Cheating in sports - Specifically the Trour de France

[NobleSavage]

I'm bringing up cycling because it's something I'm familiar with. What are your general thoughts on cheating in sports, Lance Armstrong, and the "un written rules of sports"?

Lance is fairly reviled theses days, as an exercise in Morals and Principals I'll defend him.

 

[NobleSavage]

I'll start with some of the unwritten rules of of the Tour: If your opponent crashed or has a mechanical you don't attack. That is a major one.

Whatch this high speed derailleur fix. At 1:25 the rider is hanging on to the car. Cheating, but perfectly fine. This is obviously not the Tour, but it illustrates the point. Also note that person getting the water and food is a "domestique" They are paid to support the team leaders and try and win the race. Another common cheat that no one really cares about is a "sticky bottle" i.e. when the domesteque drops back to get water he holds on to the bottle for a few minutes while being pulled forward.

 

[fast]

I'm bringing up cycling because it's something I'm familiar with. What are your general thoughts on cheating in sports, Lance Armstrong, and the "un written rules of sports"?

Lance is fairly reviled theses days, as an exercise in Morals and Principals I'll defend him.

Cheating is wrong, whether it be in sports or otherwise. It's not absolute, as there must be some wild creative exceptions allowing room for justification once in a blue, so at least as a general rule, it's wrong. Even if you could find a specific case whereby a certain instance of cheating (oh say, in a sport) wasn't in that instance a wrongful act, I don't see how that would defeat the general rule that cheating (even in sports) is wrong. Is there something about sports you think serves to defeat the mostly held moral unacceptability of it?

 

[fast]

I'm unsure of whether or not an act that is seemingly wrong is therefore rightfully cheating when there is no rule against the act.

 

[NobleSavage]

I'm bringing up cycling because it's something I'm familiar with. What are your general thoughts on cheating in sports, Lance Armstrong, and the "un written rules of sports"?

Lance is fairly reviled theses days, as an exercise in Morals and Principals I'll defend him.

Cheating is wrong, whether it be in sports or otherwise. It's not absolute, as there must be some wild creative exceptions allowing room for justification once in a blue, so at least as a general rule, it's wrong. Even if you could find a specific case whereby a certain instance of cheating (oh say, in a sport) wasn't in that instance a wrongful act, I don't see how that would defeat the general rule that cheating (even in sports) is wrong. Is there something about sports you think serves to defeat the mostly held moral unacceptability of it?

Should sports just be a test of the genetics you are born with and your million dollar training? Is it fair if you weren't born with the genetics to be a campaign? You know the major reason endurance athletes take anabolic steroids is so they can train and bust their ass about 2x as much. I'll get into all the other drugs in a moment....

 

[NobleSavage]

A brief history of the Tour (with out looking up stuff). In 1903 there was a French newspaper that was trying to increase circulation. The came up with the idea of sponsoring an almost impossible bicycle race around France. From day one drugs were involved. The only goal was to cross the finish line first. People took morpheme, booze, and heroin to get through the race. A little later amphetamine became common. At some point they figured out blood doping. There is a monument for Tom Simpson who was doped up on these primitive drugs on Mont Ventoux;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSWscbjLhBI


More to come...

 

[fast]

A brief history of the Tour (with out looking up stuff). In 1903 there was a French newspaper that was trying to increase circulation. The came up with the idea of sponsoring an almost impossible bicycle race around France. From day one drugs were involved. The only goal was to cross the finish line first. People took morpheme, booze, and heroin to get through the race. A little later amphetamine became common. At some point they figured out blood doping. There is a monument for Tom Simpson who was doped up on these primitive drugs on Mont Ventoux;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSWscbjLhBI


More to come...

The days to remember! Society has changed, but only purportedly better. I'd give up the progress we've made for a month just to enjoy the ugliness of days gone by without someone to remind me of how better things are ... Been drinking.

 

[NobleSavage]

A lot of the better things "drug testing" lead to was worse things. Instead of taking safer antibiotic steroids they now take testosterone. Instead of taking EOP they have reverted back to blood doping. Now that they have the "Biological Passport" which can detect almost anything including HgH the racers have moved on to "gene doping". They give themselves a virus that changes their genetic code. This has been suspect since 1998. The doctors and private labs are always one step ahead.

And don't get the idea that the "cheaters" are in the minority, there not.

 

[NobleSavage]

I'm bringing up cycling because it's something I'm familiar with. What are your general thoughts on cheating in sports, Lance Armstrong, and the "un written rules of sports"?

Lance is fairly reviled theses days, as an exercise in Morals and Principals I'll defend him.

Cheating is wrong, whether it be in sports or otherwise. It's not absolute, as there must be some wild creative exceptions allowing room for justification once in a blue, so at least as a general rule, it's wrong. Even if you could find a specific case whereby a certain instance of cheating (oh say, in a sport) wasn't in that instance a wrongful act, I don't see how that would defeat the general rule that cheating (even in sports) is wrong. Is there something about sports you think serves to defeat the mostly held moral unacceptability of it?

Where do you draw the lines on cheating? How would you classify http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius ? If he can run faster because of artificial limbs is it ok for me to cut off my legs to get artificial limbs? How is that any different than some one taking a drug to overcome their genetic limits?

 

[NobleSavage]

OK, EPO short for Erythropoietin was the main drug in the 90s. At first they didn't have a test for it. It simply increases your red blood cell count. Now it's listed as a banned substance. Basically it's a safer method of blood doping which is also banned. But here is the thing: If you have a mountain cabin at 14K feet and sleep there and then train at sea level you body will naturally increase your red blood cells. This is impractical, so the athletes have "altitude tents" to sleep in. There are two types: a) those that look just like a tent and pump in nitrogen so there is less oxygen. b) those that are a reverse pressure chamber -- it's like really sleeping at 14K feet. Option b) works much better.

So if I don't have money for an altitude tent, what is wrong with having a doctor prescribe a safe dose of EPO?

 

[NobleSavage]

Testestron and age

When men hit age 30 their natural testosterone level drops 1% a year. Should only people under 30 be allowed to compete in the worlds best events?

The natural testosterone range is 350 – 1200 ng/dl. Should we give everyone in elite competition the same value to make the sport fair?

If you are an older man it's easy to get testosterone replacement therapy, but this would be banned in sports. Should it be? The odd thing is doctors are willing to prescribe testosterone (I guess because it's natural), but reluctant to prescribe anabolic steroids which are basically safer.

Then there is the super hormone that blows away all the others HgH. Anabolic steroids make your muscles recover much faster so you can train more. Depending on how you train they can make your muscles bigger. HgH on the other hand grows new muscle cells. There are some doctors who prescribe small doses as part of "anti againg" therapy. There are all kinds of beneficial aspects to HgH, but like everything some drawbacks. The medical community does not look favorably on anti aging, but there plenty of Doctors who will prescribe it.

Anyhow - all this will be irrelevant (if it isn't already) in elite sports with gene doping.

 

[Perspicuo]

"Sports" as they are practiced in our society are just asking for cheating.
No fun, all blind competition for extrinsic incentives.

If you approach the issue like a Catholic padre, you'll get one sort of answer: moralistic and futile in the real world.

If you appraoch the issue as if it were a behavioral experiment, you might get a rather unpopular answer: the whole culture must change if you don't want cheating, away from being an industry that demands of people superhuman feats for the delight of couch potatoes "spectators".

 

[fast]

Cheating is wrong, whether it be in sports or otherwise. It's not absolute, as there must be some wild creative exceptions allowing room for justification once in a blue, so at least as a general rule, it's wrong. Even if you could find a specific case whereby a certain instance of cheating (oh say, in a sport) wasn't in that instance a wrongful act, I don't see how that would defeat the general rule that cheating (even in sports) is wrong. Is there something about sports you think serves to defeat the mostly held moral unacceptability of it?

Where do you draw the lines on cheating? How would you classify http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius ? If he can run faster because of artificial limbs is it ok for me to cut off my legs to get artificial limbs? How is that any different than some one taking a drug to overcome their genetic limits?

Winning fair and square doesn't bring the satisfaction that exploiting people for an unfair advantage does. For me, cheating is all about actual rule violations. It doesn't make any difference how unfair or wrong my action is; if I didn't violate an actual rule, I didn't cheat.

 

[NobleSavage]

Where do you draw the lines on cheating? How would you classify http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius ? If he can run faster because of artificial limbs is it ok for me to cut off my legs to get artificial limbs? How is that any different than some one taking a drug to overcome their genetic limits?

Winning fair and square doesn't bring the satisfaction that exploiting people for an unfair advantage does. For me, cheating is all about actual rule violations. It doesn't make any difference how unfair or wrong my action is; if I didn't violate an actual rule, I didn't cheat.

So if a substance is not on the banned list (Say a chemist whips up a batch of Nandrolone with the molecules changed a little) then it's OK? And what about the unwritten rules? Would you attack when your opponent has a mechanical problem?

 

[Togo]

Where do you draw the lines on cheating? How would you classify http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius ? If he can run faster because of artificial limbs is it ok for me to cut off my legs to get artificial limbs? How is that any different than some one taking a drug to overcome their genetic limits?

Winning fair and square doesn't bring the satisfaction that exploiting people for an unfair advantage does. For me, cheating is all about actual rule violations. It doesn't make any difference how unfair or wrong my action is; if I didn't violate an actual rule, I didn't cheat.

I find my satisfaction drops quite noticeably if I believe my approach was unfair, irrespective of the actual rules.

 

[NobleSavage]

Winning fair and square doesn't bring the satisfaction that exploiting people for an unfair advantage does. For me, cheating is all about actual rule violations. It doesn't make any difference how unfair or wrong my action is; if I didn't violate an actual rule, I didn't cheat.

I find my satisfaction drops quite noticeably if I believe my approach was unfair, irrespective of the actual rules.

So what do you think about Lance? He broke the "rules" but by every measure was acting fair. Everyone was doping. There were a few guys who made a point of racing the Tour clean and they either dropped out or fell into obscurity.

 

[J842P]

I don't find any inherent nobility to pro-sports, so I don't find "cheating" inherently distasteful. If they can get away with it, more power to them.

 

[fast]

Winning fair and square doesn't bring the satisfaction that exploiting people for an unfair advantage does. For me, cheating is all about actual rule violations. It doesn't make any difference how unfair or wrong my action is; if I didn't violate an actual rule, I didn't cheat.

I find my satisfaction drops quite noticeably if I believe my approach was unfair, irrespective of the actual rules.

Yes, but although cheating may imply unfairness, the inverse isn't necessarily true; hence, an instance of unfairness isn't necessarily an instance of cheating. People have a tendency to commingle the meaning of terms. Take for instance the words, "unfair" and "immoral". I treat all my teammates with the same degree of hatefulness regardless of who they are. If they don't perform, they get smacked around. Wrong? Yes, but they are treated fairly. The judge said he doesn't care about right and wrong--only about what is legal and illegal. So long as I operate within the confines of what the rules of law will allow, then what I'm doing is lawful no matter how repugnant or vile my actions may be. I'm not going to court because smacking people around is wrong...I'm being taken because I broke laws on the books. One may think I'm cheating if I do something wrong or unfair, but what they think doesn't alter the truth of the matter. Accuse me of cheating because I cheat--not just because it's somehow (and otherwise) wrong.

 

[fast]

Winning fair and square doesn't bring the satisfaction that exploiting people for an unfair advantage does. For me, cheating is all about actual rule violations. It doesn't make any difference how unfair or wrong my action is; if I didn't violate an actual rule, I didn't cheat.

So if a substance is not on the banned list (Say a chemist whips up a batch of Nandrolone with the molecules changed a little) then it's OK? And what about the unwritten rules? Would you attack when your opponent has a mechanical problem?

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's okay (permissible or acceptable), but I may choose my words more carefully than simply referring to it cheating.

As to unwritten rules, well, that can get tricky. A rule need not be a written rule to be a rule, but we need to distinguish between a general rule and a specific rule. We can verbally alter a specific written rule (for instance a rule in chess), and if we purportedly play in accordance to those unwritten rules yet I violate them, then I have cheated. General rules is where the difficulty lies. A general rule is not the same as generally acceptable--as in some social rule, some of which aren't even rules (and yes, we should be careful not to confuse terms with referents of terms just because the terms suggests inclusions--for instance, a toy car is not a kind of car merely because the word car appears ... It's a kind of toy, not a kind of car.)

Killing is wrong, but that is only generally so, and as such it's a general rule, and as a general rule, killing is wrong. I've always noticed how football players never use a gun to ensure reaching their goals, and even if there were no specific written rules covering such acts, it would be a rule violation of sorts. Since there is no general rule prohibiting cyclists to hold to a vehicle for very short periods of time, as portrayed in the video, I'd be hard pressed to hold firm to an opinion that such acts were cheating--because it's negligible and doesn't stir controversy.

 

[NobleSavage]

This is the thing, in the Tour I'd say the unwritten rules matter much more than the written rules. No one seems to have ever given a fuck about doping, but if there is a pause pipi you better damn well stop.