# Is doping really cheating?



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

There is a blog/column in today's New York Times about Lance Armstrong and doping. It is worth a look: *http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/stone-links-is-doping-cheating/*

edit: Apropos of the posts below, I think it's cheating. That is why doping is banned. I am not posing a third party argument that it is not cheating, because it is. I just thought _*what 'civilians' are philosophizing about in a national newspaper (not a doping forum where most of us are on the same page) was interesting.*_


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

David Loving said:


> There is a blog/column in today's New York Times about Lance Armstrong and doping. It is worth a look: *http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/stone-links-is-doping-cheating/*


NSFW


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Well you can tie it up in all the pretty pink philosophical bows you want but, yes, doping is cheating. While they may be entertaining talking points, some of the analogies are stretching things a teensy bit, e.g. If you feel sorry for Lance you are possibly reckless about the ecological survival of our planet. Seriously? I used to be endlessly entertained by this stuff when I was back in academia, but it just serves as a mildly entertaining diversion. UCI rules say doping is cheating. The dopers who have been busted call it cheating. 

And if it ain't cheating, why would Lance and others be so coy about revealing their techniques in gaining a sporting edge? If it looks like a duck....


----------



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

Yes, it is cheating.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

...and in France it's a crime. And in Norway. And in Italy. To mention three.


----------



## coop (Jun 8, 2008)

I do wonder why the USADA has jurisdiction over professional cycling, but not the NFL, NBA, NHL or MLB? Everyone is so quick to pile on cycling, but looks the other way when 250 lb men with 6% body fat are running mid to high 4 second 40 yard dashes. All you have to do is look at the players from these sports 20-25 years ago compared to today to realize that something highly un-natural is going on.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Those sports organisations have not signed the Wada code.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

In a way, epo almost inverts the natural meritocracy. If you have a very high natural hematocrit, epo won't do much for you. If you have a moderate to low htc, you get a huge power boost. The whole level playing field meme is bs.


----------



## PinarelloGirl (Aug 26, 2012)

Yes, doping is cheating and it is prohibited according to the rules. 

Either play by the rules or don’t play at all. Further, one element of sportsmanship is ethics -- whether it is an individual or team sport.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Maybe USADA should've accused Lance of giving BJ's to UCI staff....


----------



## coop (Jun 8, 2008)

PinarelloGirl said:


> Yes, doping is cheating and it is prohibited according to the rules.
> 
> Either play by the rules or don’t play at all. Further, one element of sportsmanship is ethics -- whether it is an individual or team sport.


 
In a perfect world your post would make sense, but this world being far from perfect makes it sound dreamy and unrealistic. You've made it too generalized. Every sport has forms of "accepted" cheating that is all part of the game, but very much in violation of the rules. Some sports have "unwritten" rules that while not in violation of anything, are unaccepted. Outside of PED's, Football has "spygate", baseball has pine tar and vaseline, basketball and soccer have taking dives and random phantom calls. All part of the game until it gets exposed and then everybody acts shocked that it could happen.

Doping in cycling for the longest time was widely accepted by the riders themselves, the same as uppers or steroids in football, cocaine in hockey, weed in basketball, and just about anything in baseball. Yes they're trying to clean it up, but in doing so, some dirty crap will be exposed.


----------



## coop (Jun 8, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> Scarecrow alert. Everyone is not looking the other way regarding North American Pro sports.
> 
> 
> Correct.
> ...


Please enlighten me. MLB still hasn't released there 50+ suspect list from last decade and the only people they bust are the occasional sacrificial minor league player or a washed up has been trying to stay a few years past their prime. NFL has been fighting tooth and nail against any test for PED's 

What exactly do you mean by that waking from the dream? Did I not mention that they're trying to clean it up? My dream statement was to the post of rules are rules. In sports today, if your not cheating (not necessarily PED's) you're not winning. Sad, but it's true and that's reality


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Of course it's cheating, but no rider from that era cheated any other rider since there was a culturally agreed upon rule that doping was O.K. even if against the rules. Thus doping became just one more aspect of preparing for racing and some were better at than others.

So of course it's cheating any clean rider that wanted to be a professional cyclist, it's cheating because it's nominally against the rules, but almost no rider cheated any other rider in the professional ranks.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Again, I am taking it as a given that doping IS cheating. I know what 99% of the forum thinks about doping, and your opinions are important. I was just interested in what y'all thought about the article. Anybody have a comment on what the contributors said? Anyone read the article? :idea:


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

They were using lots of $10 words to ask 'is cheating really cheating'.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

I like to *K*eep *I*t *S*imple *S*tupid.


Warning: My opinion only:

If you are breaking any rules of a given event, you are cheating. Or, it's the same as cheating.

Even what looks to be stupid rules, like using illegal aerodynamic water bottles. If you are found to have used them, then you are cheating. 


Does anyone know if they are enforcing approved UCI frames yet? 

If they are and you are found to have used an unapproved frame, then you are cheating. Even if it's an approved frame but didn't get the approved sticker on it (Because it wasn't officially inspected yet) then it still applies that it was an illegal frame. 


There are rules for a reason. And unless there are exceptions clearly written on any given rule, the rule must stand.


----------



## PinarelloGirl (Aug 26, 2012)

*Stop making excuses for cheaters and other miscreants*

So you write that you need a lot of rationalization to be able to process the stark truth. Yes, reality can be painful but it's time to *stop making excuses for cheaters and other miscreants.*





coop said:


> In a perfect world your post would make sense, but this world being far from perfect makes it sound dreamy and unrealistic. You've made it too generalized. Every sport has forms of "accepted" cheating that is all part of the game, but very much in violation of the rules. Some sports have "unwritten" rules that while not in violation of anything, are unaccepted. Outside of PED's, Football has "spygate", baseball has pine tar and vaseline, basketball and soccer have taking dives and random phantom calls. All part of the game until it gets exposed and then everybody acts shocked that it could happen.
> 
> Doping in cycling for the longest time was widely accepted by the riders themselves, the same as uppers or steroids in football, cocaine in hockey, weed in basketball, and just about anything in baseball. Yes they're trying to clean it up, but in doing so, some dirty crap will be exposed.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

David Loving said:


> Again, I am taking it as a given that doping IS cheating. I know what 99% of the forum thinks about doping, and your opinions are important. I was just interested in what y'all thought about the article. Anybody have a comment on what the contributors said? Anyone read the article? :idea:


It's an interesting article.


----------



## coop (Jun 8, 2008)

PinarelloGirl said:


> So you write that you need a lot of rationalization to be able to process the stark truth. Yes, reality can be painful but it's time to *stop making excuses for cheaters and other miscreants.*


Try not to be so over-dramatic I'm not making excuses for anyone. The reality is that you can't just say "No more doping because it's wrong" You're trying to reverse decades of an accepted yet dark period of cycling. It's going to take a lot of time and dirty little secrets before the new era can truly get a foothold. You want to live in a black and white world while everything around you is grey. Is doping really cheating, legally yes. Was it widely accepted for decades while the governing bodies stood around and did nothing? Certainly. But trying to change things in a blink of an eye an expecting everyone just to jump in line is very naive thinking.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

sir duke said:


> They were using lots of $10 words to ask 'is cheating really cheating'.


:thumbsup:


----------



## coop (Jun 8, 2008)

After further review of the article I realize that so much in life that is accepted could be considered "cheating". Let's start with the women. Makeup: women use it to cover-up, conceal, and generally hide or improve appearance that they consider not good enough naturally. They enhance breast, lips, stomachs, buttocks, eyes, all for sake of what? To be better than what they were born with. Yet all of these things are not only accepted, but have become almost a rite of passage.

Let's move on to the men. We have the little blue pill, numerous products that fight hair loss or regrow hair, "natural" muscle and fat burning products, as well as many of the same cosmetic surgery procedures as the women. Are we not cheating in life's natural progression?

Some of you here are so quick to jump all over this doping issue and call people miscreants and cheaters while at the same time in your own lives you practice "accepted" forms of cheating. Stones and glass houses come to mind. I'm not defending one over the other, just trying to point out that it's not so easy as saying stop!


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

coop said:


> After further review of the article I realize that so much in life that is accepted could be considered "cheating". Let's start with the women. Makeup: women use it to cover-up, conceal, and generally hide or improve appearance that they consider not good enough naturally. They enhance breast, lips, stomachs, buttocks, eyes, all for sake of what? To be better than what they were born with. Yet all of these things are not only accepted, but have become almost a rite of passage.
> 
> Let's move on to the men. We have the little blue pill, numerous products that fight hair loss or regrow hair, "natural" muscle and fat burning products, as well as many of the same cosmetic surgery procedures as the women. Are we not cheating in life's natural progression?
> 
> Some of you here are so quick to jump all over this doping issue and call people miscreants and cheaters while at the same time in your own lives you practice "accepted" forms of cheating. Stones and glass houses come to mind. I'm not defending one over the other, just trying to point out that it's not so easy as saying stop!


I can only assume you walk everywhere, have never flown in a plane and eat all your food with your fingers. Let's not drift off into silly absolutism.


----------



## coop (Jun 8, 2008)

sir duke said:


> I can only assume you walk everywhere, have never flown in a plane and eat all your food with your fingers. Let's not drift off into silly absolutism.


Who's drifting? I didn't mention anything about denying science and progress. Everything I mentioned had to do with body/genetic manipulation. In essence, isn't that what doping is? Taking something that isn't as good naturally and making it "better" through science. That's what I love about the anit-doping folks. They get so caught up in their own little world that when you throw outside examples into they equation they don't know how to handle it.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

coop said:


> Who's drifting? I didn't mention anything about denying science and progress. Everything I mentioned had to do with body/genetic manipulation. In essence, isn't that what doping is? Taking something that isn't as good naturally and making it "better" through science. That's what I love about the anit-doping folks. They get so caught up in their own little world that when you throw outside examples into they equation they don't know how to handle it.



Yep; They're all listed in the UCI rule book..................... :lol:


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

sir duke said:


> They were using lots of $10 words to ask 'is cheating really cheating'.


Repped!!!

Well done, Sir Duke.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

coop said:


> Who's drifting? I didn't mention anything about denying science and progress. Everything I mentioned had to do with body/genetic manipulation. In essence, isn't that what doping is? Taking something that isn't as good naturally and making it "better" through science. That's what I love about the anit-doping folks. They get so caught up in their own little world that when you throw outside examples into they equation they don't know how to handle it.


That's kind of the point I was making, they are 'outside examples'. I'd love to wonder all day long at the ways humankind has used technology to go beyond it's embodied limits to achieve wondrous things. But right now USADA ain't interested in that. You may have noticed that this is the doping forum, and I could care less whether Lance has lipstick on his bathroom shelf or is considering a hairpiece for when he thins out. Extending the debate to include the impact of science on morality won't get your boy off the hook.


----------



## coop (Jun 8, 2008)

First off, why would you ever think Armstrong is "my boy"? Secondly, did you read the article? The article, that this thread, in your beloved "doping forum" involves exactly what I was debating. Like I said, some of you get so stuck in your doping forum sanctuary that outside examples disrupt the general negativity of the place.


----------



## Chaz955i (Mar 13, 2006)

coop said:


> Who's drifting? I didn't mention anything about denying science and progress. Everything I mentioned had to do with body/genetic manipulation. In essence, isn't that what doping is? Taking something that isn't as good naturally and making it "better" through science. That's what I love about the anit-doping folks. They get so caught up in their own little world that when you throw outside examples into they equation they don't know how to handle it.


Maybe non-relevant analogies and a philosophical circle-jerk isn't what they are looking for?


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Double post..


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

coop said:


> First off, why would you ever think Armstrong is "my boy"? Secondly, did you read the article? The article, that this thread, in your beloved "doping forum" involves exactly what I was debating. Like I said, some of you get so stuck in your doping forum sanctuary that outside examples disrupt the general negativity of the place.


Your 'in-depth' knowledge of USADA's jurisdiction in professional U.S. sports gives me the impression that you think they are going after the wrong guy, and should be chasing down pumped-up linebackers. That of itself doesn't make you an Armstrong camp follower but it does sound eerily similar to a lot of the people still in denial. So is it a 'witchhunt'?
Yes, I read the article linked by David. I alluded to it earlier in this thread, my reply was the second one down, after the BJ video, maybe you didn't see it. I subsequently commented on the general tenet of the article after David asked if anyone had read it. It may shock you to know that the O.P. and one or two others seemed in agreement with my comments.
'My beloved doping forum'? Do you know how infrequently I post here? Go back awhiles and you will find I actually absented myself from posting for at least a year . I lurk from time to time but in all honesty I tired of the entrenched viewpoints leading nowhere. I think recent events have brought out some valid arguments, and to raise issues such as 'what is cheating' and 'why do we cheat' are welcome. But come on, do you seriously think the examples you mentioned have any direct bearing on USADA's motivation in going after Armstrong, Bruyneel, Ferrari and the others? It's a complete RED HERRING, an interesting red herring but a sideshow all the same. I don't want 'negativity' any more than you do but wrongly labelling people you disagree with as zealots does a lot to undermine your credibility. 
The original question asked was 'Is doping really cheating?'. The overwhelming consensus here is 'yes'. Can you see why your tangential concerns are not really getting you very far?


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Chaz955i said:


> Maybe non-relevant analogies and a philosophical circle-jerk isn't what they are looking for?


That would be my guess.


----------



## coop (Jun 8, 2008)

Chris-X, let commend you on a great post! My debate wasn't for Armstrong, but of the culture of the past. I am glad the doping issues are being addressed, but I also feel that it will be a long and dirty process because things cannot just change overnight. I was using outside comparisons to draw reference what culture _could_ consider the norm. Tell me that plastic surgery hasn't help some people get ahead (weather girls, any news caster on HD TV). It's not illegal, but in comparison to the article that started this thread, it falls right in line of what may or not be accepted by culture. If this thread was only about doping really being cheating, then of course the answer is yes. But by linking the article and it's philosophical questions, it created a debate. I merely offered the counter point to everyone just saying yes. There are often 2 sides to every story. Arguing one side while not at least trying to see the other side is also quite self involved and egocentric.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

coop said:


> Chris-X, let commend you on a great post! My debate wasn't for Armstrong, but of the culture of the past. I am glad the doping issues are being addressed, but I also feel that it will be a long and dirty process because things cannot just change overnight. I was using outside comparisons to draw reference what culture _could_ consider the norm. Tell me that plastic surgery hasn't help some people get ahead (weather girls, any news caster on HD TV). It's not illegal, but in comparison to the article that started this thread, it falls right in line of what may or not be accepted by culture. If this thread was only about doping really being cheating, then of course the answer is yes. But by linking the article and it's philosophical questions, it created a debate. I merely offered the counter point to everyone just saying yes. There are often 2 sides to every story. Arguing one side while not at least trying to see the other side is also quite self involved and egocentric.


"It's not illegal, but....." and that's the difference. allow EPO and you'd have a point.


----------



## coop (Jun 8, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> This is why each one of us has to develop our own "code."
> 
> Hopefully that code is philosophically aligned with doing what's "right," and doing what's right is philosophically aligned with the culture one belongs to.
> 
> Without these alignments, there will be conflict. If you're doing the right thing nothing else really matters, does it?


I agree with you. I know I presented an argument counter to that, but like I said, that's what I was trying to do. Your post explains my point quite well. For you and I, we try to align with what is right. The pressures we face in our lives is different than what some of these cyclists faced over the past few decades. Many tried to do the right thing, many did not. But doping was a part of the culture wrong or right. Hopefully over time, doping will be pushed out of their culture and it won't be such a battle for them. Once again, I'm not defending it, just presenting a counter thought.


----------

