Why is doping bad?

Page 9 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 27, 2009
284
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Um, in a consumer driven market like that, those people putting their money in get to decide the ethics. That's the way it works. Whether the guys doing the doping think they are cheats or not is irrelevant. If you think you will convince the general public that its cool to dope to win, you fundamentally misunderstand the current friction. If people are unwilling to spend their money in relation to a sport they see as corrupt and filled with cheats, then those people who don't believe they are cheating when they dope will have to find a new line of work.
What an excellent argument for omerta. But it doesn't shed any light on the ethical concerns of the cyclists and whether they consider doping cheating. Maintaining the illusion of clean cycling is part of cycling's sales pitch--that's about as far as consumer driven ethics effects cycling.

For better or worse, cycling fans are more concerned with cycling appearing clean then cycling being clean. If cycling fans were only prepared to pay for a clean sport, then they wouldn't support the status quo and the continued domination of the old guard. Omerta and prohibition go hand in hand--supporting and reinforcing each other.

I don't have an answer. But I believe any genuine reform has to start with an honest (and public) dialougue between the cyclists and the doping enforcement authorities, instead of the top-down mafia-life system we have today.
 
Jun 27, 2009
284
0
0
pedaling squares said:
I find it hard to believe that riders who lack these advantages don't consider these practices to be cheating. I wonder what goes through the heads and comes out of the mouths of the riders who bust themselves for 130 km, then bust themselves for another 60 km to make the time cut.
I'm quite sure riders who lack advantages resent those who do--but they have no right to complain if they fail to speak out. And the present system effectively makes speaking out taboo. So in effect everyone is agreeing that doping is not cheating unless you get caught. Otherwise, the clean riders would have every incentive to speak out and heap suspicion on the dopers.

In addition, the testimony from whistle blowers (I mean the ones that are ostracized for speaking out, not those who get a slap on the wrist and come back a year later) is overwelming on this subject--those who dope do not believe they are doing anything wrong. The attitude is ingrained in the culture and history of the sport.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
ludwig said:
Indeed, given the present system, out of the sport is exactly where riders go if they are unwilling to dope.
The present system where the authority that promotes the sport also does the anti-doping, is a joke.

Thats the part that needs changing.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
ludwig said:
What an excellent argument for omerta. But it doesn't shed any light on the ethical concerns of the cyclists and whether they consider doping cheating. It does illustrate why maintaining omerta is vital to the sport. Maintaining the illusion of clean cycling is part of cycling's sales pitch--that's about as far as consumer driven ethics effects cycling.

For better or worse, cycling fans are more concerned with cycling appearing clean then cycling being clean. If cycling fans were only prepared to pay for a clean sport, then they wouldn't support the status quo and the continued domination of the old guard. Omerta and prohibition go hand in hand--supporting and reinforcing each other.

I don't have an answer. But I believe any genuine reform has to start with an honest (and public) dialougue between the cyclists and the doping enforcement authorities, instead of the top-down mafia-life system we have today.
How can it address the "ethical concerns of the cyclists and whether they consider doping cheating" - as you just made that up?

Also - you mentioned 'cycling fans' quite a lot in your post.
For the sport to grow and prosper it needs to be accepted as a credible sport to draw in outside investment, fans and participants- legalizing doping would only make it a chemistry test.

ludwig said:
I'm quite sure riders who lack advantages resent those who do--but they have no right to complain if they fail to speak out. And the present system effectively makes speaking out taboo. So in effect everyone is agreeing that doping is not cheating unless you get caught. Otherwise, the clean riders would have every incentive to speak out and heap suspicion on the dopers.

In addition, the testimony from whistle blowers (I mean the ones that are ostracized for speaking out, not those who get a slap on the wrist and come back a year later) is overwelming on this subject--those who dope do not believe they are doing anything wrong. The attitude is ingrained in the culture and history of the sport.
The reason few clean riders speak out is not because they don't consider doping cheating - it is because they get have in the past been forced out of the sport, ridiculed or spat on.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
ludwig said:
I'm quite sure riders who lack advantages resent those who do--but they have no right to complain if they fail to speak out. And the present system effectively makes speaking out taboo. So in effect everyone is agreeing that doping is not cheating unless you get caught. Otherwise, the clean riders would have every incentive to speak out and heap suspicion on the dopers.

In addition, the testimony from whistle blowers (I mean the ones that are ostracized for speaking out, not those who get a slap on the wrist and come back a year later) is overwelming on this subject--those who dope do not believe they are doing anything wrong. The attitude is ingrained in the culture and history of the sport.
Whoa, buddy...

So clean riders have no right to complain unless they're willing to speak out? And 'the present system effectively makes speaking out taboo' (your quote)?

I'm entirely missing your argument...

As to your quote of: 'The attitude is ingrained in the culture and history of the sport'. So? All of culture has some obsolete ingrained beliefs that have out-lived their welcome. The attitudes change through force once it has been commonly believed that those attitudes have no more relevance (or are actually self-destructive to society or the culture in which they're prevalent). IE: emancipation, the sufferagettes, reconcilitation commissions, etc, etc.

I'm still not clear whether you think riders should speak out or not, and whether doping should be fought against. Clarify?
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
The present system where the authority that promotes the sport also does the anti-doping, is a joke.

Thats the part that needs changing.

Good point.

The UCI tries to do too much.

The UCI should stick to the bio-passport and rules side of it,
scheduling and logistics. Right brain side.

And there should be a Sports Marketing firm to handle the hoopla.
Professional Sports Marketing know how to do it. Razamataz.

Maybe a Pro outfit like TailWind Sports to handle the promo etc.
 
Polish said:
Good point.

The UCI tries to do too much.

The UCI should stick to the bio-passport and rules side of it,
scheduling and logistics. Right brain side.

And there should be a Sports Marketing firm to handle the hoopla.
Professional Sports Marketing know how to do it. Razamataz.

Maybe a Pro outfit like TailWind Sports to handle the promo etc.
The UCI has done too many good things for too many people.

Exactly.

Dave.
 
Jun 27, 2009
284
0
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
Whoa, buddy...

So clean riders have no right to complain unless they're willing to speak out? And 'the present system effectively makes speaking out taboo' (your quote)?

I'm entirely missing your argument...

As to your quote of: 'The attitude is ingrained in the culture and history of the sport'. So? All of culture has some obsolete ingrained beliefs that have out-lived their welcome. The attitudes change through force once it has been commonly believed that those attitudes have no more relevance (or are actually self-destructive to society or the culture in which they're prevalent). IE: emancipation, the sufferagettes, reconcilitation commissions, etc, etc.

I'm still not clear whether you think riders should speak out or not, and whether doping should be fought against. Clarify?
I don't have clear opinions on those subjects (the solutions for which are dependent on context)--I'm more interested in attacking attitudes and opinions that I think are unhealthy and/or counter-productive (I enjoy playing the devil's advocate). I'd certainly prefer an open environment where doping is rejected. But the facts on the ground suggest that desire is utopian.

The orginal point was that the riders do not consider doping cheating--which I don't believe is very controversial at all tbh. I was trying to illustrate why that is---not defend doping per se. I suppose I'd also add that the desire to gain advantage is to some extent 'natural', and 'force' can only go so far in supressing these desires.

If the riders feel their safety and integrity are being compromised, then they should speak out. But it's not productive or possible to do so in the current environment. Prohibition (and its companion, omerta) is a big part of that environment. I have argued that, paradoxically, the very people who demand zero tolerance tend to be the ones who reinforce the status quo and make the maintenance of omerta cycling's #1 priority. Sponsors and fans cry out for reforms, but are easily palliated by phony measures, which end up reinforcing the omerta code. I confess I wish fans were more interested in helping the cyclists ennoble their sport than they are in condemning the latest sacrificial goat offered up to the public.

As I see it, pro cycling has a public attitude (zero tolerance) and a private attitude (tolerance) towards doping--in private, cyclists see themselves as unfairly persecuted by the authorities for persuing a noble occupation.

Once again, I don't have any answers. Maybe the status quo is best, and we should have faith that eventually the science of testing will catch up with the science of performance enhancement.

But my private opinion is that in order for healthy change to be possible, attitudes need to shift. Broadly speaking, emphathy is better than condemnation, and more conducive to dialougue and healing. No matter how unhealthy you consider pro cycling's attiude towards doping, it's necessary to make a greater effort to understand and emphathize with it, if you wish to heal it.

It's in this context that my own attitude has shifted. While anti-doping measures and regulations are absolutely necessary, the quest for a dope-free sport is a utopian and occasionally dangerous desire, which frequently head-butts with human nature. I find it sad and unfair that leading sports figures are required to compromise their integrity by actively lying about these matters, but I also understand the necessity of it, and that there are worse things in the world then sports icons lying. I believe much of the friction has been caused by the rise of new media making the old ways untenable, and no really satisfactory new model has been introduced, partially because modern morality will have no compromise with PEDs, and partially because its much harder to hide the PED use now.

This issue ought to be about the health and well-being of professional cyclists balanced with the importance of promoting cycling as a healthy lifestyle. What it SHOUDLN'T be about is catering to the vague moral feelings of society at large. I'd like a dialougue on whether it is possible to come up with a rule-set that the atheletes themselves can get behind and help self-enforce. To have that dialougue, then I think we (eg passionate cycling fans) need to be much more open to toleration/legalization. Otherwise OUR attitudes constitute another excellent argument for the status quo.
 
Aug 30, 2010
116
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Um, in a consumer driven market like that, those people putting their money in get to decide the ethics. That's the way it works. Whether the guys doing the doping think they are cheats or not is irrelevant. If you think you will convince the general public that its cool to dope to win, you fundamentally misunderstand the current friction. If people are unwilling to spend their money in relation to a sport they see as corrupt and filled with cheats, then those people who don't believe they are cheating when they dope will have to find a new line of work.
The economist... good angle. I like it!
 
Aug 30, 2010
116
0
0
ludwig said:
I don't have clear opinions on those subjects (the solutions for which are dependent on context)--I'm more interested in attacking attitudes and opinions that I think are unhealthy and/or counter-productive (I enjoy playing the devil's advocate). I'd certainly prefer an open environment where doping is rejected. But the facts on the ground suggest that desire is utopian.

The orginal point was that the riders do not consider doping cheating--which I don't believe is very controversial at all tbh. I was trying to illustrate why that is---not defend doping per se. I suppose I'd also add that the desire to gain advantage is to some extent 'natural', and 'force' can only go so far in supressing these desires.

If the riders feel their safety and integrity are being compromised, then they should speak out. But it's not productive or possible to do so in the current environment. Prohibition (and its companion, omerta) is a big part of that environment. I have argued that, paradoxically, the very people who demand zero tolerance tend to be the ones who reinforce the status quo and make the maintenance of omerta cycling's #1 priority. Sponsors and fans cry out for reforms, but are easily palliated by phony measures, which end up reinforcing the omerta code. I confess I wish fans were more interested in helping the cyclists ennoble their sport than they are in condemning the latest sacrificial goat offered up to the public.

As I see it, pro cycling has a public attitude (zero tolerance) and a private attitude (tolerance) towards doping--in private, cyclists see themselves as unfairly persecuted by the authorities for persuing a noble occupation.

Once again, I don't have any answers. Maybe the status quo is best, and we should have faith that eventually the science of testing will catch up with the science of performance enhancement.

But my private opinion is that in order for healthy change to be possible, attitudes need to shift. Broadly speaking, emphathy is better than condemnation, and more conducive to dialougue and healing. No matter how unhealthy you consider pro cycling's attiude towards doping, it's necessary to make a greater effort to understand and emphathize with it, if you wish to heal it.

It's in this context that my own attitude has shifted. While anti-doping measures and regulations are absolutely necessary, the quest for a dope-free sport is a utopian and occasionally dangerous desire, which frequently head-butts with human nature. I find it sad and unfair that leading sports figures are required to compromise their integrity by actively lying about these matters, but I also understand the necessity of it, and that there are worse things in the world then sports icons lying. I believe much of the friction has been caused by the rise of new media making the old ways untenable, and no really satisfactory new model has been introduced, partially because modern morality will have no compromise with PEDs, and partially because its much harder to hide the PED use now.

This issue ought to be about the health and well-being of professional cyclists balanced with the importance of promoting cycling as a healthy lifestyle. What it SHOUDLN'T be about is catering to the vague moral feelings of society at large. I'd like a dialougue on whether it is possible to come up with a rule-set that the atheletes themselves can get behind and help self-enforce. To have that dialougue, then I think we (eg passionate cycling fans) need to be much more open to toleration/legalization. Otherwise OUR attitudes constitute another excellent argument for the status quo.
What we have now is cyclists having to take double the amount of products just to mask the actual doping product. If the bio passport was kept in place along with a robust drug testing regime with riders being allowed to use doping products as long as their values stayed within certain parameters it would be healthier for the pro cyclists who dope than it is now.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
ludwig said:
I don't have clear opinions on those subjects (the solutions for which are dependent on context)--I'm more interested in attacking attitudes and opinions that I think are unhealthy and/or counter-productive (I enjoy playing the devil's advocate). I'd certainly prefer an open environment where doping is rejected. But the facts on the ground suggest that desire is utopian.

The orginal point was that the riders do not consider doping cheating--which I don't believe is very controversial at all tbh. I was trying to illustrate why that is---not defend doping per se. I suppose I'd also add that the desire to gain advantage is to some extent 'natural', and 'force' can only go so far in supressing these desires.

If the riders feel their safety and integrity are being compromised, then they should speak out. But it's not productive or possible to do so in the current environment. Prohibition (and its companion, omerta) is a big part of that environment. I have argued that, paradoxically, the very people who demand zero tolerance tend to be the ones who reinforce the status quo and make the maintenance of omerta cycling's #1 priority. Sponsors and fans cry out for reforms, but are easily palliated by phony measures, which end up reinforcing the omerta code. I confess I wish fans were more interested in helping the cyclists ennoble their sport than they are in condemning the latest sacrificial goat offered up to the public.

As I see it, pro cycling has a public attitude (zero tolerance) and a private attitude (tolerance) towards doping--in private, cyclists see themselves as unfairly persecuted by the authorities for persuing a noble occupation.

Once again, I don't have any answers. Maybe the status quo is best, and we should have faith that eventually the science of testing will catch up with the science of performance enhancement.

But my private opinion is that in order for healthy change to be possible, attitudes need to shift. Broadly speaking, emphathy is better than condemnation, and more conducive to dialougue and healing. No matter how unhealthy you consider pro cycling's attiude towards doping, it's necessary to make a greater effort to understand and emphathize with it, if you wish to heal it.

It's in this context that my own attitude has shifted. While anti-doping measures and regulations are absolutely necessary, the quest for a dope-free sport is a utopian and occasionally dangerous desire, which frequently head-butts with human nature. I find it sad and unfair that leading sports figures are required to compromise their integrity by actively lying about these matters, but I also understand the necessity of it, and that there are worse things in the world then sports icons lying. I believe much of the friction has been caused by the rise of new media making the old ways untenable, and no really satisfactory new model has been introduced, partially because modern morality will have no compromise with PEDs, and partially because its much harder to hide the PED use now.

This issue ought to be about the health and well-being of professional cyclists balanced with the importance of promoting cycling as a healthy lifestyle. What it SHOUDLN'T be about is catering to the vague moral feelings of society at large. I'd like a dialougue on whether it is possible to come up with a rule-set that the atheletes themselves can get behind and help self-enforce. To have that dialougue, then I think we (eg passionate cycling fans) need to be much more open to toleration/legalization. Otherwise OUR attitudes constitute another excellent argument for the status quo.
So in short - you want a "healthy solution" that includes allowing PEDs?
It should ignore "catering to the vague moral feelings of society at large".
That the riders want this and should be the ones to decide.
And that these same riders will now suddenly adhere to these rules.
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,317
1
0
Kodiak said:
Can't for the life of me figure out your logic. Using this same line of thinking you have:

Bad For You,

People will still murder people, legalize it

Pedophile's will still pray on children, legalize it.

Should I go on?

It's wrong, illegal and immoral. End of discussion in my eyes.
for a guy quick to generalize someones comments you should at lease provide support for your own.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
alpine_chav said:
What we have now is cyclists having to take double the amount of products just to mask the actual doping product. If the bio passport was kept in place along with a robust drug testing regime with riders being allowed to use doping products as long as their values stayed within certain parameters it would be healthier for the pro cyclists who dope than it is now.
So - what we need is to dispense with the current system where cyclists are tested and checked by the Bio Passport to see that their values stay within range and replace it with a system that allows some doping that will be monitored by testing and checked against the Bio Passport to see that their values stay within range?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ludwig said:
What an excellent argument for omerta. But it doesn't shed any light on the ethical concerns of the cyclists and whether they consider doping cheating. Maintaining the illusion of clean cycling is part of cycling's sales pitch--that's about as far as consumer driven ethics effects cycling.

For better or worse, cycling fans are more concerned with cycling appearing clean then cycling being clean. If cycling fans were only prepared to pay for a clean sport, then they wouldn't support the status quo and the continued domination of the old guard. Omerta and prohibition go hand in hand--supporting and reinforcing each other.

I don't have an answer. But I believe any genuine reform has to start with an honest (and public) dialougue between the cyclists and the doping enforcement authorities, instead of the top-down mafia-life system we have today.
Bullsh!t. The UCI is concerned with cycling appearing clean. They prove it over and over. Fans by a wide majority want a much cleaner sport. Nobody is stupid enough to believe you will eliminate doping. But when the governing body lets you buy your way out of a positive, there is an obvious problem that is not on the shoulders of consumers.

Sorry charlie.
 
Jun 27, 2009
284
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Bullsh!t. The UCI is concerned with cycling appearing clean. They prove it over and over. Fans by a wide majority want a much cleaner sport. Nobody is stupid enough to believe you will eliminate doping. But when the governing body lets you buy your way out of a positive, there is an obvious problem that is not on the shoulders of consumers.
Of course fans want a cleaner sport. But much more, fans and sponsors desire a scandal-free sport. Fans get upset when riders turn up positive and are happy when no positives are announced.

If the doping problem in cycling were widely and accurately understood...then wouldn't the public embrace positives and the exposure of dopers? This dilemna came to a head a few years ago when the Tour tried to clean up its act but viewers tuned out and became disinterested when several leading contenders were ejected.

What do fans and sponsors do about the UCI and its antics? Virtually nothing--they pour more money and support into teams like CSC and Radio Shack who receive favored treatment. Granted, the media does next to nothing to expose the corruption we are discussing--but the media is also driven by consumer demands.

At the core of it is the (understandable) fact that fans and sponsors don't want to deal with doping as part of pro sport--they would rather imagine it didn't exist. So if doping is hidden, fans get what they want. This dilemna goes way beyond pro cycling.

I'm not trying to rag on fans and sponsors. Just trying to get at what's real.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
ludwig said:
Of course fans want a cleaner sport. But much more, fans and sponsors desire a scandal-free sport. Fans get upset when riders turn up positive and are happy when no positives are announced.

If the doping problem in cycling were widely and accurately understood...then wouldn't the public embrace positives and the exposure of dopers? This dilemna came to a head a few years ago when the Tour tried to clean up its act but viewers tuned out and became disinterested when several leading contenders were ejected.

What do fans and sponsors do about the UCI and its antics? Virtually nothing--they pour more money and support into teams like CSC and Radio Shack who receive favored treatment. Granted, the media does next to nothing to expose the corruption we are discussing--but the media is also driven by consumer demands.

At the core of it is the (understandable) fact that fans and sponsors don't want to deal with doping as part of pro sport--they would rather imagine it didn't exist. So if doping is hidden, fans get what they want. This dilemna goes way beyond pro cycling.

I'm not trying to rag on fans and sponsors. Just trying to get at what's real.
But in doing so you have missed the reality of the situation.

The UCI (or other stakeholders) cannot keep doping hidden - this went out the window when Willy Voets car was stopped at the border.

There is some merit to your point that fans want a scandal free sport - which is why cycling's reputation is particularly tarnished as on top of the actual doping the lies of the stakeholders (UCI, teams, DS's) that the sport is cleaner gets exposed by external means.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
JV1973 said:
The second reason I'd say doping is bad is that it creates a moral and ethical selection, which should not be a part of athletics. An athlete who's moral compass directs him away from doping, will become a less competitive athlete. Relative morals should have nothing to do with the outcome of athletic competition. The rules of the game serve as the morals for each and every competitor, no matter what their personal thoughts/ethics are. If doping comes into play, it creates a moral dilemma for some and less so for others, driving away some athletes who may be better prepared and more physically talented, but have moral issue with the act of doping. This, once again, creates a situation where we are unable to define "the best", as perhaps the best was driven away from the sport due to his/her ethical grounding.
Well, this also happens in a sport that doesn't accept doping. Geert Leinders is a damn talented doctor, but his principals drove him away from Rabobank cycling team, when management made it clear to him that they wouldn't let him dope riders anymore. Thankfully, he found a new team the next year, but what if NO team tolerated doping? Where would he go? Tell me, what would Geert do? He'd have to chose between his dream and his principals, just like so many other talented individuals before him. :(
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
There are many reasons why doping is wrong. Let's start with the OP and his contention that nobody ever died of doping. Starting with Tom Simpson, this statement is incorrect. Then, once EPO appeared, there was a smattering of unexplained deaths ih the Peloton.

Laurent Fignon speculated his terminal cancer was due to doping. Many feel Lance Armstrong's cancer was self-inflicted, due to doping. Thus, there are grave physical consequences to doping.

If the contention is that everyone dopes and doping "levels the playing field," this is patently wrong. Clearly, effective doping is more than just sticking a needle in your arm.

Evidence the following:

Ineffective doping: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmR9k8UAohs

Program doping: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdMdJAdzpYQ
 
alpine_chav said:
In my opinion there are anti-doping rules because someone somewhere thought they could make some serious money out of it. That is generally the only reason institutions of any kind exist.
Haha. Okay, I get it. You haven't matured much beyond perhaps moving out of your parent's basement because that's pure B.S. Are fire departments in the business of starting fires?

Your responses are essentially looking for every opportunity to negate whatever is posted. A less gifted persons may think you are contributing something compelling.. It's not even at the level of mental masturbation.

I'm being charitable and giving you the answer to your original question.

Any sport is a game. The game has rules. The rules are an artifice that among other things creates drama. Doping shatters the artifice.

Outside of the game, doping is uncontrolled experimentation on humans. All of the world does not permit uncontrolled experimentation on humans. Hint: it's not a good thing.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
DirtyWorks;

Don't waste too many electrons. Immature, ignorant people do not know they are such. On the contrary, they often view themselves as being "cool" and informed.

In another board, one such person has taken particular issue with me because I am anti-Armstrong. Many of his comments are immature and when I called one fratboy logic, he went on a rant against me!

In that rant, of course he accused me of ranting...
 
Aug 16, 2012
275
0
0
Regarding the health effects of blood doping I would not be surprised if some of the recent heart problems of footballers has something to do with this.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
alpine_chav said:
In my opinion there are anti-doping rules because someone somewhere thought they could make some serious money out of it. That is generally the only reason institutions of any kind exist.
Wow - does this ever get the horse behind the cart! Man oh man. Wrong.

There is doping because there is money and prestige in winning. Anti-doping exists because there is enough backlash against doping to threaten the roots of how the sport makes money. Witness WWE, MMA, bodybuilding, American football. Obvious doping, minimal doping controls - because the audience doesn't demand better.

As for doping being risk free, even relatively, it is not. For speed - the favored choice before steroids and blood vector procedures (epo, transfusions), and now hgh and aicar and more, it is recognized as dangerous. EPO is touted by some as safe when used properly - and it confers a large and real advantage in endurance sports. While it has some risk, I think it would be hard to class it with speed and steroids. However, allowing it would force an athlete to use it in order to be competitive. And, since you mention money, and mentioning money gets us into economic theory and human motivation, cheaters will always cheat. Simple economic analysis of choice and risk preference. Some people are willing to accept a higher risk level than others - we can recognize that as human. For a given level of risk, up to the level of death, someone will choose to exceed the risk. If you allow EPO, the level of use WILL increase until you get deaths as a result. Someone who dies in an accident that resulted from increased race speeds, because the race speed increased as a result of EPO use, to the point of an increased level of danger, is still dead, and the causative factor is still EPO.

Steroids: also recognized as not safe when abused, and as I have said, there will always be abuse.

It especially must be remembered that testing for these substances has been nowhere near as sophisticated as the substances. This is the heart of the problem today. Because drug testing has been so ineffective, doping in the peloton became rampant, because it conferred a real advantage. This last part is why speed never became universally used. The benefit for speed is so much smaller.

As for the difference between food substances and the like (herbs) and doping - this is a line that has to be drawn by people like the FDA and WADA etc. Remember, ALL of the drugs available to a physician or a midwife in 1850 were directly related to herbs. And herbs are a food substance, right? Ok - opium, hemlock, belladona, coca, ma huang, and many more. Where do you draw the line? That's why we have experts arguing about EPO today. The current consensus is that it should not be permitted. If you disagree, become an expert and go argue with the experts. That's what Dr Ferrarri is doing - he is on the side that says there is no harm in EPO. Isn't it telling that most people, who are also experts or in a position to discuss it, seem to disagree with him?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 11
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY