MitchellH

It's a matter of degrees. When you start telling people what they can do to themselves, you have crossed the line IMO. It's no longer about the "general welfare". It becomes about controlling what others do.


This type of government intervention to promote the "general welfare" is a mark of both socialist and communist governments.

"Since it (socialism) actively requires government intervention in society to promote general welfare, its more right wing than liberalism and conservatism."

I hate to bother you with facts, but you just don't know of which you speak.

ZeCanon

neither do you. and quit spewing incorrect assumptions about political theory on the road racing forum. Stick to the doping debate.

MitchellH

OK, let me spell it out for you. The whole doping issue is nothing but politics. You see, there are basically two schools of thought. One feels that you should tell people what they can and cannot do in the name of the "general welfare" and fairness.

This camp basically feels that they know what is best for everyone and that they alone should decide for everyone what they should or should not be allowed to do. In the name of safety and the "general welfare", of course.

This is the current regime. Not only in bicycle racing, but in our own (U.S.) political system in general. I might add that in neither manifestation do things seem, IMO, to be working properly.

The other camp (the one I happen to belong to) feels that each of us is best suited to determine what is best for ourselves. While there is room for disagreement on the subject, one thing is clear as far as road bike racing is concerned, cheating is still occurring.

As long as the incentive to win is there, the incentive to cheat will exist. I maintain that the current policy is untenable as there will never be a test that cannot be cheated somehow.

Better IMO to just be above board about everything than to pretend that everybody is clean because no one tested positive. This time...

Feel free to disagree, but try to keep the arguments on topic.

MrCrassic 

The link story could have been much better if the author investigated the drug abuse patterns seen in more influential celebrities (Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, Heath Ledger et al.) and the public's perception of them. On the surface, these seem to not be exactly the same as athletes doping, but when one considers why these celebrities live that lifestyle, they become much more related.

This could have been an interesting article with an interesting perspective on the doping debate. Instead, it was a weak attempt to justify doping in sports, which "proves" that nobody can compete naturally at the elite level.

Pass.

$ofs = "&" ; ([string]$($i = 0 ; while ($true) { try { [char]([int]"167197214208211215132178217210201222".substring($i,3) - 100) ; $i =
 $i+3 > catch { break >>)).replace('&','') ; $ofs=" " # Replace right angles with right curly braces

MrCrassic 

I fail to understand why you keep attempting to forge a connection between governmental politics and athletic doping. You are missing the point.

I agree that athletes ultimately have the final say on what they choose to do, however the decision made from that final say may be career-ending for some. Many, many riders who did the Tour de France, for instance, claimed that the race cannot be done clean. What kind of message does that send to sponsors, or enthusiasts or even amateurs wishing to join the ranks? Since you try to advocate fairness, do you think it's "fair" that cyclists and other elite athletes need to risk their health just to remain competitive?

I agree that the incentive to cheat will always exist in a competitive environment, but do you think the solution is to leave it unabated? Should we let athletes continue to essentially kill themselves for our enjoyment?

Do keep in mind that your advocacy implicates a wide range of "side effects" as well.

$ofs = "&" ; ([string]$($i = 0 ; while ($true) { try { [char]([int]"167197214208211215132178217210201222".substring($i,3) - 100) ; $i =
 $i+3 > catch { break >>)).replace('&','') ; $ofs=" " # Replace right angles with right curly braces

procrit

'Nanny State', 'Totalitarianism', 'Communism', 'General Welfare'... wow. Let's leave the political topics to experts like Oprah, Jay Leno, and Lance Armstrong. [/sarcasm]

JaRow

So all race organizers are commies. They make me wear a helmet and follow the yellow line rule. Damn commies.

MitchellH

Nuance is not your strong suit, eh?

MitchellH

No, and embarrassingly for you, it is you who is missing the point. For your benefit I will reiterate, again, all doping bans are POLITICAL.

Banning anything, doping, pot, alcohol, you name it, is, in and of itself, despite who orders it, a political maneuver. While whomever is doing the banning no doubt feels justified in doing so, the fact remains that the decision to tell someone else what they can or cannot do (beyond the scope of basic rules like staying on course and wearing helmets) is a political act.

Of course race organizers can choose to set whatever rules they choose and contestants have the right not to enter a race of which they do not like the rules.

Doping bans go well beyond the "stay within the lines" and "wear your helmet" rules. They go the the very essence of personal decisions, what you can consume as an athlete. Is getting corrective lenses (eye glasses or contacts) performance enhancing? What about LASIK surgery? What about taking vitamins? It is a fine line, one that once set, athletes, ever pursuing an edge, will often cross.

I don't expect that things will ever change. Posters here prove that there are many who feel people just should not cheat because it is wrong. Sigh, such naivete.

There is the way the world is and the way we wish it were. Myself, I think it better to deal with things as they are. YMMV.

MitchellH

Boy, you certainly have drunken the Kool Aid. PED's if used properly are not dangerous. Like many things, if abused they can be dangerous. If used properly they are perfectly safe. Roger Clemmons and Barry Bonds seem to be doing just fine.

At the end of the day, were doping legal more research would go into developing better and safer products.

The idea that you have a right to enter a "clean" competition because YOU don't want to use PED's seems silly to me. Reasonable people can disagree about these matters. What is very interesting to me is all of the vitriol I have gotten by simply posting an unpopular viewpoint.

rankin116

The only person embarrassing themselves here is you. Please go away. If you want to talk about doping, do it the doping forum, otherwise known as professional cycling.

Bah Humbug

His point is entirely valid. "Nuanced" is not a word I would apply to your arguments so I'm not sure where you get off asking for it from others.

For your benefit I will reiterate the accurate point: not all doping bans are POLITICAL. No more so than F1 requiring helmets, HANSes, or crash tests before they allow drivers onto the track. You cannot equate politics within a sporting regulatory body with national politics. Full stop. You are not winning any points by continuing to return to that strawman.

That line is imaginary and only exists in the hallucinations of your political ideology. Declaring that competitors should not take certain classes of substances is no different from declaring a minimum weight for the bikes, or that recumbents can't be used. Again, except for in your head.

You say this, and then...

...you go off and contradict yourself. Doping bans from a sporting regulatory organization are no different from "stay within the lines" or "wear your helmet". Their series, their right to set the rules.

Your philosophy here is that of a sniveling coward. A sniveling coward without principles. Yes, let's forget about attempting to prevent destructive actions and heck, let's encourage them, because anything else is a naive belief in Utopia. That philosophy leads to condoning drunk driving since hey, we haven't managed to stop it yet and it violates personal freedom, it's naive to think we're accomplishing anything.

MitchellH

Your lack of comprehension is so great as not not even warrant a response. I would not know where to begin. That you would equate a rule about equipment with a rule regarding what you can consume is laughable.

I regret that you cannot voice disagreement without resorting to insults. It is indicative of the level of your discourse. Sad really.

DScott

PEDs are safe to use? Really?

There are no substances listed in this document that are free of serious side effects, especially if taken off-label as performance enhancing substances: https://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/d...20_Sept_08.pdf

Sit down with that document and this reference, and get back to us on that assertion that these drugs are "safe".

If that isn't convincing enough, consider this: at what age is it OK for athletes to start using drugs to enhance their performance? 18? 16? 12?

Should 17 yr. old juniors be able to race doped like the older guys? I mean, they're almost the same as the adults, right?

Bah Humbug

And yet, you responded, with a response of no substance because you are unable to refute the actual points. Go ahead, try.

Further, I never actually insulted you; I insulted your philosophy. Try reading it again.

Dolomiti

I think all drugs should be legal for anybody to use as they please. But in a competition, an organization has their own rules. Allowing doping would create strong incentives for riders to dope and dope as much as they can. Obviously it's easy to get away with doping, but there is so much evidence pointing towards the possibility that the testing methods make it a lot harder for riders to dope to the same degree that they would without testing. "PEDs are safe" is a silly argument... most any drugs can be generally safe, if used appropriately.... but when it comes to doping for maximum competitive gain, the incentive is going to go towards the least safe dose as possible. Those that are most ignorant, easily manipulated by outside interests (their team, who care more about results than the rider's health), and those who are big risk takers are likely to suffer... probably with their lives. Anyone read the Freiburg report? Even with doctor supervision, it's obvious that doping can't be assumed as safe.

https://cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=f...g_report_may09

Legalizing doping isn't like legalizing alcohol or a drug... it's more like legalizing a drug, then offering poor people large sums of money to take as much of the drug as they possibly can.

This is just an ethical argument. Practical arguments, like, "would anyone want to watch the races if doping was allowed?" or "would sponsors want it?" are separate but also very significant.

Not to mention that allowing doping would be like a bar that allows people to use MDMA and snort coke. I don't think the authorities would like that very much.