Why is doping bad?

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
I will ask however why the OP is such a wuss? Why stop at legalized doping? Why not legalized genetic engineering? Why waste time watching some 120lb (54kg) Spanish dude climb by himself when in the near future, we can create an entire peloton specifically created to ride that specific race. Only problem there is the differentiation is shut down, so we would need to add in elements to create gaps (I have always advocated enclosing the road on a climb so that ravenous wolves could be released behind the riders...I know, I know, genius like that isn't common, but you have to admit that seeing some little automaton genetically created freak being torn apart by a couple of wolves spells "PAYDAY!")...any way, I digress.

Yea, why let mere mortals ride? Its boring when consider that you could create sporting genetic mutants (designer mutants actually, because who wants to see a 120lb (54kg) climber getting bounced off of cobbles?) to compete for us. Heck, if you produce them in a lab, we could have a great time. Maybe we could re-institute the Myan practice of slaughtering the losing team by cutting off their heads in public? Who cares? We can make more!

I think the OP is a wimp with no real imagination personally.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Elagabalus said:
It's ok. Just remember not to insult Nation-States ...
What about an autonomous feudal state based on methamphetamine trafficking and the fact that the Lord of the Manor was born with a star shaped birth mark? My xenophobia has to find an outlet:D
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
ludwig said:
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.
This is a bit more like it - the UCI talks big but acts small.

Obviously the UCI (as with all IFs) would love to keep doping out of the media - however with many countries now actively pusuing and uncovering the dopers it is no longer in their hands.

What damages the sport is the uncovering of the lies being told by those who tell us the sport is clean.

ludwig said:
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.
All that does is change old rules for new rules - without proper enforcement you will still have the same problem.

ludwig said:
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!
Correct - moving the line doesn't address the problem.

Now Omerta - that is something that harms the sport and the current system promotes, it is quite easy to change.
 
Jun 27, 2009
284
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
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".

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.
Well if you don't think it's a given that doping is the norm then that's another argument altogether--my post is based on the shared assumption that doping is widespread and the present regulations aren't taken seriously. I don't know of any 'clean' Pro Tour riders and there isn't any compelling evidence that they exist imho.

Remember when everyone in the Tour was required to sign an anti-doping pledge? Everyone signed it, and no one took it seriously. And that's the essence of the present system.

If the rules and regulations were respected and agreed to by the pro cyclists, then maybe the sport would make progress towards a more even playing field.

Sure - then think it through to its logical conclusion.
How do you protect the health of athletes by 'regulating doping'?
By regulating doping and not just talking about regulating doping for the benefit of the media and fans.

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.
I wouldn't say anti-doping moralism is harmful in itself, but like other moralisms it can have negative consequences if taken too far. It definitely needs to be tempered with wisdom about human nature and competitive systems.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Magnus said:
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)?
I know - it was a poor attempt at humor.
Being honest I have forgotten exactly what the 'powermeter' point was - except to say it does not in itself enhance performance or add to a riders speed or ability.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
TFF is an...sorry. Couldn't resist. :D
Thoughtforfood said:
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.
Seriously though, excellent point. That pretty much covers it.


Scott SoCal said:
Some might consider this to be bad;
Junior Paris-Roubaix winner Fabien Taillefer arrested in doping investigation
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/junior-paris-roubaix-winner-fabien-taillefer-arrested-in-doping-investigation

Probably just doping to 'level' the playing field. Also, won't Mini Phinney now be smeared with beating a doper?
To the bolded: another great point. That is something that is often left out of the discussion. No matter how potentially "self"-destructive-only doping may be viewed, here is a perfect example of another down-side. Even if a doped rider doesn't win or even make the podium, the residual effect is that once doping (or any kind of cheating) is revealed, then aspersions are then cast upon every rider that placed higher.

The Phinney issues was the very first thing that crossed my mind about this story. No apologies for my cynicism, considering the landscape.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
I know - it was a poor attempt at humor.
Being honest I have forgotten exactly what the 'powermeter' point was - except to say it does not in itself enhance performance or add to a riders speed or ability.
Power meters do not enhance performance?

That is silly.
Of course they enhance performance.
Why do you think riders train with them? To look goooood?

And they enhance the performance of riders differently.
Not all riders respond the same way.
Some respond better than others.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
ludwig said:
Well if you don't think it's a given that doping is the norm then that's another argument altogether--my post is based on the shared assumption that doping is widespread and the present regulations aren't taken seriously. I don't know of any 'clean' Pro Tour riders and there isn't any compelling evidence that they exist imho.
I certainly accept there is a serious doping problem within the sport - but I am equally sure that there are some riders who ride clean.

The numbers of clean vs doper does not interest me - if there is one doper then they should be caught and sanctioned appropriately - if there is one clean rider then they should be praised and protected.

ludwig said:
Remember when everyone in the Tour was required to sign an anti-doping pledge? Everyone signed it, and no one took it seriously. And that's the essence of the present system.
Well that was just more UCI BS PR - the reason none of the riders took it seriously was because it was an unenforceable rule.

ludwig said:
If the rules and regulations were respected and agreed to by the pro cyclists, then maybe the sport would make progress towards a more even playing field.
I understand your point - and there is no doubt the riders voice needs to be heard but ultimately it is not a democracy and the rules are for the betterment of the sport, not the individuals.

ludwig said:
By regulating doping and not just talking about regulating doping for the benefit of the media and fans.
Again - how do you 'regulate' doping?
That sounds like partial legalizing - which only moves the goalposts and still needs to be overseen and any new regulations enforced

ludwig said:
I wouldn't say anti-doping moralism is harmful in itself, but like other moralisms it can have negative consequences if taken too far. It definitely needs to be tempered with wisdom about human nature and competitive systems.
Again you think anti-doping is based on moralism - you need to read JV1973s earlier post.
 
Nov 30, 2010
797
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
...

Now Omerta - that is something that harms the sport and the current system promotes, it is quite easy to change.
Not sure I agree. A first btw. Deeply embedded cultural behaviours are highly resistant to change.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Polish said:
Power meters do not enhance performance?

That is silly.
Of course they enhance performance.
Why do you think riders train with them? To look goooood?

And they enhance the performance of riders differently.
Not all riders respond the same way.
Some respond better than others.
That's like saying "measuring yourself with a ruler increases penis size." Only Enzyte does that.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Captain_Cavman said:
Not sure I agree. A first btw. Deeply embedded cultural behaviours are highly resistant to change.
Well as i am sure you know the UCI don't really sit down and have cozy chats with the riders - but even if they did, its not a question of asking them.

To change cultural behavior you have to change the culture - the present system allows Omerta and keeping secrets to thrive, as it only punishes the individual rider.
 
Jul 8, 2009
95
0
0
alpine_chav said:
No it doesn't. We see the best possible performance because of doping. You need a mix of talent hard work and positive response to dope to succeed at the top level.
I can see why we should reward talent and hard work. Why should we reward a positive response to dope?
 
Nov 30, 2010
797
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Well as i am sure you know the UCI don't really sit down and have cozy chats with the riders - but even if they did, its not a question of asking them.

To change cultural behavior you have to change the culture - the present system allows Omerta and keeping secrets to thrive, as it only punishes the individual rider.
That's all very glib but what system doesn't allow omerta to thrive?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Captain_Cavman said:
That's all very glib but what system doesn't allow omerta to thrive?
The reason why Omerta works is because there are no incentives for athletes to talk out - in fact not only is there no incentive athletes get 'punished' for talking out and are not welcomed back to the sport.

The current system is that sanctions only punish individuals - the rider gets an arm around the shoulder and is encouraged to accept their fate, don't rock the boat and you can come back.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
The solution is to change the system so that it is not just the individual who gets punished.

All teams sign 'ethical' agreements to participate in the sport at the various levels (WorldTour, ProConti etc) - most teams ultimate goal is to get to the top level.

What should be included is:
All riders have a team Doctor assigned to them - any rider caught the Doc gets sacked and the Doc's licence in the sport withdrawn.
The team should be withdrawn from competition for a short period of time.
The team should be deducted points - which would put their position in the World Tour in jepordy.
Any team that has 3 positives in a 2 year period is gone - the DS has their licence revoked.
Any team found guilty of team wide doping have their licence revoked.

This means that teamates, the Doctors and DS's also have the desire to run a clean setup.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
Right on, Doc.

As you know, I've been advocating such a system of penalties as well. Individual penalties do nothing but bolster the strength of Omerta - it catalyzes the 'odd man out' approach while doing nothing to actually work towards changing the entrenched doping culture.

Spread the word...
 
Nov 30, 2010
797
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
The solution is to change the system so that it is not just the individual who gets punished.

All teams sign 'ethical' agreements to participate in the sport at the various levels (WorldTour, ProConti etc) - most teams ultimate goal is to get to the top level.

What should be included is:
All riders have a team Doctor assigned to them - any rider caught the Doc gets sacked and the Doc's licence in the sport withdrawn.
The team should be withdrawn from competition for a short period of time.
The team should be deducted points - which would put their position in the World Tour in jepordy.
Any team that has 3 positives in a 2 year period is gone - the DS has their licence revoked.
Any team found guilty of team wide doping have their licence revoked.

This means that teamates, the Doctors and DS's also have the desire to run a clean setup.
I agree 100% that all these measures would be 'a good thing'.


But. You haven't mentioned omerta once which was where we came in.

I'd also change your last sentence to replace desire with 'greater desire' or maybe turn the thing around so that it reads that it disincentivises a dirty set-up.

Anyway, omerta?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Captain_Cavman said:
I agree 100% that all these measures would be 'a good thing'.


But. You haven't mentioned omerta once which was where we came in.

I'd also change your last sentence to replace desire with 'greater desire' or maybe turn the thing around so that it reads that it disincentivises a dirty set-up.

Anyway, omerta?
Again the reason Omerta exists is because it is the individual that gets punished.

A system where there are punishments for the others would instill a more proactive approach from others to come forward and they would be 'rewarded' by their team for doing so.

"Greater desire"?? What 'desire' is there currently for people to talk?
 
Nov 30, 2010
797
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Again the reason Omerta exists is because it is the individual that gets punished.

A system where there are punishments for the others would instill a more proactive approach from others to come forward and they would be 'rewarded' by their team for doing so.
There's a statement there but no reasoning. I disagree, Omerta would still exist under your new and improved set of anti-doping measures.

Dr. Maserati said:
"Greater desire"?? What 'desire' is there currently for people to talk?
Very little. But it would still be very little after your changes, so you can't call it just 'desire', which suggests more than a little. Hence a relative term.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Captain_Cavman said:
There's a statement there but no reasoning. I disagree, Omerta would still exist under your new and improved set of anti-doping measures.
No, I offered an opinion and I explained why.
Your statement is just that - all you have said is you disagree - you have not articulated why.


Captain_Cavman said:
Very little. But it would still be very little after your changes, so you can't call it just 'desire', which suggests more than a little. Hence a relative term.
You appear to be engaging in semantics rather than addressing points - if so, fine I can play that too- you say "very little". What is the "very little" desire anyone has to talk?
 
Aug 24, 2010
101
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
The solution is to change the system so that it is not just the individual who gets punished.

All teams sign 'ethical' agreements to participate in the sport at the various levels (WorldTour, ProConti etc) - most teams ultimate goal is to get to the top level.

What should be included is:
All riders have a team Doctor assigned to them - any rider caught the Doc gets sacked and the Doc's licence in the sport withdrawn.
The team should be withdrawn from competition for a short period of time.
The team should be deducted points - which would put their position in the World Tour in jepordy.
Any team that has 3 positives in a 2 year period is gone - the DS has their licence revoked.
Any team found guilty of team wide doping have their licence revoked.

This means that teamates, the Doctors and DS's also have the desire to run a clean setup.
How about the president of the national federation gets sacked? They're the jokers, with the votes, accepting McQuaid's bottles of whiskey, and more. As a very recent example, the FIS threatened to boot the Russians for doping from the next Olympics (which they happen to be hosting). The Russian Fed'n president and coach got sacked.

And an interesting correlation in that climate, in that sport. The Canadians (perennially placing in the 40's until recently) just beat the Norwegians (Olympic champs) , on home turf, for the gold in the relay at the worlds, in front of the king and queen, first time ever. (Not saying I know the the Cdns don't dope, but that's a hell of a coincidence.)
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
mtb Dad said:
How about the president of the national federation gets sacked? They're the jokers, with the votes, accepting McQuaid's bottles of whiskey, and more. As a very recent example, the FIS threatened to boot the Russians for doping from the next Olympics (which they happen to be hosting). The Russian Fed'n president and coach got sacked.

And an interesting correlation in that climate, in that sport. The Canadians (perennially placing in the 40's until recently) just beat the Norwegians (Olympic champs) , on home turf, for the gold in the relay at the worlds, in front of the king and queen, first time ever. (Not saying I know the the Cdns don't dope, but that's a hell of a coincidence.)
Hmm, interesting.

To the specific - there appears to be little evidence of Nat Feds being involved in doping - but perhaps you are on about how Nat Feds come to decisions in cases, if so my proposed system would not have them adjudicating in the first instance.


But overall I agree, as ultimately any effective system would require that everyone is accountable and subject to punishment.
 
Aug 24, 2010
101
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Hmm, interesting.

To the specific - there appears to be little evidence of Nat Feds being involved in doping - but perhaps you are on about how Nat Feds come to decisions in cases, if so my proposed system would not have them adjudicating in the first instance.


But overall I agree, as ultimately any effective system would require that everyone is accountable and subject to punishment.
Though I suspect some federations of looking the other way or worse, I was more thinking of the influence of the voters over Pat at UCI congresses. If a federation can lose it's president or vote if, say,three or more of their athletes are caught, that would be an incentive for those presidents to encourage McQuaid to get real with deterrents.

Might backfire in the current climate of corruption tho. If Schenk ever got re-elected to the German federation, Hein would make sure three Germans got busted.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 11
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY