McGruff the dope crime dog wrote:
You guys are totally missing the point............
People race because they enjoy the competition and also they enjoy being "good" at this sport.....
When it bumps up to where they could get sponsored and/or make some money at this sport, things change....
I wanted to weigh in before this thread gets closed because I agree that this thread (and message board in general) are not paying enough attention to the most important questions regarding doping.
The most important singular question is whether it is possible to clean up the sport to a degree where use of PEDs is rare rather than commonplace. [I know that many disagree with the premise that it is commonplace; those people can agree to disagree with me and need not read this post any further.] I don't think that logical reasoning alone or discussion on a message board can answer this question. It would probably be better addressed by game theory and neuroeconomics.
My hypothesis is that it is impossible to clean up the sport given the strength of the economic incentives. Most of us amateurs project our views about sport and competition to opine about people in a totally different situation- that of achieving success in their careers, being able to maintain their chosen careers, or even being able to support themselves (for those coming from impoverished backgrounds and without other viable career options). As important as morality is, most of us don't make decisions based on moral abstractions, we make decisions because our brains weigh reward and harm on conscious and unconscious levels. It's probably the case that our stated moralities follow the pattern of how we do this more than vice versa. Reward and harm considerations are entirely different when there are massive financial implications versus when there are not. Rationalization is very powerful- for everyone, not just those who cheat.
A few pages back Gamera posted on the extreme measures cycling has taken to detect doping, and the skepticism that persists even in the face of these measures. I hypothesize that it would take comparable measures as well as a career "death penalty" and retroactive financial punishments- for anyone found guilty of doping beyond a reasonable doubt- to effectively clean up professional sports. Compared to tour cycling, athletics faces the added challenge of having performances judged against the gold standard of the clock. This means that, unless the bodies that govern the sport determine that most consumers would rather see slower times from clean athletes than eye-popping performances from athletes who use PEDs, the governing bodies themselves face an enormous conflict of interests. By athletes who use PEDs I'm talking about not only those who use banned substances and evade detection but also those who used PEDs that are determined to be legal or that fall in the "gray zone" like TUE PEDs.
If cleaning up the professional side of the sport to an effective degree is impossible then perhaps there should be two playing fields. Obviously there would be massive implications for those unsure about their professional aspirations, particularly youth. There would be ethical implications of more transparently ostensibly forcing young people to subject themselves to possible harm if they want to be professionals. Of course clean people could try to make it as professionals, as no doubt is already happening on a widespread basis.