Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cycling Doping Fallacies

thenewleafjournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 113 posts

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#101

Post by light_hue_1 »

diath wrote: post #6

Unpopular opinion but I really think that all competitions should be untested like WSM. As it currently stands, the competition in most sports is about who has the resources to best hide their PED use.

It's easy to say, why don't we have an olympics where people can do whatever they want. Take any drug that they want.

The problem is, are we ok with people burning out their bodies in their 20s? And ending up dead or with horrific side effects that torture them for the rest of their lives?

And how much agency do some of these people have in their late teens early 20s when they start doing these drugs? Are we just allowing their parents and governments to put crazy things in their bodies, effectively ruining their futures, so that they can win?

The drugs used in cycling are extremely dangerous. Dozens of cyclists have died from doping, and those are just the ones we know about. Look up a documentary about Marco Pantani if you want to see the horrific effects of doping. He wrecked his body to the point where he couldn't sleep for long periods without risking a heart attack. He had to cycle at night on a stationary bike to stay alive. Sadly he passed away at only 34.

If we adopt this system where we just let people dope as they wish, we're signing their death warrant. No better than watching gladiators fight to the death.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#102

Post by ip26 »

TheCondor wrote: post #100
wavemode wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about safety, really - most performance-enhancing drugs are detrimental to the body of the enhanced. If someone eats lots of potatoes and that gives them the energy to perform well at soccer, their performance was certainly "enhanced" by a "substance", but nobody would care.

They can be dangerous, properly administered they tend not to be. In the early part of the epo era, a number of lesser pros and amateurs killed themselves by thickening their blood with epo. Most of the serious dopers are still incredible specimens without much in the way of negative physical effects, they all had doctors monitoring them though. The psychological aspects have possibly been more dangerous than the che…

They slept with their heart monitors on. And they set an alarm to sound if their heart rates dropped below a certain level. On hearing the alarm, you then got up out of bed, got onto your bike [...] and pedalled for ten minutes to re-start your circulation.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/xdpbnd/he-just-wanted-to-tak...

How is that not a negative physical effect?

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#103

Post by jamiek88 »

ImprovedSilence wrote: post #80
whoiscroberts wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Euro football different when we talk about doping? I catch the odd Euro soccer match once in a while, all those dudes have amazing stamina…

oh for sure. every big money sport is loaded with doping and most hardly test. NFL, soccer, hockey, baseball (still), even golf I’d bet on.

Avid recreational golfers steal their grand/parents beta blockers to help with putting and swing smoothness as well as nerves.

There is a lot of prestige and a lot of wealthy people who play golf.

The same type of person who are obsessed with cycling instead will dope at a crazy level.

So no doubt the pros for whom millions are on the line, have their little helpers.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#104

Post by msrenee »

opportune wrote: post #86
aredox wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A French sci-fi author wrote a novel where they do what you proposed... It is called "La guerre olympique" - the Olympic war. Needless to say it is a pure dystopia.

Damn. I guess there’s no point in trying it because that guy wrote a fiction novel portraying it as bad. OTOH bodybuilding (the part people care about) and some strength sports allow PEDs. Some people do die young from steroid abuse, but not a lot of top dogs.

Body building is an interesting example to choose here. The top dogs often do die young. It seems like it's just kind of accepted as the cost of the sport.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#105

Post by readthenotes1 »

philwelch wrote: post #3
readthenotes1 wrote: post #2

[flagged]

I find it odd that you pour scorn on an article that, in the end, agrees with you: > Despite having seen many arguments that one can extrapolate clean dominance from doped dominance, I will make the case that when a critical mass of the dramatic personae are doping, it is impossible to say what would have happened in a world where everyone was clean.

The author admitted that they have gone into Fantasyland at the beginning of the article too.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#106

Post by hoseja »

kmeisthax wrote: post #45
dogmatism wrote: post #26

1) Armstrong was (is) an asshole who destroyed careers and lives, which is part of why they threw the book at him as opposed to others 2) That said, 7 in a row is still incredible. While he had a few incidents, he was always able to recover and never had an injury or illness that knocked him out. If Roglic could say the same, he'd probably have won at least 2 Tours if not three 3) Of course they're still all doping.…

Regarding #5, the main reason why these substances are banned is that they have long-term health consequences beyond what normal performance in the sport might do to the athletes. It's not just a matter of "ok maybe we just have separate clean and doped leagues so we can have literal supermen running around the sportsball field". That being said, the NFL already chews through athletes anyway so maybe they've already…

I don't care the gladiators die eventually. They don't much either. "But isn't there somebody you forgot to ask?", says the longhouse.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#107

Post by pi-e-sigma »

rqtwteye wrote: post #91
dogmatism wrote: post #26

1) Armstrong was (is) an asshole who destroyed careers and lives, which is part of why they threw the book at him as opposed to others 2) That said, 7 in a row is still incredible. While he had a few incidents, he was always able to recover and never had an injury or illness that knocked him out. If Roglic could say the same, he'd probably have won at least 2 Tours if not three 3) Of course they're still all doping.…

In my view the problem with doping is not that pros take it. The problem is that when pros take PED and do basically impossible stuff this trickles down into amateur and youth sport. So you end up with teenagers and amateurs taking everything they can get without any doctors supervising how much they take. So you have teen athletes ruining their health while trying to make it to the top because it’s the only way to p…

That's the outcome of making doping illegal and not really related to the pros doing it. When you ban doping you make it safe (for some definition of it) only for those who can afford professional supervision, which is super expensive because the doctors doing it are braking the law, too.

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#108

Post by pi-e-sigma »

diath wrote: post #6

Unpopular opinion but I really think that all competitions should be untested like WSM. As it currently stands, the competition in most sports is about who has the resources to best hide their PED use.

I agree with you. There would be some positives, too. We would get proper scientific studies on how steroids and all the other performance drugs work, their benefits, risks etc. I'm sure it would push medicine forward, long term. Banning doesn't work, people do doping anyway, but it's all underground

Re: Cycling Doping Fallacies

#110

Post by mistrial9 »

ajcp wrote: post #8
Swizec wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That his celebrity and accolades were obtained fraudulently Important to remember that when they took Armstrong’s trophies away, the next person who hadn’t yet been caught doping finished 10th. During that era of cycling, 87% of top 10 finishers tested positive for doping at least once. https://www.businessinsider.com/lance-armstrong-doping-tour-... That doesn’t excuse his doping, of course. It just means that at t…

> baseline requirement for competing at the top levels of cycling. I agree, and for cheating in a sport Mr. Armstrong should be stripped of those awards given for such feats and no other judgement outside of that need be applied. However, Mr. Armstrong did not simply cheat; he actively and openly sought to destroy the lives and reputations of those who said otherwise. THAT was not a baseline requirement for competing…

so he is a "villian" .. and due to his trajectory, a famous "villian" .. is this really new? you suggest a scarlet letter?
Post reply on HN