DOPING DOES NOT LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD

[Blackheart]

I thought the point of cheating was not to level the playing field, but to make sure you beat everyone else.

[eddy]

 

 

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.

 

Nope, i would have got a 115% boost and he no benefit.

 

The level playing field fiction used to justify doping or in the LA case to argue that as everyone was doping and he won, he must have been the best cyclist in any case ignores the fact that s ome people could significantly improve their performance and other would get little or no benefit.

 

Having said that, you can make the argument that if every one doped the doping field was level. However the cycling field still would not be.

[Skubarra]

Nope, i would have got a 115% boost and he no benefit.

 

 

It might not seem like it but actually we are in agreement...

[King_Crispy]

 

 

Nope, i would have got a 115% boost and he no benefit.

 

The level playing field fiction used to justify doping or in the LA case to argue that as everyone was doping and he won, he must have been the best cyclist in any case ignores the fact that s ome people could significantly improve their performance and other would get little or no benefit.

 

Having said that, you can make the argument that if every one doped the doping field was level. However the cycling field still would not be.

You're not sounding like the brightest candidate here.

 

Your glass can only ever have a maximum of full...

Not full+anything

Doping maybe didn't make everyone equal, but it certainly gave an unfair advantage, especially to the team's with big budget to explore individual gains

 

[eddy]

No need for you to get abusive nor sarcastic but quite simply an improvement of over 100% is quite possible.

 

Moving from 40% points to 100% points is an improvement (boost) of 150%.

Edited July 13, 2014 by eddy

[Butterbean]

I believe we are looking at the wrong place for leveling. It's not a leveler of outcomes. Not by any means. However,it does level the opportunity to perform.

 

If the peloton chose to dope, and it was as rife as we are led to believe, then I believe it was a level field of opportunity, much the same as clean cycling is. Those who were the most intelligent, studious, experimental, and frankly, ballsy, were the ones who came out on top. Why do I compare it to clean cycling you may ask? Well, those who have the best support, most intelligent training and nutritional programs, as well as a natural ability, and the ability f support staff to fully exploit that ability, come out on top. Same as a doping field. They all has access, but those who used it most intelligently and got the best response from their riders won.

 

I don't blame lance. I think he made a conscious and measured choice base on the climate of his profession, much like we do on a daily basis. Ever sucked up to the boss?? Unfair advantage. Ever worked for a family member/friend? Unfair advantage. They did what they had to do to become competitive in a dirty field, and we're smart enough to come out on top..

 

I think we're all so sensitive because we were fooled into loving lance so much. You all went out and bought a livestrong wristband, and cheered for him when he won. You told friends and family about his exploits. You admired him. And then, like a high school girl in her first relationship, he cheated. And now, you can't move on. Now, you must hate! Make an example of him. Crucify him! All cause you feel foolish because you allowed yourself to fall in love. No homo.

 

Get over it. Cycling is not, was not, and I believe never will be clean. Enjoy watching why riders do, who ares if they're doping?

[rattlesnake]

Don't know if anyone has read Christophe Bassons book, A clean break but from reading it one thing became clear to me and that was the extent of doping in professional cycling. That NOT doping is (was) the exception and given the performance of the riders now vs the so called "doping era" of Lance, being clean still is the exception.

 

We all know that the dope doctors will always be one step ahead of the people policing the system purely because you can only police things which you know exist and can test for.

 

Also given the extent of doping in cycling, the UCI cannot afford to blow the whistle on all the suspected offenders as it's very existence would be threatened by it. Simply put, sponsors don't want to be seen to be involved with doping, and if the true extent of it were revealed by the UCI there wouldn't be any sponsors or professional teams left. Case in point, UCI's poor handling of the Denis Menchov doping case this past week.

 

So, about level playing fields. It's probably (realistically) a mere myth. It has never existed in cycling and probably never will.

 

Question is, if sponsors etc could live with a legal doping system, would the playing field be more level? Science says no.... But I think that this conclusion may underestimate the impact of the differing abilities between the doctors. Perhaps some doctors are better than others?

 

Maybe the question should be, would the system then be more fair? I.e. the perceived leveling of the opportunity?

Maybe.

 

What I do know is that at present, the playing field is far from level, and most probably never was.

Team doctors are more critical to performance than coaches.

Edited July 14, 2014 by rattlesnake

[andydude]

Another article:

 

Doping and The Myth of A Level Playing Field

 

http://inrng.com/2012/10/level-playing-field-doping-myth/

 

.....

 

At the same time we codify sport with a set of rules. Anti-doping means exist primarily for health but they help level the playing field, or in cycling terms, to equal the gradient or headwind. It is wrong to imagine the results in cycling since EPO emerged in 1989 would be the same if the molecule was never discovered, or that the Tour de France during the last decade would be the same without blood transfusions. Take Bjarne Riis who seemed destined to be a useful helper for Laurent Fignon but was propelled into a Tour de France winner with the plunge of a thousand syringes. But don’t dwell on him as he is just one example amongst many.

 

 

 

 

...

[andydude]

From an interview regarding his book with Tyler Hamilton:

 

"When everyone can dope, it becomes a contest of who has the best information, who has the best access, who has the best doctor, and who has the most money. That’s what this contest is — it’s a chess game of information, connections and money. And whoever wins that chess game has the better chance of winning the Tour. What happens when you have a situation when there aren’t strong regulations, and people can dope, it’s the opposite of a level field, it’s a hugely distorted playing field, and it’s tilted toward people with access, with information and with money."

[rouxtjie]

Yesterday..... EPO

Today..... Aicar

Tomorrow..who knows.

[andydude]

There are many debates that can come out of this topic, but I wanted to concentrate on the excuse that allowing doping would level the playing field.

 

Most (I want to say all, but haven't read everything yet and never will) points to the fact that doping does not level the playing field, and in reality, makes it even worse.

 

Talking about dna, genetics, upbringing, etc. are other topics which I'm interested in as well.

[nonky]

Doping is cheating. Only if you are in favour of cheating, could you possibly defend doping.

[rouxtjie]

There are many debates that can come out of this topic, but I wanted to concentrate on the excuse that allowing doping would level the playing field.

 

Most (I want to say all, but haven't read everything yet and never will) points to the fact that doping does not level the playing field, and in reality, makes it even worse.

 

Talking about dna, genetics, upbringing, etc. are other topics which I'm interested in as well.

Think everyone is in agreement wrt that...only the dopers seem to use that as justification for cheating. The old they doing it, so I should do more.

[JGR]

Doping is cheating. Only if you are in favour of cheating, could you possibly defend doping.

The discussion is about leveling the playing field not morality of doping. ie Does doping level the playing field not doping should be condoned

[Skubarra]

Question is, if sponsors etc could live with a legal doping system, would the playing field be more level? Science says no.... But I think that this conclusion may underestimate the impact of the differing abilities between the doctors. Perhaps some doctors are better than others?

 

I guess the idea of "Bugger it, just let everyone dope will always have some cynical appeal".

 

But I don't see how a sport that boils down to "who has the best science & doctors" will be appealing to sponsors nor cyclists in general, the stigma will be even worse and nobody would want to be associated this institutionalised cheating.

[JGR]

Think everyone is in agreement wrt that...only the dopers seem to use that as justification for cheating. The old they doing it, so I should do more.

But that begs a different question - on the adage not the performance factor. LA aside im sure there were many who doped just to not get dropped - let alone win. Are they a different type of cheater?