I just looked at the original post again, remind myself where we started 100 posts ago. The average speed in this year's tour was the third fastest ever.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

So it seems like you agree with me that the core problem that we want to avoid are the health risks from excessive PED's, yes?

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

I see what angle you come from, but I think you haven't quite finished your thoughts. If you would think it all the way through you probably might come to the following conclusion:

One has to respect the performance of an extraordinary athlete, but one does not assume that he is inherently "a better human being" or something even greater.

He does deserve respect and admiration for having the ideal genetic make-up; for having an incredible amount of determination and dedication.

But that pretty much is it....

This does not make him divine, super human, a hero.... He is just different in one or two aspects, but otherwise the same as all of us. And his "ethical status" is neither higher nor lower than that of anyone else.

If one would not elevate those human beings above what they actually are, then one would not get this vicious about the fact that they turn out to just be human (lying, cheating, pretending and what else makes us "human").

If you come to this conclusion, you will understand why people get so vicious about finding out that their "better selves" are not that much different....

And if I were Mr Demerly and would pump my chest saying "LA is clean", I would have a hard time sleeping at night. LA is human after all.

But maybe I am just different...

---

adrialin

(BOMK, racing drug and supplement free since 1985)

So it seems like you agree with me that the core problem that we want to avoid are the health risks from excessive PED's, yes?

Not really.

The core problem (IMO) is that organizations want to ensure that the performance we see on the field or on the course is the result of the combination of the athlete's training and natural ability ... as in EA's slogan that encapsulated the essense of sport, "I'm better than you ... and I can prove it!".

The difference in an athlete's abilities while not using PED's and using PED's is so dramatic, that they are (figuratively) "not even the same animal", and the mixture of the two athletes (using v. non-using) eliminates the essense of sport.

IMO, that is the core reason why PED's are not allowed in many sports (they are allowed in some ... or at least not tested for ... same thing, in practice). The problem is these sports cannot technically say "XYZ is tolerated" because in many cases, XYZ is federally banned substance that faces stiff penalties for having, using, and obtaining.

I don't know that health risks are the #1 issue ... certainly a big component, but IMO, not the primary reason.

=========================

Edit: Actually, you may be right. PED's are prohibited in sports (perhaps primarily) because many of those same substances are federally illegal ... namely because of health risks.

If PED's were legal, they still might be prohibited by sporting organizations ... just as there are products you and I can buy and use, but Albert Pujols could not ... often times for health reasons.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

But maybe I am just different...

If you do not place top athletes in an elevated position in society, then yes, you are probably different. The rareness of their skill, their high rate of pay, their physical stature, etc classify them, in the minds of many, to be "super human". Why? because what they are doing, and doing very well, cannot be done but by a mere fraction of humanity.

For some people, this means these athletes' morality should also be "super human", for others it means that their ability overshadows their lack of morality, others are somewhere in between.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

But if you allow them, then everyone can use to their hearts content, isn't the playing field level??

Where does a natural aid begin and a performance enhancer end? the ancient aztec and/or maya civilizations used to chew coca leaves. We drink gatorade, take vitamin supplements and advil. we can sleep in altitude tents. take EPOgen (whatever that does) and amino acid supplements. viagra and 20 cups of coffee.

And the question arises, why are substances XYZ federally banned (presumably you mean not approved by the FDA for non-medically indicated situations or approved for use in humans)? Is it because of a sporting nature, or because of the health risks.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

I agree with you. Regulate "treatment" and call it standard medical care.

You are bringing up great and interesting questions/points ... IMO, they deserve their own thread. It would be interesting to hear others' philosophical opinions.

But if you allow them, then everyone can use to their hearts content, isn't the playing field level??

In some sports (bodybuilding, strongman, powerlifting, etc) that is the sentiment in practice.

Where does a natural aid begin and a performance enhancer end?

Another great question. I have heard it expressed regarding 'natural' (i.e., drug-free) bodybuilding, "You call eating 12 chicken breasts and drinking 6 protein drinks a day 'natural' ?"

That is a question that each governing body addresses ... and I admit it can be/seem arbitrary.

------------------------

It gets more complicated because different sports may prohibit certain substances for different reasons. Sports like baseball, where so much emphasis is placed on career performance numbers [and their comparisons to athletes of different eras), they may be prohibited to ensure that sacred records are not broken by athletes that have a drastic competitive advanatage (such as Barry Bonds passing Hank Aaron as the Home Run King). Other sports, may prohibit them primarily due to the degree that younger athletes might be influenced. Other sports may primarily prohibit them based on interpretations of having athletes compete "naturally" as being congruent with the essense of sport. Still others may prohibit them for health reasons ... or a combination of reasons.

why are substances XYZ federally banned (presumably you mean not approved by the FDA for non-medically indicated situations or approved for use in humans)? Is it because of a sporting nature, or because of the health risks.

I think steroids are classified as a Class 3 substance due to the over-emphasis of "roid rage" and/or health risks. I say this because many folks use these substances (illegally) without roid rage and significant health issues (I can't/won't say "without health issues", because I have no before/after knowledge of their 'health profile'). The line/amount between "use" and "abuse" varies from individual to individual based on a variety of factors ... I don't know that a law could "regulate" any of that to a certain degree, outside of "prohibition" or "allowance".

IMO, the case could be made that adults have the right to use such substances. The discussion of why dianabol and marijuana are illegal, yet tobbacco and alcohol are permitted for members of a certain age, is a complex discussion. I do see the "shades of gray" in that discussion.

But, again, in this thread, I am intentionally trying to stay on point about the "hating of dopers" and the issue of whether they are "cheating or not", and not whether they should be allowed to take certain substances or certain substances up to specific amounts. The latter gets very hairy quite quickly.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

I agree with you. Regulate "treatment" and call it standard medical care.

Isn't that what's being done with a "higher than average" hemocrit level?

I don't see where that has reduced cheating?

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

I postulate that most of the *doping* is actually medical treatment to help riders recover from, or better absorb the stress of, racing for 3 weeks straight. I think this treatment should be allowed and regulated. If some guy walked into a doctor's office in the same condition as a tour rider in the third week of racing, you'd better believe the guy off the street would receive medical care that would likely cause the cyclist to be disqualified.

Having a hematocrit up to 50% is allowable. That's not the same thing as allowing riders to take EPO to elevate their hematocrit to 50% (and that's not necessarily what I'm suggesting they do. either).

You're never going to eliminate cheating. What you can do is make the gap between cheating athletes (those taking drugs that fall outside of what's regulated and allowed) and non-cheating athletes (those taking drugs that fall within regulations) small enough that it either doesn't materially affect race results or the difference in performance is not great enough to offset the risk.

I postulate that most of the *doping* is actually medical treatment to help riders recover from, or better absorb the stress of, racing for 3 weeks straight.

I agree. I think that a lot of "PED use" in baseball is to stay as strong at the end of a season as you are at the start. According to Canseco, that's the best thing about steroids ... "no tailing off at the end of the year". I would imagine it would be the same for football, etc. Professional season/events are very rigorous, much more than amatuer seasons/events.

But, I would think that would tie into the strategy of competing in such sports/events ... isn't that why so much emphasis is put on off-season conditioning?

It's a tough, but very interesting, question/topic.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

What do you mean by that?

"...isn't that why so much emphasis is put on off-season conditioning?"

Yes, but that can only go so far when you're expected to race every day, for 3 weeks straight, up mountains and in 100-degree weather, as well as (in most cases) maintain a racing schedule for about 8 months out of the year in addition to the grand tours.

It's difficult to say where it all starts - is it our expectations as fans, or sponsors' expectations as financial backers, or is it the organization's over-selling the event to both fans and sponsors, that makes cheating so appealing (or even necessary) to the sport's athletes if they are to live up to everyone's expectations?

There's so much more to this issue that simply taking HGH or EPO.

How about this, make the Tour de France a clean race, but instead have the whole thing in central Illinois. Call 900 meters a kilometer and report speed in "kilometers" per hour. Call any I-70 overpasses "Hors Category" climbs. While you're at it, refer to every Waffle House as a Villa.

That's what those guys do when they dope up--- They lessen the challenge of each day. They shorten the route and flatten the mountains. The world is too small to take shortcuts through challenges.

I think Floyd was clean and I think that's why his performance varied so much. I also think that's why you didn't see any rouleurs leading the high mountain passes this year. To me, clean racing makes for better racing. You get more performance swings and the mountains you climb are real mountains.

I hear that some guys who climb Everest use EPO as well. What's the freaking point. Climb McKinley clean then maybe try Everest clean if you are up to it. You didn't actually do it if you used drugs for a boost.

So, I hate dopers because they are not really doing the races we see them in. They are the Milli Vanilli's of the sporting world:

Jan Ullrich and Ivan Basso recent photo:



More on Jan and Ivan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milli_Vanilli

Exactly, adrialin...that is the conclusion of my thoughts...

Just didn't want to give away the game all at once, you know... ;-)

You will never stop humans from cheating. You can bury your head in the sand or accept that fact. Either way, it's not going to change a thing.

And by the way, doesn't your wetsuit, aero frame, disc wheel, skin suit, gatorade and various vitamins and minerals make the race easier, too? Shouldn't we then, using your logic, just reduce the bike to, say, 50 miles, reduce the run to a 10k and make the swim an even 500 meters and call it an IM?

I'd love it if they had equipment restrictions in triathlons. All of that crap does diminish the races. The only reason I bought it is to remain competitive. The 78 degree wetsuit regulation is a joke. You don't need a wetsuit unless its under 68 degrees. How many times have you burned up in a swim BC you had to wear the fullsuit--- You can't just give 7 seconds per 100 yards away.

Seriously, would we really have less fun if everyone had to use 32-spoke box sectioned times, dropped handlebars, and round tubes? We'd save thousands of dollars and have just as much fun. Believe me, I raced in the early 80's and triathlons were still a blast without wetsuits, aero bars, and funny-bikes. Races would also be just as exciting to watch.

I'm not going to bury my head in the sand, I'm going to pound anyone who does drugs and competes. Those people put the pressure on others to dope up as well. If the guy you want to beat wears a wetsuit, you have to wear a wetsuit. Same thing goes for drug use. Instead of giving up and accepting it, I think we just have to continue to fight it. Passing some real sporting fraud laws in the USA would help--- Doctors and athletes who faced jail-time might think about it a little bit more.

It's funny, because I could care less about people who use recreational drugs-- They just harm themselves. The pressure that sporting drug use puts on clean athletes is why I have such a problem with it.

-Marc

The use of PED's is a grey area, only those PED's proscribed by the governing bodies, IOC, WADA when used by the athlete make him or her a cheat. However Caffiene was recently had its tolerance changed. Athletes can have more in their system without then being labelled as cheats, BUT the same athlete would have been labelled a cheat if they had done it before the rules changed.

How many people happily have a coffee before a race for the kick? Too many of those and you are doping but just a couple (so you still get the kick) and are not over the mandatory limit and you are an honest to goodness athlete looking forward to race cleanly.

Lots of people take vitamin and mineral supplements (which can be easily contaminated at source) and the argument is that although these help the body to recover more quickly than if you had to get them from a normal diet, they are naturally occuring in the body so aren't bad or drugs (HGH and EPO are both naturally occuring hormones,found in the body).

Some people I know have a very high natural haemocrit level (right up near 50%) if they were to race pro they could be suspended from racing and no doubt the anti doping brigade would label them as cheats and 'hate them' for cheating even though this is their natural level.

I am not condoning cheating, but please try to see this issue from more than just a right/wrong view point.

If I were to take a substance which IS NOT on the banned list but gives the same results as taking HGH would I be a cheat?

So, I hate dopers because they are not really doing the races we see them in. They are the Milli Vanilli's of the sporting world:

Jan Ullrich and Ivan Basso recent photo

Yes, they are doing the same races, and even experiencing the pain. They all just do it faster than they would otherwise.

Again, I maintain that it is nonsense to hate and vilify the athletes and the athletes alone. It is a systematic problem inherent to the pro cycling culture. To vilify the athletes, I FIRMLY believe that a person should also be disgusted with the establishment for creating it to be what it is. The big bucks drive not only the athletes, but ALL of the people around them, who have as much to gain from the athlete's success as the athletes themselves.

If you hate doping, you should hate the whole system, not the just the individuals.

In case you haven't read: At this point there are only allegations against Ulle or Basso. They have not actually been caught testing positive. Therefore, they are not cheaters. Yet.

How did TdF cyclists cope before PED's were common/available?

Isn't the "expected to race every day, for 3 weeks straight, up mountains and in 100-degree weather," what makes the TdF so special? Why make it easier by allowing the use of compounds that drastically aid recovery?

I understand why athletes use PED's (he who recovers the fastest wins -- so to speak) ... but I'm not understanding how plays into whether they should be legal.

Regardless, whoever rides the fastest over 3 weeks, wins the race. Why do they *need* drugs in order to have a fantastic race? IMO, they don't ... they use PED's to get an advantage over the competitors that don't.

The greats of 40+ years ago did not need these aids to compete in the race, so why do today's athletes need them? Are today's athletes weaker than those of years gone by? I don't think so. As I saw on a sign at a baseball game ... "Babe Ruth did it on hot dogs and beer".

What happened was one person cheated, and then other followed suit to keep up or even surpass the original cheater by cheating better.

I don't see where "giving in to the cheaters" is the right move.

that makes cheating so appealing (or even necessary) to the sport's athletes if they are to live up to everyone's expectations?

They want to be the best. They fear/hate failure. That's the driving force. To outdo everyone else. Again, it's seemingly a deflection off of the athlete and toward the fans, sponsors, companies, etc. It still comes back to "I'm better than you and I can prove it" (although cheaters will add "by whatever means necessary"). We see PED use in events and at levels that virtually no one notices nor cares about. It's your self-worth primarily based on the result and not how you got there.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

If you hate doping, you should hate the whole system, not the just the individuals.

I think you'd be surprised at some of the low-level events where PED's are used ... ranging from local bodybuilding and powerlifting competitions, to small high school football, to likely even low level time trials and triathlons. The truth is one's man's "local tune-up race" is another man's "world championship". What's absurd to one is dedication and commitment to another.

I'm not buying the "hate the system" stuff ... because professional sports, including TdF, was "big business" before the major PED's were commonplace. Anyone really believe that many guys wouldn't compete in the TdF is only "bragging rights" and small money were at stake?

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

You have a good point--- As it stands now, despite his past, Dr. Ferrari is still a sports-celebrity and he still works with Levi Leipheimer and other known athletes. What do you think about sporting fraud laws in the USA? Putting coaches, trainers, and doctors in jail when they support drug use in sports might help fix the system.

I'm just not ready to give up the fight here.

Putting coaches, trainers, and doctors in jail when they support drug use in sports might help fix the system.

It happens, they just aren't in jail for very long ... take the BALCO guys for example.

I wonder why athletes keep seeking coaches that have reputations as being "drug providers"? Hmmm. (rhetorical question, actually)

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

How did TdF cyclists cope before PED's were common/available?

PED's have always been availble, just in different forms. Cocaine, Opiates, Poppies - things to give the athletes extra mojo. Just enough to give you a kick up the alps - or make your heart explode.

Isn't the "expected to race every day, for 3 weeks straight, up mountains and in 100-degree weather," what makes the TdF so special? Why make it easier by allowing the use of compounds that drastically aid recovery?

I understand why athletes use PED's (he who recovers the fastest wins -- so to speak) ... but I'm not understanding how plays into whether they should be legal.

Regardless, whoever rides the fastest over 3 weeks, wins the race. Why do they *need* drugs in order to have a fantastic race? IMO, they don't ... they use PED's to get an advantage over the competitors that don't.

TT: how much of the peleton do you honestly believe are not using PED's? As I have stated several times previously, I think that it is very few.

The greats of 40+ years ago did not need these aids to compete in the race, so why do today's athletes need them? Are today's athletes weaker than those of years gone by? I don't think so. As I saw on a sign at a baseball game ... "Babe Ruth did it on hot dogs and beer".

...And a whole lotta COKE.

There have ALWAYS been these "aids", just in different forms! Nowadays it is just more scientific, harder to trace, and probably less damaging to the body.

What happened was one person cheated, and then other followed suit to keep up or even surpass the original cheater by cheating better.

I don't see where "giving in to the cheaters" is the right move. The cheaters are lowering the difficulty of the event ... and that includes endurance athletes where, as they say, "it's not just who goes the fastest, but who slows down the least".

that makes cheating so appealing (or even necessary) to the sport's athletes if they are to live up to everyone's expectations?

They want to be the best. They fear/hate failure. That's the driving force. To outdo everyone else. Again, it's seemingly a deflection off of the athlete and toward the fans, sponsors, companies, etc. It still comes back to "I'm better than you and I can prove it" (although cheaters will add "by whatever means necessary"). We see PED use in events and at levels that virtually no one notices nor cares about. It's your self-worth primarily based on the result and not how you got there.

I think that it is naive to think that Pro sports is really about "being the best". It is about $$$. Big time $$$. The big $ sports are not about being altruistic, and winning to be "the best that they can be". Maybe, for the athlete, like Floyd, it is about winning. Not for all the people that want to get him there. The CEO of Phonak was interviewed on Cyclingnews.com or Velonews or something, and was talking about how much money he made from the tour - check it out.

Events like the TDF are not like getting a gold medal in ski jumping at the olympics - about the purity of sport. It is about the bottome line.

I still maintain that it is not just the athletes driving to get there. It is the big boys behind the scenes, who have much more to gain (and possibly lose) than the athletes themselves. For the CEO's it is just like owning a racehorse.

"The only reason I bought it is to remain competitive."

How ironic.