DOPING DOES NOT LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD

[Eldron]

why No? In the context of a clean LA stepping into the European arena in the 90's getting their asses handed to them by the seasoned doppers then, to level the playing field he had to dope.

 

Something like this:

 

Rider A has a natural hemocrit level of 42

Rider B has a natural hemocrit level of 46

 

The 50 hemocrit level allows rider A an increase of 19% but rider B only gets a 8.7% increase.

 

Not level at all. Morally more level I guess but going from clean to juiced doesn't make all riders equal.

[eddy]

There is NO scientific basis for claiming that doping levels the playing field. The evidence is rather that doping has the opposite effect.

 

So no, even if LA had to start doping because "everyone else was" it did not create a level field. There is good evidence to prove this point.

 

A good place to start your research is the work done by Ross Tucker and others and can be found at http://www.sportsscientists.com/cycling/doping-in-cycling/.

 

They totally debunk the "level playing field" myth. They show that if everybody is doping it does not become more as it creates a LESS level playing field.

 

Without going into detail, this is based inter alia on differing physiological responses to doping, differing methods being available to certain people and the effect of individual risk thresholds on the aggressiveness of a regime and how close to the wind you would choose to sail. Of course if you were the king-pin and connected you did not have to worry about the latter as you had political protection and could go all out.

 

This was extensively covered at the time of LA's "persecution".

 

 

 

Furthermore, the fiction that the "clean" Americans cyclists were forced to dope because the European pros were all doping holds no water.

 

Throught the 70' and 80's, the USA was at the forefront of institutionalized doping across most sporting disciplines. When LA joined the European peleton there was NO testing in the three big sporting codes in the US; baseball, football and basketball. Doping was rife.

 

Also, the USA athletic system was characterized by the Florence griffeths Joiners, Carl Lewis', CJ Hunters etc. who died early deaths or were crippled by their over consumption of PEDs. They were no differnt to the DDR or USSR.

 

Within this national atmosphere where college athletes were placed on school sponsored programmes, it is hardly likely that the US cyclists were the only clean athletes in the country until they were corrupted by the europeans.

Edited July 12, 2014 by eddy

[andydude]

Thank you for that link to Ross' article, Eddy. I couldn't find it.

 

JGR raises another interesting question, but I would prefer to stick to the one question of this topic of whether doping levels the playing field.

[Tumbleweed]

LA was doped to the gills way before his comeback from cancer. Some suggest it caused - or at least aggravated his malady. He was a crap GT rider. He came back with better dope and better ways to use it. No level playing field.

[Skubarra]

 

 

Something like this:

 

Rider A has a natural hemocrit level of 42

Rider B has a natural hemocrit level of 46

 

The 50 hemocrit level allows rider A an increase of 19% but rider B only gets a 8.7% increase.

 

Not level at all. Morally more level I guess but going from clean to juiced doesn't make all riders equal.

 

The way you explain it, the end result looks pretty level....

[paul_ct]

The way I understand it is that a clean race with the same riders would have had a VERY different podium and GC. They all cheated, all gained varying advantages, hopefully all were disqualified, but none can say they would have had the same results if they all raced clean.

[Bonus]

Regarding the theoretical equal use of drugs, you are confusing two different types of "Level playing field" which are fundamentally (and importantly) very different.

 

1) If all riders subscribe to the same drug or doping program and therefore all riders get a 10% (for example) "step up" in their ability. The strongest human being is still stronger than the second strongest human being, by exactly the same factor that he was previously. This, some would say, would be a drug related even playing field.

 

2) If all riders subscribe to some or another drug or doping program but, due to the inevitable differences between riders in their basic human make-up and due to the rules and chemical boundaries and limits imposed by cyclings official bodies, the strongest rider only gets a 2% step up in physical ability but the second strongest rider gets a 4% step up, the third strongest rider gets a 6% step up etc etc, then the end result is that all of the riders are now of equal physical ability.

 

This would not be a fair playing field - because we are not all born equal in the first place. It would be absurd to assume that in order to be "fair" we should all be equalled out.

[paul_ct]

I think the argument is that if all riders were on identical doping programmes,

 

1. They wouldn't all gain 10% on their original performance

 

2. The strongest wouldn't necessarily gain less and the weakest more in order to bring them to the same level

 

The effects of the doping would depend entirely on their bodies' unique responses to the doping.

 

Edit:spelling

 

 

Edited July 13, 2014 by paul_ct

[eddy]

 

 

The way you explain it, the end result looks pretty level....

 

Look at the science and spot the flaw in your reasoning........ It is all there for you

 

One more thing, on LA's own version, he was already doping (just not as sophisticatedly as he later did).

Edited July 13, 2014 by eddy

[TALUS]

One must also consider the unmeasurable "how far will you go". Although it will be hard to test there is a definite theoretical risk for cancer later in life with especially Growth Hormone and maybe Testosterone and EPO. Some people will just go so much further.

Slightly off topic: Is it really likely that the female peleton is so untainted and clean?

[DIPSLICK]

I have said many times on the hub, there is too much money involved for any sport to be free of drugs, it's really simple MATHS big sponsorship wants podiums, when a team goes hat in hand asking for money no big sponsor wants to hear " but we run the cleanest team"

They want to know about exposure, and when they don't get enough they pull their money, simple

So IMHO money is the great equalizer,

It's simple all men are not created equal, all drugs are not equal and like it is in the real world the most money buys the best help/drugs..........THE BIG BUT, IS

 

BUT YOU STIL NEED TO BE GENETICALLY GIFTED

DRIVEN

FOCUSED

HUNGRY

so equal no, advantaged hell yes, are any of us going to perform 7 wins because we on the same drugs

 

HELL NO

Edited July 13, 2014 by DIPSLICK

[SwissVan]

I think peoples are misunderstanding the concept of a level playing field. IMHO the term or concept that "doping levels the playing field" does not mean that every person that dopes will be equal, but rather that they have / had the same possibility to gain an advantage. In sport nothing can create a level playing field. If everyone has the exact same coach, equipment, Doctor, funds, supplements, etc.... and they will still not be equal or cross the finish line at the same time.

[andydude]

 

 

I think peoples are misunderstanding the concept of a level playing field. IMHO the term or concept that "doping levels the playing field" does not mean that every person that dopes will be equal, but rather that they have / had the same possibility to gain an advantage. In sport nothing can create a level playing field. If everyone has the exact same coach, equipment, Doctor, funds, supplements, etc.... and they will still not be equal or cross the finish line at the same time.

 

But they won't have the same possibily to gain an advantage because the same drug would have a different effect on everyone?

 

Therefore either levelling the playing field or same possibility to gain an advantage is untrue?

[andydude]

 

 

 

The way you explain it, the end result looks pretty level....

 

As far as I know rider A and B with different hemocrit levels might ride at the same level initially. It's not the only factor in performance. Then read the post again where each rider performs % better.

 

[DIPSLICK]

There can be no equal gain, by drugs, coaching,

If US postal all USED PEDs and all had the same coach,training program

Why then were there stronger riders,,,,,they were stronger initially and with the "program" they all improved differently and according to their genetics

[eddy]

I think peoples are misunderstanding the concept of a level playing field. IMHO the term or concept that "doping levels the playing field" does not mean that every person that dopes will be equal, but rather that they have / had the same possibility to gain an advantage.

 

Nope, unrestricted doping does NOT give everyone "the same possibility to gain an advantage ".

 

The science shows that if everybody is doping it creates a LESS level playing field.

 

Without going into detail, this is based inter alia on differing physiological responses to doping(ie. some get huge benefit, some virtually none), differing methods being available to certain people( cash and access to specific regimes will win out) and the effect of individual risk thresholds on the aggressiveness of a regime and how close to the wind you would choose to sail. Of course if you were the king-pin and connected you did not have to worry about the latter as you had political protection and could go all out.

 

This means that even if everyone was doping, trained athletic capability became LESS relevant as a predictor of success.