World cycling is broken - It's time to lift the ban on dopin

[blackcat]

Nevertheless what conscientious parent - though I realize how many unscrupulous parents wouldn't think twice about doping their teenagers if it meant a shot at fame and glory - would allow his or her child to participate in a sport in which it is not only known, but legitimized, that the only way to survive and make it in the sport is by doping?

For these reasons, despite the anti-doping campaign, we will probably never see doping legalized. If anything the sport will fade away beforehand.

and this is my only reservation and the reason i see anti-doping as maintaining a facade of validity. for adolescents. sport for adolescents. what is sport if it is not, a defined grouping of rules? rules and health. for adolescents. otherwise, anti-doping is a shell-game, for marketing and propaganda.

 

[blackcat]

Ok, but it is debatable whether or not doping should be a criminal offense.

My feeling on the matter, is that we have far too many other reasons to send people to prison...

On the other hand the medics who adminster the drugs should be held liable if the athlete dies or inflicts permanent damage and, why not, the team management. Even this would not be a total deterent to discourage doctors and team staff from being the technical complices of dopers, however, it would send a strong message to a system of which the athlete is only the last cog in the wheel.

one also must question the definition of criminal and criminal code.

Armstrong has Sarkozy on speeddial. and Sarkozy has Armstrong on speeddial.

And is it true, or is it apocryphal, that Armstrong got Sarkozy to remove Patrice Clerc or someother head of Amaury Sport Organisation via speaking to Madame Amaury and telling her to guillotine Clerc or some other chief?

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Apart from this, there are two basic objections to legalizing doping: one is that it is "unsportsman-like," and two it is "unethical." As to the first, athletes have been looking to gain an edge through drugs since gladiators fought in the Colosseum. Therefore, sport has never really been "sportsman-like." The very nature of the activity excludes the myth. Although it does suck when you are a clean rider racing against dopers, that I will not contest.

We (ambiguously: fans/athletes/leagues) decide what the competition is measuring. We want sports to measure commitment to training, tactics, and talent. We want it to measure "who is the best responder to training (and who plans training effectively), not to measure "who is the best responder to epo".

As with most things, we are where we are because of historical swings of the pendulum.

Gladiators' sport measured survival.
(then a big gap where survival mattered more than staged survival...)
That changed to measuring natural talent (who could win while not training).
Then we wanted to measure the talent and training of regular people. (Who could train and compete while maintaining a regular life/amateurism)
We are in the middle of professionalism, where the sport measures the best combination of talent and commitment.

The slow reaction is that now we want certain kinds of commitment. People who voted "no" want sports to measure commitment to training interventions(stimulating adaptation and subsequent recovery), not commitment to biochemical interventions (intervention is the adaptation).

Whereas "criminalization" and recieving a sanction are two different things. Doping is not "criminal," but merely agaisnt the rules of sport. Bribery, defamation, purgery, making life-threats, corruption and Mafioso vendetta, which leads to individual livelyhoods being ruined, etc., on the other hand, are all criminal behaviors and should be punished accordingly.

Like others have said, it is criminal in several countries.

Further, on the professional side of sport, doping is fraud: cheating the riders who follow the rules out of their prize money and roster spots. At least, it should be understood that way.

 

[scholar]

Wow. A higher proportion of respondents (so far) have answered 'absoutely not' than agree that Merckx is the greatest cyclist of all time.

 

[D-Queued]

Wow. A higher proportion of respondents (so far) have answered 'absoutely not' than agree that Merckx is the greatest cyclist of all time.

So, what you are saying is that most people agree that Merckx is the greatest cyclist of all time. Folks are even more comfortable acknowledging that Merckx should hold this title for all time.

Thus, knowing that Merckx doped when it was easier to get away with it, doping should be banned forever thereby securing his position of the greatest cyclist of all time for all time.

Right?

Makes sense. Then we don't have to worry too much about what distortion doping has caused or is causing.

Dave.

 

[scholar]

So, what you are saying is that most people agree that Merckx is the greatest cyclist of all time. Folks are even more comfortable acknowledging that Merckx should hold this title for all time.

Thus, knowing that Merckx doped when it was easier to get away with it, doping should be banned forever thereby securing his position of the greatest cyclist of all time for all time.

Right?

Makes sense. Then we don't have to worry too much about what distortion doping has caused or is causing.

Dave.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm observing that the level of unity on this question currently goes beyond that of those who voted on a matter as uncontroversial as the claim that Merckx is the greatest cyclist of all time (which strikes me as a no-brainer).

I wasn't trying to relate it to Merckx's doping. Simply to point to the levels of consensus that exist here, on a matter that seems to me to be less obvious (I'm one of the two current 'unsures', but that's in part because the word 'absolutely' puts me off).

Really I was drawing attention to the strength of the anti-doping consensus here -- which of course isn't all that surprising, but there are people who occasionally point out that the Clinic isn't an explicitly anti-doping forum, but rather somewhere where doping can be discussed, that includes a lot of anti-doping activists.

 

[D-Queued]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm observing that the level of unity on this question currently goes beyond that of those who voted on a matter as uncontroversial as the claim that Merckx is the greatest cyclist of all time (which strikes me as a no-brainer).

I wasn't trying to relate it to Merckx's doping. Simply to point to the levels of consensus that exist here, on a matter that seems to me to be less obvious (I'm one of the two current 'unsures', but that's in part because the word 'absolutely' puts me off).

Really I was drawing attention to the strength of the anti-doping consensus here -- which of course isn't all that surprising, but there are people who occasionally point out that the Clinic isn't an explicitly anti-doping forum, but rather somewhere where doping can be discussed, that includes a lot of anti-doping activists.

Sorry, I should have added one of these:

Your points are all well taken.

Dave.

 

[scholar]

Sorry, I should have added one of these:

Sorry. I realized shortly after I'd replied that I might inadvertantly have taken something more seriously than it was intended. Thanks for the clarification!

 

[Archibald]

Nevertheless what conscientious parent - though I realize how many unscrupulous parents wouldn't think twice about doping their teenagers if it meant a shot at fame and glory - would allow his or her child to participate in a sport in which it is not only known, but legitimized, that the only way to survive and make it in the sport is by doping?

was scrolling through to see if anyone mentioned this.

If it gets lifted, then it's simply a matter of how soon you start doping. Considering European football teams are signing 12 year olds to their academies...

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Stupidest poll question yet!

 

[simo1733]

Which drink? That does seem strange but I think it's a legacy rule to stop it turning into F1 on bikes, similar to all the other equipment restrictions, and they just haven't yet taken supplements into account. You raise a very interesting point.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...ew-energy-drink-next-big-thing-cycling-151877.
This article explains all about it

 

[mrhender]

WOW... Landscape seems to be changing a lot on this....

 

[Archibald]

hee hee... developed at Oxford Uni, who just happened to win the last two Boat Races... nudge, nudge, wink, wink...

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Which drink? That does seem strange but I think it's a legacy rule to stop it turning into F1 on bikes, similar to all the other equipment restrictions, and they just haven't yet taken supplements into account. You raise a very interesting point.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/ketones-controversial-new-energy-drink-next-big-thing-cycling-151877.
This article explains all about it

Just had chance to read this, interesting although pretty poorly written.

It would be almost impossible to put any form of ketone on the prohibited list, they occur naturally in just about any food you are likely to eat. It would be akin to trying to ban protein shakes really.

It's also possible they are of very little to no benefit anyway. You'll note in the article that they say they "believe the greatest benefits are for long-distance efforts in very fit individuals" and they are being used by "world famous professional cyclists" so they are people who you would expect to be doing well and winning races anyway. There's no study linked, I'll have a look on pubmed later.