Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 66
  1. #1
    I am the engine MitchellH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    St. Petersburg, FL
    Posts
    549
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Should Doping Be Allowed? [NYT]

    Interesting article in this morning's NYT.
    I don't always exercise, but when I do, I prefer riding my bicycle...

  2. #2
    My idea of fun kensuf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Gainesville, FL
    My Bikes
    '06 Litespeed Tuscany, '02 Kona Lavadome, '07 Giant TCR Advanced, '07 Karate Monkey
    Posts
    9,754
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.
    Putting the Duh in Floriduh.

  3. #3
    Senior Member rankin116's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Troylet
    Posts
    3,737
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  4. #4
    Senior Member grolby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    BOSTON BABY
    Posts
    6,911
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  5. #5
    Surf Bum
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pacifica, CA
    My Bikes
    Vintage Trek, Vintage Diamond Back Mountain Bike, Bianchi Axis CrossBike
    Posts
    2,011
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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]

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    6,414
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    comparing PED use among athletes to movie stars or bodybuilders turned governors is a weak analogy at best.

  7. #7
    Senior Member grolby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    BOSTON BABY
    Posts
    6,911
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  8. #8
    trois, mon frère JaRow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Gainesville/Miami, FL
    My Bikes
    '01 Gary Fisher Wahoo, '08 Giant TCR C2
    Posts
    576
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  9. #9
    ITTETAYHSMB
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    194
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    To OP: Should Doping Be Allowed? [NYT] : True?

  10. #10
    going roundy round wanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    High Point, NC
    Posts
    6,050
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Mr. 70 percent awaits.
    Quote Originally Posted by CastIron View Post
    Damn.

  11. #11
    I am the engine MitchellH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    St. Petersburg, FL
    Posts
    549
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.
    I don't always exercise, but when I do, I prefer riding my bicycle...

  12. #12
    Senior Member erader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    silicon valley
    Posts
    1,774
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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
    Amgen Tour of California

    http://erader.zenfolio.com/f561244030

  13. #13
    ride lots be safe Creakyknees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,092
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.
    "have fun and be kind"
    - an internet post

  14. #14
    Senior Member grolby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    BOSTON BABY
    Posts
    6,911
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  15. #15
    Senior Member enjoi07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom caad9
    Posts
    2,965
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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?

  16. #16
    Surf Bum
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pacifica, CA
    My Bikes
    Vintage Trek, Vintage Diamond Back Mountain Bike, Bianchi Axis CrossBike
    Posts
    2,011
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  18. #18
    Senior Member grolby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    BOSTON BABY
    Posts
    6,911
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  19. #19
    Señor Wences jwbnyc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,041
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Very much so.

    Quote Originally Posted by grolby View Post
    That's weapons-grade stupid, there.

  20. #20
    Surf Bum
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pacifica, CA
    My Bikes
    Vintage Trek, Vintage Diamond Back Mountain Bike, Bianchi Axis CrossBike
    Posts
    2,011
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    233
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's always easier to surrender than to fight. Appeasement is a sad basis for personal values.

  22. #22
    I am the engine MitchellH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    St. Petersburg, FL
    Posts
    549
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.
    I don't always exercise, but when I do, I prefer riding my bicycle...

  23. #23
    Senior Member grolby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    BOSTON BABY
    Posts
    6,911
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  24. #24
    I am the engine MitchellH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    St. Petersburg, FL
    Posts
    549
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.
    I don't always exercise, but when I do, I prefer riding my bicycle...

  25. #25
    Lance Hater Laggard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    4,316
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.
    i may have overreacted

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •