Why Not Legalize Doping?

[Ripper]

How would legalizing doping level the playing field for those that don't have superior genetics? Would people with superior genetics not dope too?

Well, now we are travelling down the rabbit hole of the whole rationale of legalizing doping. in other words, it does not really stand up to much rigorous discussion.

 

[punyhuman]

Sure, if a rider can get away with it they'll take whatever drugs they can get if it will help them win more. But make it legal and taking whatever drugs you can get becomes much easier.

we can never fully eliminate doping, it would be foolish to think we could, but we can make it harder to dope and not be caught.

To the bolded, I don't believe it follow that if doping were legal riders would dope safely and within the limits of their health. I think they would dope themselves beyond their limits. And it would be easy to do so. Riders would continuously look for the next best drug to give themselves that little bit more of an edge.

Looking at it from the other side, why do you think that riders "would dope themselves beyond their limits"? What purpose would that serve since they wouldn't be able to ride if they are dead or injured? You are forgetting about self-preservation here and the nonsensical economic loss if you dope yourself incorrectly. There are factors to promote correct doping and morons who don't dope correctly would quickly be eliminated from the gene pool just like in any other area of life.

Winning a race isn't all about genes or money, it's about a lot more. To quote a favorite poem of mine "Life's battles don't always go to the stronger or faster man, but sooner or later, the man who wins, is the fellow who thinks he can."

You're right, I forgot to include drugs.

How would legalizing doping level the playing field for those that don't have superior genetics? Would people with superior genetics not dope too?

You could get yourself genetically modified to have the superior genes. And then add in the other enhancements. That way, it is all equal and fair for everyone.

 

[MarkvW]

Well, now we are travelling down the rabbit hole of the whole rationale of legalizing doping. in other words, it does not really stand up to much rigorous discussion.

The only thing wrong with doping, in my opinion, is that if you give cyclists the opportunity an absurdly high number of them will dope themselves to the edge of death and beyond. No sport is worth that.

If you could magically take away the safety concerns (you can't--at least you can't right now), then I'd have no problem at all with doping so long as it was provided for in the rules of the sport.

Sport is nothing without its rules.

 

[punyhuman]

LMAO. You should talk to the researchers and ethicists. You are correct though, you cannot choose your parents. The conundrum of what to do, what to do.

At least you see the enlightenment of this point.

I think you've lost the plot there a bit. There's lots of folks who have not doped. I don't think you're going to see a lot of agreement that they are the pot calling the doping kettle black. They may not whine about it (or may be they will), but doping is hardly a victimless crime.

Now, I'm not entirely sure if you are trolling or just a combination of adversarial and a bit of a contrarian. But hey, time will tell

You only have victims because we choose to making doping illegal. If doping is made legal, then there are no victims because everyone has the CHOICE. This is like saying the manufacturers of horse whips are victims because cars got popular.

And really, "there's lots of folks who have not doped"? I will need proof of this. Is this a minority number?

I am not trying to troll you, I am trying to make you thinking outside the WADA mindset.

Well, now we are travelling down the rabbit hole of the whole rationale of legalizing doping. in other words, it does not really stand up to much rigorous discussion.

That's only your opinion and not shared by many others.

 

[martinvickers]

If you are born with inferior genetics, you can't "work with" what you have to become a champion no matter what you do short of levelling the playing field with "doping".

Then you don't become a champion. Tough.

You have no 'RIGHT' to be a champion. You have no right to win. Simples.

 

[martinvickers]

Looking at it from the other side, why do you think that riders "would dope themselves beyond their limits"? What purpose would that serve since they wouldn't be able to ride if they are dead or injured?

1. Because in some countries, historically, the athlete wasn't the one choosing if and when to dope.

2. You make a frankly puerile assumption that everyone's motivations will broadly match your own - dope as hard as safely possible.

Other's wont. Others, especially poverty stricken others, will make the calculation that earning a couple of million for their family, and a bit of fame and glory, is well worth dying early for. Hell, poor kids join the army, and risk death, for far less money and glory.

Or others will be too stupid to make the calculation, or understand the risks, and will be easily taken in by snakeoil salesmen selling poison.

As Joplin said "Janis Joplin: 'I love being a star more than life itself". As quoted by Simon Barnes on an article on Florence Griffith Joyner.

You are forgetting about self-preservation here and the nonsensical economic loss if you dope yourself incorrectly. There are factors to promote correct doping and morons who don't dope correctly would quickly be eliminated from the gene pool just like in any other area of life.

Your understanding of the 'gene pool' is ludicrous. What's to stop athlete A, knowing the risks, deciding, I'll have ten kids quickly, make 'em all millionaires with my winnings, and so what if I'm dead at 35 - my genes are racing ahead!!

So presumably this genetic predisposition for risk taking you have attempted to weed out is now ten fold larger and rich! Good natural selection, buddy.



I'm sorry, but there comes a point where this is just trolling.

 

[Catwhoorg]

It's funny how "scientific" studies change over the years. When I was younger they told parents that it was best to have their infant sleep on their stomach. Then later studies said it was best to have their infant sleeping on its back. Now who knows what they are saying....It was interesting though because both studies where shown as absolute, fact, science.... bottom line for me is I have very little faith in the "studies" that come out. They're subject to change, and they're not as accurate as the scientist or experts make them out to be.

On their back.

The Stomach advice was not actually grounded in science. (but more on anecdotes, the baby could coke if they spat up whilst on their back)

Once studied properly, the evidence was pretty clear.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Or take the cancer studies, they come up with the new therapy now and then... And after all is said and done, as said as it is, they still use the 70s "killer tactic"; cut, rays, chemo...

Science... one sad story. Corrupted from A to Z.

Not all chemo is the same.
Indeed huge advances have been made in the drugs used, the dosing and the combinations.

Plus also in the 'support' drugs, you know like EPO, which help people recover so much better from certain chemotherapies.

But yeah, nothing significant has changed in 40 years, you go on believing that, the survival rates show otherwise.

 

[Afrank]

Looking at it from the other side, why do you think that riders "would dope themselves beyond their limits"? What purpose would that serve since they wouldn't be able to ride if they are dead or injured? You are forgetting about self-preservation here and the nonsensical economic loss if you dope yourself incorrectly. There are factors to promote correct doping and morons who don't dope correctly would quickly be eliminated from the gene pool just like in any other area of life.

Because there would be no limits, nothing to stop them. Doping is about looking for the advantage over the guy next to you, if that guy is also on drugs your either going to try to dope more then him or look for the next best drug. And the more you dope, the more new (and untested) drugs you find to put into your body, the greater risks to your health taking those drugs will cause.

Your point about people who don't dope correctly soon be eliminated from the gene pool just doesn't hold up. Doping to the point of death has nothing to do with genes, but everything to do with the mindset of a competitor. A person might have great genes that make them destined to be a champion, but that doesn't mean in their quest to enhance themselves ever further they still can't overdo doping and end up killing themselves.

You could get yourself genetically modified to have the superior genes. And then add in the other enhancements. That way, it is all equal and fair for everyone.

So if we're getting ourselves genetically modified to level the playing field, why do we still need to add in drugs and all the risks they bring? In sport you can try to create a level playing field all your life, but you'll never succeed. Adding in drugs is definitely not the way to create a level playing field either. As we have seen with riders like Armstrong, some riders will respond much better and have better results from using drugs then others.

And I repeat, genes is not everything. Good genetics is not all it takes to be successful. It helps, but it takes a lot more. Case in point, Andy Schleck. Don't think anyone will deny he has incredible talent. Yet what has he done the past few years?

 

[Afrank]

You only have victims because we choose to making doping illegal. If doping is made legal, then there are no victims because everyone has the CHOICE. This is like saying the manufacturers of horse whips are victims because cars got popular.

Not true, make doping legal and all the guys that win the races will be ones that make the choice to dope. If anyone wants to have the chance to win races or even be competitive in them they will have to dope, even if they may not want to. Where's the choice in that?

 

[Merckx index]

Or look how they examined Michael Johnson, and come to the conclusion a sprinter needs to have short legs with fast high speed steps. Only ten years later it´s the opposite; you need to be tall as Bolt, use less strides to become a world best sprinter.... BTW, in the 80s it needed to be bulked up and explosive start (Ben Johnson)...

Nope, Bolt is still the exception. And you still need to be bulked up and explosive, same relationship of power and weight as in cycling. The physics of movement hasn’t changed.

Or take the cancer studies, they come up with the new therapy now and then... And after all is said and done, as sad as it is, they still use the 70s "killer tactic"; cut, rays, chemo...

This is a great oversimplification. There has been great progress in cancer research. Many kinds of cancer are treatable, and in fact, when diagnosed early enough, almost all of them are.

Science... one sad story. Corrupted from A to Z.

Yeah, the human race would be so much better off without science. We wouldn’t need the Clinic, because without science, there would be no appreciation of the possibility of doping. Of course, without science, we wouldn’t have modern bike racing, anyway.

Tell me the last "scientic thing" found out, that hadn´t serious bad side effects to human kind or nature.

Any knowledge can be used in different ways. What would you have us do, just stop the scientific enterprise? You honestly think we’re better off not trying to understand the world we live in?

Ugh. Correlation is not causation.

Very poor argument. There are literally millions of data sets in the public domain. You can take any one at random and by chance it will highly correlate with some others. The idea is that when you know going in that there is some kind of relationship between two phenomena, then statistical correlation is meaningful. It may or may not indicate cause and effect, but the correlation does illuminate the underlying relationship.

You could get yourself genetically modified to have the superior genes. And then add in the other enhancements. That way, it is all equal and fair for everyone.

You’re being a little simplistic here. If you’re talking about adults undergoing gene therapy, there are some things you can modify—higher HT, e.g., higher activity of certain metabolic enzymes, more capillary growth; and some things you can’t—length of your limbs, size of your heart and lungs. And while there are some enhancements that can be “added in”—e.g., hormones and growth factors to make your muscles larger—you would still be less enhanced than someone who was born with naturally larger and stronger muscles and who also added in those enhancements.

If you’re talking about genetic modifications at the embryo stage, then in principle there is no limit beyond those of the optimal combination of genes. But first, of course, one can’t talk about “you” changing “yourself”. It would be your parents making those decisions. In principle, parents making those decisions could level the genetic playing field, though of course in practice, it would as always be the wealthy most able to take advantage of these opportunities (which would involve not simply access to the technology of gene modification or transfer, but a whole new theoretical science devoted to determining the optimal combination of genes, as well as the interactions of more traditional doping procedures with these genes).

But suppose the genetic playing field is leveled more or less, and we have a large number of individuals of roughly equal genetic endowment? In that case, races will be determined by 1) the best use of doping substances that interact with these genes; 2) social and environmental background—the effect of your family and others on such factors as your motivation to develop your potential; and 3) chance. I’m not sure a system like that would be any fairer or more satisfying than the current one.

But in any case, that is only the first phase. In the second phase, as gene interaction with doping substances is intensively studied, optimum sets of genes and substances will be discovered. While there may be occasional breakthroughs in new substances, probably the playing field will mostly level out with regard to physiological factors. Secrets of this importance never last long. I can even imagine competitors stealing DNA samples from each other, identifying the key genes, then reverse engineering to figure out what exogeneous substances are being used with those genes.

Moreover, keep in mind that mental and psychological factors are almost certainly also partly determined by genes, which means that the playing field with regard to these factors can also be leveled to some extent. Social and environmental factors will still play a role, but in the limit, where everyone has access to this technology, these factors will be progressively reduced. For example, if your parents themselves were beneficiaries of this technology, their superior genes are likely to result in superior knowledge and motivation to maximize the social and environmental factors that their children are exposed to. Science will progressively determine the best environments and social influences for athletes of a particular genetic makeup.

So ultimately, chance is likely to play an increasingly larger role in athletic competitions. It always has, of course, in the sense that the genes you are born with are a matter of chance, but by removing much of the chance element from genetics, you simply shift it to other, more contingent factors. If we really succeeded in eliminating it completely, then races would be one big tie, and what would be the point of having them in the first place?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Not true, make doping legal and all the guys that win the races will be ones that make the choice to dope. If anyone wants to have the chance to win races or even be competitive in them they will have to dope, even if they may not want to. Where's the choice in that?

In the scenario above, you can choose to be doped and competitive or clean and a leisure rider (or an also ran racer). It's not that bad a choice given the choices on offer to large numbers of people in the world.

Anyone who actually has to make that choice is actually rather lucky. They have been granted the genetic make-up that 99% of the population can only dream of. To be in a society where you can potentially make a living out of a socially useless activity like bike racing is rather odd when you think about it.

A few thoughts should be spared for those for whom staying with the bunch in a Cat 4 race represents success!

That said, I'm not in favour of legalisation, but only because of the risk that kids or naive seniors will doped by unscrupulous coaches. This is bad enough even with PEDs being banned.

 

[Jspear]

If you read the section on depression in my quote:



You can piece together that sleeping too much CAN lead to your death because the oversleeping can prevent recovery (likely hormonal). This is akin to a hamburger causing a heart attack.





It is not correct to compare American gun violence to legalizing doping. Gun violence inflicts physical harm on victims. Doping is victimless "crime".

Is it a known and proven fact that doping inflicts NO physical harm?

 

[Granville57]

It seems the legalization of doping does have some a strong backing as I casually skim through some of those threads.

Very casually, it would seem.

I offered 8 separate threads, totaling approximately 90 pages.

Within 14 minutes you surmise that a "strong backing" exists for legalizing doping.

So you are just trolling then. Thanks.


Oh, don't forget to include this piece in the debate.
http://m.prnewswire.com/news-releases/bonds-ramirez-armstrong-clemens-just-tip-of-sports-drugs-iceberg-says-ex-white-house-drug-spokesman-robert-weiner-120568759.html
And be sure to follow the link at the bottom of that.

Unless you'd rather remain uninformed.

"Between 500,000 and a million youth use steroids annually. When home run king Mark McGwire admitted using androstenodione, youth use of it QUINTUPLED. When McGwire stopped using, his home run capacity plummeted from 70 to 30, and he dropped out of baseball. On steroids, kids have committed murders, other violent crimes, become schizophrenic, and committed suicide, as testified to Congress by parents.

 

[The Hitch]

to look lean. Those muscles on Sylvester Stallone are not natural. Neither is it on The Rock.
.

A professional wrestler. Doping? Gtfo

 

[Catwhoorg]

A professional wrestler. Doping? Gtfo

Indeed. Almost unheard of.

Of course it stopped in 2007, after congress got involved.

Except where it didn't

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Very poor argument. There are literally millions of data sets in the public domain. You can take any one at random and by chance it will highly correlate with some others. The idea is that when you know going in that there is some kind of relationship between two phenomena, then statistical correlation is meaningful. It may or may not indicate cause and effect, but the correlation does illuminate the underlying relationship.

In the context of the conversation to that point (" sleeping too much leads to death ") I think you are completely and utterly wrong, and it is a perfect argument against the study and its assertion.

"Death. Multiple studies have found that people who sleep nine or more hours a night have significantly higher death rates than people sleeping seven to eight hours a night. No specific reason for this correlation has been determined. But researchers found that depression and low socioeconomic status are also associated with longer sleep. They speculate these factors could be related to the observed increase in mortality for people who sleep too much. "

I sure as heck hope you don't agree with the study!?

 

[TrackCynic]

Doesn't it all boil down to your view on what SPORT is, rather than the specific question of doping?

There are definitely 2 viewpoints:

1. Sport is a pastime, a way to keep healthy, a social activity, and a way to let off steam in a largely sedentary world. Those who happen to be talented in the field of sports are admired, supported and treated as heroes because of their training, talent and example to the rest of us through their sportsmanship. I would put cycling, long distance running, soccer (30 years ago) and X Games sports in this category.

2. Sport is just entertainment. Wrestling, football (NFL), baseball, 100m Sprint, Formula 1, NASCAR, soccer (today) are the kind of sports people generally just watch on TV and expect the participants to win, no questions asked.

There are many shades of grey between these 2 poles and many professional sports are moving more from 1 to 2 as the money men/TV takes over e.g. soccer. The Lance era is what happened when Weisel and his money men tried (and succeeded) in doing the same to cycling.

 

[Afrank]

In the scenario above, you can choose to be doped and competitive or clean and a leisure rider (or an also ran racer). It's not that bad a choice given the choices on offer to large numbers of people in the world.

Anyone who actually has to make that choice is actually rather lucky. They have been granted the genetic make-up that 99% of the population can only dream of. To be in a society where you can potentially make a living out of a socially useless activity like bike racing is rather odd when you think about it.

A few thoughts should be spared for those for whom staying with the bunch in a Cat 4 race represents success!

That said, I'm not in favour of legalisation, but only because of the risk that kids or naive seniors will doped by unscrupulous coaches. This is bad enough even with PEDs being banned.

True, but who wants to be a pro rider and not be the best and win a bunch of races? I'd agree there would be some for whom being a pro cyclist for a living is about doing what they love (riding a bike). And who wouldn't feel the need or want to win everything (I truly envy those people). But there is an inherent competitive nature in anyone that takes the path to become a athlete. And most people even if they would prefer to be clean, will be driven by their competitive nature to dope so they can be competitive with others.

Also with the winners doping, I'm sure there would be domestiques that would take it up too. Those that race because it's just what they love to do would likely fall under the category of doms, and they may feel the pressure to dope to keep up with the other domestiques that are doping.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Doesn't it all boil down to your view on what SPORT is, rather than the specific question of doping?

I'm not disagreeing, just taking a different approach.

I would argue the viewers in favor of doping don't seem to mind that the game shifts from human capabilities on a bicycle to the person experimenting with increases in the performance of a human by any means necessary. The "race" moves from the course to the lab.

They tend not to mind the race on the road being won in a lab until *their* kid is the subject of uncontrolled human experimentation. And then suddenly the opinion is different. We see this same kind of lazy thinking in other areas of human activity that are controversial.

So punyhuman, which PED's are you going to put your kid on first? C'mon now, be specific.

 

[Samson777]

They tend not to mind the race on the road being won in a lab until *their* kid is the subject of uncontrolled human experimentation. And then suddenly the opinion is different.

This is nailing down the attitude towards doping, for the regular Joe I think.

I remember seeing an interview, with the guy who "invented" this reality bull**** called "survivor". Or at least he brought it to Denmark. Anyway, he then spend 15 minutes defending reality TV as a genre, telling about that it was all good, no ethical problems and so on. But then in the end of the interview, he was asked, if he would allow his son to participate in a reality show? His answer: "Hell no, I want my son to focus on his studies and do something with his life"

Pretty much same approach as with the doping question. And I think you are right, that it is very common.

 

[Justinr]

Why should a pro cyclist be forced to take drugs to keep up with the Jones'?

Yes, they can quit and do something else.

But imagine your own job right now. Imagine some drug comes out that makes people in your job better than they are now. SO much better that they make you look hopeless and inadequate.

Would you be happy if you had to use testosterone to keep your job? And EPO or blood transfusions?

Personally, I have no desire to take drugs to keep my job. None whatsoever.

Gattaca called, they want their script back.

A similar principle is laid out in D1ck Pound's book "Inside Dope: How Drugs are the Biggest Threat to Sports, Why You Should Care, and What Can be Done About Them."

Its easy to get a copy from Amazon used for less that £1.

Whatever people think of D1ck its a good read and answers all your questions, but I think the best / most relevant one he poses is (in general) "How would you feel if it was you son / daughter doping just to compete and exposing themselves to the dangers of these drugs"

 

[Dear Wiggo]

A similar principle is laid out in D1ck Pound's book "Inside Dope: How Drugs are the Biggest Threat to Sports, Why You Should Care, and What Can be Done About Them."

Its easy to get a copy from Amazon used for less that £1.

Whatever people think of D1ck its a good read and answers all your questions, but I think the best / most relevant one he poses is (in general) "How would you feel if it was you son / daughter doping just to compete and exposing themselves to the dangers of these drugs"

Thanks for the suggestion. I am eschewing print media, but I will keep an eye out.

 

[Justinr]

Thanks for the suggestion. I am eschewing print media, but I will keep an eye out.

Its pre-Kindle I'm afraid and so somewhat out of date but all the principles apply. It hasn't been converted at a later date more's the pity.

 

[David_William]

If any of you by any chance happens to have a son that want's to be a pro cyclist i doubt you would have the same attitude...