Why is Doping Bad? It should be Legalized and here's Why:

Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
If all the top teams could use EPO it would be a more level playing field in the TDF and other top road races. Right now less than a third of the pack can blood dope with their own blood. With epo legal, everybody could.

Open doping would mean open medical advise, increased safety, and less underground doping leading to possible fatalities.

So lets discuss. he he he

I know there might be flames...So what. :)
 
Jun 23, 2009
95
0
0
Wouldn't also be a level playing field if everyone didn't use PED's?

I don't actually believe it would be a level playing field if everyone could use EPO. Some people benefit from it more than others do. Yes it does the same thing to everyone, but the performance boost isn't level across the board.

Also, even with that junk legal there will be people searching for the next latest and greatest thing for that extra little winning advantage. The wheel on the bus goes round and round.....
 
Jun 21, 2009
847
0
0
well.

that would mean i wouldn't want to get me kid into cycling or any other endurance sport if i knew that it would mean he'd have to get onto drugs in his teens to keep up doing well (if he had any sort of talent)

as reported quite a few of the french lads in the 90's transferred this drug use into recreational use as well. who knows if this is what's happened to boonen to??

what i'm saying is: the sport is more than the 180 riders touring france at the moment
 
You don't really think people would stop at EPO, do you? Or at 50 hct, do you?

What about Cat 1's? Cat 5's?

My hct is naturally about 41. BroDeal's is about 50. What do we do then? Give him a TUE for expanders to keep things "fair"? Or is he just SOL?

Agree EPO is much safer than blood doping, but this is no answer. Turd's answer is the correct one, even if nearly impossible to get completely true.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Turd Ferguson said:
Wouldn't also be a level playing field if everyone didn't use PED's?

I don't actually believe it would be a level playing field if everyone could use EPO. Some people benefit from it more than others do. Yes it does the same thing to everyone, but the performance boost isn't level across the board.
.....
I'd agree but wouldnt they be better off doped then not doped against dopers? There will always be people doped, there's money in it to dope then to not.
Also, even with that junk legal there will be people searching for the next latest and greatest thing for that extra little winning advantage. The wheel on the bus goes round and round
Its true that there's all sorts of 02 carriers and such. But you have teams trying to follow the rules and at a huge disadvantage. If they could legally dope some part of me believes they could catch up.
that would mean i wouldn't want to get me kid into cycling or any other endurance sport if i knew that it would mean he'd have to get onto drugs in his teens to keep up doing well (if he had any sort of talent)
Thats the way it already is. If doping was legal everybody could have access to proper medical assistance without having to worry, and open PED medical environment for athletes.
Alpe d'Huez said:
My hct is naturally about 41. BroDeal's is about 50. What do we do then? Give him a TUE for expanders to keep things "fair"? Or is he just SOL?
.
If Brodeal doped and you didnt because you were on a clean team Brodeal would kick your buttt. However, if you could both dope in a PED legal environment, You would kick Brodeal's sorry buttt because you possibly have more talent with a jacked crit. If both of you are doped under the current system one could get busted and disgraced, whereas the other continues to dope and win money, compete, live life.Thats no more justice, perhaps less.
You don't really think people would stop at EPO, do you? Or at 50 hct, do you?
What about Cat 1's? Cat 5's?
Thats true, they could use other drugs that are currently banned. But so what? They could calculate the risk. If success equals death, why should people judge.Its like complaining because you cant win at monopoly, hey its not real life. Its a silly game.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
BigBoat said:
If all the top teams could use EPO it would be a more level playing field in the TDF and other top road races. Right now less than a third of the pack can blood dope with their own blood. With epo legal, everybody could.

Open doping would mean open medical advise, increased safety, and less underground doping leading to possible fatalities.

So lets discuss. he he he

I know there might be flames...So what. :)
I absolutely do not agree with this.

Making doping legal is then forcing an athlete to make a choice - dope and participate or don't dope and never win.

While it can be argued that taking EPO and doing transfusions 'correctly' posses no long term risk to the athletes health - but that is under controlled conditions and with medical supervision.
What about the athlete that can not afford that - small teams or amateur. They are forced to risk their health.
Also teams may try to develop new regimes to get the edge - with the rider yet again the guinea pig.

Also as we have learned from cycling - many athletes still live the life of a doper long after they finish their careers,do we want to have more Jimenez and Pantanis in the future?

The road to cleaning up our sport is a long and perilous one. I am willing to accept that we will never eradicate doping from any sport -as someone already said the best we can do is suppress it.

But it is a fight that must be continued...imo.
 
Jun 29, 2009
111
0
0
Personally I don't think performance enhancing use of EPO can ever be considered safe as much. Anticoagulant therapy will minimise the risk to a certain extent, as dopers do now, but boosting your haematocrit to 60% will always be a game of russian roulette. The risk of MIs and strokes is sky high at those levels.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
I absolutely do not agree with this.

Making doping legal is then forcing an athlete to make a choice - dope and participate or don't dope and never win.
.
Well...I hate to say it but isnt it already like that. But they have to risk being busted on top of that.
red_explosions said:
Personally I don't think performance enhancing use of EPO can ever be considered safe as much. Anticoagulant therapy will minimise the risk to a certain extent, as dopers do now, but boosting your haematocrit to 60% will always be a game of russian roulette. The risk of MIs and strokes is sky high at those levels.
So...they die if they dont keep their crit below 59% before bed. Its like that now. The top pros in the U.S. blood dope or use epo this high.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
BigBoat said:
Well...I hate to say it but isnt it already like that. But they have to risk being busted on top of that.
To a degree, yes.

We know that from the early 90's that participation in doping was on a massive scale but the net has closed considerably since 2006.

I know a number of cyclists who have amazing natural talent - they have no problem rolling up their sleeves and doing the hard work but will not roll up their sleeves to become human Guinea's pigs.

These riders would be very successful if there was a level playing field - so the riders that dope are actually defrauding these clean riders.
 
Jun 29, 2009
111
0
0
BigBoat said:
Well...I hate to say it but isnt it already like that. But they have to risk being busted on top of that.

So...they die if they dont keep their crit below 59% before bed. Its like that now. The top pros in the U.S. blood dope or use epo this high.
For sure, but they will have to be on some form of anti-clotting treatment to maintain those levels 'safely', probably aspirin or maybe one of the heparins. If you boost with EPO without doing that you might as well sign your own death certificate.

Having said all that, pros are less at risk than your average Joe from artificial boosting.
 
Mar 11, 2009
165
0
0
Anti-doping rules were introduced to protect rider health first. Sporting considerations about fair race results and equal chances came second.

EPO is not healthy, it has been shown to increase your chances of cancer. It comes with an FDA (the US pharmaceutical regulator) "black box" warning. It is graphically like a cigarette packet with a health warning. It's only licenced for very ill patients, for example undergoing chemotherapy or with chronic kidney failure because the benefits of the treatment outweigh the risks of getting cancer. And these warnings apply to regulated clinical trials with patients using the prescribed doses, not to team doctors injecting riders with insane doses.

The same goes to other drugs. Even the ones without warnings have issues if riders start taking risks. How long until some desperate rider meets a greedy doctor and a death occurs. No thanks, at least the present system of anti-doping controls is forcing riders to "dope clever" and not do anything crazy.

So I say no, we need a cleaner sport. We'll never get rid of cheating but we're close to levelling things with new tests, the passport, more police involvement etc.

I know some don't like the doping stories but instead of legalising it, reducing it is the way to go.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
2
0
BigBoat said:
Open doping would mean open medical advise, increased safety, and less underground doping leading to possible fatalities.
I think it would actually violate the hippocratic oath. Doping is medicating a healthy person. Off-label use of drugs. A physician openly doing so will not happen.

Also: where would you stop? At FDA approved drugs? Would you consider experimental drugs? And when you set a limit, what do you do with those who cross it (meaning you end up with the same doping problem as before). If you don't set any limit, your 'increased safety' argument falls apart.

Bad idea.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
BigBoat said:
Its like that now. The top pros in the U.S. blood dope or use epo this high.
Is it like that now in the USA? And if it is are you now suggesting that they aren't that high in Europe. Which would imply that the bio-passport is at least having the effect of riders having to micro dose.

That is a hell of a lot better than the 60% we saw in the 90's.

So, instead of legalizing doping the bio-passport needs to broaden its database to include more riders.

If riders are forced to micro dose then the benefit of doping is severely reduced. With retro testing, heavy punishments both financial and suspensions then for the new generation the benefits of doping have become a lot less enticing.
 
BigBoat said:
If Brodeal doped and you didnt because you were on a clean team Brodeal would kick your buttt. However, if you could both dope in a PED legal environment, You would kick Brodeal's sorry buttt because you possibly have more talent with a jacked crit. If both of you are doped under the current system one could get busted and disgraced, whereas the other continues to dope and win money, compete, live life.Thats no more justice, perhaps less.
A better solution is to curb rampant doping. Not part of this conversation to you perhaps?!

Re. Cat 5's doping.
Thats true, they could use other drugs that are currently banned. But so what? They could calculate the risk.
Good God. I'm not even sure I should reply.
 
I agree with quite a few of the other posts regarding health, differing reactions to doping, my own philosophy is simple.

In the current environment, most people take up cycling and as they progress, I am sure most are praying the doping problem is not as bad as it seems. Yes, when they get to a high level, maybe they will need to make the choice to dope or not but there is a choice.

Even BigBoat seems to admit that maybe its only the top guys doing the blood doping now so there are still almost 1000 pros not doing this so there is still possibilities to compete so there is a choice. Maybe they might not be a big champion but they can still reach a high level.

If doping is legalized, then there is no choice, you either dope or forget it, I just could never justify encouraging a child to take up a sport that you already know you have no choice but to dope. I dont care what BigBoat says, there is still a choice whether a pro needs to dope or not.
 
Jul 9, 2009
37
0
0
If the speed limit is 100 km/h but half of the people are driving around at 180 km/h, do we really have to raise the speed limit?:eek:

I guess nobody would think about something like that...

Let those who drive like maniacs just die (literally) or pay the fines, and maybe in 1001 years or so, everyone drives 100 km/h
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Hayden Roulston said:
If the speed limit is 100 km/h but half of the people are driving around at 180 km/h, do we really have to raise the speed limit?:eek:

I guess nobody would think about something like that...

Let those who drive like maniacs just die (literally) or pay the fines, and maybe in 1001 years or so, everyone drives 100 km/h
I see it differently actually. I dont see that their is a speed limit in Pro Cycling. For example, Dekker was far slower than Menchov and Evans 2 clean riders that beat all the best dopers. Armstrong is clean and was far faster than Basso and Ullrich who were blood dopers. Chris Horner is a clean rider but he went far faster than the guilty rider Jimmy Casper who finished last place in the Tour de France.

Sastre is clean and he is much faster than Ricco and Schumacher. Lance Armstrong says he knew Kohl doped because Kohl went from a donkey to a racehorse. Bradley Wiggins is a clean rider and he rides faster than Kolom did. Millar is now clean and he solod ahead of the pack at a far greater level than anybody else today. Cavendish is totally clean and is slightly faster sprinter than the previously suspended Pettachi who doped. Zabel used EPO but he was slower than Cippolini who was a clean rider.

Jesus Manzano was not a very good TDF rider, he only could get 40th or so overall. He used over 40 drugs and was still beat by top clean riders like Christian Vande Velde and Zubeldia who are clean.

Matt Decanio's Italian teamate took too much epo and had his hematocrit to high, he had to drain off 300ml of blood into a coke can so he could start a race. Decanio was a clean rider and beat him.

A clean Lance Armstrong dumped the doper Floyd Landis' 800cc blood refill down the toilet in front of Floyd during the 2004 Tour de France because Lance wanted his clean team to stay un-doped and Floyd to stay with Postal instead of Phonak. Floyd rode better the cleaner he got whereas the totally clean Lance Armstrong dominated the Tour de France 7 times.

Svein Tuft is a clean rider, he beat Schumacher and other dopers in the TT championshift despite finishing 26th years previous. So its possible to gain 20% horsepower clean.

Empirically, If there's no need for doping (this is very obvious based on all the clean champions like Lance Armstrong, Bradley Wiggins, and Christian Vande Velde) then there should be no objection to legalizing doping which does not hurt clean athletes. Dopers are slower than the top clean riders. Clearly doping hadicaps athletes, it is no kind of cheating.
 
Mar 13, 2009
683
0
0
C'mon BB, that's totally disingenuous. Whilst the majority of the names you've mentioned have doped, you seem to completely eliminate or give the benefit of doubt to talent. What an ultra cynic you are.

As for legalising Doping, can you image the cascading effect this would have to all levels of cycling? The culture, more than ever would promote use in the amateur and junior levels as grooming for the pro ranks. Even wealthier weekend road warriors would be dabbling to improve their own performance. Without the stigma of being illegal, it'll be a free for all.
 
Apr 8, 2009
272
0
0
BigBoat said:
Armstrong is clean.... whereas the totally clean Lance Armstrong dominated the Tour de France 7 times.

.. the clean champions like Lance Armstrong, Bradley Wiggins, and Christian Vande Velde)
Hacker alert. Someone has hacked into BB's account. Can't believe that it was really him that wrote this. :rolleyes:
 
Jul 1, 2009
226
0
0
Come on, think big!

Why not genetically engineer riders to be part human, part migrating bird for maximum endurance and min weight? Wow, that would be great! 60 pound guys doing 20 minutes up the Alpe at 20 MPH. Make mine dark meat please.

Or we could even engineer a part human part tuna to compete with Michael Phelps! With gills, go get me some 18 gold medals.

How bout part human part cheetah! A sub 10 second 400 meters would be cool. Can you run a track event on hands AND feet? Bet Bolt can't do that.

You get the idea.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
Wouldn't also be a level playing field if everyone didn't use PED's?

I don't actually believe it would be a level playing field if everyone could use EPO. Some people benefit from it more than others do. Yes it does the same thing to everyone, but the performance boost isn't level across the board.

Also, even with that junk legal there will be people searching for the next latest and greatest thing for that extra little winning advantage. The wheel on the bus goes round and round.....
+1..........................
 
Jun 13, 2009
180
0
0
Stani Kléber said:
Anti-doping rules were introduced to protect rider health first. Sporting considerations about fair race results and equal chances came second.

EPO is not healthy, it has been shown to increase your chances of cancer. It comes with an FDA (the US pharmaceutical regulator) "black box" warning. It is graphically like a cigarette packet with a health warning. It's only licenced for very ill patients, for example undergoing chemotherapy or with chronic kidney failure because the benefits of the treatment outweigh the risks of getting cancer. And these warnings apply to regulated clinical trials with patients using the prescribed doses, not to team doctors injecting riders with insane doses.

The same goes to other drugs. Even the ones without warnings have issues if riders start taking risks. How long until some desperate rider meets a greedy doctor and a death occurs. No thanks, at least the present system of anti-doping controls is forcing riders to "dope clever" and not do anything crazy.

So I say no, we need a cleaner sport. We'll never get rid of cheating but we're close to levelling things with new tests, the passport, more police involvement etc.

I know some don't like the doping stories but instead of legalising it, reducing it is the way to go.
+1 to that!
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 12
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 9

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS