|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
DepartFictif wrote: if you take EPO and HGH (to use your examples) durring training, and are "clean" durring competition; ie: if/when tested you return a -ve result.... are you cheating? What really constitutes cheating. Well, that. If you take medication for a cold (the same stuff any non-athlete can get over the counter in a pharmacy) durring competition you are "cheating"... is this right? No, then you're not cheating, because you know it isn't affecting your performance. You're getting busted for not-cheating. It's an imperfect world, with imperfect rules. We have rules against running red lights. You can get busted for running a red light even if you can see that no one is coming the other way, so there's no actual danger in it. You can argue that the traffic or doping rules are stupid or hypocritical (like having a speed limit that everyone breaks) but we both know they're the rules. Is there not a much bigger and more in depth issue here than right/wrong, clean/cheat... it's a far more complicated world out there than you realize... |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
No, then you're not cheating, because you know it isn't affecting
your performance. You're getting busted for not-cheating. So by saying that you are saying it is up to every individual to make up his(or her) own mind as to wether he is doping or not... it's the individual's morals... dangerouse mate... the door's WFO if you go down that road.. No, I think you have to go by the rules, those are the only true guidelines that don't involve individuals resting on their moral upbringing to make a dicision... and sadly, if you go by the rules... "you don't get cought, you're clean." (In fact half the time wit lots of federations you can get cought and still be clean.. but that's a separate issue alltogether. Let not go into that.) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
allow me to intoduce myself. i'm the author of the article linked at
the start of this thread. i appreciate the comments - positive and negative - on it. in defence of some of the negative criticism, allow me to emphasise that is but one of three articles on the same subject i published on sigla over the last year. reading the other two may give you a fuller picture of my view of the sport. possibly i do take a nostalgic view of the past. i think that is true of most cyclists and former cyclists. the first of the three articles acknowledges the role drugs have played throughout the history of the sport. but where i see the major difference between the drug use of the past and the drug use of the present is that, in the past, riders like anquetil defended their position. today, we have riders who seek to deny that it is going on and are actively seeking to silence anyone who says what is going on. of the three articles, i think this last one is the weakest and least effective. what they should have been was the first, dealing with the history of drug abuse, the second, pointing how that it is still rife, and a final one that actually addresses the issue most cycling fans i know can't get their heads around - how do you still love a sport that is as corrupt as you know it is. instead, i wrote an article that touched on issues without delving into them in the way they deserve. the article touches on the fact that david walsh was once one of the blind monkeys who knew what was going on and said nothing. one day i'd like to know what brought about his damascene conversion. the article tries to explain that there isn't really a black and white in lance armstrong. those who say he's doping, can't prove it. but neither can those who say he's clean. the only real point i think i make in the article is that the sport's law of omerta is even more damaging than the drugs. as fans, we know too much today to buy this silence. i don't think any of us really believe that the drugs have gone away. i doubt if many of us believe the drugs will ever go away. re the robocop issue. that is taken from an essay in robert redeker's le sport contre les peuples, published in 2002. redeker's main argument throughout the series of essays (which cover a range of sports) is that money is the root of all evil. but i still like his robocop / lara croft analogy, still think it is worth quoting. again, for the comments - both negative and positive - thank you. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ups.com... allow me to intoduce myself. i'm the author of the article linked at the start of this thread. i appreciate the comments - positive and negative - on it. in defence of some of the negative criticism, allow me to emphasise that is but one of three articles on the same subject i published on sigla over the last year. reading the other two may give you a fuller picture of my view of the sport. possibly i do take a nostalgic view of the past. i think that is true of most cyclists and former cyclists. the first of the three articles acknowledges the role drugs have played throughout the history of the sport. but where i see the major difference between the drug use of the past and the drug use of the present is that, in the past, riders like anquetil defended their position. today, we have riders who seek to deny that it is going on and are actively seeking to silence anyone who says what is going on. of the three articles, i think this last one is the weakest and least effective. what they should have been was the first, dealing with the history of drug abuse, the second, pointing how that it is still rife, and a final one that actually addresses the issue most cycling fans i know can't get their heads around - how do you still love a sport that is as corrupt as you know it is. instead, i wrote an article that touched on issues without delving into them in the way they deserve. the article touches on the fact that david walsh was once one of the blind monkeys who knew what was going on and said nothing. one day i'd like to know what brought about his damascene conversion. the article tries to explain that there isn't really a black and white in lance armstrong. those who say he's doping, can't prove it. but neither can those who say he's clean. the only real point i think i make in the article is that the sport's law of omerta is even more damaging than the drugs. as fans, we know too much today to buy this silence. i don't think any of us really believe that the drugs have gone away. i doubt if many of us believe the drugs will ever go away. re the robocop issue. that is taken from an essay in robert redeker's le sport contre les peuples, published in 2002. redeker's main argument throughout the series of essays (which cover a range of sports) is that money is the root of all evil. but i still like his robocop / lara croft analogy, still think it is worth quoting. again, for the comments - both negative and positive - thank you. A question, if I may. Are you aware of any serious critique of the Vayer analysis found in the Walsh book? If there is, please point me in that direction with a citation. Thanks! |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On 07/31/2005 09:50 AM, in article
t, "B. Lafferty" wrote: wrote in message ups.com... allow me to intoduce myself. i'm the author of the article linked at the start of this thread. i appreciate the comments - positive and negative - on it. in defence of some of the negative criticism, allow me to emphasise that is but one of three articles on the same subject i published on sigla over the last year. reading the other two may give you a fuller picture of my view of the sport. possibly i do take a nostalgic view of the past. i think that is true of most cyclists and former cyclists. the first of the three articles acknowledges the role drugs have played throughout the history of the sport. but where i see the major difference between the drug use of the past and the drug use of the present is that, in the past, riders like anquetil defended their position. today, we have riders who seek to deny that it is going on and are actively seeking to silence anyone who says what is going on. of the three articles, i think this last one is the weakest and least effective. what they should have been was the first, dealing with the history of drug abuse, the second, pointing how that it is still rife, and a final one that actually addresses the issue most cycling fans i know can't get their heads around - how do you still love a sport that is as corrupt as you know it is. instead, i wrote an article that touched on issues without delving into them in the way they deserve. the article touches on the fact that david walsh was once one of the blind monkeys who knew what was going on and said nothing. one day i'd like to know what brought about his damascene conversion. the article tries to explain that there isn't really a black and white in lance armstrong. those who say he's doping, can't prove it. but neither can those who say he's clean. the only real point i think i make in the article is that the sport's law of omerta is even more damaging than the drugs. as fans, we know too much today to buy this silence. i don't think any of us really believe that the drugs have gone away. i doubt if many of us believe the drugs will ever go away. re the robocop issue. that is taken from an essay in robert redeker's le sport contre les peuples, published in 2002. redeker's main argument throughout the series of essays (which cover a range of sports) is that money is the root of all evil. but i still like his robocop / lara croft analogy, still think it is worth quoting. again, for the comments - both negative and positive - thank you. A question, if I may. Are you aware of any serious critique of the Vayer analysis found in the Walsh book? If there is, please point me in that direction with a citation. Thanks! Not a direct critique, but: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/sport.cfm?id=847262004 Also, consider Vayer's comments regarding what happens to one of his clients: Archived AFP story at http://whenskiesaregrey.com/default....2&stid=8051757 "Le TAS vient de prouver qu'il n'est pas indépendant", a estimé pour sa part Antoine Vayer, manager du coureur. "Il se dégage très habilement du dossier mais sanctionne le premier repenti. Il est certain qu'il n'y en aura plus d'autres". Antoine Vayer s'en est pris à l'UCI: "Pour moi, c'est une première étape vers la légalisation du dopage. Le message est clair: surtout, ne dites rien. L'UCI est responsable." His comments in that article make him sound a little paranoid, to my mind. -- Steven L. Sheffield stevens at veloworks dot com bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven L. Sheffield" wrote in message ... On 07/31/2005 09:50 AM, in article t, "B. Lafferty" wrote: wrote in message ups.com... allow me to intoduce myself. i'm the author of the article linked at the start of this thread. i appreciate the comments - positive and negative - on it. in defence of some of the negative criticism, allow me to emphasise that is but one of three articles on the same subject i published on sigla over the last year. reading the other two may give you a fuller picture of my view of the sport. possibly i do take a nostalgic view of the past. i think that is true of most cyclists and former cyclists. the first of the three articles acknowledges the role drugs have played throughout the history of the sport. but where i see the major difference between the drug use of the past and the drug use of the present is that, in the past, riders like anquetil defended their position. today, we have riders who seek to deny that it is going on and are actively seeking to silence anyone who says what is going on. of the three articles, i think this last one is the weakest and least effective. what they should have been was the first, dealing with the history of drug abuse, the second, pointing how that it is still rife, and a final one that actually addresses the issue most cycling fans i know can't get their heads around - how do you still love a sport that is as corrupt as you know it is. instead, i wrote an article that touched on issues without delving into them in the way they deserve. the article touches on the fact that david walsh was once one of the blind monkeys who knew what was going on and said nothing. one day i'd like to know what brought about his damascene conversion. the article tries to explain that there isn't really a black and white in lance armstrong. those who say he's doping, can't prove it. but neither can those who say he's clean. the only real point i think i make in the article is that the sport's law of omerta is even more damaging than the drugs. as fans, we know too much today to buy this silence. i don't think any of us really believe that the drugs have gone away. i doubt if many of us believe the drugs will ever go away. re the robocop issue. that is taken from an essay in robert redeker's le sport contre les peuples, published in 2002. redeker's main argument throughout the series of essays (which cover a range of sports) is that money is the root of all evil. but i still like his robocop / lara croft analogy, still think it is worth quoting. again, for the comments - both negative and positive - thank you. A question, if I may. Are you aware of any serious critique of the Vayer analysis found in the Walsh book? If there is, please point me in that direction with a citation. Thanks! Not a direct critique, but: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/sport.cfm?id=847262004 Also, consider Vayer's comments regarding what happens to one of his clients: Archived AFP story at http://whenskiesaregrey.com/default....2&stid=8051757 "Le TAS vient de prouver qu'il n'est pas indépendant", a estimé pour sa part Antoine Vayer, manager du coureur. "Il se dégage très habilement du dossier mais sanctionne le premier repenti. Il est certain qu'il n'y en aura plus d'autres". Antoine Vayer s'en est pris à l'UCI: "Pour moi, c'est une première étape vers la légalisation du dopage. Le message est clair: surtout, ne dites rien. L'UCI est responsable." His comments in that article make him sound a little paranoid, to my mind. Thanks, but the Scotsman article is not at all analytical of Vayer's position in the Walsh book. If there is a problem with that analysis, I'd like to read it. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
vayer's argument ... it doesn't hold a lot of water, in the same way as
*all* the lance arguments (pro and anti) don't hold a lot of water. they're not supported by strong evidence. too many of them come down to what an individual wants to believe, and are just used as supporting buttresses for that belief system. vayer's argument seem to boil down to the fact that "man goes up hill fast? drugs are the only answer." i'm sure you can give an alalytical response to an argument that itself is not nearly as analytical as it pretends to be. vayer's statistics don't wash, no with me anyway. can you compare the times to go up the same mountain in different races? what about all the contributory factors, from weather through tactics through where the mountain falls in a particular race. you also have to account for the overall changes in the race itself - shorter, flatter, less tiring (though still not easy). there would also seem to be an assumption on vayer's part that, on a climb, riders go balls out base to summit. that simply doesn't hold water. there are, at the end of the day, too many assumptions in vayer's analysis. on the other hand, there is a relevence to vayer's argument. michele ferrari had certain areas of specialisation. vo2 max and hill climbing being the important ones, where vayer's argument is concerned. maybe vayer does have a point. but i don't think it's a well made point. but then, maybe he was afraid of ferrari suing him, and so couched it too carefully. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote: Here are some old posts from Benjo. Brian: Thanks for offering those up, greatly appreciated, the type of info I was looking for. It still doesn't change my opinion though (that the "bigger lie" was from those insisting that drug use was all about recovery & pain control vs performance enhancement). But perhaps we're more willing to be honest about our use of drugs when people like Bob Dole hawk Viagra. We didn't have such positive role models for drug use back then. To a certain extent, you might be right. But we're still mostly treating ailments we've always looked for a solution for: the difference between Viagra and previous treatments for impotence is mainly that Viagra works. There is an argument that certain drugs are being prescribed in marginal cases ("lifestyle drugs," "medicating personality," "Prozac nation"...) but the margins don't invalidate the great number of people who are unequivocally helped by drugs. One reason we use more drugs today as a society is that there are more drugs that work better on more problems with fewer really wacky side-effects. That's a cultural thing, which essentially argues that certain drugs may just be seen as nearly universal quality-of-life enhancements. Like, oh, Botox in LA, they'll be seen as the medical equivalent of eating right and getting exercise. Depending on who you talk to, HGH is headed there. Or it's got some really scary side effects. Either way, eh? As far as I see it there is only one solution: legalizing drugs to a certain amount, Anquetil-wise. It's a illusion that the "fight against doping" can ever be won. As a doping expert was saying a few weeks go: in the 90's the gap between the cops and the robbers was narrowing, but right now it's widening again. Draconian legislation won't help any more than in the "war against drugs'' in general. It will only stimulate the already existing links with criminal organisations. The main impediment for legalizing drugs: the fact that is has become a moral issue. Much more in the United States than in Europe mayby, but I'm afraid that thanks to the trials which are going on and all the publicity around the gap is closing. I can't say I'm very happy about it. Benjo Maso I read this basic argument (limited legalization) about once every four months in rbr. I routinely post the same question: why bother? Here's the difficulty: any "limited" legalization (which seems to generally mean restricted doses of EPO, maybe a certain dose of some steroids, and oh, who knows, probably no more than two Adderalls per race day) would not create some magically pure group of riders, it would just explicitly force the currently-clean riders (yeah, I believe in their existence) to dope up to a certain level. Who is helped by this? You'd still have to do drug controls to make sure the riders were not drugging up too much (otherwise the temptation to, oh, take 150% of the allowable steroid dose cycle would be unbearable for the type of riders who cheat anyways), you've forced all the riders onto the program to maintain a level playing field, and now you've got all the riders on drugs which are still likely to have long-term side effects, and maybe even some short-term side effects. Does the racing get better? I doubt it. The races won't be any more impressive, or more dramatic. There will, I'm pretty much positive, still be a certain contingent of riders who will push the rules and do really stupid things with drugs, sometimes with performance benefits. But instead of being constrained by the dire consequences of positive tests, I suspect the new feeling would be that with some drugs allowed, pushing the limits would be perceived as a gamesmanship fine. I can see the new commissaire's lists now: SANCTIONS: Jose Cuervo, improper jersey, 150 SFr Jack Daniels, taking a tow from a team car, 150 SFr, -5 points David Millar, testing 1.5x permissible EPO dosage, 200 SFr, -5 points, 2-minute GC penalty. And so forth. The worst part is not that all the riders would be doped, or that they would cheat on the doping anyways, and that the doping test would have to be at least as frequent as now, if not more frequent. The real problem is that it's a ludicrous and expensive barrier to entry to the sport. Now, if you want to turn pro, you're going to have to commit to a couple of courses of EPO, a few cycles of deka, and take a bit of Hgh just because, okay? the expense alone would kill off a considerable number of aspirants. I have no idea what kind of unholy chaos such an attitude to doping would have in the amateur ranks, but I'm pretty sure daffy and destructive wouldn't begin to cover it. Goodbye, junior development programs, we'll miss the 90% of under-18s who just disappeared.... So "a little bit of dope" is essentially a solution that would maybe make the peloton seem more honest for six months, would probably decimate the sport in the long run, and would make the sanest, most honest riders simply leave the sport for good. I see a few holes in this plan, -- Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
[insightful analysis snipped] And add to that the publicity factor. Suddenly, all the achievements in the sport would be seen as a lone result of taking pharmaceutical products and medicine. Fake boobs work although everybody knows they are fake. But I think that won't work in cycling. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Drugs are Cool. | crit PRO | Racing | 23 | March 22nd 05 03:50 AM |
Decanio Sounding Coherent | B Lafferty | Racing | 93 | February 3rd 05 11:32 PM |
Bettini on drugs? | Gary | Racing | 74 | August 19th 04 01:44 AM |
Doping or not? Read this: | never_doped | Racing | 0 | August 4th 03 01:46 AM |
BBC: Drugs In Sport | B. Lafferty | Racing | 0 | July 28th 03 04:19 PM |