Cyclist Vaughters gives an impassioned explanation of why he and other pros cheat

Well it would best then if you didn't state over and over that you would like to see more studies which identify particular genes.

so what your telling me is a person who sacrificed their entire life in pursuit of a goal, who trained harder and longer than probably any of us can imagine, is a weak person because he made a mistake and is now owning up to it? this is someone who is trying to make a difference in his sport, trying to prevent other young cyclists from being faced with the same decision he had to make, to dope to level the playing field or to lose your spot.

bereasonable wrote:

so what your telling me is a person who sacrificed their entire life in pursuit of a goal, who trained harder and longer than probably any of us can imagine, is a weak person because he made a mistake and is now owning up to it? this is someone who is trying to make a difference in his sport, trying to prevent other young cyclists from being faced with the same decision he had to make, to dope to level the playing field or to lose your spot.

except that he's not owning up to it. he's blaming it on other people. saying they made him take drugs

Aghast wrote:

Well it would best then if you didn't state over and over that you would like to see more studies which identify particular genes.

No, it would be best if you had reading comprehension.

You were just accusing me of not knowing anything about genetics because I didn't like that ONE study. That argument of yours had nothing to do with the fact that I wanted to see more studies that identified particular genes. So, don't try to twist the situation around like that. Two totally different conversations.

Your rat study is fine, but even then it's just an implication. It's not a full-fledged direct conclusion. It's a very, very strong implication. But it could just be a correlation. Who knows. Identifying specific genes will help to clear up the issue of causality and correlation. That's why the authors say "implies".

Aghast wrote:

Well it would best then if you didn't state over and over that you would like to see more studies which identify particular genes.

Seriously, this guy was dropped on his head as a child. Let's not taunt the kid who took the short bus here. :)

jikugki wrote:

another banned poster wrote:

Gee, thanks for the enlightenment. I'm sure that never occurred to Jonathan Vaughters or anyone else.

Well, gee, if you read his quote, then you might be wrong. It doesnt seem like he thinks that there is a 3rd option.

How's this for an option:

Get the authorities involved. Go to the anti-doping agencies and give them names. Set up a sting. Change sponsors. Start your own team. The cowards argument that "everybody does it" needs to be replaced with "everybody does what they can to stop it". The doping agencies will always be powerless without athletes and coaches that that have the cahones to step up and change the sport.

It is a little surprising that so far, no cyclist has ever worked "under cover" with an anti-doping agency in order to expose a program of doping.

It's a weak argument on the part of the cyclist, here.

People face these kind of ethical situations everyday. In the workforce, there are honest people and there are dishonest people. It's the way the world works. It definitely boils down to an issue of character, and the fact that he participates in sports does not make his situation different.

bangalangadanga wrote:

It's a weak argument on the part of the cyclist, here.

People face these kind of ethical situations everyday. In the workforce, there are honest people and there are dishonest people. It's the way the world works. It definitely boils down to an issue of character, and the fact that he participates in sports does not make his situation different.

+1

Good post.

noce wrote:

It is a little surprising that so far, no cyclist has ever worked "under cover" with an anti-doping agency in order to expose a program of doping.

I don't understand why they dont get some guy to wear a wire, take pix, etc.. completely blow the thing apart. (I'd like to see the same thing done to big time college fball and bball.)

I think that I understand probability and statistics and inference a lot more than you do. Have you taught these classes at a college or grad school level?

As for the genetic stuff, you seem to know just enough to be dangerous in how strong you make inferences of what can and cannot be done. My grasp of genetics might or might not be stronger than yours, so I rely more on the stat end, which can control for things that you state are not [cannot be?] controlled for.

Vaughters did basically start his own team as he is the current manager of the Garmin-Sharp professional cycling team. In this position he has been a huge proponent of the biological passport and started his team on such a testing regime even before UCI adopted it. Say what you will about why Vaughters doped, but you can't claim he isn't trying to stop future doping.

Door#4 wrote:

How's this for an option:

Get the authorities involved. Go to the anti-doping agencies and give them names. Set up a sting. Change sponsors. Start your own team.

There have also been reports that Vaughters is one of the "unnamed" former US Postal teammates of Lance Armstrong who have provided information to USADA, as are Vande Velde and Zabriskie who now ride for Vaughter's team.

OK Mckenzie, your new assignment is to become one of the best cyclist on Earth, get a contract with a pro team and wear this wire and micro camera.

I agree great article, but this quote really bothers me:

"To be clear, running a 9.8 (or faster), winning the 100-meter breaststroke or winning the Tour de France are all very possible and have been done without doping. But it is also clear that winning isn’t possible if antidoping regulations aren’t enforced."

By adding that second sentence, he implies that there can only be clean winners if doping rules are fully enforced. I just don't agree with this. He's taking a self rationalization ("I couldn't win clean without enforcement") and making a broad generalization ("no one can win clean without full enforcement"). I would argue the current state of affairs is NOT full enforcement (take Mark Block or the fact that the cheaters are clearly still one step ahead), but I do believe there are clean winners. Do you think Farah and Rupp dope? Impossible to know, but I hope not. Do you think everyone in the 5K and 10K was clean? I highly doubt it. And take Jeter: she lost to Felix and Frayser-Price. Who knows what their story is, but they aren't coached by Mark Block. Similarly, while the East German and Soviet women were often dominant, they did lose, sometimes to American women who 30 years later are still women.

Why does this matter? Because in a world where we know cheaters do exist, his attitude taints champions who are clean. There are athletes who do make that hard choice to stay clean knowing that it puts them at a disadvantage, and still win.