DOPING DOES NOT LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD

[SwissVan]

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?

Exactly, and if there were no drugs to dope with it would still not be a level playing field.

[eddy]

 

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

Why then were there stronger riders ?

 

According to evidence summarized in the Reasoned decision, they were not all on the same program. Ferrari always had some special "advice " for LA which would later trickle down to the rest of the team.

 

Incidentally, I have often wondered if LA was at all times the strongest rider in US postal. He was the "brand" that sustained the team and as such was the one that was needed to win.

 

Like Wiggens in 2012, i am sure that over the years that there were riders in his team that could've beaten LA had they not been required to sacrifice themselves for him ...

[DIPSLICK]

 

 

According to evidence summarized in the Reasoned decision, they were not all on the same program. Ferrari always had some special "advice " for LA which would later trickle down to the rest of the team.

 

Incidentally, I have often wondered if LA was at all times the strongest rider in US postal. He was the "brand" that sustained the team and as such was the one that was needed to win.

 

Like Wiggens in 2012, i am sure that over the years that there were riders in his team that could've beaten LA had they not been required to sacrifice themselves for him ...

 

Possible, as you said WIGGENS ,,Froome owned him, wholesale

[gummibear]

The way i see it......

 

Pro riders are the best of the best.....they have the best coaches,dieticians and equipment.

 

They are training with the best sports scientists and they are at peak power to weight ratios.

 

If something can give them a one watt power increase or save them a second they'll try it.....because it could be the difference between wining or loosing a race.

 

The drugs are also getting "smarter" and harder to detect.Gone are the anabolics that messed up your heart and testicles.

 

We as amateurs use "performance enhancing" products to do a little better.

 

Energade,GU and Power bar and buy the best equipment we can afford.Same thing for them but their budgets are much bigger for "performance enhancing products".

[andydude]

Exactly, and if there were no drugs to dope with it would still not be a level playing field.

Sorry Swissvan, I think I'm missing your point.

 

What do you mean by levelling the playing field? Should all be equally strong?

 

Do you want a level playing field from a talent, performance, etc. viewpoint?

[eddy]

 

 

What do you mean by levelling the playing field? Should all be equally strong?

 

Do you want a level playing field from a talent, performance, etc. viewpoint?

 

Yes, we all want a matric pass, not only the clever ones or the ones who work hard.

[JGR]

Would it be possible to have won clean back then? If not surely doping would be leveling the playing field ito of using all available resources not necessarily an individuals response in performance to PED's .

[Pulse]

Yes, we all want a matric pass, not only the clever ones or the ones who work hard.

 

So winning/achieving means less and less…

[eddy]

surely doping would be leveling the playing field ito of using all available resources not necessarily an individuals response in performance to PED's .

 

 

 

It depends on what you mean by leveling the playing field.

 

If you mean that all other things being equal ( ie all cyclists dope, and all have access to exactly the same doping resources) the best cyclist will win, then no, it would not level the playing field.

 

Read what Ross Tucker has to say about it. He adresses the matter scientifically.

Edited July 13, 2014 by eddy

[JGR]

It depends on what you mean by leveling the playing field.

 

If you mean that all other things being equal ( ie all cyclists dope, and all have access to exactly the same doping resources) the best cyclist will win, then no, it would not level the playing field.

 

Read what Ross Tucker has to say about it. He adresses the matter scientifically.

I dont disagree it effects people differently. I mean to say the comment "Doping just leveled the playing field" could be mean access to doping not necessary that everyone had an equal performance enhancement.

[Bonus]

Yes, we all want a matric pass, not only the clever ones or the ones who work hard.

 

I think this was lost on some people eddy :-)

Edited July 13, 2014 by Bonus

[King_Crispy]

 

 

 

 

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?

You're nitpicking on specifics.

The onus is therefore in the the team doctor to find the correct combination of drugs to match the metabolic makeup of each individual to create the "ultimate skinny warrior".

 

But as a general sum up of the picture, drugs do level the playing ground

[eddy]

 

But as a general sum up of the picture, drugs do level the playing ground

 

I know I sound like a stuck record, but the science says the opposite is true.

 

Which part of the scientific analysis based on peer reviewed studies and to be found on http://www.sportsscientists.com/ do you disagree with, other than the conclusion ?

 

Edit: this is a genuine question, not an attempt to stir. I am struggling with the concept that well meaning, intelligent lay people choose to disregard the obvious. I am trying to find the reasoning.

Edited July 13, 2014 by eddy

[Skubarra]

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).

 

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.

 

I get what Eldron was trying to demonstrate (and agree)

 

I just found it a bit striking that in that example everybody ended up being equal, so in a sense the playing field was leveled. Could have been very interesting if that was the case in reality.

[eddy]

 

 

 

 

I get what Eldron was trying to demonstrate (and agree)

 

I just found it a bit striking that in that example everybody ended up being equal, so in a sense the playing field was leveled.

 

Let me use a real life example.

 

I managed to get a higher grade E for maths in Matric. My mate Mike Van der Walt managed to get 100 %.

 

If we were both allowed to crib, would that have made the playing field level and fairer on both of us ?

 

 

Could have been very interesting if that was the case in reality.

 

Sure, but it wasn't and could never be.

[Skubarra]

Let me use a real life example.

 

I managed to get a higher grade E for maths in Matric. My mate Mike Van der Walt managed to get 100 %.

 

If we were both allowed to crib, would that have made the playing field level and fairer on both of us ?

 

 

 

Sure, but it wasn't and could never be.

 

I'm not very good at making my point

 

If you are both allowed to crib and get 100%, then yes in a sense the playing field would be level. Which would be unfair to Mike and anyone else who took the time to study or are clever at maths.

 

I am merely pointing out that the term "level playing field" is ambiguous.