rekrunner wrote:
You don't realize it but you are mostly agreeing with me. Intent and effect have no influence on guilt.
This is why, when I talk about effect, or lack of effect, it is not exoneration or apologizing for the act of doping.
You keep co-mingling prevalence and and guilt with effect, while I maintain they are separate topics.
There is no dispute about high prevalence and the presumed guilt of doping.
Besides that, I want to talk about effect, including from legal substances and methods too, because they exist.
I do not downplay better informed estimates. When you said 50% for athletics, I downplayed that, calling it an exaggeration that was not a better informed estimate.
Prevalence is high. Guilt is high. Doping tainting sports is high. Dopers should be punished. Agreed. Conceded. Now it's time to close this point that was never contested and move on.
You say "We know enough about doping to know that its effects are not neutral." Is it possible for you to have a conversation about the extent of "what we know" about the "effects", without the obfuscation of "prevalence" and "guilt" and all the childish name calling?
Armstronglivs wrote:
I can see why analogies are not really your style. To use examples of murder, manslaughter and accidental death, the key element that distinguishes them is degrees of intent, or its lack thereof. With doping, intent is not an issue; you are presumed to be responsible for what is found in your body. Examples of "accidental" doping - tainted beef, etc - are unlikely, and rarely credible.
I also don't take the view that doping is less culpable if it is either less efficient or effective than desired by some using it. We know enough about doping to know that its effects are not neutral. Individually, it confers advantage; cumulatively it greatly distorts the sport. Corruption becomes part of the sporting fabric.
I take the view that athletes and their entourages know what they are doing. The incidence of those caught, coupled with the difficulty of catching them, persuades me there are far more doping than is revealed by known violations. That is also the consensus of most involved in anti-doping, although the likely incidence remains at best an estimate. But whether doping is at the lower estimates of 15% or higher at around 40% it seriously taints sport today. To downplay the better-informed estimates that we have becomes an apology for the practice. And, whether you intend it or not, that is how many of your posts come across.
I don't agree with your general position that the effects of doping are less than many might think. Not do I believe that the effects can be understood through statistical presentation alone. Each athlete is different - some are higher responders than others - and each stimulant has a different effect from others. Effect also depends on the programme the athlete has undertaken, which often includes a range of drugs taken over a cycle. Like the full extent of the prevalence of doping, we have to make a judgment about these things. No exact answer is available.
I frequently prefer the anecdotes of sportsmen who have doped over academic researchers, because the athletes have directly experienced its effects for themselves. I recall the experience of an amateur cyclist who experimented with drugs (he wrote an article about it) and his doctor warned him when using a particular drug, to "be careful with this stuff". He thought the doctor was advising him about his health but was in fact saying to him to be careful because his improvement would be so dramatic it would draw attention. When it comes to elite athletes, the professional baseball player Jose Canseco knew a thing or two about doping; he called his autobiography "Juiced". He said, "doping makes an average athlete good, a good athlete outstanding, and an outstanding athlete invincible". I've seen that for over forty years, from schoolboys to the world's best. Everybody gets a whole lot better when they dope. Ben Johnson never broke 10-flat clean.