Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

"The 33"-Road Bike Racing We set this forum up for our members to discuss their experiences in either pro or amateur racing, whether they are the big races, or even the small backyard races. Don't forget to update all the members with your own race results.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-08-09, 05:48 AM   #1
MitchellH
I am the engine
Thread Starter
 
MitchellH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Bikes:
Posts: 549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Should Doping Be Allowed? [NYT]

Interesting article in this morning's NYT.
MitchellH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-09, 06:27 AM   #2
kensuf
My idea of fun
 
kensuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Gainesville, FL
Bikes: '06 Litespeed Tuscany, '02 Kona Lavadome, '07 Giant TCR Advanced, '07 Karate Monkey
Posts: 9,804
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MitchellH View Post
Interesting article in this morning's NYT.

No it isn't a particularly interesting article.

The only thing interesting about Manny is he was taking a drug commonly used to help get it up.
kensuf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-09, 06:29 AM   #3
rankin116
Senior Member
 
rankin116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: ChapelBorro NC
Bikes:
Posts: 3,975
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
I read that the drug Manny was taking is used to kick start testosterone production after a steroid cycle.

I have no idea if that is true or not.
rankin116 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-09, 07:19 AM   #4
grolby
Senior Member
 
grolby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BOSTON BABY
Bikes:
Posts: 9,216
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
No, not that interesting. It's another idiotic column written by some mouthbreather arguing that it is somehow "better" for a sport to turn a blind eye to doping. And of course there's the real good part at the end about having the athletes "proceed at their own informed risk." That's weapons-grade stupid, there.
grolby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-09, 07:37 AM   #5
pacificaslim
Surf Bum
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pacifica, CA
Bikes: Lapierre Pulsium 500 FdJ, Ritchey breakaway cyclocross, vintage trek mtb.
Posts: 2,170
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Oh sure, it'd be crazy stupid to allow athletes to make their own choices about their own health. We can't let that happen. Those choices should always be made by those that make their living off of the athlete's accomplishments. (team owners, sponsors, media, etc.).

[/sarcasm]
pacificaslim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-09, 07:37 AM   #6
MDcatV
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 6,760
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
comparing PED use among athletes to movie stars or bodybuilders turned governors is a weak analogy at best.
MDcatV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-09, 07:42 AM   #7
grolby
Senior Member
 
grolby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BOSTON BABY
Bikes:
Posts: 9,216
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacificaslim View Post
Oh sure, it'd be crazy stupid to allow athletes to make their own choices about their own health. We can't let that happen. Those choices should always be made by those that make their living off of the athlete's accomplishments. (team owners, sponsors, media, etc.).

[/sarcasm]
If you think that an athlete's choice of using PEDs is about health, well, FAIL.
grolby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-09, 11:18 AM   #8
JaRow
trois, mon frère
 
JaRow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Gainesville/Miami, FL
Bikes: '01 Gary Fisher Wahoo, '08 Giant TCR C2
Posts: 576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Athletes, regardless of what they claim, are usually chasing the money. The best athletes get the most money. The easiest way to get really good is to dope. By allowing doping you are basically accepting that almost everyone will dope. The result of this is that we will have new athletes every 5 yrs because the old ones died in their sleep. You'll have a higher turnover than TGI Fridays.
JaRow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-09, 11:37 AM   #9
MattDC
ITTETAYHSMB
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Bikes:
Posts: 194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
To OP: Should Doping Be Allowed? [NYT] : True?
MattDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-09, 11:44 AM   #10
wanders
going roundy round
 
wanders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: High Point, NC
Bikes:
Posts: 6,081
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Mr. 70 percent awaits.
wanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-09, 02:34 PM   #11
MitchellH
I am the engine
Thread Starter
 
MitchellH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Bikes:
Posts: 549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattDC View Post
To OP: Should Doping Be Allowed? [NYT] : True?
In my opinion, yes. Ultimately, the war on doping (like the wars on drugs and terror) is unwinnable.

No matter what tests they develop, there will always be a way to fool the tests. IMO, athletes ought to be able to decide for themselves what means (along with the concurrent risks) they are willing to avail themselves in their pursuit of excellence.

This nanny state idea that people need to be protected from themselves is ludicrous. If we own anything, we own our own bodies and what one put in their own body is no one else's business. Period.

If this policy means that some will take drugs that may harm themselves with, so be it. I don't see a lot of people advocating making donuts illegal and I bet they kill a whole lot more people than doping ever has.
MitchellH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-09, 02:52 PM   #12
erader
Senior Member
 
erader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: silicon valley
Bikes:
Posts: 1,774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MitchellH View Post
In my opinion, yes. Ultimately, the war on doping (like the wars on drugs and terror) is unwinnable.
No matter what tests they develop, there will always be a way to fool the tests. IMO, athletes ought to be able to decide for themselves what means (along with the concurrent risks) they are willing to avail themselves in their pursuit of excellence.

This nanny state idea that people need to be protected from themselves is ludicrous. If we own anything, we own our own bodies and what one put in their own body is no one else's business. Period.

If this policy means that some will take drugs that may harm themselves with, so be it. I don't see a lot of people advocating making donuts illegal and I bet they kill a whole lot more people than doping ever has.
+1

it's the witch hunt not the drugs that's killing the sport. these guys have always doped and always will. stop the witch hunt and *poof* doping goes away .

ed rader
erader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-09, 09:07 PM   #13
Creakyknees
ride lots be safe
 
Creakyknees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Texas
Bikes:
Posts: 5,186
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
+1

I am pro-doping, if you want to call it that. They're over 18, they are old enough to sign a pro contract, they have attorneys / agents advising them, let 'em make their own decisions.
Creakyknees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-09, 09:42 PM   #14
grolby
Senior Member
 
grolby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BOSTON BABY
Bikes:
Posts: 9,216
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MitchellH View Post
In my opinion, yes. Ultimately, the war on doping (like the wars on drugs and terror) is unwinnable.
...and therefore not worth fighting? What a piss-poor attitude to have. Do you think that the war on drugs is not worth fighting because it's unwinnable? Funny, I thought it was because it did more harm than good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MitchellH View Post
No matter what tests they develop, there will always be a way to fool the tests. IMO, athletes ought to be able to decide for themselves what means (along with the concurrent risks) they are willing to avail themselves in their pursuit of excellence.
So finding the doctor (and paying him or her enough) to get the best mix of drugs is the pursuit of excellence? Having a body that responds more effectively to PED's is a better measure of excellence than actual athletic ability? FWIW, athletes already are deciding for themselves. The question is whether we see this as a legitimate aspect of competition. We should not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MitchellH View Post
This nanny state idea that people need to be protected from themselves is ludicrous. If we own anything, we own our own bodies and what one put in their own body is no one else's business. Period.
WTF does "nanny state" anything have to do with it? This is about a lot more than protecting the health of riders, though that's important too. It's about the legitimacy of the competition. It's about results that are not fraudulent. If what I am putting in my body is affecting the livelihood of others in a competitive business, it damn well IS their business. No one is an island.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MitchellH View Post
If this policy means that some will take drugs that may harm themselves with, so be it. I don't see a lot of people advocating making donuts illegal and I bet they kill a whole lot more people than doping ever has.
Analogy FAIL. First of all, to say that donuts kill anyone is absurd. Some people have a diet and lifestyle that puts them at greater risk of heart disease, but this is a matter of habits, not of single, identifiable products. Donuts are not linked to obesity-related life-threatening illness in the way that cigarettes are linked to lung cancer. You could have a serious weight-related health problem without ever having picked up a donut in your life. Furthermore, donuts are consumed with the presumption that they are food, that the individual ingredients are known to be safe, that the short and long-term health effects of the consumption of these ingredients are known. Still further, no one has yet demonstrated any performance-enhancing effects on the physiology of athletes that can be linked to donut consumption. What an idiotic comparison to make.

The whole argument for making doping legal and acknowledged is foolish, short-sighted and incredibly selfish. Doping is bad for the sport. It's bad for riders: young riders coming into the sport who don't want to take chances on their health or who simply don't want to get tangled up in that kind of culture find themselves in an untenable position. This is actually one of the major points for me: for riders who want to be competitive, there is in fact no "choice" at all. Presenting the issue as if riders can simply choose to take the risk or not, at their leisure, is moronic. I'll take the never-ending battle to catch and punish cheaters over saying "F You" to talented riders who don't want to enter a sport with that kind of 'at all costs' culture. Cycling should be good for the body and mind. A doping culture is a negative culture.

Doping is bad for the spirit of athletic competition. Do we want athletes competing against each other, pitting their natural talents, their training and their mental fortitude against each other, or do we want a competition between the most effective drug program, which bodies best adapt to large doses of expensive drugs (which aren't intended for use by healthy people)? That sounds dreadful to me. Not to mention how boring it is to watch doped-up athletes competing.

Doping is bad for sponsorship. Whether or not it's "fair" to the dopers (I can't believe we are so anxious to protect the rights of cheaters to use drugs), it sends money away from the sport in droves. Results accomplished with the use of PEDs are fraudulent. That really hurts the sponsors, and even if drug use were universal in the peleton - a horrifying circumstance even to imagine - there will always be questions about what might have happened if only an athlete's program had been managed differently.

What about doctors and teams who will discard ethics to dose their riders to unsafe levels in the pursuit of better results? If you think the riders who dope are actually going to be making the choices about what they put into their bodies, and at what dosages, you're a hopeless idiot. Making rules about giving riders the right information and safe dosages only introduces more rules to be broken and to cause enforcement challenges. We're talking about huge risks to the health of athletes, no prospect for any funding for the sport, and no opportunities for riders who want to race without participating in a diseased culture of doping. That's not even to mention the way that such a move would open the gates to trickle-down into the amateur ranks. It happens with technology and style, it WILL happen with doping. This is already a problem. Making doping illegal would make it much, much worse. EPO, HGH and testosterone in the juniors? Ugh, no thank you.

Advocating for legal doping is short-sighted, stupid and incredibly irresponsible. Ultimately it would not solve any problems, but it would make our sport a despicable shadow of its former self. Shame on all of you.
grolby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-09, 09:58 PM   #15
enjoi07
Senior Member
 
enjoi07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: san diego
Bikes: custom caad9
Posts: 2,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by grolby View Post
Doping is bad for the spirit of athletic competition. Do we want athletes competing against each other, pitting their natural talents, their training and their mental fortitude against each other, or do we want a competition between the most effective drug program, which bodies best adapt to large doses of expensive drugs (which aren't intended for use by healthy people)? That sounds dreadful to me. Not to mention how boring it is to watch doped-up athletes competing.
race radio, power taps, space legs, altitude tents, etc....natural? mental?.....fair?
enjoi07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-09, 10:07 PM   #16
pacificaslim
Surf Bum
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pacifica, CA
Bikes: Lapierre Pulsium 500 FdJ, Ritchey breakaway cyclocross, vintage trek mtb.
Posts: 2,170
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I've always been puzzled by this claim that doping makes winners out of those who responded better to the drugs than others. First, I don't know if there is any actual data backing up this "super resonder" theory, but regardless, all athletes respond different to the legal training as well. So what's the difference? Two guys can ride the same program coming into the season and come out of it with drastically different results. Two guys can eat the same diet and one will be benefit from it more than the other. Two guys can have totally different "natural" levels of blood chemistry and other important factors. And so on...

Last edited by pacificaslim; 05-08-09 at 10:12 PM.
pacificaslim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-09, 10:28 PM   #17
epenthetic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Bikes:
Posts: 158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Man, these topics bring them out of the woodwork even more than Cannondale 'Made in USA' threads do.

More to the point, yes, you do need to protect people from themselves, because most people are really stupid and will spend most of their time impinging their personal sense of risk upon the safety and security of others.
epenthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-09, 11:03 PM   #18
grolby
Senior Member
 
grolby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BOSTON BABY
Bikes:
Posts: 9,216
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by enjoi07 View Post
race radio, power taps, space legs, altitude tents, etc....natural? mental?.....fair?
Leaving aside radios, everything you've mentioned takes advantage of normal physiological adaptations to environmental conditions. The effects are based upon endogenous physiological properties, rather than the introduction of exogenous materials intended to artificially induce the same changes, often to a much greater extent than is possible with the other techniques you mention. There is no naturalistic fallacy here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacificaslim
First, I don't know if there is any actual data backing up this "super resonder" theory, but regardless, all athletes respond different to the legal training as well. So what's the difference?
There's plenty of data. Different people respond in differing degrees to any drug you can think of. The difference is that, when athletes compete, the factors contributing to their performance should be those that are relevant and most fair to other riders - the ability to respond to legal training should be relevant. The ability to respond to a cancer treatment drug should not. I think we can all agree that riders have different physical gifts - is that "fair"? Maybe not, but it beats the alternative, for all the reasons I gave below. Riders have to train anyway, doping or not. Adding another, very harmful dimension on top of that doesn't seem fair or wise. Ultimately, training is the one thing that riders can control. To have the training of riders who do not get as much of a benefit from the drugs rendered irrelevant to their results strikes me as much less fair than the fact that we don't all start out with the same abilities to begin with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by epenthetic
More to the point, yes, you do need to protect people from themselves, because most people are really stupid and will spend most of their time impinging their personal sense of risk upon the safety and security of others.
This. "Informed risk" is all fine and dandy in Happy Libertarian Fantasy World, but in the REAL world, doping represents a major threat to everyone who races, especially at the highest levels, not just to those who choose to dope (in fact, the biggest threat is to riders who want to race clean but would be, ironically, denied that choice under the "let the athletes choose whether to dope" model). That's the most unfair point at all, which I raised in my previous post, and I haven't seen anybody address it yet.

Last edited by grolby; 05-08-09 at 11:08 PM.
grolby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-09, 12:48 AM   #19
jwbnyc
Señor Wences
 
jwbnyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,035
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Very much so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by grolby View Post
That's weapons-grade stupid, there.
jwbnyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-09, 04:11 AM   #20
pacificaslim
Surf Bum
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pacifica, CA
Bikes: Lapierre Pulsium 500 FdJ, Ritchey breakaway cyclocross, vintage trek mtb.
Posts: 2,170
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by grolby View Post
This. "Informed risk" is all fine and dandy in Happy Libertarian Fantasy World, but in the REAL world, doping represents a major threat to everyone who races, especially at the highest levels, not just to those who choose to dope (in fact, the biggest threat is to riders who want to race clean but would be, ironically, denied that choice under the "let the athletes choose whether to dope" model). That's the most unfair point at all, which I raised in my previous post, and I haven't seen anybody address it yet.
This is indeed a very strong argument for strong anti-PED enforcement. Some "sports" have addressed this by having different competitions for "natural" athletes. I just wonder whether it's totally clear that the modern style "doping" is truly any more harmful to the athletes than the rest of the things they do to themselves legally in pursuit of cycling glory. After all, everyone's favorite whipping boy appears to have beaten cancer, remained healthy enough to cycle at the top level into his late 30s, and even miraculously impregnated a girl with his previously declared sterile juan pelota despite all the dangerous PEDs he's accused/suspected of having used.

Furthermore, curiously those who make the argument that non-dopers simply can't do well against dopers are often of the camp who believe a certain 3-time tour champ and (now 2nd) fastest Tour time trial rider of all time beat everyone cleanly.

The whole thing is a total mess.
pacificaslim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-09, 05:19 AM   #21
JBBOOKS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 233
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It's always easier to surrender than to fight. Appeasement is a sad basis for personal values.
JBBOOKS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-09, 05:23 AM   #22
MitchellH
I am the engine
Thread Starter
 
MitchellH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Bikes:
Posts: 549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBBOOKS View Post
It's always easier to surrender than to fight. Appeasement is a sad basis for personal values.
Actually, fighting an unwinnable war is a stupid strategy. Protecting people from themselves is the epitome of a nanny state. Cuba or N. Korea anyone?

People should be free to make their own choices and live with the consequences of those choices.
MitchellH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-09, 07:44 AM   #23
grolby
Senior Member
 
grolby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BOSTON BABY
Bikes:
Posts: 9,216
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MitchellH View Post
Actually, fighting an unwinnable war is a stupid strategy. Protecting people from themselves is the epitome of a nanny state. Cuba or N. Korea anyone?

People should be free to make their own choices and live with the consequences of those choices.
Again, in a fantasy world where each person is an island, where The Almight Free Market never fails, where people always receive all the information they need to make an informed decision AND are competent to do so - this is a fine idea. But we don't live in that world. Reality is not going to conform to your foolish ideas, no matter how much you insist upon it.

See, in the Real World, peoples' actions have consequences that affect people other than themselves, the market is ultimately a collection of brains who do NOT always make the right decision, information is often withheld from people who need it, and whether it is or not, many people are not competent to make a good decision with it - see item 1 about consequences to understand why this is a bad thing.

I've given several reasons that free doping is a bad idea, and instead of addressing them, you've chanted "nanny state," which is bizarre since we're not talking about politics of state, or indeed, about politics at all. Sporting organizations need rules in order to survive, and sports need to have certain ethical standards in order to have any credibility with the public and with sponsors and to preserve any sense of fairness or safety for all athletes under their umbrella. Some people have mentioned professional weightlifting, with an "open" class allowing the use of PEDs as an example. Are people not paying attention? That is not a success story. Idiotic talking points aside, protecting athletes is part of what governing bodies are supposed to do. Personally, I'd rather see them do a better job than they are doing now.

Hey, I get it - constantly hearing about doping cases is frustrating when we would much rather be simply enjoying the sport, but the alternative is much, much worse. Fortunately, the people running the UCI, WADA, the IOC, etc, are smarter than the "make doping legal!" bobblehead contingent on at least that one subject. The fight against doping will never end, but it's worth fighting, and it's completely necessary. The argument that we would be better off without it is so much empty-headed, insane nonsense.
grolby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-09, 09:05 AM   #24
MitchellH
I am the engine
Thread Starter
 
MitchellH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Bikes:
Posts: 549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by grolby View Post
Again, in a fantasy world where each person is an island, where The Almight Free Market never fails, where people always receive all the information they need to make an informed decision AND are competent to do so - this is a fine idea. But we don't live in that world. Reality is not going to conform to your foolish ideas, no matter how much you insist upon it.

See, in the Real World, peoples' actions have consequences that affect people other than themselves, the market is ultimately a collection of brains who do NOT always make the right decision, information is often withheld from people who need it, and whether it is or not, many people are not competent to make a good decision with it - see item 1 about consequences to understand why this is a bad thing.

I've given several reasons that free doping is a bad idea, and instead of addressing them, you've chanted "nanny state," which is bizarre since we're not talking about politics of state, or indeed, about politics at all. Sporting organizations need rules in order to survive, and sports need to have certain ethical standards in order to have any credibility with the public and with sponsors and to preserve any sense of fairness or safety for all athletes under their umbrella. Some people have mentioned professional weightlifting, with an "open" class allowing the use of PEDs as an example. Are people not paying attention? That is not a success story. Idiotic talking points aside, protecting athletes is part of what governing bodies are supposed to do. Personally, I'd rather see them do a better job than they are doing now.

Hey, I get it - constantly hearing about doping cases is frustrating when we would much rather be simply enjoying the sport, but the alternative is much, much worse. Fortunately, the people running the UCI, WADA, the IOC, etc, are smarter than the "make doping legal!" bobblehead contingent on at least that one subject. The fight against doping will never end, but it's worth fighting, and it's completely necessary. The argument that we would be better off without it is so much empty-headed, insane nonsense.
OK, one more time. You've given reasons why you think doping is a bad idea. And as far as you're concerned, as you think it such a bad idea, you should not dope. The idea that the state needs to protect people from themselves is ludicrous. If you do not own your own body you own nothing. In life people can and do make bad decisions and suffer the consequences of those bad decisions.

To say no man is an island is a useless truism. Surely your expelling CO2 affects me, do I have a right to tell you not to breathe? Of course not.

There will never be a way to develop doping tests that cannot be circumvented somehow. Why bother? Let adults make whatever decision they think best for themselves. If you do not want to dope, don't.

If your competitor does and beats you, so be it. I mean, if they get lasik surgery, is that performance enhancing? Where does the testing end? It never will. Let people decided for themselves what they want to do with their own bodies.

Was Manny not a better hitter while doping? A-Rod, McGuire, Sosa? In the end, doping tests just makes the whole thing a game of who can beat the tests. Let 'em have at it and juice all they want as far as I'm concerned. I'll enjoy the results as a fan...

Last edited by MitchellH; 05-09-09 at 09:15 AM.
MitchellH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-09, 09:30 AM   #25
Laggard
Lance Hater
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Bikes:
Posts: 4,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
I could not care less if they all dope or if none of them do or if some of them do. It's something I just don't pay attention to or lose sleep over.
Laggard is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:44 PM.