Why is doping bad?

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Polish said:
Some riders respond to highly structured training better than others.

Some riders respond to sleeping in a tent better than others.

Some riders respond to watching their weight better than others.

Some riders respond to angry fans better than others.

Some riders respond to PEDS better than others.

The list goes on and on.
Some riders respond better than others.

Doping is bad sure. Doping is bad m'kay.
But "some riders respond better" is not a valid reason "why doping is bad".
Heck, if all riders responded the same to peds, would it be any less bad?
Some riders respond better to cheating [edited] than others.
 
Sep 16, 2010
226
0
0
TheMaverick said:
Also, I think the response to blood doping is more even than EPO. For some people extra erythropoetin will not stimulate bone marrow into creating many more red blood cells, so they need more EPO to get the same effect. But blood doping gets around this by using existing red blood cells and putting them straight into the blood stream. It's more a level playing field.
Very true. I know quite a few people on Procrit (ironic name), the results vary.
People usually are started when there HGB is below 10, 14.4 is the lower limit of normal. Two people might take equal doses and get different results, this happens frequently.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
There is nothing wrong with doping.....hey, what is Jesus Manzano doing? Must be taking a midstage nap

 
Jan 15, 2010
32
0
0
I couldn't stand to read the whole thread, so if this point has been made, sorry. The reason that doping is bad is that it violates the agreement explicitly and implicitly made between the athletes. There are rules of competition, and to be a true participant, you will abide by the rules. If you don't like the rules, play another game. The latin root of the word compete, competere, means "to strive together." In my view, that implies a playing field that allows all equal chance to see where their best measures up to the best of others. You throw illegal, dishonest and hidden doping into the mix, and you have something else entirely.
 
Apr 7, 2010
612
0
0
"look, i am no LA fan but lets talk about a level playing field. everyone was doing it and LA has done a lot of good for a lot of people. time to stop the witch hunts!"
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,035
0
0
This topic was contrived enough - lets not push it over the edge by dragging Lance into it.

Keep it on the discussive level and refrain from the "everybody did it" banter please.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Martin318is said:
This topic was contrived enough - lets not push it over the edge by dragging Lance into it.

Keep it on the discussive level and refrain from the "everybody did it" banter please.
Close this thread as you say is was contrived.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
1
0
Doping is bad because it makes it an unfair playing field even if 90% are doping. Makes the sport unpure and about the doping not the competing.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Again no - it is a machine for analyzing performance (thats available to everyone) - if it tells you that you were doing 400w then you were doing 400w.

There isn't a turbo button on it to bring you up to 500w.
Before you clever types turn this thread into hardcore abstract philosophy, isn't the simple difference between powermeters and PEDs that you can (fairly) easily detect a powermeter? It's there on the bike. You can see it.

In the same way, didn't we all get upset about Duracellara's motorised doping last year because we couldn't see the battery pack, therefore we thought we'd been cheated.

The human body - infinitely more complex than any clunky machine we've created (e.g. a powermeter) - cloaks off the evidence, it's the ultimate disguise, turning PEDs into a sort of black magic and keeping old Darwin out of the loop. :)
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Why is doping bad.
Could cause cancer.
Could case death, Pantani, Simpson, Vanderbrouke, a number of Dutch cyclists.
Forces others to dope to be on an even playing field.
Eliminates pain.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
L'arriviste said:
Before you clever types turn this thread into hardcore abstract philosophy, isn't the simple difference between powermeters and PEDs that you can (fairly) easily detect a powermeter? It's there on the bike. You can see it.
No, the difference is the powermeter tells you what you can't do, the PEDs let you do what you can't do...
 
Jun 27, 2009
284
0
0
Captain_Cavman said:
Thought provoking post most of which I agree with but I have to disagree with the bit I quoted.

History shows us that sponsors are driven away by doping whether openly admitted or not. The only way to make sure that a team has a competitive level of funding is to deny doping goes on within the team. Omerta is assured by the presence of doping.

Additionally as Mr Armstrong's special relationship with Mr Ferrari showed, there are huge competitive advantages in keeping what you are doing a complete secret. The notion that everything will become open and above board isn't borne out by experience. The opposite will happen, The most powerful teams will retain the best medical advisors on an exclusive basis and then there will be a load of guinea pigs at the bottom of the ladder. Dead guinea pigs if history does tell us anything.
Interesting points, but I believe the point stands that if doping was regulated then it WOULDN'T be a secret. The practices of the docs would have to be transparent and they would be accountable to cycling's organizing authorities. And if there was additional doping going on in secret and rules were being broken, then those competitors following the rules would have incentive to blow the whistle.

You see, as it is now, there are no clean riders, so no one has any incentive to blow the whistle. Sure there would still be cheating, omerta, and retribution for breaking omerta, but if regulations were in place that most pro cyclists could get behind then perhaps cyclists would self-enforce. There would be more internal enforcement than presently anyway.

I'm not saying this is necessarily a better scenario then continuing our present reign of zero tolerance and omerta, but for sure it's worth thinking about. The rules and regulations are there to protect the health of the athletes, so there isn't sufficient reason to believe that all cyclists will continue to cheat if reasonable regulations are put in place. Once you grant the freedom to speak and think openly, then new norms become possible.

Of course it will never happen because of the media's anti-doping hysteria, which brings us back to the negative consequences of taking anti-doping moralism too far.
 
Nov 30, 2010
797
0
0
ludwig said:
Interesting points, but I believe the point stands that if doping was regulated then it WOULDN'T be a secret. The practices of the docs would have to be transparent and they would be accountable to cycling's organizing authorities. And if there was additional doping going on in secret and rules were being broken, then those competitors following the rules would have incentive to blow the whistle.

...
But isn't that what we've got now, just with the arbitrary line of what's acceptable in a different place?

The practices of the docs are supposed to be transparent and are supposed to be accountable to cycling's organizing authorities. There is additional doping going on in secret and rules are being broken.


The media anti-doping hysteria is an interesting topic in itself but I'm not sure you can blame it totally. The media does inform public opinion but it also reflects it too. And of course it's different from country to country and era to era.
 
Jun 27, 2009
284
0
0
Captain_Cavman said:
But isn't that what we've got now, just with the arbitrary line of what's acceptable in a different place?

The practices of the docs are supposed to be transparent and are supposed to be accountable to cycling's organizing authorities. There is additional doping going on in secret and rules are being broken.
With zero tolerance, either the UCI prosecutes everyone or it looks the other way. Hence we have what we have--a toothless organization that does everything it can to keep doping in cycling out of the media.

If the arbitrary line was moved to a place that a majority of professional cyclists considered reasonable, then maybe not only the UCI but the cyclists themselves would have more incentive to start enforcing the rules and achieving true transparency.

But there are plenty of reasons not to do this. There are the concrete negative consequences of moving that line, as well as the harm done to cycling's reputation by allowing previously banned practices.

Long live omerta!
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
ludwig said:
Interesting points, but I believe the point stands that if doping was regulated then it WOULDN'T be a secret. The practices of the docs would have to be transparent and they would be accountable to cycling's organizing authorities. And if there was additional doping going on in secret and rules were being broken, then those competitors following the rules would have incentive to blow the whistle.
What does 'regulate' doping mean? "Ok, guys, you can only have a little bit of doping and we are serious this time or we'll get cross".


ludwig said:
You see, as it is now, there are no clean riders, so no one has any incentive to blow the whistle. Sure there would still be cheating, omerta, and retribution for breaking omerta, but if regulations were in place that most pro cyclists could get behind then perhaps cyclists would self-enforce. There would be more internal enforcement than presently anyway.
Thats a very ignorant statement and quite frankly very offensive to clean riders.

What makes you believe those that break current rules will suddenly adhere to new rules? The motivation to dope is to gain an advantage, that mentality will always be there.


ludwig said:
I'm not saying this is necessarily a better scenario then continuing our present reign of zero tolerance and omerta, but for sure it's worth thinking about. The rules and regulations are there to protect the health of the athletes, so there isn't sufficient reason to believe that all cyclists will continue to cheat if reasonable regulations are put in place. Once you grant the freedom to speak and think openly, then new norms become possible.
Sure - then think it through to its logical conclusion.
How do you protect the health of athletes by 'regulating doping'?


ludwig said:
Of course it will never happen because of the media's anti-doping hysteria, which brings us back to the negative consequences of taking anti-doping moralism too far.
So, you did think it through and you can see that it is untenable - but if you believe that it is anti-doping moralism then you need to reread this thread again.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Captain_Cavman said:
But isn't that what we've got now, just with the arbitrary line of what's acceptable in a different place?

The practices of the docs are supposed to be transparent and are supposed to be accountable to cycling's organizing authorities. There is additional doping going on in secret and rules are being broken.


The media anti-doping hysteria is an interesting topic in itself but I'm not sure you can blame it totally. The media does inform public opinion but it also reflects it too. And of course it's different from country to country and era to era.
All laws are somewhat arbitrary. Even those against the killing of another. We draw lines all the time that say "this is right" and "that isn't and you should be punished." Welcome to civilization.

The real question asked by the OP is "Why shouldn't you substitute my sense of morality and fair play with the one currently in place?" The answer is: Because more people agree with the basic premise of the other side. It really isn't that complicated.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
L'arriviste said:
Welcome back, TFF! Things are about to get loud! (Or have you turned over a new leaf? ;))
I think a new leaf was turned for me...:rolleyes:, but thanks for the welcome! It looks like I have a target on my back, and the mods have an itchy trigger finger. I probably shouldn't say any more than that.
 
May 21, 2010
581
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
All laws are somewhat arbitrary. Even those against the killing of another. We draw lines all the time that say "this is right" and "that isn't and you should be punished." Welcome to civilization.

The real question asked by the OP is "Why shouldn't you substitute my sense of morality and fair play with the one currently in place?" The answer is: Because more people agree with the basic premise of the other side. It really isn't that complicated.
Thank you! I was about to say the same. "Because we all got together and decided there would be no doping, end of..." Or something like that ...
 
May 21, 2010
581
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
I think a new leaf was turned for me...:rolleyes:, but thanks for the welcome! It looks like I have a target on my back, and the mods have an itchy trigger finger. I probably shouldn't say any more than that.
It's ok. Just remember not to insult Nation-States ...
 
Apr 8, 2010
1,257
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Again no - it is a machine for analyzing performance (thats available to everyone) - if it tells you that you were doing 400w then you were doing 400w.

There isn't a turbo button on it to bring you up to 500w.
I know what a powermeter is.

But if it isn't supposed to help you make better training programs then what is it used for (yes measuring watt output, but clearly that is not a meaningful purpose in itself)?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 11
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS