Foo - Cheating and the cheating cheaters who cheat.

I remember a day 25 years ago as a second year medical student when I witnessed several students cheating during a pathology exam. Maybe I was naive but I truly was shocked someone would cheat in medical school. I lost my concentration wondering at the mindset of a cheater, would they need this information in the future? Would they cheat during their residency training ? Would it ever stop? Would patients die from their ignorance?
Now I realize this current mess of probable cheating does not affect one in the same way but it does make the entire world of pro cycling seem less interesting to me. It just disgusts me, the probable truth behind the findings and the never-ending lies that follow.
I wonder again at the mindset of the cheater. Do they really value what they know is a lie? Do they feel proud of their dishonestly gained trophy? Pathetic scumbags.

They value the money. Whether someone else dies or in any way loses is of no concern to them. It is called being a sociopath. And yes, doctors, lawyers, professional athletes can be sociopaths.

So, did you turn in your other students? Or are they now working as doctors likely screwing up a surgical procedure on someone's mother?

Where are these cheaters now?

Foo.

Where are these cheaters now?


Foo.

lol

So, did you turn in your other students? Or are they now working as doctors likely screwing up a surgical procedure on someone's mother?

Good question and I am not proud of my answer...no, I did not.

Good question and I am not proud of my answer...no, I did not.

Cheaters cheat because they know they will likely not get caught. It takes a lot of people to look the other way. We are all responsible for holding others accountable. I am sure you are older and wiser now and would be the first to turn someone in for something like this.

It's kind of like politics - innocent people often give it a try, but in order to succeed, you have to sell out sooner or later. They all rationalize it as a practical reality, that everyone else does it and so it's the only way to even play the game, etc. Cycling has participants that do everything possible to gain a performance advantage - the right equipment, the right training, diet, coaching, etc. They also live out on the edge of their human capabilities and my guess is that when it comes time to dope or not dope, many of them feel like they have no choice and that they have too many years invested in their sport/profession to give up now. Just to be clear, I am NOT saying they are victims and I am NOT trying to justify their behavior. I'm merely trying to consider the context of their decision.

I found their hide-out!

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?669624-Addiction/page1477

It's kind of like politics - innocent people often give it a try, but in order to succeed, you have to sell out sooner or later. They all rationalize it as a practical reality, that everyone else does it and so it's the only way to even play the game, etc. Cycling has participants that do everything possible to gain a performance advantage - the right equipment, the right training, diet, coaching, etc. They also live out on the edge of their human capabilities and my guess is that when it comes time to dope or not dope, many of them feel like they have no choice and that they have too many years invested in their sport/profession to give up now. Just to be clear, I am NOT saying they are victims and I am NOT trying to justify their behavior. I'm merely trying to consider the context of their decision.

Exactly. Everybody's doin' it.

I can honestly say I never cheated, I always had the opinion that the only one I was cheating was myself. Ethics and morals are more important than passing an exam or winning a race.

I can honestly say I never cheated, I always had the opinion that the only one I was cheating was myself. Ethics and morals are more important than passing an exam or winning a race.
I don't even think ethics or morals necessarily factor into it.

My sense is that cheating is bad, but that's not the reason I never did it. It's because it's only a temporary solution and ultimately undermines your ability to get things done. When you cheat, you deprive yourself of your true objectives as well as tools you need later. Celebrating something achieved by cheating is like trying to convince yourself you rode a fast century when you took an easy pace and a 40 mile shortcut.

Besides, there are enough idiots in the world already. The last thing we need is people who need to fake even that. I have no problem with people taking shortcuts that they're open about. But I won't work with cheats if I can avoid it.

I found their hide-out!

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?669624-Addiction/page1477

hey I resemble that remark!

I don't even think ethics or morals necessarily factor into it.

My sense is that cheating is bad, but that's not the reason I never did it. It's because it's only a temporary solution and ultimately undermines your ability to get things done. When you cheat, you deprive yourself of your true objectives as well as tools you need later. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the field in any high profile pro race is completely doped, then a person wanting to participate in that event will see doping as a requirement and not as cheating. It's an alternate/parallel reality - they all say its clean and the public wants to believe it, but they all know the real truth and play by different rules. Again, not saying this is good or acceptable...

I don't even think ethics or morals necessarily factor into it.

My sense is that cheating is bad, but that's not the reason I never did it. It's because it's only a temporary solution and ultimately undermines your ability to get things done. When you cheat, you deprive yourself of your true objectives as well as tools you need later. Celebrating something achieved by cheating is like trying to convince yourself you rode a fast century when you took an easy pace and a 40 mile shortcut.

Besides, there are enough idiots in the world already. The last thing we need is people who need to fake even that. I have no problem with people taking shortcuts that they're open about. But I won't work with cheats if I can avoid it.


That sounds a lot like ethics and morals to me.

I don't even think ethics or morals necessarily factor into it.

My sense is that cheating is bad,.

That "sense" that it is bad is what I call ethics and morals and yeah, they have a lot to do with it.

I can honestly say I never cheated, I always had the opinion that the only one I was cheating was myself. Ethics and morals are more important than passing an exam or winning a race.

Correct!

Since cheating is cheating in regard to morals or ethics, it's still not road cycling material. Welcome to Foo from Road.

Now I realize this current mess of probable cheating does not affect one in the same way but it does make the entire world of pro cycling seem less interesting to me. It just disgusts me, the probable truth behind the findings and the never-ending lies that follow.
I wonder again at the mindset of the cheater. Do they really value what they know is a lie? Do they feel proud of their dishonestly gained trophy? Pathetic scumbags.


Personally I'm a little less judgemental about this than you seem to be. I'm not excusing those who break the rules, but I think one has to remember that the rules are quite arbitrary, and the lines that are drawn between the best possible nutrition and illegal supplementation, or between medication against injury and performance enhancing dope, are very fine and sometimes change. So it is pretty easy for me to see that sometimes the rules might not make much sense. Let's say I discovered that a particular combination of foodstuffs delivered a pronounced metabolic benefit and helped me increase lean muscle more rapidly. I wouldn't be cheating by eating those foods (they aren't on any banned list) and I wouldn't be under any obligation to tell others about what I'd found, or about what my diet was. But I would be gaining an advantage over them that wasn't down to my naturally superior talent, or to my working harder than them. Is the ethics of that really any different from doping? Or is doping not wrong in principle, but only because it's against the rules? And if the latter, wouldn't the easiest way to level the playing field be simply to change the rules?

As for the psychology, I don't think they believe they are being dishonest in any meaningful sense. In the first place, it's an arms race - he's doing it, it would be unfair and disadvantageous to me if I didn't do it too. In the second place, not all doping is obviously wrong. Using growth hormone to speed recovery from injury to a muscle, for example. Would that be cheating were it possible to manage the dosage so it only returned the muscle to where it was pre-injury, and was then discontinued? That would just be medicine, right? I wouldn't feel that was dishonest, I'd just feel I was getting back into competition as fast as possible. So the only thing wrong with it, again, is not a matter of principle but just of the application of an arbitrary rule.

I'm not in favour of cheating, but the issues here are not as clear-cut as some would like to believe.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the field in any high profile pro race is completely doped, then a person wanting to participate in that event will see doping as a requirement and not as cheating. It's an alternate/parallel reality - they all say its clean and the public wants to believe it, but they all know the real truth and play by different rules. Again, not saying this is good or acceptable...

Things get a bit fuzzier when you get into the realm of alternate realities. If the reality is that everyone's doping but they can't publicly admit it, there may be no harm in that, and it's actually a screw job if they crucify a few individuals for doing what everyone does.

I have no opinion of what constitutes cheating in professional sports. It's just entertainment, and frankly I don't care what they do. On the rare occasions when I watch, I want to see good competition. If a team wins through a technicality or by sitting on the ball, I see nothing worth celebrating.



That sounds a lot like ethics and morals to me.

Not really. Do you want a doc working on you who had to cheat his way through medical school? Do you want that computer program that your business depends on for its survival to be written by someone who couldn't do the same work as everyone else? Would you trust your life to antilock braking systems designed by people who couldn't even understand the stuff that was already designed when they were learning? It's a very practical problem.

Professionals who cheat are not competent to perform at the level they want others to believe, plain and simple. I've encountered people in high level positions with abysmal knowledge of their own domain, and presume most other people here have as well. I seek people who I can learn from and who will help me be better at what I do. No one's going to learn much from someone who's not up to scratch.

That "sense" that it is bad is what I call ethics and morals and yeah, they have a lot to do with it.

Yes and no. Deception can be a moral issue, but it doesn't have to be. Acting on beliefs that aren't true (i.e. the inevitable result of deception) causes practical problems for both the deceiver and the deceived.

Personally I'm a little less judgemental about this than you seem to be. wouldn't the easiest way to level the playing field be simply to change the rules?..........................................................................
I'm not in favour of cheating, but the issues here are not as clear-cut as some would like to believe.

Yeah, really you are in favor of cheating as you fail to be able to distinguish right from wrong.

When I was in college I saw a friend of mine cheat in an exam when the professor wasn't looking. He basically looked at the exam paper of another friend (while she was horrified that the professor might see them both.)

Somehow, my perfection of that friend was changed and I was never too warm of him after that.

Let's say I discovered that a particular combination of foodstuffs delivered a pronounced metabolic benefit and helped me increase lean muscle more rapidly. I wouldn't be cheating by eating those foods (they aren't on any banned list) and I wouldn't be under any obligation to tell others about what I'd found, or about what my diet was. But I would be gaining an advantage over them that wasn't down to my naturally superior talent, or to my working harder than them. Is the ethics of that really any different from doping?
I agree with much of what you say about the ambiguities and gray areas, but not the section I have quoted. There is a distinction between eating food and taking drugs, and just because they both go through our mouths doesn't mean they are the same. Moreover, that others haven't discovered the magical mixture of food does indeed give you an advantage, but it's a fair advantage - they are free to discover that mixture themselves, or even a better one. It's important to remember that it's not a win-at-all-costs sport, otherwise it would be legal to physically knock over competitors, etc.

I copied this response from another poster's computer.

It's kind of like politics - innocent people often give it a try, but in order to succeed, you have to sell out sooner or later. They all rationalize it as a practical reality, that everyone else does it and so it's the only way to even play the game, etc. Cycling has participants that do everything possible to gain a performance advantage - the right equipment, the right training, diet, coaching, etc. They also live out on the edge of their human capabilities and my guess is that when it comes time to dope or not dope, many of them feel like they have no choice and that they have too many years invested in their sport/profession to give up now. Just to be clear, I am NOT saying they are victims and I am NOT trying to justify their behavior. I'm merely trying to consider the context of their decision.

I was just going to say this. And again, not saying it's okay, but it's worth trying to understand why someone would do something like this.

It's easy to view them as evil cheating monsters, but that's likely not the case. It's probably a gradual process in which they work like hell to compete at the pro level, learn that others are using some kind of chemical enhancement, and feel that this is the reality of competing in the sport.

Imagine the sacrifices these guys make just to get near pro-level. They've given up their college years, so this is pretty much all they know how to do. Then they learn that doping is how it's done. And they know you can't take HUGE amounts of the stuff or you'll be easily caught, so they might think that taking just a bit to keep the edge is acceptable. Lots of guys roll the dice, and now a lot are getting caught.

It may be that we are not witnessing a destruction of the integrity of the sport.
We may be witnessing the sport for real for the first time. a pulling back of the curtain on what really goes on.

I copied this response from another poster's computer.

I think a lot of people do it because they have to.

If you came into a sport not wanting to cheat, but kept getting beat by cheaters.... Wouldn't you want to cheat too?

I don't even think ethics or morals necessarily factor into it.

My sense is that cheating is bad, but that's not the reason I never did it. It's because it's only a temporary solution and ultimately undermines your ability to get things done. When you cheat, you deprive yourself of your true objectives as well as tools you need later. Celebrating something achieved by cheating is like trying to convince yourself you rode a fast century when you took an easy pace and a 40 mile shortcut.

Besides, there are enough idiots in the world already. The last thing we need is people who need to fake even that. I have no problem with people taking shortcuts that they're open about. But I won't work with cheats if I can avoid it.

Bolding mine.

It seems to me a lot of cheating starts in areas where there is at least a perception that this does not apply. Tests on things unrelated to a persons goals and that they think they will never use once out of class. Sometimes they are right about this evaluation, sometimes they are wrong. But once they cheat the barrier is broken or at least reduced and often it is not long until they are cheating on thing that will reduce their future abilities in areas they care about.

I agree with much of what you say about the ambiguities and gray areas, but not the section I have quoted. There is a distinction between eating food and taking drugs, and just because they both go through our mouths doesn't mean they are the same.

What exactly is the difference? Food is natural, and drugs synthetic? That distinction doesn't hold. Some stimulants are natural but banned, other substances are synthetic but legal. it's merely a choice about what to make illegal, and that is not the same as saying that one thing is of a different kind than another. Laws change.


Moreover, that others haven't discovered the magical mixture of food does indeed give you an advantage, but it's a fair advantage - they are free to discover that mixture themselves, or even a better one.

Then why not allow everyone to be free to experiment with what medication works best for them?


It's important to remember that it's not a win-at-all-costs sport, otherwise it would be legal to physically knock over competitors, etc.

That too is a matter of rules, not of right and wrong.

Yeah, really you are in favor of cheating as you fail to be able to distinguish right from wrong.

I think the failure to be able to make distinctions is all yours. Right and wrong is not the same as legal and illegal. Or do you think that every time the law changes, something that was wrong becomes right and vice versa? Why don't you try addressing the arguments rather than just asserting that you are self-evidently right? Or should that be, self-righteous?

I think the failure to be able to make distinctions is all yours. Right and wrong is not the same as legal and illegal. Or do you think that every time the law changes, something that was wrong becomes right and vice versa? Why don't you try addressing the arguments rather than just asserting that you are self-evidently right? Or should that be, self-righteous?

The arguments are the problem. Right and wrong are evident. You know that to cheat is wrong ....period. The blather that follows is simply intellectual garbage excusing what is clearly...WRONG.
This is why Contador will loose his Tour this year.

The arguments are the problem. Right and wrong are evident. You know that to cheat is wrong ....period. The blather that follows is simply intellectual garbage excusing what is clearly...WRONG.
This is why Contador will loose his Tour this year.

Ah, so the issue here is that you want questions of right and wrong to be simple and clear, and are unwilling to subject your presumptions about what is ethical to any intellectual analysis. Sorry about that. Tell me, by what objective standard do you judge your ethics to be superior to mine, and how does that work?

What exactly is the difference? Food is natural, and drugs synthetic? That distinction doesn't hold. Some stimulants are natural but banned, other substances are synthetic but legal. it's merely a choice about what to make illegal, and that is not the same as saying that one thing is of a different kind than another. Laws change.



Then why not allow everyone to be free to experiment with what medication works best for them?



That too is a matter of rules, not of right and wrong.
Yes, the rules are arbitrary - I get it. All sports have to have rules, otherwise there is no longer a sport, but just a bunch of people doing something together. And, while the distinction between food and drugs are often ambiguous, you seem to be suggesting that just because there is a gray area between food and some drugs, that all drugs should therefore be acceptable. If that is not your point, then you are also stuck with deciding where to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable drugs.

Regarding the question of whether or not to allow people to experiment with drugs/medication, my answer is that it is probably too dangerous for most people to do without expert guidance. Most competitive athletes are not pros and do not have access to expert care, but many of them still like to use the same gear and training techniques, so it stands to reason that they would also experiment on themselves. I'm not a big proponent of protecting people from themselves, but this seems too dangerous to me.

Ah, so .... Tell me, by what objective standard do you judge your ethics to be superior to mine, and how does that work?

By the clear evidence that you seem unable to view a dishonest act for what it is......that is wrong.

Yes, the rules are arbitrary - I get it. All sports have to have rules, otherwise there is no longer a sport, but just a bunch of people doing something together. And, while the distinction between food and drugs are often ambiguous, you seem to be suggesting that just because there is a gray area between food and some drugs, that all drugs should therefore be acceptable. If that is not your point, then you are also stuck with deciding where to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable drugs.

This is a perfectly reasonable point. I'm not just pointing out that the line between suplementation and PEDs is arbitrary, but also that it changes and can sometimes make little sense. And we can add into the mix the fact that it is very difficult to police, and that laws which cannot be enforced give rise to more unfairness than no laws at all, because those who comply are placed at a disadvantage. So I don't think I am stuck with deciding where to draw the line, because it may be fairer, and no less ethical, to decide to draw no line at all.


Regarding the question of whether or not to allow people to experiment with drugs/medication, my answer is that it is probably too dangerous for most people to do without expert guidance. Most competitive athletes are not pros and do not have access to expert care, but many of them still like to use the same gear and training techniques, so it stands to reason that they would also experiment on themselves. I'm not a big proponent of protecting people from themselves, but this seems too dangerous to me.Again, perfectly sensible point. Personally I'm not worried about adults, they can choose and there would quickly be hundreds of doctors advertising their services for this purpose in much the same way as there are now plastic surgeons encouraging people to undergo unnnecessary and potentially dangerous cosmetic procedures. We don't seem to worry about that, and of course there is already massive drug abuse in lots of sports without medical supervision. Have you been to a hard-core gym lately? So I don't think abandoning prohibition would expose people to much more risk than they are running already, and it might actually make it safer by opening it up to regulation.

I'd be more worried about the physical consequences for growing kids, in a world in which some parents are already stupid enough to ask for HGH to be prescribed just because little Johnnie is a couple of inches below average height. I'd suggest an absolute ban on PEDs for under 18s, ruthless testing at junior events and lifetime bans for anyone who failed, plus being struck off the medical register for those who prescribed or jail for those who procured the kids' drugs. Then when they're old enough to decide they want to go onto a supplementation regime, they can decide. Not a perfect solution but better, imo, than we have now.

I think people recoil from drugs in sport principally because they feel it is unnatural. We have a gut feeling that the winners should be those who have the greatest inborn talent or have worked the hardest to maximise the talent they have. Introducing "artificial" substances to help that process feels somehow wrong. But when asked why it is wrong, people typically find it difficult to say. I think their reaction is similar to that of traditionalists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to professionalism in sport. Sport was supposed to be sport, not work. It was unfair that gifted amateurs, who were playing on the basis of their native talent but little training, should be outclassed by professionals who did nothing else. Training all the time was "unnatural" as well as unfair - and, incidentally, professionalism provided a route whereby the less wealthy could compete on equal terms, which heightened the disdain of the upper classes. It's only within my lifetime that the major tennis championships went pro, and the Olympics followed suit even later.

I think our current stance on PEDs is unworkable and leads to more unfairness than it solves. In years to come it will be regarded as having been the same sort of naivété as the cult of amateurism. In sport, as in the rest of life, prohibition doesn't work. We should do something more sensible instead. Things that are conducted openly are generally safer and better regulated than things we drive underground.

I'd be more worried about the physical consequences for growing kids, in a world in which some parents are already stupid enough to ask for HGH to be prescribed just because little Johnnie is a couple of inches below average height. I'd suggest an absolute ban on PEDs for under 18s, ruthless testing at junior events and lifetime bans for anyone who failed, plus being struck off the medical register for those who prescribed or jail for those who procured the kids' drugs.
Not such a horrible idea. When I ran track almost 30 years ago, I knew guys who took steroids. The guys who doped consistently won and I finished well behind them. BTW, they did this without their parents' knowledge as far as I know. It never bothered me at the time since I didn't care about results that much (which is good because I sucked) and didn't want to put crap in my body. But I doubt they'd have a chance against me today.

By the clear evidence that you seem unable to view a dishonest act for what it is......that is wrong.

There's really no point in discussing this with you, since you don't appear to understand the concept of sound or valid arguments. Do you even know the difference, I wonder? Arguing that something is wrong because it's just...wrong wouldn't convince a five year-old, in my experience, and it shouldn't. Children should be encouraged to think for themselves a little more than that.

What is right and wrong is contextual. What if it is the rules themselves that are "wrong"? Wouldn't disobeying them then be "right"? It is, at least, debatable and it isn't just an abstract piece of intellectualisation. Slavish adherence to laws that are counterproductive, or contrary to what you might call natural justice, have cost lots of people their lives from time to time, and still do.

This is a perfectly reasonable point. I'm not just pointing out that the line between suplementation and PEDs is arbitrary, but also that it changes and can sometimes make little sense. And we can add into the mix the fact that it is very difficult to police, and that laws which cannot be enforced give rise to more unfairness than no laws at all, because those who comply are placed at a disadvantage. So I don't think I am stuck with deciding where to draw the line, because it may be fairer, and no less ethical, to decide to draw no line at all.

Again, perfectly sensible point. Personally I'm not worried about adults, they can choose and there would quickly be hundreds of doctors advertising their services for this purpose in much the same way as there are now plastic surgeons encouraging people to undergo unnnecessary and potentially dangerous cosmetic procedures. We don't seem to worry about that, and of course there is already massive drug abuse in lots of sports without medical supervision. Have you been to a hard-core gym lately? So I don't think abandoning prohibition would expose people to much more risk than they are running already, and it might actually make it safer by opening it up to regulation.

I'd be more worried about the physical consequences for growing kids, in a world in which some parents are already stupid enough to ask for HGH to be prescribed just because little Johnnie is a couple of inches below average height. I'd suggest an absolute ban on PEDs for under 18s, ruthless testing at junior events and lifetime bans for anyone who failed, plus being struck off the medical register for those who prescribed or jail for those who procured the kids' drugs. Then when they're old enough to decide they want to go onto a supplementation regime, they can decide. Not a perfect solution but better, imo, than we have now.

I think people recoil from drugs in sport principally because they feel it is unnatural. We have a gut feeling that the winners should be those who have the greatest inborn talent or have worked the hardest to maximise the talent they have. Introducing "artificial" substances to help that process feels somehow wrong. But when asked why it is wrong, people typically find it difficult to say. I think their reaction is similar to that of traditionalists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to professionalism in sport. Sport was supposed to be sport, not work. It was unfair that gifted amateurs, who were playing on the basis of their native talent but little training, should be outclassed by professionals who did nothing else. Training all the time was "unnatural" as well as unfair - and, incidentally, professionalism provided a route whereby the less wealthy could compete on equal terms, which heightened the disdain of the upper classes. It's only within my lifetime that the major tennis championships went pro, and the Olympics followed suit even later.

I think our current stance on PEDs is unworkable and leads to more unfairness than it solves. In years to come it will be regarded as having been the same sort of naivété as the cult of amateurism. In sport, as in the rest of life, prohibition doesn't work. We should do something more sensible instead. Things that are conducted openly are generally safer and better regulated than things we drive underground.
Coupla things...

While many people might have a difficult time explaining why they don't want drugs in sport, and while I agree that "natural" can be ambiguous, I don't think an inability to persuasively describe one's distaste for the use of PED in sports means that there isn't a fundamental and legitimate reason to keep them out. Even though athletes have become more sophisticated and better conditioned than in the past, I think most (or almost all) people who participate in an endurance sport, and even those who watch them, have a innate expectation that the sport is a fundamental test of one's physical and mental conditioning against the course and other competitors. My point is that I think most people instinctively understand that the use of PEDs cheapens the very thing that they find attractive in the first place about an endurance sport. Endurance sports are often about overcoming what initially seem to be incredible odds just to finish. For example, my background is in triathlons and when the Hawaiian Ironman first began to be televised back in the 1980s, it captured the imagination of many people (like me) who were incredulous that a person could do such a thing. Yes, it would be easier to do an Ironman with PEDs, but that pretty much misses the whole point in doing it.

With regard to doctors offering their services and comparing it to plastic surgery, point taken, but I also think it would legitimize the very use of PEDs to the point that they would become a requirement for anyone who considers themselves serious about their sport. I realize that you think this will ultimately be where sports are headed, but for the reasons I described above, I think the legitimization of PEDs would ultimately undermine the essence of sports, particularly of endurance sports.

Also, I don't follow tennis, but Olympic athletes were amateur in name only for quite a long time before they were allowed to be professionals.

What is right and wrong is contextual. What if it is the rules themselves that are "wrong"? Wouldn't disobeying them then be "right"? It is, at least, debatable and it isn't just an abstract piece of intellectualisation. Slavish adherence to laws that are counterproductive, or contrary to what you might call natural justice, have cost lots of people their lives from time to time, and still do.BTW, I do agree with this quite a bit. I'm not an anti-authority person, but I do believe society is always healthier when people ask questions and demand reasonable answers.

Do they really value what they know is a lie?

This approach lies at the core of every modern pro bicycle racing fan.

Yes, it would be easier to do an Ironman with PEDs, but that pretty much misses the whole point in doing it.

In general I don't fundamentally disagree with much that you've said - I just take the view that holding the line against PEDs is impracticable and that the longer we try to hold that line, the longer we disadvantage those who try to play by the rules. However, the statement I've quoted raises an interesting point that is, i think, at the heart of the psychology of the supposed "cheats".

It would not feel easier to do an Ironman with PEDs. Those on PEDs don't suffer less, they just suffer at a higher speed. All the competitors, doped or undoped, are pushing at the boundaries of their capacity for suffering. I hate to bring LeMond into a drug debate, but this is where "it doesn't get easier, you just get faster" is really relevant.

In fact, some PEDs only really work by allowing you to suffer more. If you're on steroids a main benefit is that they allow you to train harder, more often, with less recovery time. So the athlete who is out there day after day, on his own, busting his ass in repeat intervals training sessions, can be forgiven imo for seeing this differently. He isn't having an easier time than his opponents, but a harder one. He's doing everything he can to make himself the best athlete he can be. He isn't cheating them, he's just prepared to work harder than they work and to do what it takes to maintain that workload.

I'm not agreeing with this perspective, but I don't think it is ridiculous; and if I was as talented and driven as a top pro has to be, I think my attitude might well change....

There's really no point in discussing this with you, since you don't appear to understand the concept of sound or valid arguments. Do you even know the difference, I wonder? Arguing that something is wrong because it's just...wrong wouldn't convince a five year-old, in my experience, and it shouldn't. Children should be encouraged to think for themselves a little more than that.

What is right and wrong is contextual. What if it is the rules themselves that are "wrong"? Wouldn't disobeying them then be "right"? It is, at least, debatable and it isn't just an abstract piece of intellectualisation. Slavish adherence to laws that are counterproductive, or contrary to what you might call natural justice, have cost lots of people their lives from time to time, and still do.

Okay, lets get this thing on a more civil note, the lack of which I completely own as a product of my own inflammatory statements.
1) There are rules, whether I agree with them or not. These rules have been inacted for a reason that some deem important.
2) When I enter into an event that expects adherence to these rules, I should comply. If I do not agree with the rules, than I am free to avoid said event.
3) If I enter this event and knowingly break the rules, than I should not be surprised when eventually I am caught and disciplined.
4) Most of the world looks disparagingly at those intentionally breaking these rules for self interest or self gain.

I tend towards a more concrete , black and white appraisal of the world. It serves me well in my work. I must make decisions quickly, I must reduce possibilities to yes-operate, or no-do not operate. It is my failing that I often carry this over into my appraisal of world events. Apologies offered.

Okay, lets get this thing on a more civil note, the lack of which I completely own as a product of my own inflammatory statements.
1) There are rules, whether I agree with them or not. These rules have been inacted for a reason that some deem important.
2) When I enter into an event that expects adherence to these rules, I should comply. If I do not agree with the rules, than I am free to avoid said event.
3) If I enter this event and knowingly break the rules, than I should not be surprised when eventually I am caught and disciplined.
4) Most of the world looks disparagingly at those intentionally breaking this rules for self interest or self gain.

I tend towards a more concrete , black and white appraisal of the world. It serves me well in my work. I must make designs quickly, I must reduce possibilities to yes-operate, or no-do not operate. It is my failing that I often carry this over into my appraisal of world events. Apologies offered.

Gracious response. :D (Especially for a surgeon. ;) )We all tend to carry our world view into our work and work into our worldview, though. That's just human. It also spills over into all aspects of our lives, because that's the set of cognitive tools we're most comfortable with.

OH, and hello fellow Hoosier.

Okay, lets get this thing on a more civil note, the lack of which I completely own as a product of my own inflammatory statements.
1) There are rules, whether I agree with them or not. These rules have been inacted for a reason that some deem important.
2) When I enter into an event that expects adherence to these rules, I should comply. If I do not agree with the rules, than I am free to avoid said event.
3) If I enter this event and knowingly break the rules, than I should not be surprised when eventually I am caught and disciplined.
4) Most of the world looks disparagingly at those intentionally breaking this rules for self interest or self gain.

I tend towards a more concrete , black and white appraisal of the world. It serves me well in my work. I must make designs quickly, I must reduce possibilities to yes-operate, or no-do not operate. It is my failing that I often carry this over into my appraisal of world events. Apologies offered.

And accepted. I'm opinionated myself, and I do like a fight, so I'm used to provoking an irritable response!

And as it happens I agree with your analysis, as far as it goes. Of course, in voluntarily entering a competition, one enters also into a contract to observe its rules. So to that extent I agree that "cheating is wrong". But I think our view of what should be legitimate or illegitimate in this context is far from thought-through. Let's say I have some sort of chromosome 17 disorder leading to a growth hormone deficiency and as a child I'm prescribed HGH to ensure that I grow to a "normal" height. It then turns out that I'm a great high-jumper. I could not possibly have been a great high-jumper had I been only 5'3", so my prowess is in part the result of the HGH medication; which has allowed me to exceed what would have been my genetic potential. Question - should I be disqualified? If the answer is no, why is that different from other athletes who have used HGH to exceed their genetic potential?

It's a rhetorical question. I just think that as pharmaceuticals become ubiquitous it becomes untenable to distinguish what is "real", in your words, from what is not. And what is reality anyway? I'd rather have no rules than rules that I can't make sense of.

btw, I used to manage hospitals for a living. I'm well used to argumentative surgeons. Quite like them. Orthopods can be pretty impenetrable to debate, though. :)

Great discussion, especially the perspective brought up by chasm54. I do want to comment on the original thesis of this thread however. I think we need to remind ourselves that cheating in a real life situation like medical school, which will have real effects on human life, is quite a different thing than cheating in a sporting event.

Yes, sports is big business and a lot of people - manufacturers, agents, media, organizing bodies - make fortunes by their exploitation of the efforts of the athletes. And it's understandable that these folks want to equate cheating in the sport as a tragedy of epic proportions. But we should not allow them to do so. "Cheating" in a bicycle race is not equal with the kind of "cheating" we see in government, finance, or employment. We should not be dedicating as much energy and resources to this sporting issue and distracting ourselves from much more serious problems in "real life".

At the end of the day, it's just a sport. Or at least it's supposed to be. And if the participants as a group have a different view of what is acceptable (and that seems to be the case in cycling) than the "suits" who wish to rule over the participants, that doesn't bother me much at all. To quote Stars and Water Carriers from 1974, "Thirst is stronger than the rules."

Let's say I have some sort of chromosome 17 disorder leading to a growth hormone deficiency and as a child I'm prescribed HGH to ensure that I grow to a "normal" height. It then turns out that I'm a great high-jumper. I could not possibly have been a great high-jumper had I been only 5'3", so my prowess is in part the result of the HGH medication; which has allowed me to exceed what would have been my genetic potential. Question - should I be disqualified? If the answer is no, why is that different from other athletes who have used HGH to exceed their genetic potential?

It's a rhetorical question.

Rhetorical it may be, but I'll answer it from my worldview and experience point of view.
My younger brother did have a pituitary disorder and was put on HGH injections at 15 years old. He was promptly ejected from the school track team for being honest and presenting his medical records. Even though the HGH was just to get him up to a normal level on par with everyone else, it was still considered to be against the rules because it wasn't natural production, it was injection. The school athletics board said that he would need to be off the injections for 6 months before reinstatement on the team.
I agree with the decision. Regardless of the reason, even if prescribed by an endocrinologist, artificial elevation of hormone levels equates to cheating whether that is the intent or not. Until the artificial amplification is ceased, the entrant can't compete. I see no difference between someone doing it for a diagnosed endocrine problem or someone with a normal endocrine system who is boosting. The effect is quite similar, actually, because the HGH injections stimulate the pituitary into reacting and promoting normal hormone production, so for the course of the injection series the participant does maintain higher than average hormone levels.

Rhetorical it may be, but I'll answer it from my worldview and experience point of view.
My younger brother did have a pituitary disorder and was put on HGH injections at 15 years old. He was promptly ejected from the school track team for being honest and presenting his medical records. Even though the HGH was just to get him up to a normal level on par with everyone else, it was still considered to be against the rules because it wasn't natural production, it was injection. The school athletics board said that he would need to be off the injections for 6 months before reinstatement on the team.
I agree with the decision. Regardless of the reason, even if prescribed by an endocrinologist, artificial elevation of hormone levels equates to cheating whether that is the intent or not. Until the artificial amplification is ceased, the entrant can't compete. I see no difference between someone doing it for a diagnosed endocrine problem or someone with a normal endocrine system who is boosting. The effect is quite similar, actually, because the HGH injections stimulate the pituitary into reacting and promoting normal hormone production, so for the course of the injection series the participant does maintain higher than average hormone levels.

Really interesting, thanks. But when HGH is administered to a child its effect on their physique is permanent. That's the whole point, it makes them taller than they would otherwise have been. So even after the "artificial amplification has ceased" they are a different athlete from the one they would have been without the dope. So I don't altogether see the rationale for letting them back into competition but then disqualifying others who have elected to use medication not because they have an abnormality, but because they want to be better than normal?

Actualy, in most modern venues, true therapeutic use is waivered, since to compete without the normal level of certain hormones is actually quite dangerous for the athlete.

In general I don't fundamentally disagree with much that you've said - I just take the view that holding the line against PEDs is impracticable and that the longer we try to hold that line, the longer we disadvantage those who try to play by the rules. However, the statement I've quoted raises an interesting point that is, i think, at the heart of the psychology of the supposed "cheats".

It would not feel easier to do an Ironman with PEDs. Those on PEDs don't suffer less, they just suffer at a higher speed. All the competitors, doped or undoped, are pushing at the boundaries of their capacity for suffering. I hate to bring LeMond into a drug debate, but this is where "it doesn't get easier, you just get faster" is really relevant.

In fact, some PEDs only really work by allowing you to suffer more. If you're on steroids a main benefit is that they allow you to train harder, more often, with less recovery time. So the athlete who is out there day after day, on his own, busting his ass in repeat intervals training sessions, can be forgiven imo for seeing this differently. He isn't having an easier time than his opponents, but a harder one. He's doing everything he can to make himself the best athlete he can be. He isn't cheating them, he's just prepared to work harder than they work and to do what it takes to maintain that workload.

I'm not agreeing with this perspective, but I don't think it is ridiculous; and if I was as talented and driven as a top pro has to be, I think my attitude might well change....I think your point is valid for elite competitors, but sports like cycling and triathlons are not even dominated by elite contestants with respect to how many people participate. My guess is that some PEDs would indeed make it easier for "less than elite" (for lack of a better term) athletes to endure the event.