adieu, monsieur L. Armstrong

[Asta Kask]

Drop the ban. When doping is allowed, when everybody is doped, the difference will again be natural talent and dedication.

[The Glyphstone]

Drop the ban. When doping is allowed, when everybody is doped, the difference will again be natural talent and dedication.

When everyone's a doper, no one will be?

[Karoht]

Drop the ban. When doping is allowed, when everybody is doped, the difference will again be natural talent and dedication.

Which turns the barrier to entry from the everyman to the rich who can afford the doping. Again.
Look into the history of the Olympics, you'll see how that wasn't really a good thing. But there is a social impact to having such a barrier to entry, as well as an impact by removing the barrier to entry.


There are also health concerns with doping.
I would really, really, really, be hesitant with allowing athletes to use the dope. What kind of message does it send to kids? That it's okay to destroy one's body and risk cancer, internal organ damage/failure, and a host of other problems related to steroids, just to win something? Or that drugs are a solution to a problem? Both are highly negative messages to send to anyone, kids especially.


Now, as for solutions to the problem, better monitoring goes a long way.
But it doesn't have to treat the athletes like criminals. I'll explain.
As it is, trainers and coaches take very tight statistics from all of their players. Diet (carbs, protein, fats, sugars, etc), sleep hours, training hours, body weight, water intake, calorie intake VS burn, etc.
Some of them already do frequent medical testing, mostly for the safety of the athletes (blood sugar monitoring is imporant, along with a few other metrics), and it does provide them some amounts of data which can be useful for focusing the training of the athletes.

Well, what if such testing were required for professional sports, on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, and submitted to an appropriate authority? And make that information as transparant as reasonably possible?
Not only do the players and coaches gain benefit, it makes everything transparent and removes suspicion.
As part of qualifying for some event (IE-The qualifying matches for the Olympics or the World Cup), one has to submit a minimum amount of records. Say, 6 months to 12 months? And if that isn't enough, the supervising board can just review the whole record for anomalies.
Leagues and large sporting bodies (IE-The IOC) can simply make this a requirement for league participation. You be open and accountable, or you don't play with us.
You want the privilage, you accept the responsibilities.
Simple. Efficient. Transparent.
Done.

[Trixie]

Drop the ban. When doping is allowed, when everybody is doped, the difference will again be natural talent and dedication.

Have you read what was written in the case?

Not only doping kills people (heart attacks in healthy 25 year olds?), you have such people like Scott Mercier (mentioned before) and Frankie Andreu who refused to take drugs and had their careers ruined as a reason. But I guess it's easy to dismiss "losers" without 7 Champ titles.

Oh, and one Betsy Andreu, wife of Frankie above, who persuaded her husband to not take drugs was literally threatened with murder with baseball bat by Armstrong men. You can read or listen to it here.

How can say after that Armstrong is misunderstood, poor, clean victim of witch hunt?

Which turns the barrier to entry from the everyman to the rich who can afford the doping.

Pretty much this.

Well, what if such testing were required for professional sports, on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, and submitted to an appropriate authority? And make that information as transparant as reasonably possible?

Problem is, you can't check for freshly invented doping drugs with that system. There has to be some stick involved, too, otherwise it can be circumvented.

Plus, it wouldn't have worked on Armstrong, he literally made paid spy/observer network to warn his team about controls, then quickly took countermeasures to be clean in every known test.

[Killer Angel]

Have you read what was written in the case?

Not only doping kills people (heart attacks in healthy 25 year olds?)

A notable example. And pretty on spot, given that we're talking 'bout the Tour de France...

[Trixie]

I was more thingking about this, but yeah. Here, experts describe matter in depth.

[Asta Kask]

How can say after that Armstrong is misunderstood, poor, clean victim of witch hunt?

I didn't know that I did. Au contraire, my suggestion hinges on doping being nigh-universal.

[Trixie]

I didn't know that I did.

The part about 'witch hunt' wasn't directed at you, it was general sigh over the Armstrong's whitewashing. Please note I referred to the bullying cases above in that line, not to anything you wrote?

[Coidzor]

Man oh man were they all asleep at the wheel or what?

Honestly it sounds like we'd be better off getting rid of all the professional cyclists on the assumption that they're all guilty.

[Acanous]

Bah. Let Athletes use steroids and drugs. Their bio signs are all closely monitored and they get peak nutrition and exercize.
If we let them use performance enhancing drugs, we can procure valuable data about what drugs react how with what other factors. It will advance scientific knowledge of the human condition, and all the participants are volunteers!

Live for our adoration.
Work for our entertainment.
Die for our benefit.
Totally humane.

[Trixie]

Let me guess, final step would be Soylent Green?

The book one :P

[Acanous]

That is why you are awesome, Trixie, you catch the things I miss :3

[Astral Avenger]

The good news is that drug testing is getting cheaper and more common. One of the upcoming cyclocross races in my area is doing random drug testing (or at least saying that they are going to).

I do not know who doped or how, but I know that this is really damn hard no matter what you might be taking.

Hm... Rereading my post in preview makes me think I should add a disclaimer that I have never taken a substance illegal in the USA.

[factotum]

I didn't know that I did. Au contraire, my suggestion hinges on doping being nigh-universal.

And you personally know that it is, then? There are so few clean athletes in any sport that they might as well drop the ban on drugs? Because I don't think even the most extreme critics of drugs in sport think that's the case...

[Trixie]

I do not know who doped or how, but I know that this is really damn hard no matter what you might be taking.

You know, I drive 1-2 hours per day, and I think one or two minutes of such jumping while driving upwards is well beyond the capability of even well fit people. Sure, they get vitamins, food, and training, but even then, it looks to me they "somehow" cheat limitations of human body.

I mean, even Phelps doesn't make swimming look so ridiculous compared to normal, well fit swimmer.

Also, I love how big advantage blocking your opponent gives in such narrow driving lane. Real class, winning by being moving roadblock instead of competing.

[Cuthalion]

Although doping does help in some ways, I'm pretty sure it doesn't enhance once's performance in huge ways. It's generally used to recover from injuries faster. To bicycle that well that far, and that long, you have to have some serious natural stamina, skill and strength. I think he shouldn't be erased from the books, but just have an asterisk, possibly, or something like that next to his name.

[Togath]

He should be erased from books. His records replaced with red blocks with a note stating the removal of his records.
I lack comprehension of why a person would tolerate a criminal. A criminal does not deserve to be free, let alone set a record.

[Trixie]

Although doping does help in some ways, I'm pretty sure it doesn't enhance once's performance in huge ways. It's generally used to recover from injuries faster. To bicycle that well that far, and that long, you have to have some serious natural stamina, skill and strength. I think he shouldn't be erased from the books, but just have an asterisk, possibly, or something like that next to his name.

Again: clean Olympic level cyclist dropped the sport because he found training at the level of doped cyclists impossible, which ruined his career. Races are harder than that. Had drugs been so little help, no one would have been bothering. It's all in the links in this thread.

So, yeah, let's let cheater who ruined careers of many talented people by breaking rules he swore to upheld, cheater who outright bullied others using all means he had into silence to held titles. Who cares about silly things like decency or justice?

[Asta Kask]

And you personally know that it is, then? There are so few clean athletes in any sport that they might as well drop the ban on drugs? Because I don't think even the most extreme critics of drugs in sport think that's the case...

If it's not then I would still support dropping the ban, but more for moral-political reasons which I cannot go into here.

[GnomeFighter]

If it's not then I would still support dropping the ban, but more for moral-political reasons which I cannot go into here.

It sounds like you have never known any elite athletes. Often they will do anything to win and if you allow them free reign to use whatever drugs and doping they wanted you would end up with half dropping out and saying "I'm not doing that to myself" and the rest pushing there bodies to the very limit of what is possible and dieing on a regular basis (as in the Tour would see large numbers of the field dieing every year).

Alowing doping and drug use is just not in any way a sensible idea and encouraging people to kill themselves just to win...

Elite athletes already damage there body's and lives to win, letting drugs in to it would just multiply the harm.

[Cuthalion]

Again: clean Olympic level cyclist dropped the sport because he found training at the level of doped cyclists impossible, which ruined his career. Races are harder than that. Had drugs been so little help, no one would have been bothering. It's all in the links in this thread.

So, yeah, let's let cheater who ruined careers of many talented people by breaking rules he swore to upheld, cheater who outright bullied others using all means he had into silence to held titles. Who cares about silly things like decency or justice?

Apart from the fact that "justice" hasn't been upheld by actually investigating it instead of just saying "He's busted". Also, if there are that many doped cyclists, why don't they crack down on more of them, if it's that big of a problem.

[HeadlessMermaid]

Also, if there are that many doped cyclists, why don't they crack down on more of them, if it's that big of a problem.

There are two basic problems with doping control.

One, there's a never-ending "arms race" between people who devise drugs and people who devise drug tests. Those who devise drug tests are - by definition - one step behind, since the goal of every new drug is twofold: enhance performance and fool existing tests.

And two, it's systemic, mate. Doping itself is not a crime - the police can only investigate related offenses (distribution of illegal substances, blackmail, fraud etc). So here's the rub: the only people who can crack down on doping are those in the sports business. That's the same people who make heaps of money out of "enhanced performances", world records and similar thrills. Do you understand now the systemic flaw of self-regulation?

For every honest person in the anti-doping agency who genuinely tries to do his job, there are 100 people in the sports world who have a very real, vested interest to stop him, mislead him, foil his investigation. From athletes, coaches and doctors all the way to the board members of sports clubs and committees. Who look away and pretend they see no evil. Look away, and win billions from advertising, broadcasting fees, subsidies and tax returns (because "they promote sports"), and all sorts of bribes.

Why wouldn't they look away?

[pendell]

Not only doping kills people (heart attacks in healthy 25 year olds?)

I'm curious. Is doping more hazardous than those normally experienced by, say, American football players or by boxers? ISTR the phrase "punch drunk" comes from people who have suffered permanent brain damage from boxing related injuries.

Put me in the corner of "drop the ban" for the following reasons:

1) You would be amazed what risks people will run when their livelihood is at stake. Consider factories in China or the glow-in-the-dark lithium that gave the factory workers cancer.

I say that if people should have the right to risk their health in exchange for securing the financial future both of themselves and of their families. Whether that's going into a coal mine or taking dope for sports.

2) Yes, this means that only rich people could compete. But how is that different from the present? A poor person isn't going to be able to afford a great bike or the time to train. The days when a mechanic could just walk out of his garage and win the tour de france are long gone, if they ever existed. Sports have always been a luxury for the idle rich. Poor people work.

3) I would feel differently, perhaps, if cheating was reliably detected and punished by all offenders without exception or exemption. But when there are whole industries devoted to cheating, and when those charged with enforcing the rules will happily look the other way , then "make an example" while ignoring others out of favoritism or because they weren't paid off or whatever ... I think it's not working.

To my mind "Justice" and "fair dealing" start with honesty. When people are truthful about what they are doing and why they are doing. A society where whole industries spring up for the purpose of lying, where the enforcers are highly selective about what rules they will and will not enforce, is not and cannot be a just society. I claim that a society which legalized doping would be more just and more honest in the long run than a society where everyone is pretending or lying to some degree or other.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Zdrak]

Two wrongs don't make a right, pendell. Just because someone in some corner of the world is suffering horribly, doesn't mean we should condone slightly less horrible suffering elsewhere.

[Wardog]

Let me guess, final step would be Soylent Green?

Eew, no way.

I only want pure, Organic Soylent Green.

[Xondoure]

Eew, no way.

I only want pure, Organic Soylent Green.

Grass fed of course.

[pendell]

Two wrongs don't make a right, pendell.

Outside of theory, very rarely is there such a thing as one choice that is totally right and has no adverse consequences for anyone anywhere. Instead, it's a constant searching to maximize the amount of good in the world while minimizing the evil. This means that sometimes lesser evils must be condoned in order to achieve the greater good. I believe a foundation of honesty is a better building block for a just society than a foundation of lies and pretense. It's also the first step of escape from addictive behavior -- to squarely face what you are , and not what you pretend to be. I believe it works that way for societies as well.

I believe that openly acknowledging who is doping and why is a step towards better regulation and control of the sport than to foster entire industries which exist only to foster lying and deceit. That it is better for everyone to know what is going on and who is doing it than to randomly strike one offender down around thousands, often for reasons that are not arbitrary.

I would change my mind if doping could be reliably caught at the time of racing and that it was then punished without exception or exemption. But since this isn't happening and isn't likely to happen, I would rather simply allow people to tell the truth and focus my regulatory efforts on things that CAN be reliably enforced.

However, I should note that in fact I don't much care for any professional sport and so will not participate in this debate much longer. Probably better to leave the field to people who care about it, neh?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Zdrak]

Your arguments are way off. Just because it can't be reliably caught in the act ... Neither can every tax evader be reliably caught in the act. Nor every person who snatches a purse from a lady on the street. That's no excuse to not even try to catch them.

[pendell]

Your arguments are way off. Just because it can't be reliably caught in the act ... Neither can every tax evader be reliably caught in the act. Nor every person who snatches a purse from a lady on the street. That's no excuse to not even try to catch them.

The tax code is outside forum scope. A pity, becuase there's much to say about it.

As towards purse-snatchers -- I started to right a long response but realized that was political too. So with respect to the forum rules, I will simplify my response thus: I do not equate doping with purse-snatching. The second is what happens when the strong abuse the weak, and that is something I can't stand. The first is when a person hurts himself, and I care much less about that. If one doper is faster than other dopers, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. In that sense I see no societal value in fostering hypocrisy. Simply rewrite the rules to describe the sport as it is actually practiced, rather than as it is in a neverland where only Devas compete.

And ... this is the second time I've caught myself hitting the rules boundary so I'm going to stop now. I'll read your response , but I think it's time for me to stop talking now.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Zdrak]

If one doper is faster than other dopers, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. In that sense I see no societal value in fostering hypocrisy.

If a doper is faster than non-dopers, then he effectively steals money (prizes, endorsements) from them. Lance Armstrong, for all practical purposes, stole money from the purses of those cyclists who didn't take drugs. Not my purse, admittedly, but I don't think "hypocrisy" is the right term to use when speaking of protecting the rights of a person who happens to be not me. I'd use "honesty" in this context, but that's just me.

Also, I found it interesting that you brought up the coal mine analogy before, and I want to address it. Let's say a mine owner decides he can save big bucks by eliminating various safety systems in his mine, and as a result, up the salaries of his miners by, let's say, $0.10/hour.

And let's say his miners are a poor and financially-pressed bunch, and have no choice but to agree to an arragement that will, in the short term, put $0.10/hour in their pocket, and in the long term, ruin their health. Here's the thing you need to understand, their agreement still doesn't make it right. That's why we have regulatory agencies overseeing mine safety, and they shouldn't allow any such schenanigans. It should be legal to work in a coal mine, but it should be illegal to operate an unsafe mine that ruins its employees health - even for an additional fee. You can see where this analogy is going with respect to sports.