Drugs or cheating (apologies in advance)

iainf72

I've just read this blog and it's raised an interesting question for me.

The bit I'm interested in is Landis' comment.

Do people get worked up about drugs because

a) it's cheating
b) it's drugs

If you used a drug that gave you a significant advantage but it wasn't banned, would people be happy with that? Or in a similar vein (ha) what if they decided "awww, heck, you can use EPO if you want to"

afx237vi

It's the same comment many cycling fans make when talking about Merckx, Anquetil or even good ol' Tommy Simpson. "It wasn't banned then, so cut them some slack." What's the difference between them and Barry Bonds?

moray_gub

As far as previous years like the 50s and 60s are concerned you really have to accept that uncontrolled drug use was prevalent at that time, and that probably most if not all riders at that time indulged but Coppi, JA etc were still some of the best riders of their era indeed if not all time .If you cant accept that then you are as well ripping up all cycling records and starting afresh from em um now :-)

As far as today is concerned taking PEDs is cheating end of story its contrary to the rules as they stand at this time.I would give up watching professional cycling indeed all sport if unccontrolled drug use was allowed. Is there a drug that gives you a significant advantage that isnt banned ?

cheers
MG

floatman

err people surely get worked up because it is cheating. you cannot expect any athlete to forego a treatment, supplement or training regimen which boosts performance and is not outlawed by the sports rules.

the argument that certain things may have long term health effects is spurious in my opinion as it has already been shown that training for any endurance sport to a professional level for any period of time is not "good" for you and does reduce your life expectancy anyway..

SteveR_100Milers

Primarily because its cheating, Also I guess there are plenty of athletes who choose not to poison their bodies whom would otherwise be excluded from a sport.

Noodley

It's the cheating not the fact that it's drugs.

My view is that if a person has a medical condition which hampers them and a drug can be used to lessen the negative impact of the condition (rather than give an advantage), then drugs are okay. ie. the drug is only used to correct a medical problem to allow the person to compete on more equal terms. However, I believe the drugs which are permitted must be very strictly scrutinised as some drugs which can be used to alleviate medical conditions may also be used to gain some kind of advantage. There will be no "black and white" with this, and medical science develops all the time, which complicates the matter.

If a rider uses a drug which he/she knows to be a "banned substance" (whether or not they actually gain any advantage) with the intent of gaining an advantage then this is cheating. I believe it is possible to take something which is banned in error (Alain Baxter and his nasal stuff springs to mind), but this is not really what we are speaking about with the vast majority of cases. And missing tests because you "make a mistake" is just the most utterly useless excuse ever. If I were a sportsman I would make bloody well sure I knew the rules and followed every rule to the letter.

I should get a job with the UCI really, shouldn't I?

iainf72

Interesting responses. I've read quite a few articles by doctors involved with cycling etc who say it would be better for the riders health if they could treat them with certain hormones etc.

I just get an undercurrent that it's because it's drugs that there is a strong reaction to it. There is a lot of conditioning in society that drugs = bad. I'm not saying drugs = good but I think the middle road is probably more accurate.

If, and this is completely hypothetical, Cadel Evans had taken a brown envelope of cash from a bookie last week to not take the yellow off Contador, would that be equal to filling up on elephant blood? Or a lesser crime? Or more?

iainf72

BTW - Those baseball sanctions for dopage are awesome!

Noodley

iainf72 wrote:

Interesting responses. I've read quite a few articles by doctors involved with cycling etc who say it would be better for the riders health if they could treat them with certain hormones etc.

I just get an undercurrent that it's because it's drugs that there is a strong reaction to it. There is a lot of conditioning in society that drugs = bad. I'm not saying drugs = good but I think the middle road is probably more accurate.

If, and this is completely hypothetical, Cadel Evans had taken a brown envelope of cash from a bookie last week to not take the yellow off Contador, would that be equal to filling up on elephant blood? Or a lesser crime? Or more?

Brown envelope = cheating. End of.

Re the traetment with hormones - I am not sure re my position on this one as I do not know enough about it. However, if the treatment was to return the body to a more "normal" state of functioning then I would probably say it should be permitted. The treatment would have to have a similar effect on all the riders and not benefit one person due to their physiology over another with a different physiology - that would be gaining a competitive advantage. So, it would be okay of all riders benefitted equally and it was in the interests of the short (or long) term health of riders. Another "grey" area I suppose.

(I have a 600k ride next weekend so if you'd care to tell me what hormones you are speaking about I'd be grateful )

iainf72

"Noodley wrote:

Brown envelope = cheating. End of.

Okay. Cadel finishes the TT last week, and they weigh his bike and discover it's 200g under the limit.

Dirty cheat or stupid rule?

600k eh....Will there be controls? :P I recommend rubbing some testosterone gel into your upper arm each night this week (be careful to avoid any good looking girls during the day)

Noodley

iainf72 wrote:

Okay. Cadel finishes the TT last week, and they weigh his bike and discover it's 200g under the limit.

Dirty cheat or stupid rule?

600k eh....Will there be controls? :P I recommend rubbing some testosterone gel into your upper arm each night this week (be careful to avoid any good looking girls during the day)

Depends if he knew about it. If he knew it was under weight then it would be cheating.
I suppose if he was riding it and was unaware it was under weight he could be given some sympathy - I would imagine it is one of these matters which has to be entrusted to others, although I expect a few riders might consider double checking the weights just to make sure. Irrespective of whether a rider thinks a rule is "stupid", the rules should be adhered to - some riders may think not taking substances to aid them is a stupid rule. (And being underweight would not be an issue for my bike )

And re my ride - yes, there will be controls 8) I doubt if a week of arm rubbing would be of any advantage. I think I'll stick with making sure I have waterproofs to keep me dry.

Sports Scientists

This is a really interesting question.

Our take on this is that elite level athletes apply a somewhat different set of beliefs when it comes to their professions. By this I mean that they likely see taking any kind of supplement/drug/treatment as part and parcel of reaching the pinnacle of their sport, and this is perhaps why they seem to express no remorse when caught, and maybe even whey they can deny with such apparent ease that they never took any performance-enhancing drugs. They just do not see it as cheating.

Nowadays the outrage is probably because it is entirely against the rules to take performance-enhancing drugs, and therefore it is certainly breaking the rules and can be considered cheating. If we go back a few decades to before testing was implemented, then in theory they were not cheating. Was it unethical? Most might agree that it was, although again according to the rules, those athletes were free and clear of any wrongdoing.

For those who have not read the post on Bonds http://scienceofsport.blogspot.com/2007/08/tour-is-finished-and-even-though-this.html, you should read it but also check the comments on it, as I wrote a response to one visitor that elaborates on this idea.

Bottom line is that people who are bent on winning (or those whose livelyhood depends on it, i.e. elite athletes) probably approach competition a bit differently than the rest of us.

drenkrom

I get bugged by the "cheating" part. I have no problem with athletes going right up to the limit of the rules to improve their performance. That's what top-level sport is partly about, not only who has the biggest starting potential but who can exploit it to its very limit. The moment you go over the line defined by the rules, I have a serious problem with it. In my youth, I've had great coaches that would show us all the legal ways of attaining better performance and recovery, but we couldn't touch a Sudafed, as that would've been doping according to the rules in place.

This mentality does make it very tempting to dope. As you inch closer to the line, crossing it is only a smaller step away. Then it's so easy to say to yourself "I've come this far, I might as well go a little further". I've never been to a level where consiferable money came with better performance, but I can definitely understand the attraction.

eh

Well since sports rules are a little arbitary in nature, then if you didn't break the rules which were relevant at the time you won, then thats fine in my book. For instance Boardman broke the hour record on a now illegal bike but in many peoples eyes that is still the record. Equally Delgado tested positive in the TDF he won but for a drug not banned by the UCI hence he still holds his win. (Maybe not the best examples quickly off my head but you get the idea.)

However, there is one big difference between the two examples above and that is a new bike is unlikely to harm the athlete, but drugs can. Further as I understand it the TDF and later sports in general implemented testing NOT because they felt the riders were cheating but to stop further incidents like Simpon's death occurring.

Based on this evidence in my opinion WADA and the governing bodies, should put a priority on making sure they can test for drugs that are very likely to cause athletes health problems and only then move onto the lesser evil ones.

There are some really interesting issues around this whole drugs, whats legal, whats not etc. but they'd take about a whole book to fully analyse and understand.

Further developing this theme I'd really like to see governing bodies clamp down on things like pain killing injections which many footballers, cricketers etc are using so they can play day in and out on, while carrying minor injuries. This can lead to a high chance of leaving them with big problems later in life, but I doubt the athletes in question fully understnad the implications till after they retire.

moray_gub

This can lead to a high chance of leaving them with big problems later in life, but I doubt the athletes in question fully understnad the implications till after they retire.[/quote]


I agree with you here I've always felt that the whole pain killing injection thing is playing with an athletes future. There is a footballer from around these parts called Alan McGraw he played for Greenock Morton and Hibs and regularly took painkilling injections in his knees during the 60s and 70s(25 during one season) he now walks with the aid of sticks and attributes his disability to taking painkilling injections.

cheers
MG

ColinJ

eh wrote:

Further developing this theme I'd really like to see governing bodies clamp down on things like pain killing injections which many footballers, cricketers etc are using so they can play day in and out on, while carrying minor injuries. This can lead to a high chance of leaving them with big problems later in life, but I doubt the athletes in question fully understnad the implications till after they retire.

"I saw things when I was a Pro bike rider that would make your hair curl and five of my ex team mates (from a team of 20 bike riders) are dead… all before they reached 50 years of age. I’m not saying they were all taking dope, but it is a terrible statistic…" - Dave Lloyd

lucretius

my old martial arts instructor always said it was better to train to the limits of your pain than to train on painkillers.

iainf72

I'm not sure about bringing the health argument into doping. I can't lift my arm above horizontal and have got the starts of arthritis because of a bicycle crash - There may be long term negative effects to your health from riding a bike competatively without drugs.

If drugs were allowed in sport, would you continue to be interested? If not, then the problem is it's drugs, not the cheating.

top_bhoy

Surely the 'damage to health' aspect is THE important factor in drug taking. If drug taking wasn't harmful to health then it would simply be down to cost and could be considered no more than a training aid, similar to having the best equipment, best trainer, unlimited time, etc.... The cheating aspect is important but it is a secondary issue for me. I don't want to see a generation of young people being brought up to think that taking drugs is a benefit and that the only cost to pay is hard cash.

Kléber

I want to watch a fair contest. I don't know whether a few seconds of effort separates the podium finishers from the Tour de France, or a few milligrams of something else.

Also, I want honesty. I'm not asking pros to be model citizens and articulate on everything, just for them to be honest. Even when presented with overwhelming evidence, the very same people who pretend to be role models resort to bold and audacious claims (my leg is swollen up with blood, it was attempted doping, my mother in law). I dislike doping but can almost understand why some do it, but it's the deceit that revolts me.

From my own perspective, I used to like computer games. You could play them for hours and try to get that high score. Then a magazine would publish some "cheat code" and your character in the game became faster or invincible etc. It was the fastest way to ruin the game, the patience and skill needed to get to the next level were gone and within no time I'd be bored of the game. Cheating to win a bike race would ruin the hours of fun, the training in the winter with friends, the build up to big events etc.

iainf72

Top_Bhoy wrote:

Surely the 'damage to health' aspect is THE important factor in drug taking. If drug taking wasn't harmful to health then it would simply be down to cost and could be considered no more than a training aid, similar to having the best equipment, best trainer, unlimited time, etc.... The cheating aspect is important but it is a secondary issue for me. I don't want to see a generation of young people being brought up to think that taking drugs is a benefit and that the only cost to pay is hard cash.

But many doctors say it would be better for the pros health to be able to treat them. ProCycling had an interview with the Rabobank doctor (I think) who said there are things he'd like to give the riders for their health, but can't because they're banned.

Would a medically supervised programme be harmful to the health? More so than taking part in an event which can take a year to recover physically from?

top_bhoy

iainf72 wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

Surely the 'damage to health' aspect is THE important factor in drug taking. If drug taking wasn't harmful to health then it would simply be down to cost and could be considered no more than a training aid, similar to having the best equipment, best trainer, unlimited time, etc.... The cheating aspect is important but it is a secondary issue for me. I don't want to see a generation of young people being brought up to think that taking drugs is a benefit and that the only cost to pay is hard cash.

But many doctors say it would be better for the pros health to be able to treat them. ProCycling had an interview with the Rabobank doctor (I think) who said there are things he'd like to give the riders for their health, but can't because they're banned.

Would a medically supervised programme be harmful to the health? More so than taking part in an event which can take a year to recover physically from?

I wouldn't trust any of the doctors involved in the sport who came out with such statements. Its merely a smokescreen IMO. They would in all probability be the same doctors who happily give out the drugs and indulge in medical practices which endanger the athletes health in the first place!!!

What's wrong with a medically supervised programme which doesn't involve the use of banned drugs and doping techniques but yet looks after a riders health to enable a GT to be completed safely - even if it is a little slower? Is that so hard to fathom for some of them?

What about the young athletes without the proper medical supervised programme backup and who feel pressured into using banned substances - how do you tell their parents that their child is playing russian roulette and risking their lives in pursuit of 'sport'?.

iainf72

Top_Bhoy wrote:

What's wrong with a medically supervised programme which doesn't involve the use of banned drugs and doping techniques but yet looks after a riders health to enable a GT to be completed safely - even if it is a little slower? Is that so hard to fathom for some of them?

Very low hormonal levels couldn't be treated "legally" though, could it? If a peer reviewed independent medical body said "hey, these guys in the Tour de France should be using testosterone for their long term health" Would you be supportive?

The guy in charge of CSC anti-doping programme says a lot of the things people take don't even work so the list really needs to be looked at.

Kléber

iainf72 wrote:

Very low hormonal levels couldn't be treated "legally" though, could it? If a peer reviewed independent medical body said "hey, these guys in the Tour de France should be using testosterone for their long term health" Would you be supportive?

Not me. If one riders hormones disappear during a stage race, he should stick to the classics and let those with better endurance and recovery powers concentrate on stage races. Many riders finish the Tour with perfectly normal hormonal levels.

iainf72

Kléber wrote:

Not me. If one riders hormones disappear during a stage race, he should stick to the classics and let those with better endurance and recovery powers concentrate on stage races. Many riders finish the Tour with perfectly normal hormonal levels.

Ok, lets just say in general. If a medical body said "for long term health, you'd be better off taking xyz"

Not some dodgy doctor, but an independent 3'rd party.

Kléber

In that case, if the sport really is damaging people's long term health, medical treatment is not the answer. They could shorten the events a bit, do we really need 220km mountain stages in the third week of the Tour de France to separate the winners? 150km is probably enough. Or maybe set a cap on the number of racing days per year.

iainf72

Kléber wrote:

In that case, if the sport really is damaging people's long term health, medical treatment is not the answer. They could shorten the events a bit, do we really need 220km mountain stages in the third week of the Tour de France to separate the winners? 150km is probably enough. Or maybe set a cap on the number of racing days per year.

I remember reading a Dr Ferrari comment where basically alluded that it's easier to "tweak" someone for a shorter race (ie, monkey with the engine, the tank is the hard part to modify)

For what it's worth, I don't believe in making everyone a patient at all. Talk of putting statins in watersupplies etc enrages me.

So in your case, the problem is with drugs, not with cheating or health issues?

top_bhoy

iainf72 wrote:

Kléber wrote:

Not me. If one riders hormones disappear during a stage race, he should stick to the classics and let those with better endurance and recovery powers concentrate on stage races. Many riders finish the Tour with perfectly normal hormonal levels.

Ok, lets just say in general. If a medical body said "for long term health, you'd be better off taking xyz"

Not some dodgy doctor, but an independent 3'rd party.

If an athletes health is being compromised due to racing legally and the medical board said that a particular treatment is necessary to prevent long term complications then yes, I don't see why that treatment should be witheld. However when undergoing such treatment, the rider can no longer compete and will be monitored throughout - by independant doctors. If after a race, health is being compromised then surely rest would be a big healer. They can't have it both ways!!!

This doesn't answer the questions I posed earlier about what happens to young riders without medical backup!!! Why can't riders simply race within the guidelines? Some people simply want to gain an advantage whether it be cycling or tiddlywinks and would bend the rules in either to gain an advantage and win. Even if you made many of the current banned stuff legal - there would still be some looking out and using the illegal stuff.

Kléber

No, it's the cheating. Sponsors aren't running away because of riders' health issues, it's that they're worried about not being able to control their brand image if the supposed images of youth, success and fitness are built upon injections and criminal activities.

As I said on another post, I can even understand why these guys cede to temptation, just as I can see why people steal or commit fraud. It's the subsequent denials (my mother in law/dog was ill; my leg was swollen with blood etc) that show how some riders treat fans with contempt. I know it's idealised but some riders can and do ride on water and maybe a pot of Boots vitamins tablets and they're also honest too.