Bike Gremlin

Great post, agree with all the other points. Except this. IMO:
Doping doesn't make it easier. It allows the muscles and body to endure harder training and harder competition, before "shutting down". And it makes things more equal: those who suffer and train the most win, reducing the effect of natural physical gifts. Allowing for riders to make up with training more.

I am against doping because of health damage - pro sport is gladiator like even without the doping. But the one thing it doesn't do, in pro sports, among top teams, is make it easy, or unfair (since most top sportsmen use it) - quite the countrary, IMO.

Maelochs

The issue with doping is that it depends on how good your program is (like every other aspect) but also that it is damaging, and it is Totally artificial. Why not put motors in the bikes?

Better diet, better training, better tactics .... but Seriously, micro-injections of EPO, blood transfusions, steroids .... I don't see how these things belong in Any sport.

Part of my attitude is colored by the fact that some of my favorite cyclists, and some whose performances I really enjoyed: Alberto Contador, Alejandro Valverde, Carlos Sastre----were found to be succeeding because they used drugs. So when I was being thrilled watching them win araces, I was later equally disappointed. And ti isn't like they were the only ones ion drugs--they just used more on that particular day, in some cases (Sastre winning stages in the Tour for instance.)

I don't want to feel like I shouldn't enjoy a person's accomplishment because later I will have to learn it was illegal.

PEDs are banned because they are not safe. The bottom line is that. Sure, cycling could allow EPO, and end the transufsions ... but then you'd have the after math, with lawsuits by older cyclists whose bodies were breaking down (see NFL players' lawsuits because the dangers of concussion were hidden or minimized.)

If PEDs are so good for the sport, why are they illegal? Because something eklse matters besdies the numbers ... because doing a route faster only matters with certain rules (no motor on the bike for instance, no drafting at TTs.) Take away the rules, or amend them to the point riding a bike is no longer the important issue, and where is the sport?

Also, allowing riders to hurt themselves by taking drugs which cannot be gotten form natural sources or which allow the body to operate beyond its normal limits, and then pay the price later ... goes so far beyond any kind of rational competition ... is the point to see who is the best rider, or who is willing to take more damaging drugs?

I think Lance Armstrong might well have been the best rider of his generation. Sadly, we will never know how much was Lance and how much was the fact that Dr. Ferrari had the most advanced doping system in the peloton.


Why not have them all ride clean?

Seriously, is it just because we want to see records broken? Is it just to see big numbers on the TV screen? Isn't it enough that one rider wins against the others? If people aren't braking records, then we aren't entertained?

And if it Just about competition, then why allow any drugs at all? If the idea is a level playing field, why accept the intricate routines teams have to go through to circumvent the laws which are actually there to protect the riders And the Sport?

Instead of saying, "Everybody does it so it sin't unfair," Shouldn't we be saying, "It is against the rules and doesn't improve the sport, and might endanger the riders, and taken to extremes can Certainly hurt the riders, so why not have 'Clean' as the baseline, instead of 'Everybody does it'"?

Worse still, it is Not a level playing field because some riders have a sense of honor and don't want to dope, some aren't going to take the more dangerous chemicals while some will totally sacrifice future health for immediate fame, some are more willing to risk getting caught ... the only real level playing field is "bread and water."

It is hard to like a sport where honor and honesty are considered drawbacks, you know?

As with all posts ... IMO.

Bike Gremlin

Just to make it clear. I have lots of respect for these, as well as many other your posts. And I agree with most. Not wanting to quarrel, just argue my (different) point of view.

Generally, I think both doping and pro sport are bad for one's health. Not certain they even provide a good role model for the young. For several reasons.

Bike itself is artificial. Just like clothes, helmets...

I've explained my point of view. But I'll go into more detail. IMO, any pro sport is unnatural and unhealthy. It just depends where one draws a line. Substances not banned are allowed, which gives advantage to rich teams with access to new, still not banned substances.

Most top ones used drugs - so it was a fair competition. All credit to them I say.

Hypocrisy. People won't say such things out loud, but they're common knowledge. That way kids and naive ones can enjoy the sport without any moral dilemmas. The caught ones are treated like exceptions, like not all (top ones) do that, so the image is not changed.

If there were any real concern with athletes' health, pro sport of any kind would be banned - as unhealthy.

Like I said, doping doesn't make riding not important. It makes the competition more equal: those who want to win more, who train harder and try harder in competition will win. Doping allows their bodies not to give up, in spite of pain, and allows them to keep going through pain if they're determined. It also diminishes birth given physical fitness differences.

But it's the same without the drugs. Pro training ruins one's health. OK, with drugs more so. But basically it's the same. Pro sport is bad for health. If you're honestly concerned about it, don't organize it, don't watch it and support it.

I'd have them all ride the same bike. As well as ban all the drugs. In a perfect world it would work and be great.

Money. Who wins, earns most. With advanced drugs, you are more likely to win. If you're rich enough, you can gain access to newer substances not yet banned, not on the list - so you're technically legal.

This is a fact. Not using doping is giving your opponents and unfair advantage. That's the way it is for all I know. If most riders were clean, it might be different. But even then, some are born with better blood, some with worse. Doping gives them all the best possible. Isn't that the ultimate of fair? At the expense of health, of course. But I'm not challenging that argument - like I said, pro sport is bad for health. Just discussing fairness. Doping doesn't make it easy, it's not a pain killer, and it doesn't make it unfair either.

It's a competition known for most top riders using doping. So it's not dishonest to use it. Nor dishonourable. IMO.

Fiery

There is no professional sport without doping, some just hide it better than others. This is not a comment on how things should be, but on how they are.

kbarch

You seem to be assuming your conclusion. How are pro sports and competitions (and training for them) inherently bad for the participants' health? You said you had "several reasons," but the only one you put forth was that it is artificial. But artificiality isn't enough to make something bad. If you think about it, EVERYTHING we do once we get past infancy - when we're fed, clothed and sheltered by others regardless of our own will - is more or less artificial. If we can't use our knowledge and skill to get what is most beneficial and desirable, or to avoid damaging ourselves, we're really not living.

Bike Gremlin

That is exactly my point - artificial doesn't equal bad. Where did I say it is bad?


As far as pro sport: training, doing it for years, does cause exhaustion and damage to body. It can happen in amateur sports as well, but when eating and paying the bills requires good results, one is more likely to compete even with (not fully healed) injury, to train too hard, etc. There is a line, and when there's lots of money involved (even when there's not, but more so when it's a living), it's often and more gladly crossed.

Maelochs

Thanks for saying this. Discussion, even passionate discussion, is a good thing. Now I know I can speak freely.

Yeah, this is very interesting. Pro sports certainly Can be bad for the health (don’t ask any football players—they can’t remember.) I think bowling is okay.

As for role models ... false hopes and dreams? or hope for children which is later realized to be empty? I certainly agree that lionizing and vastly overpaying sports stars is an evil distortion (though those franchises do make a lot of money in the current system, so paying the stars isn’t out of balance from that limited point of view ... ) We could just about end poverty with what we pay a few hundred sports stars, though.

[QUOTE=Slaninar;19259126]Bike itself is artificial. Just like clothes, helmets... [QUOTE=Slaninar;19259126] Yeah, but if you think I look bad in spandex ... please for your own sake, don’t ever try to picture me without any clothes ...

I also agree there is a huge element of hypocrisy. But look at what we Pretend to value: pure competition, clean competition ... we teach our kids the rules of the sport and also teach them Sportsmanship.

England had an adage about how its battlefield victories were won on the playing fields of Eton, because they taught sport to build the character, emphasize teamwork and sacrifice for the team, following orders, working together selflessly, achieving goals as a unit.

That is what we see as admirable—the competition between people, equal and fair, pure and honest.

Now we have accepted a system where illegal drug use is considered the norm, and where teams with more money obviously will win more than poorer teams (except in those sports leagues, like the NFL, where revenue-sharing agreements keep teams on basically even footing for the sake of improving competition for the good of the league.)

My question is, Do we Want to accept this? There isn’t much that can be done about the money, as the teams are also businesses, and management is whatever each team can get (though is some sportscar racing there are cost caps on the cars.) But do we also want to accept the drugs?

Even the NFL has (at long last) started to react to the dangers of concussions. Lots of sports test for drugs. I firmly believe that a lot of drug use which goes on in sports does because the league management (UCI in this case) doesn’t Want to know

Most sports ban and test for the really dangerous and illegal drugs like anabolic steroids. But how many athletes use EPO? When I hear about athletes with blood clots that’s my first thought. No PED is “safe.” Given the risks inherent in any competitive sport, does adding another layer of risk for no real reason except to break records, really make any sense. because if everyone is doing it ... it doesn’t affect the outcome of competition, right? So what is the point of the added risk?

I Strongly disagree. How is pro bowling unhealthy? What is the danger of professional billiards?

Many sports are dangerous ... but then, I have been injured countless times riding my bike for pleasure. As I do in my daily rides, so should we do in sports—minimize the risk of activities people Wish to engage in.

I know some race drivers—and they LOVE to race. It is the most fulfilling of all their activities. And it is obviously potentially lethal. You wouldn’t be doing them any favors by banning racing—they’d just go back to racing on the beach, which is how the Daytona 500 and NASCAR started, or racing on rural roads, and drivers did before there was organized racing.

What motor racing has done is to minimize risk. The cars are immensely safer, the safety gear immensely more effective, and the emergency response teams better trained and better equipped, so on the whole, the sport is about as safe as driving the kids to school.

That is how to manage sport. Banning it is ridiculous—people would just break the law to play. Managing it makes it safer.

[QUOTE=Slaninar;19259126]Like I said, doping doesn't make riding not important. It makes the competition more equal: those who want to win more, who train harder and try harder in competition will win. [/QUOTE ] I am sorry, but I find this ridiculous.

First off, the better the doping program, the better the result—Lance and U.S. Postal proved this. Everyone was doping—just Dr. Ferrari had the best science and the best application and thus got the best results. No level playing field whatsoever.

One of Lance’s team mates talked about this in one of the the Lance documentaries—he wanted a shot at being team leader so he joined another team and found out that he had to hustle to get drugs and that the program was primitive by comparison, whereas before he had no stress and everything was delivered to him and tailored for him..

Better drug doctors and better drug programs equal better results (as you admit below.)

Yeah, just like if they didn’t use drugs. If the playing field is really equal with drugs, what are the benefits of doing drugs? The risks are pretty well known.

People who train harder, or smarter, or both, Should do better. What drugs do is let some people train harder and better than they naturally would.

By the way, what about the differing physiological responses to different drugs among different people? Because there hasn’t been enough testing (because drug use is illegal) we don’t even know how much the effects of different drugs vary from person to person. You Claim that the playing field is level, but one person might respond better to certain drugs, and thus gain an edge Just because of drug use ... which you claim can’t happen because ... drugs.

Drug use does Not level the playing field. The only way it possibly could, would be if all PEDs were completely legal and completely tested, and each athlete was tested with the full range of PEDs to see which were most effective and which didn’t work as well, and every athlete was put on a continually monitored drug regimen all year ‘round.

Is That your “Better Way”?

DETERMINATION allows them to keep pushing though pain and fatigue. All drugs do is allow them to be at higher levels of performance when they hit that wall. (And ... drugs allow athletes to harm their bodies more before giving up.)

Thus, all drugs really do is increase numbers. People are riding farther and faster and breaking records ... because they have better drugs. Some small part of it is more scientific training and better equipment, but the biggest gains were pharmacological.

That’s all drugs do: boost the numbers to create fake excitement for the TV audiences. That is why the sanctioning bodies don’t really crack down on drugs—they think it will affect their income from viewership.

Bull excrement. Drugs just extend the range of pain tolerance and output. People have the same bodies, the same musculature, the same skeletons, the same nervous systems ... drugs don’t magically increase muscle mass while riding. What drugs do is allow each athlete to do a little more with what he or she naturally has and has developed.

If drugs evened out physical differences ... then I could load up on drugs and win the Tour, right? Wait, why not?

Because the better athlete, the better natural athlete, brings more to the game naturally. Drugs amplify what is there, but cannot create what is not there. If drugs equalized the performance of all athletes, there wouldn’t be stars because Any athlete could perform as well as any other. Fact is, drugs just amplify, they do not create.

And if you think it through, Sport is all about physical differences. Sport is a controlled form of combat, and that combat arose from males trying to prove their worth as breeders—trying to prove they had the best genes.

Sport offers a chance for people to use their minds and bodies to prove that they, essentially, are better genetically. Sport shows us which player was born with more and made the best use of it ... and I would argue that determination, discipline, and intellect are also determined in part by genes and are a part of the whole package tested by sports.

Ask Pete Rose fans—he worked hard to make up for being less physically gifted. As a being in whole, he had enough physical prowess and enough mental prowess to succeed.

So ... why use drugs? Hello? Why use Drugs, if it is the same either way?

Oh, BS. Pro training stresses one’s body but ruins one’s health? Maybe if you are training to play football. Plenty of people in plenty of sports have lived long and healthy lives ... and no doubt, being physically active for most of their lives gave them an edge on sedentary people.

Have you seen Greg Lemond on TV lately? I have, as he sometimes introduces stages before stage races. He is a bit stouter, but he still rides well ... he could probably outride me with ease. Why isn’t he dead or dying after a lifetime of pro training? Why is he still fit and healthy and Riding (and doing it well) at what, 60 years of age? He is much healthier than most 60-year-olds. Kind of kills your theory.

Again, if drugs are bad for the health, By your own admission how do you justify supporting them?

Don’t call anyone else a hypocrite.

And sports in general are Not deleterious to one’s health. see the above example of Greg Lemond ... Look at the former tennis and baseball players in the announcers’ booths at so many events. They are healthy and happy and functioning fine, after long pro sports careers.

Drug use Vastly amplifies the risk of injury, because, as you admit, drug users can ignore pain ,.... so when a clean rider or player might stop to avoid injury, the doped rider or player will worsen the injury. Again, your argument is empty.

Sport is not in itself harmful (except for extreme contact sports like boxing or football.) Drug use in sports is Extremely unhealthy and causes all the stuff you are talking about in regard to long-term damage.

Wait, I thought drugs made everything even ... now you say with more advanced drugs, you have a better chance of winning. You just gutted one of your own main arguments.

Again Completely undermining your claim that “... doping doesn't make riding not important. It makes the competition more equal ... ”

What we have here ... is Cognitive Dissonance.

Those two ideas are opposed to one another and can are in fact mutually exclusive as truths ... yet you state them both as truths.

No. Doping only amplifies what is there. It does not make things more equal. if my voice is louder than yours and we both speak into a microphone through an amplifier turned all the way up ... my voice is still louder than yours. Some people are born with louder voices. Taking drugs doesn’t change that.

You know what “Fair” is? “Fair” is you use everything you were born with, and so do I, and see who wins. if you are stronger, maybe I need to be smarter. if you are stronger or smarter .. I Lose. THAT is fair.

You know what really undercuts all of your arguments? Your own statement:

You are admitting that Not using drugs would be better ...”in a perfect world” no one would use drugs.

Tell you what ... their bikes are all but identical as it is. No one wins or loses any race at the pro level because of equipment, because they all can afford the best.

The thing keeping us from the perfect world” you describe is YOU ... and people like you, who are willing to accept drugs in sports, and make a bunch of lame excuses to support that position (and I call them lame because I just countered every argument you made ... I crippled your case, so it is lame. It should have used drugs.)

You know the part of drugs in sports I really lie? it is when the college kids who are doing PEDs pass them down to their younger brothers and sisters in high school and junior high. it’s all good, right? Because it makes things more fair. I bet you will be thrilled when you find your preteen kids using drugs ... because now life will be more fair.

kbarch

Ok. Seems I misread; you really didn't present your reason pro sports are unhealthy until just now.

Now, what you describe surely happens, but is it the way things have to be? The whole point of organized sports and games is to provide controlled conditions. Why wouldn't the participants' general health and well-being be a consideration, especially when it's what they do "for a living?" Why shouldn't the conditions of training be just another one of the things that's controlled?

Bike Gremlin

In a perfect world, no reason. Just like doping.
However, in a perfect world, sports not being a contribution to the society's wealth and safety, shouldn't be something one does for a living. But after work. As a healthy recreation, not a job.

merlinextraligh

First the assumption that sports do not contribute to society's wealth is wrong. In a purely GDP view of wealth, Sports creates billions of dollars in economic activity, and provide 100's of thousands of jobs. In a broader sense, sports create wealth by enriching peoples lives who enjoy watching them.


The definition of wealth that you appear to be applying would mean that it should not be a job to be an actor, or a musician.


If people are willing to pay you to do it, its a job. And the fact that many people are willing to pay you to do it, means that you are adding to society's wealth in a direct sense because it does increase GDP, and an indirect sense because it enriches peoples lives.


Who made you the arbiter of what people can choice to do with their labor, and money?

gregf83 

The point of organized sports is primarily to generate profits for the controlling interests often at the expense of the players. The NFL is a good example of players being exploited while generating enormous profits for owners.

merlinextraligh

Point of any business is to generate profits for its owners. Why should professional football be any different?


And as for player being exploited, the minimum salary in the NFL is $450,000 a year, with many players making multiples of that.


I don't see NFL owners holding guns to peoples head to force them to play in the NFL. To the contrary thousands of players compete with everything they have to make the few open spots each year on each of 32 rosters.


If the players union thought they could do better, there is nothing stopping them from starting their own league, owned by the players. Other than the fact that rival professional football leagues have historically failed.

gregf83 

I didn't say it should be different just that the point is not to provide controlled conditions.


Explain that to guys suffering from traumatic brain injuries. I'm sure you're aware the NFL was sued for having concealed the effects of concussions.

Coal miners voluntarily went to work for years breathing coal dust. Doesn't mean they weren't exploited.

merlinextraligh

and there is more than a billion dollars going to the players in a Class Action settlement.


In spite of what's currently known about CTE, many many people continue to want to play in the NFL. They're making an informed choice at this point to do so. And the vast majority of older players in that Class Action settlement tell you that they would still have played even if they knew what is currently known about CTE


I can't too worked up about someone who makes $20,000,000 a year being exploited.

Bike Gremlin

Bit of both. Promoting winning instead of compassion, helping people, being honest and good. Modern gladiators.

Also the unreal idealised image: Lance Armstrong, for example, the same person all the time, went from superhero to a villain - all that's changed was media publishing (first wins, then doping as central point).

Can't help it, sugar...

Agree - it's not all black and white.

Though this goes for sports in general. Not exclusively for pro sport. I even think there's less sportsmanship in pro sport, then there is in amateur. Just like in corporations - being ruthless and doing all it takes to win has proven to work perfectly well. Generally speaking.

Doping doesn't make this worse, like I explained. Makes it more even IMO.
It is a bad thing, don't get me wrong.

It makes no sense. It's stupid and should be driven out of sport.

It affects the outcome a lot. Not using doping makes you inferior by a margin (depending on the type of particular sport, more or less).

As long as there's money and it's made by winning, it will be impossible to stop. Hence - ban the pro sport.

Lol. Talking about (most) popular sports that call for fitness. Football, athletics, cycling, basketball...
A good society should spend resources on education, health care, not on adverts and making (and paying) idols. Sport should not be a profession. Any sport. As long as there are homeless people in the streets.

Add doping and over-training to that, sacrificing school and private life for training, travelling, not being with friends and family, plus not paying the bills when not fit and competing, so getting back in the saddle even when not 100% healed - you got a pro sportsman.

I love sports and competition. Played football and did some (amateur) motorcycle racing. So I understand that. It can be done safely on a budget, as a sport, not as a job.

As long as there's big money, cheating and doping won't be banned - they haven't been so far.

I don't think doping is a good way. Just think it doesn't give unfair advantage - since most of them use it.
It should be banned. It won't as long as there's big money involved.

They have another factor: keeping level with the competition. In sports where beating opponents wins the trophies, like cycling, one needn't care about making a record time, but does care about being the fastest of the currently competing other competitors. It would be great if none of them used doping. How to achieve that? Authorities either can't or don't want to drive the doping out. Probably a bit of both.

In most sports, determination and skill is also very important. People better in training are not always better during the competition (with or without doping).

In pro sport, a lot depends on sponsors, training conditions, team quality...
Also, one could argue that cleverly tricking the authorities and using doping and other cheating as well is a demonstration of a good intellect? Pro sport is about winning and making money, with all the other (IMO more important) values being put in the shadow.

I'm not supporting drugs. Nor the pro sport as it is.
What I'm arguing is they don't create unfair advantage and don't make things easier.
In pro sport as it is, not using is the same as riding with flat tyres. Unfortunately.

This is simply not true. No one asks me about drugs. I've never used them. Never advised anyone to use them. Never bought anything because the producer sponsored this, or that sportsman... Don't pay for tickets to see the matches. Only guilt is occasional watching events on TV. If not watching would help prevent doping, I'd do it - no problem. Really.

How do you think I could help eliminate doping from pro sports?

Not saying it's good. For those bent on making a living of (physically demanding) sports - it's a necessity.

merlinextraligh

The EPO era in Professional cycling clearly made things unfair. Results, and lack of detection definitely depended on the quality of your doping program which was far from equal.


And with hematocrit limits it did reduce the benefit of being physiologically gifted. I fail to see how that make it more fair.


One whole part of sports competition is to see what one can make of the gifts they are given.


By your reasoning we might as well put motors on all the bikes, and that would be more fair, because using natural aerobic power is unfair given that some riders will have genetically higher Vo2 max than others. Thus level the playing field with everyone having an equal motor.


Better yet, give every rider a motor of varying watt output so everyone has the same w/kg.


We wouldn't want to be unfair to riders who are naturally bigger than other smaller riders.

gregf83 

The guys making 20M aren't getting bonked on the head. I think the point of this discussion was that playing sports at the professional level is not always healthy. Of course, if you're a place kicker making $2+M for kicking the ball a few times a game you're definitely not being exploited 🙂

mpath

Wow, what a patronizing response. And what does it have to do with what I said? Perhaps you should reread that.

merlinextraligh

Von Miller makes $25,000,000 and he definitely gets hit in the head.


There are numerous receivers, line backers, linemen making at least $10,000,000 a year that are fully exposed to the risk of head injury.


They're making an informed choice to do so.

Bike Gremlin

Because it gets down to who trains and tries hard. Physiological birth given advantages are erased.

That would eliminate the need to push hard when exhausted and train hard. EPO just eliminates birth given advantage. So in a competition where (all?) top competitors use it, labelling EPO as something that gives an advantage is not true IMO.

It is bad, it shouldn't be used, but it does make competition more equal IMO.

merlinextraligh

I think your opinion is contrary to the vast majority of professional cyclists. Read the Secret Race by Tyler Hamilton.

Bike Gremlin

Will do. Sounds interesting.

kbarch

That may be the function, but its not the point. The point of football is to get a particular ball across a certain line in a certain amount of time. If the point is to generate profits for the owners, there are countless other, equally proper ways to do that. Flipping real estate, arbitrage, or exploiting labour in any number of ways. By comparison, there is only one proper way to play football, and that's by the rules of football.

rubiksoval

That's just crazy talk.

That's not how bike racing works. And any bike racer will tell you the same thing.

TheKillerPenguin

^lol.
also lol.