Why is doping bad?

[JMBeaushrimp]

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.)

Nope. The federal bureaucrats have little to do with entrenched pro-team doping. They do have a hand-in-the-pot when it comes to dealing with testing results, and what to do with them (which I agree needs a serious look).

The president of any fed should be looking to how they can promote racing in their country, developing racing calendars at home, drawing more athletes to cycling, and pushing to have media cover development racing at home.

Come down hard on the TEAMS. I'd like to modify an overused quote: "No rider doping is an island". For the love of Jesus, these aren't kids in the basement trying to figure out what gets them high! They're pro athletes that are monitored by their multi-million euro/dollar teams (excluding JV and the Lowe debacle... slackers...).

Let the feds do their job - building and promotion (although in Canada I understand that may be a bit of a tall order for the bureaucrats who love their jobs above all else).

Nice to see the Canadians doing well in XC! 40 years might be a bit dramatic, though. Who's Alex's dad again? Gotta love breeding...

Sorry, I didn't mean '40 years'. I was trying to refer to how long they were out of the top 40. Did alright at the Olys, didn't they? Upward curve with young athletes developing?

 

[frenchfry]

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.)

I guess you put this information in a cycling forum because you know that Alex Harvey is the son of Pierre Harvey, probably Canada's all time best athlete. On top of winning a few World Cup X-country races, he was a world class cyclist finishing 2nd to Phil Anderson in the 1978 Commonwealth games road race and competing in the olympics in both sports. Perhaps Alex inherited some exceptional genes.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

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.

Quite. I'm interested in your theory, when I've heard it, I can offer some criticism or agree, then you can counter that criticism. You seem to be jumping the gun a bit.

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?

If by semantics, you mean disagreeing with a word you used because it carries the wrong meaning, yes.

to say that, "teamates, Doctors and DS's also have the desire to run a clean setup", uses the word desire in the same way that someone might say they 'like' beer because they once had a sip in 2003 and it wasn't so bad.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Quite. I'm interested in your theory, when I've heard it, I can offer some criticism or agree, then you can counter that criticism. You seem to be jumping the gun a bit.





If by semantics, you mean disagreeing with a word you used because it carries the wrong meaning, yes.

to say that, "teamates, Doctors and DS's also have the desire to run a clean setup", uses the word desire in the same way that someone might say they 'like' beer because they once had a sip in 2003 and it wasn't so bad.

Well, it doesn't seem you are interested in discussion of the points I have raised which in my view would break the Omerta as more people have something to lose by a rider being caught.

If you want to argue the semantics then please articulate why the word 'desire' is wrong or inappropriate - as you are the one to suggest there is some (great) desire, please say why- as I don't see any desire for that.

 

[Anonymous]

 

[Captain_Cavman]

Well, it doesn't seem you are interested in discussion of the points I have raised which in my view would break the Omerta as more people have something to lose by a rider being caught.

Why do we need to discuss your points, I already said I agree 100% that they wil benefit cycling? What I am trying to find out is why you think introducing a relatively draconian set of punishments will make riders more likely to snitch on their peers or employers.

If you want to argue the semantics then please articulate why the word 'desire' is wrong or inappropriate - as you are the one to suggest there is some (great) desire, please say why- as I don't see any desire for that.

I don't know why you think I think there's a great desire to stop doping. I've been arguing the opposite, there is little desire to race clean and there will be little desire to do so if your proposals come in to being.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Why do we need to discuss your points, I already said I agree 100% that they wil benefit cycling? What I am trying to find out is why you think introducing a relatively draconian set of punishments will make riders more likely to snitch on their peers or employers.




I don't know why you think I think there's a great desire to stop doping. I've been arguing the opposite, there is little desire to race clean and there will be little desire to do so if your proposals come in to being.

To the bolded: because it draws out the doping to be what it is - not a solo rider decision (which we know it's not via the legacy of Drs who continually pop up in other teams).

Whether they snitch, or not, is not the point. The point is to hold the entire team to account. With all the oversight that is supposedly going on, they should be in the know as to what's going on.

It keeps the 'snitch-factor' out of it. It puts the onus on the teams to make sure everything is on the up-and-up.

As to your argument that there is little desire to create clean racing: Really? I'm fairly certain that there is a vast majority of fans who would like to see it cleaned up. No quotes or citation, but I'm still sure that's a fact. If you've got contrary evidence I'd love to see it.

 

[usedtobefast]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNbExvU42q4

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Why do we need to discuss your points, I already said I agree 100% that they wil benefit cycling? What I am trying to find out is why you think introducing a relatively draconian set of punishments will make riders more likely to snitch on their peers or employers.

Well I have made my points clear and all I have requested of you is to articulate why you believe it would not work.

There is nothing Draconian in these measures - it is holding everyone accountable for their roles.

I don't know why you think I think there's a great desire to stop doping. I've been arguing the opposite, there is little desire to race clean and there will be little desire to do so if your proposals come in to being.

Careful on the semantics.

This is what I originally wrote;
"This means that teamates, the Doctors and DS's also have the desire to run a clean setup."

 

[Captain_Cavman]

Well I have made my points clear and all I have requested of you is to articulate why you believe it would not work.

There is nothing Draconian in these measures - it is holding everyone accountable for their roles.

No. You've said, "if x happens then y will happen." with no explanation of how. Where x is the introduction of the measures detailed earlier and y is the end of Omerta.

Instead of trying to explain how you make the connection, you keep batting it away. That's up to you but don't expect me or anyone else to address your questions while you avoid theirs.


I said "relatively draconian". The words I use are included for a reason. In this case the reason was to indicate that the measures would be, "more draconian than currently exist" or alternatively, "draconian in comparison with current measures." I hope that makes it clear.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

To the bolded: because it draws out the doping to be what it is - not a solo rider decision (which we know it's not via the legacy of Drs who continually pop up in other teams).

Whether they snitch, or not, is not the point. The point is to hold the entire team to account. With all the oversight that is supposedly going on, they should be in the know as to what's going on.

It keeps the 'snitch-factor' out of it. It puts the onus on the teams to make sure everything is on the up-and-up.

I agree! It keeps the snitch factor out of it which was the point I've been trying to make to the Dr. It makes no difference to Omerta.

As to your argument that there is little desire to create clean racing: Really? I'm fairly certain that there is a vast majority of fans who would like to see it cleaned up. No quotes or citation, but I'm still sure that's a fact. If you've got contrary evidence I'd love to see it.

Again, I agree but the original context was whether teammates, DSs and Doctors would have desire to race clean. Now the magic potion is still there, the chances of being caught are just as small, all that's changed is the consequences of being caught. I just don't see what makes the paradigm shift from 'Not wanting to run a clean set-up' to 'A desire to run a clean set-up'.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No. You've said, "if x happens then y will happen." with no explanation of how. Where x is the introduction of the measures detailed earlier and y is the end of Omerta.

Instead of trying to explain how you make the connection, you keep batting it away. That's up to you but don't expect me or anyone else to address your questions while you avoid theirs.

I have explained it many times**.

In the above posts you admit that you are avoiding my questions - I have no problem if you question my opinion and I am more than happy to explain if you do not understand it although I believe it is a easy concept to understand.
However there is not much I can do for you if you need someone to explain to you that y follows x.

I said "relatively draconian". The words I use are included for a reason. In this case the reason was to indicate that the measures would be, "more draconian than currently exist" or alternatively, "draconian in comparison with current measures." I hope that makes it clear.

Firstly -there is no such thing as "relatively Draconian" - it either is Draconian or it isn't.
Secondly - none of the measures are Draconian -either literally or metaphorically.


**

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.

Which I followed up immediatley with:

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.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

...
However there is not much I can do...

Clearly.

Pointless. Quite literally.

 

[dancing on pedals]

A level playing field?
if that was the case all riders would have to ride standard issue bicycles with no team cars . radios or other support..
I totally agree with the original post - why is it that it is ok to have "nutritional advice" from the team doctor but a fictional line is drawn as to what is legal and illegal in terms of substance intake?
Ferrari made the point in his famous orange juice interview in the early 90's that is was much easier to look after the health of an athlete on EPO than if he used an oxygen tent, a distasteful sentiment, but I am sure he knows more about dopage than myself,
Besides that it strikes me that the illegality of dopage increases rather than reduces its usage. It would be difficult to imagine a rider using " Strychnine, cocaine, chloroform, aspirin, "horse ointment" and others drugs in the modern world as was claimed by Henri Pélissier, in 1924.
That said, Fignon was tested positive for amphetamines at the Grand Prix de la Liberation in Eindhoven on 17 September 1989 and Scandinavian runners are alleged to have been using blood transfusions in the 1930's
I believe that trying to enforce dopage controls is not practical, but also leads to a silence of lambs , which ironically increases riders dependance (remember Frigo and his wonder drug = saline water?)
Simeoni was a far better rider without Dr Ferrari's help .
Thanks

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Clearly.

Pointless. Quite literally.

Ok - unlike yourself I am more than willing to discuss or answer any genuine comment.

Has anyone other than 'Captain Cavman' any difficulty in understanding the opinion I gave?

 

[Martin318is]

Ok - unlike yourself I am more than willing to discuss or answer any genuine comment.

Has anyone other than 'Captain Cavman' any difficulty in understanding the opinion I gave?

Nope, It was very clear, well written and directly addressed the point at hand. To summarize my understanding of what you are saying:

Current system:
Only the rider is directly punishable and there are incentives to hide the suppliers etc because they will still be there when the suspension is ended. Giving up the suppliers etc has no obvious benefit that isn't beaten by taking the 'some random weird event caused the postitive' approach. Thereby encouraging Omerta.

New system:
The rider is pubishable but so is the team, the doctor, etc. The rider is encouraged to speak out because they will be treated more leniently if they give up the system and there is less incentive to hide anything because if they DO get back to riding, the doping supply infrastructure will not be there. Omerta is discouraged.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Nope, It was very clear, well written and directly addressed the point at hand. To summarize my understanding of what you are saying:

Current system:
Only the rider is directly punishable and there are incentives to hide the suppliers etc because they will still be there when the suspension is ended. Giving up the suppliers etc has no obvious benefit that isn't beaten by taking the 'some random weird event caused the postitive' approach. Thereby encouraging Omerta.

New system:
The rider is pubishable but so is the team, the doctor, etc. The rider is encouraged to speak out because they will be treated more leniently if they give up the system and there is less incentive to hide anything because if they DO get back to riding, the doping supply infrastructure will not be there. Omerta is discouraged.

Well put - particularly the second paragraph.

Also this would discourage doping before it happens - as DS's won't turn a blind eye to who their riders use for 'external training' and if a rider, Doctor or anyone on the team has concerns about a rider they have an incentive to tell the team before a positive happens.

 

[TheMaverick]

In my opinion the doping supply infrastructure is a dated concept. Floyd Landis merely hired a motorbike currier for his 2005 tour and did everything else himself. No doctor. Most of the other doping products are available on the internet from far east pharmacies. Today a rider can dope without using a doctor or even his team knowing about it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

In my opinion the doping supply infrastructure is a dated concept. Floyd Landis merely hired a motorbike currier for his 2005 tour and did everything else himself. No doctor. Most of the other doping products are available on the internet from far east pharmacies. Today a rider can dope without using a doctor or even his team knowing about it.

If your giving Floyd at Phonak as an example he did not work alone.

Andy Rihs was paying for the doping and Allen Lim helped with logistics.

 

[TheMaverick]

If your giving Floyd at Phonak as an example he did not work alone.

Andy Rihs was paying for the doping and Allen Lim helped with logistics.

The help started in 2006. In 2005 he did it himself. In the Kimmage transcripts he says the only difference was he was recovering from the hip op in 2005. He took the same amount of blood for all his tours apart from the first one - three 500ml blood bags. He said once he knew how to do it he didn't need Ferrari.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The help started in 2006. In 2005 he did it himself. In the Kimmage transcripts he says the only difference was he was recovering from the hip op in 2005. He took the same amount of blood for all his tours apart from the first one - three 500ml blood bags. He said once he knew how to do it he didn't need Ferrari.

No. ..........

How did you manage your doping in ’05? The Wall St Journal piece said: Mister Landis said he hired a Spanish doctor in Valencia to take transfusions and paid one person $10,000 to make two separate deliveries of half-litre bags of blood during the 2005 Tour de France.

In 2004, the Postal Service got rid of Luis Garcia Del Moral, who was the team doctor, and I knew that he was often in charge of the logistics of doing transfusions and things like that, so I just contacted him and asked if he would do it for me. So I paid him to do it.

Del Moral?

Yeah.

You paid Del Moral?

Yeah.

 

[Martin318is]

Well put - particularly the second paragraph.

Also this would discourage doping before it happens - as DS's won't turn a blind eye to who their riders use for 'external training' and if a rider, Doctor or anyone on the team has concerns about a rider they have an incentive to tell the team before a positive happens.

Actually, I was thinking you could write my final paragraph as -

New system:
The rider is pubishable but so is the team, the doctor, etc. Doesn't matter if the rider speaks out or not because everyone else will go down anyway and there is less incentive to hide anything because IF they do get back to riding, the doping supply infrastructure will not be there or will not have much cause to blame them directly because they didn't "rat anyone out". Omerta is made irrelevant

 

[TheMaverick]

No. ..........

Yes. It does not say Andy Rihs was paying for the doping and Allen Lim helped with logistics. That wasn't until 2006.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes. It does not say Andy Rihs was paying for the doping and Allen Lim helped with logistics. That wasn't until 2006.

Firstly - your point was that Landis doped alone - at no point in his career did he work alone.

As to Lim & Rihs - certainly Lim was already working with Landis in 05 and it is difficult to know when Landis sat down and told Rihs.
From the Landis emails:

2005: I had learned at this point how to do most of the transfusion
technicals and other things on my own so I hired Allen Lim as my assistant
to help with details and logistics. He helped Levi Leipheimer and I prepare
the transfusions for Levi and I and made sure they were kept at the proper
temperature. We both did two seperate transfusions that Tour however my
hematocrit was too low at the start so I did my first one a few days before
the start so as to not start with a deficit.

2006: Well you get the idea....... One thing of great signigicance is that
I sat down with Andy Riis and explained to him what was done in the past and
what was the risk I would be taking and ask for his permission which he
granted in the form of funds to complete the operation described. John
Lelangue was also informed by me and Andy Riis consulted with Jim Ochowitz
before agreeing.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Doping is immoral

After spending a bit of time on this forum reading all the faux moral outrage and begrudgery around doping I am still completely unable to come up with a good answer to why doping is illegal.

If drugs allow you to push yourself further why not? It's still the human body. The body has to react to the introduction of foreign bodies (food or drugs). Anything which is in our environment and accessible to us should be used. We are after all products of our environment.

I also see posts from people such as Suzanne Sonye who says she did the right thing in speaking up. Why is it the right thing? Because it's against the law? Maybe the law is wrong (I think we can all agree that it is idealistic and completely unrealistic because it is obviously not working very well as is)?


In short I feel that we as the cycling community have a moral obligation to question why we automatically assume doping is bad. Under controlled environments doping could work while in an uncontrolled environment we will see more sad cases like that of Ricco.

The legalisation of doping could also have an added knock on effect of increasing the speed of innovation within the medical world which would be a positive outcome for all of us.

I'm a huge fan of transparency, innovation and human progress (in all walks of life) and doping in sports in one facet which could be developed and progressed openly to the benefit of all of us.

Thoughts?

This thread raises several disingenuous arguments in favour of doping.

1. A good and the best answer against doping is that doping products give an athlete an unfair competive advantage enabling the athlete to artificially enhance his performance. Doping tilts the level playing field in favour of the doper.

2. Athletic performance is admired for the natural skill and athleticism of the athlete and not an artificually induced level of athleticism. We admire elite athletes because they can do things we ordinary joes and janes cannot.

3. To oppose doping is not "faux moral outrage" It is based on a reasonable and common sense desire in athletics to have a level playing field so the best natural athlete that day wins.

4. Doping is not a product of our natural environment. Doping products are artificial. They are the scientific tinkering with the natural. Food is natural in spite of the many toxins in our food today. Eating organic and natural foods simply feed the biological needs of our body for nourishment. They do not artificially enhance performance. Food and doping products are distinct.

5. Because doping products give an artifical advantage to an athlete, cycling and virtually every other sport has developed laws against doping. It is not wrong to have laws against doping. They underscore the need for fundamental fairness in competitive athletics, which is a valid moral purpose for having these laws.

6. However these laws must also in turn be fair, giving the athlete an opportunity to defend him/her self against a doping allegation.

7. The medical research world does not need doping to advance the benefits of medicine. There are hundreds of thousands of medical researchers world wide who are doing just fine without wasting their time and research dollars on studying doped athletes.

8. Doping products do not benefit athletes. They can cause untold misery to physiological systems causing liver damage, sexual dysfunction and neuroligical deficits.

The whole premise of this thread is false. There is a moral obligation on human beings towards fairness and equality in sport, not artifically induced unfairness and advantage.

We human beings have a duty to see to the physical well-being of their fellows, whether it be from war, poverty or dangerous doping products with their ruiness and deleterious adverse health effects, not to mention the adverse social effects. Ask Floyd Landis where doping got him!