jsirabella said:On your statement though, draw the line? Tell me when it is ok and not ok. Please do not tell me though what some board of people tell us. I would like to know for you and what you believe should be for others.
For me personally? I don't smoke, drink, or do drugs because I don't like the taste/effects, but I wouldn't give up Big Macs, Cheetos, or ice cream for a performance boost even though I know they're unhealthy. I'm probably not the best one to draw the line, because I personally don't really care what folks put in their body or refuse to put in their body. It really wouldn't bother me to find out that some of the guys that I race against are using chemicals in their training, and I wouldn't feel the need to do the same to keep up -- I just don't have that much invested in being able to ride my bike faster than someone else.
If I had to draw the line, it would be one of competitive fairness rather than right vs. wrong (as society seems to portray it lately). In those terms, things should be allowed for level-specific competitive use if they are not harmful to the competitors and are either widely available to the competitors of that level, or not generally thought to provide an advantage. So, for example, if pro-level teams across the board have the funds and resources to safely administer testosterone supplementation to their athletes, then there's no competitive advantage there (assuming T-use is safe, which I know nothing about) since they are all doing it. At the club level, funds and access aren't there across the board so it would provide an advantage to those that could get it. So, I would disallow it at the club level as an unfair advantage. The same could really be said for $5000 bikes, but no one's going to go for that because the bike stores want to sell bikes (although.... if it were generally thought that those bikes provided no advantage then I guess my rule is still safe 😎 ). If EPO, or whatever, is a health-risk to athletes then it's banned because I don't want to expose athletes across the board to the risk, just like aero bars in mass-start events.
I just don't see "performance enhancements" as an issue of right vs. wrong. Cheating definitely is, but again that's about enforcing rules for fairness of competition across the board, not deciding what those rules should be. For grand juries to be convened to ask baseball players what pills they take -- c'mon, they're baseball players, who gives a [censored]? Is Roger Marris' homerun record really that important that Congressional oversight committees are needed to protect it?
That's it, I'm putting myself on my own ignore list after this rant. I'm obviously talking over my head, so.... no more! 😄