than you had before. all of that stuff is cool. so you dope.

is it really any more complicated than that? (answer: no)

from YOUR link:
"In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result"

i linked to scientific articles, occam's razor only applies until further research can be done. ie you don't understand your own reference.

i investigated your useless links, i especially liked the homemade rap video. now you owe it to me to thoroughly investigate mine. don't post in this thread again until you've done your homework.

FYI #1 be careful with heuristics (mental shortcuts), when overused they can lead to big embarrassing mistakes.

FYI #2 be careful you're not talking when you should be listening
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Darryl Webster said:
A question often asked is why people dope.
Nothwithstanding the obvious financial gains often possible it`s clear this alone is not allways the motive.

Friedrich Neitzsche`s "superman" philosophical meanderings may offer the answer:

" I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? [...] All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood, and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is ape to man? A laughingstock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to overman: a laughingstock or painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape...The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth...Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss...what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche

Just a thought.;)

Woooooh..... some deep stuff there.... I will have to start taking drugs to get through it.

Here is Friedrich Neitzsche's thought for today....


29ohbtv.jpg
 
Mar 18, 2009
324
0
0
Visit site
ilillillli said:
...the simplest explanation is probably the best one.

what's the simplest explanation? doping lets you win, winning (in addition to being totally fun) gets you tons of money, tons of fame, and probably more women than you had before. all of that stuff is cool. so you dope.

is it really any more complicated than that? (answer: no)
I think people complete overlook the fun factor.
 
Mar 18, 2009
93
0
0
Visit site
HelmutRoole said:
I think people complete overlook the fun factor.

I agree. We all have those days where we feel like nothing can beat us, the harder you pedal, the better you feel. Feeling invincible is fantastic, but how often does it happen? Once a year, if you're lucky? If you knew you could feel like that every day it would be a powerful motivator. I once heard someone describe shooting heroin as feeling like you were having 10,000 orgasms all at once. I suppose winning the Tour (seven times) would be the cycling equivalent, not to mention the money, fame, and women (you can keep the Olsen twins, thank you).
 
Jun 18, 2010
3
0
0
Visit site
The personal greed motive I think may be overestimated and takes a personal deficit model over a systemic model. A couple of other factors I wonder about:

Most high profile races are televised and need to be run off to very tight and possibly unrealistic schedules; ie the show is scheduled to end at 4.00 therefore the race must have finished by then. Pressure is therefore exerted by commercial interest

The majority of cyclists are pawns in the game - drawn to it from lifelong passion. And they are temporary, their potential to influence a well established system where the dominant interest conflicts with their own is almost nil The stayers are the managers and the soigneurs. I think there might be an analogy with the rent boy scene - pimps (managers) and pushers (soigneurs) poncing off the talent, discarding them as and when because there is a huge pool to draw from.

Then there's us.The punters. Are we doing enough to protest against doping? Most of us despise the set-up that encourages doping but this is the sport we love and races where the riders are fuelled by bananas and jam sandwiches aren't given television time.

I think we need more camapigners like Greg Lemond and a movement that would enable a moratorium and clean start
 
Jun 30, 2009
367
0
0
Visit site
lean said:
from YOUR link:
"In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result"

i linked to scientific articles, occam's razor only applies until further research can be done. ie you don't understand your own reference.

i investigated your useless links, i especially liked the homemade rap video. now you owe it to me to thoroughly investigate mine. don't post in this thread again until you've done your homework.

FYI #1 be careful with heuristics (mental shortcuts), when overused they can lead to big embarrassing mistakes.

FYI #2 be careful you're not talking when you should be listening

congratulations, you've sufficiently complicated what's a pretty easy-to-understand concept. why do people like to win? the thrill? the money? the fame? no, it's none of those things. it's something nietzche said about overman or superman or something. you know that. and now thanks to your bravery, i do too.

i do, however, take exception to your assertion that my posting of the youtube video "throw away money" video by a rapper named "pooh deezy" wasn't posted completely in good faith. how dare you, sir. i think pooh deezy's thoughts are actually quite enlightening.

tell me, what would kant say about "burning it down"?

QED
 
Jun 30, 2009
367
0
0
Visit site
lean said:
from YOUR link:
"In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result"

i linked to scientific articles, occam's razor only applies until further research can be done. ie you don't understand your own reference.

i investigated your useless links, i especially liked the homemade rap video. now you owe it to me to thoroughly investigate mine. don't post in this thread again until you've done your homework.

FYI #1 be careful with heuristics (mental shortcuts), when overused they can lead to big embarrassing mistakes.

FYI #2 be careful you're not talking when you should be listening


pro-tip: you should've probably read this part (below) before claiming i didn't understand my own post. while you're at it, give pooh deezy another listen.

"Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]) is the principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). The popular interpretation of this principle is that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one."
 
ilillillli said:
pro-tip: you should've probably read this part (below) before claiming i didn't understand my own post. while you're at it, give pooh deezy another listen.

"Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]) is the principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). The popular interpretation of this principle is that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one."

wrong again.

trust me, i read the entire link and i'm not the one looking for cognitive shortcuts. Occams's razor is meant to drive the creation of theory. ie the simplest explanation is the one we should test first. if our first theory fails to explain phenomenon we test the next most logical or simple explanation. this is instead of testing elaborate theories first which would be clumsy and inefficient. the conclusions you draw from it in this case are also dead wrong.

specific to our topic, anti-doping is more complex than financial gain. how do you explain over-competive masters choosing to dope for little or no prize money? athletes arrive at the decision to use PEDs many different ways. many factors like the psychology of the individual, a culture of permissiveness, and the likelihood of detection, just to name a few, are playing into it and each factor carries different weight for different athletes. the links i provided explain numerous decision making models created by people more knowledgable about the subject than the BOTH of us. to say that PED use is simple is untenable. to say anti-doping is complex is tautology. (some more vocabulary homework for you to wiki)

that ends our discussion, i won't subject other forum readers to this type of off topic back and forth.
 
Jun 30, 2009
367
0
0
Visit site
lean said:
wrong again.

trust me, i read the entire link and i'm not the one looking for cognitive shortcuts. Occams's razor is meant to drive the creation of theory. ie the simplest explanation is the one we should test first. if our first theory fails to explain phenomenon we test the next most logical or simple explanation. this is instead of testing elaborate theories first which would be clumsy and inefficient. the conclusions you draw from it in this case are also dead wrong.

specific to our topic, anti-doping is more complex than financial gain. how do you explain over-competive masters choosing to dope for little or no prize money? athletes arrive at the decision to use PEDs many different ways. many factors like the psychology of the individual, a culture of permissiveness, and the likelihood of detection, just to name a few, are playing into it and each factor carries different weight for different athletes. the links i provided explain numerous decision making models created by people more knowledgable about the subject than the BOTH of us. to say that PED use is simple is untenable. to say anti-doping is complex is tautology. (some more vocabulary homework for you to wiki)

that ends our discussion, i won't subject other forum readers to this type of off topic back and forth.

at least you and i can both rest assured no rider in the peloton is as full of drugs as you are of yourself. now i believe it's time for your next smug transfusion.
 
Its much much more than just money.
People seem to have ignored the sacrifice that doping is. Many people have died doping. These athletes arent scientists. they dont know what they are putting in their body. They are trusting others with their life. Also a lot of these substances have side effects. Synthetic testostrone (Landis) makes you depressed. The effort you give following a doped performance puts enormous strain on your body. etc etc

And considering the pain that these athletes go through, i find it difficult to believe that they are doing it all for money. They dont just take the drugs. They train for hours and hours a day, on the pain limit. It takes a lot more motivation to be a masochist than 100 grand a year (especially considering their fellow athletes in other sports are getting a lot lot more for a lot lot lot less)

They do it because for them winning is everything.

A lot of what Armstrong has said over the years has been bulls**t. But when he said that losinng is like dying, he described the mindset of many cyclists in the peloton.