Cycling: The Dirtiest Sport Of Them All

[r2473]

Originally Posted by OrangeOne

To say that every TDF rider is doping is lunacy (possibly as much lunacy as to say that none are, but the number is closer to none than all).

How many are doping do you think?

1%

2%

5%

10%

20%

40%

What do you think about other sports?

track & field

tennis

boxing

NFL football

etc?

Are you thinking it is the minority?

[OrangeOne]

Originally Posted by r2473

How many are doping do you think?

Out of all the athletes in all the sports in all the worlds?

72.

[r2473]

Originally Posted by OrangeOne

Out of all the athletes in all the sports in all the worlds?

72.

Let's just concentrate on Earth for the moment.

Obviously, I was asking about TDF primarily (as that is what your quote references). Secondarily, I was interested in other popular sports, individually.

But, I guess we pretty much agree. I would put the number around 72% for most sports myself. Higher for some, lower for others. But 72% isn't a bad number overall.

[Cindysphinx]

For figure skating, I would put the percentage of high-end participants (top 10 in each major country) at 2% (assuming you don't consider rhinestones to be doping).

For the Tour de France, I would put the percentage of participants in the 2010 race who are doping at 90%. The other 10% wanted to dope but couldn't get their shipment of testosterone patches through customs. I mean, it doesn't do much good to have just Armstrong doping. I assume his posse can't do him any good if they are at the bottom of the mountain sucking on oxygen tanks.

That's what I think.

[r2473]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

For figure skating, I would put the percentage of high-end participants (top 10 in each major country) at 2% (assuming you don't consider rhinestones to be doping).

I think it takes guts for even a gay man to wear some of the stuff I saw in the Olympics.

Most of the women look stunning however (for 14 year olds that is).

[BridgetJones]

[quote=OrangeOne;4844931]Because something is hard - everyone must be doping?

I know some pro / ex-pro riders (not TDF level, but some close, and some that level in other variants of the sport). Of course there are stories of the drugs, and the dirty riders that would take them. There are also stories of people with ethics and morals, and people who want to live a long, healthy life after cycling, people who were clean.

I fail to see why out of a sample of 200 - you claim 100% doping. 100%?

QUOTE]

A person can have "ethics and morals" and not be "clean." Once you get to a certain level in sports, you lose a lot of control over what goes into your body. So unless you don't go near a doctor, don't ingest anything or have any injections, you can never be sure.

[OrangeOne]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

For figure skating, I would put the percentage of high-end participants (top 10 in each major country) at 2% (assuming you don't consider rhinestones to be doping).

For the Tour de France, I would put the percentage of participants in the 2010 race who are doping at 90%. The other 10% wanted to dope but couldn't get their shipment of testosterone patches through customs. I mean, it doesn't do much good to have just Armstrong doping. I assume his posse can't do him any good if they are at the bottom of the mountain sucking on oxygen tanks.

That's what I think.

I think if you understood the tour a little more you'd know that the 'posse' does indeed end up left behind by the team leaders / specialist riders.

I know such a situation doesn't limit your scenario, and I know we sit at the polar opposite ends of the spectrum here. I hope you meet some amazing people that are, or have been, pro cyclists, and you get to know them well enough to find out more of the truth.

Here's the thing:

This almost feels like an 'ism'. Sexism, Racism, Cycle-ism? Ok, so I'm being extreme, but so are positions here.

I believe it's always wrong to tar everyone with a brush simply because some commit a crime. I firmly believe it's wrong to tar the whole sport of cycling because some dopes dope. I also firmly believe the doping isn't as 'beyond testing' as people say - if it were, how come some very, very high profile riders are getting caught - surely if anyone, they'd have access to the 'mysterious undetectable stuff'?

[OrangeOne]

Originally Posted by r2473

Most of the women look stunning however (for 14 year olds that is).

You know, that's a bit far isn't it? I had enough of an issue with your now-deleted post in another thread (and mustn't have been only me, as I didn't report it), and now this?

[OrangeOne]

Originally Posted by BridgetJones

A person can have "ethics and morals" and not be "clean." Once you get to a certain level in sports, you lose a lot of control over what goes into your body. So unless you don't go near a doctor, don't ingest anything or have any injections, you can never be sure.

Time to read less John Grisham, or watch less CSI / House.

Any athlete who is choosing to stay clean, is also more than aware that they need to be meticulous about consumption. This is their career that has taken years and years of training.

What you are alleging there, by the way, doctors medicating people illegally / without their full knowledge and consent, and worse, without a condition requiring the medication....if and when it occurs would be enough to both have a doctor lose their licence to practice medicine and be jailed.

So you're proposing that both doctors and pro athletes - both are people who have to train for a decade to be 'qualified & effective' in their career - regularly risk this. I can see that the guy coming 3rd might want to come first (Landis). I can't see that the guy coming 56th would risk this to come 49th, and I can see very very few doctors with around 10 years of study risking a career and freedom...

[r2473]

Originally Posted by OrangeOne

You know, that's a bit far isn't it? I had enough of an issue with your now-deleted post in another thread (and mustn't have been only me, as I didn't report it), and now this?

My posts get quietly deleted fairly often (so I'm really not sure what you are referring to).

[BridgetJones]

Originally Posted by OrangeOne

Time to read less John Grisham, or watch less CSI / House.

Any athlete who is choosing to stay clean, is also more than aware that they need to be meticulous about consumption. This is their career that has taken years and years of training.

What you are alleging there, by the way, doctors medicating people illegally / without their full knowledge and consent, and worse, without a condition requiring the medication....if and when it occurs would be enough to both have a doctor lose their licence to practice medicine and be jailed.

So you're proposing that both doctors and pro athletes - both are people who have to train for a decade to be 'qualified & effective' in their career - regularly risk this. I can see that the guy coming 3rd might want to come first (Landis). I can't see that the guy coming 56th would risk this to come 49th, and I can see very very few doctors with around 10 years of study risking a career and freedom...

What a joke and stupid stereotypical comment; I dont actually watch House or CSI. What are you, twelve years old? Continuing a discussion with you wouldnt be the best use of my time, and by the way, you made all of the assumptions here including the use of the word "regularly."

[jswinf]

It sounds like you need more "regularity," perhaps more fiber in your diet?

[OrangeOne]

Originally Posted by BridgetJones

What a joke and stupid stereotypical comment; I dont actually watch House or CSI. What are you, twelve years old? Continuing a discussion with you wouldnt be the best use of my time,

Right, so you stopped at the off-the-cuff quip about watching too much tele-drama and didn't read the rest of my post? Or, perhaps more likely, you read the rest of the post and decided to ignore it as it had logical points in it that you simply couldn't debate? For the record, if you expect more than a joke or a stereotypical comment, maybe post something that is equally more than a stereotypical comment yourself, or even, post something that seems less of a joke.

and by the way, you made all of the assumptions here including the use of the word "regularly."

You have a problem with the adverb? Or a problem with the fact that I said that the risk was indeed more than an instance? For doping to be effective it is rarely a one-off occurrence, in fact, for it to be in any way successful usually requires many instances just to understand how it affects the athlete in question. In many cases, it also requires a regime (eg. daily doping) to adjust baseline levels so that the doping doesn't appear as an outlier.

You can claim it's 'not the best use of your time' if you want, but remember: You were the one that put out the comment that doctors are doping elite athletes without their knowledge. You've done nothing to back it up, just thrown back some pointless word-play.

So let's end the word-play: Do you have any proof of multiple instances of doctors illegally doping elite athletes in 2010 (or thereabouts) - ie. doctors doping athletes without their knowledge?

OO.
....who is clearly a verbose 12 year old with a moderately decent knowledge of sport & doping.

[BridgetJones]

Originally Posted by OrangeOne

Right, so you stopped at the off-the-cuff quip about watching too much tele-drama and didn't read the rest of my post? Or, perhaps more likely, you read the rest of the post and decided to ignore it as it had logical points in it that you simply couldn't debate? For the record, if you expect more than a joke or a stereotypical comment, maybe post something that is equally more than a stereotypical comment yourself, or even, post something that seems less of a joke.

You have a problem with the adverb? Or a problem with the fact that I said that the risk was indeed more than an instance? For doping to be effective it is rarely a one-off occurrence, in fact, for it to be in any way successful usually requires many instances just to understand how it affects the athlete in question. In many cases, it also requires a regime (eg. daily doping) to adjust baseline levels so that the doping doesn't appear as an outlier.

You can claim it's 'not the best use of your time' if you want, but remember: You were the one that put out the comment that doctors are doping elite athletes without their knowledge. You've done nothing to back it up, just thrown back some pointless word-play.

So let's end the word-play: Do you have any proof of multiple instances of doctors illegally doping elite athletes in 2010 (or thereabouts) - ie. doctors doping athletes without their knowledge?

OO.
....who is clearly a verbose 12 year old with a moderately decent knowledge of sport & doping.

Read my post and tell me where I said doctors were doping athletes without their knowledge. I never said that. You were the one that went there. All I said was that the only way to know 100 percent if you are clean is to never take anything or let anyone do anything. My point was that you can be an athlete with "morals and ethics" and get a tainted supplement. Or someone can make a mistake. You can do everything right and something can happen. I felt like that needed to be said in this thread. And you are not the only person with knowledge on this topic. Believe it or not when I posted to you in this thread I thought we might have an intersting discussion.

The House comment was unnecessary. That is not a surprise though, seems to happen to the women on this forum. When Canadian Chic made a comment about the Kardashian show people assumed she was jealous. So typical. If I say something I must have got it from a TV show. That combined with all of the assumptions you made without asking me what I meant just made me think, why bother?

[BridgetJones]

Originally Posted by jswinf

It sounds like you need more "regularity," perhaps more fiber in your diet?

lol, that is pretty funny actually.

[BridgetJones]

oh and by the way, there is actually a pending case where there might be an ethical issue with a doctor, so that is an interesting point you raised. I forgot about that, was thinking more about the mistakes scenario. Who knows what the facts will turn out to be in that case though.

[OrangeOne]

Originally Posted by BridgetJones

Read my post and tell me where I said doctors were doping athletes without their knowledge. I never said that. You were the one that went there. All I said was that the only way to know 100 percent if you are clean is to never take anything or let anyone do anything.

"Reach a certain level in sports" + "Lose control over what goes into you body" + "Unless you don't go near a doctor"

^^Yes, I assumed that was what you meant. Sure, it was an assumption but it wasn't a long bow to draw.

My point was that you can be an athlete with "morals and ethics" and get a tainted supplement. Or someone can make a mistake. You can do everything right and something can happen. I felt like that needed to be said in this thread.

Ok. It is a point. I don't think it's a big point in this discussion, but that's imho.

And you are not the only person with knowledge on this topic.

Oh please. The only reason I said what I said there as a sarcastic quip in response to the 12 year old quip. I didn't say I was the only one. Me highlighting my own knowledge doesn't logically exclude others.

Believe it or not when I posted to you in this thread I thought we might have an interesting discussion.

Ok.

The House comment was unnecessary. That is not a surprise though, seems to happen to the women on this forum. When Canadian Chic made a comment about the Kardashian show people assumed she was jealous. So typical. If I say something I must have got it from a TV show.

Whoooah there. Back the truck up. Me quipping that your comments seemed TV-Drama-inspired is sexism? Where do I start?

a. I have no firm idea that anyone is a guy or a girl on here until they actually say so, and even then...

b. Guys don't watch too much TV too?

c. I watch house. Does that make me female? Or at least somewhat androgynous? I might have to stop watching it to protect my masculinity.

d. Seriously. I mean....Seriously?

Next time, please leave your irrelevant - to this discussion, anyways - agendas at the door. If you want to discuss sexism in and of itself, fine, I'll probably chime in. But don't spend time lecturing me about assumptions and then make a fat & juicy one yourself, and then let it spool up your own agenda and make accusations at me over it. It wasn't a sexist remark, and I resent the accusation that it was.

[Cindysphinx]

OrangeOne, it is refreshing to know their are still people in the world who have faith in the honesty and integrity of their fellow men and women when millions of dollars in endorsements are at stake. It's kinda cute.

Really, now. Marion Jones doped for years and wasn't caught until her name turned up in BALCO's files. If she could do it, anyone could.

So you're proposing that both doctors and pro athletes - both are people who have to train for a decade to be 'qualified & effective' in their career - regularly risk this. I can see that the guy coming 3rd might want to come first (Landis). I can't see that the guy coming 56th would risk this to come 49th, and I can see very very few doctors with around 10 years of study risking a career and freedom...

Perhaps there are very few doctors willing to risk it.

You only need to find one.

And if you're an athlete, it's not like you face a firing squad if you get caught. You get a suspension and then you get to resume your career. I can see how someone who is No. 10 in the 100 m dash might dope to get to No. 1. Like I said, there are millions of collars at stake, and if you go to someone really really good you can pass endless drug tests and come up clean every time.

Like Marion Jones did.

[OrangeOne]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

OrangeOne, it is refreshing to know their are still people in the world who have faith in the honesty and integrity of their fellow men and women when millions of dollars in endorsements are at stake. It's kinda cute.

Wow, I've had my thoughts called cute and I've also been called effectively sexist in the one thread. That's a first. Remarkably, I don't feel patronised at all!

Really, now. Marion Jones

I'm glad you bring her up in a post that includes your comment:

And if you're an athlete, it's not like you face a firing squad if you get caught. You get a suspension and then you get to resume your career.

She went to jail. Ok, so it was for perjury, but it all started with the drugs, and stemmed from the drugs. The suspension you mention can end many careers. Many sports are putting tougher penalties in place. If an athlete is caught in the tour, the whole team can and often is booted - tens of millions of dollars are at stake.

If she could do it, anyone could.

Disagree, she was already uber-elite. Your average competitor doesn't have the resources, pull, or access that she did. Again, doping (in a way to avoid being caught) is a science, and requires significant time, effort and resources to get it 'just right'.

--

Here's the thing. We are all presented with options every day in our life that represent ethical decisions, many that have financial outcomes. Some that risk our reputations too.

What am I saying? I'm saying anyone can choose to throw their morals out the window at any time, and earn more dollars in questionable ways. Why is it that you think that just because people become a professional athlete they are automatically willing to do this?

Remember, they're not just risking their career and reputation from friends and family, they're also risking the fame many crave so much, and potentially gaining a reputation of a different kind for life. I mean - do you think the average cyclist passes Landis in the street and waves a happy hello?

[Dags]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

OrangeOne, it is refreshing to know their are still people in the world who have faith in the honesty and integrity of their fellow men and women when millions of dollars in endorsements are at stake. It's kinda cute.

Likewise, it is depressing to know there are people who have such little faith in mankind that they make a sweeping assumption that every single competitor in a particular sport must be doping. Particularly when they seem to have little interest in or knowledge of said sport.

An open question to all: do you suspect that Lance Armstrong has been cheating (be it via drugs, blood transfusions or anything else that is prohibited) in the 2009 and/or 2010 TdF? A brief (or detailed if you prefer) description of why you hold your belief either way would be beneficial to discussion.