DOPING DOES NOT LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD

[JGR]

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.

Formula 1? Still seems pretty popular even though the team that has won the last 15-20 years is the one to have the 'new' technology that the laws allowed for that year. Be it a new wing, lighter chassis ect. Example would be Button - new Brawn car and won the title ... barely featured since.

[rouxtjie]

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?

Sure, giving up on the dream and all that, maybe some even start out that way.

[Baaisikilist]

Dope alone can never level any playing field. If it could, then the mere presence of it in my system would have meant I had an advantage over Sauserwind and Coolharvey and won the 2013 epic...

[JGR]

Dope alone can never level any playing field. If it could, then the mere presence of it in my system would have meant I had an advantage over Sauserwind and Coolharvey and won the 2013 epic...

You make an excellent point - I think many tend to forget these guys still did the training, diets, millage, gym, in the rain , in the snow ect ect. I personally feel the advantages were minute but at that level a minute difference is being 1st or 10th.

[Skubarra]

Formula 1? Still seems pretty popular even though the team that has won the last 15-20 years is the one to have the 'new' technology that the laws allowed for that year. Be it a new wing, lighter chassis ect. Example would be Button - new Brawn car and won the title ... barely featured since.

 

Good point, in a way it's similar, but I think the difference is that "new technology" doesn't have the stigma doping already has, legalising it is not going to magically take away the stigma already there.

[rouxtjie]

You make an excellent point - I think many tend to forget these guys still did the training, diets, millage, gym, in the rain , in the snow ect ect. I personally feel the advantages were minute but at that level a minute difference is being 1st or 10th.

Exactly, the difference between being dropped or attacking...big pay day or no contract renewal.

 

Weight is still the best and legal way to become faster...its also the most difficult juggling act.

[Patchelicious]

There is two aspects here, and I think some are confusing them, as JGR said.

 

There is the concept that everybody gets the same outage, like Formula VW, where everybody has a 6.21467W/Kg output. This wouldn't exist EVER. If nobody doped, it he who has best genetic and trains hardest will win. Are we then going to limit how much rider can train, like F1 does with testing....

This will be both boring as well ridiculous to even try.

 

Hence the hematocrit level of 50 being stupid.

If I have a natural score of 49 and PietPompies has one of 41, but we both get judged when we hit 50, all that means is that he can cheat more than me.

Playing fields are level? Not really.

 

Saying that they never had access to the same ILLEGAL doctors, well shame, if you are going to cheat, make sure you do it properly.

Obviously the more money the team has the better their resources, both legal and illegal. That’s life, some people have access to more than others. If you want to start a pro-communism thread, go for it.

 

Yes sure specific dope affects different people differently, but then that’s your job as a cheater to find the cheat that works best for you.

Also, these doctors had multiple clients through different teams. If you become a doper to get a gain and it doesn’t work as well as the guy next door who also dopes, well shame… bust him!

 

I however do not much see wrong with the “doping levels the playing field” statement, as it not so much levels it, but restores the original naturally occurring genetic advantages.

If you want a level playing field, out those you know are cheating… or go ride the ladies league where your lack of balls will allow you to qualify.

Edited July 14, 2014 by Patchelicious

[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.

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?

 

 

What I meant was:

1. The playing field is never level, with or without doping.

2. There are many other variables such as genetics, money, drive, age, luck, etc…. which change all the time and affect the outcome.

3. IMO the term “Level playing field” is being misinterpreted, when dopers say they use dope to “level the playing field” I think they mean “give themselves the same chance” as the other dopers” and not that they (dopers) will all have the same athletic capability just because they all use dope, (see item 1 and 2).

[Patchelicious]

What I meant was:

1. The playing field is never level, with or without doping.

2. There are many other variables such as genetics, money, drive, age, luck, etc…. which change all the time and affect the outcome.

3. IMO the term “Level playing field” is being misinterpreted, when dopers say they use dope to “level the playing field” I think they mean “give themselves the same chance” as the other dopers” and not that they (dopers) will all have the same athletic capability just because they all use dope, (see item 1 and 2).

Good summary of what I was trying to say too.

[JGR]

Good point, in a way it's similar, but I think the difference is that "new technology" doesn't have the stigma doping already has, legalising it is not going to magically take away the stigma already there.

But was there a stigma at the time within the peloton? A vote of pro riders from 98-2005 if LA won would be interesting ....

[andydude]

What I meant was:

1. The playing field is never level, with or without doping.

2. There are many other variables such as genetics, money, drive, age, luck, etc…. which change all the time and affect the outcome.

3. IMO the term “Level playing field” is being misinterpreted, when dopers say they use dope to “level the playing field” I think they mean “give themselves the same chance” as the other dopers” and not that they (dopers) will all have the same athletic capability just because they all use dope, (see item 1 and 2).

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

1. That's the whole point. It doesn't level the playing field. This thread is only for the "with doping" part.

2. Agreed, hence my post that those are interesting topics for other threads, but this thread is only concentrating on one part, whether doping levels the playing field.

3. Science has proven this line of thinking incorrect. Using what you believe they mean, you don't get the same chance, because it affects everyone differently. Athletes saying they doped to level the playing field/give the same chance are either being willfully ignorant and/or is just trying to defend themselves without any reason or proof. The line is being used by both riders and probably even more by the public/fans.

[Patchelicious]

You cannot engage a proper debate if you only focus on one tiny little aspect of a statement. Was the playing field even to start with? This is a critical point for the debate, and one which is answered by point 2. so you have to include that portion of the debate. Also, the definition of a "level playing field" needs to be established if you want to make a point about a specific point about if doping levels it. Is level "access too", "biological", "output", "comparative gains".... "Does doping level the playing field" is not a yes or no question. Don't change the debate to suit your argument.

Edited July 14, 2014 by Patchelicious

[andydude]

You cannot engage a proper debate if you only focus on one tiny little aspect of a statement. Was the playing field even to start with? This is a critical point for the debate, and one which is answered by point 2. so you have to include that portion of the debate. Also, the definition of a "level playing field" needs to be established if you want to make a point about a specific point about if doping levels it. Is level "access too", "biological", "output", "comparative gains".... "Does doping level the playing field" is not a yes or no question. Don't change the debate to suit your argument.

 

If you make it too wide then you'll never get to an answer.

 

The statement is pretty simple, "does doping level the playing field". It deals with DOPING and not your money and team tactics and your training regime. It's an "add-on" being discussed.

 

In my mind it's a pretty simple statement which was refuted by scientists which had the same understanding to what it's suppose to mean. I don't understand why it's so difficult?

 

The argument has been made that everybody dopes so if everybody dopes then doping doesn't matter which makes the playing field level (specifically about doping) which means all the winners would've won without doping. That argument has been scientifically proven to be incorrect.

[DIPSLICK]

If you make it too wide then you'll never get to an answer.

 

The statement is pretty simple, "does doping level the playing field". It deals with DOPING and not your money and team tactics and your training regime. It's an "add-on" being discussed.

 

In my mind it's a pretty simple statement which was refuted by scientists which had the same understanding to what it's suppose to mean. I don't understand why it's so difficult?

 

The argument has been made that everybody dopes so if everybody dopes then doping doesn't matter which makes the playing field level (specifically about doping) which means all the winners would've won without doping. That argument has been scientifically proven to be incorrect.

then surely that settles that

[Patchelicious]

then surely that settles that

And makes me question the motive of the debate, if the OPs mind was already made up on the matter.

Edited July 14, 2014 by Patchelicious

[andydude]

And makes question the motive of the debate, if the OPs mind was already made up on the matter.

 

The idea of the thread was to show people why the argument is wrong, because the argument is still being used widely. Then I said we can debate it, but obviously I started with proof/evidence for one side (not my opinion at first - I actually believed the opposite - but based on lots of research by scientists after which my mind was changed). In a debate you bring your own proof, but nobody has been able to do that?