'Fairer' Drug Taking?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
OP
OP
Blonde

Blonde

New Member
Location
Bury, Lancashire
spen666 said:
"Fairer Drug Taking" isn't this a contradiction in terms? It would make drug taking compulsory if you are wanting to win

No contradition - it's fairer if if is allowed and available to all if they want it. It isn't fair if it's not allowed or not available to everyone, but some people manage to do it anyway.

It wouldn't make it compulsory - there'd still be the same choice as now. You could argue that it already is compulsory anyway in that the pressure to take them must be there or people wouldn't bother. I keep saying this though, I don't think that taking a performance enhancing drug will make someone who isn't very good into a winner. It may enhance what is already there, but just look at Mr Cofidis man who was about position 41 or something in the peleton, (useless) and that Iban Mayo was hardly a good advert for their effectiveness either.
 
OP
OP
Blonde

Blonde

New Member
Location
Bury, Lancashire
Squaggles said:
Well we have to draw a line somewhere unless we allow riders to use anything

Yep, but where? It's a how long's peice of string thing IMO. That's why I find the whole idea of certain things being banned but not others hard to undertsand. It's all rather arbitary. Just glad I'm not a professional athlete. It's no life. Bad enough being away from home half the time but you've got to be available to all and sundry at all times of the day and night, for testing, you're not allowed to go on holiday with your family without letting the UCI etc. know where you are, you're not allowed many medicines and common over the counter remedies for viral infections etc... Jeez! I'd go mad! The majority of the peleton, the domestiques etc. aren't even all that well paid, so they must really love what they do.
 
OP
OP
Blonde

Blonde

New Member
Location
Bury, Lancashire
Tetedelacourse said:
Worth mentioning known side effects of banned substances here.

Just about all drugs have side effects, including illegal drugs as well as legal hormone replacment therapies, the contraceptive pill, stimulents like caffeine and nicotine and so-called 'natural' remedies and supplements. That doesn't stop many people from using them though, whether legal in the UK or not.
 

spen666

Legendary Member
Blonde said:
No contradition - it's fairer if if is allowed and available to all if they want it. It isn't fair if it's not allowed or not available to everyone, but some people manage to do it anyway.

It wouldn't make it compulsory - there'd still be the same choice as now. You could argue that it already is compulsory anyway in that the pressure to take them must be there or people wouldn't bother. I keep saying this though, I don't think that taking a performance enhancing drug will make someone who isn't very good into a winner. It may enhance what is already there, but just look at Mr Cofidis man who was about position 41 or something in the peleton, (useless) and that Iban Mayo was hardly a good advert for their effectiveness either.


You really haven't thought this through have you.

There is no such thing as "fairer" drug taking - its like talking about clean dirt .

There would be effective compulsion to take drugs if someone wanted to win races if you allowed them to be taken. Thus you either have to take drugs or not bother to compete in the sport. Thus there is effective compulsion to take drugs if you want to be a racing cyclist.


Then there is the public- who is going to be interested in which pharmaceutical company has the best drugs. People want to watch people race, not see drugs compete against each other. No public interest, no sport.

Great idea
 
OP
OP
Blonde

Blonde

New Member
Location
Bury, Lancashire
Yes, you have point there. But unless we're going to have 'no drug' sports and 'drugged-up-to-the-eyeballs sports', run seperately, I can't see any other way around it as I just don't think it's going away and as things stand, it isn't fair on those who aren't flouting the rules of the game. The problem is that David Millar's new team - by having a seperate doping-free team Millar and co will be at an immediate disadvantage in a doping-ridden peleton, if you think that doping does make a big difference to winning races. :- (

Not sure I agree with the argument about compulsion if not banned - Teams already have differences in bikes, kit, coaches/trainers etc than others, so wouldn't doping or not-doping just be just another factor in a long list of differences that might help or not help win races?

Still not decided one way or t'other on what is the best thing for the sport as it's all so subjective. My brain is now hurting.. Think I'll have to go and lie down. ;- )
 

spen666

Legendary Member
Blonde said:
Yes, you have point there. But unless we're going to have 'no drug' sports and 'drugged-up-to-the-eyeballs sports', run seperately, I can't see any other way around it as I just don't think it's going away and as things stand, it isn't fair on those who aren't flouting the rules of the game. The problem is that David Millar's new team - by having a seperate doping-free team Millar and co will be at an immediate disadvantage in a doping-ridden peleton, if you think that doping does make a big difference to winning races. :- (

Do you believe we should surrender to terrorists or not make efforts to deter thieves and burglars?

Appeasement doesn't work. You are giving in to the wrong doers.

We should be detecting and punishing the wrong doers, not encouraging them. It is not fair on the "honest" cyclists to make a situation where you are encouraging/ making taking drugs compulsory for them to have a chance at winning.

Your approach is both defeatist and very short term thinking, with NO benefit to cycling or the public
 

Squaggles

New Member
Location
Yorkshire
I still watch pro cycling , if they were allowed to take anything I certainly wouldn't watch any more . All you can do is have rules and attempt to stop people breaking those rules . It's not perfect but it's the only way to do it .
 
OP
OP
Blonde

Blonde

New Member
Location
Bury, Lancashire
spen666 said:
Do you believe we should surrender to terrorists or not make efforts to deter thieves and burglars?

Appeasement doesn't work. You are giving in to the wrong doers.

We should be detecting and punishing the wrong doers, not encouraging them. It is not fair on the "honest" cyclists to make a situation where you are encouraging/ making taking drugs compulsory for them to have a chance at winning.

Your approach is both defeatist and very short term thinking, with NO benefit to cycling or the public

Err, this isn't 'my approach' by any means. I saw the article and it got me thinking. I thought it might spark up an interesting debate, that's all. I'm not anti-illegal drugs in general though and don't think that taking any drug that is illegal is inherently 'wrong', (it just happens to be illegal) so I can't be hypocritical about the use of banned substances or procedures in sports. I'd agree it's cheating because it is banned, but someone made the decision to ban the use of certain things but not others, and I suppose I'd like to know why. If it is only to 'protect' people from making choices they might regret, then I can't agree with it, as IMO everyone is entitled to make their own choices about their own body.
 

spen666

Legendary Member
Blonde said:
Err, this isn't 'my approach' by any means. I saw the article and it got me thinking. I thought it might spark up an interesting debate, that's all. I'm not anti-illegal drugs in general though and don't think that taking any drug that is illegal is inherently 'wrong', (it just happens to be illegal) so I can't be hypocritical about the use of banned substances or procedures in sports. I'd agree it's cheating because it is banned, but someone made the decision to ban the use of certain things but not others, and I suppose I'd like to know why. If it is only to 'protect' people from making choices they might regret, then I can't agree with it, as IMO everyone is entitled to make their own choices about their own body.

Who has mentioned being hypocritical- not me IIRC. Seems a bit silly to "defend" yourself from alegations that are not being made. Trying to deflect attention from the nonsense of the position you were putting forward?


Let people make choices about their own body by all means- it doesn't mean that the organisers of an event have to let them enter it though.

Its a bit like saying you should not stop people smoking and if they want to smoke in your house, then its upto the smoker, niot the householder
 
OP
OP
Blonde

Blonde

New Member
Location
Bury, Lancashire
spen666 said:
Let people make choices about their own body by all means- it doesn't mean that the organisers of an event have to let them enter it though.

yes - the organisers can control who enters - it puts me off doing certain sportives when I hear you must wear a helmet, it means I can't do 'em. A thing like helmet enforcement is much easier to police than what people are putting in their bodies so if the porganisers really want a clean tour they wil have to test every single rider before they are allowed to start (as well as during the race) It will mean a lot more work and delays in getting test results, but it would work.
 
OP
OP
Blonde

Blonde

New Member
Location
Bury, Lancashire
spen666 said:
Who has mentioned being hypocritical- not me IIRC. Seems a bit silly to "defend" yourself from alegations that are not being made. Trying to deflect attention from the nonsense of the position you were putting forward?

No one had; I was attempting to explain why I thought the article might be of interest and get us talking and why I personally cannot simply say, 'doping is bad' as that would be an over simplistic and hypocritical thing for me to say, considering what my more general veiws are. I don't think the positiion put forward by the doctors in the article was nonsense or I wouldn't have posted it for discussion. I thought it was a well thought out and reasoned argument. In theory it sounds OK, but I still don't agree with it, because it would still require a load of policing and be just as difficult to enforce the rules as it is now, so probably wouldn't solve the problem anyway. Neat theory though.
 

spen666

Legendary Member
Blonde said:
Err, this isn't 'my approach' by any means. I saw the article and it got me thinking. I thought it might spark up an interesting debate, that's all. I'm not anti-illegal drugs in general though and don't think that taking any drug that is illegal is inherently 'wrong', (it just happens to be illegal) so I can't be hypocritical about the use of banned substances or procedures in sports. I'd agree it's cheating because it is banned, but someone made the decision to ban the use of certain things but not others, and I suppose I'd like to know why. If it is only to 'protect' people from making choices they might regret, then I can't agree with it, as IMO everyone is entitled to make their own choices about their own body.

Blonde said:
yes - the organisers can control who enters - it puts me off doing certain sportives when I hear you must wear a helmet, it means I can't do 'em. A thing like helmet enforcement is much easier to police than what people are putting in their bodies so if the porganisers really want a clean tour they wil have to test every single rider before they are allowed to start (as well as during the race) It will mean a lot more work and delays in getting test results, but it would work.

so you agree that organisers can decide who they want to enter an event, but are trying to argue they should not have the right to decide in relation to drug takers?


Tell you what why don't all the dopers/ drug tsakers etc set up their own events and see how much publicity/sponsorship etc they get
 
OP
OP
Blonde

Blonde

New Member
Location
Bury, Lancashire
I'm not sure they should as I hate being told I cant ride without a helmet actually! I can't do much about it though. What I meant was that organisers do have the final say anyway, yet people are still doping.

Dunno if having two seperate regulatory bodies to police whatver rules there were and the sport seperating into two, would work on not in the future. We have two kinds of rugby though, and new sports appear and become popular al the time, so it is possible it might.
 

Tim Bennet.

Entirely Average Member
Location
S of Kendal
Although the notion of 'we can't win, so let's capitulate' has always been a quite attractive idea to some, it has to have clear benefits for everyone before it can be considered a solution. Otherwise it is just defeatism.

One of the major consideration for putting a substance on the banned list isn't a moral case of whether it constitutes 'cheating' but rather if there is clear evidence that there is a health risk associated either with its use, or with the method of its use.

Therefore, although many of these substances are used medically (Epo, steroids, etc), their downsides and side effects are deemed to be acceptable in these cases because of the medical benefits they bring to those with illnesses. But to subject someone to these risks and side effects for no medical benefit, would in all cases be considered "non maleficence", and therefore not be possible under medical supervision. So you would still end up with a list of some banned substances that would need to be policed.

But assuming for a moment, all drug use was permitted, there would still need to be 'drug free' competitions established for those who didn't want to subject themselves to these associated risks. This is the situation that exists today with the two forms of bodybuilding. So, once again, you would need all the controls and tests in place to regulate this 'clean' competition, because those who wanted to cheat and gain illegal advantage would be drawn to race in the 'clean' series as that's where they couldn't gain easy advantage. These people don't want to compete on a level playing field. That's why they cheat.

But to even consider these radical options suggests we have both lost the battle and run out of ideas. Both I believe are wrong. Whilst the battle will never be over, we can still think of new things to do.

The first is that it's not only the riders who should be registered with their National Bodies and the UCI. So should all the support staff (doctors, physios, soigners, dietitians, managers, coaches, etc). Riders should only be allowed to get support from these registered 'practitioners'. If any of them are found to be implicated in doping, they should be stripped of their accreditation. Any rider who then uses the services of an un-accredited person, should be banned as if they had doped. Then even going to see the likes of Doctors Farrari would be unjustifiably risky.

Finally doping bans should be for life for riders. The only way to get it reduced to 2 years should be for the rider to completely spill the beans on the how, why, and with whom it all occurred. If they are not prepared to comprehensively 'gob in the soup', then they are either protecting people who wish to continue helping other dopers or they themselves wish to use the same methods again after their ban. Either way, non disclosure should result in their permanently exclusion from all sport.
 

spen666

Legendary Member
Tim Bennet. said:
... In my mind, we still have more ideas to put into action.

The first is to require all the support staff used by UCI accredited cyclists, to also be licenced. All the coaches, managers, soigners, cooks, doctors would have to have a 'licence to operate' if they are



This goes perhaps too far in the first instance, but perhaps, we should be looking to licence coaches, managers and medical staff in the first instance- then if this is feasible, seek to include others
 
Top Bottom