›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Lance Armstrong

StarfoxStarfox
edited January 2013 in News
He admitted to doping for all 7 tour victories.

I am of two minds on the issue. He broke the rules, which is not ok. At the same time, if your sport has an unenforceable rule, you either need to reevaluate your rules, or develop some way to enforce them.

Furthermore, he has done a lot of good outside of his cycling exploits. For example, half a billion dollars for cancer research. Thoughts?
«1

Comments

  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    If your sport is a test of human capabilities, and you don't want to play by the rules, get out of the sport.
  • StarfoxStarfox
    Is any sport not a test of human capabilities? That's part of the definition of sport I think.
  • GregGreg
    How is it that doping enhanced his performance? Biochemically, that seems unintuitive to me.
  • BronzdragonBronzdragon
    Is any sport not a test of human capabilities? That's part of the definition of sport I think.
    Don't start this discussion here again please.... We've all had that discussion here.

    Is chess sport? It doesn't test the human body's physical limitations.
  • BronzdragonBronzdragon
    How is it that doping enhanced his performance? Biochemically, that seems unintuitive to me.
    Basically, it reduces the feeling of fatigue/pain. It's not good for you in the long run, but he has plenty of time to recover between races.
  • StarfoxStarfox
    It's not just the feeling of fatigue, blood doping/EPO actually boosts your body's capacity to send oxygen to your muscles.
  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    Is any sport not a test of human capabilities? That's part of the definition of sport I think.
    Sure. So if you're breaking rules on purpose, get out of sport. Why ruin it for everyone?

  • NeitoNeito
    Why ruin it for everyone?

    I'm pretty sure his millions of dollars, giant charitable foundation, and rock star ex-girlfriend should be a valid answer to that.
  • RymRym
    Is this cheating the same as the rampant cheating in speedwalking?
  • StarfoxStarfox
    I'm pretty sure his millions of dollars, giant charitable foundation, and rock star ex-girlfriend should be a valid answer to that.
    image
    Don't forget winning.
  • onewildonewild
    But he didn't win, nobody won the Tour for those 7 years. He has been stripped of all his titles and medals. Not only did he cheat, he also bullied people that dared to speak the truth and bullied his team mates into cheating.
  • AprecheApreche
    Everyone doped, and he still won. If nobody doped, he still would have won. What if everyone at the poker table has an ace up their sleeve. Isn't the winner still the best? Either way, he cheated, so he doesn't win. You break the rules, you are disqualified.

    There is a separate discussion on whether the rule should exist. Why not use any technological means necessary to win? They already use all kinds of advanced bike technologies. It's like that swimsuit they used in the olympics. It's fair if you give one to everybody.

    I just really feel bad for the few people on the tour who didn't cheat. They stripped Lance of his titles. It wouldn't be impossible to go back and find out, statistically or judicially, who cheated and who did not, and give the trophies to the best cyclist who did not cheat.
  • StarfoxStarfox
    Is this cheating the same as the rampant cheating in speedwalking?
    Sure, I could buy that. A big part of many sports is how much you can get away with breaking the rules. In football, you get a 10 yard penalty for holding, but the ref has to see you do it. So linemen try to hold the other guys as much as they can In cycling, you get a however-long ban for EPO, but they have to catch you.
    But he didn't win, nobody won the Tour for those 7 years. He has been stripped of all his titles and medals. Not only did he cheat, he also bullied people that dared to speak the truth and bullied his team mates into cheating.
    Stripping titles is another discussion, but don't forget he did win those until a couple months ago.
  • StarfoxStarfox
    I just really feel bad for the few people on the tour who didn't cheat. They stripped Lance of his titles. It wouldn't be impossible to go back and find out, statistically or judicially, who cheated and who did not, and give the trophies to the best cyclist who did not cheat.
    This is another conundrum. Dealing out victories ex post facto like that leaves a really bad taste in my mouth, but saying "nobody won" isn't good either. Further complicating matters is the fact that it's not like you can make people forget who crossed the finish line first.

    If there was some way to tell 100% (even retroactively) who was cheating and who wasn't, that would be one thing, but statistical/witness testimony isn't that. Statistics might get you close, but how do you set the confidence threshold? One in a million? I would say the top riders on the tour are certainly one in a million human beings. More likely one in a billion at least.

    I don't know any good solutions. Mostly I feel bad for everyone who gave it their best shot playing by the rules.
  • Anthony HemanAnthony Heman
    I guess I support the doping. The guy strikes me as living in a fantasy world and being a bit of a dickbag, but the system at the time put him and every other competitive cyclist at that level into that position. I guess my problem with the whole thing is I don't see voluntarily taking some medical risks (when well informed) as a moral wrong in itself.

    What I wanted to see for the whole story was out-and-out honesty. This is where the money comes from, this is what was going on, here were the motivations, and we ended up being shitty role-models and got caught when the conspiracy to keep it quiet innevitably broke down.
  • AprecheApreche
    I really just want to have the other discussion of should doping be against the rules. Why not just allow it? What would be so bad about that? You would still see who is the best because the playing field would be level.
  • AxelAxel
    But what about cyclists who didn't want to dope? What about people who don't want to alter their body in any way?

    Maybe a doping and non-doping league?
  • BronzdragonBronzdragon
    I really just want to have the other discussion of should doping be against the rules. Why not just allow it? What would be so bad about that? You would still see who is the best because the playing field would be level.
    The problem is that it's bad for your health, and allowing it would mean every athlete would have to risk his health to be competitive.
  • StarfoxStarfox
    edited January 2013
    Why not just allow it? What would be so bad about that? You would still see who is the best because the playing field would be level.
    At least for some sports, the dope is bad for you. I don't know if there are any long-term effects of the ones cyclists use, but roids (track & field, football, baseball) really mess you up.

    Yeah, what he said. ^
    Post edited by Starfox on
  • Anthony HemanAnthony Heman
    Just quit trying to view athletic competitions as being coherent across generations. Cyclists today shouldn't be measured against cyclists from fifty years ago.
  • RymRym
    The problem is that it's bad for your health, and allowing it would mean every athlete would have to risk his health to be competitive.
    So just like American Football.

  • SailSail
    I feel like it's also somewhat arbitrary defining what "medicinal"/biological enhancements are cool and which are not.
  • AprecheApreche
    I feel like it's also somewhat arbitrary defining what "medicinal"/biological enhancements are cool and which are not.
    People want to draw this line between what is biologically or genetically intrinsic and what is artificial and external. Sometimes the line is clear. Sometimes the line is clear. If you are born 7'7" like Manute Bol, that's ok for basketball. But if I have rocket shoes, that's not ok for the 100 meter dash. Sometimes the line is not so clear. What if I want to be a jockey, and I purposely put myself through malnutrition, so I don't grow properly? What about Tommy John Surgery?

    I have come to see the line between the two as not just blurry, but as nonexistent. All these biological and mechanical technologies we have are part of our DNA. Human beings have the miraculous ability to create better bicycles, better swimsuits, and better drugs. So let's use them! To ban the use of things we have worked so hard to develop is to put an artificial handicap on the whole human race.

    When it comes to fair competition, you just have to make sure that all such technologies are equally available to all participants. If someone comes up with some crazy all carbon bicycle, let them use it as long as they are able to provide one for any racer who wants one.

    Almost every athlete is putting themselves at considerable risk just by participating. Look at auto racing. If you want to do auto racing, and maybe are very good at it, but don't want to risk crashing, then you don't do it. It's that simple. I bet there are plenty of people throughout history who had the ability to be world champions in one sport or another, but chose not to participate because of risks or dangers involved. If you don't want to increase your power with drugs, then you don't bike competitively.
  • nothingnothing

    There is a separate discussion on whether the rule should exist. Why not use any technological means necessary to win? They already use all kinds of advanced bike technologies.
    This is actually an interesting point. The UCI has all sorts of really heavy restrictions on the technologies you are allowed on your bike, and all changes must be reviewed. Competition bikes, in all their glory, are actually a lot slower than they would have to be. Especially in velodrome cycling, there is quite a lot of annoyed riders whom feel that UCI is holding the sport back by not letting them ride their material to the full potential.
  • WalkerWalker
    There is a difference between risking your health with athletics and throwing them down the toilet with drugs. The health problems from extended performance-enhancing drug use aren't a risk, they're a guarentee.
  • AprecheApreche

    There is a separate discussion on whether the rule should exist. Why not use any technological means necessary to win? They already use all kinds of advanced bike technologies.
    This is actually an interesting point. The UCI has all sorts of really heavy restrictions on the technologies you are allowed on your bike, and all changes must be reviewed. Competition bikes, in all their glory, are actually a lot slower than they would have to be. Especially in velodrome cycling, there is quite a lot of annoyed riders whom feel that UCI is holding the sport back by not letting them ride their material to the full potential.
    They should find whatever the most amazing fastest lightest best bike we can currently build is, and then make it available to every racer.

    I can't find any reference to it, but I heard a story that someone once used a prone bicycle in a race, and that resulted in making a rule against them. If they were better, why didn't everyone just switch instead? Wikipedia says a prone bicycle is being used to set the land speed record, so shouldn't that be what is used in races?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prone_bicycle
  • AprecheApreche
    There is a difference between risking your health with athletics and throwing them down the toilet with drugs. The health problems from extended performance-enhancing drug use aren't a risk, they're a guarentee.
    Brain damage from playing football is pretty much a guarantee. Foot damage from ballet dancing is a guarantee. Losing your teeth in hockey is a guarantee. The people who do those things don't seem to care, and do them anyway. If you do care, then simply don't do those things.
  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    I could type out a response to all these points, but my view of sports comes down to the same thing. If you're planning on breaking the rules, don't play the game. That's the only admirable course of action, and the only "sportsmanlike" thing to do.

    If you want to race against other dopers, organize your own race. Current races have rules, so if you don't like them, either try to get them changed or make up new ones for your own event, but don't make up new personal rules for an existing event v
  • StarfoxStarfox
    They should find whatever the most amazing fastest lightest best bike we can currently build is, and then make it available to every racer.

    Wikipedia says a prone bicycle is being used to set the land speed record, so shouldn't that be what is used in races?
    Who is "they," and what does "make it available" mean? Someone still has to pay for the equipment.

    As for the second part, I don't know. Maybe you're more likely to injure yourself on a prone bike? Also straight-line speed isn't necessarily the best for biking up (or down) a mountain.
  • ChurbaChurba
    May not have been sportsmanlike, but he did come first in 7 tour de france races. That's pretty dope.
Sign In or Register to comment.