Lance Armstrong to lose Titles, Banned - Page 45

On October 13 2012 03:58 L_Master wrote:


Yes and no. It's true he beat everyone else, and almost everyone else was indeed doping. The only caveat here is that people respond to drugs differently. If you have riders A and B who are equally talented clean, its possible that with the same doping regimen rider A will now significantly outperform rider B because he is more of a responder to the drugs.

In other words, in a field of doped cyclists Lance was clearly the undisputed best. However, we cannot say that in a field of all clean cyclists Lance would still have been the best.

On October 14 2012 15:58 Heavenlee wrote:


So, it's better to have a genetically superior ratio of fast to slow twitch muscle fibers, protein synthesis, a myostatin deficiency, limb length/proportions, whatever it is that makes you a better athlete than to have a good genetic predisposition to respond to drugs such as erythropoietin? Or are we just going to live under some happy little delusion that "talent" means "my diet is better than yours, I put in 7.354% more effort than my opponents, it's all hard work"? What about if someone is poor and doesn't have access to the amazing dieticians and the amazing equipment that someone born into a rich family would have? Is that more fair?

It's the nature of competition. It's human nature in general. It's human nature for them to want to dope to be the best because that is what gives them the edge to be the best, and it's human nature that thirteen-year-old Johnny Bob is going to cry himself to sleep at night because chugging along on his mountain bike isn't going to win him the Tour De France. But let's appeal to little Johnny Bob's sensitivity instead of nature of competition. Demonize doing what you can to get your advantage but don't you ruin that little boy's hopes and dreams. I suppose we can claim which of them is more important the same way we can claim that it's better to have the perfect muscle composition compared to the perfect response to erythropoietin.

I find it sort of amusing seeing all these people saying "what a cheater, how can he live with himself, he deserves to be humiliated publicly". In a society where we award millions of dollars and give massive amounts of attention to people for winning in physical competitions, why exactly are we judging these people so harshly for doing what they can to be the best? Because if you take enough EPO you can die, the same way that you can if you take enough pills? The same thing with steroids, let's just demonize them and make them illegal "because they're bad", then when asked why they're bad to take say "because they're illegal and against the integrity of the sport". Except you were the ones that made them illegal. thus making them bad. Forget that pretty much no one actually dies from steroids and that these are consenting, educated adults. I guess we can't let Johnny Bob buy some EPO on the street corner and dose himself to the gills or it's the cyclists' fault?

On October 14 2012 16:19 aksfjh wrote:

Eh, the only problem I have with that is how dangerous drugs and doping can be. Having the right mutations and genetic structure won't likely kill somebody at 35, but artificial enhancements can and do.

On October 14 2012 16:31 Heavenlee wrote:


You can abuse anything with improper use. Look at how many people die from preventable cardiovascular disease from shoving burgers in their mouths, smoking, alchohol, all that good stuff. But since it's legal and we don't needlessly idolize them then it's an accepted part of life. It's sports, physical competition---you're going to get your ACL torn, crash your bike, whatever.

If it's an issue for something like idiot young kids using it and not knowing proper procedure (how they're going to manage blood doping or whatever is up to them I guess), then give an age limit, but making some arbitrary rules on what's legal based on the supposed "danger" of something is silly when you can go out and find a study that eating too much pineapple is dangerous. How many people actually have died from steroids---actual steroids, not messed up needles, weird illegal batches mixed with whatever, improper post-cycle therapy? How many have died from EPO---actual EPO, done within the normal range that isn't considered "oh wait, if I stop moving for a second I'm going to turn into a statue?"

I don't necessarily agree with doing things that will possibly hurt you of course. I don't disagree either. I'm not going to take up smoking or do blood doping but whatever. I guess at least blood doping could potential make you millions or just give you a pretty kickass RBC count whereas smoking's major benefit is a nice little upper?

On October 14 2012 16:39 sluggaslamoo wrote:


The problem is this gives people the idea that if they want to be the best, they have to dope to be the best. I'm sure there are champion olympians out there who are doing things perfectly legally, it would be unfair to them if suddenly if it became legal to dope because they don't want to ruin their bodies.

Allowing people to dope would take all the respect out of the sport.

On October 14 2012 16:55 Heavenlee wrote:


But it's just public perception, not some actual real underlying cause for concern. You demonize something because it gives "ignorant" people a potentially false notion. These guys aren't dropping left and right like flies from doing EPO, it's not some actual major health concern plaguing the sport. At least relatively. The actual healthy thing to do is jog on the treadmill and eat some broccoli and avoid all this rigorous exercise. I mean, it's pro level physical sports.

Look at football--you're going to get smashed to pieces and feel like an old man in about three years with or without steroids. You'll probably actually feel better if you're jamming yourself with testosterone, IGF, HGH because all these synthetic hormones are turning you into Superman. I mean, EPO is increasing your oxygen levels/red blood cell count, that's pretty damn healthy. You die from being so healthy that you're clogged with oxygen-carrying vessels. It's not respecting your body by any means, it's doing what you can to excel at a sport. The entire idea of training and exercising is tearing yourself down so your body frantically piece itself back together.

So things required to be an Olympian nowadays that the average person doesn't have:

god genetics
illegal performance enhancers
know the right people
money
world-class training facility/coach
other

The respect of the sport is some intangible, socially-created notion. Think of what we're talking about---guys riding around on bikes. Guys running down a field with a ball of pigskin. The main bias we have going into this argument is that performance enhancers are bad. That leads to your argument that doping to be the best is bad---but why is that? Because doping is illegal, illegal is bad, bad is illegal.

And since illegal is bad and what they're doing is illegal, those that achieve what those cheaters can do without the use of illegal substances are "good" and we should aspire to be like them. These people though, like I said in my earlier rant, are where they are pretty much because they have the top-tier niche genetics for their particular sport along with having a variety of opportunities most other people don't. You're not going to be a champion Olympian just because you work hard and you're not getting held back from being a champion Olympian because you don't dope---you're not going to be a champion Olympian because the rest of us are meant to be presidents and rocket scientists instead.

On October 14 2012 17:09 Caihead wrote:


Doping is bad because it ruins your body and creates an uneven playing field, do you seriously think that people think doping is bad BECAUSE they are illegal in the same way that recreational drugs are bad because they are illegal? The issue is also not simply whether or not Armstrong is doping, it's the fact that he will not admit to it. He isn't championing the notion that doping is okay, that notion is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

On October 14 2012 17:14 Heavenlee wrote:


Alright, prove to me that it ruins your body.

Pretty much my entire last post was about how the "uneven playing field" is laughable because they have so many other things that give them an uneven playing field over other people that it's just one of many.

On October 14 2012 17:16 Caihead wrote:


Burden of proof is on you who is challenging a publicly accepted notion, not on me.

The entirely point of promoting an even playing field is to eliminate uneven aspects when you can, not use existing phenomenon to excuse further abuses of the notion. If you are challenging the fact that sports should even be played on an even playing field in the first place then we disagree fundamentally on that assumption and there's nothing else to say

On October 14 2012 17:24 Heavenlee wrote:


Um, okay. My proof is that testosterone is a naturally occurring hormone that benefits you and that when you inject it you get more of it that makes you all strong and stuff though it might increase your acne and atrophy your balls until you begin to produce your own again. People with naturally super-high testosterone don't really have any negative side effects. You give it to people without enough of it so it improves their life. HGH is pretty good for you unless your epiphyseal plates haven't closed and it gives you gigantism. Also it might make your organs massive but you should probably not just smash the stuff into your body, try to limit it. IGF I guess can give you cancer? What doesn't though, amirite? EPO is pretty good at healing wounds and creating red blood cells which are those things that carry oxygen around your body, you will also notice that cyclists tend to take it because it makes them better at riding bicycles. They tend to die from it because they take so much of it that it clogs them all up.

Things that also are bad for you if you take too of it: pretty much everything.

On October 14 2012 17:30 Caihead wrote:


So you are operating under the fact that as long as you make the personal decision / commitment to take something it's okay if you can deal with the side effects, which would be okay if this action only affected you and that you could predict all the consequences and be responsible for side effects such as cancer, but you can't. And also there isn't simply personal responsibility at stake here, there's also responsibility to your social environment and to the field you are competing in.

Bloody hell to address the fact again, if there is no uneven playing field, the goal isn't to further exploit it, but to work on creating an even one. So yes I'm also in principle opposition of corruption in sports, buying your way into teams, social corruption to get into positions, preventing people who are poor the ability to engage in sports activities, and so on.

On October 14 2012 17:38 Heavenlee wrote:


Okay, so you're just drawing more arbitrary lines. I agree somewhat with the paragraph up until "that you could predict all the consequences and be responsible for side effects such as cancer (a thing not caused by testosterone or EPO)" . The "predict all the consequences" part makes no sense. You can't predict the consequences for pretty much anything in the real world. We're allowed to smoke, drink, shove hamburgers down our throat, ride motorcycles, join the military, become professional athletes that tear their bodies apart in the pursuit of physical perfection (I like this one), have unprotected sex, have sex in general, not wash our hands after going to the bathroom, and a bunch of other little deviant things. It's called life, it has risks. We are adults that can make our own decisions, yes, society tends to acknowledge that in most cases even if it frowns upon them.

What is the social environment being impinged upon? Again you are drawing an arbitrary line. I'll agree that doping is illegal and is by definition against society, but the point I'm making is that it being illegal is stupid in the first place. They're not fulfilling their responsibility to the social environment because the social environment is stupid. It encourages people to be the best they can be and to excel in their sport for money and adoration, but it creates random restrictions that "destroy the reputation" of the sport in the first place.

On October 14 2012 17:53 Caihead wrote:


You need to be able to reasonably predict your actions to be responsible, this isn't difficult morality. You need to be responsible for personal actions and the outcomes which you can predict. If you don't know what potential consequences your actions will have, or if you know for a fact that a certain action will render you incapable of being responsible, then it isn't responsible. Doesn't matter if it's doping, drunk driving, or any of the examples you listed.

If you dope then your social environment is your team, your family, and people who care about your physical well being, as well as your competitors. It isn't a "random restriction", any more than it is a random restriction to have any other rules or regulations in a sport. By doping you are infringing on other people's freedoms to enjoy a fair game, or a family life with out a member getting cancer from a preventable source, and so on, I can't believe I have to explain this word by word. By saying that you can make your own decisions also assumes that you will be responsible for those actions, the freedom to make that decision comes with that responsibility and consequence.

Again, this has almost nothing to do with this scenario in the first place, Armstrong isn't admitting to doping, nor is he endorsing it, nor is he campaigning to legalize it, nor is he raising awareness on the integrity of the sport. Lying / denying your action is in complete antithesis of acknowledging it and attempting to explain it.

To address your later points, if you fail to acknowledge that sports should be played on an even field with rules which promote that fairness, then there isn't any point continuing this conversation. You are just commenting on social phenomenon which exist, inequality exists, okay. So what's the solution? Attempt to even out the inequality, or let the privileged have everything and leave nothing for everyone else? A societal system maintains order and collective progress almost solely on the premise that every person is given the opportunity for that inequality to be overcome.

On October 14 2012 16:55 Heavenlee wrote:
You're not going to be a champion Olympian just because you work hard and you're not getting held back from being a champion Olympian because you don't dope---you're not going to be a champion Olympian because the rest of us are meant to be presidents and rocket scientists instead.

On October 14 2012 20:10 Grumbels wrote:
Heavenlee, you have no idea what you're talking about.

In the past it used to be the case that the most talented people won, no matter really what their training program or team arrangements were. With EPO it changed to who had the best doping set-up, since the difference was that massive. Armstrong was successful because he hired the best doctor and had the best story - which made the cycling federation hesitant to punish him.

And EPO kills, the reason it doesn't anymore is because they set a quite low limit on how much of a percentage of red blood cells you're allowed to have, which limits the effectiveness. There's no good way to square that with your 'just dope' point of view, because this limit is designed to prevent doping as much as possible. (even if it still gives a big enough benefit to warrant doping) If you remove this limit you'd just get people getting to 65% red blood cells again. There was a study done where if you ask olympic athletes something like: 'a pill to win the event, but you die in x years', then a high percentage took it. There will be people that will become so doped up they'll risk their life, but it'll be okay just so they can win. See Armstrong, who got cancer.

Imagine a situation for Starcraft. Let's say there exists various micro/macro bots that you can use in-game and they were undetectable. The game changes from having mechanically talented players win to having those with the right connections to the right bot designers win. In your fantasy world this would be okay.

On October 14 2012 15:58 Heavenlee wrote:


So, it's better to have a genetically superior ratio of fast to slow twitch muscle fibers, protein synthesis, a myostatin deficiency, limb length/proportions, whatever it is that makes you a better athlete than to have a good genetic predisposition to respond to drugs such as erythropoietin? Or are we just going to live under some happy little delusion that "talent" means "my diet is better than yours, I put in 7.354% more effort than my opponents, it's all hard work"? What about if someone is poor and doesn't have access to the amazing dieticians and the amazing equipment that someone born into a rich family would have? Is that more fair?

It's the nature of competition. It's human nature in general. It's human nature for them to want to dope to be the best because that is what gives them the edge to be the best, and it's human nature that thirteen-year-old Johnny Bob is going to cry himself to sleep at night because chugging along on his mountain bike isn't going to win him the Tour De France. But let's appeal to little Johnny Bob's sensitivity instead of nature of competition. Demonize doing what you can to get your advantage but don't you ruin that little boy's hopes and dreams. I suppose we can claim which of them is more important the same way we can claim that it's better to have the perfect muscle composition compared to the perfect response to erythropoietin.

I find it sort of amusing seeing all these people saying "what a cheater, how can he live with himself, he deserves to be humiliated publicly". In a society where we award millions of dollars and give massive amounts of attention to people for winning in physical competitions, why exactly are we judging these people so harshly for doing what they can to be the best? Because if you take enough EPO you can die, the same way that you can if you drink enough alcohol? Smoke enough cigarettes?

The same thing with steroids, let's just demonize them and make them illegal "because they're bad", then when asked why they're bad to take say "because they're illegal and against the integrity of the sport". Except you were the ones that made them illegal, thus making them bad. Forget that very few people actually die from steroids/EPO/whatever and that these are consenting, educated adults. I guess we can't let Johnny Bob buy some EPO on the street corner and dose himself to the gills or it's the cyclists' fault. Make alcohol legal, let a couple people overdrink and poison themselves and they're a couple idiots, but god forbid some fool re-uses a needle and gives himself an abscess---then he's a criminal and an idiot, which is far worse.