The drugs won - the case for capitulation

[Mr. Pink]

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/the-drugs-won-the-case-for-ending-the-sports-war-on-doping

[Steve in SLO]

Interesting perspective from someone "in the know".
Thanks for sharing.

[Stephen2014]

The punishment has always been too soft, there should be one mandatory punishment for every cheat, Life Ban.

[soulspinner]

The punishment has always been too soft, there should be one mandatory punishment for every cheat, Life Ban.

ups the ante does it not?:hello:

[jr59]

The punishment has always been too soft, there should be one mandatory punishment for every cheat, Life Ban.

That will not stop anyone! Well it might stop a very small percentage, but for the most part, it won't stop anyone.

The tests are ALWAYS behind the drugs.

Would you give up a lifetime ban, for the chance at glory? For a chance to wear the yellow jersey in Paris. These guys will.

[sitzmark]

The punishment has always been too soft, there should be one mandatory punishment for every cheat, Life Ban.

From amateur competition for sure. Not really sure I care what professional athletes/entertainers do. Certainly not worth millions of dollars to police.

Do have to worry about false positives and anomalies, but like law enforcement a few innocent paying the price to catch the bigger scourge is reasonable n'est-ce pas???

Article All that stupid **** should stop.

[makoti]

That will not stop anyone! Well it might stop a very small percentage, but for the most part, it won't stop anyone.

The tests are ALWAYS behind the drugs.

Would you give up a lifetime ban, for the chance at glory? For a chance to wear the yellow jersey in Paris. These guys will.

A lifetime ban AND forfeit any winnings earned in the previous 18 months. Even Glory has it's price.

[soulspinner]

A lifetime ban AND forfeit any winnings earned in the previous 18 months. Even Glory has it's price.

even better......and as a clean rider you wont have to compete and lose to them 2 years down the road.

[bikinchris]

even better......and as a clean rider you wont have to compete and lose to them 2 years down the road.

And they feel they will almost certainly lose if they don't use PED's. I refer you all back to the Goldstein study. In that study, athletes were polled with this question:
If there was a drug that guaranteed a gold medal, was undetectable, but would kill you within 5 years, would you still take it? More said yes than no.
Drugs will always be with us.

What interests me is that most of the drive to "get" Lance was driven by an anti American feeling. Several non Americans have admitted to doping, yet their wins are still on the books. I find it confusing that many American cyclists on this forum haven't noticed that. If Lance had been well liked, the powers of world cycling would have turned a blind eye to his doping.

[weiwentg]

The punishment has always been too soft, there should be one mandatory punishment for every cheat, Life Ban.

In my opinion, this will do little.

There's some evidence that punishment has to be swift, certain, and fair to work. It appears to sharply reduce recidivism on parole. The theory is immediate but proportionate sanctions for any violation of parole terms - sanctions like a night in jail or two.

http://www.swiftcertainfair.com/

Mandatory lifetime ban under the present situation should be ineffective because punishment definitely won't be certain (it's highly unlikely you'll get punished), and arguably a lifetime ban for a first offense is not fair. It's disproportionate to the offense.

OK, LA got a lifetime ban for the first offense he was convicted over - we all know that's different.

[Stephen2014]

I think if a person comes to a sporting event shts on the other competitors and the fans, a lifetime ban for a first offence is not harsh it's lenient for their disgusting behaviour, even if it is the most that could be done.

Lifetime mandatory bans don't exist so nobody knows they won't work. Even if they don't stop people trying, people arguing for continued soft punishment is bad taste.

[bikinchris]

I think if a person comes to a sporting event shts on the other competitors and the fans, a lifetime ban for a first offence is not harsh it's lenient for their disgusting behaviour, even if it is the most that could be done.

Lifetime mandatory bans don't exist so nobody knows they won't work. Even if they don't stop people trying, people arguing for continued soft punishment is bad taste.

Why not just shoot 'em right there on the spot? Maybe someone get a rope and find a tree?

I don't like cheaters much either, but I think calling for a lifetime ban on first offense that might be a mistake is just crazy. Did you read about the guy who was positive for caffeine? Where is the justice for those people in a lifetime ban?
What about all those riders who never woke up during the EPO era? Should they have also pissed on their dead bodies?

[Stephen2014]

I am absolutely against innocent people being punished! Why would I not be!? The whole point of punishing the guilty properly is to stand up for the innocent! Obviously it has to based on facts!
If someone knows that a lifetime ban is the punishment then they choose to betray decent people by cheating they chose that path and have brought it upon themselves if they are caught.
Sad that cheating slime always have people standing up for them.

[CunegoFan]

I am absolutely against innocent people being punished! Why would I not be!? The whole point of punishing the guilty properly is to stand up for the innocent! Obviously it has to based on facts!
If someone knows that a lifetime ban is the punishment then they choose to betray decent people by cheating they chose that path and have brought it upon themselves if they are caught.
Sad that cheating slime always have people standing up for them.

How fair is your policy in an environment where doping is the norm? It is nothing but a scapegoat policy to make naive fans feel good.

[Jgrooms]

I think if a person comes to a sporting event shts on the other competitors and the fans, a lifetime ban for a first offence is not harsh it's lenient for their disgusting behaviour, even if it is the most that could be done.



Lifetime mandatory bans don't exist so nobody knows they won't work. Even if they don't stop people trying, people arguing for continued soft punishment is bad taste.



And you are absolutely certain of every chemical that enters your system through your food & drink?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jgrooms]

Doesn't paint a good pic does it when an insider says the hell with it?

Confirms what many think, the executioners are just as corrupt as the dopers.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bikingshearer]

I think if a person comes to a sporting event shts on the other competitors and the fans, a lifetime ban for a first offence is not harsh it's lenient for their disgusting behaviour, even if it is the most that could be done.Lifetime mandatory bans don't exist so nobody knows they won't work. Even if they don't stop people trying, people arguing for continued soft punishment is bad taste.

In the 1800s in London, convicted pick-pockets received the ultimate "lifetime ban" They were publically hung in front of large crowds, who turned out for the spectacle. Among the crowds, actively plying their trade were - wait for it - pick-pockets. So much for the effectiveness of lifetime bans.

As far as arguing for "soft punishment" being in bad taste," I think you are 100% incorrect. The fact that someone does not agree with your preferred approach does not make them somehow morally wrong. You can hate the activity and still not be in favor of "massive retaliation" responses that don't work.

And when it comes to mind- and body-altering substances, history provides compelling evidence that "massive retaliation" responses do not have the intended result but instead have very negative consequences. For example, Prohibition did not do anything meaningful to reduce liquor consumption, but it did entrench the Mafia as a permanent fixture on the national scene. Similarly, in its 45 years of existence, the War on Drugs has had zero impact on overall drug addiction rates - zero. As in none. But, like Prohibition, the War on Drugs has been an absolute boon to organized crime. You would never have heard of the Crips, the Bloods, La Nuestra Familia, and dozens of other gangs but for the huge profits to be made from drug trafficking, profits they have been able to reap because of, not despite, the drugs' illegality and the "massive retaliation" way of addressing the (very real) drug problem. Our insistence on stressing the punitive reaction has not worked, but it has done incalculable harm here and abroad.

No, anti-doping efforts in sports, cycling and others, have not and will not lead to the level of harmful social consequences that have resulted from Prohibition and the War Drugs. But the data sure makes it sound like there is good reason to believe that the War on PEDs is about as effective as they were/are, and is also generating unintended and undesirable consequences. So I fail to see how it is "bad taste" to reexamine - and be prepared to change - policies and structures that are giving every appearance of doing little if any good but are inflicting significant harm.

[clawhammer]

There are a couple points I'm inclined to agree with:

1) Punitive punishments don't stop behaviors. I think that thousands of years of human existence have shown this rather well. Does prison stop criminal recidivism? I'm no expert, but my general understanding is that only those who come to a personal understanding because of prison actually change their behavior. If they don't come to this realization by themselves, no amount of prison will change their behavior. If people are doping already and risk an Armstrong-style ban in the process, I don't think any additional amount of punitive punishment is going to change their behavior.

2) Sports are already unfair. What if you're an amazing athlete, but you don't have access to Team Sky-level resources? What if your gender/ethnicity/religion/social status makes it difficult or impossible to access the training and resources you need to succeed in modern sports? Should we ban people from getting too many hours of instruction from a level 95 coach when others are stuck with level 55 coaches?

I say, go ahead and let them dope, but make them list everything. Let fans decide what the new records mean. And, for fairness, offer blanket amnesty for previous offenses so that people can report what was done in the past to even out the record in recent history.

[weiwentg]

I think if a person comes to a sporting event shts on the other competitors and the fans, a lifetime ban for a first offence is not harsh it's lenient for their disgusting behaviour, even if it is the most that could be done.

Lifetime mandatory bans don't exist so nobody knows they won't work. Even if they don't stop people trying, people arguing for continued soft punishment is bad taste.

Applied to Lance Armstrong, I absolutely agree.

Applied to Dave Zabriskie, who arguably got pressured into doping by Lance Armstrong et al, I absolutely disagree. Dave Zabriskie deserves a 6 month ban at worst, and at best, a medal for testifying.

You see my point, though. Also, in a criminal justice system, you need to be able to offer softer punishments so you can make deals to catch the bigger fish.

[Stephen2014]

I agree that as with criminal cases if someone turns informer to catch people who wouldn't have been caught they should be given a reduction.

[jr59]

In the 1800s in London, convicted pick-pockets received the ultimate "lifetime ban" They were publically hung in front of large crowds, who turned out for the spectacle. Among the crowds, actively plying their trade were - wait for it - pick-pockets. So much for the effectiveness of lifetime bans.

As far as arguing for "soft punishment" being in bad taste," I think you are 100% incorrect. The fact that someone does not agree with your preferred approach does not make them somehow morally wrong. You can hate the activity and still not be in favor of "massive retaliation" responses that don't work.

And when it comes to mind- and body-altering substances, history provides compelling evidence that "massive retaliation" responses do not have the intended result but instead have very negative consequences. For example, Prohibition did not do anything meaningful to reduce liquor consumption, but it did entrench the Mafia as a permanent fixture on the national scene. Similarly, in its 45 years of existence, the War on Drugs has had zero impact on overall drug addiction rates - zero. As in none. But, like Prohibition, the War on Drugs has been an absolute boon to organized crime. You would never have heard of the Crips, the Bloods, La Nuestra Familia, and dozens of other gangs but for the huge profits to be made from drug trafficking, profits they have been able to reap because of, not despite, the drugs' illegality and the "massive retaliation" way of addressing the (very real) drug problem. Our insistence on stressing the punitive reaction has not worked, but it has done incalculable harm here and abroad.

No, anti-doping efforts in sports, cycling and others, have not and will not lead to the level of harmful social consequences that have resulted from Prohibition and the War Drugs. But the data sure makes it sound like there is good reason to believe that the War on PEDs is about as effective as they were/are, and is also generating unintended and undesirable consequences. So I fail to see how it is "bad taste" to reexamine - and be prepared to change - policies and structures that are giving every appearance of doing little if any good but are inflicting significant harm.


Well said.

[KJMUNC]

What interests me is that most of the drive to "get" Lance was driven by an anti American feeling.

Yep. Even the great Eddy got popped. So did Anquetil. And Fignon, Thevenet, Ocana, etc, etc, etc.....

LA got the ban for his behavior, not for doping. There are lots of other guys still in the books who openly admit to doping but didn't act like king jacka$$es.

Great article btw. Just goes to show that cycling isn't alone in its doping culture, especially when it comes to the Olympics. I do t know what the answer is, but I know USADA wastes a boatload of money without any meaningful return.

[CunegoFan]

Yep. Even the great Eddy got popped. So did Anquetil. And Fignon, Thevenet, Ocana, etc, etc, etc.....

LA got the ban for his behavior, not for doping. There are lots of other guys still in the books who openly admit to doping but didn't act like king jacka$$es.

There is not WADA rule to ban people for being a jerk. If there was then a lot of pro athletes would be in serious trouble. LA was banned because that is what would get Tygart the most publicity. Lance could have been Mahatma Gandhi and it would not have made a difference. Lance's tireless support for cancer survivors did not help him.

Great article btw. Just goes to show that cycling isn't alone in its doping culture, especially when it comes to the Olympics. I do t know what the answer is, but I know USADA wastes a boatload of money without any meaningful return.

You are wrong there. WADA and USADA get a lot for their money. You have to understand that WADA's purpose is not to stop doping. It is a public relations effort to keep corporate sponsorship, government welfare and, ultimately, media contracts. Those would dry up if the IOC and its sports admitted that doping was rampant and there is no effective way to stop it. The return on investment for what is spent on the anti-doping sham is huge. To convince the rubes, WADA only needs the occasional scapegoat who can be dragged into the public square and brutally slaughtered while the IOC hypes new, dope fueled world records .

[Gartenmeister]

I found this link (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oly-doping-history-day-idUSBRE8700YC20120801)(from the original article) to be interesting. Mmmmm, raw testicles. Tasty.

[FlashUNC]

Lance's tireless support for cancer survivors did not help him.





No, but Lance's use of cancer patients both living and dead as shields against allegations of doping sure did help bury him.

Good riddance to a garbage person.

[Zoodles]

Armstrong got popped, in part, because he didn't know when enough was enough. If he'd retired after 3,4,5 (and not been a vindictive d!ck) even he'd be treated like the rest.

As for those saying let it go...do you have or know any kids who excel at sports? Willing to encourage them to dope? Would it be the same for school, try this new dope and you'll get better grades?

[CunegoFan]

Funny how those who are so critical about LA being vindictive against those who were feuding with him for their own personal gain are so vindictive against Armstrong, who they don't know and who has no effect on their own lives. Pots and kettles, I guess, or maybe just garbage people.

[weiwentg]

Funny how those who are so critical about LA being vindictive against those who were feuding with him for their own personal gain are so vindictive against Armstrong, who they don't know and who has no effect on their own lives. Pots and kettles, I guess, or maybe just garbage people.

Garbage people? Well done. Preserving your comment for posterity.

Let me tell you a story. I started cycling in 2001. Totally bought into the LA hype. Totally thought he was clean. Every time I went up a hill, I thought, LA spins the pedals seated, so I will spin the pedals seated. I always talked about "the look". I had one of the Oakley posters of him.

In 2010, and I repeat, in 2010, after a lot of allegations came out, I still was thinking to myself, 50% chance he did it. He's not guilty by legal standards. Prosecution hasn't yet proven its case.

All the little anecdotes about him being vindictive towards people? I said, ok, competitive athletes are a little like that.

I am still glad he got caught, and I maintain that he deserved his punishment. He had a personal effect on my life. I am not saying that I was affected anywhere near as much as the Andreus or the Lemonds. I am saying that yeah, it's still personal for me. I have no idea what point you are trying to make aside from just being a troll. Your random ad hominem attack was utterly contemptible.

[FlashUNC]

Funny how those who are so critical about LA being vindictive against those who were feuding with him for their own personal gain are so vindictive against Armstrong, who they don't know and who has no effect on their own lives. Pots and kettles, I guess, or maybe just garbage people.

Lance, I'm glad you spend time here. You should change your screen name.

[peanutgallery]

Bart Knaggs, is that you?

Funny how those who are so critical about LA being vindictive against those who were feuding with him for their own personal gain are so vindictive against Armstrong, who they don't know and who has no effect on their own lives. Pots and kettles, I guess, or maybe just garbage people.