# Performance enhancing drugs... solution to the mess



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

I wish there was no doping in cycling as much as anyone, but the current methods to eradicate doping are not helping. It would be better for everyone to admit that doping is here to stay, and focus on protecting the riders from using harmful or dangerous substances… or at least keep them from using doses that are particularly dangerous. Testing isn’t useless… it does keep riders from using extreme quanitites that would trigger a positive. Testing should be more frequent and widespread (damn the cost), and suspensions much shorter. Why shorter? To match the penalty more closely with the crime… the crime being carelessness.

What do we, and the riders really want? We want a fair and level playing field. Since it isn’t possible to eradicate doping, lets do the next best thing. Make doping basically legal, but use the testing to keep it under practical limits… which is really all they are doing now. Make the *sole* violation a positive test (ie no more raids, witch hunts, and similar BS). Give a 1 year (max) suspension instead a career killing 2-4 years. A couple of months for most offenses would make more sense. As better testing methods become available, implement and use them. And most importantly, quit pretending that these guys are vile and evil cheaters rather than somebody who simply wants to race, and just happened to take too much of something or too little of something else.

More here


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

How is that fair to the guy who doesn't WANT to dope and wants to ride clean for fear of damaging his body?

Aren't there a bunch of body builders who have to keep taking diuretics or the speed things to keep from dieing?

Who's to say whether or not the next new substance is harmful 10/20 years from now?

What if EPO's side effect is death in 20 years?  I guess we will find out! :idea: 






rruff said:


> I wish there was no doping in cycling as much as anyone, but the current methods to eradicate doping are not helping. It would be better for everyone to admit that doping is here to stay, and focus on protecting the riders from using harmful or dangerous substances… or at least keep them from using doses that are particularly dangerous. Testing isn’t useless… it does keep riders from using extreme quanitites that would trigger a positive. Testing should be more frequent and widespread (damn the cost), and suspensions much shorter. Why shorter? To match the penalty more closely with the crime… the crime being carelessness.
> 
> What do we, and the riders really want? We want a fair and level playing field. Since it isn’t possible to eradicate doping, lets do the next best thing. Make doping basically legal, but use the testing to keep it under practical limits… which is really all they are doing now. Make the *sole* violation a positive test (ie no more raids, witch hunts, and similar BS). Give a 1 year (max) suspension instead a career killing 2-4 years. A couple of months for most offenses would make more sense. As better testing methods become available, implement and use them. And most importantly, quit pretending that these guys are vile and evil cheaters rather than somebody who simply wants to race, and just happened to take too much of something or too little of something else.
> 
> More here


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

bas said:


> How is that fair to the guy who doesn't WANT to dope and wants to ride clean for fear of damaging his body?
> 
> Aren't there a bunch of body builders who have to keep taking diuretics or the speed things to keep from dieing?


To some/most athletes at that level they don't care as long as they are winning/on the team. I always remember a study completed back in the 70's with track athletes. They asked the athletes if they would take a drug that guaranteed them a World Championship/Olympic Championship but took 5 years off their life if they would take it. Something like 95% of those that responded said "YES",

The simple fact is on many pro teams it's already an expectation regardless of the sport (anybody thing football, baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer are clean?). If you're good now, you can be better with enhancements and if you are unwilling to take those enhancements you are cut from the team because somebody else will take them and ultimately outperform you which suits the team better in the long run anyway. 

There is no way to rid drugs from pro sports and pro sports will never, ever be 100% clean which means that's unfair to the guy that wants to compete clean but can't ever catch those that are not.

I agree with *rruff* in many ways. Most people really don't care if a pro is doping or not, they want to see incredible/inhuman performances, something well beyond what the average person's capability is. People want to see Barry Bonds hit home runs, people wanted to see Lance destroy the competition on the climbs and TT's, people want to see world records, TD's, HR's, goals, etc. They don't want to see average performances. When things become average people stop watching, it's been proven time and time again with TV ratings.

The only time people care is when it suits them....Such as when the guy they were rooting for gets caught using, or the guy that they were rooting for gets beat by somebody using. Then people really care.

As far as I'm concerned let the drugs be made legal, just put limits on what the levels can be, test for those and let the pro's go after it. It's their body and as far as I'm concerned they can do what ever they want to with it. It's of no concern to me. For some, the taking of the drugs will set themselves and their families up for life and they will never have to worry about money again. For others it will lead to a downhill spiral...That's the risk you take to compete at that level because it happens already with or without drugs.




> Who's to say whether or not the next new substance is harmful 10/20 years from now?
> 
> What if EPO's side effect is death in 20 years?  I guess we will find out! :idea:


Who's to say too much caffeine won't have death as a side effect 20 years from now? People know smoking will kill them, they still do it. People know alcohol if taken in large quantities will kill them, they still do it. People ride motorcycles without helmets and don't think twice about it. People do illegal drugs all the time but don't care about the long term consequences. People overeat every day and don't exercise making them obese knowing it's going to kill them.

Who cares what the side effects of EPO usage is 20 years down the line. People already do enough to kill themselves early on in life that taking EPO isn't any different. At least they know they are doing it to themselves.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

bas said:


> How is that fair to the guy who doesn't WANT to dope and wants to ride clean for fear of damaging his body?


That would be everybody. These guys who are doping don't *want* to dope... they do it because the system is so obviously incapable of *preventing* doping. By not doping they give their competitors an advantage, which basically puts them out of the sport.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

If you don't want to dope either don't turn pro and take some other job or don't complain about the others' doping when you knew the "corporate culture" going in.

Ideas about fairness have far more to do with envy than any moral ideology, and people who complain about it invariably do so because they were unwilling to make the sacrifices the others did, whether it's sacrificing family and fun time, going to school, risking everything they own, or doping.

The long term health hazard argument is pretty weak for modern doping agents used in moderation since most are naturally occuring substances in the human body. If they were lethal after 20 or even 40 years of use nobody would be more than 40 years old.


----------



## jmeerse (Nov 12, 2004)

So the ideas of fair play vs. cheating, or achieving something based only on your own efforts, not chemically enhanced, don't seem to count?

The only ideas you guys are putting forth amount to "it's inevitable that they're going to cheat, so let's legalize their cheating."


----------



## dlenmn (Mar 28, 2006)

bas said:


> How is that fair to the guy who doesn't WANT to dope and wants to ride clean for fear of damaging his body?


If you don't want to damage your body, then professional cycling is not for you (to list only a few examples).


----------



## dlenmn (Mar 28, 2006)

jmeerse said:


> So the ideas of fair play vs. cheating, or achieving something based only on your own efforts, not chemically enhanced, don't seem to count?


Achieving something based on your own effort is fine and dandy, but professional cycling is for entertainment. They're a bunch of genetic freaks anyhow -- what do I care if they're good because they naturally produce the right blend of chemicals, or if they take it through a needle? I just wish they'd be more forthright about it.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

jmeerse said:


> So the ideas of fair play vs. cheating, or achieving something based only on your own efforts, not chemically enhanced, don't seem to count?
> 
> The only ideas you guys are putting forth amount to "it's inevitable that they're going to cheat, so let's legalize their cheating."



What's fair play? Your definition is probably different than mine.

Is taking an aspirin or ibuprofen after a stage an unfair advantage? It's taking drugs to help recovery after all isn't it? How about an extra caffeine boost on the way up the final climb? That's a drug, but I'm sure you would never take such an advantage during any part of your ride/race/life would you?

Do they eliminate the IV's for fluid recovery from the race potentially hindering the health of the riders? Some teams could afford them, some can't.

If they set limits to the drugs they use, knowing they are using them doesn't that in it's self creates a level playing field? Or at least one that's more level than they would have with some on drugs and some not. If they go over those limits they get fined, or suspended for a shorter pre-determined amount of time. At least that way it's controlled, safer and it's a level playing field.

I hate to break it to you, but nobody in pro sports achieves anything "on their own merits". *They all use something to help their performance *whether legal or not. If they don't they are just plain stupid.

There has not, nor will there ever be a completely level playing field where the entire field is clean regardless of the sport. Go back as far into history as you want and you will find stories about riders/players cheating.


----------



## jmeerse (Nov 12, 2004)

Wookiebiker said:


> What's fair play? Your definition is probably different than mine.


Fair play: adhering to the agreed-upon rules of the sport.




Wookiebiker said:


> Is taking an aspirin or ibuprofen after a stage an unfair advantage? It's taking drugs to help recovery after all isn't it? How about an extra caffeine boost on the way up the final climb? That's a drug, but I'm sure you would never take such an advantage during any part of your ride/race/life would you?


I'm not a professional cyclist competing in a sport that has defined rules. When I race, I follow the rules.




Wookiebiker said:


> Do they eliminate the IV's for fluid recovery from the race potentially hindering the health of the riders? Some teams could afford them, some can't.
> 
> If they set limits to the drugs they use, knowing they are using them doesn't that in it's self creates a level playing field? Or at least one that's more level than they would have with some on drugs and some not. If they go over those limits they get fined, or suspended for a shorter pre-determined amount of time. At least that way it's controlled, safer and it's a level playing field.


All this does is turn athletes into professional guinea pigs, searching for a drug that no one else has. If no one uses, the field is level, and the outcomes the same.




Wookiebiker said:


> I hate to break it to you, but nobody in pro sports achieves anything "on their own merits". *They all use something to help their performance *whether legal or not. If they don't they are just plain stupid.


Well why stop here? What's to keep someone from strapping a motor on their bike? Would that cross the line for you? How 'bout a rider hitching a ride all the way up a mountian pass in the team car? Or just cutting the course? Are there some rules that should be followed, and others that shouldn't? 




Wookiebiker said:


> There has not, nor will there ever be a completely level playing field where the entire field is clean regardless of the sport. Go back as far into history as you want and you will find stories about riders/players cheating.


This doesn't mean that it *should* be this way.


----------



## dlenmn (Mar 28, 2006)

jmeerse said:


> Fair play: adhering to the agreed-upon rules of the sport.


Then we're all on the same page -- this discussion is about changing those rules. Based on your claim, if the rules were to change, your idea of fair play would suddenly change to match it... Or is that not actually your definition of fair play?



jmeerse said:


> All this does is turn athletes into professional guinea pigs, searching for a drug that no one else has.


It looks like a lot of the doping is cross team... there's not much money to be made selling to only one team, so I doubt that only one group will end up with an exclusive drug.



jmeerse said:


> If no one uses, the field is level, and the outcomes the same.


As others have point out, that's true if everyone uses as well... Except that if no one is doping you can gain an advantage over them by doping -- the same is not true when everyone is.



jmeerse said:


> Well why stop here? What's to keep someone from strapping a motor on their bike?


Nothing. Word on the street is that people have been doing that for more than 100 years and it has evolved it to a respect sport. But it's not cycling.




jmeerse said:


> Would that cross the line for you? How 'bout a rider hitching a ride all the way up a mountian pass in the team car?


Again, car racing is another sport. Cycling involves a human pedaling a bike. Cycling looks the same with or without dope -- car and motorcycle racing does not look the same as cycling. Evidence suggest that doping is not a new thing -- if you were fine with the appearance of pro cycling 40 years ago, you should be fine with it when the doping is out in the open.



jmeerse said:


> Or just cutting the course? Are there some rules that should be followed, and others that shouldn't?


No one is claiming that rules should be broken -- we're claiming that the rules would best be changed because they are interfering with the quality of the sport; we're spending too much time thinking about doping and not enough enjoying pro cycling.


----------



## jmeerse (Nov 12, 2004)

But if the rules are changed to allow doping, aren't you just rewarding the rider with the best chemist in their corner? And shouldn't part of sport be about a healthy area of activity? Saying it's okay for pros to do it opens the door to saying it's okay for amateurs to do it, which opens the door to saying it's okay for anyone to do it. And I don't believe that it's okay.


----------



## dlenmn (Mar 28, 2006)

jmeerse said:


> But if the rules are changed to allow doping, aren't you just rewarding the rider with the best chemist in their corner?


One more person on the already long list of support people already needed by professional cyclists. Moreover, even the best chemist isn't going to turn me in to the next TDF winner. I think this is a very weak point.



jmeerse said:


> And shouldn't part of sport be about a healthy area of activity?


This point has already been responded to.



jmeerse said:


> Saying it's okay for pros to do it opens the door to saying it's okay for amateurs to do it, which opens the door to saying it's okay for anyone to do it. And I don't believe that it's okay.


That is a decent point... I was kind of hoping you wouldn't bring it up  However, I don't think it would be that much of a practical problem (although it is a philosophical one) -- the things which keep non-pros from doping now (cost, the silliness of doping in cat 5, personal notions of fairness, etc.) would still keep people everyone from doing it. Do you not dope only because the pros don't (well, shouldn't anyway) do it?

On the other hand, it looks like chemical and genetic augmentation may be more commonplace in the future, so the issue will have to be dealt with eventually (for the moment though, the only people really mulling it over seem to be SF authors).


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Maybe w should take babies from their mothers and raise them in a dormitory where all of their food and work-out habits can be strictly monitored. We'll breed them to be elite cyclists from the time they can walk, and any 18yr old whose VO2max doesn't test above 80 will be taken in back and shot. Oh I forgot that we can cut off their balls at the age of 3 so the testosterone gets redirected to their body. They'll be superhuman.

Spare me. Doping makes me sick, and seeing JUNIORS at world championship races all testing with hematocrit content at 50% (or over) is horrible.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

jmeerse said:


> But if the rules are changed to allow doping, aren't you just rewarding the rider with the best chemist in their corner?


Chemistry is just one small aspect, but it is obviously important. Also realize that a lot of effort is spent on the chemistry of *legal* performance enhancement, training methods, recovery methods etc. Look how much time and money riders and teams spend honing their position and equipment for TTs. They *must* take every advantage that is open to them if they want to win. 



jmeerse said:


> And shouldn't part of sport be about a healthy area of activity? Saying it's okay for pros to do it opens the door to saying it's okay for amateurs to do it, which opens the door to saying it's okay for anyone to do it. And I don't believe that it's okay.


What the sport *should* be is impossible to control and enforce... so we might as well deal with reality rather than fantasy. Any rule that cannot be enforced might as well not exist. And I'm certain that plenty of amateur racers dope already. They are never tested so there is no chance of being caught. Some of the masters racers in particular have plenty of money to afford it.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

> Fair play: adhering to the agreed-upon rules of the sport.


*So....In a sport like baseball that up until 2-3 years ago that didn't have any rules against HGH, Steroids, etc. it was OK to use them? By your standards Mark McGuire didn't break any rules and played by the agreed-upon rules of the sport. Barry Bonds up until 2-3 years ago was playing fair also, so was Sami Sosa, etc...*





> I'm not a professional cyclist competing in a sport that has defined rules. When I race, I follow the rules.


*So do I, but that doesn't mean everybody does. Heck there are people out there trying to gain an advantage to go faster in their local club rides, let alone races.*




> All this does is turn athletes into professional guinea pigs, searching for a drug that no one else has. If no one uses, the field is level, and the outcomes the same.


*I hate to break it to you, but they already are human guinea pigs. They are all searching for the drugs that help improve performance but don't get detected by tests. They are entertainers, nothing more, nothing less. It's no different than Brittney Spears getting breast augmentation to look better and sell more albums.

The faster the riders go, the more money they make and the more fans they get (or fans that don't like them). They are not hero's to be looked up to, many professional athletes are complete jerks in real life (of course a lot are great guys/gals also).

They may compete, but it's still nothing more than entertainment. Many people seem to forget this.*




> Well why stop here? What's to keep someone from strapping a motor on their bike? Would that cross the line for you?


*As stated already...Strapping a motor to the bike is already a different sport all together.*




> How 'bout a rider hitching a ride all the way up a mountain pass in the team car? Or just cutting the course? Are there some rules that should be followed, and others that shouldn't?


*I believe this has been tried before in marathons. In fact in the 1980 Boston Marathon Rosa Ruiz won New York marathon by riding the subway for the majority of the event, then jumped in the race with a 1/2 mile or so and won. She then won the Boston Marathon doing basically the same thing but eventually got caught because there were no photos of her during the race with the leaders and a few people came forward and said they saw he jump in the race with a mile or so to go.*


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

jmeerse said:


> But if the rules are changed to allow doping, aren't you just rewarding the rider with the best chemist in their corner? And shouldn't part of sport be about a healthy area of activity? Saying it's okay for pros to do it opens the door to saying it's okay for amateurs to do it, which opens the door to saying it's okay for anyone to do it. And I don't believe that it's okay.



Not really. Professional sports are nothing more than entertainment and any illusions otherwise are just that....Illusions.

Riding a bike should be about health and fitness....Racing a bike is about getting to the finish line first. They are two mutually exclusive things. You may be doing the same thing, but the expected results are very different.

Saying the it's OK for the Pro's to do it doesn't open the door to saying it's OK for armatures to do it. 

What professional sport has the exact same rules as the armature sports below it? The rules for professional sports are different for those in armature sports, even if they are the same sport. In boxing, the armatures wear head gear. In football games are shorter for the college level and the rules are different. In basketball the games are shorter, players get less fouls and again the rules are different. In baseball they play less innings, etc...

All you are saying is at the Pro level performance enhancements are OK, at the armature level they are not. Enforce it at the armature level and monitor it at the pro level.

BTW...Anyone can do it. There are a lot of middle aged people out there taking HGH as a hormone supplement. It puts muscle back on their bodies, firms up their bones, tightens their skin, increases hair growth and puts color back in their hair. It also makes them faster on a bike....Chances are if you watch an armature masters level race you will see more than one individual out there taking HGH as a hormone replacement. All you need is a doctor to prescribe it and more and more are doing so.

Just because you don't believe it's OK doesn't mean I feel the same way. It just means we disagree and neither of us are right or wrong.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

iliveonnitro said:


> Maybe w should take babies from their mothers and raise them in a dormitory where all of their food and work-out habits can be strictly monitored. We'll breed them to be elite cyclists from the time they can walk, and any 18yr old whose VO2max doesn't test above 80 will be taken in back and shot. Oh I forgot that we can cut off their balls at the age of 3 so the testosterone gets redirected to their body. They'll be superhuman.
> 
> Spare me. Doping makes me sick, and seeing JUNIORS at world championship races all testing with hematocrit content at 50% (or over) is horrible.



For the most part that has already been done...The last survivor of that time was Jan Ullrich. The Eastern Europeans did basically that. They had sports schools for those that showed athletic promise. As they got better and moved up the ranks, they introduced them to the performance enhancing drugs. Those that kept improving on the drugs and didn't show side effects (and were hard to detect in tests) were the ones that moved on and became Olympic stars. 

Those that showed bad side effects were dropped by the wayside and forgotten, generally with no education or job skills.

Whether it makes you sick or not is irrelevant. It happens and will continue to happen as long as there is a declared winner and money/fame is to be made. It will never go away no matter how hard people try to make it do so.


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2007)

Stupid post, not even worth responding to.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

the_rydster said:


> Stupid post, not even worth responding to.


To each their own, however that's how the old sports system worked back in the day. I guess the truth isn't worth responding to.


----------



## swpaterson (May 25, 2007)

rruff said:


> I wish there was no doping in cycling as much as anyone, but the current methods to eradicate doping are not helping. It would be better for everyone to admit that doping is here to stay, and focus on protecting the riders from using harmful or dangerous substances… or at least keep them from using doses that are particularly dangerous. Testing isn’t useless… it does keep riders from using extreme quanitites that would trigger a positive. Testing should be more frequent and widespread (damn the cost), and suspensions much shorter. Why shorter? To match the penalty more closely with the crime… the crime being carelessness.
> 
> What do we, and the riders really want? We want a fair and level playing field. Since it isn’t possible to eradicate doping, lets do the next best thing. Make doping basically legal, but use the testing to keep it under practical limits… which is really all they are doing now. Make the *sole* violation a positive test (ie no more raids, witch hunts, and similar BS). Give a 1 year (max) suspension instead a career killing 2-4 years. A couple of months for most offenses would make more sense. As better testing methods become available, implement and use them. And most importantly, quit pretending that these guys are vile and evil cheaters rather than somebody who simply wants to race, and just happened to take too much of something or too little of something else.
> 
> More here


It seems to me that this approach would only move the "line", and cheaters always try to go over the line, wherever it is. If we allow doping but try to limit the dosages, it would just become a game of the cheaters trying to exceed the allowable dosages and beat the test.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

swpaterson said:


> It seems to me that this approach would only move the "line", and cheaters always try to go over the line, wherever it is. If we allow doping but try to limit the dosages, it would just become a game of the cheaters trying to exceed the allowable dosages and beat the test.


The line wouldn't move. If you are over the limit on test then you are in violation, and will be suspended or otherwise punished (though not nearly as severely as in the present system). There would be no limit on dosages... only test results... which is the only thing that can be effectively measured and enforced. 

The present rules are so impossible to enforce that nearly all the pro riders are violating them! So are they "cheating" if all of them are doing it?


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

terzo rene said:


> The long term health hazard argument is pretty weak for modern doping agents used in moderation since most are naturally occuring substances in the human body. If they were lethal after 20 or even 40 years of use nobody would be more than 40 years old.


As a doctor I have to point out here that EPO is a black box drug, ie considered far too unsafe to use in practically any patient as a medical drug. This has not stopped pharmaceutical companies from producing it in massive quantities. Gee, I wonder where all that EPO is going if it isn't being used as "legal" medicine?


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> For the most part that has already been done...The last survivor of that time was Jan Ullrich. The Eastern Europeans did basically that. They had sports schools for those that showed athletic promise. As they got better and moved up the ranks, they introduced them to the performance enhancing drugs. Those that kept improving on the drugs and didn't show side effects (and were hard to detect in tests) were the ones that moved on and became Olympic stars.
> 
> Those that showed bad side effects were dropped by the wayside and forgotten, generally with no education or job skills.
> 
> Whether it makes you sick or not is irrelevant. It happens and will continue to happen as long as there is a declared winner and money/fame is to be made. It will never go away no matter how hard people try to make it do so.


That was the point.


----------



## barbedwire (Dec 3, 2005)

*Le Tour de Dope - a race amongst the riders with the best drugs and best docs*

So, basically this post is having the outcome of races to be determined by which athlete has access to the newest and best drugs. If we can legalize drug use in sport, then we can effectively let the race to the top be amongst the riders with the best docs and best drugs.


----------



## swpaterson (May 25, 2007)

rruff said:


> The line wouldn't move. If you are over the limit on test then you are in violation, and will be suspended or otherwise punished (though not nearly as severely as in the present system). There would be no limit on dosages... only test results... which is the only thing that can be effectively measured and enforced.
> 
> The present rules are so impossible to enforce that nearly all the pro riders are violating them! So are they "cheating" if all of them are doing it?


I understand what you are saying. But your initial post stated an objective of "keeping them from using doses that are particularly dangerous". If you want to control the dose, you have to play big brother with 24 hour surveillance or whatever. If you only care about the test, then the best micro-doser or masker or flusher or designer-druggie wins. Cheaters will always cheat no matter what rules you set up. If you truly believe that "testing can be effectively measured and enforced", then let's go for zero tolerance rather than more tolerance.


----------



## serious (May 2, 2006)

terzo rene: *Ideas about fairness have far more to do with envy than any moral ideology, and people who complain about it invariably do so because they were unwilling to make the sacrifices the others did, whether it's sacrificing family and fun time, going to school, risking everything they own, or doping.*

Yeah, those clean athletes are so weak and envious. They know nothing about the sacrifice and dedication it takes to win with performance enhancing drugs.  

I remember my bodybuiding days when I competed at municipal and provincial levels against guys who were using drugs like candy. The only thing they sacrificed more than me is their *health*. It takes desperation, stupidity, short-sightedness to sacrifice health for sports. I have personally witnessed 3 young bodybuilders destroy their lives with steroids, 2 died of cancer.

I understand that winning a TdF is a BIG DEAL and it may be worth risking your health, but while thousands are risking their health, only a very few win. For the rest, they just gambled with their health and many regret it later.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

the_rydster said:


> Stupid post, not even worth responding to.


...and yet you did.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

barbedwire said:


> So, basically this post is having the outcome of races to be determined by which athlete has access to the newest and best drugs. If we can legalize drug use in sport, then we can effectively let the race to the top be amongst the riders with the best docs and best drugs.



There has never been a time when some form of doping wasn't going on in the sport. You and I still couldn't win if we did.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

I couldn't care less if cycling is included in the Olympics.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

barbedwire said:


> So, basically this post is having the outcome of races to be determined by which athlete has access to the newest and best drugs. If we can legalize drug use in sport, then we can effectively let the race to the top be amongst the riders with the best docs and best drugs.


Just like now, having access to the best drugs and being able to pass a test will be *one* factor. A positive test is still cause for suspension. We can just quit pretending that it is possible to eradicate drug use and get on with the racing...


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

swpaterson said:


> If you truly believe that "testing can be effectively measured and enforced", then let's go for zero tolerance rather than more tolerance.


As your own words stated, testing is completely incapable of eliminating doping... because it is possible to dope and still pass the test. Probably the majority of pro riders are doing it right now! So what is the point of handing out severe penalties for something that everyone is doing? It's crazy to increase penalties to compensate for a lack of enforcement. Probably one in several hundred dope tests actually gives a positive, when in reality most of those guys are doping. They just limit the doses and mask so it isn't enough to show up as positive on a test. They have to do it... because the system can't keep the competition from doing it!

So who gets caught? Somebody who was careless or their doctor made a mistake. You want a lifetime ban for that?


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

From an ethical perspective, saying that doping is ok in professional sports seems, to me at least, untenable. Also from an ethical perspective, unethical behavior is not a matter of personal character, but rather of the CIRCUMSTANCES that persons are placed into. This is an initially intellectually disturbing idea, but many, many psychological studies have shown that people will indeed act differently based on their environmental surroundings, for example whether they are alone or with others, what the others are doing, whether they are happy or sad, and whether they think they are being watched or not. There appears indeed to be no such thing as an "ethical character."

This same principle can be applied in cycling. Cyclists themselves are human beings, not ethical or unethical individuals. Cyclist will dope if they are surrounded by others doping, are financially induced or pressured to dope, and think they can get away with it without consequences and not get caught (incidentally all the things both Zabel and Aldag stated).

What needs to change is the ENVIRONMENT of cycling. To do that we need to punish the purse strings of cycling if they allow doping. Someone needs to let Telekom, Festina, etc know that THEY are responsible for managing a clean team. There need to be consequences if this does not occur. The sponsors need to be forced to adequately fund an independent organization that can do frequent testing on the athletes. There needs to be effective monitoring of these athletes both in training and performance situations. Only if the chances of getting caught are significant will doping cease to exist in cycling. Punishing the cyclists for reacting to the circumstances they were placed into is not the solution. Changing the circumstances is.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

DrSmile said:


> The sponsors need to be forced to adequately fund an independent organization that can do frequent testing on the athletes. There needs to be effective monitoring of these athletes both in training and performance situations. Only if the chances of getting caught are significant will doping cease to exist in cycling. Punishing the cyclists for reacting to the circumstances they were placed into is not the solution. Changing the circumstances is.


I agree completely with your perspective, but I still think that stricter measures and even harsher punishments will only result in a few of them being scared away... and then it will be even more beneficial to dope. In other words they will just have to be even more careful and precise about not getting caught... but they will still have to do it. 

Note that the sponsors have the same conflict of interest that the riders do... they also need to win races to stay viable. I don't believe for a second that T-Mobile is clean now... but it certainly is good PR for those who want to "believe".

I can understand the public's desire to *believe* that athletes are clean, but IMO we are much better off if we give up this belief. It has never been true, and it is certainly not true now, and it will not be true in the future. What then do we do? Institute draconian rules and punishments and 24/7 monitoring so we can pretend to be "doing all we can"... and meanwhile drive the cheating further underground, and destroy the sport? Or admit that our only sane approach is to make testing the one and only standard of eligibility, and improve the test methods whenever we can? And stop demonizing the riders for responding to the environment in the only way that makes sense.


----------



## physasst (Oct 1, 2005)

*Really???*



DrSmile said:


> As a doctor I have to point out here that EPO is a black box drug, ie considered far too unsafe to use in practically any patient as a medical drug. This has not stopped pharmaceutical companies from producing it in massive quantities. Gee, I wonder where all that EPO is going if it isn't being used as "legal" medicine?




we use it all the time in orthopedics. Patients who are Jehovah's Witnesses or, have problems with various anemias. We give them "legal" EPO all the time to raise their hemoglobin prior to surgery. So I would hardly call it a "black box" drug.... Oh, not mention the thousands of cancer patients who get it to maintain their hemoglobin while undergoing treatment...unsafe?? gimme a break.


----------



## tricycletalent (Apr 2, 2005)

DrSmile said:


> Punishing the cyclists for reacting to the circumstances they were placed into is not the solution. Changing the circumstances is.


Okay Dr. Zimbardo, great suggestion. Let's take all money out of cycling, take away the fame, take away the status residing in winning, and kill all the riders currently riding so that they can't influence new riders in a bad way. Then we will hopefully have a clean sport.

By the way, what kinda ethics are you advocating for doping to be unethical?


----------



## gamara (May 20, 2002)

*Solution to this whole mess*

Drugs in this sport has been around for over 50 years in one form or another. Back then it was cocaine, speed, heroin.....now adays its growth hormone, cortisone, epo, steroids, insulin etc.

The problem lies in the sport itself. All these problems have been on the rise since the rise in cycling popularity. As this sport has grown globally, so has the financial rewards. Television advertising money, global corporations sponsoring teams for millions. This is the pressure that teams put on the riders to get results. These are the people that don't care about the riders. Only results.

Doesn't anyone else see this??? You don't have to look any further than where this all started......back in Puerto. All those spanish riders implicated, like Valverde, and yet his team still allows him to ride and is welcomed with open arms by the Vuelta. Why is the silence so great in Spain???? 

Jesus Manzana was the first rider to break the news about organized doping within Kelme, which by the way Valverde rode for. To this day Kelme has denied all accusations. How come you don't see Valverde coming forward like Zabel??

The present Telecom is doing a great job IMO of tackling this issue and pushing everything out in the open. But it risks destroying the legitimacy of this sport. By going back now and opening up all these questions about the past does no good. They have to change the sport from this moment on and move forward from here.

Legalized cheating that has been offered as a solution will not work. And I'll explain why. First off which company do you think will actually want to spend money to promote a sport full of doping. They don't want to do that because its bad PR. Secondly its against the law. 

Why do I say its against the law?? Why do you think thus far that those that have been implicated say that their doping was an individual thing and not organized?? In the G7 countries, there are rules and laws for occupational health and safety. Plus all doctors must abide by their own charter which is the hypocratic oath, to uphold the safety of their patients first. Simply put, no matter what kind of job you work in, you should be able to work in a capacity where your health and safety come first.

If doping was publiclly admitted to be on an orchestrated team level than everyone on that team is liable for the riders health should something happen to that rider. Even the sponsor. Face it. If a rider should happen to die from doping, which has happened numerous times already and if it was publicly acknowledged that it was with the sponsors approval, they'd be liable to. No sponsor will "publicly" condone doping. Ever.

In order for this sport to be "cleaned up" public perception and knowledge about drug use must be improved. I'm still hearing people say, "Oh whats so bad about something that makes you so much better?" First off those doctors that are using these riders as guinea pigs should be shot for not upholding their oath. 

Drug use has all kinds of side effects that have been well documented. To the individual that said that doctors prescribe human growth hormones to the elderly on a regular basis because it helps them grow muscle, gives their hair color back and in general makes them feel younger. Yes and no. This is why knowledge is so important in this area. People don't know all the facts.

When doctors give you a prescription they must look at many factors. They look at the risks and benefits. If someone's like 80 years old and someone else is just a baby, you don't give both the same type and dose of medication. Look at Vioxx, it was pulled because it caused increased chance of heart attacks but its still available. Risk and benefits. 

Remember Lyle Azaedo who played for the Oakland Athletics. The man had a great career but it was only revealed after he retired that he doped. He revealed his secret on tv because he wanted to warn the public about the dangers of doping. He publicly admitted to taking steroids, human growth hormones etc. during his career. And that the drug use was the cause of the inoperable tumours that eventually led to his premature death.

Like I said before, I like what Bjarne Riss and Telecom right now are trying to do to combat this problem. They're trying to tackle the problem from within the sport. Is it perfect, of course not. But we have to give them the time and resources to make it work.

For all those that keep on believing that the only solution is to legalize doping. I suggest you look at other sports to see what they've done to combat this and see how successful they've been. Bodybuilding's solution was to develop a separate "All Natural" class for those that got tired of competing with the juicers.

So if you want to follow in that direction , then you would have the racing calendar split into two. The "clean" division and then the dopers. Two sets of races throughout the year. But like I said before, this is not going to work. Because sponsors will not publicly endorse doping. End of story.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

physasst said:


> we use it all the time in orthopedics. Patients who are Jehovah's Witnesses or, have problems with various anemias. We give them "legal" EPO all the time to raise their hemoglobin prior to surgery. So I would hardly call it a "black box" drug.... Oh, not mention the thousands of cancer patients who get it to maintain their hemoglobin while undergoing treatment...unsafe?? gimme a break.


Maybe you haven't been reading your inserts...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10fda.html?ex=1180411200&en=32325202666b7006&ei=5070


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

gamara said:


> For all those that keep on believing that the only solution is to legalize doping. I suggest you look at other sports to see what they've done to combat this and see how successful they've been. Bodybuilding's solution was to develop a separate "All Natural" class for those that got tired of competing with the juicers.


Unless there is testing in place to enforce the rules then people will juice in the "all natural" class as well. The reason we are in this mess in the first place is because enforcement of the rules is not possible. 

I'm getting the impression that most people are in denial about this fact. They want to believe that cycling can be made clean and perfect and all the doping scandals will go away. It ain't gonna happen. Maybe you can pretend that it will happen, but it simply isn't possible. 

The sponsors don't care about anything except their image with the fans. If the fans accept reality then the sponsors will happily follow. If the fans continue to pretend that any rider who is caught doping is vile and evil, then the sponsors *will* go away. That's why this attitude of denial is killing the sport.

And do you think other sports are clean just because they have few if any drug scandals? Cycling has the most scandals because they have the strictest enforcement... and still most of the riders dope... because few of them are caught.


----------



## barbedwire (Dec 3, 2005)

*EPO can lead to heart attack*



physasst said:


> we use it all the time in orthopedics. Patients who are Jehovah's Witnesses or, have problems with various anemias. We give them "legal" EPO all the time to raise their hemoglobin prior to surgery. So I would hardly call it a "black box" drug.... Oh, not mention the thousands of cancer patients who get it to maintain their hemoglobin while undergoing treatment...unsafe?? gimme a break.




EPO is unsafe. What you are suggesting here is that amateur cyclists go buy EPO through various shady drug dealers, even athletes themselves, and self-administer. EPO can cause blood clots and heart attacks. I suppose you should do some research. Maybe try an internet search engine and type in "EPO heart attacks" or "EPO blood clots" or something. You might find amateur athletes dieing from self-administering EPO. Very irresponsible of you to be promoting EPO as safe in a public forum like this. :nonod:


----------



## crumjack (Sep 11, 2005)

gamara said:


> Remember Lyle Azaedo who played for the Oakland Athletics.


I hope you meant to say Oakland Raiders. Sorry, that made me laugh.  


OK, everyone resume arguing...


----------



## physasst (Oct 1, 2005)

*I*



barbedwire said:


> EPO is unsafe. What you are suggesting here is that amateur cyclists go buy EPO through various shady drug dealers, even athletes themselves, and self-administer. EPO can cause blood clots and heart attacks. I suppose you should do some research. Maybe try an internet search engine and type in "EPO heart attacks" or "EPO blood clots" or something. You might find amateur athletes dieing from self-administering EPO. Very irresponsible of you to be promoting EPO as safe in a public forum like this. :nonod:



saw the FDA warnings, and I would NEVER suggest that an athlete take it as a PED, what I was saying is that it is used in medically necessary terms. I wrote orders for two patients to get it over the next month. I don't ever "recommend" any drugs, but I don't for one minute believe that there are ANY "clean" pro athletes....and yes, I've known more than a couple, mostly NFL players, who have some stories about narcotic use in the NFL on monday mornings.....EVERYONE is on something.... Where did I ever suggest that amateur cyclists take it??? Talk about reading something that wasn't there...


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2007)

gamara said:


> Because sponsors will not publicly endorse doping. End of story.


Exactly. 'Legal' doping (and oxymoron anyway) will kill cycling as a professional sport.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

I read today that ARD and ZDF, the main (state run) TV stations in Germany are threatening to not renew their Tour de France contracts which expire in 2008 unless serious changes are made. Although there are obvious negative side effects to the sport of cycling with this approach, I applaud the company executives for having the guts to do this. Of course I am skeptical they would actually follow through, but it does put tremendous pressure on cycling to do something, which is indeed a good start towards changing the environment of professional cycling.

Of course as a realist I can see this simply being a preemptive move to lower the initial contract bids for the networks. But I do believe they are genuinely upset about being lied to for years and being made to look either like fools or enablers willing to look the other way.


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2007)

healthwise said:


> Hey guys
> 
> I am charlene from Sydney and I am a rider not professionally but think of it in future. I am currently in senior division of Moto-sports, which is local where I live. And I agree that there should be little amount of dope that should be allowed. I personally use in very little extent and it has proven very usefull. I think that would be fare..
> 
> ...


Troll.


----------



## barbedwire (Dec 3, 2005)

physasst said:


> saw the FDA warnings, and I would NEVER suggest that an athlete take it as a PED, what I was saying is that it is used in medically necessary terms. I wrote orders for two patients to get it over the next month. I don't ever "recommend" any drugs, but I don't for one minute believe that there are ANY "clean" pro athletes....and yes, I've known more than a couple, mostly NFL players, who have some stories about narcotic use in the NFL on monday mornings.....EVERYONE is on something.... Where did I ever suggest that amateur cyclists take it??? Talk about reading something that wasn't there...



You should be ashamed of yourself. To be in a health profession as you are in your role as a Physician Assistant and for you to advocate use of EPO and other drugs for whom the drugs were clearly not designed for, well that's very unprofessional & irresponsible. These drugs were neither designed or intended to be prescribed to athletes. The State Board should take away your license to assist doctors.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

barbedwire said:


> To be in a health profession as you are in your role as a Physician Assistant and for you to advocate use of EPO and other drugs for whom the drugs were clearly not designed for, well that's very unprofessional & irresponsible.


I'm starting to wonder what *you* are on Barbara... once again you accuse someone of saying something that they never even eluded to. Have you considered a career in politics?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

There is clearly no solution. Dopers, across all sports, basically got a free ride up until the mid to late 90s, other than perhaps the few idiots who failed dope tests at the Olympics. Almost all sports seem to be suffering now because the media and naive fans and hence the "authorities" have become concerned.

Clearly the major US sports have dealt with it better than cycling because they have maintained themselves in a similar position to the UCI up until WADA imposed themselves on cycling (or more accurately the UCI allowed WADA to impose itself). That is, doping isn't treated as much more than a public relations problem with most of it willingly going undetected.

Cycling's problem is that doping is endemic to it and clearly a culture of doping existed(s) however the riders themselves and the UCI were too weakly organized to protect themselves from WADA and the police. Also it is relatively popular, so it is a good whipping boy for the problem.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

One solution I would like seen is blood samples retroactively tested for each PED as they are discovered. That would make cheaters less confident, knowing that in the long run the legit science catches up with the illegal stuff.


----------



## tricycletalent (Apr 2, 2005)

gamara said:


> Like I said before, I like what Bjarne Riss and Telecom right now are trying to do to combat this problem. They're trying to tackle the problem from within the sport. Is it perfect, of course not. But we have to give them the time and resources to make it work.


This is plain bullshit. That is what Riis is trying to sell you, but in real life, he was pressured to hold a press conference due to the increasing suspicions which would have reflected upon his team. Now he can get away from it coming off as a regretting sinner talking about how it was in the old days, while he is transforming riders from mediocre to brilliant. Oh, but I guess that is all just due to team building and decent pep-talk.  



> For all those that keep on believing that the only solution is to legalize doping. I suggest you look at other sports to see what they've done to combat this and see how successful they've been. Bodybuilding's solution was to develop a separate "All Natural" class for those that got tired of competing with the juicers.
> 
> So if you want to follow in that direction , then you would have the racing calendar split into two. The "clean" division and then the dopers. Two sets of races throughout the year. But like I said before, this is not going to work. Because sponsors will not publicly endorse doping. End of story.


Yeah, sponsors will not publicly endorse doping, that is why riders will continue to dope and shut up about it, and harass the ones who come forward, like they badgered Simeoni for telling the truth. This will never end, but there will be a lot of scandals to look forward to. Ah, nothing like some soap opera to go with all the racing. I love it.


----------



## physasst (Oct 1, 2005)

*Where*



barbedwire said:


> You should be ashamed of yourself. To be in a health profession as you are in your role as a Physician Assistant and for you to advocate use of EPO and other drugs for whom the drugs were clearly not designed for, well that's very unprofessional & irresponsible. These drugs were neither designed or intended to be prescribed to athletes. The State Board should take away your license to assist doctors.



exactly did I "advocate use of EPO and other drugs", please show me, because right now, you are sounding rather hysterical. I have never prescribed any such substances to any athletes at any time, and I never will. You need to develop the ability to read what is written, and not attempt to make things up, because right now you are looking rather ridiculous, and losing credibility.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

barbedwire said:


> You should be ashamed of yourself. To be in a health profession as you are in your role as a Physician Assistant and for you to advocate use of EPO and other drugs for whom the drugs were clearly not designed for, well that's very unprofessional & irresponsible. These drugs were neither designed or intended to be prescribed to athletes. The State Board should take away your license to assist doctors.



Wow.... what load of make believe crap. The one who should be ashamed is you.


----------

