Technological, pharmaceutical and behavioural doping?

powerbookboy

Been lurking on the forum for a while now, and I hope this isn't to presumptuous as a first post.

I'm intrigued by the black and white view of the whole Doping question that seems prevalent on these boards. Just a bit of background. I'm a crap cyclist, I studied Molecular Biology and Genetics at Uni, I assume that all top level athletes are "cheating" in some form or another. Let me explain what I mean by "cheating"...

All professional sport is about gaining an advantage over the other competitors. There are legal methods and there are illegal methods. The job of the athlete and their trainer is to find the loopholes that other people haven't and exploit them to increase the likelihood of them winning. Some people find and use the loopholes that are explicitly banned, but not testable. We've seen that for the last 50 years in cycling with PEDs. It's only since the science caught up with these preparation techniques that we've seen increasing emphasis on what I call "non-pharmacological cheating." British Cycling call this "marginal gains".

I'm curious to know what moral distinction you think there is between ingesting a performance enhancing drug that increases your oxygen carrying capacity, sleeping and training in a hypobaric tent, or training for months on end at altitude? All 3 methods have the same physiological effect - they improve your aerobic performance.

The difference as I see it is the amount of "bang-for-your-buck' that you receive. The tent is cheap, but less effective as you typically aren't in it or training all the time. The PEDs are cheap, but have an associated infrastructure cost that means only the well funded can do it without causing serious harm to the athlete (see Kelme, Ricco, etc) or risk of being caught ( see any rider leaving USDiscoShack and subsequently getting caught). Training at altitude costs serious money but is legal, has all the physiological benefits and limited risk to health. So of the 3, if you can, you train at altitude. Sky have done this to great effect this year, and good on them.

However it does pose a moral question. In what way is their greater financial backing not indistinguishable from explicitly banned forms of "cheating"? A team's financial power gives their riders an unfair advantage that less well funded teams don't have. In the past, less well funded teams (Kelme, Phonak, etc.) punched above their weight with PEDs.

The emphasis on aerodynamics, performance monitoring, etc. on the track that has enabled British Cycling to dominate in recent years is primarily a result of their athletes having access to funding, rather than the riders being suddenly much better than the rest of the world. Evidence? Look at what happened to Australia's medal performance once funding for the Australian Institute for Sport dropped.

We all participate in this moral grey area ourselves. How many of you lust after the latest lightweight, carbon-fibre, super slippy aero toys because it's going to save you a few watts? How many of you feel jealous of the bastard next door with the kit your wallet can't stretch to? How bad would that feel if your livelihood depended on gaining those extra watts to move your contract from just about earning a living wage to super-stardom and financial security? How great a temptation would it be to nudge from the grey area of taking supplements to PEDs?

From a performance point of view there is little difference between legal and illegal methods. It's all about the numbers. From a moral point of view I think it's similarly murky.

The only real distinction I can see ( and it's a biggy ) is the potential for harm caused by PEDs. Not just the direct risk to health of injecting christ knows what Phase 1 Trial drug Dr. Performance Plan has managed to get hold of, but also the corrosive effect the lying must have ( see mental health issues for Landis, Hamilton, Millar ) , and the exposure to other pharmaceuticals ( see Frank VDB, Pantani ).

I don't have kids, but when/if I do, I'll probably try to give them a more nuanced view of the world of professional sport and emphasis the health risks associated with competing at the top level, both within and outside the rules.

slim_boy_fat

"non-pharmacological cheating."

It's not against the rules, so how can it be cheating?

As for a moral distinction between the three, one is against the rules the other two aren't. I think the moral distinction if fairly stark.

KentPuncheur

I'm confused, are you trying to suggest that altitude training is akin to ingesting PEDs because the physiological effect is the same?

For me it's all about the 'means' to the end rather than simply the end . If the means are open to all then it’s a level playing field. All pro teams will do some variety of altitude training, the end or outcome still comes down to the talent and hard work of the rider. Whereas PEDs are rightly banned for inducing an unfair physiological effect, as in the means to the end undermine the hard work and talent required to compete at the highest level in the sport and therefore this brings the sport into disrepute.

There is rightly a moral distinction between PEDs and 'training aids' such as altitude training or hypobaric tents.

derbygrimpeur

My take on it...

Technological "cheating" - there are rules in place regarding what can/can't be used/weights/position etc. All pro-teams have to operate within these rules. Some push the boundaries, but if it is considered unfair, the UCI bans them. All of this is theoratically out in the open.

Behavioural - if someone goes to the effort of living/training at altitude, fine. They're putting the effort in within the physical limits of this planet (i.e. how high humans can physically live). Everyone has the opportunity to do this (ok, yes money comes into it a bit). Same with an oxygen tent, although morally that doesn't seem quite the same to me.

Financial - everyone has different budgets and this exists in most sports. Look at football. Is it cheating that Man C, Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool spend millions on players? Money doesn't guarantee you success anyway.

Pharmaceutical - This is a realm of black and grey areas to me. When I say grey, I mean things like vitamin supplements etc. But with regards to tradional "doping", this is much worse than any of the above. It's a short cut. There's no hard work involved. It's not a level playing field. Drugs are bad, m'kay.

the_cyclist_of_catan

That's the problem with the OP's position.

I'd start from a different position.

If it's outlawed by the rules, doing it is cheating (banned substances, for example, whether detectable or not).

If it's allowed by the rules, doing it is not cheating - although it might mean that some people/teams have an advantage over others (for example - training at altitude. Or living all your life at altitude. Or having a really good bike. Or training harder/smarter). Genetics will be included in this list - some people simply have "better" genes than others, that will allow them to perform better than others. If a particular factor can generate too much unfairness - or risk - the sport's governing body can step in and regulate (for example, super-light and technologically advanced bikes - after th silliness of the early 90’s TT bikes the UCI changed the rules, meaning that the playing field, whilst not level as such, isn't kquite as tilted towards engineered solutions as it had been).

Then there is the middle ground. Things that aren't against the rules as written, but ought to be if known about, or which might be open to interpretation. A new substance, whislt not meeting the definition of a banned performance-enhancing drug, perhaps. Or technological features of the bike which aren't clearly against the rules, but ought to be. Here, Formula 1 probably has the right of it - push the rules as far as you can, but stay within them; if you do something that turns out to be against the rules, you lose the result; and keep the rules under revision to ensure that the playing field is as level as you can reasonably expect to make it.

This is at its heart the same debate as lies behind stage 4 of the Vuelta. IF Sky did what they are supposed to have done, they've broken no rules, but the fault lies as much with the rule book as with the team. If the UCI wants the cyclists to ride in accordance with "unwritten rules", it's beholden to them to addd those rules to the rulebook. In writing. That way there's less room for grumbling later on.

bompington

I think training is behavioural cheating, because people who do it have a better chance of winning than people who don't. Ergo training should be banned.

popularname

Hey Powerbookboy

We are similar (I am a crap cyclist and I am a PhD molecular biologist. I used to work in the pharmaceutical industry).

But (I'm guessing) I am older. And I have kids.

Hope you don't mind me saying this, but my impression of your discussion is that it is very cerebral and ignores how people feel. Sure, what is 'legal' and what is regarded as 'harmful' are sometimes determined by society rather than science and these are often grey areas - but not here I think. PEDs confer advantage without effort; altitude training offers advantage with effort. PEDs are illegal and should not be used. If PEDs were to become legal, they could be used.

As a scientist, you'll know that giving two top level similar athletes the exact same training or pharmaceutical inputs doesn't mean that they will produce the same output or that they will cross the line together - that intangible element - competitiveness, aggression, desire - will kick in. Thank goodness - otherwise it would be dull.

Legal training, effort and dedication create the excitement, inspire people. Illegal behaviour to be better than you are or to cheat or to rob other people of the chance to benefit from their hard work is simply wrong.

We are all human and we are all tempted. The point about legal and moral frameworks is that they define boundaries. People will always be tempted to cross boundaries. Whether they resist the temptation relates to the strength of their character. For me personally, and for many others, it is moral safety that prevents me crossing boundaries rather than pharmaceutical safety.

My kids are 12 and 16; the 12 year old is a very talented basketball player and, if he keeps going, has a chance to play at a very high level. He's as clear about PEDs as he is about recreational drugs: they will harm you, psychologically and perhaps physiologically and they are cheating. Kids aren't an experiment - they need to know very clearly what their parents believe to be right and wrong. Then they need to guided to the point when they make their own decisions.

Competitiveness is glorious and has created the extraordinary world in which we live. Ambition and desire are glorious too and drive people to achieve brilliance. Cheating to get there will always exist. But it is wrong. And, like derbygrimpeur says, drugs are bad. Everywhere.

popularname

bompington wrote:

I think training is behavioural cheating, because people who do it have a better chance of winning than people who don't. Ergo training should be banned.

He he. Good point, there

powerbookboy

KentPuncheur wrote:

I'm confused, are you trying to suggest that altitude training is akin to ingesting PEDs because the physiological effect is the same?

I'm suggesting that the effects on performance of elevating your oxygen carrying capacity is the same regardless of the method used to achieve it.

KentPuncheur wrote:

For me it's all about the 'means' to the end rather than simply the end . If the means are open to all then it’s a level playing field. All pro teams will do some variety of altitude training, the end or outcome still comes down to the talent and hard work of the rider. Whereas PEDs are rightly banned for inducing an unfair physiological effect, as in the means to the end undermine the hard work and talent required to compete at the highest level in the sport and therefore this brings the sport into disrepute.

But I think you'll find that all the Team's don't have the budget required for the most sophisticated forms of technological doping, which means that some riders will have an 'unfair' advantage. £5000 wear once skinsuits spring to mind, as do 'sharkskin' swimming costumes, etc.

KentPuncheur wrote:

There is rightly a moral distinction between PEDs and 'training aids' such as altitude training or hypobaric tents.

Can you explain to me what is the basis for you making that moral distinction? "PEDs are banned" isn't an answer, because that not a moral distinction, it's a legal one.

Unless you have a moral as well as a legal framework, people get away with cheating because the drug/technique used hasn't been outlawed, or because the testing/scrutineering process hasn't caught up with the science. It's not a long stretch from this isn't banned, to this isn't banned yet, to this isn't detectable. Whereas this is morally wrong because you're denying another competitor the same opportunity you have, is easier to explain and justify.

ocdupalais

popularname wrote:

Competitiveness is glorious and has created the extraordinary world in which we live. Ambition and desire are glorious too and drive people to achieve brilliance. Cheating to get there will always exist.

My experience of competitiveness is that it is often the expression of all things ugly, aggressive and destructive in human nature: the "beauty" of it is that that is part of who we are. As the OP alluded, Life is rarely "black and white". Sport serves as a supervised stage on which to play out those things that drive us and can enable us to release those energies that could otherwise get us locked up, maimed or killed.

popularname wrote:

And, like derbygrimpeur says, drugs are bad. Everywhere.

"Everywhere", they're bad: but in certain specific places, they can be amazing.

skylla

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

"non-pharmacological cheating."

It's not against the rules, so how can it be cheating?

As for a moral distinction between the three, one is against the rules the other two aren't. I think the moral distinction if fairly stark.

You're wrong. Blood doping per se is non-pharmacological, it's cheating and most of all it's against the rules.

I also give you this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19325756

slim_boy_fat

skylla wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

"non-pharmacological cheating."

It's not against the rules, so how can it be cheating?

As for a moral distinction between the three, one is against the rules the other two aren't. I think the moral distinction if fairly stark.

You're wrong. Blood doping per se is non-pharmacological, it's cheating and most of all it's against the rules.

I also give you this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19325756

I quoted the OP. Their interpretation of "non-pharmacological cheating." is what British Cycling calls "marginal gains". Hence why I said it wasn't cheating. The OP and you are talking about two entirely different things.

slim_boy_fat

powerbookboy wrote:

Can you explain to me what is the basis for you making that moral distinction? "PEDs are banned" isn't an answer, because that not a moral distinction, it's a legal one.

Really? You think the question, 'Should I break the rules of the sport it compete in?' is not a moral one?

KentPuncheur

powerbookboy wrote:

KentPuncheur wrote:

I'm confused, are you trying to suggest that altitude training is akin to ingesting PEDs because the physiological effect is the same?

I'm suggesting that the effects on performance of elevating your oxygen carrying capacity is the same regardless of the method used to achieve it.

Well I, and I hope many, do not agree with you. You cannot simply state that doping and altitude training are as bad as each other because they may give the same outcome. Altitude training does not necessarily give results on its own, it still requires the work and talent of a rider to give the physiological effect required to compete at the highest level. Simply living on top of a mountain is not enough. PEDs on the other hand immediately produces a physiological effect. They are banned from a legal and moral standpoint and rightly so.

powerbookboy wrote:

KentPuncheur wrote:

For me it's all about the 'means' to the end rather than simply the end . If the means are open to all then it’s a level playing field. All pro teams will do some variety of altitude training, the end or outcome still comes down to the talent and hard work of the rider. Whereas PEDs are rightly banned for inducing an unfair physiological effect, as in the means to the end undermine the hard work and talent required to compete at the highest level in the sport and therefore this brings the sport into disrepute.

But I think you'll find that all the Team's don't have the budget required for the most sophisticated forms of technological doping, which means that some riders will have an 'unfair' advantage. £5000 wear once skinsuits spring to mind, as do 'sharkskin' swimming costumes, etc.

Such is life! As has been previously said, varying budgets have an impact in every sport (football beign an obvious choice) but money does not buy success on its own. Using this argument demeans the work undertaken for the past 10+ years by British Cycling by saying, well Wiggins et al's success is down to Lottery money alone.

powerbookboy wrote:

KentPuncheur wrote:

There is rightly a moral distinction between PEDs and 'training aids' such as altitude training or hypobaric tents.

Can you explain to me what is the basis for you making that moral distinction? "PEDs are banned" isn't an answer, because that not a moral distinction, it's a legal one.

Well who says that 'legal' and 'moral' are mutually exclusive. In this instance I'd argue they work together quite well! They are illegal because they are immoral (amongst other arguments).

powerbookboy wrote:

Unless you have a moral as well as a legal framework, people get away with cheating because the drug/technique used hasn't been outlawed, or because the testing/scrutineering process hasn't caught up with the science. It's not a long stretch from this isn't banned, to this isn't banned yet, to this isn't detectable. Whereas this is morally wrong because you're denying another competitor the same opportunity you have, is easier to explain and justify.

This whole point can be answered by my first response. You seem to automatically qualify techniques and drugs as being cheating equally. This just isn't the reality nor should it be in my opinion for the reasons that I have already mentioned. There will always be varying techniques used across teams and yes these are dictated by varying budgets and existing legal frameworks of what equipment is allowed etc, but these variables are legally permissable and will always exist in life. If you want to take the variables out of it then just ban training, ban technological advances, ban any form of nutrition, coaching etc, but two blokes on identical steel bikes and let them race!

mfin

powerbookboy wrote:

From a performance point of view there is little difference between legal and illegal methods. It's all about the numbers. From a moral point of view I think it's similarly murky.

powerbookboy wrote:

I'm suggesting that the effects on performance of elevating your oxygen carrying capacity is the same regardless of the method used to achieve it.

The performance increase in oxygen carrying capacity you might be able to loosely compare, but, the things you have written only seem to address that part of the doping. What about other drugs you can't get he effects of without taking them.

Plus in a 3 week grand grand tour someone who's trained at altitude has red cells dying off and his blood going not just back to 'normal' but also going into a less than normal red blood cell count from the physical stress of the event.

So, in the old days you had people taking EPO in the events as well (and maybe still do a bit??) and these people got the benefit of the red boost cutting back in. But Ive never seen someone pop-off mid tour for a bit of altitude training to get the equivalent! Have you?!

Then of course you've got blood doping, which is pretty much start and mid event, which is providing the same effect, but this time in minutes, no going off camping, having a mid-tour mountain holiday, or waiting for the rEPO to kick off the Reticulyte production and wait for the new Red babies to grow up. Just a few mins and you're ready to go.

Really all Im saying is there IS a big difference cos sleeping in an oxygen tent or more importantly going altitude training you can't do all the time (nor to aim so well at specific blood value targets), but you can blood transfuse or drug blood dope in between popping to the shops, days of a cycle race, or whilst having a Breakaway or a Trio and a cup of tea. ...plus like i said, recovery is everything, so any other drugs helping this are vital.

Drug doping and blood transfusion doping are awful, at the highest level its combinations of different drugs, calendars to take this and that, assessments, continual tests to get the doping right (and all this is beyond most cyclists brains, well, anyone's brain, so they pay huge amounts to get 'help' / 'programmes') ...plus the masking drugs, getting round the tests. Christ knows how complicated it is really if you want to dope at the highest level and not get caught.

Wily-Quixote

OP makes some interesting points. But There is a difference between taking PEDs, having good genetics, training at altitude/ low o2. The difference is that all the training tools apart from PEDs are normal physiological responses to environmental stressors. PEDs (such as EPO and HGH) and blood doping is forcing the body outside it's normal parameters. There is a real difference here.
I take you to altitude and you won't get the haematocrit a I could force upon you by giving you EPO, or the recovery rate that anabolic steroids can give you. This is a normative, physiological and ethical difference.

bompington

Wily-Quixote wrote:

...having good genetics...

Come to think of it, that should be banned too. Perhaps after all contenders have been imprisoned for a few months to stop them training, they should be re-tested and, let's say, all those with a haematocrit greater than 36 should be ruled out for having an unfair genetic disadvantage.

inseine

I speed the OP and i haven't read the responces, so excuse me, but you can't just bandy about the word cheating when clearly it's not, that's just wrong. I think the OP has overcomplicated the issue. Basically all sports are games and the games have rules, which we all explicitly sign up to whe we play the game. If the a certain drug is banned, it's banned and if training at altitude is not, then it's not, regardless of the outcomes. Once you get into shades of grey you'll be popping pills because the other guy has got a lighter bike than you.

andrewjoseph

Some people can't afford the best coaches/trainers. Those that can are obviously cheating. :roll:

The fact is, there will always be a discrepancy between the top riders/top teams and those on lower budgets.

However, there is a chance that a top team will buy a rider from a lower budget team. is that rider now a cheater too? No, he is making use of the same opportunity that anyone else in the sport can use, should they desire/chose.

Low budget teams have the option of gaining better sponsors and so better equipment/trainers etc. They are not barred from using the same systems that top end teams use. How do you define who is at the 'top' anyway? Is the team with slightly less money than the highest budget team, at a disadvantage?

Even if genes come into the picture (I hope not), having the same genes as your competition will not mean the same ability. Training and will to win, or the ability to suffer will be different.

As has been said, choosing to knowingly cheat, to break the rules, is a moral choice, not a legal one.

dsoutar

Just stirring the pot on this one...

I was given to thinking if there anything that is not cheating (i.e. against the rules) but ethically wrong (at least considered as such by the Pro racing fraternity)

As an analogy, take the Jimmy Carr tax thing a few months ago. Not illegal but considered by most to be morally / ethically wrong.

I can't readily think of a similar instance in cycling

inseine

I was given to thinking if there anything that is not cheating (i.e. against the rules) but ethically wrong (at least considered as such by the Pro racing fraternity)

Without actually buying a race, there is a lot of 'i'll stratch your back....' that would be seen in most other sports as immoral at the very least.

Paulie W

I think the OP may be struggling with the meaning of 'moral'!

powerbookboy

All interesting stuff. I'm curious to know whether the majority of the respondents think that at this moment in time that PED s are still prevalent amongst the top performers, or whether they are predominantly clean at present? Many of those riders who have come back from bans seem to return to pretty much the same level. Millar, Vino, Basso, Valverde, possibly Contador all seem good examples. Others retire. Stupid ones like Ricco, Mayo return and get busted. Not many return to the peloton and find a level below their previous position. I guess they don't get renewed...

Does this mean that the playing field has now been levelled to such an extent that we're back to seeing talent and investment, or simply that we're still watching doped performances from a small proportion of recidivists. If so, the pharmaceutical cheating patently doesn't work as effectively as people think. Either that or the 'scientific' gains to be had are a darn site more meaningful than people assume.

I guess all professional sport throughout the ages is always the same. The best funded and prepared athletes generally tend to win. It the anomalies like the Usain Bolts of this world that make things interesting. At the moment I'm looking for those anomalies in cycling, looking at people's responses to them, and trying to understand it. It's causing me a certain amount of head-scratching.

Wily-Quixote wrote:

OP makes some interesting points. But There is a difference between taking PEDs, having good genetics, training at altitude/ low o2. The difference is that all the training tools apart from PEDs are normal physiological responses to environmental stressors. PEDs (such as EPO and HGH) and blood doping is forcing the body outside it's normal parameters. There is a real difference here.

That's the best response I've heard so far.

Anyway, probably best if I call it a day now. Thanks for your thoughts and comments, been very interesting. I will now return to watching what looks like being an intriguing Vuelta.

rick_chasey

It's pretty basic.

Sport has some pretty well defined rules on what you're allowed to do and what you're not.

So doing stuff you're not allowed to do is cheating.

Edit: the only grayer area is stuff that is difficult to spot cheating.

In which case, theoretically, you're cheating but in practice you're not, since, rightly or wrongly, it's only cheating in practice if you get caught.

Paulie W

Rick Chasey wrote:

Edit: the only grayer area is stuff that is difficult to spot cheating.

In which case, theoretically, you're cheating but in practice you're not, since, rightly or wrongly, it's only cheating in practice if you get caught.

So it's only theft if you're caught robbing the bank?!

rick_chasey

Paulie W wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Edit: the only grayer area is stuff that is difficult to spot cheating.

In which case, theoretically, you're cheating but in practice you're not, since, rightly or wrongly, it's only cheating in practice if you get caught.

So it's only theft if you're caught robbing the bank?!

In sport it is.

This isn't society. It's sport. It's arbitrary anyway.

skylla

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

skylla wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

"non-pharmacological cheating."

It's not against the rules, so how can it be cheating?

As for a moral distinction between the three, one is against the rules the other two aren't. I think the moral distinction if fairly stark.

You're wrong. Blood doping per se is non-pharmacological, it's cheating and most of all it's against the rules.

I also give you this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19325756

I quoted the OP. Their interpretation of "non-pharmacological cheating." is what British Cycling calls "marginal gains". Hence why I said it wasn't cheating. The OP and you are talking about two entirely different things.

It might be entirely different, but both you and the OP might straighten out your definitions or use different terminology. BC would not like their training regimes to be described as 'non-pharmacological'. Gaining a marginal advantage by non-pharmacological means is not necessarily allowed by the rules of governing sporting organisations. A pharmacological treatment for physical ills on the BC team is not necessarily against the rules. And something that is not allowed is not the same as being illegal (OP).

Tom BB

The OP is Dan Staite and I claim my £5 voucher for EPO

Paulie W

Rick Chasey wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Edit: the only grayer area is stuff that is difficult to spot cheating.

In which case, theoretically, you're cheating but in practice you're not, since, rightly or wrongly, it's only cheating in practice if you get caught.

So it's only theft if you're caught robbing the bank?!

In sport it is.

This isn't society. It's sport. It's arbitrary anyway.

I really don't understand you're point here - sport is part of society!

rick_chasey

Paulie W wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Edit: the only grayer area is stuff that is difficult to spot cheating.

In which case, theoretically, you're cheating but in practice you're not, since, rightly or wrongly, it's only cheating in practice if you get caught.

So it's only theft if you're caught robbing the bank?!

In sport it is.

This isn't society. It's sport. It's arbitrary anyway.

I really don't understand you're point here - sport is part of society!

Sports full of arbitrary rules - like you can't catch a train, you can't have tri-bars on your bike during a bunch race etc.

Some of those rules are things you're not allowed to take or have in your body. But, like offside goals in football (take Torres' goal against Reading last night), the officials need to spot the rule break else it stands.

Has always been that way in sport. Else it'd be a massive ballache for everyone.

skylla

here's inrng's thoughts on hypoxic tents:

http://inrng.com/2012/06/the-altitude-tent/

PS: he also likes to talk in terms of law whether or not their use is 'legal' !