How come no drug busts in four years of Tour of California?

[Flyer]

Which reminds me, I still don't get why you're not taking peds. Seems to me they'd be greatly beneficial even for everyday life, and since they're completely harmless, I can't understand why you aren't using them. I'd imagine your daily productivity at work would go way up, for eg, and that's pretty much analogous to why athletes take peds, right? To maximize daily productivity? And if it's as safe as you say it is, then there's no downside at all. So why you aren't shooting EPO or at the very least slapping a testosterone gel patch on your balls every night? I don't get it.

Now me, I happen to think that there's a considerable health risk associated with abusing drugs, so that's my excuse for not using them. But you don't really have that excuse, so I have to assume that despite all the big talk you're really just chickenshit.

wqqq

 

[fscyclist]

You're very silly. No one takes PEDs to maximize their "daily productivity at work", unless they happen to be professional athletes. And they're not taking them to go faster; they are taking them to make more money. In my profession, there would be no such correlation.

You think PEDs grow on trees? That stuff is expensive.

That's because you're an obtuse thinker. Broaden your mind.

You need an excuse? What about just making a choice? And that's the point. You should be able to make that choice. All of us should. Assess the risks and benefits, and act accordingly.

Either that, or just pragmatic.

Let 'em dope.

I've actually enjoyed reading this discussion but wanted to point out a few things. First, people do take PEDs to increase their "daily productivity". ADHD drugs are now the drug of choice for HS, college, graduate level students, and professionals looking to get to the top.

Second, I don't know if you ever raced, IH8, but if you had, your opinion of PEDs may change (assuming you raced clean). This is where your opinion of sport differs from that of an athlete (meant in the classical sense); that cycling is not a sport but a form of entertainment. If cycling or any other athletic endeavor is merely entertainment, then I too would have no problem with the use of PEDs, just as I have no problem with movie stars taking drugs and getting surgery (some of which have fatal complications) to make them look hot on the big screen. Part of the job. Remember, you may watch cycling for the entertainment value, but the cyclist races for the athletic value (at least at the amateur level). Even if all spectators were to disappear, people will continue to engage in athletics.

My objection is that I still think athletics have their own intrinisic value. There's a reason Plato, when discussing the merits of professions, placed the athlete near the top of the list and actors/entertainers on the bottom.

Simply put, the use of PED's by one forces the use of PED's by all if it is a fair competition.

 

[Flyer]

I've actually enjoyed reading this discussion but wanted to point out a few things. First, people do take PEDs to increase their "daily productivity". ADHD drugs are now the drug of choice for HS, college, graduate level students, and professionals looking to get to the top.

Second, I don't know if you ever raced, IH8, but if you had, your opinion of PEDs may change (assuming you raced clean). This is where your opinion of sport differs from that of an athlete (meant in the classical sense); that cycling is not a sport but a form of entertainment. If cycling or any other athletic endeavor is merely entertainment, then I too would have no problem with the use of PEDs, just as I have no problem with movie stars taking drugs and getting surgery (some of which have fatal complications) to make them look hot on the big screen. Part of the job. Remember, you may watch cycling for the entertainment value, but the cyclist races for the athletic value (at least at the amateur level). Even if all spectators were to disappear, people will continue to engage in athletics.

My objection is that I still think athletics have their own intrinisic value. There's a reason Plato, when discussing the merits of professions, placed the athlete near the top of the list and actors/entertainers on the bottom.

Simply put, the use of PED's by one forces the use of PED's by all if it is a fair competition.

rerer

 

[Flyer]

No positives? it's sponsored by Amgen mate... they make EPO!

Here endith my theory...

ddff

 

[IH8LANCE]

I've actually enjoyed reading this discussion but wanted to point out a few things. First, people do take PEDs to increase their "daily productivity". ADHD drugs are now the drug of choice for HS, college, graduate level students, and professionals looking to get to the top.

In that case, great!

Second, I don't know if you ever raced, IH8, but if you had, your opinion of PEDs may change (assuming you raced clean). This is where your opinion of sport differs from that of an athlete (meant in the classical sense); that cycling is not a sport but a form of entertainment. If cycling or any other athletic endeavor is merely entertainment, then I too would have no problem with the use of PEDs, just as I have no problem with movie stars taking drugs and getting surgery (some of which have fatal complications) to make them look hot on the big screen. Part of the job. Remember, you may watch cycling for the entertainment value, but the cyclist races for the athletic value (at least at the amateur level). Even if all spectators were to disappear, people will continue to engage in athletics.

Thoughtful insight. With your proviso that the cyclist races for the athletic value at the amateur level, I generally agree.

My objection is that I still think athletics have their own intrinisic value. There's a reason Plato, when discussing the merits of professions, placed the athlete near the top of the list and actors/entertainers on the bottom.

Here I disagree only to the extent that by definition, professional athletics is performed less for achievement than for compensation. And they compete to go faster not to find out who's the better athlete, but to perform for their employers, and thus for the sponsors, and thus for the spectators. Professional athletics is at its core entertainment, because if as in your scenario the spectators disappear, professional athletics would not exist.

Simply put, the use of PED's by one forces the use of PED's by all if it is a fair competition.

That presumes that a fair competition is high on the list of what the organizers want to achieve. They want the perception of a fair competition -- and the reason always comes back to money.

 

[Flyer]

ddff

xxccv