Ethics of doping

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS said:

For me the altercation between Armstrong and Simeoni is very
disturbing, because it gives the powerful impression (to me, anyway)
that Simeoni is being treated by the peloton exactly as one would expect
them too treat him if his allegations are true.

Here are a couple of gedanken experiments:
1. Suppose his allegations were false. How do you think the peloton would
treat him?
2. Suppose the lawsuit was completely unrelated to cycling (e.g., about a
business deal gone bad, or someone slipping on the sidewalk). Could you
imagine Armstrong doing the same thing that he did on Stage 18?

I confess that I go back-and-forth on my own answers. I'm interested in
yours. There's a third question:

3. Do you really think that [censored] a rider during a race for something
that has nothing to do with the race has never happened?

I don't go back-and-forth on this answer.

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le
message de :
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

But let's leave the dishonesty aside for a moment.

Can't do that, since there is no issue to discuss about performance
enhancing drugs, unless it is that they are (limitedly and specifically and
conditionally) banned. Taking them is cheating. It is not a question of
health effects ; that is just disingenuous. Especially when society
tolerates abuse of tons of drugs, be they alcohol, marijuana, diet pills,
tobacco patches, endlessly.

It is about cheating and rules. Like Boardman's bike, they can be
retroactively treated ; just like aero bars ; just like designer dope. Play
within the rules, even if rough or rude, and the best rider wins. Cheat the
rules - get found out - lose. Actually lose from the moment you start
cheating.

Do we care ? I'm not even sure that I do, where it concerns the Tour. The
race is now show-business, spectacle, and marketing vehicle long before it
is a bicycling contest. Usually, the rants in this newsgroup can be
daunting. I am probably on others' blacklists, and there are some on mine.
But in July - and for a while afterwards - I try to ignore it all. This
time, the hysteria about a cyclist is truly overbearing, distorting and
churlish. Maybe it's time the public got on drugs, mellowed out, took it
less seriously. Now, that's a proper doping policy, and in plain view.
--
Sandy
Paris FR

*******

La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Obviously this is a difficult and complicated subject--apart from the
partisans.
For the ethically minded, what are the ethical considerations of doping?
Obviously, if you maintain that you don't, a doper is being dishonest.
This also applies if the rules under which the competition exist
specifically forbid certain drugs.

Yes, obviously, if entry into the event demands no doping with banned
substances then doing so is fraud and is therefore unethical.

Quoted message said:

But let's leave the dishonesty aside for a moment. Assume (for the
purposes of this argument) that "they all do it".

Irrelevant.

Quoted message said:

Further assume that
all riders have access to the same drugs, professionally administered,

Also irrelevant. All riders don't have access to the same equipment, testing
facilities, coaching, etc. but you don't call that unethical.

Quoted message said:

and that the health risks are negligable.

This may also be irrelevant: the sport itself does not have negligible
risks, that doesn't mean that competing in sports is unethical.

Quoted message said:

I am reminded of the old
Saturday Night Live skit about the "Steroid Olympics".
This issue is complicated for me because richer teams will have other
resources available to them than poorer teams which are perfectly legal.

Again, an irrelevant consideration.

Quoted message said:

People may hate the New York Yankees, but I don't hear a huge clammor
for all teams to have identical budgets.

Right.

Observe that drugs per se are not banned: one can consume alcohol and
caffeine for example, and the former is potentially harmful and the latter
is "addictive" and does improve athletic performance. The hypocrisy is a
hint that the banning of the drugs in sport is not motivated from a rational
basis. Again, this is still no excuse for committing sports fraud--but it is
a reason to consider whether banned substances should not be.

Caffeine is legal within the range of levels that improves performance, it's
a perfectly good question to ask whether, say, EPO should be race-legal
within safe but performance-enhancing ranges. Indeed one could make an
argument that it helps cancel out accidental genetic differences between
people and allows the work ethic to take more primacy in determining who
wins. If everyone was on it and had the same, safe HCT then that particular
accidental difference would no longer be a factor in determining the winner.

On the other hand, if taking EPO makes the rider dependent on the substance
one might properly ask whether or not this practice undermines the basis of
athletics: the pursuit of fitness. An athlete dependent on external drugs in
order to function is not particularly fit. If so then such a practice really
does undermine the sport and should be banned. Of course that would mean
that any drug (such as caffeine) that has not been shown to undermine
fitness should be allowed.

Shayne Wissler

Robert Chung said:

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS said:

For me the altercation between Armstrong and Simeoni is very
disturbing, because it gives the powerful impression (to me, anyway)
that Simeoni is being treated by the peloton exactly as one would expect
them too treat him if his allegations are true.

Here are a couple of gedanken experiments:
1. Suppose his allegations were false. How do you think the peloton would
treat him?

I am perhaps not as familiar with Simeoni's testimony as I should be.
I understand that he has testified that Ferreri gave him (Simeoni) EPO.
If he made allegations that Ferreri gave specific riders drugs and
those allegations were false, I would of course expect a violent
reaction, but this is not my understanding. I also understand (correct
me if I'm wrong) that Ferreri is on record as stating he feels EPO can
be administered safely for performance enhancement.
In any case, since there is no way any other rider can know that
Ferreri did NOT give EPO to Simeoni, it seems unlikely to me that this
would explain the reaction we saw.

Quoted message said:

2. Suppose the lawsuit was completely unrelated to cycling (e.g., about a
business deal gone bad, or someone slipping on the sidewalk). Could you
imagine Armstrong doing the same thing that he did on Stage 18?

I wouldn't think it would happen. But whether it was related or
unrelated to cycling in general, it was clearly not related to this
particular stage. Being about Armstrong's "honor", in any case, I would
not have expected this behavior of him I believe Armstrong has usually
acted in a measured, reasonable, and adult way.

Quoted message said:

I confess that I go back-and-forth on my own answers. I'm interested in
yours. There's a third question:

3. Do you really think that [censored] a rider during a race for something
that has nothing to do with the race has never happened?

I'm sure it's happened, but can't recall any specific incidents. Maybe
Benjo can. ;-)

Steve

Quoted message said:

I don't go back-and-forth on this answer.

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS said:

Robert Chung said:

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS said:

For me the altercation between Armstrong and Simeoni is very
disturbing, because it gives the powerful impression (to me, anyway)
that Simeoni is being treated by the peloton exactly as one would
expect them too treat him if his allegations are true.

Here are a couple of gedanken experiments:
1. Suppose his allegations were false. How do you think the peloton
would treat him?

I am perhaps not as familiar with Simeoni's testimony as I should be.
I understand that he has testified that Ferreri gave him (Simeoni) EPO.

My understanding is that the link is even more amorphous than that. My
understanding is that he said that Ferrari discussed how EPO could be
administered safely, and that he "prescribed" EPO to Simeoni, not provided
him with it.

Quoted message said:

If he made allegations that Ferreri gave specific riders drugs and
those allegations were false, I would of course expect a violent
reaction, but this is not my understanding. I also understand (correct
me if I'm wrong) that Ferreri is on record as stating he feels EPO can
be administered safely for performance enhancement.

I believe that what Ferrari has said is that he never prescribed EPO to
Simeoni, that doping (not just with EPO but also with other substances)
doesn't automatically result in improved sports performance, and that
while EPO can be dangerous when mis-used, it is not if properly
administered. The exact quotes were posted elsewhere, but the gist is that
a reporter asked Ferrari if EPO was dangerous and he replied that it
wasn't if not abused and, gesturing at a pitcher of orange juice on the
table in front of them said that drinking 10 liters of orange juice would
be dangerous. I suspect that you work with anesthesia that is neither safe
nor effective if improperly administered, but is perfectly so in the hands
of someone who knows what he's doing. Sometimes layman hear things talked
about in general theoretical terms and think they have all the information
they need; wouldn't this be an interesting Rashomon-like situation if
Simeoni asked Ferrari whether EPO is dangerous, and Ferrari said "not if
you don't abuse it" and Simeoni thinks that Ferrari has given him explicit
directions not to exceed the recommended dosage and Ferrari thinks he
hasn't at all?

Quoted message said:

In any case, since there is no way any other rider can know that
Ferreri did NOT give EPO to Simeoni, it seems unlikely to me that this
would explain the reaction we saw.

Well, don't forget that ASO forced some riders out (and tried to force
others) simply because there are Italian investigations that haven't yet
closed their books. The ASO wanted to eject Padrnos even though it appears
he was cleared and he lacks only an administrative hearing to formally
dismiss the charges. Zanini has already served his suspension (like
Simeoni himself) but once again, because the wheels of Italian justice
move slowly he, too, was threatened with expulsion. In that kind of
atmosphere, whether or not Simeoni's allegations are true, they appear to
be delaying the closing of cases and I could imagine the peloton not being
happy with him for that. So that's why I wonder whether his treatment by
the peloton is evidence one way or the other.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2. Suppose the lawsuit was completely unrelated to cycling (e.g.,
about a business deal gone bad, or someone slipping on the sidewalk).
Could you imagine Armstrong doing the same thing that he did on Stage
18?

I wouldn't think it would happen. But whether it was related or
unrelated to cycling in general, it was clearly not related to this
particular stage. Being about Armstrong's "honor", in any case, I would
not have expected this behavior of him I believe Armstrong has usually
acted in a measured, reasonable, and adult way.

See, once again we differ. Perhaps I'm jaded, but I no longer expect
measured, reasonable, adult behavior from almost anyone (except, of
course, the fine denizens of rbr). One of my colleagues has worked at
pretty high positions in a couple of different administrations. She once
told me that the key to understanding whether a policy or piece of
legislation passes or fails is knowing who doesn't like whom. That
explains a lot more of the mysterious stuff that goes on than the actual
merits of an argument. If it applies to legislators, presidents,
governors, and probably your neighbors next door, why shouldn't it apply
to the peloton?

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Obviously this is a difficult and complicated subject--apart from the
partisans.
For the ethically minded, what are the ethical considerations of doping?
Obviously, if you maintain that you don't, a doper is being dishonest.
This also applies if the rules under which the competition exist
specifically forbid certain drugs.
But let's leave the dishonesty aside for a moment. Assume (for the
purposes of this argument) that "they all do it". Further assume that
all riders have access to the same drugs, professionally administered,
and that the health risks are negligable. I am reminded of the old
Saturday Night Live skit about the "Steroid Olympics".
This issue is complicated for me because richer teams will have other
resources available to them than poorer teams which are perfectly legal.
People may hate the New York Yankees, but I don't hear a huge clammor
for all teams to have identical budgets.
Of course, the assumption I made before that all teams have access to
the same drugs, that these drugs are administered professionally and
safely, is an extremely doubtful premise.
On the other side of the coin, I don't know that remnants of
puritanical attitudes toward drugs necessarily help the discussion. I
know of many people, for example, that see medication for emotional
problems as somehow evil--that they treat symptoms, rather than disease.
I also know that attitudes toward so-called "lifestyle drugs" such as
antidepressants (esp. SSRIs), drugs for impotence, etc. are changing
rapidly.
For me the altercation between Armstrong and Simeoni is very
disturbing, because it gives the powerful impression (to me, anyway)
that Simeoni is being treated by the peloton exactly as one would expect
them too treat him if his allegations are true.
It's possible I am reacting puritanically as well, as my gut tells me
that the whole situation stinks. These guys are still role models, and
some of these drugs are available one way or the other. When kids get
them, they won't be administered by Dr. Ferreri.
Would we be better off if medically administered drugs were available
to all professionals?

Yes, much better. The anti-doping policy is not only quite ineffective, but
has also done an incredible amount of much harm. As Anquetil said already in
1966: pro's should prepare themselves the way they see fit, be it under
medical control. If they had listened to him, Pantani would still be alive.
So would Simpson and several others. What's more, people would haved talked
and written about racing, instead of doping.

Benjo Maso

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS said:

Robert Chung said:

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS wrote:

> For me the altercation between Armstrong and Simeoni is very
> disturbing, because it gives the powerful impression (to me, anyway)
> that Simeoni is being treated by the peloton exactly as one would
> expect them too treat him if his allegations are true.

Here are a couple of gedanken experiments:
1. Suppose his allegations were false. How do you think the peloton
would treat him?

I am perhaps not as familiar with Simeoni's testimony as I should be.
I understand that he has testified that Ferreri gave him (Simeoni) EPO.

My understanding is that the link is even more amorphous than that. My
understanding is that he said that Ferrari discussed how EPO could be
administered safely, and that he "prescribed" EPO to Simeoni, not provided
him with it.

Quoted message said:

If he made allegations that Ferreri gave specific riders drugs and
those allegations were false, I would of course expect a violent
reaction, but this is not my understanding. I also understand (correct
me if I'm wrong) that Ferreri is on record as stating he feels EPO can
be administered safely for performance enhancement.

I believe that what Ferrari has said is that he never prescribed EPO to
Simeoni, that doping (not just with EPO but also with other substances)
doesn't automatically result in improved sports performance, and that
while EPO can be dangerous when mis-used, it is not if properly
administered. The exact quotes were posted elsewhere, but the gist is that
a reporter asked Ferrari if EPO was dangerous and he replied that it
wasn't if not abused and, gesturing at a pitcher of orange juice on the
table in front of them said that drinking 10 liters of orange juice would
be dangerous. I suspect that you work with anesthesia that is neither safe
nor effective if improperly administered, but is perfectly so in the hands
of someone who knows what he's doing. Sometimes layman hear things talked
about in general theoretical terms and think they have all the information
they need; wouldn't this be an interesting Rashomon-like situation if
Simeoni asked Ferrari whether EPO is dangerous, and Ferrari said "not if
you don't abuse it" and Simeoni thinks that Ferrari has given him explicit
directions not to exceed the recommended dosage and Ferrari thinks he
hasn't at all?

Quoted message said:

In any case, since there is no way any other rider can know that
Ferreri did NOT give EPO to Simeoni, it seems unlikely to me that this
would explain the reaction we saw.

Let's not forget that the police found at the office of dr Ferrari a
disquette with the medical dossiers of the Gewiss team. It showed that the
hemotacrite level of dr Ferrari's "patients" from devember 1994 to may 1995
had risen to unprecendented heights: Riis from 41,1 to 56,3; Furlan from
38,8 to 51; Gotti from 40,7 to 57, Berzin from 41.7 to 53, Ugrumov from 42.8
to 60, etc. It's of course possible that they took a lot of orange juice,
but to me it doesn't seem completely impossible that in the same period he
recommended EPO to Simeoni.

Benjo Maso

BTW, here's another gedanken experiment: suppose Simeoni did everything
exactly the same way except for filing a lawsuit against Armstrong. Can
you imagine the same thing happening on stage 18?

SMMB said:

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le
message de :
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

But let's leave the dishonesty aside for a moment.

Can't do that, since there is no issue to discuss about performance
enhancing drugs, unless it is that they are (limitedly and specifically and
conditionally) banned. Taking them is cheating. It is not a question of
health effects ; that is just disingenuous. Especially when society
tolerates abuse of tons of drugs, be they alcohol, marijuana, diet pills,
tobacco patches, endlessly.

I understand what you're saying, but you're missing my point. There
are many other issues as well. As a clinician, I am not inclined to
ignore the health implications. We are, after all, dealing with
medications such as erythropoetin which have important legitimate uses,
and that have proven to be extremely dangerous when abused.
In fact, depending upon the extent of the abuse, a case can certainly
be made (as it often is in the larger society) for legalization and
regulation.
You and I are adults; we are able to make these kinds of decisions for
ourselves. Lance Armstrong is a genuine hero, and many people are
influenced (for better or worse) by what he has done. It is silly to
compare the damage of Boardman's bike and drug (ab)use.
There is no question in my mind that any enterprising teenager can get
his/her hands today on any number of dangerous drugs and self-medicate.
The perception that "they all do it" is exceptionally dangerous, to my
mind.

Steve

Quoted message said:

It is about cheating and rules. Like Boardman's bike, they can be
retroactively treated ; just like aero bars ; just like designer dope. Play
within the rules, even if rough or rude, and the best rider wins. Cheat the
rules - get found out - lose. Actually lose from the moment you start
cheating.

Do we care ? I'm not even sure that I do, where it concerns the Tour. The
race is now show-business, spectacle, and marketing vehicle long before it
is a bicycling contest. Usually, the rants in this newsgroup can be
daunting. I am probably on others' blacklists, and there are some on mine.
But in July - and for a while afterwards - I try to ignore it all. This
time, the hysteria about a cyclist is truly overbearing, distorting and
churlish. Maybe it's time the public got on drugs, mellowed out, took it
less seriously. Now, that's a proper doping policy, and in plain view.

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For me the altercation between Armstrong and Simeoni is very
disturbing, because it gives the powerful impression (to me, anyway)
that Simeoni is being treated by the peloton exactly as one would expect
them too treat him if his allegations are true.

The problem is that this is exactly the way he would be treated if his
allegations were false as well. Maybe you prefer to be called names and have
your career and income threatened by some admitted doper but if you aren't
using drugs and this guy has informed the whole world that you have, perhaps
you'd be a bit pushed out of shape as wll.

Quoted message said:

Would we be better off if medically administered drugs were available
to all professionals?

ABSOLUTELY NOT! But nevertheless we have to view this whole thing with a eye
towards practicality. Making EPO illegal without being able to test for it
was a pretty stupid move because none of the lesser riders would afford to
not use it since they couldn't be found out if they were somewhat careful.
And they were being expected to support team leaders who were EPO'd and
HGH'd to the gills. A brighter idea would have been to allow it to be legal
until such time as it could be detected. That doesn't mean that you SAY that
it's legal but when you make illegal that which you cannot know is being
used you just lead people to disrespect all of the drug laws.

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung said:

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS said:

For me the altercation between Armstrong and Simeoni is very
disturbing, because it gives the powerful impression (to me, anyway)
that Simeoni is being treated by the peloton exactly as one would expect
them too treat him if his allegations are true.

Here are a couple of gedanken experiments:
1. Suppose his allegations were false. How do you think the peloton

would

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

treat him?

I am perhaps not as familiar with Simeoni's testimony as I should be.
I understand that he has testified that Ferreri gave him (Simeoni) EPO.

I think that a more accurate depiction is that he claimed that Ferrari
"prescribed" several performance enhancing drugs and told him how to take
them. He then implied that people only went to Ferrari for drug advice.

This is what I was talking about before. As a Doctor (and certainly to a
lesser degree but still somewhat applicable to yourself) if you had a very
strong hunch that a particular rider was going dope would you inform him of
the proper way to do so soas not to endanger his health or would you let him
use dangerous drugs in a dangerous manner and perhaps kill himself?

So Simeoni's experience may be true but for entirely different reasons that
he claims (or believes for that matter).

Or it may be entirely false and he's just trying to excuse himself by
throwing dirt on others.

Shayne Wissler said:

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Obviously this is a difficult and complicated subject--apart from the
partisans.
For the ethically minded, what are the ethical considerations of doping?
Obviously, if you maintain that you don't, a doper is being dishonest.
This also applies if the rules under which the competition exist
specifically forbid certain drugs.

Yes, obviously, if entry into the event demands no doping with banned
substances then doing so is fraud and is therefore unethical.

Obviously. But many of the folks charged with enforcing this
regulation have an obvious conflict of interest. Findings of rampant
drug abuse would have a self-evident and severe negative impact not only
on the riders, but also on those charged with enforcing those regulations.
Under the circumstances, one might ask how sincere are the efforts of
the teams and the UCI in rooting out all problems of this nature.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But let's leave the dishonesty aside for a moment. Assume (for the
purposes of this argument) that "they all do it".

Irrelevant.

I can easily imagine a scenario where a rider may well think the regs
are being enforced with a "nod and a wink" from the UCI. This does not
exculpate the rider of responsibility, but may well reflect on the true
intentions of the UCI, or how those intentions are viewed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Further assume that
all riders have access to the same drugs, professionally administered,

Also irrelevant. All riders don't have access to the same equipment, testing
facilities, coaching, etc. but you don't call that unethical.

Well, no one cares what I call unethical. But of course, there are
written parameters for (for example) equipment which is acceptable or
not. No one would believe that there is a "level playing field" for all
teams.
But once one accepts the fact that one can obey the letter of the law
and still have an advantage that could be considered unfair, it becomes
easier to rationalize taking an available advantage that is illegal,
especially if it appears the regulators are not wholeheartedly enforcing
the rules.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and that the health risks are negligable.

This may also be irrelevant: the sport itself does not have negligible
risks, that doesn't mean that competing in sports is unethical.

That's a good point. However (as a lawyer once told me) there are
risks inherent to the sport, and then there are other risks that may be
related to negligence or malfeasance.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am reminded of the old
Saturday Night Live skit about the "Steroid Olympics".
This issue is complicated for me because richer teams will have other
resources available to them than poorer teams which are perfectly legal.

Again, an irrelevant consideration.

Quoted message said:

People may hate the New York Yankees, but I don't hear a huge clammor
for all teams to have identical budgets.

Right.

Observe that drugs per se are not banned: one can consume alcohol and
caffeine for example, and the former is potentially harmful and the latter
is "addictive" and does improve athletic performance. The hypocrisy is a
hint that the banning of the drugs in sport is not motivated from a rational
basis. Again, this is still no excuse for committing sports fraud--but it is
a reason to consider whether banned substances should not be.

I agree 100%. Again, I am not excusing cheating--I am questioning
considerations in the regulations as they stand.

Quoted message said:

Caffeine is legal within the range of levels that improves performance, it's
a perfectly good question to ask whether, say, EPO should be race-legal
within safe but performance-enhancing ranges. Indeed one could make an
argument that it helps cancel out accidental genetic differences between
people and allows the work ethic to take more primacy in determining who
wins. If everyone was on it and had the same, safe HCT then that particular
accidental difference would no longer be a factor in determining the winner.

On the other hand, if taking EPO makes the rider dependent on the substance
one might properly ask whether or not this practice undermines the basis of
athletics: the pursuit of fitness. An athlete dependent on external drugs in
order to function is not particularly fit. If so then such a practice really
does undermine the sport and should be banned. Of course that would mean
that any drug (such as caffeine) that has not been shown to undermine

fitness should be allowed.

Quoted message said:

Shayne Wissler

I don't know enough about EPO to know if it causes dependence. In any
case, while I admire the athletic ideal, I doubt that anyone involved in
major sports would contend that today it is about anything but money.

Steve

Quoted message said:

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Robert Chung said:

BTW, here's another gedanken experiment: suppose Simeoni did everything
exactly the same way except for filing a lawsuit against Armstrong. Can
you imagine the same thing happening on stage 18?

Well, this one's easy--even for me. ;-)
No, I can't imagine it.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS"...

Quoted message said:

Obviously this is a difficult and complicated subject--apart from the
partisans.

I predict this thread outlasts the "this is not a troll helmet" thread.

I am sure this has been discussed but exactly how ethical is the means for a
positive test? Many of the tests administered are not for the exact drug,
but they are to detect adnormalities with the blood and urine. Dependent on
the organization they will not test for EPO per say but the age and number
of red blood cells. If certain parameters are exceeded then you have a
positive. Some areas of testing for anabolics are done the same way. There
are many many drugs that are not truly detectable, thus the Balco scandal
currently unfolding. The United States doesnt have ALL of the best
scientists in the world, there are many great scientists in Asia and Europe
with the ability to manufacture performance enhancing substances that may
not be detectable for the drug themselves but for the adnormalities they
cause.
Based on adnormalities and evidence left behind, exactly how ethical is it
to find someone guilty of this circumstantial evidence?

It was also mentioned that one testical is enough to produce enough
testosterone. I beleive for normal day to day life it may be sufficient.
Once puberty is reached, testosterone production decreases a small amount
each year. When the body is used to a certain level of hormones, it will
try to compensate for any loss, but at an elite athelete level the ability
for the body to keep up under normal faculties is quite diminished let alone
with one testical.
"Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Obviously this is a difficult and complicated subject--apart from the
partisans.
For the ethically minded, what are the ethical considerations of doping?
Obviously, if you maintain that you don't, a doper is being dishonest.
This also applies if the rules under which the competition exist
specifically forbid certain drugs.
But let's leave the dishonesty aside for a moment. Assume (for the
purposes of this argument) that "they all do it". Further assume that
all riders have access to the same drugs, professionally administered,
and that the health risks are negligable. I am reminded of the old
Saturday Night Live skit about the "Steroid Olympics".
This issue is complicated for me because richer teams will have other
resources available to them than poorer teams which are perfectly legal.
People may hate the New York Yankees, but I don't hear a huge clammor
for all teams to have identical budgets.
Of course, the assumption I made before that all teams have access to
the same drugs, that these drugs are administered professionally and
safely, is an extremely doubtful premise.
On the other side of the coin, I don't know that remnants of
puritanical attitudes toward drugs necessarily help the discussion. I
know of many people, for example, that see medication for emotional
problems as somehow evil--that they treat symptoms, rather than disease.
I also know that attitudes toward so-called "lifestyle drugs" such as
antidepressants (esp. SSRIs), drugs for impotence, etc. are changing
rapidly.
For me the altercation between Armstrong and Simeoni is very
disturbing, because it gives the powerful impression (to me, anyway)
that Simeoni is being treated by the peloton exactly as one would expect
them too treat him if his allegations are true.
It's possible I am reacting puritanically as well, as my gut tells me
that the whole situation stinks. These guys are still role models, and
some of these drugs are available one way or the other. When kids get
them, they won't be administered by Dr. Ferreri.
Would we be better off if medically administered drugs were available
to all professionals?

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

benjo maso said:

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Obviously this is a difficult and complicated subject--apart from the
partisans.
For the ethically minded, what are the ethical considerations of doping?
Obviously, if you maintain that you don't, a doper is being dishonest.
This also applies if the rules under which the competition exist
specifically forbid certain drugs.
But let's leave the dishonesty aside for a moment. Assume (for the
purposes of this argument) that "they all do it". Further assume that
all riders have access to the same drugs, professionally administered,
and that the health risks are negligable. I am reminded of the old
Saturday Night Live skit about the "Steroid Olympics".
This issue is complicated for me because richer teams will have other
resources available to them than poorer teams which are perfectly legal.
People may hate the New York Yankees, but I don't hear a huge clammor
for all teams to have identical budgets.
Of course, the assumption I made before that all teams have access to
the same drugs, that these drugs are administered professionally and
safely, is an extremely doubtful premise.
On the other side of the coin, I don't know that remnants of
puritanical attitudes toward drugs necessarily help the discussion. I
know of many people, for example, that see medication for emotional
problems as somehow evil--that they treat symptoms, rather than disease.
I also know that attitudes toward so-called "lifestyle drugs" such as
antidepressants (esp. SSRIs), drugs for impotence, etc. are changing
rapidly.
For me the altercation between Armstrong and Simeoni is very
disturbing, because it gives the powerful impression (to me, anyway)
that Simeoni is being treated by the peloton exactly as one would expect
them too treat him if his allegations are true.
It's possible I am reacting puritanically as well, as my gut tells me
that the whole situation stinks. These guys are still role models, and
some of these drugs are available one way or the other. When kids get
them, they won't be administered by Dr. Ferreri.
Would we be better off if medically administered drugs were available
to all professionals?

Yes, much better. The anti-doping policy is not only quite ineffective, but
has also done an incredible amount of much harm. As Anquetil said already in
1966: pro's should prepare themselves the way they see fit, be it under
medical control. If they had listened to him, Pantani would still be alive.
So would Simpson and several others. What's more, people would haved talked
and written about racing, instead of doping.

Benjo Maso

Well, being in the Netherlands with its liberal policy with regard to
narcotics, it is understandable that you think this way.
My concern here is more ethical (and perhaps theoretical) rather than
practical. I have little doubt myself that there would be less
drug-related violent crime in the U.S. if narcotic possesion were
legalized. But I am also sensitive to the charge that it is in fact a
declaration of failure of drug policy.
Likewise, it is reasonable to think there would be fewer serious
medical tragedies if performance-enhancing drugs are legalized.
But I don't see why a team with the financial resources will not try to
find new, more potent and potentially more dangerous drugs than the
other guys have.
Seems to me that if current regulations are somewhat arbitrary, then
standards of "medical supervision" could be expected to remain arbitrary
once the principle of performance-enhancing drugs is accepted.

Steve

Quoted message said:

Jim Flom said:

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS"...

Quoted message said:

Obviously this is a difficult and complicated subject--apart from the
partisans.

I predict this thread outlasts the "this is not a troll helmet" thread.

God help us all.
That's certainly the furthest thing from my mind.

Steve

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung said:

Quoted message said:

One of my colleagues has worked at
pretty high positions in a couple of different administrations. She once
told me that the key to understanding whether a policy or piece of
legislation passes or fails is knowing who doesn't like whom. That
explains a lot more of the mysterious stuff that goes on than the actual
merits of an argument.

Yes, but if we can just convince everyone of the rightness of our views, get the right people
elected, teach the central planning board how to wield power its power in a kind and gentle way, and
keep the bad guys out of power,... then life will be just fine. LOL

Joseph Wells said:

I am sure this has been discussed but exactly how ethical is the means for a
positive test? Many of the tests administered are not for the exact drug,
but they are to detect adnormalities with the blood and urine. Dependent on
the organization they will not test for EPO per say but the age and number
of red blood cells. If certain parameters are exceeded then you have a
positive. Some areas of testing for anabolics are done the same way. There
are many many drugs that are not truly detectable, thus the Balco scandal
currently unfolding. The United States doesnt have ALL of the best
scientists in the world, there are many great scientists in Asia and Europe
with the ability to manufacture performance enhancing substances that may
not be detectable for the drug themselves but for the adnormalities they
cause.
Based on adnormalities and evidence left behind, exactly how ethical is it
to find someone guilty of this circumstantial evidence?

It was also mentioned that one testical is enough to produce enough
testosterone. I beleive for normal day to day life it may be sufficient.
Once puberty is reached, testosterone production decreases a small amount
each year. When the body is used to a certain level of hormones, it will
try to compensate for any loss, but at an elite athelete level the ability
for the body to keep up under normal faculties is quite diminished let alone
with one testical.

Still not a problem. Testosterone levels are not dependent on production
capacity even for a guy with one gland.

Ron

Quoted message said:

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Obviously this is a difficult and complicated subject--apart from the
partisans.
For the ethically minded, what are the ethical considerations of doping?
Obviously, if you maintain that you don't, a doper is being dishonest.
This also applies if the rules under which the competition exist
specifically forbid certain drugs.
But let's leave the dishonesty aside for a moment. Assume (for the
purposes of this argument) that "they all do it". Further assume that
all riders have access to the same drugs, professionally administered,
and that the health risks are negligable. I am reminded of the old
Saturday Night Live skit about the "Steroid Olympics".
This issue is complicated for me because richer teams will have other
resources available to them than poorer teams which are perfectly legal.
People may hate the New York Yankees, but I don't hear a huge clammor
for all teams to have identical budgets.
Of course, the assumption I made before that all teams have access to
the same drugs, that these drugs are administered professionally and
safely, is an extremely doubtful premise.
On the other side of the coin, I don't know that remnants of
puritanical attitudes toward drugs necessarily help the discussion. I
know of many people, for example, that see medication for emotional
problems as somehow evil--that they treat symptoms, rather than disease.
I also know that attitudes toward so-called "lifestyle drugs" such as
antidepressants (esp. SSRIs), drugs for impotence, etc. are changing
rapidly.
For me the altercation between Armstrong and Simeoni is very
disturbing, because it gives the powerful impression (to me, anyway)
that Simeoni is being treated by the peloton exactly as one would expect
them too treat him if his allegations are true.
It's possible I am reacting puritanically as well, as my gut tells me
that the whole situation stinks. These guys are still role models, and
some of these drugs are available one way or the other. When kids get
them, they won't be administered by Dr. Ferreri.
Would we be better off if medically administered drugs were available
to all professionals?

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001