Restating the obvious



"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
 
"amit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> benjo maso wrote:
>
>> You are quite right: although the overwhelming majority in the
>> "traditional"
>> bicycle countries don't hardly care if riders are using performance
>> enhancing products yes or no, in the "new cycling world" it's quite
>> different.
>
> dumbass,
>
> that's why Mapei and Festina are no longer in the sport.
>
> it doesn't matter what schmoes on the street think, they aren't making
> the money decisions, even euro sponsors shy away from cycling when
> there's doping scandals.


No, they don't. There are more companies willing to sponsor cycling than
ever before, and there is no trouble at all to find new ones. See
http://www.lexpansion.com/compteur/...tp://www.lexpansion.com/art/2493.76963.0.html.
The overwhelming majority of the sponsors don't care one bit, as long as the
"schmoes on the street" are willing to buy their products. Before lauching
Aquarel as one of the major sponsors in the Tour, in 2001 Nestlé sponsored
surveys in several different countries. From these it emerged that the
effects of all the revelations was virtually zero. It's true that the
direction of Mapei adopted an "anti-doping" stance -perhaps they were
sincere, who knows? - but they failed miserably. One of the reasons why it
decided to quit, was a survey which showed that people believed that Festina
had contributed more to the anti-doping policy than Mapei ...

Benjo
 
Sandy wrote:


> Could you be wrong ? Festina remains a general sponsor, just not of a
> separate team.

this and aquarel: these are the direction sponsorships seem to be
going.

from my own limited experience, companies are much more willing to
sponsor an event then they are of sponsoring teams. part of the reason
is wanting to avoid the bad publicity of a doping scandal.

the reason (i assume) is guaranteed exposure if one sponsors the race
rather than some riders.
 
benjo maso wrote:
>
>
> 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

So--the choice is ineffective regulation vs. no regulation?

Steve
>
>


--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
 
Dans le message de news:_fqcf.6328$SV1.427@trndny01,
Mark & Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :
> benjo maso wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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
>
> So--the choice is ineffective regulation vs. no regulation?
>
> Steve

I see it this way - truly, no regulation is a much better state of affiars.

After all, this is an activity in which cheating is both practiced and
sanctioned.
Take away the controls, let everyone play with chemistry sets, and don't
penalize them. If the result is that everyone learns how to dope both
successfully and with minimal risk, then the bodies are prepared to enter
the field of competition with no differential, unless the rider chooses not
to dope.

Then, the question of whether or not to dope may be better resolved by the
intelligent decisions to safeguard health. That will lead, certainly, to a
clear division between the professional (doped) riders, and the lesser
ranks. Which isn't a bad idea, if the lesser ranks can be satisfied with
the reality of their optimal unmodified performances.

At the very top level, both Darwinian selection and simple mortality will
thin the field of "entertainers", and we can leave that level of competition
untouched. I guess that if the lower ranks start to medicate, then we'll
see some ringers, but if there were forced upgrading, they would face their
own limits for sports ability as well as doping danger.

What does the current and enlarging regulation give us, anyway ? Suspicion
and envy and a lowering of the level of moral certainty that you compete on
a level playing field.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
 
<<< Take away the controls, let everyone play with chemistry sets, and
don't
penalize them. If the result is that everyone learns how to dope both
successfully and with minimal risk, then the bodies are prepared to
enter
the field of competition with no differential, unless the rider chooses
not
to dope. >>>>

Well, the risk is quite high when you consider the large performance
increase with higher hematocrit. Those willing to take the highest
risks of a heart attack will be the ones winning races.
Winners determined partially by who wants to take the biggest risk on
their life? Not my type of entertainment.
 
Sandy wrote:

> Dans le message de news:_fqcf.6328$SV1.427@trndny01,
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
> déclaré :
>
>>benjo maso wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>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
>>
>>So--the choice is ineffective regulation vs. no regulation?
>>
>>Steve
>
>
> I see it this way - truly, no regulation is a much better state of affiars.

I'll ask again--so the choice is between ineffective regulation and no
regulation?
How about take it one step further--we're all adults here. Abolish
regulation of all medications, inside and outside of sport. For that
matter, abolish regulation of medical practice. After all, there are
bad doctors out there. Can't a grownup make the choice as to whether
they wish to be treated by an MD, a rolfer, a chromic healer?
What the hell--do we really need to do drug testing, or require
licenses for airline pilots?

Let freedom ring,
Steve
>
> After all, this is an activity in which cheating is both practiced and
> sanctioned.
> Take away the controls, let everyone play with chemistry sets, and don't
> penalize them. If the result is that everyone learns how to dope both
> successfully and with minimal risk, then the bodies are prepared to enter
> the field of competition with no differential, unless the rider chooses not
> to dope.
>
> Then, the question of whether or not to dope may be better resolved by the
> intelligent decisions to safeguard health. That will lead, certainly, to a
> clear division between the professional (doped) riders, and the lesser
> ranks. Which isn't a bad idea, if the lesser ranks can be satisfied with
> the reality of their optimal unmodified performances.
>
> At the very top level, both Darwinian selection and simple mortality will
> thin the field of "entertainers", and we can leave that level of competition
> untouched. I guess that if the lower ranks start to medicate, then we'll
> see some ringers, but if there were forced upgrading, they would face their
> own limits for sports ability as well as doping danger.
>
> What does the current and enlarging regulation give us, anyway ? Suspicion
> and envy and a lowering of the level of moral certainty that you compete on
> a level playing field.


--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
 
benjo maso wrote:
> "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

> >> 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).

Heras, Museeuw, a bunch of mountain bikers, plus numerous riders caught
in ways other than drug tests (Millar...). Perhaps it depends on the
definition of top rider, but once you disqualify a Vuelta winner, a
great Classics hero, and a rainbow jersey owner, you're sort of left
with a definition of top riders that would only seem to include "TdF GC
winners in the last 7 years."

I think there's some pretty serious seriousness here.

> > 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.

[ranty ranty rant]

> > 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

Benjo: I think you have a very unimaginative conception of "worse".
[Sorry, that sounds rude rather than funny. I think it lost something
in my translation of it from Cousineau to English. please take it
charitably. Well, as charitably as possible. This is rbr. Do I need to
throw in a "dumbass"?]

Let's leave aside what I think we would agree would be monumental PR
and
political issues with a free-doping pro peloton, and examine only the
physiological ramifications.

In my opinion? Riders would do incredibly stupid treatments and hurt
themselves or die in moderate numbers. The incentive to be the first on
the block with
whatever half-assed treatment was available would be incredible. You'd
probably have a few elite riders with very clever doctors on staff, who
would limit themselves to orange juice doses of EPO and conservative
'roid doses,
if only because their doctors had some personal interest in patient
survival and a faint remembrance of the Hippocratic oath.

But I don't think there would be enough clever doctors to go round. And
I
think there would be a certain cadre of riders who would think they
could
be a bit more clever than the doctors. And you know what? They would
probably be right. There are a drugs out there where performance
outcomes
keep rising beyond what any ethical doctor or reasonable person would
call
a safe dose. As far as I understand, Hematocrit boosters work better
and
better just about to the point where your heart stops. Steroids are
awesome
for training and recovery, until they actually fry your liver or
generate
some other fun rider-hobbling side effect, or non-hobbling side effects
like micro-nuts or long-term damage or whatever else they do.

Let me tell you a true story about a cyclist, not a pro, just a very
serious
local 'crosser and roadie. This story has nothing to do with drugs: at
a
recent cyclocross race, he determined during his practice laps that the
barriers on the course could be bunnyhopped, but that it would be a
very
risky move, and that he would not try doing so until the last laps, and
only if it would gain him a decisive advantage.

On the first lap, it became clear that a bunnyhop might push him into
the
lead breakaway. He tried and crashed horribly, and finished down the
field.

The moral: cyclists understand taking big risks for performance gains.
It's
written into the sport in ways large and small. Pro athletes in general
are
people who are so focused on achievement in their chosen sport that
they
focus on it to the exclusion of other issues, including their own
health.

We acknowledge the need to put limits on many other elements of cycling
to
keep competition fair and to prevent riders from taking inordinate
risks:
bike weight limits, handlebar and aerobar restrictions, bike shape
rules, and
so forth. There are still little games that riders play, stuff like
"sticky"
water bottles and pacing through the caravan, but these are either
tightly
constrained or written into the rules, and nobody wins a bike race by
having the best water bottle technique anyways.

So, even discounting the probably-insurmountable IOC/political/PR
obstacles
to establishing a free-doping system (and I daresay if we're trying to
be
realistic, that's an awfully big discount), why is a free-doping system
better than what we have today? I can't see any way in this brave new
peloton that the more riders aren't using more dope than ever before,
and
probably riskier dope in crazier quantities.

We're all familiar with Armstrong's "the **** that will kill me," his
phrase for the very best possible equipment. In a fully-doped peloton,
that
phrasing could be all too literal.

Benjo: you know the history of doping in the peloton. before they got
all scientific about it, the riders not only doped, they doped using
daft stuff (alcohol, strychnine) that probably harmed performance. I'm
not confident the peloton's IQ has risen substantially since then,
though Robert Chung is probably going to bust me by pointing out that
tested IQs in virtually all populations have steadily risen pretty much
since standardized testing began. So I'll concede smarter, but I'll bet
against wiser.

After thinking about it for another day, I'm still enamored of my idea
that we should create punitive economic disincentives for dopers and
the teams of dopers. But I just made it up sometime after midnight, so
critiques are eagerly welcomed!

Livedrunk, but not in excess of UCI alcohol limits,
--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected], www.wiredcola.com
Democracy, whiskey, and sexy!
 
Milliano wrote:

> Winners determined partially by who wants to take the biggest risk on
> their life? Not my type of entertainment.

It worked for the gladiators.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> benjo maso wrote:
>> "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
>
>> >> 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).
>
> Heras, Museeuw, a bunch of mountain bikers, plus numerous riders caught
> in ways other than drug tests (Millar...). Perhaps it depends on the
> definition of top rider, but once you disqualify a Vuelta winner, a
> great Classics hero, and a rainbow jersey owner, you're sort of left
> with a definition of top riders that would only seem to include "TdF GC
> winners in the last 7 years."
>
> I think there's some pretty serious seriousness here.
>
>> > 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.
>
> [ranty ranty rant]
>
>> > 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
>
> Benjo: I think you have a very unimaginative conception of "worse".
> [Sorry, that sounds rude rather than funny. I think it lost something
> in my translation of it from Cousineau to English. please take it
> charitably. Well, as charitably as possible. This is rbr. Do I need to
> throw in a "dumbass"?]
>
> Let's leave aside what I think we would agree would be monumental PR
> and
> political issues with a free-doping pro peloton, and examine only the
> physiological ramifications.
>
> In my opinion? Riders would do incredibly stupid treatments and hurt
> themselves or die in moderate numbers. The incentive to be the first on
> the block with
> whatever half-assed treatment was available would be incredible. You'd
> probably have a few elite riders with very clever doctors on staff, who
> would limit themselves to orange juice doses of EPO and conservative
> 'roid doses,
> if only because their doctors had some personal interest in patient
> survival and a faint remembrance of the Hippocratic oath.
>
> But I don't think there would be enough clever doctors to go round. And
> I
> think there would be a certain cadre of riders who would think they
> could
> be a bit more clever than the doctors. And you know what? They would
> probably be right. There are a drugs out there where performance
> outcomes
> keep rising beyond what any ethical doctor or reasonable person would
> call
> a safe dose. As far as I understand, Hematocrit boosters work better
> and
> better just about to the point where your heart stops. Steroids are
> awesome
> for training and recovery, until they actually fry your liver or
> generate
> some other fun rider-hobbling side effect, or non-hobbling side effects
> like micro-nuts or long-term damage or whatever else they do.
>
> Let me tell you a true story about a cyclist, not a pro, just a very
> serious
> local 'crosser and roadie. This story has nothing to do with drugs: at
> a
> recent cyclocross race, he determined during his practice laps that the
> barriers on the course could be bunnyhopped, but that it would be a
> very
> risky move, and that he would not try doing so until the last laps, and
> only if it would gain him a decisive advantage.
>
> On the first lap, it became clear that a bunnyhop might push him into
> the
> lead breakaway. He tried and crashed horribly, and finished down the
> field.
>
> The moral: cyclists understand taking big risks for performance gains.
> It's
> written into the sport in ways large and small. Pro athletes in general
> are
> people who are so focused on achievement in their chosen sport that
> they
> focus on it to the exclusion of other issues, including their own
> health.
>
> We acknowledge the need to put limits on many other elements of cycling
> to
> keep competition fair and to prevent riders from taking inordinate
> risks:
> bike weight limits, handlebar and aerobar restrictions, bike shape
> rules, and
> so forth. There are still little games that riders play, stuff like
> "sticky"
> water bottles and pacing through the caravan, but these are either
> tightly
> constrained or written into the rules, and nobody wins a bike race by
> having the best water bottle technique anyways.
>
> So, even discounting the probably-insurmountable IOC/political/PR
> obstacles
> to establishing a free-doping system (and I daresay if we're trying to
> be
> realistic, that's an awfully big discount), why is a free-doping system
> better than what we have today? I can't see any way in this brave new
> peloton that the more riders aren't using more dope than ever before,
> and
> probably riskier dope in crazier quantities.
>
> We're all familiar with Armstrong's "the **** that will kill me," his
> phrase for the very best possible equipment. In a fully-doped peloton,
> that
> phrasing could be all too literal.
>
> Benjo: you know the history of doping in the peloton. before they got
> all scientific about it, the riders not only doped, they doped using
> daft stuff (alcohol, strychnine) that probably harmed performance. I'm
> not confident the peloton's IQ has risen substantially since then,
> though Robert Chung is probably going to bust me by pointing out that
> tested IQs in virtually all populations have steadily risen pretty much
> since standardized testing began. So I'll concede smarter, but I'll bet
> against wiser.
>
> After thinking about it for another day, I'm still enamored of my idea
> that we should create punitive economic disincentives for dopers and
> the teams of dopers. But I just made it up sometime after midnight, so
> critiques are eagerly welcomed!

If riders are allowed to use doping, will some of them risk their lives? No
doubt. We have only to look at the times before the anti-doping legislation.
Although riders were well aware of the dager of using amphetamine, there
were still some of them who didn't care - or hardly - and they had to pay
for it. For instance Germain Derijcke or Charly Gaul, .of some years later
Eric De Vlaemyck or Johan Van der Velde. . Were they different from the
riders of nowadays? No, as you showed with your beautiful example there are
still riders quite willing to risk their lives or their health to win.
Should they be protected from themselves? Perhaps, but to which extent an
anti-doping policy can be effective? I don't think the use of doping has
diminished in the last ten years and if it has, only in a small way. There
are still products which cannot be detected and riders are quite willing to
buy them on the black market, even new products which have not been tested
properly (when the police raided the Giro in 2000 or 2001 the found two
kinds products not yet known by the medical authorities of the UCI). In
other words, they cannot be stopped (and by the way, the health of the
athletes is more an excuse than a justification of the anti-doping policy,
such considerations did hardly play a role in the original legislation). A
perfect world would be great, but it is sometimes better to be realistic.
Concerning the IQ of the peloton: I don;t think either that it has risen
substantially, but even in the 40's and 50's, when doping test didn't exist
yet, the overwhelming majority was wise enough to use amphetamine, etc.only
from time to time. And although their intelligence might be the same, they
have an clear advantage compared to their predecessors: nowadays they van at
least consult team-doctors (and if they don't before using doping, it's
because they are illegal). It's exactly 50 years ago that the Tour de France
had its first Tour-doctor, but the rest of the year they could only trust
soigneurs and other advisers without any medical knowledge.

Benjo
 
benjo maso wrote:


> (and by the way, the health of the
> athletes is more an excuse than a justification of the anti-doping policy,

the link to this article was posted before, but i still like the
following bit, concerning "the health of the athletes" (i have no idea
if it's factually correct, sorry):

"To be banned by WADA, a drug has to meet at least two of three
criteria: it must enhance performance, be harmful to health and (a very
Victorian touch) be against the spirit of sport. Clearly, this would
allow a drug to be banned if it had no adverse health effects but was,
even so, ruled contrary to whatever is deemed to be the spirit of sport.
Mr Pound, for one, seems to regard any use of a drug to enhance
performance as against that spirit: it is, quite simply, cheating.

A fierce critic of this approach to drugs in sport is Norman Fost,
director of the medical-ethics programme at the University of Wisconsin.
He calls the claims made about the harmful effects of steroids
“incoherent and flat-out wrong”. Mostly, they have small, temporary
side-effects, he says, not life-threatening ones. Indeed, the risks are
much smaller than those routinely taken by athletes. A man who plays
American football professionally for three years has a 90% chance of
suffering a permanent physical injury.

If health is the chief concern, surely certain sports should be banned
entirely—and athletes should not be allowed to smoke or drink,
activities that do far more harm than taking steroids. As for enhancing
performance, that is not seen as cheating if it is done by, say,
training at high altitude or in a sealed space that simulates high
altitude, says Dr Fost, though such training would have exactly the same
effect—an increase in oxygen-carrying red blood cells—as the banned
steroid EPO, which is especially popular with cyclists." (economist,
august 5, 2004)

heather
 
"h squared" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> benjo maso wrote:
>
>
>> (and by the way, the health of the athletes is more an excuse than a
>> justification of the anti-doping policy,
>
> the link to this article was posted before, but i still like the following
> bit, concerning "the health of the athletes" (i have no idea if it's
> factually correct, sorry):
>
> "To be banned by WADA, a drug has to meet at least two of three criteria:
> it must enhance performance, be harmful to health and (a very Victorian
> touch) be against the spirit of sport. Clearly, this would allow a drug to
> be banned if it had no adverse health effects but was, even so, ruled
> contrary to whatever is deemed to be the spirit of sport. Mr Pound, for
> one, seems to regard any use of a drug to enhance performance as against
> that spirit: it is, quite simply, cheating.
>
> A fierce critic of this approach to drugs in sport is Norman Fost,
> director of the medical-ethics programme at the University of Wisconsin.
> He calls the claims made about the harmful effects of steroids “incoherent
> and flat-out wrong”. Mostly, they have small, temporary side-effects, he
> says, not life-threatening ones. Indeed, the risks are much smaller than
> those routinely taken by athletes. A man who plays American football
> professionally for three years has a 90% chance of suffering a permanent
> physical injury.
>
> If health is the chief concern, surely certain sports should be banned
> entirely—and athletes should not be allowed to smoke or drink, activities
> that do far more harm than taking steroids. As for enhancing performance,
> that is not seen as cheating if it is done by, say, training at high
> altitude or in a sealed space that simulates high altitude, says Dr Fost,
> though such training would have exactly the same effect—an increase in
> oxygen-carrying red blood cells—as the banned steroid EPO, which is
> especially popular with cyclists." (economist, august 5, 2004)

The point is of course that the arguments against the use of certain
products is very shaky indeed. "The spirit of sport" must be something
between "participating is more important than winning" and "sport is war",
as Rinus Michels, a famous Dutch soccer coach, used to say. "Harmful to
health" - well, a Dutch doctor argued not so long ago that the health of a
rider parycipating to the Tour would certainly benefit from a certain amount
of epo. Concerning "enhance performance" - Norman Fost is quite right. The
point is that the anti-doping idea is based on the traditional idea that men
must compete in their "natural" state. That was the reason why Pierre de
Coubertin, the fouding father of the Olympic Games, said once that training
several hours a day was as much "cheating" as using drugs. Therefore the
paradox Dr Fost is pointing out. Meanwhile training is accepted, using
certain products not - or rather, not yet.

Benjo
s

ox between training
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> After thinking about it for another day, I'm still enamored of my idea
> that we should create punitive economic disincentives for dopers and
> the teams of dopers. But I just made it up sometime after midnight, so
> critiques are eagerly welcomed!

This takes competition off the race course and into the
realm of rule bending within the governing body's
jurisdiction, same as the draconian drug enforcement.
It is no improvement.

--
Michael Press
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> We're all familiar with Armstrong's "the **** that will kill me," his
> phrase for the very best possible equipment

You are not familiar enough with it.

<http://www.booknoise.net/armstrong/qanda.html>

--
Michael Press
 
h squared wrote:
> benjo maso wrote:
>
>
>> (and by the way, the health of the athletes is more an excuse than a
>> justification of the anti-doping policy,
>
>
> the link to this article was posted before, but i still like the
> following bit, concerning "the health of the athletes" (i have no idea
> if it's factually correct, sorry):
>
> "To be banned by WADA, a drug has to meet at least two of three
> criteria: it must enhance performance, be harmful to health and (a very
> Victorian touch) be against the spirit of sport. Clearly, this would
> allow a drug to be banned if it had no adverse health effects but was,
> even so, ruled contrary to whatever is deemed to be the spirit of sport.
> Mr Pound, for one, seems to regard any use of a drug to enhance
> performance as against that spirit: it is, quite simply, cheating.
>
> A fierce critic of this approach to drugs in sport is Norman Fost,
> director of the medical-ethics programme at the University of Wisconsin.
> He calls the claims made about the harmful effects of steroids
> “incoherent and flat-out wrong”. Mostly, they have small, temporary
> side-effects, he says, not life-threatening ones.

Frost is not correct.

Steve


Indeed, the risks are
> much smaller than those routinely taken by athletes. A man who plays
> American football professionally for three years has a 90% chance of
> suffering a permanent physical injury.
>
> If health is the chief concern, surely certain sports should be banned
> entirely—and athletes should not be allowed to smoke or drink,
> activities that do far more harm than taking steroids. As for enhancing
> performance, that is not seen as cheating if it is done by, say,
> training at high altitude or in a sealed space that simulates high
> altitude, says Dr Fost, though such training would have exactly the same
> effect—an increase in oxygen-carrying red blood cells—as the banned
> steroid EPO, which is especially popular with cyclists." (economist,
> august 5, 2004)
>
> heather
>
>


--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fswiss\fcharset0
Arial;}}
{\*\generator Msftedit 5.41.15.1507;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 Remove
"nospam" to reply\par
}
 
h squared wrote:
> benjo maso wrote:
>
>
>> (and by the way, the health of the athletes is more an excuse than a
>> justification of the anti-doping policy,
>
>
> the link to this article was posted before, but i still like the
> following bit, concerning "the health of the athletes" (i have no idea
> if it's factually correct, sorry):
>
> "To be banned by WADA, a drug has to meet at least two of three
> criteria: it must enhance performance, be harmful to health and (a very
> Victorian touch) be against the spirit of sport. Clearly, this would
> allow a drug to be banned if it had no adverse health effects but was,
> even so, ruled contrary to whatever is deemed to be the spirit of sport.
> Mr Pound, for one, seems to regard any use of a drug to enhance
> performance as against that spirit: it is, quite simply, cheating.
>
> A fierce critic of this approach to drugs in sport is Norman Fost,
> director of the medical-ethics programme at the University of Wisconsin.
> He calls the claims made about the harmful effects of steroids
> “incoherent and flat-out wrong”. Mostly, they have small, temporary
> side-effects, he says, not life-threatening ones.

Frost is not correct.

Steve


Indeed, the risks are
> much smaller than those routinely taken by athletes. A man who plays
> American football professionally for three years has a 90% chance of
> suffering a permanent physical injury.
>
> If health is the chief concern, surely certain sports should be banned
> entirely—and athletes should not be allowed to smoke or drink,
> activities that do far more harm than taking steroids. As for enhancing
> performance, that is not seen as cheating if it is done by, say,
> training at high altitude or in a sealed space that simulates high
> altitude, says Dr Fost, though such training would have exactly the same
> effect—an increase in oxygen-carrying red blood cells—as the banned
> steroid EPO, which is especially popular with cyclists." (economist,
> august 5, 2004)
>
> heather
>
>


--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fswiss\fcharset0
Arial;}}
{\*\generator Msftedit 5.41.15.1507;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 Remove
"nospam" to reply\par
}
 
Scott wrote:
> Milliano wrote:
>
>
>>Winners determined partially by who wants to take the biggest risk on
>>their life? Not my type of entertainment.
>
>
> It worked for the gladiators.
>
The Circus Maximus was a stitch-up. WWE of ancient times. Think about
it. Why kill off your best drawcards?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > We're all familiar with Armstrong's "the **** that will kill me," his
> > phrase for the very best possible equipment
>
> You are not familiar enough with it.
>
> <http://www.booknoise.net/armstrong/qanda.html>

Ah ****. The worst part is I have read (and enjoyed) Coyle's book.

Kill _them_.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > We're all familiar with Armstrong's "the **** that will kill me," his
> > phrase for the very best possible equipment
>
> You are not familiar enough with it.
>
> <http://www.booknoise.net/armstrong/qanda.html>

Ah ****. The worst part is I have read (and enjoyed) Coyle's book.

Kill _them_.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Di Luca the Obvious Winner
Replies
3
Views
620
Road Cycling
Howard Kveck
H
S
Obvious Landis question
Replies
12
Views
330
Road Cycling
[email protected]
R
I
Obvious jokes
Replies
38
Views
688
Road Cycling
William Asher
W
C
signalling an un-obvious turn
Replies
9
Views
414
Road Cycling
Dane Buson
D
Top Bottom Back