Why the LA case is still important
No_Ta_Doctor
Posts: 14,679
OK, firstly an apology for starting another LA thread. the reason I'm doing so is this:
I've heard it argued that the damage to cycling from nailing LA would be too great to make it worthwhile, and that now he's retired we should just leave it all in the past. Cycling is cleaner now than it was in the 90s, we've made progress, no point in digging up old dirt that will further damage cycling's already tarnished reputation.
The reason I want to argue against this point is this:
As it stands, cyclists with a flexible morality make a risk assessment of doping. They factor in the potential gains (money, success, new contract, continued career) against the risks (two year ban for first offence). Their next step is to assess how likely the second scenario, getting caught, is.
Like car crashes and other accidents, getting caught is something that happens to other people. The people that crash cars are the ones that aren't as good at driving as me, the people that get caught are the ones that aren't as good at doping. Only an idiot gets caught if they organise their doping properly. They made stupid mistakes, mistakes I wont make.
They judge the risk of getting caught as very small. Sure, the penalty is high, but they don't think they'll ever have to pay it. The suggestion that increasing the penalty might be effective (to e.g. a life ban for first offence) doesn't hold water, imo, because the dopers just don't think they'll get caught.
LA comes into this because he was clearly very organised about his doping. Plenty of rumours, yes, but no official bullet he couldn't dodge so far. LA shows that it can be done. Nabbing LA would be a major step in reversing the attitude above. If they can nail LA they can nail anyone, in time. I think that alone is an important enough reason that LA shouldn't be brushed under the carpet.
I've heard it argued that the damage to cycling from nailing LA would be too great to make it worthwhile, and that now he's retired we should just leave it all in the past. Cycling is cleaner now than it was in the 90s, we've made progress, no point in digging up old dirt that will further damage cycling's already tarnished reputation.
The reason I want to argue against this point is this:
As it stands, cyclists with a flexible morality make a risk assessment of doping. They factor in the potential gains (money, success, new contract, continued career) against the risks (two year ban for first offence). Their next step is to assess how likely the second scenario, getting caught, is.
Like car crashes and other accidents, getting caught is something that happens to other people. The people that crash cars are the ones that aren't as good at driving as me, the people that get caught are the ones that aren't as good at doping. Only an idiot gets caught if they organise their doping properly. They made stupid mistakes, mistakes I wont make.
They judge the risk of getting caught as very small. Sure, the penalty is high, but they don't think they'll ever have to pay it. The suggestion that increasing the penalty might be effective (to e.g. a life ban for first offence) doesn't hold water, imo, because the dopers just don't think they'll get caught.
LA comes into this because he was clearly very organised about his doping. Plenty of rumours, yes, but no official bullet he couldn't dodge so far. LA shows that it can be done. Nabbing LA would be a major step in reversing the attitude above. If they can nail LA they can nail anyone, in time. I think that alone is an important enough reason that LA shouldn't be brushed under the carpet.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format
0
Comments
-
Top post.0
-
Good post NAD.
I agree with your argument, but of course it all depends on whether the Federal investigation actually results in any action being taken against Armstrong. It's not a forgone conclusion.
I think the most damaging thing to come out of the Landis allegations is to highlight the fact to the whole world that the sports own governing body cannot be relied upon to take action despite persistent rumours and puffs of smoke from the well-oiled machine.0 -
Good point, well made.0
-
No tA Doctor wrote:
LA comes into this because he was clearly very organised about his doping. Plenty of rumours, yes, but no official bullet he couldn't dodge so far. LA shows that it can be done. Nabbing LA would be a major step in reversing the attitude above. If they can nail LA they can nail anyone, in time. I think that alone is an important enough reason that LA shouldn't be brushed under the carpet.
"...very clearly organized..." - according to you - not according to everyone. And yes I realize that people who don't believe he's guilty are complete morons - according to you.
"...no offficial bullet...." - Do you think convicting someone on your opinion is the way to go? Key word being opinon.
"....LA shouldn't be brushed under the carpet." - and what's happening to him now is simply brushing things under the carpet?0 -
If (I said IF) LA was doping throughout his top-flight career, to get away with it for so many years surely deserves some kind of recognition ?
A special "Yeah, I Beat the System" award or something...
I may be more impressed by that than his 7 TDF wins0 -
dennisn wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:
LA comes into this because he was clearly very organised about his doping. Plenty of rumours, yes, but no official bullet he couldn't dodge so far. LA shows that it can be done. Nabbing LA would be a major step in reversing the attitude above. If they can nail LA they can nail anyone, in time. I think that alone is an important enough reason that LA shouldn't be brushed under the carpet.
"...very clearly organized..." - according to you - not according to everyone. And yes I realize that people who don't believe he's guilty are complete morons - according to you.
"...no offficial bullet...." - Do you think convicting someone on your opinion is the way to go? Key word being opinon.
"....LA shouldn't be brushed under the carpet." - and what's happening to him now is simply brushing things under the carpet?
The argument is clearly directed to those that think LA doped but would rather the current investigation just went away. Not to those that bury their heads in the sand with their fingers in their ears singing "nah nah nah nah nah I can't hear you". If you want to put names on it, it's for Dave1, not for you.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
shm_uk wrote:If (I said IF) LA was doping throughout his top-flight career, to get away with it for so many years surely deserves some kind of recognition ?
A special "Yeah, I Beat the System" award or something...
I may be more impressed by that than his 7 TDF wins
International Association of Pharmacologists Lifetime Achievement Award.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Maybe he could win a Ferrari?No tA Doctor wrote:shm_uk wrote:If (I said IF) LA was doping throughout his top-flight career, to get away with it for so many years surely deserves some kind of recognition ?
A special "Yeah, I Beat the System" award or something...
I may be more impressed by that than his 7 TDF wins
International Association of Pharmacologists Lifetime Achievement Award.
See what I did there?
OK I'll go.0 -
It is still *important*. But is becoming less and less *relevant* by the day.Le Blaireau (1)0
-
No tA Doctor wrote:OK, firstly an apology for starting another LA thread. the reason I'm doing so is this:
I've heard it argued that the damage to cycling from nailing LA would be too great to make it worthwhile, and that now he's retired we should just leave it all in the past. Cycling is cleaner now than it was in the 90s, we've made progress, no point in digging up old dirt that will further damage cycling's already tarnished reputation.
The reason I want to argue against this point is this:
As it stands, cyclists with a flexible morality make a risk assessment of doping. They factor in the potential gains (money, success, new contract, continued career) against the risks (two year ban for first offence). Their next step is to assess how likely the second scenario, getting caught, is.
Like car crashes and other accidents, getting caught is something that happens to other people. The people that crash cars are the ones that aren't as good at driving as me, the people that get caught are the ones that aren't as good at doping. Only an idiot gets caught if they organise their doping properly. They made stupid mistakes, mistakes I wont make.
They judge the risk of getting caught as very small. Sure, the penalty is high, but they don't think they'll ever have to pay it. The suggestion that increasing the penalty might be effective (to e.g. a life ban for first offence) doesn't hold water, imo, because the dopers just don't think they'll get caught.
LA comes into this because he was clearly very organised about his doping. Plenty of rumours, yes, but no official bullet he couldn't dodge so far. LA shows that it can be done. Nabbing LA would be a major step in reversing the attitude above. If they can nail LA they can nail anyone, in time. I think that alone is an important enough reason that LA shouldn't be brushed under the carpet.
Oh, I see, you already heard all the evidence and discovered he's 100% guilty then? Yes, the world is a better place with "Guilty until proven innocent." :rolleyes:
Look, I believe that Lance almost certainly doped, but in no way will I proclaim him 100% guilty without due process, which you have done.0 -
Why bother with anything like evidence?
Much simpler to do away with such inconveniences...<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:Why bother with anything like evidence?
Much simpler to do away with such inconveniences...
Absolutely. Gossip is so much more invigorating.
Mr Doctor, your post summarised beautifully the psychology of young men and women everywhere throughout the world, whether it's drinking to excess, smoking, driving fast cars or doping.
I would add that the drug-related deaths of cyclists throughout the years have done little to reduce this belief of immortality either.0 -
It's pretty clear to me that the point the OP is making is that he believes it's still relevant to go after LA even if it was a long time ago.
It's clear he believes LA doped but that's not the point he's trying to make. It seems a little pointless to pick at the wording he's used in a section that is quite clearly his opinion even if it has literally been delivered as fact.
I believe in evolution, whenever I talk about it I do so as though its fact just as a Christian talks about Jesus without inserting "in my opinion" in front of every Christian statement they make throughout their entire lives.
I agree with the OP. If LA has doped (yes I believe he did) then it's worthwhile exposing that because his is the ultimate meal ticket for a pro cyclist. If you're allowed to retire and be left alone then the the threat of getting caught is heavily reduced as is the deterrent of being tested.
I can understand the argument that it doesn't do the sport any good to dredge up the past. I don't agree with it, but I understand why some would think that.
I'd argue that dopers are relying on this and it's them who are responsible for the damage that this causes cycling and not those who want to expose the truth (whatever that may be). The question I don't have the answer to is "How far back do you go?"Scottish and British...and a bit French0 -
dulldave wrote:
If you're allowed to retire and be left alone then the the threat of getting caught is heavily reduced as is the deterrent of being tested.
It would appear that the threat of being caught or tested is not something that's given much thought, other than how to avoid it, by the people who are trying to "get over" on the system. I keep thinking of Vegas and the people who give cheating a try there. They know that they are being watched by a very sophistcated system of "eyes", if you will, and yet the lure of money keeps them trying. To top it all off, the money they may scam from the casino's is, for the most part, probably less than the wages for a top pro cyclist
and the punishment much worse. I tend to believe the stories of some Vegas cheaters being quietly dipatched of out in the desert or being beat within an inch of their lives.
Yet they continue to try.0 -
dennisn wrote:dulldave wrote:
If you're allowed to retire and be left alone then the the threat of getting caught is heavily reduced as is the deterrent of being tested.
It would appear that the threat of being caught or tested is not something that's given much thought, other than how to avoid it, by the people who are trying to "get over" on the system. I keep thinking of Vegas and the people who give cheating a try there. They know that they are being watched by a very sophistcated system of "eyes", if you will, and yet the lure of money keeps them trying. To top it all off, the money they may scam from the casino's is, for the most part, probably less than the wages for a top pro cyclist
and the punishment much worse. I tend to believe the stories of some Vegas cheaters being quietly dipatched of out in the desert or being beat within an inch of their lives.
Yet they continue to try.
There will always be some that continue to try. There always have been. We need a culture where that isn't seen as the norm though. Where it isn't seen as the only road to success. And if LA did go down he wouldn't be "quietly dispatched", he'd be dragged down kicking and screaming.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
so if they go after armstrong who next everyone who wins the tour?what about the greats who won the giro and the tour in the same year.cheating in sport has ben going on for ages i think the cheats should be told they keep the titles as long as you give up the dealers and the doctors and the companies that make the drugs which is the main people that should be targeted .0
-
carbongimp wrote:so if they go after armstrong who next everyone who wins the tour?what about the greats who won the giro and the tour in the same year.cheating in sport has ben going on for ages i think the cheats should be told they keep the titles as long as you give up the dealers and the doctors and the companies that make the drugs which is the main people that should be targeted .
Now that's an interesting angle. Not sure about keeping titles, but maybe reduced bans. Possibly something like "it's a five year minimum ban, unless you plead guilty and name names".Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:dennisn wrote:dulldave wrote:
If you're allowed to retire and be left alone then the the threat of getting caught is heavily reduced as is the deterrent of being tested.
It would appear that the threat of being caught or tested is not something that's given much thought, other than how to avoid it, by the people who are trying to "get over" on the system. I keep thinking of Vegas and the people who give cheating a try there. They know that they are being watched by a very sophistcated system of "eyes", if you will, and yet the lure of money keeps them trying. To top it all off, the money they may scam from the casino's is, for the most part, probably less than the wages for a top pro cyclist
and the punishment much worse. I tend to believe the stories of some Vegas cheaters being quietly dipatched of out in the desert or being beat within an inch of their lives.
Yet they continue to try.
There will always be some that continue to try. There always have been. We need a culture where that isn't seen as the norm though. Where it isn't seen as the only road to success. And if LA did go down he wouldn't be "quietly dispatched", he'd be dragged down kicking and screaming.
When I said "quietly dispatched" I meant that I'm sure there have been cases of casino's
taking a cheater out into the desert, killing him, burying the body, and no one is the wiser.
Although the cheater probably was kicking and screaming there was no one to hear it.
Frontier justice, if you will. It would seem to me that this possibility would be a deterrent
and I'm sure it is in some cases, but still the cheating goes on. A two year or even lifetime ban really can't compare to that sort of thing, it's no real deterent, if there even is one, and then there's the possibility of all that money. It's worth it to some, not all, but some. Always will be. Whether the Pro Tour or Vegas. Different penalties but worth it, to some, none the less.0 -
its all in the past as they say. The current sport and last week's news are IMPORTANT0
-
Dave_1 wrote:its all in the past as they say. The current sport and last week's news are IMPORTANT
Good point.
Some cheaters will get caught, some won't, others won't cheat at all for fear of getting caught, but the more I think about it, there are no penalties that will stop cheating. Give certain people the opportunity to win(anything) and shady way to do it and they will give it a try. Just the win itself may be enough to satisfy some. Add money into the equation
and look out.0 -
New reasoning to me in this article per New York News:Tour de France champion Alberto Contador could very well wiggle free from a brand new anti-doping test that detected metabolites of plastic in his urine, a sign he may have received banned blood transfusions.
But the fact that the test exists probably spells even bigger trouble for Contador's rival and predecessor on the top step of the Tour de France podium, Lance Armstrong, who is the subject of a federal grand jury investigation into doping conspiracies on his teams.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_ ... test_.html0 -
its all in the past as I keep trying to say. However, the LA investigation and last week's news are both IMPORTANT
Tidied things up for you Dave... just applied a 'common sense' filter to your post.
Don't get cross with me now, because here come a winky emoticon...
0 -
ratsbeyfus wrote:its all in the past as I keep trying to say. However, the LA investigation and last week's news are both IMPORTANT
Tidied things up for you Dave... just applied a 'common sense' filter to your post.
Don't get cross with me now, because here come a winky emoticon...
Maybe you're overlooking the point that because it's important to you doesn't mean that it's important to everyone. Some people just don't care whether LA and AC are found guilty or not guilty. You're free to decide what's important to you and to tell whomever may listen all about it, but because you or I said something doesn't make it imperitive that others MUST listen and believe.0 -
dennisn wrote:ratsbeyfus wrote:its all in the past as I keep trying to say. However, the LA investigation and last week's news are both IMPORTANT
Tidied things up for you Dave... just applied a 'common sense' filter to your post.
Don't get cross with me now, because here come a winky emoticon...
Maybe you're overlooking the point that because it's important to you doesn't mean that it's important to everyone. Some people just don't care whether LA and AC are found guilty or not guilty. You're free to decide what's important to you and to tell whomever may listen all about it, but because you or I said something doesn't make it imperitive that others MUST listen and believe.
Yawn.0
