Why is doping in cycling bad? (serious question - not trolling)

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
AcademyCC said:
Im sorry but you talk alot of ****.

I love sport. I will not accept that sport as I know it will be condemned to an illusion. If you just say doping is matter of fact then it will be and we go back to the stone age.
I think I understand where you are coming from. You love your own idealized version of sport--a version that exists only your mind and in the mind of like-minded idealists.

You also love pro cycling--that filthy doped up corrupt circus.

It is possible for a person to love two quite different things at the same time.
 
Dec 9, 2011
482
0
0
MarkvW said:
I think I understand where you are coming from. You love your own idealized version of sport--a version that exists only your mind and in the mind of like-minded idealists.

You also love pro cycling--that filthy doped up corrupt circus.

It is possible for a person to love two quite different things at the same time.
Whereas your view is what?
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
AcademyCC said:
Whereas your view is what?
I think that pro cycling is messed up like a TV soap opera and it is really fun to follow for that reason. It's like a guilty pleasure. But I don't think that there is even the slightest possibility for cycling to be "fixed." One root problem is fundamental: The science of cheating will always be ahead of the science of testing. Other fundamental problems are (a) the crass financial exploitation of the majority of the peloton, (b) corrupt federations, and (c) a deeply rooted omerta-culture.

Pro cycling is a joke, but it's an enjoyable joke.

I'd like to think that there is something clean about pro cycling, but unfortunately I'm not that stupid. I've seen all the scandals and all the lies. Ahh, the memory of Richard Virenque lying comes to mind. . . ..

We need antidoping because otherwise the stupid bike riders would poison themselves to death with hormone overdoses--like they already have done.
 
hfer07 said:
Doping is bad ONLY when is exposed publicly.
The worst part about it as spectator, is for sure, when for example the Chicken gets kicked out of the Tour. It is also frustrating when they wanna change history, because of doping, but not that much I think. For me Landis will always be a tour winner anyway:)
 
Samson777 said:
If you don't like Elite pro cycling with doping, you don't like Elite pro cycling at all.. Since there is not, and have never been such thing..
Coppi, Bartali, Hinault, XXX, YYY, ZZZ all doped and I'm like them so it's all good. Hey Lance! Trying to sell this one again eh? It's not true. EPO was a dramatic turning point in endurance athletics cheating. The historical equivalent was being the first to use metal armor, or the catapult, or....

Samson777 said:
Another question is; how do you even define doping?
There are long threads on this with doping apologists dragging them out looking for some kind of excuse to permit doping. Please use the google kind of like this http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site:forum.cyclingnews.com+doping+health
 
DirtyWorks said:
Coppi, Bartali, Hinault, XXX, YYY, ZZZ all doped and I'm like them so it's all good. Hey Lance! Trying to sell this one again eh? It's not true. EPO was a dramatic turning point in endurance athletics cheating. The historical equivalent was being the first to use metal armor, or the catapult, or....



There are long threads on this with doping apologists dragging them out looking for some kind of excuse to permit doping. Please use the google kind of like this http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site:forum.cyclingnews.com+doping+health
And the point is..:confused:
 
Jul 26, 2009
42
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
There have been a lot of new posters asking this same question in the past. You'll have to forgive me for being suspicious about the motives of someone who has a post count barely over 10 asking the question.

After this, I'll just sit back and watch...
Fair enough, and all I can give you is my assertion that I have no ulterior motives - I tend to stay out of forums/discussions like these because they tend to be poor ways to find enlightening responses.

I find that this thread has drifted a little from my original question to more of a debate on whether doping is good or bad, rather than what the negative aspects of doping are...

I appreciate those who did respond directly: It seems that the plurality mention health as a factor (e.g., sideshadow with the excellent references, and frenchfry with the rhetorical "we could ask the dead guys.").

horsinabout added one that I completely missed: The risk of setting unattainable goals for non-dopers and thus leading the non-dopers to attempt train to detrimental levels.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Coppi, Bartali, Hinault, XXX, YYY, ZZZ all doped and I'm like them so it's all good. Hey Lance! Trying to sell this one again eh? It's not true. EPO was a dramatic turning point in endurance athletics cheating. The historical equivalent was being the first to use metal armor, or the catapult, or....



There are long threads on this with doping apologists dragging them out looking for some kind of excuse to permit doping. Please use the google kind of like this http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site:forum.cyclingnews.com+doping+health
The "everybody doped" is a very effective argument for Lance, precisely because everybody who really mattered did dope.

Making doping into a morality play is, to me, rather absurd. But the moralists keep the joint hopping, that's for sure.

To me, sport is all about rules that are followed by all the participants. If the rules are not followed by everybody, then it's not sporting (and it's just a joke). Lance didn't follow the rules, and the rules dictated a lifetime ban. No morality, just the application of the rules.
 
MarkvW said:
The "everybody doped" is a very effective argument for Lance, precisely because everybody who really mattered did dope.

Making doping into a morality play is, to me, rather absurd. But the moralists keep the joint hopping, that's for sure.

To me, sport is all about rules that are followed by all the participants. If the rules are not followed by everybody, then it's not sporting (and it's just a joke). Lance didn't follow the rules, and the rules dictated a lifetime ban. No morality, just the application of the rules.
But Mark that is what rules are all about - morality. It is about the integrity to abide by the rules. It is about fair play. It is about not cheating and lying while breaking the rules. I understand what you are saying - just the rules boys, just the rules. But it is fundamental to a person's integrity to follow the rules. And that my friend is a moral issue. Does a rider have principles or not. If not s/he is immoral.
 
MarkvW said:
The "everybody doped" is a very effective argument for Lance, precisely because everybody who really mattered did dope.
EPO was a sudden and radical "innovation" in endurance sport. There was nothing like it prior. Nothing. You can't lump history's Grand Tour winners together like that.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Ad
RobbieCanuck said:
But Mark that is what rules are all about - morality. It is about the integrity to abide by the rules. It is about fair play. It is about not cheating and lying while breaking the rules. I understand what you are saying - just the rules boys, just the rules. But it is fundamental to a person's integrity to follow the rules. And that my friend is a moral issue. Does a rider have principles or not. If not s/he is immoral.
You have just defined your own moral outlook. It is reasonable and I agree with it. But others may not agree with that moral outlook. In pro cycling, many many cyclists live by the unwritten rules of the peloton--which often contravene the UCI's rules. Are those cyclists unprincipled, or "immoral?" And what about the UCI's rules? Why in the world are the corrupt UCI's rules entitled to any moral force? Why is any man obligated to follow rules imposed by a wretch like Hein Verbruggen?

Sporting rules depend upon a basic level of morality--keeping to your promise to follow the rules--but once that basic minimum standard is met, any other moral argument inevitably just descends into haterism or fanboyism.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
EPO was a sudden and radical "innovation" in endurance sport. There was nothing like it prior. Nothing. You can't lump history's Grand Tour winners together like that.
You can argue that doping with amphetamines or steroids is better than doping with EPO, but the antidoping rules don't support that argument. Dope is dope unless the rules classify it otherwise.

I wasn't making an intergenerational comparison either. I'm convinced that Greg LeMond, for example may have doped, but I am equally convinced that Greg LeMond always followed the antidoping rules and won clean. But Indurain and Conconi says it all.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
RobbieCanuck said:
And that my friend is a moral issue. Does a rider have principles or not. If not s/he is immoral.
ok, let assume come july, 90% of thos 189 or 198 riders if there are 21 or 22 teams, if 90% are on something, something illegal, do you watch?

do you watch july? are you an enabler or complicit? you buy the coke or evian or a skoda or nestle aquarel or vittel water?

will you boycott july, or be watch thru unethical lens?
 
May 11, 2009
1,301
0
0
ulrichw said:
I have a somewhat metaphysical question on the primary topic for this forum:
What, in your opinion, is the reason that doping is bad?
..........................
Because it possibly illegal in many countries.
 
Jul 25, 2011
157
0
0
One of my arguments would be the rules, as already mentioned. Surely that's a valid point but rules are only a phrasing somewhere in a book, they can also change.
You got to ask yourself why these rules?

It all boils down to the very essence of sport imo: you want to see a bunch of trained athletes compete and see the best one (team) win.

If doping is allowed, will the best one still win? NOPE

The very fact that super performances today immediately raise doubt instead of joy and awe is why doping is bad mkay?
 
Oct 20, 2012
285
0
0
Lets do the very basic question first:
What is the reason of doing races? Answer: To find out who is the best, faster, stronger, capable to win.
So what is the matter with doping?
It is a matter of trust. Someone who is racing doped is cheating. If all or most of the participants of a race are cheating nobody will be able to know who the true winner is. Who is the faster, stronger, etc etc and by the time that is not possible for all participants to take the same drugs, in the same quantities, allowing doping in the races, means that we cancel the main reason that races are done in the first place.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
wannab said:
One of my arguments would be the rules, as already mentioned. Surely that's a valid point but rules are only a phrasing somewhere in a book, they can also change.
You got to ask yourself why these rules?

It all boils down to the very essence of sport imo: you want to see a bunch of trained athletes compete and see the best one (team) win.

If doping is allowed, will the best one still win? NOPE

The very fact that super performances today immediately raise doubt instead of joy and awe is why doping is bad mkay?
The very essence of sport isn't "seeing a bunch of trained athletes." Rather the very essence of sport is participating in a sporting event. And, the essence of that sporting event is each individual giving his or her utmost AND enjoying the communal experience of competition. Results themselves don't mean copulating dung.

A fair competition under common rules brings joy. An unfair competition brings frustration.

All the other crud is just mass media marketing and people trying to sell their personality for profit.
 
Jul 25, 2011
157
0
0
MarkvW said:
The very essence of sport isn't "seeing a bunch of trained athletes." Rather the very essence of sport is participating in a sporting event. And, the essence of that sporting event is each individual giving his or her utmost AND enjoying the communal experience of competition. Results themselves don't mean copulating dung.
I was talking about PRO sports obviously ... so yeah results count and the winner takes it all :)
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
wannab said:
I was talking about PRO sports obviously ... so yeah results count and the winner takes it all :)
Why are PRO sports different? Should they be? Do they involve a different moral equation?

Don't we WANT pro sports to approach the ideal of sport?

If it's all about speed and winning, then why not just let the EPO flow?
 
Jul 25, 2011
157
0
0
MarkvW said:
Why are PRO sports different? Should they be? Do they involve a different moral equation?

Don't we WANT pro sports to approach the ideal of sport?

If it's all about speed and winning, then why not just let the EPO flow?
1) You quoted me a bit out of context, I said "you want to see a bunch of trained athletes compete and see the best one (team) win." This only brings joy when performances aren't constantly doubted (= clean) as I stated before.

2) PRO sports are very very different, your generalistic view of "participating is more important than wining" doesn't hold ground here, competing & results is exactly what it's all about. Talking morals imply doing something immoral as cheating, we don't want that.

PRO sports are in fact highly enjoyable right because of the honest but fierce competition (not just participating matters). That was kinda my point all along.
 
blackcat said:
ok, let assume come july, 90% of thos 189 or 198 riders if there are 21 or 22 teams, if 90% are on something, something illegal, do you watch?

do you watch july? are you an enabler or complicit? you buy the coke or evian or a skoda or nestle aquarel or vittel water?

will you boycott july, or be watch thru unethical lens?
I don't think I will watch regardless of how clean or juiced the peloton is because I feel too betrayed by 25 years of cheating, lying, and rampant doping. The extent of the doping is so overwhelming as more and more cyclists come forward it gets to the point where I am so totally disillusioned, I don't think cycling can ever be clean. There is simply no integrity and it appears no will by most of the riders, DS's, sponsors, or management to dismantle the culture of doping.

And the UCI is a complete joke. McQuaid and Verbruggen incompetent and wilfully blind to the problem in spite of all the indicators. The idea of McQuaid continuing to be at the head of the UCI makes me want to puke.

I went to the 92 Tour. I naively believed every cyclist was clean. It was one of the most wonderful experiences of my life - and now? That Indurain was probably on dope. That Chiapucci won at Sestriere by cheating. I now wonder if Mr. Clean-Mr. Likeable Andy Hampsten was clean at Alpe d'Huez. What do I do with all my wonderful photographs of these cyclists I looked up to and believed were the world's best athletes?

Just thinking about the mess cycling is in makes me want to take up curling (almost). :D
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
There really is no good argument against it other than that its against the rules. But why not change the rules? Here, we'd have to invoke a deeper reason and I've never seen one that isn't easily shown to be problematic:

-Health risks? Lots of sports have comparable or even more dangerous health risks (like descending..) that are deemed ok.
-"Doping is UNNATURAL". That's not an argument, that's the naturalistic fallacy.
-We want to find the best, doping prevents that! Uhm no, it doesn't. The best performance still wins.
etc


So.. doping is currently bad because it's against the rules. But notice that we can distinguish between de jure rules and de facto rules. Some sports (eg NFL, it arguably makes for better entertainment) do very little against doping which amounts to a de facto acceptance of doping. Hence it's not as bad for those guys to do it.

Should it be against the rules? Difficult to make a good case for it. It's one of those arbitrary rules.
 
SeriousSam said:
There really is no good argument against it other than that its against the rules. But why not change the rules? Here, we'd have to invoke a deeper reason and I've never seen one that isn't easily shown to be problematic:

-Health risks? Lots of sports have comparable or even more dangerous health risks (like descending..) that are deemed ok.
-"Doping is UNNATURAL". That's not an argument, that's the naturalistic fallacy.
-We want to find the best, doping prevents that! Uhm no, it doesn't. The best performance still wins.
etc


So.. doping is currently bad because it's against the rules. But notice that we can distinguish between de jure rules and de facto rules. Some sports (eg NFL, it arguably makes for better entertainment) do very little against doping which amounts to a de facto acceptance of doping. Hence it's not as bad for those guys to do it.

Should it be against the rules? Difficult to make a good case for it. It's one of those arbitrary rules.
its called an arms race.....cyclists/sports people are nothing if not pragmatic

you go 49%, I'll go 50%, you 51%, I'll go 52% etc
You drop 2 bags, I'll drop 3 etc (up to a 'mancebo')
you take tested regulated drugs, I'll take new, untested unregulated drugs..etc

not all doping rules are arbitrary...the 50% was to stop people dying...we are yet to see what the long term effects will be on that generation of riders (although forgetfulness seems to be a side-effect)

now what sort of parent would drop their children into sport under these circumstances.....sport would die
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY