I have a somewhat metaphysical question on the primary topic for this forum:
What, in your opinion, is the reason that doping is bad?
I am in no way trying to troll here, but rather to use this question as a framework for thinking about how to remedy the problem.
It is my opinion that doping enforcement, even in the framework of a program like the Bio/Blood Passport, even if administered in a more competent way than the UCI currently appears to administer it, is not going to be able to eliminate all possibilities of doping.
There's enough individual variation, enough that's not understood about human biology/physiology, that by necessity any tests will have to allow enough leeway to leave room for some "tinkering."
So perhaps the goal should not be to eliminate doping per se, but rather to remove all/as many as possible of the negative effects of doping on the sport, on its participants, and on its fans.
This raises the question: What are these effects?
Here are some reasons I can think of (along with some of my thoughts on mitigating/exacerbating factors for the reasons):
- Because it gives an unfair advantage to certain competitors. This seems valid, though it seems that as far as the World Tour is concerned most teams probably have access to very similar levels of expertise in terms of doping and concealing doping.
- Because it tarnishes the image of cycling in the view of the "public." Valid too, and it seems that the UCI agrees with me because IMO this is the main focus of UCI's anti-doping efforts - make sure that the image of cycling is preserved, even if that means covering up known doping. This is a tough one for me, because it doesn't seem that the public is likely to accept anything short of the appearance of a completely clean sport (meaning there's not much room for flexibility in the rules).
- Because it is bad for the health of the professional racers. Certainly the deaths in the 90's support this argument - it seems critical to put enough limits on doping activities that racers won't be forced to take uninformed risks to be competitive.
- Because aspiring racers will be tempted into practices which will be bad for their health. This is the "but what about the kids?" argument and probably one of the more important ones to me. Pro teams have doctors who are at least somewhat informed on the consequences of doping practices. Kids who're just starting out might not have the benefit of expert advice, and might do things that would put them in harms way.
- Because the racing is boring. This one I have trouble with - people ascribe near-miraculous powers to doping products - powers that I don't believe have been documented to exist. I believe EPO doesn't make you an inhuman rider, incapable of fatiguing, capable of immense efforts without strain - It makes you pretty much what you were before, still feeling pain, still getting tired, still struggling to maintain your top pace, just 10% faster. That 10% is a huge difference, and at the top levels is the difference between winning and being in the grupetto, but it didn't transform you into a superman. And since most people in this forum seem to contend any top 10 performance is an incontrovertible sign of doping, then I don't see how the racing is "boring". I think we'll see different forms of tactics whether doping is rife in cycling or non-existent. Some will race on guts and intuition, like Nibali and Gilbert, some will race on science and statistics, like Sky. That's part of what makes cycling interesting to me - seeing how the different approaches affect the outcome. Certainly I have been fascinated with the sport since the mid 90's and I can't say that I ever found the racing "boring."
- Because it favors different individuals than the sport would favor without doping. This is a difficult one. It is true that "good responders" would have an advantage in a sport where some level of doping is possible. However, the sport is already tremendously artificial - If you think about the type of motion the cranks of a bicycle allow and the set of skills that riding requires (and riding a bicycle, of course, has very little to do with nature), it is clear that the sport selects for individuals with strengths in certain particular areas. So in my mind, it does not necessarily invalidate the sport, though it does perhaps significantly change who will succeed in the sport.
- Because it forces decisions on young riders that they shouldn't have to make. (This is my paraphrasing JV's argument). I fully buy into this, young riders shouldn't be forced into a position where they have to lie to succeed, where if they get caught they are shunned, and they have to live in constant fear.
- Because it's hypocritical. I buy into this, too - I hate seeing riders who on the one hand vigorously attack doping and dopers, and then turn out to be doing the same themselves.
- Because Lance did it and he's the incarnation of all evil - Ok, so this one is tongue-in-cheek.
Well - that's what comes to mind right now - I'm sure I missed some important ones.
Along with the firebrands and fanbois, there are quite a few rational, eloquent and insightful voices in this forum.
So assuming this thread can avoid being locked - and assuming I will be taken seriously, I'd like to hear from you what you think doping does to the sport.
What, in your opinion, is the reason that doping is bad?
I am in no way trying to troll here, but rather to use this question as a framework for thinking about how to remedy the problem.
It is my opinion that doping enforcement, even in the framework of a program like the Bio/Blood Passport, even if administered in a more competent way than the UCI currently appears to administer it, is not going to be able to eliminate all possibilities of doping.
There's enough individual variation, enough that's not understood about human biology/physiology, that by necessity any tests will have to allow enough leeway to leave room for some "tinkering."
So perhaps the goal should not be to eliminate doping per se, but rather to remove all/as many as possible of the negative effects of doping on the sport, on its participants, and on its fans.
This raises the question: What are these effects?
Here are some reasons I can think of (along with some of my thoughts on mitigating/exacerbating factors for the reasons):
- Because it gives an unfair advantage to certain competitors. This seems valid, though it seems that as far as the World Tour is concerned most teams probably have access to very similar levels of expertise in terms of doping and concealing doping.
- Because it tarnishes the image of cycling in the view of the "public." Valid too, and it seems that the UCI agrees with me because IMO this is the main focus of UCI's anti-doping efforts - make sure that the image of cycling is preserved, even if that means covering up known doping. This is a tough one for me, because it doesn't seem that the public is likely to accept anything short of the appearance of a completely clean sport (meaning there's not much room for flexibility in the rules).
- Because it is bad for the health of the professional racers. Certainly the deaths in the 90's support this argument - it seems critical to put enough limits on doping activities that racers won't be forced to take uninformed risks to be competitive.
- Because aspiring racers will be tempted into practices which will be bad for their health. This is the "but what about the kids?" argument and probably one of the more important ones to me. Pro teams have doctors who are at least somewhat informed on the consequences of doping practices. Kids who're just starting out might not have the benefit of expert advice, and might do things that would put them in harms way.
- Because the racing is boring. This one I have trouble with - people ascribe near-miraculous powers to doping products - powers that I don't believe have been documented to exist. I believe EPO doesn't make you an inhuman rider, incapable of fatiguing, capable of immense efforts without strain - It makes you pretty much what you were before, still feeling pain, still getting tired, still struggling to maintain your top pace, just 10% faster. That 10% is a huge difference, and at the top levels is the difference between winning and being in the grupetto, but it didn't transform you into a superman. And since most people in this forum seem to contend any top 10 performance is an incontrovertible sign of doping, then I don't see how the racing is "boring". I think we'll see different forms of tactics whether doping is rife in cycling or non-existent. Some will race on guts and intuition, like Nibali and Gilbert, some will race on science and statistics, like Sky. That's part of what makes cycling interesting to me - seeing how the different approaches affect the outcome. Certainly I have been fascinated with the sport since the mid 90's and I can't say that I ever found the racing "boring."
- Because it favors different individuals than the sport would favor without doping. This is a difficult one. It is true that "good responders" would have an advantage in a sport where some level of doping is possible. However, the sport is already tremendously artificial - If you think about the type of motion the cranks of a bicycle allow and the set of skills that riding requires (and riding a bicycle, of course, has very little to do with nature), it is clear that the sport selects for individuals with strengths in certain particular areas. So in my mind, it does not necessarily invalidate the sport, though it does perhaps significantly change who will succeed in the sport.
- Because it forces decisions on young riders that they shouldn't have to make. (This is my paraphrasing JV's argument). I fully buy into this, young riders shouldn't be forced into a position where they have to lie to succeed, where if they get caught they are shunned, and they have to live in constant fear.
- Because it's hypocritical. I buy into this, too - I hate seeing riders who on the one hand vigorously attack doping and dopers, and then turn out to be doing the same themselves.
- Because Lance did it and he's the incarnation of all evil - Ok, so this one is tongue-in-cheek.
Well - that's what comes to mind right now - I'm sure I missed some important ones.
Along with the firebrands and fanbois, there are quite a few rational, eloquent and insightful voices in this forum.
So assuming this thread can avoid being locked - and assuming I will be taken seriously, I'd like to hear from you what you think doping does to the sport.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram