Professional sports are almost 100% results oriented and as such the money and fame that come from being successful in professional sports creates a perverse incentive to cheat.
Approaching sports in a task oriented mindset is certainly good for the soul, but it's a bad career choice.
Yeah, if you enter a sporting event as a business decision, you'll do anything to win, including cheating.
Unfortunately, someone obviously very clever like Armstrong can target a sport like cycling. It's strength-endurance-strategy sport. If you've got the team, and the intelligence, and you just need extra endurance, doping is the way to go. That's the same with baseball.
But how about snooker? Endurance drugs aren't going to help you at all. How about tennis? If a game goes to 5 sets, drugs will come in handy, but you need more than strength-endurance-strategy, you also need physical skill. The top players will use skill to knock out their opponent before endurance ever becomes a problem.
Yeah, if you enter a sporting event as a business decision, you'll do anything to win, including cheating.
Unfortunately, someone obviously very clever like Armstrong can target a sport like cycling. It's strength-endurance-strategy sport. If you've got the team, and the intelligence, and you just need extra endurance, doping is the way to go. That's the same with baseball.
But how about snooker? Endurance drugs aren't going to help you at all. How about tennis? If a game goes to 5 sets, drugs will come in handy, but you need more than strength-endurance-strategy, you also need physical skill. The top players will use skill to knock out their opponent before endurance ever becomes a problem.
In sports like snooker, and other precision sports (like archery or shooting) calming or mood stabilisers can be really advantageous. Things to keep your pulse even, hands stable etc.
On a side note, the first gold medalist in parallel snowboarding, wich is a super physical sport, got removed his medal because of THC in his blood. Wich if anything, would be a disadvantage in a super physical sport.
I mean, if you can manage a fat one just before the 100 meter final — cudos (providing there is not a snickers bar at the finish line).
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.
The problem is that doping isn't standardized. Breaking the rules of a competition is problematic because you introduce uncontrolled variables that can impact the outcome.
If you want a "fair" competition, you need extensive control of variables.
But I generally feel like Scott here - everyone doped and Lance still won.
Also, he's a dick - he denied doping forever - even getting indignant about the allegations, and telling people to just work at it - and then he's like "LOL J/K I CHEATED."
He said one year he didn't dope he came in third. THIRD!!! That's still awesome! If everyone was doping and he could still come third. But by 2009, was everyone still doping?
I like the idea of starting up a no-rules doping-allowed sport... until I stop to think about it for a more than a second. F1 has so many rules in place, and nobody has died since 1994... and this is a good thing! The sport itself is as popular as ever. Cutting doping out of cycling will not make it less popular but more popular. Adding more rules probably won't make it any less popular.
I like the idea of starting up a no-rules doping-allowed sport... until I stop to think about it for a more than a second. F1 has so many rules in place, and nobody has died since 1994... and this is a good thing! The sport itself is as popular as ever. Cutting doping out of cycling will not make it less popular but more popular. Adding more rules probably won't make it any less popular.
Well, some of the rules in F1 make it safer. You have to keep those. But other rules just hold back the engineers from making even better cars. They come up with these creative things that really make the cars faster, and then the FIA bans them. Auto racing is a bit different in that the equipment matters a lot more than say, golf clubs or tennis rackets. What I would like to see in the idea distant future is a split between the constructors championship and the driver's championship. Every race weekend there will be two races. In one race there are driverless cars with almost no rules. Maybe the cars are driven by AI, or are remote controlled. That's the constructors championship.
For the driver's championship they develop one awesome safe car, and everyone drives the same car to see who is the best. The only difference would be that they could calibrate or adjust the controls, seat, etc. for the personal taste of the driver.
"They come up with these creative things that really make the cars faster, and then the FIA bans them." Yes. Keeping the top speed of cars down is what makes them waaaay safer.
"The A1GP formula provided a single "spec" car for each team. Each car was mechanically identical, built with many technical restrictions designed to limit performance, reduce running costs, and prevent any one or number of teams gaining an advantage through better equipment. This regulation provided a level playing field in which driver skill and team effort should become the primary factor for success.
Specifically, the cars had a carbon fibre monocoque with an aluminium honeycomb core chassis based on the Formula One Ferrari F2004 chassis, riding on control slick tires from Michelin. The 4.5-litre Ferrari/Maserati V8 engine was capable of delivering up to 600 brake horsepower (450 kW) in PowerBoost mode – a mechanism to provide short bursts of increased power to create additional overtaking opportunities and action throughout the race."
A1GP lasted 5 seasons, and then closed down. Would it work if happening on the same race day as F1? Maybe.
I think having unlimited AI controlled cars would be popular, but it couldn't happen on the same day as human driver races. The track would have to be empty of spectators and track stewards due to safety concerns. The cars would be going at insane speeds, and any accident would spray damaged car bits in every direction.
Not only was there the A1GP there was also IROC, and I bet others as well. I'm pretty sure that all drivers in the same car would succeed financially if it were the best drivers in the world competing seriously.
You bring up a good point about danger to spectators for an AI supercar race. I wonder if there is a creative solution to that.
I think it could happen the day after the human event. Clear out everyone and everything, and let the top constructors go at it.
I'm not sure there is a place for this kind of thing in cycling though. For pure speed, you need a human power unit despite the technology of the bike. If you allow drugs, it's no longer about human power plus mechanical engineering, but also pharmacology.
It could be fun to put Lance Armstrong on this though:
He said one year he didn't dope he came in third. THIRD!!! That's still awesome! If everyone was doping and he could still come third. But by 2009, was everyone still doping?
Well Alberto Contador won it that year, who later proved to be a doper. Oh no sorry he ate tainted meat. Was banned for 2 years and had the 2010 tour taken off him. Oh and it was a retrospective ban so he was only banned for a few months.
He said one year he didn't dope he came in third. THIRD!!! That's still awesome! If everyone was doping and he could still come third. But by 2009, was everyone still doping?
Well Alberto Contador won it that year, who later proved to be a doper. Oh no sorry he ate tainted meat. Was banned for 2 years and had the 2010 tour taken off him. Oh and it was a retrospective ban so he was only banned for a few months.
So even against dopers, an ex-doper did very well indeed. How many titles could Armstrong have won if he hadn't doped? I think one or two at least.
He said one year he didn't dope he came in third. THIRD!!! That's still awesome! If everyone was doping and he could still come third. But by 2009, was everyone still doping?
Well Alberto Contador won it that year, who later proved to be a doper. Oh no sorry he ate tainted meat. Was banned for 2 years and had the 2010 tour taken off him. Oh and it was a retrospective ban so he was only banned for a few months.
So even against dopers, an ex-doper did very well indeed. How many titles could Armstrong have won if he hadn't doped? I think one or two at least.
If nobody doped at all, he might still be winning.
For a time I even believed that he was winning due to genetically monstrous lungs.
He actually does have genetically monstrous lungs. That's just not enough to beat everybody else's genetically monstrous lungs + doping methods.
How about tennis? If a game goes to 5 sets, drugs will come in handy, but you need more than strength-endurance-strategy, you also need physical skill. The top players will use skill to knock out their opponent before endurance ever becomes a problem.
That's true, but for a given player, having more raw physical strength is never a bad thing.
I looked up the state of doping in tennis. It seems only the top players are tested regularly, and they complain that they aren't tested enough!
Murray:
"We do a fair amount of drug testing but we could do more. A lot of it has been urine, not so many blood tests. I think it's important to make sure we have all of those bases covered. I think tennis is a clean sport but the more we can do to prove that all the time is good."
Djokovic:
"We are trying to make this sport as clean as possible, as fair as possible for everybody, so I have nothing against testing and, why not, we should do it more."
Federer:
"I feel I'm being less tested now than six, seven, eight years ago. I don't know the reasons we are being tested less and I agree with Andy, we don't do a lot of blood testing during the year. I'm OK having more of that."
"I think we should up it a little bit, or a lot - whatever you want to call it - because I think it's key and vital that the sport stays clean. It's got to. We have a good history in terms of that and we want to make sure that it stays that way."
After watching Djokovic play a 5 hour game and come back 2 days later looking fresh as ever seems suspicious, but it turns out he really is just that fit. It's sickening, but that's why he's number 1 in the world. The only reason Andy Murray beat him last year was that he has also improved his fitness and strength with his new coach.
Watching Tsonga against Federer this morning you really see what sets him apart. By the fifth set Tsonga was puffing and sweating, and Federer was as consistent as every, despite not playing at his highest level.
Skill gets you into the top 10 in tennis, and skill plus extreme fitness gets you into the top 4. Then it's down to the factors in the individual tournaments to see who gets to the final and win. Doping just isn't going to help anyone get to the top over the course of the year.
Even if you did dope in Tennis, it would really only help you with endurance and maybe running back and forth faster. You still need a lot of muscle memory and years of practice to and finesse to control the ball. Drugs can't do that. When we have to start worrying is when we have The Matrix and we can "know Kung-Fu" and "know Tennis."
Isn't it a problem that Lance Armstrong is currently being punished in the court of public opinion not for the doping itself, but rather for admitting to it?
This article suggests the interview was a huge mistake for him.
Even if you did dope in Tennis, it would really only help you with endurance and maybe running back and forth faster. You still need a lot of muscle memory and years of practice to and finesse to control the ball. Drugs can't do that. When we have to start worrying is when we have The Matrix and we can "know Kung-Fu" and "know Tennis."
Yeah, that's why the masters tour and exhibition matches with old players are still super popular. It doesn't matter that they are panting before the first set is up, as you can still see some great tennis. Who would bother with masters cycling? Boring!
This article suggests the interview was a huge mistake for him.
"That's why Lance's interview was a mistake. Had he just continued lying, history says that he still would have been able to convince many people, perhaps even the majority, that he was telling the truth."
It depends what he was trying to do with the interview. Who knows what he wanted out of it, and who knows if he will get it in the future. Maybe he doesn't want history to be the judge of him. Maybe he wanted everyone to know everything from his point of view, and to have him be the new standard of caught dopers.
If someone else is caught doping in the future, maybe public opinion will want a full and open confession from the doper, rather than continuing denial. Will that be better or worse for sport in the long run?
Isn't it a problem that Lance Armstrong is currently being punished in the court of public opinion not for the doping itself, but rather for admitting to it?This article suggests the interview was a huge mistake for him.
“In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity.”
― Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
Comments
Approaching sports in a task oriented mindset is certainly good for the soul, but it's a bad career choice.
Unfortunately, someone obviously very clever like Armstrong can target a sport like cycling. It's strength-endurance-strategy sport. If you've got the team, and the intelligence, and you just need extra endurance, doping is the way to go. That's the same with baseball.
But how about snooker? Endurance drugs aren't going to help you at all. How about tennis? If a game goes to 5 sets, drugs will come in handy, but you need more than strength-endurance-strategy, you also need physical skill. The top players will use skill to knock out their opponent before endurance ever becomes a problem.
On a side note, the first gold medalist in parallel snowboarding, wich is a super physical sport, got removed his medal because of THC in his blood. Wich if anything, would be a disadvantage in a super physical sport.
I mean, if you can manage a fat one just before the 100 meter final — cudos (providing there is not a snickers bar at the finish line).
(Like minigolf on a football field, or something)
If you want a "fair" competition, you need extensive control of variables.
But I generally feel like Scott here - everyone doped and Lance still won.
Also, he's a dick - he denied doping forever - even getting indignant about the allegations, and telling people to just work at it - and then he's like "LOL J/K I CHEATED."
For the driver's championship they develop one awesome safe car, and everyone drives the same car to see who is the best. The only difference would be that they could calibrate or adjust the controls, seat, etc. for the personal taste of the driver.
The idea of all drivers racing in the exact same car has been tried before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1_Grand_Prix
"The A1GP formula provided a single "spec" car for each team. Each car was mechanically identical, built with many technical restrictions designed to limit performance, reduce running costs, and prevent any one or number of teams gaining an advantage through better equipment. This regulation provided a level playing field in which driver skill and team effort should become the primary factor for success.
Specifically, the cars had a carbon fibre monocoque with an aluminium honeycomb core chassis based on the Formula One Ferrari F2004 chassis, riding on control slick tires from Michelin. The 4.5-litre Ferrari/Maserati V8 engine was capable of delivering up to 600 brake horsepower (450 kW) in PowerBoost mode – a mechanism to provide short bursts of increased power to create additional overtaking opportunities and action throughout the race."
A1GP lasted 5 seasons, and then closed down. Would it work if happening on the same race day as F1? Maybe.
I think having unlimited AI controlled cars would be popular, but it couldn't happen on the same day as human driver races. The track would have to be empty of spectators and track stewards due to safety concerns. The cars would be going at insane speeds, and any accident would spray damaged car bits in every direction.
You bring up a good point about danger to spectators for an AI supercar race. I wonder if there is a creative solution to that.
I'm not sure there is a place for this kind of thing in cycling though. For pure speed, you need a human power unit despite the technology of the bike. If you allow drugs, it's no longer about human power plus mechanical engineering, but also pharmacology.
It could be fun to put Lance Armstrong on this though:
Murray:
"We do a fair amount of drug testing but we could do more. A lot of it has been urine, not so many blood tests. I think it's important to make sure we have all of those bases covered. I think tennis is a clean sport but the more we can do to prove that all the time is good."
Djokovic:
"We are trying to make this sport as clean as possible, as fair as possible for everybody, so I have nothing against testing and, why not, we should do it more."
Federer:
"I feel I'm being less tested now than six, seven, eight years ago. I don't know the reasons we are being tested less and I agree with Andy, we don't do a lot of blood testing during the year. I'm OK having more of that."
"I think we should up it a little bit, or a lot - whatever you want to call it - because I think it's key and vital that the sport stays clean. It's got to. We have a good history in terms of that and we want to make sure that it stays that way."
After watching Djokovic play a 5 hour game and come back 2 days later looking fresh as ever seems suspicious, but it turns out he really is just that fit. It's sickening, but that's why he's number 1 in the world. The only reason Andy Murray beat him last year was that he has also improved his fitness and strength with his new coach.
Watching Tsonga against Federer this morning you really see what sets him apart. By the fifth set Tsonga was puffing and sweating, and Federer was as consistent as every, despite not playing at his highest level.
Skill gets you into the top 10 in tennis, and skill plus extreme fitness gets you into the top 4. Then it's down to the factors in the individual tournaments to see who gets to the final and win. Doping just isn't going to help anyone get to the top over the course of the year.
This article suggests the interview was a huge mistake for him.
It depends what he was trying to do with the interview. Who knows what he wanted out of it, and who knows if he will get it in the future. Maybe he doesn't want history to be the judge of him. Maybe he wanted everyone to know everything from his point of view, and to have him be the new standard of caught dopers.
If someone else is caught doping in the future, maybe public opinion will want a full and open confession from the doper, rather than continuing denial. Will that be better or worse for sport in the long run?
― Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas