B
benjo maso
Guest
"Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Benjo, My thoughts are that we need to have doping regulations. But
>> > they have to be more faultless than Caesar's wife. Unfortunately too
>> > many of the latest testing procedures are open to interpretation and
>> > are not scientifically infalible.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure how you can prevent 100% of drug abuse in any professional
>> > sport where so much of an individual's personal wealth might be at
>> > threat, but better to let questionable cases slide than to claim that
>> > you're being "fair" when you aren't.
>>
>>
>> I agree with you that doping regulations must be more or less perfect to
>> function. Unfortunately, they never will be, not only many of the latest
>> testing procedures are open to interpretation and
>> not scientifically infallible, but also because there have always been
>> products which are not yet detectable and I'm afraid there will always be
>> (after all, finding infallible testing procedures takes time). Some
>> examples: steroids: first used in 1954, detectable in 1976. Testosterone:
>> first used in 1952, detectable in 1982. Epo: first used in 1987,
>> detectable
>> in 2000. HgH: first used in 1980, not yet detectable. DynEpo: first used
>> in
>> 2001 or 2002, not yet detectable, etc., etc. So how can tests be
>> effective
>> when there are several performance enhancing products cannot be detected?
>> All you need is a clever doctor. No wonder that topriders are never
>> testing
>> positive in the last ten or fifteen years (I think poor Tylor Hamilton is
>> the only exception).
>>
>> Benjo
>
> There is a grim issue I have with your position, Benjo: if you are going
> to allow some "therapeutic" level of doping, why do you think the
> problem of a level playing field gets easier?
>
> In any imaginable scenario, there will be some sort of limit placed on
> the amount of each goody that the rider can use. Maybe they'll have
> dosage limits for steroids and HGH, and Hct limits for EPO and other
> forms of blood doping.
>
> But, excepting maybe Hct percentages, how do you keep the riders within
> the specified limits? Don't you just create a peloton that is much more
> drugged-up than today, but still with some cheaters (or if you prefer,
> super-dopers) in the middle?
>
> For any line you care to draw, there will surely be riders quite happy
> to cross it. Of course, they'll be even harder to detect in some ways.
> Did the rider go 10 mcg/kg/d over the approved dosage? Who knows? Sounds
> like some pretty tricky testing is in order.
>
> Do you think that the same peloton which you assert has embraced a
> culture of cheating will suddenly embrace a culture of self-restraint,
> as long as they are allowed some of their goodies?
>
> We may not be able to prevent 100% of drug abuse, but at least we can
> try to prevent 100% drug abuse.
>
> This argument makes me despair about whether there is any future
> whatsoever for pro cycling. I'd be sad if it collapsed, for sure. But
> what would really sadden me is if it took amateur cycling with it. I've
> gone back and forth over this, and I've decided that if I could only
> have one (and the doping debate may make this non-academic) I choose
> amateurs.
>
> You know why? Some amateurs might dope, because they're idiots, just
> like some guys will violate the yellow-line rule, or be poor sports in
> myriad ways. But at the amateur level, it's about roughly competitive
> groupings, competing against your personal benchmarks, and having fun. I
> can live with those as essential antidotes to the problem of doping, at
> least in the amateur levels.
>
> Of course, **** Pound seems to be acting like the worst friend a foe of
> doping could have. I like his ideas, really I do: keeping current
> samples securely for 10 years, so that if we come up with a test for
> present dope in the future (as happened with EPO) we can use it? Good
> idea! Accusing Lance of being a doper based on a test that can't
> possibly meet WADA standards? Bad idea! Asserting a firm belief that
> sport should create a culture of clean competition? Good idea! Wildly
> asserting that sport X is insincere about doping control, because they
> catch so many dopers? Bad idea.
>
> I'm serious about throwing out pro competition. I think the ProTour is a
> good idea, I think that the doping controls are getting pretty serious
> (they've nailed, rightly or wrongly, several of the top riders in the
> sport in the last few years, including Hamilton, Heras, Museeuw, Millar,
> and lots more; if they're insincere about doping control, they have a
> funny way of showing it).
>
> The real trick, of course, is to force the _economics_ of doping to
> fail. If you start fining riders major, income-proportionate dollars for
> positive tests, you might get results. If you start requiring mandatory
> retroactive nullification clauses for doping violations in ProTour rider
> contracts, and then fine back the salary plus more from the team, too,
> you'll have some teams keeping a pretty keen eye on their riders' drug
> habits. If you start keeping those samples for 10 years, regressively
> testing them with neat new tests, and then suing riders for prize money
> when they come up positive, you'll get dopers to sit up and take notice.
>
> Scary? You bet. In practice, you'll probably want to err on the side of
> letting marginal (but likely dopey) cases through the net in the
> interests of mercy and sensible caution. But these and other measures
> could remove the economic advantages of doping which likely drive a lot
> of doping. And creative testing regimens can increase both the certainty
> of being caught and the uncertainty of being caught, if you know what I
> mean.
>
> So, what's it to be?
Allowing only a certain "therapeutic"'amount of doping is of course no
solution at all. IMO there are two possibilities: the current anti-doping
policy, which until now has only been disastrous, without significantly
reducing the use of doping (only of some doping products) or legalizing the
use of whatever product sporters would like to use (as it has been before
1965). IMO the less of two evils. In any case it could hard;y be worse than
it is now.
Benjo
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Benjo, My thoughts are that we need to have doping regulations. But
>> > they have to be more faultless than Caesar's wife. Unfortunately too
>> > many of the latest testing procedures are open to interpretation and
>> > are not scientifically infalible.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure how you can prevent 100% of drug abuse in any professional
>> > sport where so much of an individual's personal wealth might be at
>> > threat, but better to let questionable cases slide than to claim that
>> > you're being "fair" when you aren't.
>>
>>
>> I agree with you that doping regulations must be more or less perfect to
>> function. Unfortunately, they never will be, not only many of the latest
>> testing procedures are open to interpretation and
>> not scientifically infallible, but also because there have always been
>> products which are not yet detectable and I'm afraid there will always be
>> (after all, finding infallible testing procedures takes time). Some
>> examples: steroids: first used in 1954, detectable in 1976. Testosterone:
>> first used in 1952, detectable in 1982. Epo: first used in 1987,
>> detectable
>> in 2000. HgH: first used in 1980, not yet detectable. DynEpo: first used
>> in
>> 2001 or 2002, not yet detectable, etc., etc. So how can tests be
>> effective
>> when there are several performance enhancing products cannot be detected?
>> All you need is a clever doctor. No wonder that topriders are never
>> testing
>> positive in the last ten or fifteen years (I think poor Tylor Hamilton is
>> the only exception).
>>
>> Benjo
>
> There is a grim issue I have with your position, Benjo: if you are going
> to allow some "therapeutic" level of doping, why do you think the
> problem of a level playing field gets easier?
>
> In any imaginable scenario, there will be some sort of limit placed on
> the amount of each goody that the rider can use. Maybe they'll have
> dosage limits for steroids and HGH, and Hct limits for EPO and other
> forms of blood doping.
>
> But, excepting maybe Hct percentages, how do you keep the riders within
> the specified limits? Don't you just create a peloton that is much more
> drugged-up than today, but still with some cheaters (or if you prefer,
> super-dopers) in the middle?
>
> For any line you care to draw, there will surely be riders quite happy
> to cross it. Of course, they'll be even harder to detect in some ways.
> Did the rider go 10 mcg/kg/d over the approved dosage? Who knows? Sounds
> like some pretty tricky testing is in order.
>
> Do you think that the same peloton which you assert has embraced a
> culture of cheating will suddenly embrace a culture of self-restraint,
> as long as they are allowed some of their goodies?
>
> We may not be able to prevent 100% of drug abuse, but at least we can
> try to prevent 100% drug abuse.
>
> This argument makes me despair about whether there is any future
> whatsoever for pro cycling. I'd be sad if it collapsed, for sure. But
> what would really sadden me is if it took amateur cycling with it. I've
> gone back and forth over this, and I've decided that if I could only
> have one (and the doping debate may make this non-academic) I choose
> amateurs.
>
> You know why? Some amateurs might dope, because they're idiots, just
> like some guys will violate the yellow-line rule, or be poor sports in
> myriad ways. But at the amateur level, it's about roughly competitive
> groupings, competing against your personal benchmarks, and having fun. I
> can live with those as essential antidotes to the problem of doping, at
> least in the amateur levels.
>
> Of course, **** Pound seems to be acting like the worst friend a foe of
> doping could have. I like his ideas, really I do: keeping current
> samples securely for 10 years, so that if we come up with a test for
> present dope in the future (as happened with EPO) we can use it? Good
> idea! Accusing Lance of being a doper based on a test that can't
> possibly meet WADA standards? Bad idea! Asserting a firm belief that
> sport should create a culture of clean competition? Good idea! Wildly
> asserting that sport X is insincere about doping control, because they
> catch so many dopers? Bad idea.
>
> I'm serious about throwing out pro competition. I think the ProTour is a
> good idea, I think that the doping controls are getting pretty serious
> (they've nailed, rightly or wrongly, several of the top riders in the
> sport in the last few years, including Hamilton, Heras, Museeuw, Millar,
> and lots more; if they're insincere about doping control, they have a
> funny way of showing it).
>
> The real trick, of course, is to force the _economics_ of doping to
> fail. If you start fining riders major, income-proportionate dollars for
> positive tests, you might get results. If you start requiring mandatory
> retroactive nullification clauses for doping violations in ProTour rider
> contracts, and then fine back the salary plus more from the team, too,
> you'll have some teams keeping a pretty keen eye on their riders' drug
> habits. If you start keeping those samples for 10 years, regressively
> testing them with neat new tests, and then suing riders for prize money
> when they come up positive, you'll get dopers to sit up and take notice.
>
> Scary? You bet. In practice, you'll probably want to err on the side of
> letting marginal (but likely dopey) cases through the net in the
> interests of mercy and sensible caution. But these and other measures
> could remove the economic advantages of doping which likely drive a lot
> of doping. And creative testing regimens can increase both the certainty
> of being caught and the uncertainty of being caught, if you know what I
> mean.
>
> So, what's it to be?
Allowing only a certain "therapeutic"'amount of doping is of course no
solution at all. IMO there are two possibilities: the current anti-doping
policy, which until now has only been disastrous, without significantly
reducing the use of doping (only of some doping products) or legalizing the
use of whatever product sporters would like to use (as it has been before
1965). IMO the less of two evils. In any case it could hard;y be worse than
it is now.
Benjo