|I'm worried doping cold kill our sport as we know it...||Djudd|
May 18, 2002 5:45 AM
|With three Giro riders out because of doping,you have to wonder how many potential sponsors are unapproachable because of the scandals. I worry that we might be seeing racing in its current state (trade teams) in crisis soon. The only way to deal with it is, in my view, to be as harsh as possible on those caught doping. Frigo should not be racing!!!Pantani should not be racing!!! A few out permanantly and there would fewer incidents. SOunds harsh and it is. What is worse is only a few teams or national teams and all the politics that entails.|
|Let them dope||filtersweep|
May 18, 2002 6:26 AM
|Imagine pro bodybuilding without steroids (BORING) .... I say, open it up to doping, biomechanical enhancements, maybe even add engines to the bikes? ;)|
|re: I fail to see logic||cyclopathic|
May 18, 2002 6:39 AM
|negative press not doping itself creates the threat. Cracking down on doping will create more bad publicity and will hurt even more.|
|re: I fail to see logic||Djudd|
May 18, 2002 7:11 AM
|At base the argument against doping is that creates false results. If you regard athletics as fair competition on a level playing field, doping tilts the pitch. You might argue (I'm sorry to make your argument I know it's rude) that other supplements are legal and some are not, where to draw the line?
We create boundaries and levels all the time so relative to each other they are not arbitrary, though taken out of context they seem to be. All things equal within this context the x factor of dope outweighs other possible variants (training:methods are established and are more or less equal; determination: and obvious natural non-testable.) In the end we all lose as doping makes competition a test of artificial enhancers not athletic ability.
|re: read my post again||cyclopathic|
May 20, 2002 5:15 AM
|I am not disputing the evil of doping, I am merely pointing out that "crack down" will not "fix" problem with sponsorship; just an opposite.
With respect to doping itself there's a false believe that it creates overnight miracle. It doesn't. You still need to train hard. Taking EPO will not make me elite rider, even if my VO2max would be 100+.
|re: I fail to see logic||DaveL|
May 18, 2002 4:50 PM
|Let's ban reporting on doping. The problem is then the press will cheat! Where there's money involved there's going to be cheating. That's why the pro's use it. They probably always will - except maybe Marco this Giro-think he'd be suffering so much if he were loaded?|
May 20, 2002 5:17 AM
|he might be the only guy at this Giro who is not doping.. LOL|
|re: re: Marco: if what Phil et.al. are speculating is true the..||Djudd|
May 20, 2002 6:01 AM
|Garzelli thing poses a fascinating problem for hard-liners, does he get immediately thrown out with a second non-negative? or with the possibility he was victimized give him leeway?
Also, your above point that doping itself is not an end but you must train is well-taken. It means you are facing highly-motivated people, doping out of what they see is necessity. Not an easy problem
|"Doping" our sport.. (longer rant)||sctri|
May 18, 2002 9:05 PM
|Doping comes in many forms, everything for the media friendly and ever popular EPO to "advantages" which are legal, such as hypoxic tents (wow, spelling and phrasing was probally waaaay off there, but those tents which simulate training and living at a higher atmosphere) and "nutritional suppliments". There are plenty of sythetics that are used and considered legal, and then there are cough meds that are actually used by people who are coughing that result in DQ's. Where is the line supposed to be? Someone who lives in Colorado has a desinct training advantage over someon living in say, the black sea.... Is that fair? There are lots of factors that play into the equation... Lance for exmple is rummored (may be true, may be legend) to have benifited in his cycling from his chemo treatments due to his reduced upper body mass... is that fair? Where are the lines, do you have to inject it to be illegal, or can you breath it, eat it, drink it, or live it...
Everyone is looking for the competitive edge, our system doesnt even catch all of what it states is illegal, let alone the other stuff in the grey areas...
what should we do? let it all slide? crack down on it all..
go back to pure cycling, no carbon, no suport cars, radios, suppliments, aero wheels, aluminum, titaium, threadless stem, and clipless pedals...
Our sport in its form has changed, for good or bad.. but the goals and driving forces behind it remain the same. The will to win, compete, suffer and sacrifice are still present in the elite levels,(as well as in the amateurs) and perhalps even more so now...
I dont know the answer... I suppose that i am somehow both cynical and niave...what does the esteemed board think?
|It seems to me the inherent "wrongness" of doping...||Djudd|
May 19, 2002 6:00 AM
|is self-evident. Cheating is not an esoteric or obtuse concept. Any rationalization of cheating (doping) is just that, a rationalization an illogical one at that. No sport can last too long where a bunch of doped up machines are competing for the latest chemical, where races are decided in chemists lab. Doping is cheating. There are boundaries in life and in competition. It is not that hard. Quoting Vince Vega (John Travolta) in "Pulp Fiction", "it's against the rules"
Blaming the media for actually reporting the story is Nixonian; the problem is not that I am cheating but that it is being reported. What if a rider gets bionic legs should no one say anything when he wins the Tour, the Giro, the Vuelta, all the classics, wins Olympic gold in road racing and sets sprint records. I'm happy to know who the cheaters are, they don't need to be in the sport.
|I agree.... but to what degree is wrong?||sctri|
May 19, 2002 10:13 AM
|and how can we catch it?|
|they've been saying that for 100 years nm||DougSloan|
May 19, 2002 2:54 PM
|re: I'm worried doping cold kill our sport as we know it...||willem72|
May 19, 2002 5:56 PM
|This discussion hits a number of issues within the overarching one of doping - here are some of them (I may have missed some in this summary):
- is the doping the problem, or the reporting?
- what is doping?
- should we be harsh, or "pragmatic" in our response?
Here's my 2 cents worth:
- doping is cheating - thank goodness the media (despite its many faults) can report on the curse of cheating, despite the money and vested interests and code of silence that has historically surrounded it - the omata (sp?) meant that cycling was unable to solve the problems internally, it's external, non-cycling authorities and media which has driven the sport to change
- for simplicity's sake, doping is taking substances which are on the prohibited list - what's on the list is contested, to be sure, and that's a good thing because the list needs to evolve as our values and science changes through time, sometimes it's ahead of our thinking, sometimes behind - but one thing is certain: all pro's know what's on the list
- we should be harsh - if cyclists are caught they should fry, to the extent that they might lose their living - if you're caught with drugs at work, even if you drive a desk, then out you go and it should be no different with these guys - we need to do this to show the sponsors and non-cycling world, to which doping seems abhorrent and repulsive, that we're serious, to show cycling people that it won't be tolerated, to protect the health of athletes, and to scotch a corrupt, damaging and underworld culture of illegal activity