Drugs in Sport

[Spudulika]

There may be closer examination of cycling, but is it fair to frame it as the sport getting picked on? Could it be argued that the intense scrutiny ensures there's a greater demand for teams and their cyclists to stay clean or for the authorities to enhance their investigative procedures, which would benefit the sport overall, assuming we all want it to be drugs-free? Or do you think it's possible that many cyclists, who may well be clean, are victims now of an unreasonable suspicion that tarnishes their reputation almost by default simply by virtue of being professional cyclists?

I suppose it's human (rather than necessarily sociopathic) to attempt to rationalise one's position or actions. It's a matter of perspective and one's personal values and standards are derived from their circumstances and context. Within cycling, there may be a collective moral conformity to a type of group-think (that is, if doping is as widespread as is often suspected). When one gradually finds themselves in a position where perceived abuse or exploitation of some nature is the natural order of things, they'll likely try and deceive/justify it until continuing to deceive/justify it is no longer viable or until it actually becomes self-damaging. I suppose Lance Armstrong is a good example of that. He was convinced that he was right all along - he was also protected by others within the sport and in the know encouraging him and telling him he was right - whilst others, especially those outside of cycling, might view him now as a total sociopath. Personally, I have very little time for him and would be sympathetic to the latter view, but that's no more than my opinion. I'm sure plenty of others have simply never been caught out, whilst whistle-blowers are exceptionally rare, lest they be seen to be diverging from the orthodoxy and shunned by their colleagues and profession. Would most pro cyclists openly or publicly admit to taking "vitamins" even? Wouldn't that needlessly arouse suspicion?

I was watching a BBC programme, 'The Super-Rich and Us', the other day and it was interesting to listen in interview to how those who were benefiting materially from the way British society is presently organised (the extraordinarily-rich upper percentiles getting exponentially richer and the poor - or everyone else even - getting relatively poorer, with huge variations in economic equality, prospects and opportunity) rationalised the accumulation of vast and astronomical (obscene to some) levels of wealth at the expense of the remainder of society; "wealth benefits all and filters down", "wealth is not finite and spurs further economic growth"... They were absolutely convinced of the righteousness of their privileged lifestyle, even with an explicit awareness of the impoverished, probably because people have an innate desire to do what they personally think is right, reasonable or just or to at least convince themselves and others that what they're doing is right. I'm not really convinced that people do "bad" simply for the sake of doing "bad".

You may well be aware of Oxford bio-ethicist Julian Savulescu? My brother mentioned him to me after having encountered him on the BBC's 'Hardtalk' (where he also made a case for genetic engineering). He's very compelling in argument and has long been trying to make the case for the permitting of performance-enhancing drugs in sport. As he says, the rules in place are completely arbitrary and ultimately derived from a whichever sporting fraternity favouring one particular set of values over another set; neither set being necessarily, inherently or objectively more right or wrong than the other.

Danny, I use picked on as it seems fair in the wider context. Rugby has been rotten for many years, soccer too, yet they escape due to status and money. Tennis and Golf are also problem areas but again - status and money. Boxing is a problem sport and in America it slides from the radar despite obvious signs. UFC the same, but at least they ban fighters from time to time, sometimes over and over! Other sports, weightlifting, wrestling only come on the radar in times of Olympics. And this moves into the realm of your last paragraph. Most rules were set down during the Victorian era when the hoi polloi were not involved and gentlemen played for sport/corinthian ideals. So I believe it should be put in an entirely different context.

[DannyInvincible]

Most rules were set down during the Victorian era when the hoi polloi were not involved and gentlemen played for sport/corinthian ideals. So I believe it should be put in an entirely different context.

Would you advocate a complete overhaul of the rules governing various sports generally in order to see them brought up-to-date wiith room made for "modern sporting values" (as opposed to the, one might say, archaic and out-moded ideals of the gentleman) or have I misinterpreted?

[DannyInvincible]

Armstrong remains unrepentant - says he'd cheat again if he was back in 1995 - yet wants to be forgiven: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/30981609

[Spudulika]

Would you advocate a complete overhaul of the rules governing various sports generally in order to see them brought up-to-date wiith room made for "modern sporting values" (as opposed to the, one might say, archaic and out-moded ideals of the gentleman) or have I misinterpreted?

I believe that there should be something brought in to do with the health of participants rather than the advantage on the field/track. But how to square that in events like ufc? Or in boxing, or rugby, or soccer? Would bodybuilders care about their health anymore than a cyclist or the trainers about their horses? I don't think so. Yet we cannot have a free for all freak show. We cannot advocate a clean Olympics and a drug one, as money and media won't allow it, and in the human nature it won't happen.

I look at rugby as a great case in point. The big jump up about Paul Kimmage mentioning drugs in rugby, I still think there's more to come from this and a former Irish captain/legend, but in the meantime he is right. When I lived and played rugby in Croatia there were players from the leading team juicing up. They trained in mma gyms in Split and more than 2 were caught and done for doping, one of the guys Vlado Ursic - was done more than once. And yet he was the choice for the rugby union to go coaching in schools (even though he's a lousy coach) and clubs! And dropping down a few levels, here in the federal league even players on my own team were taking amphetamines to get hyped up for matches, and our last cross city opponents are prolific dopers, but nothing will happen, and they all know what they are doing to their bodies. But that is an aside.

When I played schools and junior club rugby (in the olden days) the collisions were tough, but I could handle them, everyone could. Now I'm seeing monsters at lower levels and the collisions are harder and the impact far worse than before. And the style of rugby now on display is to run players over rather than jink around them. Put together this "strategy", with artificial muscle mass and amphetamines and you have carnage on the field and long last damage off it.

But what to do? I don't know. Only that I would be very against my kids going anywhere near sports at anything more than a fun level.

And Lance Armstrong - he has a point, but he is also odd. And I wonder about the full interview - need to hear it and then make a judgement. But all dopers do the same, blame others and deny, then try to spin. Politicians and dopers, nothing like them.

[Crosby87]

German fans on meth.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...an-doctor.html

[Spudulika]

Listened to excerpts from the Armstrong interview and now just read part of an interview with Pat McQuaid. I didn't hear or read anything major out of line from either. Both realistic and decent. It is funny how McQuaid was demonised and destroyed by certain media factions, especially inthe British media, only to lose to someone who has a very dodgy recent record with doping.

[passinginterest]

Bad news for the UFC with Anderson Silva testing positive for steroids on his comeback and his opponent Nick Diaz positive for marijuana for the third time. I suppose the recent spate of positive tests might be seen as a good thing in the longer term, as it show's that testing is being taken seriously.

Silva is the really disappointing one as he's long been seen as a leading light in MMA and seemed to be respected by pretty much everyone.

[Mr A]

Neil Francis column mentions meeting an old foe who had played for France and not recognising him because he was so much smaller. The explanation was simply that the guy stopped taking steroids on retirement.

I wonder what his reference to professionalism making it a level playing field now really means...

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugb...-30985416.html

[Stuttgart88]

Neil Francis column mentions meeting an old foe who had played for France and not recognising him because he was so much smaller. The explanation was simply that the guy stopped taking steroids on retirement.

I wonder what his reference to professionalism making it a level playing field now really means...

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugb...-30985416.html

I wouldn't be one to rush to rugby's defence on some issues, including drugs, but it's not exactly a scientific heresy to suggest that a change in lifestyle and diet can lead to weight loss.

Don't rugby and Sumo both have established "debulking" programs for retired athletes?

[Mr A]

In this case the player himself attributed the change to stopping taking steroids. Maybe he was wrong about why his body changed, but the admission of using them while playing is the central point.

[Stuttgart88]

Sorry, I didn't pick up on the player admitting it. I thought Francis had just assumed it.

[Spudulika]

Neil Francis column mentions meeting an old foe who had played for France and not recognising him because he was so much smaller. The explanation was simply that the guy stopped taking steroids on retirement.

I wonder what his reference to professionalism making it a level playing field now really means...

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugb...-30985416.html

Interesting that Francis is one man who is pushing this, though his stable mate (Kimmage) also has pushed it. If they can solidify the link between the PED's - collisions - body and brain damage, this is the only way to make rugby sit up and take notice. Looking at the state of some players yesterday made me worry.

On an aside, last week I was talking with the uncle of one player I used to manage. She was one of the "great hopes", a leftie, who just went to seed. Her conditioning and mentality was terrible and it never improved when she was sent to a Spanish academy as a teen. Her uncle said that she was ostracised from the rest of the academy for refusing to drink "shakes" and go for special pre-season training. The same stuff as another former client was asked about, but did, and we dropped her like a hot, well, thing from your nose. And the reward? She made her Fed Cup debut for Russia! Yet her physical transformation has been immense - she works with the right doctors and yet everybody stays quiet.

Until kids start dying and autopsies reveal the real damage, nothing will change in tennis or rugby.

[Spudulika]

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/201...logy-statement

Can someone explain why the doper just gets a year suspension, but the supplier gets 4 years?

And the lack of self-awareness in this:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/201...hletics-crisis

[Macy]

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/201...logy-statement

Can someone explain why the doper just gets a year suspension, but the supplier gets 4 years?

I don't have a problem with the enablers getting longer suspensions. They create the environment that makes athlete's feel the need to dope.

And the lack of self-awareness in this:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/201...hletics-crisis

Lack of self-awareness is one thing, but it's a bit disappointing that the Guardian didn't point out that she'd also served a suspension for missed tests.

[Spudulika]

I don't have a problem with the enablers getting longer suspensions. They create the environment that makes athlete's feel the need to dope.


Lack of self-awareness is one thing, but it's a bit disappointing that the Guardian didn't point out that she'd also served a suspension for missed tests.

Macy, I am not against enablers - far from it, but they're more like pushers (in a gear sense), but the athlete is both the junkie AND the main person. It's just a bit too, I don't know, weird. And I was looking at some of the reasons for the prison sentence, like conspiring to pervert the outcome of games (this was a charge if I read it correctly), so it was a mafia type law used against him. But surely the athlete was doing the same thing, juicing up to mess with results.

The Guardian piece - it's so typical of journalism. The piece is basically targetted at "exposing" the IAAF or (in British speak) - dirty johnny foreigner. So the fact that the interviewee missed tests, can beat other doped athletes doesn't raise a question, or merit one. I just think it's a depressing reflection of our media.

[Acornvilla]

Wayne Odesnik off of tennis infamy, done for doping again, 15 year ban.

[Spudulika]

Wayne Odesnik off of tennis infamy, done for doping again, 15 year ban.

Amazing for a man who turned stoolie to help the ITF. He was ostracised by so many players (with some exceptions) and now this...

[BonnieShels]

Dr Bill Cuddihy just on Newstalk talking about the WADA reports.

[Charlie Darwin]

Very interesting BBC Panorama documentary by Mark Daly on doping in sport, focusing explicitly on Mo Farah's coach Alberto Salazar, just finished. Would seriously recommend playing it back if you didn't see it.

[Spudulika]

Very interesting BBC Panorama documentary by Mark Daly on doping in sport, focusing explicitly on Mo Farah's coach Alberto Salazar, just finished. Would seriously recommend playing it back if you didn't see it.

Watched this and the afters with Mo's "meltdown" and reports of his missed tests.....himself, Bolt and many others will come in for a land. The latest Sunday Times revelations should at least ring some bells. The IAAF, ITF, FIFA and many others should stand up and be counted now in just creating a path forward. I virulently object to doping on one reason - health! Forget cheating, it's health. And the health of kids especially. It's going to get a lot worse!