Why you should be cynical

[slowspoke]

While watching the Giro 1998, I decided to do some research inn the protagonists and found this old article. Sad reading....


http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=10163

 

[Stingray34]

ooophff...when it's all lumped together like that, very damning indeed. Like the rewards gained by talented individuals who forge art, I strongly doubt there'll ever be sufficient motivation to refrain from doping.

 

[Caruut]

A good collection of the facts, but the way it's presented sort of implies that other sports are innocent, in my view. Find it hard to take an article that describes cycling as "The Sport of Questionable Ethics" seriously. Don't quite see how they are more questionable than in other sports.

 

[roundabout]

Would "A Sport of Questionable Ethics" sound better?

For me, not really.

 

[slowspoke]

Yes, sorry about the misspelling, was on the iphone. But it was sad watching the Giro and knowing it was all a charade. You can tell which riders are with which doctor by the groups they are in. What is upsetting is because of my age, my first cycling memory is Greg in 1989/90. Everything since then had been a farce. I guess it like being told there is no Santa Clause.

 

[Caruut]

Yes, sorry about the misspelling, was on the iphone. But it was sad watching the Giro and knowing it was all a charade. You can tell which riders are with which doctor by the groups they are in. What is upsetting is because of my age, my first cycling memory is Greg in 1989/90. Everything since then had been a farce. I guess it like being told there is no Santa Clause.

The riders were all doped, yes, but they still had each other to beat. As bad as it was, it wasn't as if only one guy was on the stuff. That is what I feel about the 90s. In some respects, it is a lost decade, in others, it was just the same sport with different boundaries. Of course if you are thinking about ascent times and TT speeds, then it is meaningless, but bike racing is not against some standard set from down on high - it is against the other men on the road. In that respect, it was still sport, however tainted it was.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

North american pro sports are more tainted. It´s just not written (much) about, since "journalists" go hand-in-hand with the organisations. A much more sad story because fans believe in that crap...

 

[roundabout]

The riders were all doped, yes, but they still had each other to beat. As bad as it was, it wasn't as if only one guy was on the stuff. That is what I feel about the 90s. In some respects, it is a lost decade, in others, it was just the same sport with different boundaries. Of course if you are thinking about ascent times and TT speeds, then it is meaningless, but bike racing is not against some standard set from down on high - it is against the other men on the road. In that respect, it was still sport, however tainted it was.

Strange reply to a post that mentions different doctors. But of course it's easier to go into head in the sand mode and pretend that there was some sort of an even playing field when it's obviously wasn't.

 

[Caruut]

Strange reply to a post that mentions different doctors. But of course it's easier to go into head in the sand mode and pretend that there was some sort of an even playing field when it's obviously wasn't.

I suppose there's some truth in what you're saying. Not sure about the whole "you tell tell which doctor" thing though. There was some sort of even playing field - everyone was doing whatever they could, bar a principled few. Some were doing it better than others. It's not the competition I would like to see at all, but it's still racing.

 

[Nilsson]

I suppose there's some truth in what you're saying. Not sure about the whole "you tell tell which doctor" thing though. There was some sort of even playing field - everyone was doing whatever they could, bar a principled few. Some were doing it better than others. It's not the competition I would like to see at all, but it's still racing.

More importantly, there is never an even playing field. Not in training, not in genetics, not in sleeping/resting, not in eating/drinking, not in non-doping medical treatment, not in quality of support, not in anything. At best the balance (of factors that determine a performance) was a bit lost in (especially) the nineties.

Doping was and is a problem, but we shouldn't handle it without any reasoning at all or make it bigger that it actually is or was. Although I personally believe we should play by the rules (and thus fight doping, in a fair manner) you could very well argue, both from a practical as more philosophical point of view, that banning the use of medical substances isn't such a great rule and using doping isn't as unethical (per se) as many people seem to think (as a necessity in itself)...

 

[roundabout]

I have been wondering who would be the first to make this argument in this thread.

I am not at the least surprised in the end.

 

[roundabout]

I suppose there's some truth in what you're saying. Not sure about the whole "you tell tell which doctor" thing though. There was some sort of even playing field - everyone was doing whatever they could, bar a principled few. Some were doing it better than others. It's not the competition I would like to see at all, but it's still racing.

No, anecdotal evidence suggests that it wasn't the case in the period referenced in the article linked in the OP.

 

[DirtyWorks]

....Doping was and is a problem, but we shouldn't handle it without any reasoning at all or make it bigger that it actually is or was.

I see what you did there....

Since we don't know how big it was, maybe you can tell us? How many pro riders are doping now? So, you would have us not have any information and then simply trust that the UCI (of all federations) is supposed to be on top of it? Really?

This kind of obstinate faith in a federation that has repeatedly shown itself to support dopers is dangerous.

Although I personally believe we should play by the rules (and thus fight doping, in a fair manner) you could very well argue, both from a practical as more philosophical point of view, that banning the use of medical substances isn't such a great rule and using doping isn't as unethical (per se) as many people seem to think (as a necessity in itself)...

So sending riders to the hospital for botched doping procedures is okay? Uncontrolled experimentation on humans is okay? Perhaps killing a few is okay too?

Again, it is all fine and good when doping is largely theoretical. But, let's bring it home. Nilsson, your kid can be a cycling superstar if you put her on a doping program. You are going to need to start her early as a teenager and do stuff to your kid you have no training or authority and is certainly morally questionable and definitely life threatening. Still all good?

Ignore for a moment all of the ethical problems of allowing doping, if you allow it, athletics, not just cycling, becomes a chemical arms race with long reaching consequences going all the way into amateur (kids) doping and most importantly, shrinking audiences.

 

[Caruut]

No, anecdotal evidence suggests that it wasn't the case in the period referenced in the article linked in the OP.

That's not quite the impression I got from the article, would you be able to point out the section to me?

 

[Nilsson]

I see what you did there....

Since we don't know how big it was, maybe you can tell us? How many pro riders are doping now? So, you would have us not have any information and then simply trust that the UCI (of all federations) is supposed to be on top of it? Really?

This kind of obstinate faith in a federation that has repeatedly shown itself to support dopers is dangerous.

It's also not that interesting. Precisely because we don't know how many riders dope, or (even more importantly) what the exact (performing enhancing) effects of are - especially with the tighter margins at the present, which very well seem to result in less extraordinary performances at least...

I know that there are some new products in the pipeline that are used at the moment, like AKB-6548, ACE-011 and others, which you probably haven't even heard of. But of course I can't tell you who are using them, and if I could, I wouldn't...

So sending riders to the hospital for botched doping procedures is okay? Uncontrolled experimentation on humans is okay? Perhaps killing a few is okay too?

I've never said such thing, and bearing in mind reactions like yours I probably shouldn't have said anything at all. Doping, as such, attracts pretty standard reactions, almost religious...

Again, it is all fine and good when doping is largely theoretical. But, let's bring it home. Nilsson, your kid can be a cycling superstar if you put her on a doping program. You are going to need to start her early as a teenager and do stuff to your kid you have no training or authority and is certainly morally questionable and definitely life threatening. Still all good?

You make a lot of presumptions. It's not that easy to conclude that doping is morally questionable, it's against the rules (but nine out of ten times we don't get any further than that). Nor is it very clear that it's life threatening.

To make it clear. I would understand my kid if he (or she) gets to the point that he (or she) decides to get on a doping program, if that allows him (or her) to achieve great things. Just like I would understand if my daughter decides to get breast implants if she wants to be in playboy. I wouldn't understand if my son decided that, though (although I probably would respect it)...

Ignore for a moment all of the ethical problems of allowing doping, if you allow it, athletics, not just cycling, becomes a chemical arms race with long reaching consequences going all the way into amateur (kids) doping and most importantly, shrinking audiences.

Again a lot of presumptions. Health always should be key, and should be strictly monitored. Even more and much stricter than today (with riders riding with injuries, etc.). The idea of a chemical race is outrageous, and has nothing to do with the truth or with what I would think that is appropriate...

I would like to see strict monitoring, responsibility, and flexibility. All managed by a team of independent doctors and scientists (which means no more team doctors!) who can act - in a flexible manner - if and to the point they think it's necessary and appropriate.

About the shrinking audiances. Cycling doesn't seem to suffer much from its image at the moment, although I admit that doping seems to attract a quite dogmatic point of view. There is (almost) no open approach to the matter, no clear thinking. Anti-doping is almost like a religion, it is written and therefore it is.

What do you think about fouls in other sports, the lack of fair play as such? Behaviour that very well could be much more unethical and unfair (in terms of performance enhancing). And what does the lack of manners to play in an 'unfair' way in cycling, other than doping, have to do with the dogmatic obsession with doping in cycling?

Should we have more Ferrari's? More guys hanging onto cars? Maybe take the train again, like in the old days? Maybe Basso should flatten Rodriguez's tires? He can't just lay on the ground and hope for a free kick, can he? Although Fränk Schleck obviously tried it with Rasmussen, Burghardt with a dog and Contador blamed a cow, which seemed very unlikely (we have seen horses, donkeys and some sheeps) but got a Russian in his side instead and is on vacation now...