Lance

this thread has taken an interesting turn, I like the discussion of what constitutes a "performance enhancing drug"

What about the debate of a "natural" substance, as opposed to a "man made" one? Better performance through eating better/natural foods/herbs as opposed to popping a pill or whatever. There are some herbs that "claim" some of the same effects I am sure, though I am not well versed on the subject from a sports performance perspective.
 
bonefishjake said:
really? i'll argue the opposite all day. even at the GU level, it's a PED. protein shakes? PED. creatine? PED. why take them if not to get better? it is a slippery slope and as athletes progress and competition gets more fierce, it's natural to look for more potent enhancers. at the top levels, those enhancers, while they vary and are significantly more potent, are still enhancers. for the elite, the trip from legal to illegal is a quick one.

FALSE: Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we’ll be doing something that we don’t want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldn’t do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible.
Click to expand...
 
Arwen's Mom said:
this thread has taken an interesting turn, I like the discussion of what constitutes a "performance enhancing drug"

What about the debate of a "natural" substance, as opposed to a "man made" one? Better performance through eating better/natural foods/herbs as opposed to popping a pill or whatever. There are some herbs that "claim" some of the same effects I am sure, though I am not well versed on the subject from a sports performance perspective.
Click to expand...

Natural vs man made seems like a pretty arbitrary distinction to me.
 
1speed said:
I wouldn't argue that different types of electrolyte and/or endurance foods are or aren't PEDs.<snip>
I get your rationale for GU being a PED, and I even get your idea that the real PEDs and gels or energy drinks could be linked, but I think it's a much wider gap between them than you imply. I take in GUs (actually, HammerGel because it tastes better! 😀) so I can finish a race without my muscles burning up and turning into immovable objects. They don't make me better at racing. They just make sure that despite my best efforts, I don't burn away every ounce of muscle glycogen before I'm done.
Click to expand...

i've seen the gap first hand and i know it's not that far. you and i (well, me for sure) don't factor into this b/c our livelihood is not dependent upon performing at X level.

on my best days i'm just a bag of meat on top of an marginally expensive bike.

JoeLee said:
FALSE: Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we’ll be doing something that we don’t want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldn’t do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible.
Click to expand...

fine, it's not a slippery slope based on the strictest of definitions. but you cheated and googled that. google is the new intwebz PED.
 
JoeLee said:
FALSE: Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we’ll be doing something that we don’t want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldn’t do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Moreover, I think that it's not even necessarily a case of restraint. This is where I disagree with Jake's argument of the direct link between energy gels and PEDs. I think it's not only a wide gap between them, it's not even realy a single slope. Too much inference is required to get from gels to PEDs. It relies on a an assumption I believe is fundamentally flawed -- that the reasons for using one is directly linked to the other. They're not. I still hold to the notion that taking a gel recognizes a wish to replace something that has been used up. Taking a PED recognizes a wish to create something that was never there before. I'd say that simply training is more closely linked to taking PEDs* than taking a gel is. In the two former, you are creating a level of performance that would not be there otherwise. But (hopefully) you line up for a race with a certain level of electrolyte balance in your body and gels help re-balance those levels during the event. They don't create what was not there previously.

* The difference between training and PEDs, of course, is precisely the definition of cheating: in one, you build those previously non-existent levels of performance by suffering and pushing on your existing limits. This takes time and dedication. In the other, you take a shortcut that requires much less effort for much greater gain -- and which may have greater benefit for you than for someone else who does a comparable amount.

(Check it out -- I used a footnote in a forum post. I must be right. 😀 )
 
1speed said:
I agree with this. Moreover, I think that it's not even necessarily a case of restraint. This is where I disagree with Jake's argument of the direct link between energy gels and PEDs. I think it's not only a wide gap between them, it's not even realy a single slope. Too much inference is required to get from gels to PEDs. It relies on a an assumption I believe is fundamentally flawed -- that the reasons for using one is directly linked to the other. They're not. I still hold to the notion that taking a gel recognizes a wish to replace something that has been used up. Taking a PED recognizes a wish to create something that was never there before. I'd say that simply training is more closely linked to taking PEDs* than taking a gel is. In the two former, you are creating a level of performance that would not be there otherwise. But (hopefully) you line up for a race with a certain level of electrolyte balance in your body and gels help re-balance those levels during the event. They don't create what was not there previously.

* The difference between training and PEDs, of course, is precisely the definition of cheating: in one, you build those previously non-existent levels of performance by suffering and pushing on your existing limits. This takes time and dedication. In the other, you take a shortcut that requires much less effort for much greater gain -- and which may have greater benefit for you than for someone else who does a comparable amount.

(Check it out -- I used a footnote in a forum post. I must be right. 😀 )
Click to expand...

whoa, hold on- i don't think i ever said there was a direct link, did i? well, i guess i technically did if i said it was a slippery slope.

the point is, once one start taking ANYTHING and it makes performance better, it becomes easier and easier to justify taking stronger things, particularly when one's livelihood is depended on said performance.

would you take a pill that made you a superhero?
 
bonefishjake said:
would you take a pill that made you a superhero?
Click to expand...

Naaaaah ... being a superhero sounds like a lot of work ... I've found that setting a low bar and consistently doing just enough to achieve it and no more ensures a long and relatively easy life firmly ensconced in the middle.
 
MST.ESQ said:
And now for my personal opinion: Levi, TommyD, Vande Velde, Hincapie, etc. can all go to hell. They lied to all of us. My son holds them up as idols. WTF am I supposed to say to my kid? "Sorry dude, turns out the whole freaking sport is full of dopers and liars." They should have received lifetime bans also - fair is fair. I don't know what is worse, doping 5 years ago, or implicitly lying about it after the fact. I will never think the same of them and consider them in the same camp as Landis. What a freaking shame.
Click to expand...

Asking for infallible humans as heroes and idols can only end in disappointment. Not trying to pick a fight, but that is a simple truth since time immemorial.

I am of mixed emotions about the confessions, but moreso vis a vis comments from Adam Meyerson and Joe Lindsey re: guys who walked away and never saw prize money or sat by while Lance trashed the careers of people like Frankie Andreu or Emma O'Reilly. I think a mile in their moccasins would be interesting. Vaughters made a good comment recently that asking 19 to 25 year-old males to make good, responsible decisions has also proven difficult over the course of history, especially when with other young males in a foreign country with no strong leadership around.
 
Arwen's Mom said:
this thread has taken an interesting turn, I like the discussion of what constitutes a "performance enhancing drug"

What about the debate of a "natural" substance, as opposed to a "man made" one? Better performance through eating better/natural foods/herbs as opposed to popping a pill or whatever. There are some herbs that "claim" some of the same effects I am sure, though I am not well versed on the subject from a sports performance perspective.
Click to expand...

The USADA's criteria for banned substances:

"So how does a substance or method make its way onto the WADA Prohibited List?

Typically, a substance or method will be considered for the WADA Prohibited List if the substance or method meets any two of the following three criteria:


1) It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance
2) It represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete
3) It violates the spirit of sport"

#2 makes sense, but lots of gray area there. #3 is pretty subjective. Regardless, they publish the list, the riders agree to it, they catch you using any of 'em, you're out.
 
Some interesting announcements here. I'm not surprised by the Nike announcement (SOP for a business like theirs: wait to gauge the public response, then make a final decision on continuing support for Armstrong.) But stepping down from Livestrong is interesting -- it kind of blows his typical response to questions out of the water. Hard to shift focus to your work against cancer if you are no longer affiliated with that fight anymore. I'm guessing this wasn't his decision -- it was pressured from the rest of that organization.
 
The latest that I heard is that Lance's attorneys offered to put him up for a lie detector test. IMO, I would rather see them offer a challenge. Six months for the entire cadre of now-confessed and convicted dopers to train - 3 race series with a sprint, time trial and 3 day stage race in the mountains. Winner gets redemption. I bet Lance wins.

(Contador does not get to play. He is too young and his Clembuterol conviction was thin at best - and this comes from someone who loathes the man.)
 
stb222 said:
Regardless of the drugs and whatever this commercial hits home for me in a lot of ways.
Click to expand...

+1 I think he just finally said f-it, I'm tired of wasting my $$ on legal fees especially when there is always someone next in line to try to discredit him. He's a champion amongst dopers..whatever, time to move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom