Should society care about doping(enhancing)

[garyspecialized]

A few things off the top. Tiger Woods.. no ones talking about taking his majors away(linked to doctors associated w/ Roger Clemens.. Anthony Galea). Alex Rodriguez... no ones looking to snake his world series from him, NFL players, NBAers (Lebron James.. just look at the pictures), NHLrs, rugby players and the south pacific "taro" natural steroid... (honestly i don't care)

I have NEVER been a person who has said smoking a joint makes that dude a lesser person, or that rock star on stage having a beer as a lubricant is nothing but a drunk(i do even when the club or theatre says no alcohol on stage.. ****em). I also have never cared if a proffesional athlete got free massages, free nutrition, or had they're realtors fee waved because they're a name in town. Nor have i cared that the top cycling teams can afford better gear, better chefs, better doctors, and more importantly money to train at altitude and do recon on the hard climbs of a grand tour while they send their lesser riders to compete at obligatory UCI world tour events.

WHY DO WE CARE. IF it CAN be caught and nazified, then why cycling. Why a sport that can't charge it's fans admission, a sport where the goodwill of sponsors: is the Black ink.

I am not a huge Lance fan(can't disreguard livestrong... it is just a huge PLUS for a lot of things these days), and when he was earning his titles i was in my teens and had never sat on a road bike in my life. But i did watch a rider lose his Tour De France to Andy S on a ******** drug claim(yes andy dropped a chain....).. but Contador came back and won the Vuelta this year. Is WADA gunna look as deeply in to Jan for 2000,2001, 2003, i mean, if you look at the people who would take Lance's titles... they've all been accused of doping and most punished for it.. Its like trying to find the Rock star in the 80's who didn't do drugs.. Clapton?,,,,, his music sucked in the 80's.

My point being... for the average cyclist like myself, where is the point where i say "ok i can't climb that mountain in west vancouver as fast as the guy on the continental team, but if I can afford a massage afterwards and a detailed diet, and can afford the suppliments to use while riding maybe in two days i can gain some time, then next week more time.." f** f**ks s*ke i remember reading an interview of Carl Edwards(NASCAR) and he explained in full detail how he couldn't take the products of his car sponsor because it would infringe upon NASCAR's drug policy... and it was alergy medication.

IMO, In the professional level of any sport(where the athlete has admitted that it is a dangerous vocation)why go after something that is as dangerous to that one person as is an undercooked filet mignon. I'd rather see bans for tards that cause a crash in the peleton,or send riders off the road, only to return with a broken femur and dirty blue spandex.



(i juss ninja the cooked part of your filet mignon,,, enjoy the diahrea)

 

[CAMPYBOB]

I don't give a damn what people put in their body to play their games.

 

[limerickman]

As far as I'm aware what Woods got up to wasn't cheating in the sporting sense.

The other people named in the OP are meaningless to me (in that I don't know who they are or what they're alleged to have done).

Should society care about doping in sport?
I think society should care about doping in sport for many different reasons.

First and foremost, the health risk presented by taking products that artificially enhance the physical capacity of participants needs to be regulated.
No one can say for certain that there are no health risks involved in artificially boosting a person's medical condition which exceeds their natural limitations.

The physical after effects of doping are what?
Bottom line is that we don't know.
No one has measured the effects of doping in physiological terms.
No one has measured the effects of doping in psychological terms either.

 

[jhuskey]

I don't believe the titles will be re-issued so Jan will not be a 4 time winner and if you had the chance to follow German media you would know he has been run through the ringer there and didn't get a free pass either.
As I posted in another thread it's not just about the individual but about all the people they affect in making their choices.
Yes the dude smoking a joint or the rock star having a few beers is harmless unless their impairment gets someone killed.
We all make choices and we all make mistakes and then we have to live with those choices.

 

[alienator]

A few things off the top.  Tiger Woods.. no ones talking about taking his majors away(linked to doctors associated w/ Roger Clemens.. Anthony Galea). Alex Rodriguez... no ones looking to snake his world series from him, NFL players, NBAers (Lebron James.. just look at the pictures), NHLrs, rugby players and the south pacific "taro" natural steroid... (honestly i don't care) I have NEVER been a person who has said smoking a joint makes that dude a lesser person, or that rock star on stage having a beer as a lubricant is nothing but a drunk(i do even when the club or theatre says no alcohol on stage.. ****em). I also have never cared if a proffesional athlete got free massages, free nutrition, or had they're realtors fee waved because they're a name in town. Nor have i cared that the top cycling teams can afford better gear, better chefs, better doctors, and more importantly money to train at altitude and do recon on the hard climbs of a grand tour while they send their lesser riders to compete at obligatory UCI world tour events. WHY DO WE CARE. IF it CAN be caught and nazified, then why cycling. Why a sport that can't charge it's fans admission, a sport where the goodwill of sponsors: is the Black ink. I am not a huge Lance fan(can't disreguard livestrong... it is just a huge PLUS for a lot of things these days), and when he was earning his titles i was in my teens and had never sat on a road bike in my life. But i did watch a rider lose his Tour De France to Andy S on a ******** drug claim(yes andy dropped a chain....).. but Contador came back and won the Vuelta this year. Is WADA gunna look as deeply in to Jan for 2000,2001, 2003,  i mean, if you look at the people who would take Lance's titles... they've all been accused of doping and most punished for it.. Its like trying to find the Rock star in the 80's who didn't do drugs.. Clapton?,,,,, his music sucked in the 80's. My point being... for the average cyclist like myself, where is the point where i say "ok i can't climb that mountain in west vancouver as fast as the guy on the continental team, but if I can afford a massage afterwards and a detailed diet, and can afford the suppliments to use while riding maybe in two days i can gain some time, then next week more time.."  f** f**ks s*ke i remember reading an interview of Carl Edwards(NASCAR) and he explained in full detail how he couldn't take the products of his car sponsor because it would infringe upon NASCAR's drug policy... and it was alergy medication. IMO, In the professional level of any sport(where the athlete has admitted that it is a dangerous vocation)why go after something that is as dangerous to that one person as is an undercooked filet mignon. I'd rather see bans for tards that cause a crash in the peleton,or  send riders off the road, only to return with a broken femur and dirty blue spandex. (i juss ninja the cooked part of your filet mignon,,, enjoy the diahrea)

There is no rule in rock that says that rock stars can't dope. The idea that doping is a dangerous as "undercooked filet mignon" is, well, stupid. You can go back through the history of doping to find many athletes who died or were injured. More importantly, what's wrong with doping is a violation of the rules. Doing so is cheating. Just as in baseball a runner can't skip second and third base and instead run straight from first base to home, in cycling, according to the rules, you can't dope. It's really simple. If you can't follow the rules, you're either stupid or willfully cheating. As for the average cyclist, perhaps the greatest thing about cycling is surmounting an obstacle using nothing but what my body can generate to move the bike along. I don't know of any cyclist who, upon topping out on a climb that he or she thought they couldn't do, isn't proud to have done so under their own power. Doping cheats us of that feeling, and it's certainly antithetical to the spirit of cycling. If we're going to go to the extreme of allowing doping, then we might as well allow those battery/motor combos, hidden in seat tubes, that can drive cranks. There's little difference between using the motor and doping. Neither reveals a riders true potential and skill. Apparently you haven't read that ASO has no interest in giving Armstrong's ill gotten yellow jerseys to the next in line on the podium. They only wish, or so they've said, to remove Armstrong from the results if the UCI confirms his suspension. That is an excellent option to exercise as it could very well be that many or perhaps all of the second, third, fourth, fifth person in the final classifications were also doping. It's also an excellent option because it says that no one won. We lost as result of the winner's cheating.

 

[WillemJM]

If we are serious about this and we read the WADA code, note it has no timeline:

2.8 Administration or Attempted administration to any
Athlete In-Competition of any Prohibited Method or
Prohibited Substance, or administration or Attempted
administration to any Athlete Out-of-Competition of
any Prohibited Method or any Prohibited Substance
that is prohibited Out-of-Competition, or assisting,
encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any
other type of complicity involving an anti-doping rule
violation or any Attempted anti-doping rule violation.

IMHO, those who believe that any single rider of the top 5 winners of the TDF, before LA's time, to the last tour conformed 100% to article 2.8, are naive. Especially considering the TT performances way into the tour, when fatigue should have taken its toll.

So the code of silence was broken and the strongest Viking (LA) tried to protect the fairy tale right to the end. When he realized its all over but for the crying, he said enough of this nonsense and walked away. He will probably lose his sponsors, because he knew how to win the tour by playing by the rules most played by. But life goes on.

Who really believes there are Supermen athletes who are clean and can compete with the best who have a 20% or 100W advantage from using EPO, blood doping, and other synthetics?

I hope this does not damage our sport too much, they clean up the UCI, take the drug testing function away from UCI and find ways to get the sport cleaner, because as long as there is an advantage to those who won't get caught, this will continue.

IMHO, the right thing for WADA, UCI and USADA to do, would have been to protect this fantastic sport, by working together and finding ways to clean it up, rather than do the damage USADA embarked on. Cycling has been damaged badly and it will take time to repair. Do a survey amongst those who are not as serious about cycling as we are and the result would be negative with a loss of interest in the sport, as the result.

 

[alienator]

Who really believes there are Supermen athletes who are clean and can compete with the best who have a 20% or 100W advantage from using EPO, blood doping, and other synthetics?

Please provide some facts to back up the 20%, 100W claim. Anyone can be beaten, and it's very difficult to believe that no one has ever won when competing against riders doping. There's certainly no evidence to support that claim. It certainly appears the sport is cleaning up.

 

[WillemJM]

Originally Posted by alienator .


Please provide some facts to back up the 20%, 100W claim. Anyone can be beaten, and it's very difficult to believe that no one has ever won when competing against riders doping. There's certainly no evidence to support that claim. It certainly appears the sport is cleaning up.

That would be difficult, to provide facts. Own experience 25 years ago, when I beat my team mates as a Junior and when we went Pro later years, their improvement went off the charts compared to mine. I quit, went to college and graduated with an Engineering degree. I knew exactly what they were doing, but decided to go back into amature cycling and put my efforts into a non sport career.
So, from beating a few team mates, after three months when we do a hard team tempo session, I'm off the back????

Can't remember, but it was either Levi, or Tyler in the BBC interview that claimed with EPO he puts out 100W more, right up there with LA, from 400W to 500W.

It's not so much winning, when competing against riders who are doping, it is about winning against a rider of almost equal ability, if both are clean and then one dopes later.

 

[alienator]

That would be difficult, to provide facts. Own experience 25 years ago, when I beat my team mates as a Junior and when we went Pro later years, their improvement went off the charts compared to mine. I quit, went to college and graduated with an Engineering degree. I knew exactly what they were doing, but decided to go back into amature cycling and put my efforts into a non sport career. So, from beating a few team mates, after three months when we do a hard team tempo session, I'm off the back???? Can't remember, but it was either Levi, or Tyler in the BBC interview that claimed with EPO he puts out 100W more, right up there with LA, from 400W to 500W. It's not so much winning, when competing against riders who are doping, it is about winning against a rider of almost equal ability, if both are clean and then one dopes later.

That's too bad about what you experienced, but there is certainly the possibility that people won without doping. There certainly is no proof that everyone who's won in pro cycling was and is doping. Keep in mind your experiences may not be the experiences of everyone. I'm not going to invest too much in the knowledge of Leipheimer and Tyler on the specific, quantified physiological benefits of doping. What they claim may be true, but I haven't seen any proof of that. Until I do, I'll remain skeptical.

 

[Felt_Rider]

I cannot speak for EPO because thankfully never used it or had reason to use it, but many on this board know of my past as I have told a few times on this subject. The average steroid user typically gets about a 5% increase over their natural condition. I would guess that I experienced about 3% at most over the 12 years of using. Considering what I could squat while being off cycle compared to be on cycle. Maybe it is different for EPO.

This is my opinion so please understand this while considering what I am about to write. This has nothing to do with right or wrong, but understand and with experience of using PED's and studying them for many years. In the years of Lance competing and in current day with a whole different set of younger riders those that names would have been the same with or without drugs. These are world class athletes that have one thing in common that exceeds drugs and that is 1/100,000 genetics. Now what would or possibly would have been different is the placement of those names. For instance if all of the same athlete were absolutely drug free than the names would have been more than likely scrambled up differently in crossing the finish line, but the names would probably be the same. A person that is topped out at the national level is not always held back because of being clean, but more than likely genetics has more to do with not going to the next level if training were near identical. The summary is and what many people in these discussions are is that drug are some sort of miracle worker that can take a middle pack recreational cyclist and turn them into a national hero.

So what is my point. My point is to those who stick to doing the right thing and staying drug free that there is a smaller margin of advantage than one might think, but training, attitude, nutrition and all else has to be darn near perfect. At least I am convinced of this myself because after using PED's for bodybuilding competitions for many years (by the way it was not cheating in my case and in fact very condoned and rewarded for using by the federation) I went on a quest after I retired from competition to see if I could achieve the same level of lifting performance drug free. Anyone that has used before knows that the effects of using PED's does not have a lasting performance impact. In fact it became harder for me after I stopped using both mentally and physically. My body was fighting to turn the nature hormone system back on so my T levels were lower and more likely leaving estrogen higher and with the out of balance of hormones it impacts aggresiveness that comes with having such a high synthetic level of hormones. Plus the most important factor of recovery time becomes worse.

The first few years I battled throught this with still some impressive natural lifts. Along the way I went to the next level with nutrition, recovery and training techniques that I never thought possible because I did so well in competition getting to the national level I did not think there was another level of efficiency above what I had already done. Yet there was and probably another level above that I did not experience. So at about 6 year mark of being drug free I hit a maximum squat that I could never hit even while being on 6 different types of anabolic and androgenic steroids at the same time. From that I was convinced that it is possible to get to that 3%+ mark advantage that I had while using a full load of drugs. Now this is a FULL load of drugs because I was not being tested, did not have to be concerned with being tested and in bodybuilding it is a wonder they don't test you to tell you that you are not taking enough. So it was a full load, whereas, those that use drugs deceptively in tested activities have to use a much lesser dosage and therefore do not get the maximum potential result of drug use.

What I see from a lot of athletes that stay drug free and gripe about the subject is a lack of determination to train the right way, lack of dedication and a focus on others rather than focusing on how they might improve. I love to see an athlete that has the attitude of, "I don't care if he is using drugs. I am going to that event and I am going to do what I can do." Now I know it can be frustrating to confront the truth that there may be some that show up to a local race with suspicion that they have suddenly and drastically improved from the previous year, but if one can just compete for the sake of having fun and enjoying the event rather than concentrate on what some guy is possibly doing the result may turn out better. Let the federations do the best they can do in testing athletes and worry about that angle while you focus on doing your best in the event.

Now to make sure that everyone understands my position concerning drug use. I am fully against it at every level including bodybuilding. I made a lot of mistakes and suffered a great deal from it in a activity that allowed use and I caused grief for most people around me for many years. I don't want anyone to go through that or to put their friends, family or associates through what I experienced. Even without carrying the weight of destroying incomes like what is possible with Hincapie's employees and those working at Livestrong there is harm that the individual drug user can bring to family and friends.

About a month ago a young guy sent me a Facebook message showing me his blood test and showing me how his T level was low. I knew immediately where he was going before he even asked the question. He then began to justify why he thinks he should go to the doctor and get a prescription for T. What I know about the guy is that he also desires to start racing next year in cycling. I began to tell him a number of reasons why this was a bad idea and finally finished that it is cheating others that show up drug free that may also have a low T level. IMO - if a person wants to do any activity that has rules against using drugs and has a list of banned items there should not be an exception. IMO - this young guy has to make a decision to either use T because it may have a positive impact to his health (which is not the case) or stay absolutely drug free and compete next year. The reason this was absolutely wrong on many fronts is the guy is still in his 20's and getting a blood test back showing me low T level is just stupid. Come to find out later why his T level was low was that he admitted to using steroids. So it was his use of drugs that sabotaged his T levels and then trying to justify getting a prescription to use more is just absurd. But I deal with that quite often and again certainly made my share of mistakes back in the day.

So my message to those competing, stay drug free and be personally rewarded by that fact that one day when you look back you can say I did this 100% on my own and also know that it is possible to take your performance to the next level without assistance. I find the memory of setting a PB drug free squat to be more memorable than all the trophies I have line up in my basement in competing over a 10 year period.

 

[forrest342]

Professional sport is primarily driven by the spectacle. Its all about eyeballs. People want to watch finely tuned professionals going for it. Some people express this view that they "don't care" if some competitors have gained a hidden biochemical edge, but if you ask the vast majority of people, they would prefer the innovation didn't occur in this area. They want the athlete to remain natural. Now that is of course open to some interpretation, but not much. And they certainly do not want athletes using substances or techniques that have been banned.

I imagine even self blood transfusions will be detectable soon, but we have to assume that some doping will always lead testing for some period. Instead of going down the path of dividing each sport into "doping allowed" and "natural" streams, what about combining professional sport with reality TV? Trade athlete privacy for competition we can truly believe in? Athletes go into the equivalent of a "Big Brother House" before and during an event. Sounds crazy but so did TV like Big Brother a decade ago. Enough athletes might be prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to assure a level playing field, and the fans might just love (and fund) the extra dimension. Yes, it would be new and practically difficult, but all the elements have been demonstrated in one form or another. "Natural" has a primal resonance with people that just should not be so easily dismissed. To me, a doping free for all is the lazy answer that would ultimately be unsatisfying for fans and a meat market exploiting the health of athletes.

 

[alienator]

Professional sport is primarily driven by the spectacle.  Its all about eyeballs.  People want to watch finely tuned professionals going for it.  Some people express this view that they "don't care" if some competitors have gained a hidden biochemical edge, but if you ask the vast majority of people, they would prefer the innovation didn't occur in this area.  They want the athlete to remain natural.  Now that is of course open to some interpretation, but not much.  And they certainly do not want athletes using substances or techniques that have been banned. I imagine even self blood transfusions will be detectable soon, but we have to assume that some doping will always lead testing for some period.  Instead of going down the path of dividing each sport into "doping allowed" and "natural" streams, what about combining professional sport with reality TV?  Trade athlete privacy for competition we can truly believe in?  Athletes go into the equivalent of a "Big Brother House" before and during an event.  Sounds crazy but so did TV like Big Brother a decade ago.  Enough athletes might be prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to assure a level playing field, and the fans might just love (and fund) the extra dimension.  Yes, it would be new and practically difficult, but all the elements have been demonstrated in one form or another.  "Natural" has a primal resonance with people that just should not be so easily dismissed.  To me, a doping free for all is the lazy answer that would ultimately be unsatisfying for fans and a meat market exploiting the health of athletes.

I watch cycling for the athletic value and to see competitors go at it. I had and have zero interest in reality TV, and I have just as little interest in seeing "Big Brother: the Cycling Edition." Such a show would just be the descent by one more rung in the dumbing down of society. Such a show would have the value of "Toddlers and Tiaras" which is to say none.

 

[WillemJM]

Originally Posted by Felt_Rider .

I cannot speak for EPO because thankfully never used it or had reason to use it, but many on this board know of my past as I have told a few times on this subject. The average steroid user typically gets about a 5% increase over their natural condition. I would guess that I experienced about 3% at most over the 12 years of using. Considering what I could squat while being off cycle compared to be on cycle. Maybe it is different for EPO.

3% is not much, did you use true "anabolics" or suplemental, where did you get it and how was it administered?

 

[slovakguy]

Originally Posted by WillemJM .

Can't remember, but it was either Levi, or Tyler in the BBC interview that claimed with EPO he puts out 100W more, right up there with LA, from 400W to 500W.

matt de canio in the bbc interview talked about that increase.

 

[Felt_Rider]

Originally Posted by WillemJM .

3% is not much, did you use true "anabolics" or suplemental, where did you get it and how was it administered?

Yeah, I won over 12 open class (full on drug user) bodybuilding competitions and qualified for the NPC nationals using supplementals from the health food store. Seriously?

Mostly injectables administered by me except for the first year or so.
Where did I get it? Black market like most and I was a dealer for a number of years so I know where most of the drugs originated. As in what country they were smuggled from into the states. So I was up high enough to know the main sources.

But I really do not like talking about my past so this is my last comment.

 

[WillemJM]

Originally Posted by Felt_Rider .


Yeah, I won over 12 open class (full on drug user) bodybuilding competitions and qualified for the NPC nationals using supplementals from the health food store. Seriously?

Mostly injectables administered by me except for the first year or so.
Where did I get it? Black market like most and I was a dealer for a number of years so I know where most of the drugs originated. As in what country they were smuggled from into the states. So I was up high enough to know the main sources.

But I really do not like talking about my past so this is my last comment.

Sorry, I did not know your background.
The team I rode with was not in the US, they used perscription grade Deca Durabolin (Nandrolone Decanoate) given by the team physician. I was told then to avoid black market as it will never be the same grade. I believe this only became available in the US in 1983 and by todays testing can be picked up even 18 months after administering. Anyways, I was not interested and it was voluntary, there was no pressure to use it. All I know is within a short period these folks left me totally in the dust.

 

[Felt_Rider]

Deca is an oil based and was easily counterfieted by organized crime. In the 80's I bought mostly in sealed vials, but in the 90's it was coming to me in the form of single dose ampules. I am sure I purchased a few bad myself and it became really hard at times in the late 90's to identify the fake, but I knew what to look for and would turn away from it. I would know after about 3 weeks or so if it was legit. There is no doubt when it kicks in and nothing at the health food store does what it does. Deca was also considered to be one of the milder forms and was often used by women because it had less masculinizing impact when used in a lighter dose. Even on a fairly heavy dose it was mild for men and was one of the most highly requested out of the selection, but because it was requested so much it became the target to counterfiet.

I apologize for not adding a little clarity to what I said about 3% to 5% on average for most users. A 5% advantage seems small in writing, but in reality it is a pretty decent jump when compared to genetically similar atheletes with the same training. It does stand out and is typically obvious. Some of those guys that got caught just killed me how they didn't even try to fake it like when Vino or Landis had such bad days and then the next day killed the entire field. Yeah, like that is not obvious. At least they could have played it less obvious and stuck with the field or near the field and then put in the hurt in the last miles, but what they did really drew everyone's attention. Not too smart a stragedy one would think when trying to be deceptive.

But I still hold to my thoughts that it is possible for a drug free athlete to improve to the next level without drugs. They just have to be willing to find the perfect combination of all the aspects like training and nutrition.

The way I was able to get to a drug free personal best was actually to train less in some ways and I had no choice because my body could not recover as fast. So it took me about 6 years of really being diligent in finding that combination to get to that point.

 

[WillemJM]

Originally Posted by Felt_Rider .


But I still hold to my thoughts that it is possible for a drug free athlete to improve to the next level without drugs. They just have to be willing to find the perfect combination of all the aspects like training and nutrition.

I agree that one can reach your peak condition without these drugs, excluding EPO. But it takes much longer to get to that peak compared to a user. Also, anyting goes wrong, such as getting sick, getting flu at the wrong time, a user can back into shape much, much faster.

 

[jcasetnl]

The way I see it, In essence, all sport boils down to an arbitrary activity bounded by rules.

Within that activity the winner is determined to be the best performer within the given set of rules.

Nothing else matters or is relevant to the question of who deserves to be the winner. Cancer, sh**ty childhood, pressure, money, everyone else is doing it, being able to get away with it, etc. None of these is relevant to the question of cheating, yet they all get dragged in when someone is caught.

At best these justifications may make you hate the cheating winner less, but the damage to the specific event or sport is very big. If the fans and other competitors can't trust the results (particularly up-and-comers), they lose interest.

Think about it for a second: what is basketball? It's bouncing a silly ball and trying to get it through a hoop. Watching my cat play with string is more entertaining. We watch basketball because of the incredible skill involved when the athletes show what they can do in the game.

What happens if one day a particular player is allowed to double-dribble whenever he wants, or step off the court and not get called on it? His team wins the championship. Would you respect that win? Would you tune in next week? Would you go buy his jersey? Would you buy his silly energy drink? Would you blow $200 for court-side seats? Pay $10 for a hot dog?

And what if all the players are allowed to double-dribble (the everyone is doing it rationalization)? Then the whole sport becomes a farce. People stop caring and watch something else. In talking with a few friends who only casually follow cycling, that's basically their attitude toward the sport now. It's a joke. It's like roller derby.