Wouldn't it just be easier...

pottssteve

To let everyone take whatever the hell they wanted?

I mean, Rasmussen's coming back, Vinos coming back, Di Luca's just been nabbed, Valverde's banned in France, Ricco, Rebellin, Sella, etc, etc. People are already suspicious of riders in the TdF who appear to be over performing. Until every last doper is removed, all results will be open to question. It costs a fortune to enforce all of the regulations, the riders resent it, we the viewers can't trust anyone and the sponsors get a raw deal when it all goes t*ts up.

So, why not let anyone take whatever they want? Then it's just like WWF - everyone knows it's fixed but they still watch it.

Coriander

I am inclined to agree.

I guess the only argument against would be that doping would then become an arms race with young men taking more and more potentially toxic substances and doing serious damage to their health.

Pokerface

pottssteve wrote:

To let everyone take whatever the hell they wanted?

Valverde's banned in France

Small point of correction - Valv Piti is banned in Italy.


When you let everyone dope - people die - and it forces the clean riders to dope also in order to compete.

What might be more appropriate though - is to have a completely separate cycling league/Tour or some such whereby those who openly dope could compete against each other.

But sport shouldn't be about who has the best drugs/doctors, etc. It should be about who is the best athlete. Unaided.

Kléber

Sure, it would be like decriminalising bank robbery

More seriously, you're looking at the sport from the TV viewer pottssteve but remember the anti-doping rules were introduced after Tom Simpson's death. They are there first and foremost to protect the riders, for the health reasons.

Letting them take anything would result in an arms race where riders would take anything, probably taking more and more risks with their health until one of them died. It wouldn't make the sport level - big doping costs big money - and the winner would be the one most willing to risk their life in the name of a win.

Instead, we should concentrate on clearing things up. We're getting there, the passport scheme is paying dividends already and a few more ideas like total body haemoglobin testing will help. We'll never eliminate doping but it's possible to reduce it significantly. Fans should be pushing for this instead of just saying "let 'em die".

dulldave

Why don't we just use remote controlled bikes?

Coriander

Is doping as prevalent in women's cycling?

Pokerface

Coriander wrote:

Is doping as prevalent in women's cycling?

It happens. But the stakes aren't as high - and there aren't as many riders/races/prize money/contracts, etc. There aren't multi-million dollar contracts in women's cycling to be had.

Doping is prevalent in all sports unfortunately.

Mettan

I'd prefer to see them implanted with a microscopic probe which monitors their blood composition (or whatever) 24/7 througout the tour - the device would simply continuously stream this information to computer for the authorities to scrutinse - problem solved.

disquieting_museeuws

Google Genevieve Jeanson, her story should tell you why we have anti-doping.

bobtbuilder

Quite apart from the heath reasons posted above, it would end up with the latest and "best" drugs / treatments only available to the biggest teams & riders.

andyp

You mean like today?

pottssteve

Pokerface wrote:

pottssteve wrote:

To let everyone take whatever the hell they wanted?

Valverde's banned in France

Small point of correction - Valv Piti is banned in Italy.


When you let everyone dope - people die - and it forces the clean riders to dope also in order to compete.

What might be more appropriate though - is to have a completely separate cycling league/Tour or some such whereby those who openly dope could compete against each other.

But sport shouldn't be about who has the best drugs/doctors, etc. It should be about who is the best athlete. Unaided.

Correction noted.

I'm not saying I'm for this, just putting it forward.

I don't think having "clean" and "dirty" races/leagues would work - dirty riders would want to compete in the clean races to do well (as they do now, of course). I also understand that the rules are there to protect the riders - I don't want to see people die. However, there are lots of rules around to protect people (don't drink and drive, wear a seatbelt) and also advice (wear a cycle helmet, don't smoke etc.) but people ignore these.

jimjamyaharr

disquieting_museeuws
Crikey she was a niaeve young girl used by her coach.
drugs are bad boys and girls and should never be allowed in sport.


WWF and roid-rage. Not a nice combo

aurelio_-_banned

disquieting_museeuws wrote:

Google Genevieve Jeanson, her story should tell you why we have anti-doping.

Or even better Tammy Thomas! :shock:

pottssteve

disquieting_museeuws wrote:

Google Genevieve Jeanson, her story should tell you why we have anti-doping.

I read the article on her in Procycling a little while back; clearly she had some unpleasant influences and was taken advantage of. However, that's partly my point; the shame and guilt which she had, and the desperate need for secrecy just added to her problems and isolation, making her more vulnerable. An open, organised and medically-safe doping program would make riders safer in much the same way as giving needles to heroin addicts reduces the transmission of HIV, hepititis etc, wouldn't it?

Kléber

Yes but if it's open and organised then they'll come a point when some doctors will say "you can take X but Y is too dangerous" or "you can take n milligrammes of Z but no more", some are always going to look for an extra advantage and will look to unofficial sources to take even more and they'll be no way of testing for the increased quantity etc.

aurelio_-_banned

pottssteve wrote:

An open, organised and medically-safe doping program would make riders safer...

Apart from the bit about being 'open' that is often what the doctors employed by the teams are paid to do, and why people are willing to pay doping specialist like Michele Ferrari huge amounts of cash to oversee their 'training'. Not only do such specialists ensure that a rider's performance is enhanced as far as possible, their monitoring ensures that the rider (probably!) won't die as a consequence.

jimjamyaharr

aurelio
OMG!!!!!!!!!
Thats dedacation to the sport

Kléber

aurelio wrote:

disquieting_museeuws wrote:

Google Genevieve Jeanson, her story should tell you why we have anti-doping.

Or even better Tammy Thomas! :shock:

Only after you have had lunch

Jez mon

You answer your own question. Cycling can't allow doping as it would mean pro cycling was no longer a sport but just entertainment. Furthermore, it would be removed from the olympics, lottery funding would be stopped and races would suffer as local authorities wouldn't want to have a load of drugged up young men racing along their roads. That's just the start, add in the factor that 100s of young men would be forced to put dangerous substances into their bodies in order to pursue their chosen career and surely you can see why this is a terrible idea!

pottssteve

Kléber wrote:

Yes but if it's open and organised then they'll come a point when some doctors will say "you can take X but Y is too dangerous" or "you can take n milligrammes of Z but no more", some are always going to look for an extra advantage and will look to unofficial sources to take even more and they'll be no way of testing for the increased quantity etc.

Which would be their decision, and their risk to take, in much the same way that some riders choose to wear a helmet and others don't, the exact risk being variable and unknowable. At present you have teenagers coming into the sport possibly not knowing what they might be asked to do/take, and the whole thing is covered up and very secretive - this leaves the power in the hands of characters like Ferrari. By getting it out in the open everyone knows what they are letting themselves in for, and riders wouldn't have to pay lots of money into dodgy Swiss bank accounts.

If you get a job in a fishmonger's, you're going to come home smelling of fish, if you get my analogy.

moray_gub

Kléber wrote:

aurelio wrote:

disquieting_museeuws wrote:

Google Genevieve Jeanson, her story should tell you why we have anti-doping.

Or even better Tammy Thomas! :shock:

Only after you have had lunch

Now you tell me...............agghhhhhh

pottssteve

Jez mon wrote:

You answer your own question. Cycling can't allow doping as it would mean pro cycling was no longer a sport but just entertainment. Furthermore, it would be removed from the olympics, lottery funding would be stopped and races would suffer as local authorities wouldn't want to have a load of drugged up young men racing along their roads. That's just the start, add in the factor that 100s of young men would be forced to put dangerous substances into their bodies in order to pursue their chosen career and surely you can see why this is a terrible idea!

"it would be removed from the olympics"

What, like the 100 metres, hammer, shot, discus, weightlifting etc...?

ride_whenever

I don't think the major issue to do with legalising doping is any of the above, whilst they are all important concerns, the idea of allowing it to level the playing field is ridiculous mainly because it doesn't effect everyone the same amount so it would come down to who has the best response to the doping...

andyrac

pottssteve wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

You answer your own question. Cycling can't allow doping as it would mean pro cycling was no longer a sport but just entertainment. Furthermore, it would be removed from the olympics, lottery funding would be stopped and races would suffer as local authorities wouldn't want to have a load of drugged up young men racing along their roads. That's just the start, add in the factor that 100s of young men would be forced to put dangerous substances into their bodies in order to pursue their chosen career and surely you can see why this is a terrible idea!

"it would be removed from the olympics"

What, like the 100 metres, hammer, shot, discus, weightlifting etc...?

Didn't you know? - Athletics, Weightlifting don't have doping problems.....

Kléber

pottssteve, what I'm trying to say is that even if there is some permitted doping, riders will still seek out the non-permitted help.

Let's imagine CERA is harmless*. Maybe your team has a doctor to give you moderate doses of CERA but some riders and teams would end up sending their riders to a secret doctor to take even bigger doses. The whole point of doping is to get an advantage on your rivals. But there'd be no way of checking this, the riders would test positive for CERA but no one could tell if they were taking moderate amounts or consuming insane amounts.

* EPO isn't harmless. It comes with a FDA "Black Box" warning and is designed for the seriously ill, those on chemo or with chronic renal failure. Even in the small doses designed for these patients the drug has side effects and has been shown to increase the risks of heart disease and cancer. It's risky and the risks are deemed only acceptable if you're already at death's door.

All this is before we get to the big doses needed to make a rider's haematocrit rise, for which there has been no clinical trial, no safety testing. So no doctor under an organised, sanctioned programme would ever allow EPO use to start with.

Jez mon

pottssteve wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

You answer your own question. Cycling can't allow doping as it would mean pro cycling was no longer a sport but just entertainment. Furthermore, it would be removed from the olympics, lottery funding would be stopped and races would suffer as local authorities wouldn't want to have a load of drugged up young men racing along their roads. That's just the start, add in the factor that 100s of young men would be forced to put dangerous substances into their bodies in order to pursue their chosen career and surely you can see why this is a terrible idea!

"it would be removed from the olympics"

What, like the 100 metres, hammer, shot, discus, weightlifting etc...?

If they actually went to the WWE end of the scale, yes. IIRC cycling was already talked about as a sport which could be removed from the olympics due to drug issues. If you went so far as to permit drug use I'm fairly sure it would be removed. Athletes and weightlifters do have drug rules (sometimes they even work )

pottssteve

Kléber wrote:

pottssteve, what I'm trying to say is that even if there is some permitted doping, riders will still seek out the non-permitted help.
Let's imagine CERA is harmless*. Maybe your team has a doctor to give you moderate doses of CERA but some riders and teams would end up sending their riders to a secret doctor to take even bigger doses. The whole point of doping is to get an advantage on your rivals. But there'd be no way of checking this, the riders would test positive for CERA but no one could tell if they were taking moderate amounts or consuming insane amounts.

* EPO isn't harmless. It comes with a FDA "Black Box" warning and is designed for the seriously ill, those on chemo or with chronic renal failure. Even in the small doses designed for these patients the drug has side effects and has been shown to increase the risks of heart disease and cancer. It's risky and the risks are deemed only acceptable if you're already at death's door.


"what I'm trying to say is that even if there is some permitted doping, riders will still seek out the non-permitted help"

Which, under the "anything goes if you're willing to risk it" regulations, would be fine. If you keel over and drop dead it's your own fault. (Like is happening now).

And you know what, we may even get riders who then choose to be clean, and, though they may not be the fastest, will be the moral victors who the supporters get behind (like now), and who knows, in a few years it might even be more profitable to be clean...?

jimjamyaharr

Drugs in sport is bad!!!
I see what you mean by getting it out in the open to make it safer, but then it wouldent be a sport.

pottssteve

Sport is only another form of entertainment, isn't it? Modern sport serves no other purpose than to entertain (and nowadays to sell people like us expensive things the advertisers want us to buy). I mean, pole vaulting and synchronised swimming are sports, but if nobody watched them and nobody did them, would they be missed?

Tom Butcher

I think the lack of sponsors would be a major problem. Not too fussed about lottery funding and no Olympics but if the sponsors all pull out then there is no professional circuit.

And of course the health risks riders would have to take to compete would make it unacceptable.

Apart from the death of the sport and the riders I can't see any problems.