From the AP to Velonews, any positive test is treated, not only as a big deal, but as a threat to the entire sport of cycling. Yet, nobody actually states what is being threatened.
Implicitly, it seems to be the “integrity” of the contest, that something the contest used to measure is no longer being measured due to the use of drugs.
The only thing altered is the relative ratios of chemicals related to performance. Formerly, all of those chemicals were produced in-house; now some are supplemented. Formerly, we emphasized the body’s quasi-natural processes; now athletes intervene in those processes. This doesn’t seem like a drastic change to me, certainly not something that threatens all of cycling.
The construct of “cheating” does worry me. I don’t think it’s good to reward illegal behavior, or to put the yellow jersey on the guy who is willing to take the biggest risks.
Legalizing the supplementation of whatever chemicals athletes want seems like it would make the playing field even in a way it never has been before, making the contest about work and training rather than the chemical accidents of birth.
However if I were a cyclists I would certainly be against any going fast techniques that involved setting my alarm in the middle of the night to do jumping jacks so I don’t die from a heart attack.
The hermatocrit of 50 limit pretty much handles that though.
Also as a cyclist Id prefer to not have to use steroids to compete as it would make my nuts shrink and give me acne and cause me to loser my hair sooner
.
I agree with the steroids comments (and the spirit of your post )- but be honest - if waking up at 12:00 am, 2:00 am and 3:57 am and doing 50 jumping jacks was scientifically proven to raise your FTP by 16.82% - you know your alarm woudl be goign off at those times.
I don’t think I’d want to be a pro cyclist under those terms either, but that’s because I have lots of other options. With a little juice I might have a shot though.
How much of the anti-doping fervor is a remnant of the Cold War when PED were identified with the Eastern Bloc? Since the Eastern Bloc was “communist”, “godless”, and “unnatural”, so also PEDs might be against the divinely instituted natural order.
Anyone know the political history of the anti-doping crusade?
My grandfather was a competitive cyclist in the 1930s. He told me steroid use was common back then. It’s my understanding that many of the early roids were invented specifically for cycling. So it’s apparently a tradition.
The athletes often make your argument; as they are “drug friendly”. At the 1980 (?) Tour, the riders actually staged a protest and threatened to not ride a stage in protest of proposal to implement drug testing. (There was no drug testing prior.)
So why not allow drugs? Well, in 1967 Tom Simpson died while climbing Mt. Ventoux as a result of stimulant use. In 1989, about 12 dutch cyclists died (not in competition) as a result of too much EPO causing the blood to thicken. There are many other similar stories.
Personally, I don’t want to watch a sport where the athletes are dropping dead, drug use or not. I don’t even like hearing the stories where the athletes die out of competition; like Marco Pantani or Jose Jiminez. (Both died as a result of cocaine overdoses. Pot Beldge, a mixture of heroin, cocaine, and amphetamines, has been used as a powerful stimulant for the last decade or so. This has resulted in some athletes becoming addicted to the core components, and in this case the death of the athlete.) In these cases, the sport I love did NOT bring me joy, but sadness. Men I loved to watch fly up the mountains, now dead.
Also, I like to watch the sport and feel admiration and astonishment at the great feats these athletes perform. I like to see how fast I can ride in comparison. I don’t want to have to take r-EPO, pot beldge, cortisone, etc., in order to perform the comparison. I also don’t want to wonder how much of one riders result is in fact the result of having a better doctor, or having spent more on doping.
Those are my reasons for hoping we can get a drug free sport.
Counterpoint: We wouldn’t have to wonder how much of their speed was due to drugs if we didn’t demonize everyone who uses them. If people felt free to be open an honest about them, we would know
Would you be on board with “capping” the levels at the highest natural levels, but not inquiring into how athletes reached those levels? Seems like that would address both the comparison and safety issues you raise.
In theory, I would agree. But, you would still have people looking to use the PEDs to get to the allowed levels, and then beyond it with masking agents, or timed usage combined with diuretics, etc.
Also, that is essentially the system that has been in place. The hematocrit limit was supposed to limit EPO use, there was a limit on testosterone to limit use of HGH, and last time I checked basically all banned substances had an allowed limit to account for test variation and the fact that many substances are contained in small quantities in common medicines, food, or other sources. So as best I know, the limits are generally not zero, but some non-zero amount. I don’t think capped levels would change anything.
In the end, maybe we could both agree on this: Fix the testing procedures. Only implement tests that are proven effective. Only implement tests that have been proven to not yield false positives. (This latter point was a very valid point brought up by Tyler Hamilton; the test he failed had never been implemented on a large population to show that it did not provide a false positive for some unknown reason.) Certify labs to a higher level, such that they can actually follow their own processes. (Issues brought out during the Landis hearings.) Pull the certifications on labs that leak results for any test, A or B sample. Insure the tests are always done while providing a control sample. (The retesting of Landis’ samples, by the same lab, without control samples introduced such that the lab did not know which samples belonged to Landis and which were controls, was really amatuer science.)
After all, if a positive test was only announced after B-sample confirmation, and everyone had 100% certainty with the result, would anyone be against testing?
Seriously - Is your issue with testing in general, or the fact that there seems to be very much uncertainty as to the validity of the results?
Seriously - Is your issue with testing in general, or the fact that there seems to be very much uncertainty as to the validity of the results?
Paul
My issue is that all sorts of media are implying that PEDs attack the “heart of the sport” without defining that “heart”; that we need a “clean” sport without arguing why “clean” is good.
Your argument that clean=good so that people don’t die is a good start of an argument.
Thanks for that. I would also extend the argument to the following:
The PEDs are sometimes relatively innocuous to society; an uncommon compound supplied by a doctor directly to the athlete. However, as the pot beldge example shows, sometimes the athletes get addicted to common drugs. They start dealing with the drug black market, not doctors. Supporting the drug black market propogates other criminal activity, in particular robbery/burglary/prostitution in order to support one’s drug habit. Rare prescription only drugs start out as being available only to athletes with good connections to a doctor. However, once there is unsourced demain, price goes up. Athletes without doctors will pay a high price on the black market for access to r-EPO or other drugs. That leads the suppliers to robbery of pharmacies, etc.; the risk justifies the high reward for making a sale.
Given this extension, I would argue that drug use by athletes, like drug use by anyone, is bad for society in that it supports other criminal activity. So I am not sure that drug use attacks the heart of sport, but it does attack society in general.
********** Edit **********
I don’t want to hijack this thread by turning having this turn into a discussion of legalizing all drugs. I was making my statements above in the context of our current legal and drug distribution system.
your kids… the world you want them to live in. It s about teaching them that they can enjoy something and be good at something without sacrifice of there health, in spirit of the sport is, in regard to the health of athlete, the well being… it s very simple, we just want to have a world where you are rewarded for the work you put in with what you got.
To level the field is stupid… we dont want that, i m 5’8, should we make surgery on me so i can be 6’2 and play in the NHL?? no, you do what you can with what you have and lets play in a honest way with the rules and in respect of our health.
there is too much $$$ in some sports and it spoil the spirit of it, it s suppose to be for run and overacheivement,
If PEDs were legal you wouldn’t need drugs made to fly under the radar. I think this would cut down on drug fatalities.
Sorta like legalizing drinking and driving?
)- but be honest - if waking up at 12:00 am, 2:00 am and 3:57 am and doing 50 jumping jacks was scientifically proven to raise your FTP by 16.82% - you know your alarm woudl be goign off at those times.