South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

July 10, 2020, 22:13:26 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the posting guidelines before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Lance Armstrong, drugs, and skepticism

 (Read 3321 times)
Description: Let them dope if they like?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +14/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 2008



WWW
« on: January 20, 2013, 10:34:39 AM »

Even someone like me, who is not into sport at all, has heard about the whole Lance Armstrong saga by now.

In short, he cheated by doping with performance enhancing drugs.

Question: Is it not time for sporting bodies to simply allow athletes to dope with whatever they like and take the risks along with the glory?

What say ye?

Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +63/-9
Online Online

Posts: 3782


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2013, 11:15:07 AM »

The question of doping is chiefly an ethical one around perceptions.  The athletics regulating bodies want to be seen to enforce fairness and transparency.  Word from the underbelly of cycling (a well-known sports doctor) is that you simply can’t compete internationally unless you actually dope, and all else being equal, those who can afford better drugs will do better.  The real question is how well it can be hidden from testing.  It’s an ongoing battle where ever more sophisticated performance enhancers are developed to elude increasingly sophisticated testing protocols.

Besides the ethical considerations, the counterargument to uncontrolled use of performance-boosting drugs is, I think, similar to the practical aspects that motivate control of other drugs, namely widespread abuse resulting in health issues and incapacity.

'Luthon64
Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1569



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2013, 11:21:46 AM »

Tour de Pharma and the yellow jersey belong to the thickest wallet.
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +14/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 2008



WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2013, 12:48:26 PM »

The question of doping is chiefly an ethical one around perceptions.  The athletics regulating bodies want to be seen to enforce fairness and transparency.  Word from the underbelly of cycling (a well-known sports doctor) is that you simply can’t compete internationally unless you actually dope, and all else being equal, those who can afford better drugs will do better.

All else being equal, those who can afford better equipment and training will also do better. It is not always clear to me why it is fair for an athlete to use the very best equipment and trainer and diet he and/or his team can afford, but when he uses the best drugs he can get hold of, it becomes unfair.

Quote
Besides the ethical considerations, the counterargument to uncontrolled use of performance-boosting drugs is, I think, similar to the practical aspects that motivate control of other drugs, namely widespread abuse resulting in health issues and incapacity.
'Luthon64

Well, I can see the problem here: one does not want to create a situation where those willing to take the greatest risks to their own health get an advantage. One has to keep in mind though that even without drugs, athletes today take significant health risks and often inflict significant long term harm on their bodies. I'm not sure the drugs are uniquely dangerous.

It also seems to me that the whole anti-doping thing has a generous dollop of old-fashioned moralism mixed into it. E.g. marijuana is also on the list of forbidden drugs; it is by no stretch of the imagination a performance enhancer. I.e. to some extent the sporting bodies have now descended into a moral crusade instead of just ensuring fairness. In the meantime the list of forbidden substances has grown so long that ever more and more athletes find themselves doping by accident.

As for the health concerns, it seems to me that if one can do the doping in the open, under supervision of a trained doctor, it might well be safer than the way it is done now, with many athletes dosing themselves with stuff they ordered over the web, based on information they got on the web.

Last but not least, it is noteworthy that this doping thing became a serious problem only when significant amounts of money got involved. One seldom heard of such things in the "good old days" when athletes were amateurs and competed for personal glory rather than potential millions in remuneration. It is as if a certain ugliness has crept into sport now that athletes are paid: the competition has become merciless, and little is left of old-fashioned "good sportsmanship" in which people behaved with dignity and generosity of spirit both in victory and in defeat.

Well, as I said, I am not really into sport and thus I couldn't really care less whether athletes dope or what they dope with. Just an interesting theoretical question. :-)

Perhaps Mr. Armstrong should simply start his own sporting body, which will work exactly the same way as any other except that no drug testing will be done. Then they can arrange the Tour de Dagga if they like, and those who want to dope can do so in peace.
Logged
Jacques
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


JacquesR
WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2013, 16:37:27 PM »

Definitely time to allow doping. The restrictions are arbitrary and incoherent. It's the subject of my Wednesday Daily Maverick column, for those interested.
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +14/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 2008



WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2013, 17:16:49 PM »

Definitely time to allow doping. The restrictions are arbitrary and incoherent. It's the subject of my Wednesday Daily Maverick column, for those interested.

Do post it here if copyright law allows. (I am of course also in favour of the repeal of copyright law... Smiley)

« Last Edit: January 21, 2013, 04:49:12 AM by brianvds » Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3230



« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2013, 18:47:13 PM »

Couldn't care less about cycling, but one thing does strike me.

Athlete is accused of doping, he denies, no evidence (as far as I've heard) is brought forward, he's found guilty anyway and stripped of all titles.

But his woes don't end there, people just won't let this go and the whole world demands he comes clean and apologises and basically makes his life a living hell.

He comes clean and apologises.

Hmmmm. Doesn't sound legit.

Who really knows, but I can see reason for a guy in that position to "come clean" even if he's innocent. And that, dear people, is the problem with pressuring someone into a confession: you don't know if they really meant it.
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +20/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2521


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2013, 20:50:42 PM »

... And that, dear people, is the problem with pressuring someone into a confession: you don't know if they really meant it.
Guess all will be disclosed in the next biographic installment, It's not about Oprah Wink
Logged
ingwe
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +2/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 198



« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2013, 20:52:54 PM »

At the end of the day he raised over $500 million for cancer research! Dope on!
Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 21, 2013, 08:59:42 AM »

What I don't understand is the justification for stripping him of his titles and giving them to the person who came second, and almost certainly also doped.
Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2013, 10:03:05 AM »

the guy who came second is no-one and was not copped as far as I know: Lance was/is a celebrity who got caught. He must pay the price.
Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 21, 2013, 10:06:53 AM »

the guy who came second is no-one and was not copped as far as I know: Lance was/is a celebrity who got caught. He must pay the price.

I don't think celebrity is relevant--according to those who know cycling everyone who competed at the top level was guilty of doping.  Armstrong didn't 'get caught' either, until his confession the evidence against him was hearsay and circumstantial.  He never failed a dope test.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3230



« Reply #12 on: January 21, 2013, 10:22:23 AM »

Anyone else ever wonder if he got cancer because of drugs?
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +63/-9
Online Online

Posts: 3782


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2013, 10:42:44 AM »

All else being equal, those who can afford better equipment and training will also do better. It is not always clear to me why it is fair for an athlete to use the very best equipment and trainer and diet he and/or his team can afford, but when he uses the best drugs he can get hold of, it becomes unfair.
I think the gist of it is a slippery-slope argument:  Where exactly does one draw the line between what constitutes the athlete’s own unique efforts/talents, and what would give him/her an unfair advantage over competitors?  With the very best equipment and trainer and diet, it is not hard to see that the athlete’s performance during an athletic event is very much his/her own unaided effort, whereas the situation with doping is less clear.

Moreover, athletes are aware of doping restrictions (we’ll ignore their pettiness and arbitrariness, which I agree need revision), whereas no similar restrictions apply to training and/or diet, and athletes respect the rules about equipment for fear of disqualification.  But athletes still dope in defiance of the ban thereon because the risk of discovery is worth the win.  In motor racing, there are restrictions on engine sizes, tyres and fuel, etc., and any team that, say, fits nitrous oxide boosters to its cars is obviously not playing fair and violating the rules of the game.

The situation of blade runner Oscar Pistorius is somewhat analogous.  When an independent German consultancy declared that Pistorius’ artificial legs gave him a mechanical advantage over able-bodied athletes, the stink of nasty finger-pointing and cheap character assassinations rose high, and even now one still hears dissatisfied rumblings from certain quarters.  The point is that able-bodied sprinters could in principle have had their own lower legs amputated and replaced with blades so as to gain a similar advantage.  Oddly, I don’t know of any who followed that option, even from the ranks of the most clamorous complainants, but if they had, races would then have become more and more about who has the best blades.  Taken a few steps further, should more extensive cyborgs compete against able-bodied athletes?  How about power-assisted cyborgs or even task-specific robots?  Because that’s the slippery slope the regulators fear.  And it should be clear enough that whether assistance or enhancements are mechanical or chemical (or both or other), the same underlying objections apply, the only real difference being that the chemical route is much easier to conceal.

Another aspect lies in the considerable amounts of money involved in many sports, not just the prize money but also indirect funds from advertising and sponsorships and such.  The winner takes the lion’s share, including personal glory, which together are a powerful motivator to prevail, even if it is at the cost of a little bit of cheating.  Armstrong’s case is just one of many examples.

Thus, it seems to me that the main intention of the regulating bodies in respect of doping is to prevent their sport being publicly drawn into any actual or perceived disrepute, and to preserve their own credibility so that the sport and its practice should not carry the least hint of shadiness about it.  As I said earlier, the whole thing’s mostly about perceptions, and your point about “a generous dollop of old-fashioned moralism” is one of its more noticeable dimensions.



Anyone else ever wonder if he got cancer because of drugs?
It’s entirely possible but any link would be almost impossible to prove.  Epidemiological risk factors are hardly ever straightforward, and human anatomy and physiology are hugely complex.

'Luthon64
Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1569



WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 21, 2013, 10:50:09 AM »

... And that, dear people, is the problem with pressuring someone into a confession: you don't know if they really meant it.
Guess all will be disclosed in the next biographic installment, It's not about Oprah Wink
I don't think it was just pressure. A paper is claiming 1 million pounds of him now. He got that in a libel case against them when they accused him of doping. Now they want it back.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
GoogleTagged: com google


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.705 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 26, 2019, 10:51:44 AM
Privacy Policy