| Forum Index > Sports |
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On August 11 2016 13:40 sharkie wrote: Why do people that can't ignore doping even watch sport events? Exactly. Guys, yes, there's a high chance that most top athletes are using prohibited substances - though we could have a long debate on whether or not this is ethically wrong. Now, if you choose to believe that fact but can't ignore/accept it and enjoy on, why do you watch? | ||
|
Skynx
Turkey7150 Posts
On August 11 2016 16:54 OtherWorld wrote: Exactly. Guys, yes, there's a high chance that most top athletes are using prohibited substances - though we could have a long debate on whether or not this is ethically wrong. Now, if you choose to believe that fact but can't ignore/accept it and enjoy on, why do you watch? What? How can you genuinely say something like that? sharkie is a massive troll and mostly ignored anyway... Because it is wrong. If someone does it and other one doesn't and gets a disadvantage because of it, thats against the spirit of the competition. And yeah very objective opinion guys lol... Let's say some trash kid found an undetectable cheat and smashed every kespa player to the ground yeah sure ignore/accept it and move on right? People like Lance (and to an extent, Life) destroyed everything their fans believed in for fame and money. They deserve to be thrown under the bus and burn in hell. What was Pantani or Solar's opponent did wrong in that case? Nothing, they got robbed. What you can do is just flat out ignore sports where everyone is on drugs anyway like NBA where players health is absolutely worthless and media presentation/money is the primary objective. I don't really care a lot about swimming events but lets say 80% of sailing athletes were detected positive on doping yeah I would never follow it again. If just 5% is on doping that can not be ignored under any circumstances, as said before they should burn in hell. | ||
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On August 11 2016 13:40 sharkie wrote: Why do people that can't ignore doping even watch sport events? Because I care about the integrity of the sport, and love (to watch) swimming? Why should people cheating not bother me? I think ignoring doping sets a sad and dangerous precedent for athletes' health, besides. | ||
|
Otolia
France5805 Posts
On August 11 2016 18:21 Zealously wrote: Because I care about the integrity of the sport, and love (to watch) swimming? Why should people cheating not bother me? I think ignoring doping sets a sad and dangerous precedent for athletes' health, besides. We allow minors to compete at the highest level. That should not be allowed if you want to put the athletes health first. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
As for fair competition... Competition is rarely "fair", because individuals are not preparing in equal conditions in the first place. One athlete will have a more competent coach, who'll use methods that will make the athlete better than the same athlete would have been with another coach ; one athlete will have more genetic potential than another ; one athlete will be backed by heavy money allowing for better infrastructure and an army of coaches, physiotherapists, sports psychologists, etc. Before you jump at my throat, all that does not justify doping, but it makes the "fair competition" argument mostly irrelevant. There are still many arguments against doping, though, among them health concerns, limitation of unequal opportunities, etc. And yes, it is my belief that a vast majority of top athletes are doping in one way or another. Case in point, since you mentioned Armstrong : if you look at the power developed by him and his opponents in the mountain stages of the Tour de France, all the top finishers developed power that was too high to be achieved by a human being (all this based on calculations by Antoine Vayer, former Festina coach ; look at page 13 of this document). And I fail to see why what is true for cycling would be false for sports like track & field or swimming ; I think it would be naive to ignore that cycling has a much harsher and consistent anti-doping policy than other sports. Remember the Puerto scandal? How funny that everyone at the time focused on the riders involved, conveniently closing their eyes on the fact that a certain famous tennisman as well as several very famous Spanish football teams were part of it... All that doesn't mean that people should accept that doping is morally/ethically correct, because it's not (not for everyone, at least) ; it means that people should accept that in the current state of affairs, doping is widespread at the top level of many sports, and that its moral value is irrelevant. Should it be fought? Surely, yes, and to do that you'd need uncorrupt federations and institutions, as well as sports ethics that put the human being, not the money and fame, at the center of pro-level sports. But cherry-picking athlete X or Y as being doped because he wins too much/you don't like him/he looks suspicious/his piss is violet/he had the bad luck of getting caught/whatever and acting like a petite bourgeoise facing the reality of the world by shaming him to death is imo both naive and counterproductive to the overall fight against doping. + Show Spoiler + By the way, what did Solar do wrong? I must have missed something here | ||
|
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On August 11 2016 18:55 Otolia wrote: We allow minors to compete at the highest level. That should not be allowed if you want to put the athletes health first. That's a poor comparison and you know it. @OtherWorld: I think you're unfairly equating the word "fair" with the word "equal". No, competitors are very rarely - if ever - equal. There are too many factors that determine performance. But there is a significant difference between maximizing your performance through legal methods (Lochte's take on freestyle turns, for example, is an example of fair maximization of post-turn speed) and doing the same through illegal methods. There are no two swimmers that are exactly alike, but you cannot reasonably use that as an argument - there are no two equal people in anything, genetics and different environments already ensure that. I think you're absolutely right on that count. But I don't agree that it means competition is inherently unfair. If it is, what does "fair" even mean in context? | ||
|
Skynx
Turkey7150 Posts
On August 11 2016 18:57 OtherWorld wrote: Doping doesn't work in a binary manner. Someone doping does not mean that they'll instawin everything they enter, especially considering that (except in the very specific case of someone being the first to use a revolutionary drug), they'll not be the only one doping. I, who only exercises on a moderate basis and never swam competitively, could take everything a doctor specialized in doping could give me ; I still would probably be too bad to even win local competitions. As for fair competition... Competition is rarely "fair", because individuals are not preparing in equal conditions in the first place. One athlete will have a more competent coach, who'll use methods that will make the athlete better than the same athlete would have been with another coach ; one athlete will have more genetic potential than another ; one athlete will be backed by heavy money allowing for better infrastructure and an army of coaches, physiotherapists, sports psychologists, etc. Before you jump at my throat, all that does not justify doping, but it makes the "fair competition" argument mostly irrelevant. There are still many arguments against doping, though, among them health concerns, limitation of unequal opportunities, etc. And yes, it is my belief that a vast majority of top athletes are doping in one way or another. Case in point, since you mentioned Armstrong : if you look at the power developed by him and his opponents in the mountain stages of the Tour de France, all the top finishers developed power that was too high to be achieved by a human being (all this based on calculations by Antoine Vayer, former Festina coach ; look at page 13 of this document). And I fail to see why what is true for cycling would be false for sports like track & field or swimming ; I think it would be naive to ignore that cycling has a much harsher and consistent anti-doping policy than other sports. Remember the Puerto scandal? How funny that everyone at the time focused on the riders involved, conveniently closing their eyes on the fact that a certain famous tennisman as well as several very famous Spanish football teams were part of it... All that doesn't mean that people should accept that doping is morally/ethically correct, because it's not (not for everyone, at least) ; it means that people should accept that in the current state of affairs, doping is widespread at the top level of many sports, and that its moral value is irrelevant. Should it be fought? Surely, yes, and to do that you'd need uncorrupt federations and institutions, as well as sports ethics that put the human being, not the money and fame, at the center of pro-level sports. But cherry-picking athlete X or Y as being doped because he wins too much/you don't like him/he looks suspicious/his piss is violet/he had the bad luck of getting caught/whatever and acting like a petite bourgeoise facing the reality of the world by shaming him to death is imo both naive and counterproductive to the overall fight against doping. + Show Spoiler + By the way, what did Solar do wrong? I must have missed something here I mean I have no idea how you concluded saying all these have anything to do with what I said so I'm gona aviod writing another page or two cuz I'm bored. Life threw against Solar no? So Solar advanced and his opponent who would otherwise advance now did not due to something totally out of his control. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On August 11 2016 19:27 Skynx wrote: I mean I have no idea how you concluded saying all these have anything to do with what I said so I'm gona aviod writing another page or two cuz I'm bored. Life threw against Solar no? So Solar advanced and his opponent who would otherwise advance now did not due to something totally out of his control. Well, you expressed concerns concerning the fact that doping gave an unfair advantage to some athletes, which I adressed in my first two paragraphs ; then you said that if a low number of athletes are doping, you can't ignore it, which I adressed in my last two paragraphs. OK about Solar, I had understood it as in "Solar cheated", which I wasn't aware of. | ||
|
Skynx
Turkey7150 Posts
On August 11 2016 19:35 OtherWorld wrote: Well, you expressed concerns concerning the fact that doping gave an unfair advantage to some athletes, which I adressed in my first two paragraphs ; then you said that if a low number of athletes are doping, you can't ignore it, which I adressed in my last two paragraphs. OK about Solar, I had understood it as in "Solar cheated", which I wasn't aware of. I'll bite. You addressed 'doping gave an unfair advantage' by saying doping doesn't always win you stuff and its basically impossible to make competition 100% anyway. None of this ever points out anything suggesting 'doping doesn't give an unfair advantage'. On top of that doping doesn't make you win is irrelevant because it still gives you an advantage over others you normally couldn't attain via physical or tactical means. You say everyone is not equal in competition, well it's true but hello that's a reality of the world we are born in. Such 100% equal condition fair racing will never come to be but again this has nothing to do with doping which gives a 100% unfair racing in turn by default. Second part again I dunno where you're getting to. You say most top athletes (mid 2000-2010 cyclists as you say) are all on drugs. That what I'm trying to say anyway, the only way they counter the benefits of undetectable drugs is to use drugs themselves. Lance forced teammates to dope cuz they were unable to perform on the level he wanted otherwise, he disposed of them if they did not commit. Is that the kind of competition we looking for? On top of that, those kind of severe punishments you are talking about are what makes doping war productive and absolutely necessary. If you don't end peoples entire sporting life if they dope, then others won't back away from it and it would suggest they can do drugs and get away with it. Just stay the fuck away from it. If you are pressured to take it for whatever reason even if you don't win anything you deserve to get everything stripped from you when other people put so much on the line to get where they are while you think you can do same with meh effort on dope. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On August 11 2016 20:24 Skynx wrote: I'll bite. You addressed 'doping gave an unfair advantage' by saying doping doesn't always win you stuff and its basically impossible to make competition 100% anyway. None of this ever points out anything suggesting 'doping doesn't give an unfair advantage'. On top of that doping doesn't make you win is irrelevant because it still gives you an advantage over others you normally couldn't attain via physical or tactical means. You say everyone is not equal in competition, well it's true but hello that's a reality of the world we are born in. Such 100% equal condition fair racing will never come to be but again this has nothing to do with doping which gives a 100% unfair racing in turn by default. Second part again I dunno where you're getting to. You say most top athletes (mid 2000-2010 cyclists as you say) are all on drugs. That what I'm trying to say anyway, the only way they counter the benefits of undetectable drugs is to use drugs themselves. Lance forced teammates to dope cuz they were unable to perform on the level he wanted otherwise, he disposed of them if they did not commit. Is that the kind of competition we looking for? On top of that, those kind of severe punishments you are talking about are what makes doping war productive and absolutely necessary. If you don't end peoples entire sporting life if they dope, then others won't back away from it and it would suggest they can do drugs and get away with it. Just stay the fuck away from it. If you are pressured to take it for whatever reason even if you don't win anything you deserve to get everything stripped from you when other people put so much on the line to get where they are while you think you can do same with meh effort on dope. Doping gives you an unfair advantage, at least as long as some are more doped than others. My point is that it is far from being the only thing that gives an unfair advantage, thus that in that way (and only in that way) it is no more evil than budget differences or genetic predisposition or whatever. As for the second part, I'm not saying that this is the kind of competition we're looking for ; I'm saying this is the kind of competition that will naturally arise from the current competitive environment. Just like you can hardly blame footballers for acting like irresponsible kids when they already get paid millions at 18 and are surrounded by voracious parasites of all kinds, you can hardly blame an athlete for doping when he realizes that doping is his only chance at ever getting at the top level of his sport. Athletes with exceptionally high moral standards are, precisely, the exception, not the norm. Although I do agree that yes, an effective and harsh doping war is necessary. I'm claiming, however, that all sports are years behind pro cycling in terms of anti-doping policy, even though cycling itself still isn't perfect (in the 2016 TdF, 9 riders were above the "suspicious" treshold, but none were at "miraculous" or "mutant" level). Thus, at the current time, considering the more than lackluster anti-doping policy of many sports at the Olympics, as well as the ongoing discovery that fuckton of medals of the 2008 and 2012 Olympics were won by guilty athletes, it is likely that most top athletes out there are guilty of doping. Hence my original comment : you can accept that as the truth, and thus consider that a top athlete who gets caught is just unlucky to get caught but no more guilty than the rest of the bunch, or you can ignore that and consider that everyone is clean until someone gets caught. But if you chose the latter, you're faced with this issue : you don't know, when watching and cheering, who is clean and who is not, thus there's doubt in your head. Then why watch, if you know that some are doping and others not, thus that what you're watching is essentially pre-written? | ||
|
stilt
France2749 Posts
On August 11 2016 13:40 sharkie wrote: Why do people that can't ignore doping even watch sport events? Maybe ppl are angry because of those dopers accuse others of being doped? I don't care of all these ugly creatures, Lochte, Franklin, Phelps, Ledecky, Lily King, I could watch it without caring about dopage as you said, even if I have big doubts about Froome, I still like this guy and I hate french ppl who insult him. Dopage will always be inherent to competition, I accept this even if some cases like the Phelps one are really absurd. But in this context of new cold war, their hypocrite declarations are way too much for me. If you think that a guy who regulary beats dopers in a lot of different races in a single event during 15 years with some WR is clean, good for you but not thinking about dopage is hard. In this perpective, my favorite argument is and will always be "I have never been caught" yeah lol, I heard this every years, you have to read the testimony of the most tested athletes of the planet, the cyclists to understand that with good protections, a star would never get menaced by the test. There are still a lot of riders who should have been caught but never has and one of them is probably the biggest doper of the Tour even had. (Indurain) The biggest athlete of the olympic is a joke (and I am pretty sure he received dopage very early, it is not an uncommon thing, to give doping stuff at a 16 years old boys in some sports) I am fine with it and I am fine with the fact that a large part of Westerners believe in it, after all, 60% of the population of this planet think that I gonna burn in hell for eternity. But when he shits on others because of dopage for political reasons, that's annoying. It is as if Armstrong would have denounce in 2004 a russian athlete of dopage and this one would have been booed by brainless ppl, I know this would have never happened tho; despite his doping performance, Armstrong was a true champion. Btw, it is sure that the performances are differents in comparaison of cyling races but the way Phelps dominates the swimming world seems even stronger than a guy who rides the Alpe d'Huez in 36min 45sec. (And before someone says "u can't judge someone on his performance blabla"), I would just say that this guy (Pantani) would have crush Armstrong and from now, is dead because of cocaine. | ||
|
Mafe
Germany5966 Posts
| ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
well Badminton and shooting are my serious sports, but still! | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51489 Posts
| ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51489 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9122 Posts
Edit, yay finished 24-23 for Ro. That was insane, US was leading 23-20 with a minute left in regular time | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On August 11 2016 17:05 Skynx wrote: What? How can you genuinely say something like that? sharkie is a massive troll and mostly ignored anyway... Because it is wrong. If someone does it and other one doesn't and gets a disadvantage because of it, thats against the spirit of the competition. And yeah very objective opinion guys lol... Let's say some trash kid found an undetectable cheat and smashed every kespa player to the ground yeah sure ignore/accept it and move on right? People like Lance (and to an extent, Life) destroyed everything their fans believed in for fame and money. They deserve to be thrown under the bus and burn in hell. What was Pantani or Solar's opponent did wrong in that case? Nothing, they got robbed. What you can do is just flat out ignore sports where everyone is on drugs anyway like NBA where players health is absolutely worthless and media presentation/money is the primary objective. I don't really care a lot about swimming events but lets say 80% of sailing athletes were detected positive on doping yeah I would never follow it again. If just 5% is on doping that can not be ignored under any circumstances, as said before they should burn in hell. The ethical debate over performance-enhancing substances is much, much more complex than you've made it out to be. Probably best not to rattle that hornet's nest. | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51489 Posts
| ||
|
Otolia
France5805 Posts
| ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51489 Posts
Our best men 4s and best women 2s still to come so hopefully they can snatch couple of golds. But yeah not the best so far! | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  43620Sea  2884Rain 1916Barracks 739EffOrt  688Larva 338ggaemo 283Last 256Rush 130Hyun 103[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games singsing2160 B2W.Neo1434 Lowko442 DeMusliM429 crisheroes378 Happy334 XaKoH  244Nina204 Fuzer  176SortOf125 Hui .121 rGuardiaN48 Rex41 Trikslyr35 mouzStarbuck17 |
|
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
CSO Contender
[BSL 2025] Weekly
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Summer Champion…
SC Evo League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL Team Wars
Team Dewalt vs Team Bonyth
Afreeca Starleague
Sharp vs Ample
Larva vs Stork
Wardi Open
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
