Doping relativity...

[Mark.AU]

It's way worse, because it kills people.

If I'm a third baseman juiced on steroids and keeping my roster spot because of the associated performance boost, I'm making every young third baseman have to juice to compete with me for my job. (Or think they have to.) With the steroid era in baseball only recently ending, we'll start seeing a lot of stars dropping dead in their mid-40s. I bet every one of them would say they only did it to keep up and keep their job.

Stealing signs to keep up, or videotaping opponents' practices to keep up, or cutting a racecourse to keep up... none of those things are lethal.

Yes, I think that explains the comparative penalty very well - it doesn't explain the stigma.

[HCcD]

Did you hear about the recent scandal when an AG tested positive in a recent Gran Fondo event in NY ??

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/08/news/in-search-of-relevance-a-cat-3-turns-to-epo-and-hgh_232611

[La]

It's way worse, because it kills people.

If I'm a third baseman juiced on steroids and keeping my roster spot because of the associated performance boost, I'm making every young third baseman have to juice to compete with me for my job. (Or think they have to.) With the steroid era in baseball only recently ending, we'll start seeing a lot of stars dropping dead in their mid-40s. I bet every one of them would say they only did it to keep up and keep their job.

Stealing signs to keep up, or videotaping opponents' practices to keep up, or cutting a racecourse to keep up... none of those things are lethal.

Yes, I think that explains the comparative penalty very well - it doesn't explain the stigma.

Because there is generally a stigma against drugs of all kinds. Whether you are taking drugs for theraputic, performance enhancing, or recreational reasons, there is a common belief that it's due to some weakness on your part.

[dgrant]

It's way worse, because it kills people.

If I'm a third baseman juiced on steroids and keeping my roster spot because of the associated performance boost, I'm making every young third baseman have to juice to compete with me for my job. (Or think they have to.) With the steroid era in baseball only recently ending, we'll start seeing a lot of stars dropping dead in their mid-40s. I bet every one of them would say they only did it to keep up and keep their job.

Stealing signs to keep up, or videotaping opponents' practices to keep up, or cutting a racecourse to keep up... none of those things are lethal.

Yes, I think that explains the comparative penalty very well - it doesn't explain the stigma.

Maybe other forms of cheating are considered craftier or almost charming. Would I go have a beer with Joe Niekro (caught doctoring baseballs with an emery board) or Mickey Hatcher (corked bat)? Yes, because those crimes are hilarious. Doping just seems so brutish and doesn't imply any intelligence or resourcefulness.

Also, most of the most famous dopers were considered Grade A a__holes regardless of sporting prowess... Barry Bonds, Lance Armstrong, Linford Christie, Roger Clemens, Jose Canseco. I can only think of a few (Mark McGwire, Justin Gatlin) who got pinched for doping and I thought "aw, he seemed like such a great guy). I think doping is associated with a certain personality type.

[HCcD]

IOC clears British cyclist of deliberate crash

The 19-year-old wobbled starting the three-lap race against France and fell at the first bend. The British trio, including Chris Hoy, won the restarted race.

"I just crashed, I did it on purpose to get a restart, just to have the fastest ride. I did it. So it was all planned, really," Hindes reportedly said immediately after the race. He modified his comments at the official news conference to say he lost control of his bike.

http://www.cbc.ca/olympics/cycling/story/2012/08/03/sp-olympics-cycling-team-sprint-britain-philip-hindes-crash.html

[Double Bellybuster]

Doping is no worse than any other form of cheating. Discuss...

No but no further comment. Every thread that starts like this ends with someone asking me "Are you a lawyer or something?"

[Engmomma]

Is doping any different then using the lightest, fastest or most streamline equipment?

Think of the scandal over the skin-style bathing suits. Or building the lightest bike possible. The lightest racket.......

During the skin bathing suit scandal vs standard speedo it was like comparing apples with oranges.

[Jwolf]

Is doping any different then using the lightest, fastest or most streamline equipment?

Think of the scandal over the skin-style bathing suits. Or building the lightest bike possible. The lightest racket.......

During the skin bathing suit scandal vs standard speedo it was like comparing apples with oranges.

Yes, I think it's very different.

There are rules about what equipment is allowed. If you break the rules then it's cheating.

There wasn't a scandal with the swimsuits- just "controversy". They were allowed at first and then they weren't. But no one was cheating when they used them because they were allowed. (And interestingly many of those records have since been broken.)

With doping the rules are also evolving but if something is banned, it's banned. And the rules are there partly to protect the athletes, since the drugs can be very dangerous healthwise. Creating better equipment that stays within the rules but creates controversy (and possibly later banning) at least doesn't harm anyone healthwise. I think that's what makes doping worse than other forms of cheating (that and the systematic nature of the doping process). So I guess I'm going back on my original opinion.

[turd ferguson]

...
With doping the rules are also evolving but if something is banned, it's banned. And the rules are there partly to protect the athletes, since the drugs can be very dangerous healthwise. ...

You've said this, but I don't believe it. That might have been the genesis of doping controls (when doping consisted of strychnine and brandy) but I don't believe it's true anymore. Doping controls might protect the athletes right to fair competition and protect the 'integrity' of the sport itself, but I don't believe its about athlete health.

Let me pose a hypothetical - if they invented a drug that built muscle mass which could be administered without risk, would it be banned?

[CAW]

...
With doping the rules are also evolving but if something is banned, it's banned. And the rules are there partly to protect the athletes, since the drugs can be very dangerous healthwise. ...

You've said this, but I don't believe it. That might have been the genesis of doping controls (when doping consisted of strychnine and brandy) but I don't believe it's true anymore. Doping controls might protect the athletes right to fair competition and protect the 'integrity' of the sport itself, but I don't believe its about athlete health.

Let me pose a hypothetical - if they invented a drug that built muscle mass which could be administered without risk, would it be banned?

Are you a lawyer or something?

[Jwolf]

...
With doping the rules are also evolving but if something is banned, it's banned. And the rules are there partly to protect the athletes, since the drugs can be very dangerous healthwise. ...

You've said this, but I don't believe it. That might have been the genesis of doping controls (when doping consisted of strychnine and brandy) but I don't believe it's true anymore. Doping controls might protect the athletes right to fair competition and protect the 'integrity' of the sport itself, but I don't believe its about athlete health.

Let me pose a hypothetical - if they invented a drug that built muscle mass which could be administered without risk, would it be banned?

Oh, of course. I said "partly." There are definitely some forms of doping that don't affect health adversely. But it's a slippery slope and hard to control.
Some equipment rules in many sports are also for safety reasons, so I supposed if there was an advantage of breaking those rules the argument would be similar.

[dgrant]

Let me pose a hypothetical - if they invented a drug that built muscle mass which could be administered without risk, would it be banned?

Creatine fits your description, and I don't think any pro sports ban it. (Not sure about IOC...)

[fingerboy]

Doping b/c you're really lying to everyone around you continuously. Once you get caught for catching a Ruiz express to the finish, whateve's your done with.

Dopers can come back after a while, which to me is absolutely stupid. There's a training adv right there too. Who's to say some countries aren't doping their athletes from Age 3 to Age 15, keep them completely out of international sport, then bring them after that onto the world stage. Or until they're 23 etc. then start competing at 26. Once you've got that base you must have some crazy advantages. Think about it, if you as a marathoner had a base of 3,000+ miles for the last 5 years, including high intensity work, you'd be in top form.

Plus dopers just start doing lower key races for a couple $$$ to $$$$ and make small careers off that. Kills competition for normal ppl to go out there and earn income. You can still earn a living that way. Alene Rita does it.

[Jwolf]

Let me pose a hypothetical - if they invented a drug that built muscle mass which could be administered without risk, would it be banned?

Creatine fits your description, and I don't think any pro sports ban it. (Not sure about IOC...)

Creatine isn't banned because it's considered a supplement (well, not exactly for that reason,I guess), and you make a good point. It's possible that if there were some drug that could build muscle mass without risk then it wouldn't be banned. But there is yet to be developed any drug that doesn't have side effects....

Blood doping strikes me as one of those banned practices that doesn't pose an inherent health risk but there is a practical risk (risk of infection, problems resulting from poor storage, etc.).

[drghfx]

Is doping any different then using the lightest, fastest or most streamline equipment?

Think of the scandal over the skin-style bathing suits. Or building the lightest bike possible. The lightest racket.......

During the skin bathing suit scandal vs standard speedo it was like comparing apples with oranges.

Yes, I think it's very different.

There are rules about what equipment is allowed. If you break the rules then it's cheating.

There wasn't a scandal with the swimsuits- just "controversy". They were allowed at first and then they weren't. But no one was cheating when they used them because they were allowed. (And interestingly many of those records have since been broken.)

With doping the rules are also evolving but if something is banned, it's banned. And the rules are there partly to protect the athletes, since the drugs can be very dangerous healthwise. Creating better equipment that stays within the rules but creates controversy (and possibly later banning) at least doesn't harm anyone healthwise. I think that's what makes doping worse than other forms of cheating (that and the systematic nature of the doping process). So I guess I'm going back on my original opinion.

I'm back to badminton. There were no rules against losing a game. The rule that was applied was "Spirit of the Games" or some such nonsense. Is having an advantage over your opponent solely because of your equipment in the spirit of the Games? ...and no, not every athlete can afford the best equipment. I believe it was the last Olympics or perhaps the one before, the Germans had a $100,000 bob sled. Canada's cost $50,000. I believe it was the Beijing Olympics some other competitors bought a runner from Africa some sneakers because he didn't have any.

[La]

Blood doping strikes me as one of those banned practices that doesn't pose an inherent health risk but there is a practical risk (risk of infection, problems resulting from poor storage, etc.).

I think blood doping IS dangerous, because if your blood is too thick (which they check through a hematocrit level test) it can cause life-threatening problems, especially for athletes in competition. Didn't a Canadian athlete have that problem several years ago? Spent too much time in an oxygen-deprived tent?

[Jwolf]

Blood doping strikes me as one of those banned practices that doesn't pose an inherent health risk but there is a practical risk (risk of infection, problems resulting from poor storage, etc.).

I think blood doping IS dangerous, because if your blood is too thick (which they check through a hematocrit level test) it can cause life-threatening problems, especially for athletes in competition. Didn't a Canadian athlete have that problem several years ago? Spent too much time in an oxygen-deprived tent?

Well, then I can't really think of anything else that is otherwise safe but only performance-enhancing.

[Double Bellybuster]

I believe it was the Beijing Olympics some other competitors bought a runner from Africa some sneakers because he didn't have any.

It is the 20th anniversary of the Olympics where the Grateful Dead outfitted the Lithuanian basketball team:



This was a result of the friendship between Sarunas Marcelonus of the Golden State Warriors and the Dead. Both played their home events at the Oakland Coliseum.

[Dstew]

The real question is not whether cheating is cheating as that answers itself but should the penalty be the same regardless of the infraction.

The issue of drafting is brought up. In one race I read about the penalty is that the first offense, the participant has to pull over to the side of the road, get off the bike, lift it off the ground and a ref will then approve and they continue with the race. They do it again and they can be disqualified from the race. A appropriate punishment for the crime. A temporary advantage = a temporary punishment but do it again and you are gone from the race. I suppose one gets caught doing it often enough there could be steeper punishments - ban from a number of races, etc.

With doping, "permanent" advantage and hence a more "permanent" punishment. Needless to say, the "Public Policy" issues also arise given the potential harm to the user and others who would follow in their footsteps.

[Spirit Unleashed]

Blood doping strikes me as one of those banned practices that doesn't pose an inherent health risk but there is a practical risk (risk of infection, problems resulting from poor storage, etc.).

I think blood doping IS dangerous, because if your blood is too thick (which they check through a hematocrit level test) it can cause life-threatening problems, especially for athletes in competition. Didn't a Canadian athlete have that problem several years ago? Spent too much time in an oxygen-deprived tent?

Well, then I can't really think of anything else that is otherwise safe but only performance-enhancing.

food?

[ultraslacker]

what about caffeine?

[VeloCarrie]

Caffeine is a food group ...

[Spirit Unleashed]

Caffeine is a food group ...

works for me!

[HCcD]

Now this is going a wee bit too far, don't you think ???

Testers fear reality of genetically modified Olympians
http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/2012-summer-games/Testers+fear+reality+genetically+modified/7052212/story.html

[Engmomma]

Caffeine is a food group ...

They taught my kids in health class that caffeine is a stimulant.