• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Topically . . .

I'll also add that it's not "cheating" for someone with a lot of money to live and train for a few weeks at a high altitude ski resort like Alpe d'huez where you body naturally raises the red blood cell count. But if you can't afford that an EPO pill will do the same thing.
 
what possible fulfilment can athletes get from knowing full well they acquired their achievement by cheating on their fellow competitors? I just don't get it.

Depends on the sport. Let's look at the Tour de France and the big mess that was made of Lance Armstrong. The year before Lance won the entire French flagship team Festina got kicked out for drugs. The year right after Lance won 7 in a row, the winner Floyd Landis, got caught. The guy who was always #2 in Lance's shadow, Jan Ullrich, stated that Lance deserves every 7 Tour Wins because everyone was doped up.
There is a reason they vacated the title. There was no one to be trusted to award the Tour to in that period.

A few guys made a point about racing the Tour clean and they never finished.
I thought Danny Pate was clean.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll also add that it's not "cheating" for someone with a lot of money to live and train for a few weeks at a high altitude ski resort like Alpe d'huez where you body naturally raises the red blood cell count. But if you can't afford that an EPO pill will do the same thing.
It seems peculiar that illegal enhancement drug use isn't punished the same way as illegal drug use. How many steroid drug users are in jail today?
 
There is a reason they vacated the title. There was no one to be trusted to award the Tour to in that period.

The UCI (The international board for cycling) had the matter settled. He passed the drug tests. They have never been as puritan as the US. We like our Heros clean. The French were kinda pissed because Lance denied it so adamantly -- but, what was he supposed to say? I don't think he set out to be a hero for cancer. It was USADA (The US Anti Doping Agency) that really went after Lance. And then, after it came out the UCI vacated the titles.
I thought Danny Pate was clean.
Who knows? Team Sky, has been very ant-doping publicly, but one of their riders got busted right before the Tour. Now, there is a big brouhaha about Team Sky's Chris Froom's win this year. People are saying the watts generated per kilo could only have been done on drugs. Team Sky is saying hackers stole his power meter data to frame him. At this point, I wish they would just say, "fuck it, do what ever you want" and use the info for science.
 
Last edited:
It seems peculiar that illegal enhancement drug use isn't punished the same way as illegal drug use. How many steroid drug users are in jail today?
Well, they don't usually get them on possession. That was what was unique about the Festina affair They found a team car filled with drugs. The French Police raided the hotel they were staying at and riders were flushing shit down the toilet and jumping out the windows. Some of them were jailed, but France doesn't have the stupid drug laws that the US has.
 
Just looking up some info out of curiosity. The NFL didn't start testing for HGH until 2014. Hum, something that works better than steroids wasn't being tested in the NFL? Those 300lb guys would never touch it, I'm sure.

"You pretty much have to be a fool to test positive'' at a team facility, said Travis Tygart, the CEO of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency.

Tygart and other leaders of the anti-doping movement say testing alone will not find cheaters -- especially because the current test detects synthetic HGH in a person's system for only 48 hours.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11832255/nfl-hgh-blood-testing-setup-flaws

I think if I really dig into this I will find that the drug tests are mostly for show and the usage of PEDs are the rule more than the exception.
 
what possible fulfilment can athletes get from knowing full well they acquired their achievement by cheating on their fellow competitors? I just don't get it.

Money, fame. I don't know about where you live, but my culture encourages seeking external rewards for behavior and discourages intrinsic motivations such as developing one's own conscience.
 
But they obviously know that unless they cheat they won't win, so the desire to cheat is predominant in their minds, thus proving that it is a form of mental illness - QED?

Cheating is defined as violating the sanctioned rules. We(society and all its representative bodies) institute rules so we may predict the behavior of others. Its comforting to assume everyone subscribes to the same rules, but this is simply not realistic. Whether the prize is a gold cup, the admiration and envy of others, or a coupon for a large pizza, each of decides how much effort is warranted to win.

Rules are arbitrary and often include clauses which make weaker contestants more competitive. Lance Armstrong is a famous cheater, but he peddled his bicycle every meter of the race. He didn't take a shortcut and meet them at the finish line. It turns out, he's a cheater. I can understand why a grown man with no marketable skills would think winning a bike race was important, especially after returning from a contest with cancer, where there are no rules and sometimes a doctor will remove a testical, or some other body part.

Lance wanted to win and he did. No one can dispute that. He also violated an arbitrary rule that actually had nothing to do with riding a bike. He didn't push anyone over or let the air out of their tires. Maybe he is mentally ill, but mental illness is defined by a set of rules no less arbitrary than the rules of the Tour de France. It's entirely possible to construct a set of rules which defines lack of desire to win at any cost, to be a human failing, and thus a mental illness.

Sports have lots of unwritten rules. You are not supposed to fight in hockey, but it's a huge part of the sport. In cycling the rule is do it, but don't talk about it. There was a minor domestique in 2012 that had a chance of winning a one day stage. He started talking shit. He was in a breakaway and Lance chased it down and told the other riders (not even on his team), "no, this guy does not get to win today". He made a "zip the lips" gesture to the camera. Anyone, who knew anything about cycling understood it.

 
what possible fulfilment can athletes get from knowing full well they acquired their achievement by cheating on their fellow competitors? I just don't get it.

Money, fame. I don't know about where you live, but my culture encourages seeking external rewards for behavior and discourages intrinsic motivations such as developing one's own conscience.
Well, the 4th grade teacher hands out reading assignments where the characters find internal rewards to be rewarding and motivational. This is so that students in grades 5 through 12 can be broken into groups for group work, where six students will tell the one student who wants a good grade that they appreciate his efforts and sign their names when he's done.
The other kids in the group are all on team sports where the coach screams at them that finishing the race in second place is how to identify which racers qualify as failures.
 
Cheating is defined as violating the sanctioned rules. We(society and all its representative bodies) institute rules so we may predict the behavior of others. Its comforting to assume everyone subscribes to the same rules, but this is simply not realistic. Whether the prize is a gold cup, the admiration and envy of others, or a coupon for a large pizza, each of decides how much effort is warranted to win.

Rules are arbitrary and often include clauses which make weaker contestants more competitive. Lance Armstrong is a famous cheater, but he peddled his bicycle every meter of the race. He didn't take a shortcut and meet them at the finish line. It turns out, he's a cheater. I can understand why a grown man with no marketable skills would think winning a bike race was important, especially after returning from a contest with cancer, where there are no rules and sometimes a doctor will remove a testical, or some other body part.

Lance wanted to win and he did. No one can dispute that. He also violated an arbitrary rule that actually had nothing to do with riding a bike. He didn't push anyone over or let the air out of their tires. Maybe he is mentally ill, but mental illness is defined by a set of rules no less arbitrary than the rules of the Tour de France. It's entirely possible to construct a set of rules which defines lack of desire to win at any cost, to be a human failing, and thus a mental illness.

Sports have lots of unwritten rules. You are not supposed to fight in hockey, but it's a huge part of the sport. In cycling the rule is do it, but don't talk about it. There was a minor domestique in 2012 that had a chance of winning a one day stage. He started talking shit. He was in a breakaway and Lance chased it down and told the other riders (not even on his team), "no, this guy does not get to win today". He made a "zip the lips" gesture to the camera. Anyone, who knew anything about cycling understood it.

eo]

Pride goeth before.
 
Cheating is defined as violating the sanctioned rules. We(society and all its representative bodies) institute rules so we may predict the behavior of others. Its comforting to assume everyone subscribes to the same rules, but this is simply not realistic. Whether the prize is a gold cup, the admiration and envy of others, or a coupon for a large pizza, each of decides how much effort is warranted to win.

Rules are arbitrary and often include clauses which make weaker contestants more competitive. Lance Armstrong is a famous cheater, but he peddled his bicycle every meter of the race. He didn't take a shortcut and meet them at the finish line. It turns out, he's a cheater. I can understand why a grown man with no marketable skills would think winning a bike race was important, especially after returning from a contest with cancer, where there are no rules and sometimes a doctor will remove a testical, or some other body part.

Lance wanted to win and he did. No one can dispute that. He also violated an arbitrary rule that actually had nothing to do with riding a bike. He didn't push anyone over or let the air out of their tires. Maybe he is mentally ill, but mental illness is defined by a set of rules no less arbitrary than the rules of the Tour de France. It's entirely possible to construct a set of rules which defines lack of desire to win at any cost, to be a human failing, and thus a mental illness.

Sports have lots of unwritten rules. You are not supposed to fight in hockey, but it's a huge part of the sport. In cycling the rule is do it, but don't talk about it. There was a minor domestique in 2012 that had a chance of winning a one day stage. He started talking shit. He was in a breakaway and Lance chased it down and told the other riders (not even on his team), "no, this guy does not get to win today". He made a "zip the lips" gesture to the camera. Anyone, who knew anything about cycling understood it.

That was in 2004. I remember when he rushed the peloton when George Hincapie was looking to capture the yellow jersey, most likely for just a day. The peloton didn't catch him, but Armstrong's team was able to make up enough time to keep Hincapie who had recently testified in the Grand Jury, I believe, from getting a night in the Yellow Jersey. I didn't know about the previous incident in '04.
 
The UCI (The international board for cycling) had the matter settled. He passed the drug tests. They have never been as puritan as the US. We like our Heros clean. The French were kinda pissed because Lance denied it so adamantly -- but, what was he supposed to say? I don't think he set out to be a hero for cancer. It was USADA (The US Anti Doping Agency) that really went after Lance. And then, after it came out the UCI vacated the titles.
I thought Danny Pate was clean.
Who knows? Team Sky, has been very ant-doping publicly, but one of their riders got busted right before the Tour. Now, there is a big brouhaha about Team Sky's Chris Froom's win this year. People are saying the watts generated per kilo could only have been done on drugs. Team Sky is saying hackers stole his power meter data to frame him. At this point, I wish they would just say, "fuck it, do what ever you want" and use the info for science.
What I don't get is that the wattage between the competition isn't that big of a difference. We are talking about a few miles of extra effort on the climbs. Heck, Froome wasn't even being charged with doping, but having something in the bike that was generating wattage. Honestly, I find it hard to believe that the Tour was evidence of Froome doping, but not Quintana, "Ride the back wheel" Contador, or Porte.

What I find the most telling in cycling is how the Schlecks fell off the face of the earth.
 
What I don't get is that the wattage between the competition isn't that big of a difference. We are talking about a few miles of extra effort on the climbs.

On a mountain climb watts per kilo are about the only thing that matter. There isn't much team strategy or chess playing on a steep grade. Maybe if there is a strong cross wind... There were 7 mountain stages in the 2015 Tour. How many total miles? I don't know, but a lot more than a few.
 
To quote the eminent and wise Donald Trump:
It's not whether you win or lose, it's whether you win!


Not the first:

Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.

- Henry Russell ("Red") Sanders 1930

With that sort of attitude being hammered into many athletes, is it surprising that there's so much cheating going on?
 
Slight derail, but I just read this and I thought it was an interesting juxtaposition.

A leading scientific publisher has retracted 64 articles in 10 journals, after an internal investigation discovered fabricated peer-review reports linked to the articles’ publication.

Berlin-based Springer announced the retractions in an 18 August statement. In May, Springer merged with parts of Macmillan Science and Education — which publishes Nature — to form the new company Springer Nature.

The cull comes after similar discoveries of ‘fake peer review’ by several other major publishers, including London-based BioMed Central, an arm of Springer, which began retracting 43 articles in March citing "reviews from fabricated reviewers". The practice can occur when researchers submitting a paper for publication suggest reviewers, but supply contact details for them that actually route requests for review back to the researchers themselves.

http://www.nature.com/news/faked-peer-reviews-prompt-64-retractions-1.18202
 
Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.

- Henry Russell ("Red") Sanders 1930

With that sort of attitude being hammered into many athletes, is it surprising that there's so much cheating going on?

"It's never seems like tyranny when you're on top. " George W. Bush in The Cocaine Diatribes.
 
What I don't get is that the wattage between the competition isn't that big of a difference. We are talking about a few miles of extra effort on the climbs.

On a mountain climb watts per kilo are about the only thing that matter. There isn't much team strategy or chess playing on a steep grade. Maybe if there is a strong cross wind... There were 7 mountain stages in the 2015 Tour. How many total miles? I don't know, but a lot more than a few.
But they are riding each others wheels during most of it, so it is even output. You ride, so you know you either have it or you don't on a climb.
 
On a mountain climb watts per kilo are about the only thing that matter. There isn't much team strategy or chess playing on a steep grade. Maybe if there is a strong cross wind... There were 7 mountain stages in the 2015 Tour. How many total miles? I don't know, but a lot more than a few.
But they are riding each others wheels during most of it, so it is even output. You ride, so you know you either have it or you don't on a climb.

Maybe we are talking about the same thing or different things.. I'm confused. On the climbs the peloton gets really spread out because of the watts per kilo are so important. There are enough climbs in the Tour that you aren't gonna win unless you are a great climber. Power to weight is one of the few things a rider can control and that's why they all look anorexic except for the sprinters. The dustup over Froom, I think, was about his power readings going up the mountains. Honestly, I don't know shit about it. I just read the headlines on the cycling sites.
 
Ok, I had to look up the Froom nonsense. The data got hacked then
...a video briefly appeared on YouTube that paired data from Froome’s SRM—speed, cadence, heart rate, and, crucially, power output—with video from his 2013 win on Mont Ventoux. The inference was unstated but clear: Froome’s performance was not natural.

The video disappeared soon after, as did the Twitter account of the person who posted it (the video has since reappeared in multiple locations.) But Brailsford wasn’t finished. “Ethically and morally, if you are going to accuse someone of doping, then don’t cheat (by stealing data),” he told the Telegraph. And he repeated a previous refrain from questions raised in 2013 about Froome’s power output, that critics were missing critical details, “things like oval chainrings, which can skew the data.

http://www.bicycling.com/racing/2015-tour-de-france/chris-froome-s-crazy-data-hack-scandal
 
Back
Top Bottom