You would have liked the Coliseum in ancient Rome. They played by your rules. Anything to win.
You would have liked the witch trials in 17th Century England. They played by your rules. Guilty until proven innocent.
So who's being burned at the stake here or summarily executed? I prefer the rules that ban doping and hold athletes to account when they do, along with the expert assessment that professional sport is rife with the practice.
Indeed ironic -- that is precisely what I always think about those who misuse the term -- they don't really ever understand what is being discussed.
It's just childish name-calling among those who cannot rationally justify their own beliefs about the alleged powers of doping in an intellectual world.
It's wonderful how in your disputing the term you perfectly demonstrate its applicability. That's what an apologist does.
Maybe this double-speak works on your planet. If there is a genuine bona-fide case of attempted intentional cheating, I do not defend it.
I gave some areas where I thought interesting discussions are possible without all this noise from those unable to engage.
Sounds like maybe you just should stop watching it if it makes you sad. No one is forcing you.
The solution is just to remove the stigma of performance enhancing. Athletics is all about enhancing performance, but when you use the word “doping” it sounds like something dirty.
Take whatever vitamins, eat whatever diet, slather on whatever creams, do whatever workouts, sleep in an altitude tent. It should all be fair game.
You would have liked the Coliseum in ancient Rome. They played by your rules. Anything to win.
Based on history books and what I have seen in Ridley Scott movies, I think the events at the Coliseum were much more popular than modern day track and field. Maybe they were onto something?
I'm not condoning killing anyone, but I do think science (including pharmaceuticals) should be allowed in athletics. The only things people should be getting DQ'd for is running out of bounds or impeding another runner.
I was presenting what I see as reasons to spend less time arguing about doping. I just thought the title for the post was ironic.
I don’t think there needs to be an argument here, that’s sort of my point. There are those that choose to be skeptical in performances, and those that do not. Is that so bad? There are people who believe in god and people who don’t.
Despite having my own opinions, I don’t feel the need to impose them on anyone especially if it’s not going to make them better off in any way.
Upvoting because I'm in general agreement. I come from the perspective that if you have enough pros saying "epo gave me a 10% boost in my lactate threshold power" (Lance literally said that last year for instance), then it's hard not to believe the drugs work.
I certainly agree the efficacy of many drugs is an area ripe for discussion, but I think the more immediate question is how can we actually find out? The reason most lab studies are done on amateurs is because, well, what pro would willingly or would even be allowed to participate? I think finding a way to incentivize pros to participate in studies and actually dedicate more anti doping money to research would be phenomenal.
But yeah, you hit on the crux of my point which is that if the two sides of the table are those making baseless accusations and those mocking genuine skepticism, then nothing good comes from sitting down at the table in the first place.
I'd love to see more people come out after their career and just be fully transparent about what they found does and does not work, or even stuff they heard of people doing in and out of competition and its efficacy. For many athletes, the risks of opening the flood gates are actually quite minimal once their career is well past, but unfortunately, they have zero incentive to do so, and we're left in a state where no one really talks openly because a negligible risk outweighs a non existent reward. Again, I see no reason why some of the anti doping program budget couldn't be allocated to a problem like this (ie pay the whistleblowers).
You would have liked the Coliseum in ancient Rome. They played by your rules. Anything to win.
Based on history books and what I have seen in Ridley Scott movies, I think the events at the Coliseum were much more popular than modern day track and field. Maybe they were onto something?
I'm not condoning killing anyone, but I do think science (including pharmaceuticals) should be allowed in athletics. The only things people should be getting DQ'd for is running out of bounds or impeding another runner.
Science is allowed in sports - in technique, equipment and training. But you've broadened the term to include cheating - which is what doping is.
Upvoting because I'm in general agreement. I come from the perspective that if you have enough pros saying "epo gave me a 10% boost in my lactate threshold power" (Lance literally said that last year for instance), then it's hard not to believe the drugs work.
I certainly agree the efficacy of many drugs is an area ripe for discussion, but I think the more immediate question is how can we actually find out? The reason most lab studies are done on amateurs is because, well, what pro would willingly or would even be allowed to participate? I think finding a way to incentivize pros to participate in studies and actually dedicate more anti doping money to research would be phenomenal.
But yeah, you hit on the crux of my point which is that if the two sides of the table are those making baseless accusations and those mocking genuine skepticism, then nothing good comes from sitting down at the table in the first place.
I'd love to see more people come out after their career and just be fully transparent about what they found does and does not work, or even stuff they heard of people doing in and out of competition and its efficacy. For many athletes, the risks of opening the flood gates are actually quite minimal once their career is well past, but unfortunately, they have zero incentive to do so, and we're left in a state where no one really talks openly because a negligible risk outweighs a non existent reward. Again, I see no reason why some of the anti doping program budget couldn't be allocated to a problem like this (ie pay the whistleblowers).
You don't appear to know much about the prevalence if doping if you think it is merely subject for conjecture. Sport has gone far beyond our wondering whether this or that athlete might be doped. Doping is found in every competitive activity - that includes chess, championship darts and curling, as well as of course the major Olympic sports - and at every level from schools to seniors and male and female categories. We either accept that at the top levels we are watching doped achievements or give up watching them - because we can't eradicate it.
Upvoting because I'm in general agreement. I come from the perspective that if you have enough pros saying "epo gave me a 10% boost in my lactate threshold power" (Lance literally said that last year for instance), then it's hard not to believe the drugs work.
I certainly agree the efficacy of many drugs is an area ripe for discussion, but I think the more immediate question is how can we actually find out? The reason most lab studies are done on amateurs is because, well, what pro would willingly or would even be allowed to participate? I think finding a way to incentivize pros to participate in studies and actually dedicate more anti doping money to research would be phenomenal.
But yeah, you hit on the crux of my point which is that if the two sides of the table are those making baseless accusations and those mocking genuine skepticism, then nothing good comes from sitting down at the table in the first place.
I'd love to see more people come out after their career and just be fully transparent about what they found does and does not work, or even stuff they heard of people doing in and out of competition and its efficacy. For many athletes, the risks of opening the flood gates are actually quite minimal once their career is well past, but unfortunately, they have zero incentive to do so, and we're left in a state where no one really talks openly because a negligible risk outweighs a non existent reward. Again, I see no reason why some of the anti doping program budget couldn't be allocated to a problem like this (ie pay the whistleblowers).
This may be a perspective applicable cycling, but which running pros (athletes and coaches) have ever said "EPO gave me a 10% boost"? I'm convinced there is a reason your first example is Lance. Here at letsrun, we have long had a famous example of a life long professional coach of elite and world record setting athletes who says that athletes can set records clean with altitude training. He is routinely dismissed by fans with little to no credentials.
I tend to take what "enough pros" say with a grain of salt for a number of reasons. The very decision to dope is enough to alter their neutrality, as they become psychologically invested in their decision to break the rules, and look for ways to justify the decision to themselves and look for any returns they can attribute to doping, sometimes lying to themselves, rather than objectively looking at the accumulative effect of other changes and confounders and placebo. But again, no running pros are saying doping helps their distance running. This only comes from reporters and fans and sometimes sour grapes from "clean" athletes.
How can we find out? One way would be better studies, that better control and mimic race preparation and conditions, even if they were on amateurs. But it is not the only way. Another indirect way is to look for trends in performances in the real world. Running makes it easy because the distances are fixed, and to some degree, the best times can be compared. I created two threads which looked for and characterized trends in all time performances among East Africans, North Africans, and non-Africans (+ West/South Africans). While many saw this as confirmation that only Africans are doping to win, the most obvious anomaly was the extreme drought of improvements from non-Africans worldwide in the last three decades universally across distance events from 800m to the marathon, despite the availability and undetectability of endurance drugs and methods that were heavily used in cycling by non-Africans. A country like Russia was not noticeably better than Japan, and a country like Spain was not better than the rest of Europe or America.
Regarding retired athletes telling all, what if those coming out of their career really have nothing to tell and are already being transparent? Who would believe it?
You don't appear to know much about the prevalence if doping if you think it is merely subject for conjecture. Sport has gone far beyond our wondering whether this or that athlete might be doped. Doping is found in every competitive activity - that includes chess, championship darts and curling, as well as of course the major Olympic sports - and at every level from schools to seniors and male and female categories. We either accept that at the top levels we are watching doped achievements or give up watching them - because we can't eradicate it.
Do you even know what "prevalence" means? Saying "doping is found" doesn't tell us much about prevalence. Nor does prevalence tell us much about performance. "Sport" has not gone so far beyond as you claim -- only tabloids.
You don't appear to know much about the prevalence if doping if you think it is merely subject for conjecture. Sport has gone far beyond our wondering whether this or that athlete might be doped. Doping is found in every competitive activity - that includes chess, championship darts and curling, as well as of course the major Olympic sports - and at every level from schools to seniors and male and female categories. We either accept that at the top levels we are watching doped achievements or give up watching them - because we can't eradicate it.
Do you even know what "prevalence" means? Saying "doping is found" doesn't tell us much about prevalence. Nor does prevalence tell us much about performance. "Sport" has not gone so far beyond as you claim -- only tabloids.
I know you know nothing about prevalence. That goes with being a doping denier.
we know something produces performance gains (if you want to disagree with this, I don't really know what to tell you. EPO, blood transfusions, and anabolics do enhance athletic performance), and we know many top athletes use them
Just because you and others are brainwashed about drugs, doesn't mean that everyone is.
After all the rest of you die from your drug use and false beliefs, the only people left will be people like me who didn't buy into all the drug use propaganda.
Do you even know what "prevalence" means? Saying "doping is found" doesn't tell us much about prevalence. Nor does prevalence tell us much about performance. "Sport" has not gone so far beyond as you claim -- only tabloids.
I know you know nothing about prevalence. That goes with being a doping denier.
We are all fortunate to know about prevalence from you, who says that the best experts' estimates range from 10%-80%. I think I agreed with you it is likely within that narrowed range.
Can you intelligently elaborate to the next level, exactly what "doping is found" in "sport" tells us about prevalence?
There’s no argument necessary about doping. We all know that the pros written about on Letsrun aren’t “clean” regardless of the country or team they’re from. Just because they dodge being caught in testing doesn’t mean they’re clean. I think anyone that races as a pro or D1 athlete knows this but we all have to remain silent.
we know something produces performance gains (if you want to disagree with this, I don't really know what to tell you. EPO, blood transfusions, and anabolics do enhance athletic performance), and we know many top athletes use them
Just because you and others are brainwashed about drugs, doesn't mean that everyone is.
After all the rest of you die from your drug use and false beliefs, the only people left will be people like me who didn't buy into all the drug use propaganda.
Huh? Lots of people get caught and admit it. Others don't get caught, others are clean. I never said everyone is dirty or anything remotely similar. Nor did I say anything about being brainwashed. Your post is just poorly thought out and adds absolutely nothing. You aren't even making an argument against anything that was said or implied. You are making my point about discussion being difficult though given how little sense your post makes.
This may be a perspective applicable cycling, but which running pros (athletes and coaches) have ever said "EPO gave me a 10% boost"? I'm convinced there is a reason your first example is Lance. Here at letsrun, we have long had a famous example of a life long professional coach of elite and world record setting athletes who says that athletes can set records clean with altitude training. He is routinely dismissed by fans with little to no credentials.
I tend to take what "enough pros" say with a grain of salt for a number of reasons. The very decision to dope is enough to alter their neutrality, as they become psychologically invested in their decision to break the rules, and look for ways to justify the decision to themselves and look for any returns they can attribute to doping, sometimes lying to themselves, rather than objectively looking at the accumulative effect of other changes and confounders and placebo. But again, no running pros are saying doping helps their distance running. This only comes from reporters and fans and sometimes sour grapes from "clean" athletes.
How can we find out? One way would be better studies, that better control and mimic race preparation and conditions, even if they were on amateurs. But it is not the only way. Another indirect way is to look for trends in performances in the real world. Running makes it easy because the distances are fixed, and to some degree, the best times can be compared. I created two threads which looked for and characterized trends in all time performances among East Africans, North Africans, and non-Africans (+ West/South Africans). While many saw this as confirmation that only Africans are doping to win, the most obvious anomaly was the extreme drought of improvements from non-Africans worldwide in the last three decades universally across distance events from 800m to the marathon, despite the availability and undetectability of endurance drugs and methods that were heavily used in cycling by non-Africans. A country like Russia was not noticeably better than Japan, and a country like Spain was not better than the rest of Europe or America.
Regarding retired athletes telling all, what if those coming out of their career really have nothing to tell and are already being transparent? Who would believe it?
Again, not really in disagreement, but ultimately I do think you need controlled studies though, because looking at trends is only going to give a partial picture when there are so many confounding factors (ie shoes, improvements in training, etc.) I'm also not convinced studies on amateurs give the most accurate representation of the effects of many peds, especially if the benefit of many drugs is that they simply allow you to train more and recover faster. Then there is of course the issue where any study done on amateurs, there will be those that say it doesn't apply to pros.
I'd still contend that studies on elite athletes would actually be a good use of the global anti-doping budget (frankly it would be a drop in the bucket if done correctly).
Regarding "only East Africans doping to win", that does seem to be a sentiment on this site, and it doesn't really make any sense to me. It seems logical that their methods may be less sophisticated and therefore they get caught at a higher rate, but it's hard to say much beyond that. It certainly doesn't explain the rise of Norwegians in running and triathlon or Slovenians in cycling. All of these things could of course be random, but they certainly don't lend credence to the "only africans are doping" argument.