Some thoughts about grey area

Unfortunately in this world there are three types of people: Those that follow the rules, those who break the rules and those who look for loopholes in the rules. The third group are the problem.

No matter what the rules are there will be people who look for creative interpretations of the rules to try to give them an edge over the competition. These people are lauded as both heroes and crooks. People love success and are willing to turn a blind eye to how it is achieved. People who express criticize are labeled as haters. In some cases the individual takes one step too far and the whole house of cards collapses (Ben Johnson) but in many cases that doesn't happen and the rule bending becomes systemic and the supporters justify it because 'everyone does it' or 'it's just leveling the playing field' (Lance Armstrong*, Alberto Salazar).

Unfortunately, this obsession with operating in the grey areas affects other aspects of our lives. In 2000 the former Enron CFO, Andrew Fastow, was named CFO of the year. In 2002 Fastow was indicted by a federal grand jury on 78 counts including fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy. In 2004, he pleaded guilty to two counts of wire and securities fraud, and agreed to serve a ten-year prison sentence. Despite the downfall of Enron and the conviction of several of its executives the financial industry still loved the grey areas. By 2008 they were into subprime mortgages and we all know how that ended.

* I know Lance Armstrong was eventually busted but that was only after he confessed to Oprah Winfrey in 2013, almost a decade after his Tour de France years

Two good posts.

Let’s say the rule is blood levels 10 and up gets you banned, then you should/must supplement to get your blood level to 9.99 if you want to operate to your maximum potential.

You’re totally within the rules at 9.99.

If you’re taking something that isn’t banned you aren’t breaking any rules.

Raddison wrote:

In many cases that doesn't happen and the rule bending becomes systemic and the supporters justify it because 'everyone does it' or 'it's just leveling the playing field' (Lance Armstrong*, Alberto Salazar).

Funny how this is the same argument that many people make about the Vaporfly cheater shoes. I'm just saying.

Mom’s.Roommate.Basement.Dweller wrote:

Let’s say the rule is blood levels 10 and up gets you banned, then you should/must supplement to get your blood level to 9.99 if you want to operate to your maximum potential.

You’re totally within the rules at 9.99.

If you’re taking something that isn’t banned you aren’t breaking any rules.

You are part of the problem.

The rule may say over 10 of X gets you banned but typically "10" is set as an upper limit that authorities can use as a proxy for "naturally occurring." The rule will either explicitly be that you can't supplement with X at all or that will be the clear intent and spirit.

So if you go in and get tested and you're at 4, and your rival's at 6, deal with it. That facet of his talent exceeds yours.

Cycling's a good example. Using rhEPO has always been banned. But there wasn't an effective test. So they introduced a "health check / limit" of haemocrit at 50%. Which people like you took as a license to dope up to 49.9%. It wasn't. So then they introduced a biological passport so that riders who were naturally at 41% couldn't turn up at the TdF with 48%. Which introduced more gamesmanship as people like you worked to elevate their base / passport levels.

All athletic competitions are supposed to be a contest of talent vs. training. If you question whether what you're doing is in-line with that spirit then it's probably not. If you're doing something that's not in-line with that spirit and it doesn't raise any personal red flags for you, then that's a moral failing on your part.

Google Christophe Bassons. Be like Christophe.

Is fair sport defined by the rules, or by the athletes?

Agree that taking all that stuff, thyroid meds, asthma meds, L Carnitine, Testo boost or testosterone etc is not something i'd ever do for both ethical reasons and health reasons. In terms of health thyroid stuff and steroids is particularly worrying.

Glad Al Sal is banned. Good riddance. What is hypocritical though is people judging which athletes are dirty based on personal like or dislike for them rather than what the evidence shows. Look at Ritz 12:56, 60:00, 2:07 whilst in the group but he gets a pass. He knew what he was doing was at the least very borderline but he still went ahead and did it. Ryan Hall and various others from other groups used Doctor Brown for thyroid and other meds and that is all ok (nothing to see here) but everyone hates Rupp and Farah (both, especially Farah almost certainly dirty so not excusing them) because of personal dislike for them.

I also find it a bit odd that people would join that group with all the accusations flowing around over the years. On the other hand if Al Sal was told he was to be banned in 2017 the scrutiny on his training group over the last couple of years while all the legal stuff was going on must have been huge. It's unlikely they are going to breach any more rules so I think it unlikely the current athletes, especially the ones coached by Julian have broken any rules. Someone like Simpson taking cheap shots at Hassan for joining the group is a bit much. If you were doping it is probably the last place you would want to go at the moment with all the attention on them. The people who are more suspect are the ones there before 2015 when the documentary was shown. That includes Rupp, Centro, Goucher, Ritz, Farah and all the rest. Don't pick and choose because of personalities or because they spoke to USADA to cover their backs.

Then there is the weird situation where Lets Run hero worship Ethiopians and Kenyans when those are the places that the real PED use is going on. Ethiopia in particular has virtually no testing, is not a functioning democracy and is exactly the sort of place a state sponsored doping program (or at least state turning a blind eye) would work (think eastern block countries in the past). Al Sal is small fry compared to what is going on in other parts of the world but there is an obsession with him, Rupp and Farah. Athletes setting world records and amazing times in the middle of the EPO era with little to no testing are GOATS by lets run logic but Rupp is the devil incarnate. Makes me laugh.

Illium wrote:

Is fair sport defined by the rules, or by the athletes?

It’s determined by those that ultimately get paid; this isn’t sport, anymore than what you do 9-5 is your avocation. Think Trump, think the king, that’s who makes the rules, you ain’t the king. After you totally understand this you’ll see very clearly this isn’t your ninth grade cross country season.

If you ain't cheatin, you ain't tryin.

I set a new record this morning without cheating. FIVE FLUSHES yes that's right, FIVE. It looked like a logging truck dumped its payload into my toilet.

Confuzzled wrote:

If you ain't cheatin, you ain't tryin.

Ned Flanders kept his for measurement. Did you?

Punisher Of Toilets wrote:

I set a new record this morning without cheating. FIVE FLUSHES yes that's right, FIVE. It looked like a logging truck dumped its payload into my toilet.

Confuzzled wrote:

If you ain't cheatin, you ain't tryin.

Abdoujaparov wrote:

Mom’s.Roommate.Basement.Dweller wrote:

Let’s say the rule is blood levels 10 and up gets you banned, then you should/must supplement to get your blood level to 9.99 if you want to operate to your maximum potential.

You’re totally within the rules at 9.99.

If you’re taking something that isn’t banned you aren’t breaking any rules.

You are part of the problem.

The rule may say over 10 of X gets you banned but typically "10" is set as an upper limit that authorities can use as a proxy for "naturally occurring." The rule will either explicitly be that you can't supplement with X at all or that will be the clear intent and spirit.

This.

"You're totally within the rules at 9.99." I think that is a misinterpretation of the rules. The blood concentrations are not considered cheating. They are a proxy to measure cheating. The cheating is administering illegal substances in the first place. The Alberto Salazar ruling is a perfect example. Salazar was testing topical testosterone on his own sons to see how much he could apply before triggering a 'positive' test. But there is no 'legal' amount of supplemental testosterone allowed. Administering ANY supplemental testosterone is against the rules, regardless of what the blood concentration ends up being.

Athletes are always guinea pigs. Don't think it's different because an IV was involved. Supplements, altitude tents, workouts, etc.

This is a terrible example. EPO is ILLEGAL. L-Carnitine is LEGAL. Someone please provide an instance where Salazar used an ILLEGAL substance on an actual athlete? That's the problem here - also why those in the know are anticipating this ban is overturned very quickly.

The idea that we're looking out for the safety of the athletes is something that has always bothered me. So we're going to let them run 100+ mile weeks and fry their adrenals but they can't take some pills? Our NFL players can collide into 300 pound linemen at top speed but they can't pop a little creatine in their shakes? The guys and gals in the X games can do potentially neck breaking stunts repeatedly on a daily basis, but they can't ingest some supplements?

themanontherun wrote:

The idea that we're looking out for the safety of the athletes is something that has always bothered me. So we're going to let them run 100+ mile weeks and fry their adrenals but they can't take some pills? Our NFL players can collide into 300 pound linemen at top speed but they can't pop a little creatine in their shakes? The guys and gals in the X games can do potentially neck breaking stunts repeatedly on a daily basis, but they can't ingest some supplements?

Some great posts here. This whole topic is a philosopher's or ethicist's dream.

First, there is the problem with what is "natural." Is eating shitloads of lean meat natural? Is going to altitude natural? Is, dare I say, TRAINING even natural? Back in like the 1910's, training was considered weak and was thought to hurt performance. LOL. Should we go back to that time to keep it pure?

And then the quoted post, along with another above, addresses a great topic. High level competitive sports are, at best, potential drains on health (joints, extreme cardio fatigue, extreme heat) and, at worst, potentially fatal. I have sometimes thought about MMA... if I were fighting in the octagon, you bet your ass I'd be taking everything I could within the grey area, because there's another guy across from me literally trying to freaking punch me in the face. Granted, it's my choice to be in the ring, but it's unfair to ask people to do these kinds of things for our entertainment (and we do ask them to, with our money, viewership, etc.) and then tell them that they can't maximize their potential and therefore their very safety.

So, it's complicated. I totally get how milking the grey area can be scene as a really nasty slippery slope that is in and of itself cheating, but I also very much get the "not milking the grey area isn't really trying" side. There's no easy answer.

Gray area? Thought this was going to be a thread about the taints of aging people. Guess not...

The problem is he went beyond the grey area. That is why he got banned.