4 ms·

Lying about it and competing against people who aren't, duh.

sintaxi 9y ago
Also, he sued and attempted to destroy the people who accused him of doping.
packetslave 9y ago
While you're not wrong about the lying, back when Lance was riding nearly everybody was doping. Tyler Hamilton's book covered it pretty well: if you didn't dope, you weren't competitive. Period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cyclin...
deepnotderp 9y ago
But there are also people who are at a major genetic advantage. For example, Armstrong uses EPO, but there are people with genetically higher amounts of EPO in their body naturally, without synthetic EPO injection, no matter how hard Armstrong trained he never would've beaten them, how is that fair?
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  If your genetics aren't up to snuff you just have to accept that you won't make it to the top.
  - deepnotderp 9y ago
    What then, is morally wrong with being more fair and using PEDs?
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      If you allow PEDs you get into a vicious cycle where people take more and more until you will see people dying again.
      - deepnotderp 9y ago
        Then regulate the effect level, e.g. "no hematocrit above 55" or whatever the safe level is. This is actually far more safe because now a wide swathe of otherwise undetectable molecules with similar effects (such as altitude gene agonist EPO alternatives) that would otherwise have been abused are controlled as well.
        grzm 9y ago
        That's not actually measuring the "effect". If your goal is to level the playing field to some sort of effect, you need to somehow balance that the effect of, say, a given hematocrit level will have a different effect in different people. There's a difference between discussing this from a morality point of view and another from a practical point of view. A game needs to have rules—that's inherent it any game or contest. Those rules can be made for any number of reasons, which can be practicality (this is something we can measure) or safety (we don't want to encourage dangerous behavior), tradition, or whatnot. Morality or ethics come in with respect to abiding by the rules or the spirit of the rules, not generally the rules themselves.
        deepnotderp 9y ago
        Sure, it will have a different effect, but that is due to external factors which can also be regulated in a similar manner. In any case, these are far more pragmatic methods than trying to find every single SARM molecule that pops up.
        grzm 9y ago
        I fail to see how it's easier to control for biological variation and physical preparation than it is to control for PEDs. And if one is going to have rules controlling one or the other, I personally would lean towards considering PEDs as a variety of equipment: some of which is allowed and some of which isn't. I can see one arguing that the athlete's body is equipment. I'd say that's generally not how people think about it, and reasonable people can disagree. What's your goal in this thread? From what I can tell, it's just an exercise in the Socratic method. Is there an actual position you're aiming for?
- hyperbovine 9y ago
  What about people who cannot still compete despite the injections? Should we allow them to affix a lawnmower engine to their bike and race the Tour de France? The point you came here attempting to prove inevitably leads to absurdities. Some sort of criterion is needed for sport to remain competitive and interesting. "Make do with what you were born with" seems like the most natural one to me.
  - deepnotderp 9y ago
    No because such devices are non-biological mechanical aids. PEDs and genetic engineering are purely biological means. I would say that it's fair to ban synthetic oxygen carriers and things like that.
    - hyperbovine 9y ago
      Which is no more or less arbitrary than saying that PEDs ought to be banned because they are unnatural. So it's a moral issue, not something that can be settled by logic. The question becomes, where do we draw the line? Most people seem to agree that "play the hand you're dealt in life" is acceptable.
      - deepnotderp 9y ago
        Not really, because most PEDs have no continuous effect in the body that's synthetic, they all synthetically induce natural effects. For this reason I say that synthetic oxygen carriers should be banned, since you cannot naturally acquire that.

Also, he sued and attempted to destroy the people who accused him of doping.

While you're not wrong about the lying, back when Lance was riding nearly everybody was doping. Tyler Hamilton's book covered it pretty well: if you didn't dope, you weren't competitive. Period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cyclin...

deepnotderp 9y ago

But there are also people who are at a major genetic advantage. For example, Armstrong uses EPO, but there are people with genetically higher amounts of EPO in their body naturally, without synthetic EPO injection, no matter how hard Armstrong trained he never would've beaten them, how is that fair?

maxxxxx 9y ago
If your genetics aren't up to snuff you just have to accept that you won't make it to the top.
- deepnotderp 9y ago
  What then, is morally wrong with being more fair and using PEDs?
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    If you allow PEDs you get into a vicious cycle where people take more and more until you will see people dying again.
    - deepnotderp 9y ago
      Then regulate the effect level, e.g. "no hematocrit above 55" or whatever the safe level is. This is actually far more safe because now a wide swathe of otherwise undetectable molecules with similar effects (such as altitude gene agonist EPO alternatives) that would otherwise have been abused are controlled as well.
      - grzm 9y ago
        That's not actually measuring the "effect". If your goal is to level the playing field to some sort of effect, you need to somehow balance that the effect of, say, a given hematocrit level will have a different effect in different people. There's a difference between discussing this from a morality point of view and another from a practical point of view. A game needs to have rules—that's inherent it any game or contest. Those rules can be made for any number of reasons, which can be practicality (this is something we can measure) or safety (we don't want to encourage dangerous behavior), tradition, or whatnot. Morality or ethics come in with respect to abiding by the rules or the spirit of the rules, not generally the rules themselves.
        deepnotderp 9y ago
        Sure, it will have a different effect, but that is due to external factors which can also be regulated in a similar manner. In any case, these are far more pragmatic methods than trying to find every single SARM molecule that pops up.
        grzm 9y ago
        I fail to see how it's easier to control for biological variation and physical preparation than it is to control for PEDs. And if one is going to have rules controlling one or the other, I personally would lean towards considering PEDs as a variety of equipment: some of which is allowed and some of which isn't. I can see one arguing that the athlete's body is equipment. I'd say that's generally not how people think about it, and reasonable people can disagree. What's your goal in this thread? From what I can tell, it's just an exercise in the Socratic method. Is there an actual position you're aiming for?
hyperbovine 9y ago
What about people who cannot still compete despite the injections? Should we allow them to affix a lawnmower engine to their bike and race the Tour de France? The point you came here attempting to prove inevitably leads to absurdities. Some sort of criterion is needed for sport to remain competitive and interesting. "Make do with what you were born with" seems like the most natural one to me.
- deepnotderp 9y ago
  No because such devices are non-biological mechanical aids. PEDs and genetic engineering are purely biological means. I would say that it's fair to ban synthetic oxygen carriers and things like that.
  - hyperbovine 9y ago
    Which is no more or less arbitrary than saying that PEDs ought to be banned because they are unnatural. So it's a moral issue, not something that can be settled by logic. The question becomes, where do we draw the line? Most people seem to agree that "play the hand you're dealt in life" is acceptable.
    - deepnotderp 9y ago
      Not really, because most PEDs have no continuous effect in the body that's synthetic, they all synthetically induce natural effects. For this reason I say that synthetic oxygen carriers should be banned, since you cannot naturally acquire that.