Yes, doping is/was against the rules, but why is it that we consider an advantage due to using knowledge of biochemistry different from the advantages some riders have due to knowledge applied to better equipment, better training regimens, better nutrition, hyperbaric chambers, etc.? Why do we choose that category of knowledge to be inapplicable? If we really wanted all of the riders to be on a level playing field, why don’t we dictate the equipment they’re allowed to ride, what they’re allowed to eat, how they train, etc.? I read a comment in the NY Times recently where the reader said that doping is unfair because individuals that are physiologically better able to use the doping agents get an unfair advantage, but that is already true for other training methods, like weight training. Armstrong (and nearly everyone else that competed at the top level) broke the rules. But why were those rules chosen in the first place? The logic is not clear to me at all.
Putting people who play by the rules on a pedestal happens too rarely in our world. I like the idea behind this toon. I do not understand the people who seem to be posting angrily because the awards were taken away once there seemed enough evidence. I am still a fan of Lance Armstrong because, unlike many overpaid athletes, he used some of his money to create the Livestrong Foundation and that organization, from which he has resigned, does wonderful work for people with cancer. But my question is this-Do we want our athletes to use drugs that enhance their performance?Respectfully,C.
Hi Michael. Thanks for the thoughtful response. I accept the idea that there are rules and that established rules were clearly broken. I was trying to get at why particular rules exist when others do not. Granted, messing with one’s biochemistry can be dangerous, but, as you pointed out there are ways of playing with ones biochemistry, like vitamins or currently acceptable food supplements, that are legal. And while using many of the banned substances carries risks, so do particular diets and supplements. In many sports, competing, with or without PEDs, carries significant risks to the athletes, and many professional athletes suffer problems with their bodies as they age because of what they did to win in their prime. So, on the one hand the rationale for controlling whether or how athletes can use chemicals that can harm them makes lots of sense to me. One the other hand, lots of things are safe at particular doses but dangerous at higher ones. (The lab-grade sucrose we use in the lab for certain solutions comes with warnings about the dangers of ingesting it!) Overdoses of fat-soluble vitamins is possible. So I’m still left with the question, “Why are certain substances banned rather than allowed within limits?”
It’s not so much a libertarian point of view for me (there are some issues that I agree with libertarians and others that I do not). It’s trying to understand our cultural bias against certain ways of getting an edge over opponents in a competition. The rules committees for these sports can make any rules they please as long as they don’t contradict laws on the books. I just find it interesting and puzzling why we allow so much latitude in certain areas and so little in others. It seems to me to be a cultural bias as much as anything. FWIW, in the ’80s there was a big controversy about whether to allow Greg Lemond to use and aero-helmet and aerobars on his bike for the final time trial when he was a full 50 seconds behind the race leader (a very large gap to make up in a time trial). The rules committee allowed him to use the special equipment and he made up the entire 50 seconds and then some. Without the special equipment, he would have most likely lost. No one else used the aero equipment, so one could argue he had an unfair advantage in that race even though the rules committee let him use the equipment.
wolfhoundblues1 over 11 years ago
Yes, change the rules after the fact to accuse him. Then ruin his reputation.
Nebulous Premium Member over 11 years ago
How long until we find that there has never been a winner for the Tour de France?
iamthelorax over 11 years ago
It’s already been figured out when the 10 cyclists behind him also failed the tests.
retpost over 11 years ago
SIGN SHOULD SAY DOPING-FREE CYCLIST— LAST PLACE FINISHER
MurphyHerself over 11 years ago
Armstrong is in such great shape that Lewis Black says we should all dope like he does:)
NC1974 over 11 years ago
ROTFLMAO!
crlinder over 11 years ago
Yes, doping is/was against the rules, but why is it that we consider an advantage due to using knowledge of biochemistry different from the advantages some riders have due to knowledge applied to better equipment, better training regimens, better nutrition, hyperbaric chambers, etc.? Why do we choose that category of knowledge to be inapplicable? If we really wanted all of the riders to be on a level playing field, why don’t we dictate the equipment they’re allowed to ride, what they’re allowed to eat, how they train, etc.? I read a comment in the NY Times recently where the reader said that doping is unfair because individuals that are physiologically better able to use the doping agents get an unfair advantage, but that is already true for other training methods, like weight training. Armstrong (and nearly everyone else that competed at the top level) broke the rules. But why were those rules chosen in the first place? The logic is not clear to me at all.
chazandru over 11 years ago
Putting people who play by the rules on a pedestal happens too rarely in our world. I like the idea behind this toon. I do not understand the people who seem to be posting angrily because the awards were taken away once there seemed enough evidence. I am still a fan of Lance Armstrong because, unlike many overpaid athletes, he used some of his money to create the Livestrong Foundation and that organization, from which he has resigned, does wonderful work for people with cancer. But my question is this-Do we want our athletes to use drugs that enhance their performance?Respectfully,C.
crlinder over 11 years ago
Hi Michael. Thanks for the thoughtful response. I accept the idea that there are rules and that established rules were clearly broken. I was trying to get at why particular rules exist when others do not. Granted, messing with one’s biochemistry can be dangerous, but, as you pointed out there are ways of playing with ones biochemistry, like vitamins or currently acceptable food supplements, that are legal. And while using many of the banned substances carries risks, so do particular diets and supplements. In many sports, competing, with or without PEDs, carries significant risks to the athletes, and many professional athletes suffer problems with their bodies as they age because of what they did to win in their prime. So, on the one hand the rationale for controlling whether or how athletes can use chemicals that can harm them makes lots of sense to me. One the other hand, lots of things are safe at particular doses but dangerous at higher ones. (The lab-grade sucrose we use in the lab for certain solutions comes with warnings about the dangers of ingesting it!) Overdoses of fat-soluble vitamins is possible. So I’m still left with the question, “Why are certain substances banned rather than allowed within limits?”
crlinder over 11 years ago
It’s not so much a libertarian point of view for me (there are some issues that I agree with libertarians and others that I do not). It’s trying to understand our cultural bias against certain ways of getting an edge over opponents in a competition. The rules committees for these sports can make any rules they please as long as they don’t contradict laws on the books. I just find it interesting and puzzling why we allow so much latitude in certain areas and so little in others. It seems to me to be a cultural bias as much as anything. FWIW, in the ’80s there was a big controversy about whether to allow Greg Lemond to use and aero-helmet and aerobars on his bike for the final time trial when he was a full 50 seconds behind the race leader (a very large gap to make up in a time trial). The rules committee allowed him to use the special equipment and he made up the entire 50 seconds and then some. Without the special equipment, he would have most likely lost. No one else used the aero equipment, so one could argue he had an unfair advantage in that race even though the rules committee let him use the equipment.