would you dope if

Vino'sGhost

you were a pro, racing against other dopers and you didnt think you could get caught?

Ive thought about this, it would be hypocritical to say yes since its not doping i object to.

Pross

I've gone for not sure. I like to think I wouldn't but having a mortgage to pay can soon change your morals. If the questions added "and if there was absolutely 100% no risk to your health" I suspect I would if it meant keeping my job.

greasedscotsman

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Ive thought about this, it would be hypocritical to say yes since its not doping i object to.

What do you object to then?

Omar Little

I'm not against cheating, i'd be willing to fight like one of the characters in Road Rash if needs, let down other riders tyres, do a LeMond in their face everytime they attempt to draft and so on. But that is good honest cheating, doping is all a bit underhand in comparision like wot Johnny Foreigner gets up to.

More seriously though would be a no - partly because being true to oneself is important and partly because of the potential long term health effects.

disgruntledgoat

I don't know, a number of e-mails I recieved (I was writing for a cycling website at the time and still doing some amateur racing with delusions of grandeur) from a bloke who used to ride for USPS in the very early days after he quit and blamed the dope were so unhinged that I seriously wondered if he'd just broken himself somehow.

Strangely I can't remember his name but I remember he once signed off a lengthy, rambling e-mail with "The lies, the lies..."

disgruntledgoat

That guys name is going to bug me all day now.

I remember it was vaguely italian sounding and he used to post on loads of forums and had a website about cycling conspiracies and this "clean team" he wanted to set up depsite being a foam flecked mentalist.

alihisgreat

watch the vid here: http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2012/09/the-gruen-planet-on-lance-armstrong/

3 mins on they start discussing Lance..

and one of the panel brings up an interesting point: Would you dope if you knew you could raise $500m dollars for cancer?

I don't think I'd dope though.. don't like needles.

RichN95.

I'd say no, but then I'm an affluent, educated middle class Brit who hasn't really had to struggle for anything in his life. If I came from a bleak tower block in Belarus or a ghetto in Colombia with no other prospects, I imagine I would view things a lot differently.

Lichtblick

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Would you dope if you knew you could raise $500m dollars for cancer?

Raise that money for what? :?:

RichN95.

disgruntledgoat wrote:

That guys name is going to bug me all day now.

I remember it was vaguely italian sounding and he used to post on loads of forums and had a website about cycling conspiracies and this "clean team" he wanted to set up depsite being a foam flecked mentalist.

Was it Jonathan Vaughters?

alihisgreat

Lichtblick wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Would you dope if you knew you could raise $500m dollars for cancer?

Raise that money for what? :?:

Cancer research, awareness etc. (even if some people do doubt Livestrong the question is still valid)

skylla

disgruntledgoat wrote:

That guys name is going to bug me all day now.

I remember it was vaguely italian sounding and he used to post on loads of forums and had a website about cycling conspiracies and this "clean team" he wanted to set up depsite being a foam flecked mentalist.

villatoro

DeadCalm

Pross wrote:

I've gone for not sure. I like to think I wouldn't but having a mortgage to pay can soon change your morals. If the questions added "and if there was absolutely 100% no risk to your health" I suspect I would if it meant keeping my job.

Exactly this. Hamilton's description of the time he had a bad transfusion would put me off going down that particular route for sure.

Richmond Racer

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Lichtblick wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Would you dope if you knew you could raise $500m dollars for cancer?

Raise that money for what? :?:

Cancer research, awareness etc. (even if some people do doubt Livestrong the question is still valid)

Cancer research - this is the great myth. The money raised doesnt go to research - or rather almost none of it does. Bill Gifford did some investigation into how the money is spent, and wrote this article on it
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-ad ... l?page=all

twotyred

If you wanted to get to the top in any career and someone came along and said they had a pill which would make you 20% more intelligent, 25% more charismatic and 10% more persuasive and would guarantee you a promotion would you take it? No? If they said all your other colleagues were taking the pill as well would you still say no?

Lichtblick

Richmond Racer wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Lichtblick wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Would you dope if you knew you could raise $500m dollars for cancer?

Raise that money for what? :?:

Cancer research, awareness etc. (even if some people do doubt Livestrong the question is still valid)

Cancer research - this is the great myth. The money raised doesnt go to research - or rather almost none of it does. Bill Gifford did some investigation into how the money is spent, and wrote this article on it
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-ad ... l?page=all

Exactement, RR.

No one would raise a single cent for cancer.

Livestrong's fund doesn't raise a single cent for cancer research, or treatment, or hospices, or respite, or medical staff or anything useful, really. It goes for a nebulous "cancer awareness" thang. (IMO: don't want him sueing me :roll: )

iainf72

I think you should ask a different question

If you could dope but would not get caught, does that change anything. All you need to do is live with it yourself.

Richmond Racer

Lichtblick wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Lichtblick wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Would you dope if you knew you could raise $500m dollars for cancer?

Raise that money for what? :?:

Cancer research, awareness etc. (even if some people do doubt Livestrong the question is still valid)

Cancer research - this is the great myth. The money raised doesnt go to research - or rather almost none of it does. Bill Gifford did some investigation into how the money is spent, and wrote this article on it
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-ad ... l?page=all

Exactement, RR.

No one would raise a single cent for cancer.

Livestrong's fund doesn't raise a single cent for cancer research, or treatment, or hospices, or respite, or medical staff or anything useful, really. It goes for a nebulous "cancer awareness" thang. (IMO: don't want him sueing me :roll: )

And funding his legal bills, let's not forget, on the justification that his image and reputation is so integral to Livestrong...

milton50

The bottom line is I don't think any of us know for sure what we'd do until we were in that situation.

There's also a big difference between doping now and doping in, say, the early 1990s in my opinion. Imagine arriving in the pro peleton in the early 90's and everyone around you is doping and basically not thinking anything of it. It was thought of more as taking a supplement than cheating. So you've worked all of your early life to get into this position and it's clear that doping is the 'normal' thing to do. Not only that but the only way to succeed is to follow suit.

Whereas now, with the issue so glaringly obvious, with all the scandals that have occured, and with the much higher possibility of getting caught at some point, it would be a completely different situation.

Turfle

I'm quite sure a circumstance could arise that would lead me to dope, but I'm equally sure I wouldn't dope simply for sporting reasons.

Vino'sGhost

greasedscotsman wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Ive thought about this, it would be hypocritical to say yes since its not doping i object to.

What do you object to then?

bullying leadership. I cant think of any situations that are positive apart from the very short term gain. Certainly non in cycling anyway. letting tyres down and pinching all the team cars is ok though but the grander scale with institutional bullying so the whole playing field is skewed is fundamentally wrong to me.

gattocattivo

If I had become a pro-rider in the mid-90s I'm pretty sure I'd have doped. Now I don't think so.
(not that this is a dilemma I will ever have to face)

alihisgreat

Lichtblick wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Lichtblick wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Would you dope if you knew you could raise $500m dollars for cancer?

Raise that money for what? :?:

Cancer research, awareness etc. (even if some people do doubt Livestrong the question is still valid)

Cancer research - this is the great myth. The money raised doesnt go to research - or rather almost none of it does. Bill Gifford did some investigation into how the money is spent, and wrote this article on it
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-ad ... l?page=all

Exactement, RR.

No one would raise a single cent for cancer.

Livestrong's fund doesn't raise a single cent for cancer research, or treatment, or hospices, or respite, or medical staff or anything useful, really. It goes for a nebulous "cancer awareness" thang. (IMO: don't want him sueing me :roll: )

I am aware of the issues surrounding Livestrong.. hence I said "even if some people do doubt livestrong"

Turfle

gattocattivo wrote:

If I had become a pro-rider in the mid-90s I'm pretty sure I'd have doped. Now I don't think so.
(not that this is a dilemma I will ever have to face)

Not with that attitude it isn't. You can still make it in a cleaner peloton.

nweststeyn

Turfle wrote:

gattocattivo wrote:

If I had become a pro-rider in the mid-90s I'm pretty sure I'd have doped. Now I don't think so.
(not that this is a dilemma I will ever have to face)

Not with that attitude it isn't. You can still make it in a cleaner peloton.

Especially if you dope

Turfle

nweststeyn wrote:

Turfle wrote:

gattocattivo wrote:

If I had become a pro-rider in the mid-90s I'm pretty sure I'd have doped. Now I don't think so.
(not that this is a dilemma I will ever have to face)

Not with that attitude it isn't. You can still make it in a cleaner peloton.

Especially if you dope

Exactly!

And the serious question is raises is does a cleaner peloton just move the temptation down to a lower level of rider (not offense to gattocattivo)?

twotyred

There's also a big difference between doping now and doping in, say, the early 1990s in my opinion. Imagine arriving in the pro peloton in the early 90's and everyone around you is doping and basically not thinking anything of it. It was thought of more as taking a supplement than cheating. So you've worked all of your early life to get into this position and it's clear that doping is the 'normal' thing to do. Not only that but the only way to succeed is to follow suit.

+1

Especially if you're a young naive lad, maybe from a poor background and cycling is the only thing you've ever been good at.

Yellow Peril

I wouldn't mind the opportunity to see how good it can make you. I'm a great scientific starting point 'cos I'm totally sh1t as a racer/TTer with the results to prove it.

alihisgreat

Yellow Peril wrote:

I wouldn't mind the opportunity to see how good it can make you. I'm a great scientific starting point 'cos I'm totally sh1t as a racer/TTer with the results to prove it.

isn't it supposed to be ~10% better (I'm guessing 10% more power?)

Yellow Peril

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Yellow Peril wrote:

I wouldn't mind the opportunity to see how good it can make you. I'm a great scientific starting point 'cos I'm totally sh1t as a racer/TTer with the results to prove it.

isn't it supposed to be ~10% better (I'm guessing 10% more power?)

I'm hoping that there would also be an addition placebo type effect knowing that I am juiced up and about to dish out some serious pain in a local chipper and sweep effortlessly into a top 50 placing in a Wednesday 10. Bring it on!

disgruntledgoat

gattocattivo wrote:

If I had become a pro-rider in the mid-90s I'm pretty sure I'd have doped. Now I don't think so.
(not that this is a dilemma I will ever have to face)

Thank you Garmin!