BBC: Lance Armstrong to have his 7 titles stripped.

[Skeptic Ginger]

So maybe it's been mentioned in the 5 previous pages, but in case it hasn't been, apparently not everyone agrees the USADA has the authority at this point to strip Armstrong of his titles. The International Cycling Union claims the titles have not been rescinded.

International Cycling Union statement on Lance Armstrong

Quote:

The UCI recognizes that USADA is reported as saying that it will strip Mr. Armstrong of all results from 1998 onwards in addition to imposing a lifetime ban from participating in any sport which recognizes the World Anti-Doping Code.

Article 8.3 of the WADC states that where no hearing occurs the Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility shall submit to the parties concerned (Mr. Armstrong, WADA and UCI) a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.

As USADA has claimed jurisdiction in the case the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Code.

Until such time as USADA delivers this decision the UCI has no further comment to make.”

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Yes, the flaw in the "let them do what they want" argument is that then drugs become almost mandatory. Then all your winning female shot-putters develop hairy chests and deep voices, meaning that big women who fancy a crack at that sport might as well not bother unless they want the hairy chest.*

In addition, an exceptional clean winner's performance is downgraded in the public mind as they are assumed to be doing drugs.

*this 'hairy chest' business might not be entirely accurate, but substitute "untoward physical and health effects" and you get the gist

.
I've noticed female body builders when they bulk up to advance to higher classes have facial feature changes.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by qayak

Drugs aren't magic but they do give you a 10-15% boost in performance.

The issue is that clean athletes get screwed. They get beat by cheaters. An athlete using PED no more wins a race than the athlete who trips all the competitors in the 1500 meters and raises his hand as he crosses the finish line.

Two choices:

1) Change the rules to make drugs a part of the sport.

2) Go after the cheaters mercilessly.

It looks like the USADA is taking the second option.

Any proof of that?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So maybe it's been mentioned in the 5 previous pages, but in case it hasn't been, apparently not everyone agrees the USADA has the authority at this point to strip Armstrong of his titles. The International Cycling Union claims the titles have not been rescinded.

International Cycling Union statement on Lance Armstrong

Stripping Armstrong of his wins after this long makes a travesty of the TdF and all bike races.

[malicus]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

The Onions take on it . http://www.theonion.com/articles/lan...o-still,29313/

Not content with that..........http://store.theonion.com/p-5045-che..._campaign=ad11

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by tsig

Stripping Armstrong of his wins after this long makes a travesty of the TdF and all bike races.

.
It's a buncha old men cutting off their noses to spite their faces... as Mom would say.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by tsig

Any proof of that?

Not on the specific amount. It was simply a regurgitation of a quote I heard from a doctor who was caught helping athletes dope. His point was that PEDs were a free 15% increase in speed and strength so the question isn't why would athletes using them, the question is, why wouldn't they?

Of course, there is little doubt they are of benefit. The problem with studying them is one of ethics. Knowing the harm they do, is it ethical to test them on humans. However, there have been some tests done. This one for example:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...html?full=true

As well, look at the number of records that are/were held by users. The fact is, people don't win until they use PEDs.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Yes, the flaw in the "let them do what they want" argument is that then drugs become almost mandatory. Then all your winning female shot-putters develop hairy chests and deep voices, meaning that big women who fancy a crack at that sport might as well not bother unless they want the hairy chest.*

In addition, an exceptional clean winner's performance is downgraded in the public mind as they are assumed to be doing drugs.

*this 'hairy chest' business might not be entirely accurate, but substitute "untoward physical and health effects" and you get the gist

Exactly. And then you have to reexamine what the spirit of sports is. It wouldn't be athletic prowess and fair play, it would be medical technology and win at any cost.

The win at any cost thing is already bad enough with the money riding on events like the Olympics. There must be something to counteract it. Doping rules are a great way to do it.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So maybe it's been mentioned in the 5 previous pages, but in case it hasn't been, apparently not everyone agrees the USADA has the authority at this point to strip Armstrong of his titles. The International Cycling Union claims the titles have not been rescinded.

International Cycling Union statement on Lance Armstrong

I mentioned it, but others probably did as well. The most power that USADA has with regard to this is to make a determination that the UCI is required to act on based on an agreement. Clearly the USADA can't strip anybody of anything, but it can, apparently make a finding which some other agency may be required to act on.

Somebody explained it previously, but I'm still not clear on what the legal basis is for the USADA to ignore their own 8 year statute of limitations on this. I guess the argument is something like Armstrong was racing within the 8 year statute of limitations and therefore everything becomes subject to review. Whatever the legal logic here is, the whole thing strikes me as stupid. Eight years seems like a ridiculously long statute of limitations on this already and the idea that there is some legal dodge that allows the statute of limitations to be ignored entirely strikes me as even stupider.

I think I read that the UCI has a 3 year statute of limitations which strikes me as a reasonable number. If that is correct how is it that the USADA expects to impose their craziness on the UCI. The USADA is going to argue that the statute of limitations is whatever they feel like and the UCI needs to go along with it?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by qayak

Not on the specific amount. It was simply a regurgitation of a quote I heard from a doctor who was caught helping athletes dope. His point was that PEDs were a free 15% increase in speed and strength so the question isn't why would athletes using them, the question is, why wouldn't they?

Of course, there is little doubt they are of benefit. The problem with studying them is one of ethics. Knowing the harm they do, is it ethical to test them on humans. However, there have been some tests done. This one for example:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...html?full=true

As well, look at the number of records that are/were held by users. The fact is, people don't win until they use PEDs.

Energy isn't free it has to come from some where and in this case it has to come from the body of the cyclist. How do they store this extra energy?

So we can tell they use PEDS because they win?

Until there's evidence that any of the drugs that Armstrong is alleged to have used actually do anything there's nothing scientific about this whole thing.

You still seem to view drugs as magical substances that gives users powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by tsig

Energy isn't free it has to come from some where and in this case it has to come from the body of the cyclist. How do they store this extra energy?

So we can tell they use PEDS because they win?

Until there's evidence that any of the drugs that Armstrong is alleged to have used actually do anything there's nothing scientific about this whole thing.

You still seem to view drugs as magical substances that give users powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.

It seems plausible to me. There is a chemical that controls the production of red blood cells. If one takes this drug the quantity of red blood cells increases. It seems plausible to me that this would lead to increased athletic performance because of the increase in red blood cells or perhaps indirectly because the increased number of red blood cells improves the effect of training. I'm not informed to any great extent about all this but it seems like there isn't a physical law that precludes the possibility that PED's work.

If you would like more than my uninformed opinion (not to say that you were particularly interested in that anyway) here is an article about EPO.

http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/cm...?articleid=456

From that article:

Quote:

Magic Shoes
In 1989, seven athletes underwent an EPO experiment in Sweden. Swedish scientist, Dr. Bjorn Ekblom of the Stockholm Institute of Gymnastics and Sports, injected the athletes with EPO and then measured their endurance levels on a treadmill.

All subjects outperformed their previous endurance levels after injecting with EPO. Dr. Ekblom reported that, on average, EPO cut up to 30 seconds off a 20-minute running time. In world-class events, where fractions of a second sometimes separate winners from losers, the benefits of EPO for athletes are huge.

But even without doing any specific research it seems the case that PED's improve athletic performance is pretty strong. One common example is home run hitting in American baseball. When testing wasn't in place the number of people hitting more than 50 home runs a year skyrocketed. When testing was instituted the number returned to historical averages.

Of course, a common sense argument is that athletes are routinely caught using PED's and it seems likely they're not all naive woo woos that might be just as willing to rely on pyramid power as opposed to something that might work like PED's.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by tsig

Until there's evidence that any of the drugs that Armstrong is alleged to have used actually do anything there's nothing scientific about this whole thing.

You still seem to view drugs as magical substances that gives users powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.

I understand what you are saying, but are you trying to suggest that they give 0% improvement??

I don't have any links offhand, but from the studies I remember it is generally more like 5% to 10%, not the 10% to 15% that qayak said.

I also seem to remember it was a bit more or less depending upon if it was physical (like weightlifting) or endurance (like long distance cycling). I don't remember which.

Also, there are countless different drugs of countless different types. So your point about testing the exact drugs in question is quite reasonable.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by tsig

Energy isn't free it has to come from some where and in this case it has to come from the body of the cyclist. How do they store this extra energy?

So we can tell they use PEDS because they win?

Until there's evidence that any of the drugs that Armstrong is alleged to have used actually do anything there's nothing scientific about this whole thing.

You still seem to view drugs as magical substances that gives users powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.

The next time you are dying of an infection, tell me antibiotics don't have powers beyond what you, as a mortal man/woman, have.

The drugs do things to the body that the cyclist can't do themselves, that's why they are called "Performance Enhancing Drugs."

[qayak]

Originally Posted by tsig

Until there's evidence that any of the drugs that Armstrong is alleged to have used actually do anything there's nothing scientific about this whole thing.

You still seem to view drugs as magical substances that gives users powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.

http://www.sportsci.org/encyc/anabster/anabster.html#5

Quote:

Anabolic Steroids and Performance

The effects of anabolic steroids on physical performance are unclear. Well controlled, double blind studies have rendered conflicting results. In studies showing beneficial effects, body weight increased by an average of about four pounds, lean body weight by about six pounds (fat loss accounts for the discrepancy between gains in lean mass and body weight), bench press increased by about 15 pounds, and squats by about 30 pounds (these values represent the average gains for all studies showing a beneficial effect). Almost all studies have failed to demonstrate a beneficial effect on maximal oxygen consumption or endurance capacity. Anabolic steroid studies have typically lasted six to eight weeks and have usually used relatively untrained subjects.

Most changes in strength during the early part of training are neural: increased strength is mainly due to an improved ability to recruit motor units. Anabolic steroids affect processes associated with protein synthesis in muscle. Studies lasting six weeks (typical study length) would largely reflect neural changes and could easily miss the cellular effects of the drugs.

The gains made by athletes in uncontrolled observations have been much more impressive. Weight gains of thirty or forty pounds, coupled with thirty percent increases in strength, are not unusual. Such case studies lack credibility because of the absence of scientific controls. However, it would be foolish to completely disregard such observations because the "subjects" have been highly trained and motivated athletes.Please see the articles on pharmacology of sport and sports medicine in the countries of the former Soviet Union for more information on anabolic steroids.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by davefoc

I mentioned it, but others probably did as well. The most power that USADA has with regard to this is to make a determination that the UCI is required to act on based on an agreement. Clearly the USADA can't strip anybody of anything, but it can, apparently make a finding which some other agency may be required to act on.

Somebody explained it previously, but I'm still not clear on what the legal basis is for the USADA to ignore their own 8 year statute of limitations on this. I guess the argument is something like Armstrong was racing within the 8 year statute of limitations and therefore everything becomes subject to review. Whatever the legal logic here is, the whole thing strikes me as stupid. Eight years seems like a ridiculously long statute of limitations on this already and the idea that there is some legal dodge that allows the statute of limitations to be ignored entirely strikes me as even stupider.

I think I read that the UCI has a 3 year statute of limitations which strikes me as a reasonable number. If that is correct how is it that the USADA expects to impose their craziness on the UCI. The USADA is going to argue that the statute of limitations is whatever they feel like and the UCI needs to go along with it?

The UCI also cited the need for a hearing and the be presented with the evidence in lieu of the hearing which has not happened.

The news today also reported that at least one of the guys who came in second said he would not accept the yellow jersey if Armstong is stripped, and many other racers and some in the UCI are on Armstrong's side.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by malicus

Not content with that..........http://store.theonion.com/p-5045-che..._campaign=ad11

Ha, they also published a fake oped by none other than Armstrong himself yesterday for those who want to have a laugh and read it.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

In the computer world each new format improves on security, sometimes with claims it will be "unbreakable". This happened for instance with both HD and Blu Ray DVD's, both of which claimed hackers would not be able to get around their copyright protection. It took a year or so but both formats were hacked.

I'm curious if there is a similar game of cat and mouse with drug testing, with the drug testers and doping testers claiming they have made it almost impossible to cheat, with the cheaters discovering new and improved methods of cheating to once again evade detection? Or have they in fact made it almost impossible to beat the tests (assuming proper testing procedures are in place)?

[Skeptic Ginger]

So there is a normal level of erythropoietin in the blood and I'm pretty sure that would have been one of the gazillion drug tests done on Armstrong. Anyone care to point out how he supposedly got past all those tests and what evidence the USADA actually has on Armstrong. I understand it is some secret snitch (no necessarily reliable, an anonymous witness) and a pattern of red cell counts they think means something.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by tsig

Energy isn't free it has to come from some where and in this case it has to come from the body of the cyclist. How do they store this extra energy?

So we can tell they use PEDS because they win?

Until there's evidence that any of the drugs that Armstrong is alleged to have used actually do anything there's nothing scientific about this whole thing.

You still seem to view drugs as magical substances that gives users powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.

http://rphr.endojournals.org/cgi/con...ll/57/1/411/F3

Quote:

There are virtually no controlled studies of AAS effects on women for obvious ethical reasons but dramatic evidence of these effects derives from the recently released results of the East German sports program of the 1970s and 1980s (Franke and Berendonk, 1997). Figure 3 shows shotput performance of a female German athlete, with the bars below indicating the periods of AAS administration.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So there is a normal level of erythropoietin in the blood and I'm pretty sure that would have been one of the gazillion drug tests done on Armstrong. Anyone care to point out how he supposedly got past all those tests and what evidence the USADA actually has on Armstrong. I understand it is some secret snitch (no necessarily reliable, an anonymous witness) and a pattern of red cell counts they think means something.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interv...chael-ashenden

This will dis-spell the conspiracy theories Armstrong has used to discredit the evidence as well.

[stanfr]

Yep, Lance knew he was checkmated and conceded to avoid the trouncing. I once assumed that a cancer survivor would be reluctant to use anything that might cause ill effects health-wise, but given that EPO is a 'natural' substance and even is used in treating cancer patients (hmmm...) it sort of makes sense Lance would have no issue with using. I've never seen him argue that the ban on PEDs is fair or just, only that his persecution is unjust...

[Matty1973]

A 2min video of the situation for Armstrong

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by tsig

Until there's evidence that any of the drugs that Armstrong is alleged to have used actually do anything there's nothing scientific about this whole thing.

You still seem to view drugs as magical substances that gives users powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.

Are you also of the opinion that until there's some evidence that the planets rotate around the sun that there's nothing scientific about the whole thing? And that the idea that the planets rotate around the sun is magical?

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Because, as has been raised a number of times, who do you give the title to?

Somehow this becomes reasoning for not going after Armstrong: We can't expose a cheat because we don't know who we should give the title too?

Well that's quite simple to solve. Leave it vacant and pick it up again next year. Wipe the cheats right out of the record books. All of them. Make it like they never existed.

In the Olympics it would be very simple to solve the problem. Everyone competes under the flag of their country. They are all members of a large team. If one member gets caught doping, boot the whole team out. They lose all their times, medals, and records like they never competed.

Now, that would be some serious motivation for countries to put a stop to doping.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by stanfr

Yep, Lance knew he was checkmated and conceded to avoid the trouncing. I once assumed that a cancer survivor would be reluctant to use anything that might cause ill effects health-wise, but given that EPO is a 'natural' substance and even is used in treating cancer patients (hmmm...) it sort of makes sense Lance would have no issue with using. I've never seen him argue that the ban on PEDs is fair or just, only that his persecution is unjust...

EPO is an important drug in cancer treatment since a lot of treatments attack rapidly dividing cells which blood cells are.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by davefoc

Of course, a common sense argument is that athletes are routinely caught using PED's and it seems likely they're not all naive woo woos that might be just as willing to rely on pyramid power as opposed to something that might work like PED's.

Well, sportsmen in general are not especially noted for their intelligence or rationalilty. Have you seen how many top athletes drink special drinks, wear Power Balance Bands or Kinesio tape? None of those may be actually harmful, but their widespread use doesn't suggest a great deal of critical thinking. (Though you could argue that money is a rational motivator, if they're being paid to use the products.)

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So there is a normal level of erythropoietin in the blood and I'm pretty sure that would have been one of the gazillion drug tests done on Armstrong. Anyone care to point out how he supposedly got past all those tests and what evidence the USADA actually has on Armstrong. I understand it is some secret snitch (no necessarily reliable, an anonymous witness) and a pattern of red cell counts they think means something.

The Ashenden interview explains it well, though it's a long read.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by davefoc

Assuming that the Ashenden's information is correct there is not only definitive proof that Armstrong used EPO for the 1999 TDF, the use by his competitors of EPO was much less common than most of us had surmised. Armstrong also showed a willingness to commit fraud to gain a payout by contending he didn't use PED's although it sounds like the case was eventually settled based on a theory that payment could not be withheld whether Armstrong did or did not use PED's.

My view up to this time was that some kind of drug cheating was rampant and Armstrong was just particularly skillful at masking it and as such he won the by the rules and the testing that was available at the time which is all that was significant. It sounds like the use of PED's was very common in 1998 but had been very significantly reduced by 1999. It also sounds like a rider in an environment where most people weren't using EPO was going to have a significant advantage.

Was Armstrong cheating from a moral standpoint? I'm still a little unclear on that. If all your competitors are willing to use PED's if they don't get caught and you just happen to be the one that figure's out how to do it, it seems like you're playing by the same rules as your competitors and as such maybe what Armstrong did was not exactly cheating in the moral sense. But it also seems like that wasn't exactly the case in 1999. It sounds like most of the competitors made the decision to follow the rules perhaps based on the theory that racing authorities were going to even the playing field by successfully enforcing the rules and Armstrong just decided to exploit the naivety of his opponents and used PED's when he knew that most had decided not to.

Not even close. Of the GC riders in 1999: Second was Alex Zulle, who admitted taking EPO, Fernando Escartín was third, but in 2004 one of his teammates admitted to systematic doping within that team, Laurent Dufaux who finished fourth was one of the 1998 Festina druggies along with Zulle so we can't have him either, fith was Ángel Casero who was later implicated in the Operacion Puerto scandal so we can't have him, Abraham Olano was 6th but he was a customer of the infamous Michele Ferrari.

Daniele Nardello, in 7th, is the first rider in the GC who has never been implicated in drug taking.

It continues below him though. Well known doper Richard Virenque came 8th as well, leaving only 3 riders in the top ten who we can be reasonably confident were clean. So if you think use of drugs wasn't rampant in the late 90's and early 2000's, you're kidding yourself.

http://www.vice.com/read/so-wait-who...-france-titles

And that, in a nutshell, is why the decision to try to take these titles away is ridiculous. Because either you'll be giving it to another doper, or someone so far behind it's a joke.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

This may be a really dumb suggestion... but why not allow doping? Seems like they all do it anyway, and it's impossible to win without it, so might as well let them compete with it. You'd save the hassle of testing and find who the best athlete is among a bunch of dopers. *shrugs*

Some are saying that we are now entering an era of "clean cyclists"... uh, are you really that naive? Maybe the tests are improved now, but they'll just make a new drug that will pass the tests, until these get caught later on... and again and again.

This tired old rubbish again?

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by qayak

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interv...chael-ashenden

This will dis-spell the conspiracy theories Armstrong has used to discredit the evidence as well.

On the other hand:
http://web.archive.org/web/200712012...report1999.pdf

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by qayak

Somehow this becomes reasoning for not going after Armstrong: We can't expose a cheat because we don't know who we should give the title too?

Well that's quite simple to solve. Leave it vacant and pick it up again next year. Wipe the cheats right out of the record books. All of them. Make it like they never existed.

In the Olympics it would be very simple to solve the problem. Everyone competes under the flag of their country. They are all members of a large team. If one member gets caught doping, boot the whole team out. They lose all their times, medals, and records like they never competed.

Now, that would be some serious motivation for countries to put a stop to doping.

.
I'll go with that.
As it appears everyone in that time frame was cheating, drop all of them from the record books.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by GlennB

The Ashenden interview explains it well, though it's a long read.

So his crit was always less than 50 and if he used the synthetic EPO so did a lot of other riders. Are they also being charged?

There's also the issue of the reliability of the test. There are tests that have poor specificity.

False-positive detection of recombinant human erythropoietin in urine following strenuous physical exercise

Quote:

Erythropoietin (Epo) is a glycoprotein hormone that promotes the production of red blood cells. Recombinant human Epo (rhEpo) is illicitly used to improve performance in endurance sports. Doping in sports is discouraged by the screening of athletes for rhEPO in urine. The adopted test is based on a combination of isoelectric focusing and double immunoblotting, and distinguishes between endogenous and recombinant human Epo. We show here that this widely used test can occasionally lead to the false-positive detection of rhEpo (epoetin-β) in postexercise, protein-rich urine, probably because the adopted monoclonal anti-Epo antibodies are not monospecific.

Certainly 'post exercise' would apply. And if the test subjects weren't heavy exercisers when the test was developed that makes the results used in sports events even more questionable.

That doesn't mean I know one way or the other how they tested the test prior to using it, but I think it needs serious consideration, as does using the test on stored urine.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So his crit was always less than 50 and if he used the synthetic EPO so did a lot of other riders. Are they also being charged?

Assuming the report linked to by Damien Evans above (http://web.archive.org/web/200712012...report1999.pdf) is correct it looks like WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) engaged in an effort to specifically target Armstrong using methods that were in violation of various safeguards to protect the privacy of athletes and to produce reliable results that could be definitively associated with a particular individual. Possibly because of this the results of other competitors that tested positive have not been identified.

However, I suspect that the USADA is aware that the procedures used to obtain positive results against Armstrong were not useful in a proceeding against him and planned to base the case against him on testimony of people that had specific knowledge of his use of some kind of PED (probably EPO, nothing else has been mentioned that I have seen).

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by davefoc

Assuming the report linked to by Damien Evans above (http://web.archive.org/web/200712012...report1999.pdf) is correct it looks like WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) engaged in an effort to specifically target Armstrong using methods that were in violation of various safeguards to protect the privacy of athletes and to produce reliable results that could be definitively associated with a particular individual. Possibly because of this the results of other competitors that tested positive have not been identified.

However, I suspect that the USADA is aware that the procedures used to obtain positive results against Armstrong were not useful in a proceeding against him and planned to base the case against him on testimony of people that had specific knowledge of his use of some kind of PED (probably EPO, nothing else has been mentioned that I have seen).

Former Postal riders may testify to witnessing (and participating in) blood doping in addition to EPO use, including the transfusions themselves and the storage and transport of blood bags.I say this because Johan Bruneel has chosen arbitration so the testimony may still be heard .

[Tricky]

I feel Lance Armstrong likely engaged in some very borderline activities, as far as the doping rules are concerned. But I'm going to go all libertarian here and say, "so what?"

It is my feeling that performance enhancing drugs should be recognized, monitored, and allowed in all competitions. Why? Because it's technology. It is like discovering a new compound for a lighter bike frame or a new kind of brakes that stop more efficiently or new apparel that gives you less wind resistance.

Yes, I know there is a difference. Drugs are used on the athlete, not on the equipment, but really, is there an ethical difference? Anybody who becomes a professional athlete has already sold his body. Why shouldn't he do as much as he can to deliver a superior product? Yes, they may be harming their future, but face it, athletics are dangerous to your future in any case. You make the choice. You take the risk.

I think of the "Blade Runner", Oscar Pistorius, who is a double amputee, but has prosthetic legs which, arguably, may give him an advantage. True, he did not choose to be an amputee, but it is still technology that makes him able to compete. Should he be forbidden to participate because he has a "technological advantage"? Many say "yes", but most think "no", because of the pity thing, but I say "yes" because, get over it. Technology makes us better. Yes, I think there are limits. No cyborgs or stuff like that, but you cannot halt technology. However good detection methods get, science will be one step ahead. So just accept it and let athletes deform themselves however they will in order to succeed, because you are never going to know if you missed something.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by Tricky

I feel Lance Armstrong likely engaged in some very borderline activities, as far as the doping rules are concerned. But I'm going to go all libertarian here and say, "so what?"

It is my feeling that performance enhancing drugs should be recognized, monitored, and allowed in all competitions. Why? Because it's technology. It is like discovering a new compound for a lighter bike frame or a new kind of brakes that stop more efficiently or new apparel that gives you less wind resistance.

Yes, I know there is a difference. Drugs are used on the athlete, not on the equipment, but really, is there an ethical difference? Anybody who becomes a professional athlete has already sold his body. Why shouldn't he do as much as he can to deliver a superior product? Yes, they may be harming their future, but face it, athletics are dangerous to your future in any case. You make the choice. You take the risk.

I think of the "Blade Runner", Oscar Pistorius, who is a double amputee, but has prosthetic legs which, arguably, may give him an advantage. True, he did not choose to be an amputee, but it is still technology that makes him able to compete. Should he be forbidden to participate because he has a "technological advantage"? Many say "yes", but most think "no", because of the pity thing, but I say "yes" because, get over it. Technology makes us better. Yes, I think there are limits. No cyborgs or stuff like that, but you cannot halt technology. However good detection methods get, science will be one step ahead. So just accept it and let athletes deform themselves however they will in order to succeed, because you are never going to know if you missed something.

Several people have made this suggestion in this thread. And I hesitate to say anything that would get you off your libertarian path but there are issues. But on the libertarian front, the only violation of libertarian ideals I see here is when the government set up an anti-doping agency. If the various non-governmental sports bodies want to set up anti-doping rules and methodologies I think your inner libertarian can feel at ease. These are organizations for which membership is voluntary and people's tax money isn't being collected to enforce a particular view point.

Regardless of who is enforcing these rules there are some issues about how far athletes should be able to go as far as PED's. How interested in sports will people be if it turns into a giant chemical experiment where people are driven to partake of ever more serious drugs to win. It might be interesting in a ghoulish sort of way. How premature will be the death of the sprint competitors when the full negative effects of their drug cocktails begin to destroy their lives and eventually kill them. What are the long term effects on women that take male hormones? You could look to female body building participants for an answer to that.

I don't think there are any perfect answers here, but not allowing PED's seems like a reasonable policy to me. On the other hand, wide spread drug use that was open and monitored might lead to improvements in medical treatment for many people while damaging the lives of only a few elite athletes.

[Doghouse Reilly]

Originally Posted by Howie Felterbush

Because "Gunderson" is hilarious and "Armstrong" isn't.

Makes me think of Fargo.

What a stand up guy you are. He changed his name so he would carry the name of the stepfather who raised him instead of the jerk who abandoned him when he was two years old.
Yeah, real hilarious to refer to someone by the name of the person who abandoned them that they're trying to put behind. The tone of your post implies that the name change was frivolous.

[BabyLion]

Why are some supplements legal while others aren't. I practice Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, there are some supplements that i can go to GNC and buy that make me feel like a machine. I can go twice as long without getting tired ect. Glucosamine can be taken after a work out to cut your muscle rehab time in half. So where is the line between supplements and "performance enhancing drugs"?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by BabyLion

Why are some supplements legal while others aren't. I practice Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, there are some supplements that i can go to GNC and buy that make me feel like a machine. I can go twice as long without getting tired ect. Glucosamine can be taken after a work out to cut your muscle rehab time in half. So where is the line between supplements and "performance enhancing drugs"?

I think it's largely arbitrary, though harm done by taking it is supposedly a factor, but it may not always make sense. But then again, when you think about it, all the rules for any sport are arbitrary. If you decide to play it, you find out the rules, and either you play by the rules or you get thrown out. You look at the list. Deciding what supplements are permissible is not that different from reading the other rules, and deciding whether you can get four strikes in a baseball game or pull a knife on your Jiu Jitsu opponent.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Anybody who becomes a professional athlete has already sold his body.

That's as silly as asserting that anyone that is a scientist has sold their brain.

Quote:

Yes, they may be harming their future...

And therein lies the rub. I don't want a culture that is so corrupt that it's actually endorsing the use of steroids in sports, thereby saying "we don't have a problem with you destroying your body or increasing the risk of cancer, and if you'd like to compete in sports without doing those things, too bad". I don't think most people have an issue with performance enhancements that are safe and not potentially damaging to the body. I suppose blood doping is on the edge of that discussion, as no doubt would be certain steroid us (all steroids are not equally dangerous).

Quote:

but face it, athletics are dangerous to your future in any case.

Apart from a few sports such as football or boxing which I suspect could be shown statistically to result in increased health risks, most sports likely have just the opposite affect, resulting in increased health and lifespan.

Notice I said likely, absent data that's an educated guess based on the fact that we know that exercise is good for us, the balls in your court to prove that basketball, running, cycling, baseball, swimming, and 101 other sports are dangerous to your future.