A question about doping and life

[Brendan Quirk]

I'm getting older and therefore more reflective. I have a business with a lot of employees -- each of whom has good days & bad days. I have 3 kids -- each of whom has good days and bad days.

These factors have given me a better-than-ever appreciation for the power of forgiveness; for the fact that we're all imperfect; and for the fact that boundaries are a real necessity in life. These forces must be kept in balance, and it's sometimes difficult & unpleasant.

That preamble aside, I have a question re: doping that I can't puzzle my way through:

Why is it that as a collective community of cyclists we've been so eager to forgive a la the Prodigal Son certain professed "dopers", e.g. David Millar and Erik Zabel, but we've demonized others, e.g. Vino and Rasmussen?

What is the basis of this favoritism? Millar got caught red-handed then promptly confessed his guilt no less than Patrick Sinkewitz just professed his own. Millar is warmly regarded, Sinkewitz is not. That's just one example.

Why the favoritism? Why the arbitrary application of forgiveness?

This isn't an attempt to be a thread about doping. Rather, it's a thread about the criteria we use when we choose to forgive & forget.

In a sense, it's about life as much as it is the doping problem. It reminds me of what Swoop once wrote: What makes bike racing & the circus that surrounds it so unkillable & so terribly appealing is that it's a metaphor for life as a whole.

[Redturbo]

Life isn't fair and peoples perceptions are their realities ;)

[JMerring]

Neither Vino nor Rasmussen have admitted any guilt and in fact are vehemently protesting their innocence. Vino failed a test. Though Rasmussen never failed a test, his performance in the first time trial in the 2007 Tour and his general shadiness would tend to suggest (that's an understatement, but I'm being generous) that something is amiss. If they'd come clean initially, they may have been able to salvage some of their honor.

[barry1021]

I'm getting older and therefore more reflective. I have a business with a lot of employees -- each of whom has good days & bad days. I have 3 kids -- each of whom has good days and bad days.

These factors have given me a better-than-ever appreciation for the power of forgiveness; for the fact that we're all imperfect; and for the fact that boundaries are a real necessity in life. These forces must be kept in balance, and it's sometimes difficult & unpleasant.

That preamble aside, I have a question re: doping that I can't puzzle my way through:

Why is it that as a collective community of cyclists we've been so eager to forgive a la the Prodigal Son certain professed "dopers", e.g. David Millar and Erik Zabel, but we've demonized others, e.g. Vino and Rasmussen?

What is the basis of this favoritism? Millar got caught red-handed then promptly confessed his guilt no less than Patrick Sinkewitz just professed his own. Millar is warmly regarded, Sinkewitz is not. That's just one example.

Why the favoritism? Why the arbitrary application of forgiveness?

This isn't an attempt to be a thread about doping. Rather, it's a thread about the criteria we use when we choose to forgive & forget.

In a sense, it's about life as much as it is the doping problem. It reminds me of what Swoop once wrote: What makes bike racing & the circus that surrounds it so unkillable & so terribly appealing is that it's a metaphor for life as a whole.

forgiving those that admit it, and vilifying those that lie about it??

b21

[paczki]

Isn't it just that Vino and Rasmussen have never admitted it, so if we forgive them it's not just for their human fallibility qua dopers but also qua liars? Or put differently, we want people to admit and to blame themselves before we can forgive. I'm not saying it's right, just psychologically normal.

[dancinkozmo]

generally people who fess up right away and do their time are given a second chance imho....

[pdxmech13]

maybe it comes down to who one roots for.
kinda like car 3, 8, 24, 16, 44.....
most have done something shady to win but the fans come back.

[swoop]

hey b,

how are you? you know, from my perspective i see it as a psychological process rather than an opportunity for people to deal with reality.
its basic survival instinct to fit things into neat categories of good and bad (its called splitting and its how an infant organizes their experiences).

clearly sport is a reflection of life but it's also a venue for folks to project and work their stuff out... and at some point its not about the riders as whole people.. but as villains and heroes.

i think as fans we tend to be lazy and refuse to see the big picture, the gestalt, and the individual as a complex person working in a complex social dynamic.

anyway.. i'm late for jury duty... so i'll keep it simple... i'm just saying that if i were a young man over there... i'd dope. i just hope that i'd also have a crisis of clarity and come through it on my terms. i have a strong dislike for the moralizing simpleminded fan... i think they're ruining sports more so than 'dopers'.

n.

[girlie]

hey b,

how are you? you know, from my perspective i see it as a psychological process rather than an opportunity for people to deal with reality.
its basic survival instinct to fit things into neat categories of good and bad (its called splitting and its how an infant organizes their experiences).

clearly sport is a reflection of life but it's also a venue for folks to project and work their stuff out... and at some point its not about the riders as whole people.. but as villains and heros.

i think as fans we tend to be lazy and refuse to see the big picture, the gestalt, and the individual as a complex person working in a complex social dynamic.

anyway.. i'm late for jury duty... so i'll keep it simple... i'm just saying that if i were a young man over there... i'd dope. i just hope that i'd also have a crisis of clarity and come through it on my terms. i have a strong dislike for the moralizing simpleminded fan... i think they're ruining sports more so than 'dopers'.

n.

Beautifully put. I second the notion of the moralizing simpleminded fan.

[Chris]

I think alot of it has to do with how much they were liked before the offense. In the biz, we call it transference. What buttons does that person push in you and how much affection do you have for that. I think if Zabel had been busted in his heyday when he was winning everything (and doping) then he would be seen in a less favorable light. Now that he is mister second place, there is some more sympathy on his part.

As for Millar, I think he has always been seen as this bumbling kid pissing away his talent and totally disorganized. A lot of us identify with that too.

Rasmussen is just one of those guys who is hard to like no matter what. All we need is proof that we were right all along that he is a jerk.

[paczki]

I think alot of it has to do with how much they were liked before the offense. In the biz, we call it transference. What buttons does that person push in you and how much affection do you have for that. I think if Zabel had been busted in his heyday when he was winning everything (and doping) then he would be seen in a less favorable light. Now that he is mister second place, there is some more sympathy on his part.

As for Millar, I think he has always been seen as this bumbling kid pissing away his talent and totally disorganized. A lot of us identify with that too.

Rasmussen is just one of those guys who is hard to like no matter what. All we need is proof that we were right all along that he is a jerk.

Yes, but Vino was very likable.

[Fixed]

first rule of crime deny deny deny

and then deney some more then attack the people charging you imho
cheers

[gt6267a]

Yes, but Vino was very likable.

but has not admitted ...

[Grant McLean]

Build 'em up. Tear 'em down. Repeat as necessary

-g

[Tobias]

Why the favoritism? Why the arbitrary application of forgiveness?

This isn't an attempt to be a thread about doping. Rather, it's a thread about the criteria we use when we choose to forgive & forget.It’s in our nature to forgive mistakes of people we like and hold them against those we don’t like.

I forget the proper term for it, but the subject was covered in a seminar I attended involving human biases and how they affect discrimination. It’s very difficult to control and harder to prevent.

The same thing happens during bike rides. I see the same bias towards “unlikable” riders who make simple mistakes like not calling out glass on the road. The reaction from the group for the same exact mistake can be quite different.

[jerk]

i have far more respect for vino and rasmussen than sinkewitz and millar.

jerk

[duke]

Why more respect for vino and rasmussen?
duke

[93legendti]

I'm getting older and therefore more reflective. I have a business with a lot of employees -- each of whom has good days & bad days. I have 3 kids -- each of whom has good days and bad days.

These factors have given me a better-than-ever appreciation for the power of forgiveness; for the fact that we're all imperfect; and for the fact that boundaries are a real necessity in life. These forces must be kept in balance, and it's sometimes difficult & unpleasant.

That preamble aside, I have a question re: doping that I can't puzzle my way through:

Why is it that as a collective community of cyclists we've been so eager to forgive a la the Prodigal Son certain professed "dopers", e.g. David Millar and Erik Zabel, but we've demonized others, e.g. Vino and Rasmussen?

What is the basis of this favoritism? Millar got caught red-handed then promptly confessed his guilt no less than Patrick Sinkewitz just professed his own. Millar is warmly regarded, Sinkewitz is not. That's just one example.

Why the favoritism? Why the arbitrary application of forgiveness?

This isn't an attempt to be a thread about doping. Rather, it's a thread about the criteria we use when we choose to forgive & forget.

In a sense, it's about life as much as it is the doping problem. It reminds me of what Swoop once wrote: What makes bike racing & the circus that surrounds it so unkillable & so terribly appealing is that it's a metaphor for life as a whole.
Then, there's Virenque and Museeuw.

[jeffg]

hey b,

how are you? you know, from my perspective i see it as a psychological process rather than an opportunity for people to deal with reality.
its basic survival instinct to fit things into neat categories of good and bad (its called splitting and its how an infant organizes their experiences).

clearly sport is a reflection of life but it's also a venue for folks to project and work their stuff out... and at some point its not about the riders as whole people.. but as villains and heros.

i think as fans we tend to be lazy and refuse to see the big picture, the gestalt, and the individual as a complex person working in a complex social dynamic.

anyway.. i'm late for jury duty... so i'll keep it simple... i'm just saying that if i were a young man over there... i'd dope. i just hope that i'd also have a crisis of clarity and come through it on my terms. i have a strong dislike for the moralizing simpleminded fan... i think they're ruining sports more so than 'dopers'.

n.

Well put.

I personally wouldn't dope if I went into the sport after college. People cheat to gain millions in the finance world I work in every day. I ain't going there.

If my alternative was working in a mattress factory in Belgium, doping becomes almost inevitable atmo ...

[rwsaunders]

Vino and Rasmussen don't have charming British accents.

[girlie]

Virenque is funny.

[vaxn8r]

... i have a strong dislike for the moralizing simpleminded fan... i think they're ruining sports more so than 'dopers'.

n.
Explain please. Are you bemoaning morality or low IQ or the sports fan? I have my own thoughts but it sounds like you're putting yourself on a bit of a pedestal.

[djg]

I think that there are at least a couple of different things going on that might shade into each other.

First, as much as we might tout our pure, disinterested, aesthetic appreciation of some sport, most of being a sports fan -- in cycling or soccer or what have you -- depends upon some sort of emotional attachment to arbitrary distinctions. I live in Virginia and work in DC, but I was born in Chicago and grew up here and there. I like the Nationals fine, but I root for the Cubbies and FEEL more for the Cubbies. At the same time, I watch a bit of soccer and cheer for DC United over Chicago every time. Why?

I think that some folks are just predisposed to like one cyclist more than another, and to forgive one more than another. Maybe English speakers were biased towards DM? French towards Virenque? Personally, I'm not much a fan of Millar, but maybe that's just me (and a few others).

Second, as others have mentioned, we all want at least some tendency to forgive those who want to come clean and make amends (depending of course on all sorts of particulars). But the "honor" question of confession can get caught up -- if not outright confused -- with the incentives put in place by the disciplinary system. Those looking for dopers want suspects to talk, both about themselves and about others. They -- just like our criminal justice system -- incentivize confession and penalize stonewalling. Of course, there's a real question how properly to design those incentives so that they themselves are not just a fundamental part of the system to be gamed (or sometimes a payment for noise rather than information).

Anyway, I'm sure there's more to it than that, but that's what comes to mind.

[J.Greene]

i have a strong dislike for the moralizing simpleminded fan... i think they're ruining sports more so than 'dopers'.
n.

I have a strong dislike for riders who sell millions of writsbands and or whatever based upon a lie they can stuff down the average fans throat.



JG

[1centaur]

"Are you bemoaning morality or low IQ or the sports fan?"

I am also confused by this (swoop's) phrase. Is it okay to have a complex mind while being a moralizing fan? Or is it simpleminded to feel there's a moral issue? Is any cheating where one can understand the rationale moral? The vast majority of sports fans seem to think doping in sports in wrong because it ruins the meritocracy at the heart of all sports - the essence of the fun. Are the vast majority of people watching sports simpleminded? And finally, are they ruining sport because they are saying what they don't enjoy watching? Do dopers have any right to get paid to do something that those fans don't want to see?

Just because people are complex, troubled, have bad options in life, would be great athletes anyway, face temptations many of us could not deny, etc., etc. does not mean that fans need to tolerate their appearance at events that require spectators to care about the outcome. It's the same as the "he had a bad childhood" cliche about criminals. They can have our understanding, but they can't have our stuff or our full admiration.

As for Brendan's query, Vino has always come off as way inside himself, as has Rasmussen. The masses forgive people who they sense are outgoing, genuine, a little bit humble, etc. A lot of great people do not give off this aura and live with the consequences.

[Erik.Lazdins]

Why is it that as a collective community of cyclists we've been so eager to forgive a la the Prodigal Son certain professed "dopers", e.g. David Millar and Erik Zabel, but we've demonized others, e.g. Vino and Rasmussen?

What is the basis of this favoritism?

It's a great question!

I think it is a combination of the likeability of the person, their humility, the speed of their confession, the fall they take i.e. Zabel has a bigger palmares than Sinkewitz, the perceived genuineness of the their remorse, and their willingness to be punished for their choice.

[zogvee]

i think as fans we tend to be lazy and refuse to see the big picture, the gestalt, and the individual as a complex person working in a complex social dynamic.


n.[/QUOTE]

Wow. I must leap to the defense of the cretinous fans who would dare to impugn someone for doing something ethically questionable without first addressing the accused party's rationalization for their naughty behavior.

Generally speaking effects have causes. I'm sure Lizzie Borden had her reasons (the ax looked bored.) Never the less, there are few justifications for murder. And even fewer for doping.

Regardless of how many layers of complexity are used to obscure a decision, it typically boils down to Door A or Door B. At least, that's my humble opinion.

[girlie]

" Never the less, there are few justifications for murder. And even fewer for doping."

This is a moralizing fan..........

Some of these men and women have families. There are paychecks that need to be gotten. Not in all cases but some sacrifices were made early on in their lives..........and maybe there was no turning back. IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT THE BIKE.

I know we all have choices though I say it's hard to judge when you don't know the personal ramifications of the predicaments these people are in. I don't want a free for all but I think that is what moralizing fan has to do with.

[L84dinr]

Talk about moralizing... "OOH i have to put bread on the table for my family, and the other dood has only himself to take care of!" WHAT BS!

Mr. Bobby Jones, a famous amateur golfer, once called a penalty stroke on himself during a golfing match. When he was praised for calling the penalty on himself: "You might as well praise me for not breaking into banks. There is only one way to play this game." Too bad that sportsmen for the past decade or two haven’t learned this lesson: regardless of the sport.
Please excuse the vulgarity; But it SUCKS that this simple minded morality is to be despised and ridiculed. For folks sitting around a computer screen making excuses for people who don’t want to perform an honest days work and let them be CHEATERS is sad.
I sure hope I don’t have to trust some of folks to teach my children or perform some type of work for me. If it gets too hard/difficult; you prolly wouldn’t have any problem taking a shortcut, if some of your comments are to be taken literally.
It’s a tough hard life. Get tough, stay hard, and do the best you can, without cheating some other person who is trying to do the same.

[girlie]

It's not about the singular it is about the plural.

Now a days we are fortunate enough that the individual"s" are starting to have a pull. The game is changing.

[Grant McLean]

Regardless of how many layers of complexity are used to obscure a decision, it typically boils down to Door A or Door B. At least, that's my humble opinion.

thanks for clearing that up.


-g

[capybaras]

Yes, but Vino was very likable.

and the chicken



not so much

[BuddyB]

Doping heh?

Here is how I feel about doping I don't care if they dope, want to dope or are a dope!
Pro Cycling ( and most other pro sports ) is about being entertained. We the cycling fans want to be entertained.
When I choose a movie to watch/rent or a music cd to purchase I do not care if the respective artist shoots smack, drinks heavily, has a different sexual perference than I do, is fat/thin, republican/democrat and on and on.
I just want to be entertained, much like when I attend or watch on tv or read about a bike race.

I am curious, has anyone counted the number of adds for supplements in Velo News or Bicycling Mag that claims to make you a better cyclist. What is the difference between the pro who pays a doctor to treat him with pharamacuetical grade drugs than the recreational cyclist using supplements that have no proof that they work to enhance their performance?

Just some of my thoughts.

Buddy B

[Flat Out]

What is the difference between the pro who pays a doctor to treat him with pharamacuetical grade drugs than the recreational cyclist using supplements that have no proof that they work to enhance their performance?

Wow. Seriously?

[Samster]

It seems Vino (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/dec07/dec13news2) is doing well popularity-wise in Kazakhstan. Generally though, I remember Millar taking a lot of grief initially, but then gaining positive public perception/support as he later leveraged his position with an anti-PED stance. At least in my circle of acquaintances, most thought quite negatively of Millar at first.

[Samster]

I am curious, has anyone counted the number of adds for supplements in Velo News or Bicycling Mag that claims to make you a better cyclist. What is the difference between the pro who pays a doctor to treat him with pharamacuetical grade drugs than the recreational cyclist using supplements that have no proof that they work to enhance their performance?

Just some of my thoughts.

Buddy BHere's some interesting reading (http://outside.away.com/outside/bodywork/200311/200311_drug_test_1.html).

[Avispa]

If my alternative was working in a mattress factory in Belgium, doping becomes almost inevitable atmo ...

I thought all those were moved to China! :D :D

Build 'em up. Tear 'em down. Repeat as necessary

That part I understand.... The only problem I see is that many riders are well aware of what they are getting into in the first place. If they are not, as it was in my case, you learn quickly where all this may be heading to.

At that point, you have to look at yourself in the mirror and look around you and decide which way you want to go and what do you want in life.

You see, most of these people, before they become pro riders are not destitute, homeless people without a future or living in a barren African country. They are living in developed nations and have alternative ways to make it in life. They may never become stars and make millions... But they will survive.

..A..

[Grant McLean]

That part I understand.... The only problem I see is that many riders are well aware of what they are getting into in the first place. If they are not, as it was in my case, you learn fairly quickly where all this may be heading to.


..A..


I'm feeling a Britney/Paris moment for Vino coming on...

:banana:


-g

[swoop]

Explain please. Are you bemoaning morality or low IQ or the sports fan? I have my own thoughts but it sounds like you're putting yourself on a bit of a pedestal.


its not that i'm hoisting myself up.. i'm just offering an alternative object to hate.. the fan. as fans i think we should invest our curiosity in the sport as it is rather than how its packaged for us to consume and used to sell us stuff.

i just dislike the dominant view and the moralizing. like all things, its complex... but rarely discussed in terms that embrace the full picture.

for all the voices in this.. the cat that says it the way that makes sense to me is spinelli in that interview he did with decanio. justin.. is it ok if i post it?

[Viper]

It's not complex, cheating is cheating. Black, meet white cause gray left the building. There are laws, rules and let Atticus Finch's first and last name remind you what happens when one breaks the law. Anyone who believes doping and cyling are complex issues which need long words or long discussions ought to do a term term paper on what Atticus' full name signifies in the book 'To Kill a Mockingbird'. atmo.

Play guitar. Van Halen gets caught playing air guitar, as a fan, should you shrug your shoulders, avoid a decision of morality and enjoy the concert? Maybe, it's your money. Just don't tell me it's okay, the air guitar or tell me I don't know cheating when I see it.

I'd rather be a moralistic human, than a rationlizing fan. I'd rather have a crystal clear mirror, than a dirty needle.

atmo.


THE MAN IN THE MIRROR

If you get what you want in your struggle for self
And the world makes you king for a day,
Just go to a mirror and look at yourself
And see what THAT man has to say.


For it isn’t your father or mother or wife
Whose judgement upon you must pass,
The fellow whose verdict counts most in your life
Is the one staring back from the glass.


He's the fellow to please, never mind all the rest
For he's with you clear up to the end,
And you've passed your most dangerous difficult test
If the man in the glass is your friend.


You may fool the whole world down the pathway of years
And get pats on the back as you pass,
But your final reward will be heartache and tears
If you've cheated the man in the glass!

[Viper]

clearly sport is a reflection of life but it's also a venue for folks to project and work their stuff out... and at some point its not about the riders as whole people.. but as villains and heroes.

i think as fans we tend to be lazy and refuse to see the big picture, the gestalt, and the individual as a complex person working in a complex social dynamic.

i'm just saying that if i were a young man over there... i'd dope. i just hope that i'd also have a crisis of clarity and come through it on my terms. i have a strong dislike for the moralizing simpleminded fan... i think they're ruining sports more so than 'dopers'.

n.

Respectfully, I disagree with every single word.

[swoop]

Respectfully, I disagree with every single word.

that's cool. diversity of opinions makes things fresh (for me).

[Viper]

that's cool. diversity of opinions makes things fresh (for me).

Kirk had Spock.

[capybaras]

that's cool. diversity of opinions makes things fresh (for me).

Are you guys talking about doping or life? I am confused

[Viper]

Are you guys talking about doping or life? I am confused

I'm talking about Star Trek (which is life to some people).

Atticus Finch
Man in the Mirror
Michael Jackson lipsynching the song
Irony

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zpTQCQEFhg&feature=related

[capybaras]

I'm talking about Star Trek (which is life to some people).

Atticus Finch
Man in the Mirror
Michael Jackson lipsynching the song
Irony

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zpTQCQEFhg&feature=related

I liked when you were talking about Dune. That was funny

[Viper]

I liked when you were talking about Dune. That was funny

I am not a simpleminded fan. But I am a Simple Minds fan. To you cheaters, don't you forget about...me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRrU-tG9uZw


This is for ATMO (I think he had a crush on Molly Ringwald):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_9sB92dJzM&feature=related

[capybaras]

I am not a simpleminded fan. But I am a Simple Minds fan. To you cheaters, don't you forget about...me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRrU-tG9uZw


This is for ATMO (I think he had a crush on Molly Ringwald):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_9sB92dJzM&feature=related

I think you posted to the wrong thread

[jeffg]

if we were talking about the complex motives that lead to securities fraud and insider trading?

Gordon Gekko was framed!

[Viper]

More Simple Minds for those who think cheating is okay. To the cheaters I say, "Sanctify Yourself":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uuyaii37kCc&feature=related

[Viper]

I think you posted to the wrong thread

Things change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-clErdbdZeo

[BBB]

if we were talking about the complex motives that lead to securities fraud and insider trading?

Gordon Gekko was framed!

Good point.

While Swoop et al are no doubt right that there's a degree of complexity involved, the same complex forces may also cause, say, a solicitor to fleece his client's money from the firm trust account. The act is black and white - what causes it may not be.

[swoop]

its a sport. all sports have rules. rules need to be enforced and at the root of the rules they should function to create fair game and to protect the safety of the participants.

you dope, you get caught, you take the penalty. its not a morality issue. its a big cheat....doping... and often endangers the others (second-hand doping effects), so it should be a stiff penalty (meaning not the same as holding onto a car). they should make the riders pay for the cost of all the testing if they fail.

the morality issue is... where is the line between doping as cheating and doping as maintaining the baseline health of the athlete.

i'm sick and tired of the massively perplexed fan in a crisis of over doping in in sport. that's where im in that.. get over yourself and wake the ef up.

get worked up about voter fraud or the 9th ward.. but breaking a boundary in sport is just that.. its part of sport. the better the officiating the purer the game.

[Fixed]

i have far more respect for vino and rasmussen than sinkewitz and millar.

jerk
bro i'm really askin is that cos of a code of honor ?
cheers

[Flat Out]

i'm sick and tired of the massively perplexed fan in a crisis of over doping in in sport. that's where im in that.. get over yourself and wake the ef up..

I'm sick and tired of the massively perplexed ATHLETE who can't understand why fans (read: parents) think this is a big deal. Get over yourself and wake the eff up.

(I usually used two f's in my "eff")

[Viper]

its a sport. all sports have rules. rules need to be enforced and at the root of the rules they should function to create fair game and to protect the safety of the participants.

you dope, you get caught, you take the penalty. its not a morality issue. its a big cheat....doping... and often endangers the others (second-hand doping effects), so it should be a stiff penalty (meaning not the same as holding onto a car). they should make the riders pay for the cost of all the testing if they fail.

the morality issue is... where is the line between doping as cheating and doping as maintaining the baseline health of the athlete.

i'm sick and tired of the massively perplexed fan in a crisis of over doping in in sport. that's where im in that.. get over yourself and wake the ef up.

get worked up about voter fraud or the 9th ward.. but breaking a boundary in sport is just that.. its part of sport. the better the officiating the purer the game.

"Gentleman's rules, eh' Goldfinger" said Bond before his golf match. True athletes tee-off with nothing but training, pride, passion and desire.

While watching Tiger Woods play golf right now, I can't help but remain perplexed of how you cannot equate and prefer to disassociate cheating with morality.

Your rationalization of attempting to create differences in doping, "As cheating and doping as maintaining the baseline health of the athlete" is something I cannot grasp, can you further expand on this? I ask because by nature, the sport of cycling is one which tasks the heart, the endurance systems and I cannot see how a cyclist should be allowed to dope in order to maintain a 'baseline', it defeats the entire element of the sport...endurance.

We witnessed Senator Mitchell's report on steroids today; there is a pandemic crisis of cheating in sports today, fraud and we cannot turn a blind eye any further.

The first cheater I ever saw was the driver of the car that went against this one (below) it had these crazy hubcaps which could cut into your car and shred it up...Greased Lightning still won (and he got the girl atmo):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EvZcT0qATE

[swoop]

it can become semantic at this point....
the rules dictate what is dope and what is meds.
dope is medication you take that are stipulated as 'banned substances' by the uci.

you can google the list.

i'm just suggesting that in the panic of fan-reaction that there's more going on.


i'm not pro doping. i don't like cheating. i don't cheat.

lemond talks about the long term effects of d-1 bike racing on the athlete and the appropriate use of what are banned substances to maintain a baseline of life-long health for the athlete. so does fuentes for that matter.
i've heard from some euro d-1's the same opinion. so, i'm not making this stuff up. its relevant in the discussion for that level of sport.

i think i've jumped in on every freaking dope thread here..and taken in all angles. i'm done on this one.. but its all cached.


'scuse the typos.. its deep dyslexia and its late to be typing.

[Grant McLean]

We witnessed Senator Mitchell's report on steroids today; there is a pandemic crisis of cheating in sports today, fraud and we cannot turn a blind eye any further.

Today?

Did we just disturb your nap?
When Jacques Anqutil won his 5 tours de france he openly spoke about using drugs in the 1950's and 60's
Tommy Simpson? Festina? Where have you been my young lad?? Same as it ever was...

-g

[Viper]

Today?

Did we just disturb your nap?
When Jacques Anqutil won his 5 tours de france he openly spoke about using drugs in the 1950's and 60's
Tommy Simpson? Festina? Where have you been my young lad?? Same as it ever was...

-g

Nap? I'm here now, so is the truth, science and the demand of justice in sports. Tell them Senator Mitchell is coming and Wyatt Earp is coming with him!

One of the first dopers and cheaters of all-time (and look where it got him) a long time ago...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24ET_pQh6QY

[saab2000]

Some of these men and women have families. There are paychecks that need to be gotten. Not in all cases but some sacrifices were made early on in their lives..........and maybe there was no turning back. IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT THE BIKE.



But dont' kid anyone. The "matress factory" still pays more than the bike. I have known pros and most of them get to ride for a living. They don't have to ride for a living.

This ain't some romantic thing where folks work their way out of the ghetto. Maybe some. But not most. Cheating is cheating is cheating whether its in cycling or business or baseball or whatever. It's not all some Wide World of Sports 'Human Interest' story of the poor boy scrubbing floors or laying bricks. C'mon. Honest. Been there, seen that.

I have very little time for the cheaters who get caught and don't admit it. Yeah, there are probably some who didn't cheat and got falsely accused. But for everyone of them there are a thousand who cheated and didn't get caught.

All I have to say to Rasmussen or Vino or any of the other lamos who whine about it now that they are outed is CMAFR.... Welcome the life. Get a effin' job. See how that works out.

[Grant McLean]

Here's a great story from NPR today.

Former Olympic sprinter mike agostini (http://www.afterlifenews.com/a/266.html) from the 1956 Melbourne games talks
about how they all did speed back in the day...

and mentions that Marion Jones passed 160 drug tests
even though she doped the whole time...never a positive

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17197074


-g

[Viper]

Here's a great story from NPR today.

Former Olympic sprinter mike agostini (http://www.afterlifenews.com/a/266.html) from the 1956 Melbourne games talks
about how they all did speed back in the day...

and mentions that Marion Jones passed 160 drug tests
even though she doped the whole time...never a positive

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17197074


-g

Look at Marion Jones...

Then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pQkUTJH4N4

Now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1USv6QL-Dc&feature=related

[Avispa]

When Jacques Anqutil won his 5 tours de france he openly spoke about using drugs in the 1950's and 60's

I've always been curious about Jacques and what folks in his days used... I mean, was the stuff of yesterday really useful for these athletes?

I remember hearing about caffeine (as a stimulant) and morphine (as a pain killer) and stuff like that; but I wonder how effective the stuff in those days was in comparison to that what pro cyclists use today.

By the way, I am not excusing the riders of yesterday, I am just curious to know what benefits they really obtained with the stuff that was available then.

..A..

[swoop]

pot belge in da house.

[Grant McLean]

I've always been curious about Jacques and what folks in his days used... I mean, was the stuff of yesterday really useful for these athletes?
...A..

lots of pain killers is what i've read.
"but never too much, that would be improper!"

-g

[Avispa]

Hey Grant,

The stuff you posted:

Here's a great story from NPR today....

Was very good to hear... Gives one some perspective on the old days stuff.

Now this:

"but never too much, that would be improper!"

Looks like the philosophy behind the use hasn't changed much! :D

..A..

[Grant McLean]

Look at Marion Jones...
Then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pQkUTJH4N4

Now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1USv6QL-Dc&feature=related

There's a pretty good argument to be made by the athletes who get caught
that they shouldn't have doped. All that disgrace, the natural talent they
had that they didn't "need" to...

But how does that work? Just about everyone is doping, cheating, dealing,
throwing games... videotaping from the sidelines...all that... always has...

Sport is life. The problem with sport is that it's made up of people, otherwise
it's perfect!

Pro sports is a lousy role model for anyone. Pro sports is bad for your body,
mind, spirit, and soul... It's out of whack. It's not a balance. It's perverse.
It's totally self absorbed. It's a business. It's entertainment. It's a joke.

The only difference between Baseball and Pro Wresting is that most of the
crowd in pro wresting knows is a show.

I like Nascar as the best example of sports/entertainment. They know the show.
There they just out and change the rules in the middle of the game to keep
it all competitive. If your team is too fast, they go and change the amount
of wing you're allowed to run, which slows you down.
Your team is too slow... they give you more wing. It's 'efffin brilliant.
On with the show.

-g

[Flat Out]

I like Nascar as the best example of sports/entertainment. They know the show.
There they just out and change the rules in the middle of the game to keep
it all competitive. If you team is too fast, they change the amount of wing
you're allowed to run, which slows you down. Your team is too slow... they
give you more wing. It's 'efffin brilliant. On with the show.

In the middle of the game? How 'bout in the middle of a race. Nothing like throwing a yellow for that Happy Meal wrapper that landed on the track to bunch up the cars so they can manufacture a closer finish.

Here's an idea, just let everybody take any drugs they want starting at any age. Then pretty soon Joe Six Pack can do anything that multi-million dollar athletes can do. When there's a superhero on every corner the job of superhero doesn't pay so good anymore.

[Grant McLean]

Here's an idea, just let everybody take any drugs they want starting at any age.

All joking aside, isn't that what's already happening??
High school football is already there.

-g

[malcolm]

Joe blow could never do what these guys do with any drugs. No pharmaceutical is a replacement for genetics and natural ability. No drugs can turn a sows ear into a silk purse. Pick your sport and the athletes at the top are the very best at what they do. Drugs certainly give them an edge especially over the clean ones, but none are average Joes. We create these people. They are cut from the herd when young, pampered and sheltered, sort of locked in perpetual adolesence. Then coaches, trainers, managers, owners etc make it known in no uncertain terms that performance is the only concern and the glory, adulation, endorsments, cash will dry up without it. Then add fans that are as fickle as they are fanatical and I would be shocked if any of them didn't do what ever they thought they could get away with. I don't excuse it but it is the system that has been created and in some ways just mirrors human nature. In the right situation most folks will do what they feel they need to make the grade. I remember in med school we had two brothers caught cheating and they were already at the top of the class. Pressure to perform and meet expectations. I remember an article from the early '80, when steroid use was first making headlines and someone interviewed olympic hopefuls anonomously and the question was if there was a pill that would insure you a medal but would cost you something like 10 years of your life would you do it and the overwhelming majority said they would. When that one small thing/event/sport is your whole life and you have those pressures and little perspectative taking ability it is easy to see why doping is so wide spread.
I think for all sport we should just forgive/forget the past, but start a new day with zero tolerance. Constantly rehashing these accusations and denials doesn't help and stripping past athletes of medals and titles robs fans of history and doesn't really help. You will never prove who did and who didn't. Create a set of standards within a completely transparent and unbiased system and then have no tolerance. I'm sure this is simplistic, but it is the best I could come up with.

[Viper]

All joking aside, isn't that what's already happening??
High school football is already there.

-g

High School wrestling had a touch of it in the late 80's. I always enjoyed going up against a known 'juicer', I'd punish him.

Cheaters never win. Winners sometimes cheat, but cheaters never win. Everyone makes fun of 'The Justice League', but I hear they are making a Big Screen movie soon. Heck, Superman, Aquaman, Green Arrow, Cyborg and the Flash were just on 'Smallville'. Lex Luthor is a loser. Abraham Lincoln wore a skin suit.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0974015/

[swoop]

i've used this reference before... you have no idea how many grad school kids are studying and testing on adhd meds that don't suffer from adhd.
you also have no idea how many of your md's have taken beta blockers at test time.

life is funny.

they're working on meds to make soldiers freakishly stronger... got some genetically mutated superats. where we are now with dope is bush-leagues.. the real heavy stuff is still a decade or two away. that's when there's gonna be some ethical dilemmas to stare down.

[DukeHorn]

There's an easy enough standard:

Would you give the stuff to your kids??

Obviously, based on the subtext in this thread, some of you would have no qualms dosing your children, but the rest of us would say "no"

I've seen roid-rage at the high school level in an upper middle class community. Those of you saying its ok to dope since everyone else is doing it are the ones tacitly pushing these drugs down in the ranks to our children.

[malcolm]

Swoop, I've given numerous folks a little propranolol before tests or speaking engagements. I always tell them to take test dose because you never know how they will react to B blockers. My wife is an oral board examiner for one of the medical specialities and they have a few pass outs every year from orthostasis due to beta blockers. I think I see more college kids on ADD drugs than not.

[malcolm]

DukeHorn, I think the would you give it to your kids question could be asked in many instances. I'm not sure I buy roid rage. I think most of the time it is an excuse for an out of control adolescent with no impulse control, sorta like nytol or ambien made me do it.

[Viper]

i've used this reference before... you have no idea how many grad school kids are studying and testing on adhd meds that don't suffer from adhd.
you also have no idea how many of your md's have taken beta blockers at test time.

life is funny.

they're working on meds to make soldiers freakishly stronger... got some genetically mutated superats. where we are now with dope is bush-leagues.. the real heavy stuff is still a decade or two away. that's when there's gonna be some ethical dilemmas to stare down.

This is all milk and cookies, pills, lotions and creams. The real stuff involves genetic engineering, but just cause' some cyclists dope or sprinters juice, doesn't make it right. Cheating is cheating and we don't need to re-define what the word 'is' means.

Jonathon Livingston Seagull never cheated. I know CEO's and self-help gurus who take betas before a big speech. I know delis in NY who cheat you on the amount of meat on the sandwich and we all have a local beer distributor who charges too much for Belgian beer; what we cannot and should never do is allow the theory of 'relativism' to wipe away the facts behind cheating in sports. I can count the amount of times I've offered, "It's all relative" in a debate or discussion, the number is zero. We need Vulcans to monitor our athletes.

[swoop]

There's an easy enough standard:

Would you give the stuff to your kids??

Obviously, based on the subtext in this thread, some of you would have no qualms dosing your children, but the rest of us would say "no"

I've seen roid-rage at the high school level in an upper middle class community. Those of you saying its ok to dope since everyone else is doing it are the ones tacitly pushing these drugs down in the ranks to our children.


huh? there's a conceptual leap there. i didn't say it was ok to dope... i said the typical fan reaction to doping tends to moralize in the absence of the big picture and is painfully naive. please.. you have no idea what i go through with my patients that need meds and wont take them...

and i am anti doping. i like rules and boundaries. i'm massively anti doping.

[Viper]

i said the typical fan reaction to doping tends to moralize in the absence of the big picture and is painfully naive.

This ^ is what I'm trying to grasp. Can you expand on this?

[swoop]

no. we'll talk about it over a beer!

[Viper]

no. we'll talk about it over a beer!

Consider it done. :)

EDIT: I am drinking a Piraat Ale as we speak!

[vaxn8r]

Eyes wide open...any sport where the participants are paid for performance, or have the possiblity to be paid in the future...is rife with "cheating". It's not a moral stance against sport. It's what it is. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Doping is in it's infancy and testing is a minimum of a decade behind. It's only going to get worse. If their are 80 players on the Mitchell report you can be sure their were hundreds, or more, that just weren't caught. Face it, we suck at detection and when genetic engineering becomes the norm, forget about it.

Whoever mentioned pro wrestling...was it Grant? That's how I've thought of all pro sports since I woke up from my nap in about 1990. I don't condone doping. I think it's dangerous. I get why they do it. And I still follow most sports but only as a casual observer. If you can get jacked up about your local pro sports franchise more power to ya. I don't have that in me anymore.

I'm still pretty certain my 8 year old's soccer team isn't rigged.

[DarrenCT]

Consider it done. :)

EDIT: I am drinking a Piraat Ale as we speak!

vipah,

you and I both. wow that stuff is potent! ;)

[paczki]

I'm still pretty certain my 8 year old's soccer team isn't rigged.

Have you looked at the vertical leap on the goalie? High on life? I think she's dopin'!

[capybaras]

Have you looked at the vertical leap on the goalie? High on life? I think she's dopin'!

You :banana: are high.

[Len J]

is the fact (& I think swoop touched on this) that the line between legal and illegal is so arbitrary some times.

Look at Tiger woods as a small example (I think someone brought him up). He has had his eyes corrected (As have many BB hitters) so he now has super vision....helps him read greens. Under the current written rules, this is legal. I suspect Bobby Jones would have a problem with it. How about the altitude tents that are now banned but were legal for years? Does their use taint the wins of those who used them when they were legal?

Cumulative "going into the coffin" has a cumulative effect on degrading the body.....I think that has been medically proven. I'm a team doctor (hypothetically)....I'm going to give my riders whatever is legal to help them "survive" and lengthen their life. This year I give them A.......it's not banned. Next year it's banned. So I give them B. as Grant says....rinse, repeat. How do I choose what to give them or not? If I only use the items not on the banned list, then I have more latitude than if I use some other arbitrary rule.

Point is, while we all would agree that sports SHOULD be pure, and that taking something on the banned list is cheating, there are so many other choices about things that are not banned that are not as black & white.....drug A only has a small benefit on performance but a large benefit on longevity, drug B has a large benefit on performance and a small benefit on longevity & drug C has an equal benefit for both.......none of them are on the banned list. Which use is cheating? Who decides....the doctor?, the athlete? the fan? the DS?

In addition, whose "Motives" are pure in this decision process? I would say none, including the fan.........the average fan has too much emotion coupled with too little experience based empathy...which results in gross generalizations and black/white judgements.

Sports, like life is not as simple as we would like.

as to the OP's original question, we like who we like. We give a break to those who we most take the effort to empathize with and we don't to those we don't. Some people are easier to empathize with than others. Some people find it easier to empathize than others.

Len

[Fixed]

I've always been curious about Jacques and what folks in his days used... I mean, was the stuff of yesterday really useful for these athletes?

I remember hearing about caffeine (as a stimulant) and morphine (as a pain killer) and stuff like that; but I wonder how effective the stuff in those days was in comparison to that what pro cyclists use today.

By the way, I am not excusing the riders of yesterday, I am just curious to know what benefits they really obtained with the stuff that was available then.

..A..
party like 1970 i heard they did blow
cheers

[swoop]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG4odJP-Zuw

*cough*

[Climb01742]

lots of pain killers is what i've read.
"but never too much, that would be improper!"

-g

tom simpson had a telling quote about drugs: "If ten will kill me, give me nine."

[jeffg]

tom simpson had a telling quote about drugs: "If ten will kill me, give me nine."


I guess they gave him ten ...

[JMerring]

....Look at Tiger woods as a small example (I think someone brought him up). He has had his eyes corrected (As have many BB hitters) so he now has super vision....helps him read greens....Len

Regarding Tiger Woods' eyes, before lasik surgery he wore lenses. His lenses gave him 20/20 vision (or pretty damn close thereto); his lasik surgery has given him 20/20 vision (or pretty damn close thereto). He does not have "super eyes" in the sense that he can see like Superman. To suggest that lasik surgery is comparable to steroids, EPO or HGH is totally ridiculous (no offense, Len, but I'm just saying). More importantly, reading greens is about alot more than just actually physically seeing the break. My old man has bad eyesight but doesn't wear either lenses or glasses when he plays, and he is one of the best putters I've ever seen (maybe I should start playing golf blind, too!).

[Len J]

Regarding Tiger Woods' eyes, before lasik surgery he wore lenses. His lenses gave him 20/20 vision (or pretty damn close thereto); his lasik surgery has given him 20/20 vision (or pretty damn close thereto). He does not have "super eyes" in the sense that he can see like Superman. To suggest that lasik surgery is comparable to steroids, EPO or HGH is totally ridiculous (no offense, Len, but I'm just saying). More importantly, reading greens is about alot more than just actually physically seeing the break. My old man has bad eyesight but doesn't wear either lenses or glasses when he plays, and he is one of the best putters I've ever seen (maybe I should start playing golf blind, too!).

Actually it's 20/15 or less according to him.....and he has credited it with improving his ability to read greens......so it is performance enhancing. ...So I'm not sure how ridiculous it is.

I could take HGH & Steroids and still wouldn't be able to throw a 98 MPH fast ball to the position I wanted to.....or survive the TDF.

What we are talking about is very high end performers enhancing their already incredible skills.

The point I was trying to make was that there are all kinds of performance enhancements..........from the small to the large. The definition of them has always been arbitrary.

Ridiculous...I don't think so.

Len

[Viper]

Actually it's 20/15 or less according to him.....and he has credited it with improving his ability to read greens......so it is performance enhancing. ...So I'm not sure how ridiculous it is.
Len

Marketing 101. Tiger Woods is paid $$$ to declare that his eyes are now better from Lasik, 20/15 yada yada blah blah. In fact, if you followed Tiger Woods closely, you'd know Woods complained the Lasik screwed his eyes up. One could also take the time to do a stastical analysis of Woods' putting scores per round before Lasik/after Lasik.

Lasik, Woods...regardless, it's spin; doping is illegal, wrong and immoral. Wade Boggs was getting hair plugs during his career, did the increased self esteem factor into his batting average? Is Hair Club for Men illegal? We could spin forever and ever. Lance had Sheryl Crowe's lovin' after each Stage of le TdF, was the top grade booty cheating?

[jerk]

no one ever caught a fish who didn't open his mouth.

jerk

[Grant McLean]

Lasik, Woods...regardless, it's spin; doping is illegal, wrong and immoral. Wade Boggs was getting hair plugs during his career, did the increased self esteem factor into his batting average? Is Hair Club for Men illegal? We could spin forever and ever. Lance had Sheryl Crowe's lovin' after each Stage of le TdF, was the top grade booty cheating?

"doping" is what's on the banned list, not what's performance enhancing,
let's get that straight. Every training method is performance enhancing,
otherwise why do it...

What makes the banned list? How does it get on the banned list?
Cold medications are on the list, then off the list, then on the list,
then off the list.

Ask rower Silken Laumann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silken_Laumann) and her quad sculls team mates about the
4 gold medals Canada lost at the Pan Am games because of their doctor
gave her the wrong cold medication.
Is this the purpose of the doping rules?

Marion Jones tested clean 160 times... even though she doping the entire time.
It seems to me that "testing" and "banning" isn't up to the job of catching
those who cheat...maybe it's time to try something else.

-g

[manet]

...

It seems to me that "testing" and "banning" isn't up to the job of catching
those who cheat.... maybe it's time to try something else

-g

watch the movie "sin city", it's packed wid good ideas

[Len J]

..........

[J.Greene]

regardless, it's spin; doping is illegal, wrong and immoral.

Here is the deal. Pro sports is commerce, it's not sport. It's the show and only the show. If you want to believe in pro sports you just got to believe. Overdose on the effin coolaid. Buy a fruckin yellow wristband. Do what ever you got to do. Illegal, wrong and Immoral? Those are not considerations in pro sports. It's the show, only the show.

You wanna see sport, go watch ladies field hockey.

So I quote lance on his final tdf podium....again

"But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. But this is one hell of a race. This is a great sporting event and you should stand around and believe it. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it. "

JG

[1centaur]

Here is the deal. Pro sports is commerce, it's not sport....It's the show, only the show.

Many people view pro sports that way, but most don't. The majority see wrestling as a show and major sports as sports. They may be wrong, but they'll vote with their feet if it's presented as a show - they need to believe it's real in order to care. For cycling, the dollars available are not big enough to support prize money and staging if most fans perceive it to be a doping contest. Ultimately, cycling will be what the majority of fans want it to be.

[J.Greene]

Many people view pro sports that way, but most don't. The majority see wrestling as a show and major sports as sports. They may be wrong, but they'll vote with their feet if it's presented as a show - they need to believe it's real in order to care.

exactly, and this is why the current debate shows how STUPID we are. It's a reflection of us.

JG