Why are performance enhancing drugs / methods illegal?

2»

Comments

  • esafosfina
    esafosfina Posts: 131
    I think I may have mentioned on BR before, but it's worth repeating... team-mate of mine once stuck a needle in his arse loaded with amphets, screwed up, didn't withdraw to check he'd not hit a vein, pushed the gear and hey presto... he'd hit a vein. Dropped like a fly. Convulsing, white as a sheet... I'm not squeamish, but fuck me that scared the shit out of me, let alone him. And the silly cunt had a wife and kid at home...
  • ammapedal
    ammapedal Posts: 11
    Trev The Rev wrote:
    Are we against drugs in sport on the grounds of protecting athletes health? Or, are we looking to produce a level playing field and allow those who refuse to take drugs to compete on equal trems?

    Both.
  • Froomes Edgar
    Froomes Edgar Posts: 359
    Its a good question. The answer is neatly summed up by Tom Simpson:
    If it takes ten to kill me, I'll take nine and win

    In short, if you have a free for all then as well as a list of DNSs and DNFs at the end of every stage you'll have a list of RIPs.

    Testing exists not to stop doping - that's practically impossible - but to ensure that as few as possible die due to doping. Testing certain physiological markers may be a better way of achieving this - I dunno, I'm not an expert. But for some reason the vast majority of the public expect a bunch of ordinary blokes who happen to be good at cycling (or any other sport of your choice) to be magnificent specimens of moral fortitude and to uphold the Corinthian ideal in the face of stacks of cash and untold glory. Never going to happen.
  • mididoctors
    mididoctors Posts: 18,793
    Trev The Rev wrote:


    The problem is that is the route we have been down for the past 40 years. The biggest cheat with the biggest budget wins. Testing has totally failed, hardly a clean tour winner if any ever. I heard all this, "cycling is clean now" guff back in 1999 and look who won 7 years in a row. I remember Tom Simpson, that was 45 years ago. Do you really think anything will change? It won't, in 10 years time we will be right back here having the same discussions.

    armstrong was caught in the end

    I do not hold with the nothing will change argument...things change all the time
    "If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Testing makes doping more difficult, easier to detect, and reduces the effectiveness of doping.

    Take a look at Hamilton. He started out taking EPO as and when he liked, even in the middle of races.

    By the end he was having to micro-dose EPO and take much bigger risks with blood tranfusions - which was what eventually caught him out.

    They used to dope heavily outside of competition since they were never tested out. Now they need to be more careful.

    It's all about making as many barriers as possible. You don't stop them, but you can make it more difficult so that the likelihood they slip up is much greater.
    _
  • Trev The Rev
    Trev The Rev Posts: 1,040
    Obviously EPO is a banned drug so it would be unethical and cheating to use it. However, if it were not banned, would increasing your red blood cell count by taking EPO, with medical supervision, be any less ethical than sleeping in or training in an altitude tent or chamber?

    Cyclists will cheat and you might argue the tests merely move and change the method of cheating and encourage the use of even more dangerous and expensive methods. Self administered blood transfusions are probably more dangerous than taking EP0 under medical supervision. By banning and testing for drugs and methods we force them underground and increase the risks by driving the athlete into the hands of criminals. We also create a very uneven playing field in which the biggest cheat with the biggest budget invariably wins.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,179
    Trev The Rev wrote:
    We also create a very uneven playing field in which the biggest cheat with the biggest budget invariably wins.

    How exactly is legalising the use of PEDs going to change this?
  • josame
    josame Posts: 1,162
    edited October 2012
    Trev The Rev wrote:
    By banning and testing for drugs and methods we force them underground and increase the risks by driving the athlete into the hands of criminals. We also create a very uneven playing field in which the biggest cheat with the biggest budget invariably wins.

    Trev we have danced around this thread for a couple of pages and it's fine and dandy but one huge fact you are missing is that sport is always an uneven playing field, he has bigger muscles than me, he has a better V02 max than me, and for the dopers - he adapts better to that drug than me. lets take your idea to it's logical conclusion and use an analogy: there will henceforth be no weight limits on bikes (they can be as light as they like), bikes start breaking and cyclist dying on Mountain descents - but this is ok because it is open season all in the pursuit of an 'even playing field'.
    'Do not compare your bike to others, for always there will be greater and lesser bikes'
  • Trev The Rev
    Trev The Rev Posts: 1,040
    josame wrote:
    Trev The Rev wrote:
    By banning and testing for drugs and methods we force them underground and increase the risks by driving the athlete into the hands of criminals. We also create a very uneven playing field in which the biggest cheat with the biggest budget invariably wins.

    Trev we have danced around this thread for a couple of pages and it's fine and dandy but one huge fact you are missing is that sport is always an uneven playing field, he has bigger muscles than me, he has a better V02 max than me, and for the dopers - he adapts better to that drug than me. lets take your idea to it's logical conclusion and use an analogy: there will henceforth be no weight limits on bikes (they can be as light as they like), bikes start breaking and cyclist dying on Mountain descents - but this is ok because it is opern season all in the pursuit of an 'even playing field'.


    Sport is an uneven playing field, we can only make it as flat as possible. To use your analogy, bikes already break too easily, but it is simple to weigh a bike so the rules are easily enforced. The system works as far a bike weight is concerned.

    I ask you this. Are performance enhancing drugs any more unethical than alcohol or tobacco which are legal but endanger health if abused?
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    you keep on going Trev, you're doing brilliantly :roll:
  • josame
    josame Posts: 1,162
    Trev The Rev wrote:
    josame wrote:
    Trev The Rev wrote:
    By banning and testing for drugs and methods we force them underground and increase the risks by driving the athlete into the hands of criminals. We also create a very uneven playing field in which the biggest cheat with the biggest budget invariably wins.

    Trev we have danced around this thread for a couple of pages and it's fine and dandy but one huge fact you are missing is that sport is always an uneven playing field, he has bigger muscles than me, he has a better V02 max than me, and for the dopers - he adapts better to that drug than me. lets take your idea to it's logical conclusion and use an analogy: there will henceforth be no weight limits on bikes (they can be as light as they like), bikes start breaking and cyclist dying on Mountain descents - but this is ok because it is opern season all in the pursuit of an 'even playing field'.


    Sport is an uneven playing field, we can only make it as flat as possible. To use your analogy, bikes already break too easily, but it is simple to weigh a bike so the rules are easily enforced. The system works as far a bike weight is concerned.

    I ask you this. Are performance enhancing drugs any more unethical than alcohol or tobacco which are legal but endanger health if abused?

    You missed the glaring point of the anlaogy - dangerous bikes / dangerous drugs - both end up with dead riders because you are removing barriers of safety. Open season on drugs = fairer playing field is a falacy because we don't gain anythink US Postal have a bigger budget and get better drugs than other teams still it changes nothing.

    edit#

    Re your Q: No I don't see a difference - but that adds nothing to my point above
    'Do not compare your bike to others, for always there will be greater and lesser bikes'
  • tgotb
    tgotb Posts: 4,714
    Much as I know I shouldn't feed the troll...

    Let's imagine I'm a pushy parent (there are lots around) who sees my kid as a future gold medallist/tour winner. The best way to maximise my kid's chances is probably through intensive training from a young age, to build up their physique and experience. This may well be bad for the kid's development as a balanced person, but because I'm a pushy parent I either don't see that, or don't care.

    This scenario happens in many sports, all over the country. It's not that relevant to debate whether it actually works (or is good for the kid); so long as the parents in question think it works, it will carry on happening.

    Now let's throw PEDs into the mix. Maybe I decide that by giving my kid growth hormone I can make them grow 7 feet tall, and become a champion rower or basketball player. Maybe I decide that giving them EPO will get them to the top level on the youth circuit. Do we really want to be heading in this direction?

    I'd far rather live in a world where you're never quite sure whether a particular athlete has found a way round the tests, than one where everyone has to dope (presumably even at the amateur level) to be competitive. I guess it comes down to whether you think it's more important to stop large numbers of people doing drugs, or to make the sport totally fair...
    Pannier, 120rpm.
  • josame
    josame Posts: 1,162
    TGTOB: +1
    'Do not compare your bike to others, for always there will be greater and lesser bikes'
  • oneof1982
    oneof1982 Posts: 703
    PED's = dead youngsters. I'm against.
  • Trev The Rev
    Trev The Rev Posts: 1,040
    TGOTB wrote:
    Much as I know I shouldn't feed the troll...

    Let's imagine I'm a pushy parent (there are lots around) who sees my kid as a future gold medallist/tour winner. The best way to maximise my kid's chances is probably through intensive training from a young age, to build up their physique and experience. This may well be bad for the kid's development as a balanced person, but because I'm a pushy parent I either don't see that, or don't care.

    This scenario happens in many sports, all over the country. It's not that relevant to debate whether it actually works (or is good for the kid); so long as the parents in question think it works, it will carry on happening.

    Now let's throw PEDs into the mix. Maybe I decide that by giving my kid growth hormone I can make them grow 7 feet tall, and become a champion rower or basketball player. Maybe I decide that giving them EPO will get them to the top level on the youth circuit. Do we really want to be heading in this direction?

    I'd far rather live in a world where you're never quite sure whether a particular athlete has found a way round the tests, than one where everyone has to dope (presumably even at the amateur level) to be competitive. I guess it comes down to whether you think it's more important to stop large numbers of people doing drugs, or to make the sport totally fair...

    Just because I am prepared to put forward a different view, which may or not be acceptble to most, does not mean I am a troll. Serious consideration is beng given to de criminalising and controlling cocaine / heroin etc, indeed there was an article about it in The Sunday Times.

    I don't ask you to agree with the arguments I have put forward or reply to them. But if you do choose to respond and put forward your views please stick to the subject of the debate rather than making personal attacks.
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    Trev The Rev wrote:
    We also create a very uneven playing field in which the biggest cheat with the biggest budget invariably wins.

    The team with the biggest budget would still win if you removed all the doping tests.
  • Trev The Rev
    Trev The Rev Posts: 1,040
    oneof1982 wrote:
    PED's = dead youngsters. I'm against.

    A very big nail in my argument's coffin if not the last.
  • Daz555
    Daz555 Posts: 3,976
    oneof1982 wrote:
    PED's = dead youngsters. I'm against.
    If PEDS were permitted in a particular sport I would not watch that sport and I would not permit my children to take part in it either.
    You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
    If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
    If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.
  • nathancom
    nathancom Posts: 1,567
    Just watch videos of Lance, they are a joke, where is the striving for victory up long mountain slopes? Or Indurain catching Pantani. It is just rocket fuel, not sport and it loses all its significance because it is unreal.

Categories