Pushed? Doped?

On Feb 23, 6:49 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Both are cheating.

Discuss.

dumbass,

of course and time trials are the perfect venue for cheating.

in one TT incident i know of the coach drove up next to the racer and
pushed her up a major climb at 60 kph.

On Feb 23, 4:49 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Both are cheating.

Discuss.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Depends on intent.

Doping is one thing. Having a friend hang out on the steepest part of
a climb so they can push you when you come by is much like doping.
You're taking an unfair advantage.

But, if some numbnuts in the throng of spectators chooses to push you
as you crawl by barely inside the time cut, you can't exactly help
that. How's a rider suppose to stop it? If they swat at the
spectator to get them to stop, they run the risk of being DQ'd for
unsportsmanlike behaviour.

Hell, spectators pushing no-hopers up climbs is an integral, venerable
part of cycling history. It's not cheating. It just is what it is.

Fred

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

On Feb 23, 6:49 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Both are cheating.

Discuss.

dumbass,

of course and time trials are the perfect venue for cheating.

in one TT incident i know of the coach drove up next to the racer and
pushed her up a major climb at 60 kph.

I need coaching like that!

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

On Feb 24, 12:49 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Both are cheating.

Discuss.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
****************************

I thought a better comparison would be between doping and an illegal
water feed. Getting water
when dehydrated will improve a rider's performance more than any
doping product. In fact, that
was probably how Landis improved his performance between stages 16 and
17 of the 2006 Tour.

-ilan

On Feb 23, 4:49 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Both are cheating.

Discuss.

Doping is a problem of asymmetrical information -
people don't know that the other guys are doping, so
they may have to assume the worst and feel like they
have to dope themselves to keep up. This can lead to
a Prisoner's Dilemma type situation in which everybody
dopes and the racing isn't significantly different
(in terms of competetive advantage/disadvantage).

Pushing doesn't have this issue. Unless there's
really no one watching and they're getting pushes
in a TT, but I doubt that happens in the really
big races.

Ben

ilan said:

On Feb 24, 12:49 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Both are cheating.

Discuss.

Quoted message said:

I thought a better comparison would be between doping and an illegal
water feed. Getting water
when dehydrated will improve a rider's performance more than any
doping product.

OK, I'll come clean. That means I basically doped at the Tour de
Toona about eight years ago. But I wasn't riding to win -- just to
help a teammate. Really.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Quoted message said:

I thought a better comparison would be between doping and an illegal
water feed. Getting water
when dehydrated will improve a rider's performance more than any
doping product. In fact, that
was probably how Landis improved his performance between stages 16 and
17 of the 2006 Tour.

Floyd actually brought this up at the Floyd Fairness fund-raising event in
San Jose last week. He had a big advantage over other riders because-

#1: He had his own personal following car

#2: Of the two Phonak team cars in the race, he got the one that had most of
the water. So he literally had water to burn, and was able to saturate
himself, a luxury nobody else had. He really felt it made a difference.
Keeping in mind the temps in France at the time, I can believe it (I was
there, and would have been in trouble were it not for snagging a couple
Aquarel bottles... I'm getting good at that... survival instincts).

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

In article
<[email hidden]>,
"[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Feb 23, 4:49 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Both are cheating.

Discuss.

Doping is a problem of asymmetrical information -
people don't know that the other guys are doping, so
they may have to assume the worst and feel like they
have to dope themselves to keep up. This can lead to
a Prisoner's Dilemma type situation in which everybody
dopes and the racing isn't significantly different
(in terms of competetive advantage/disadvantage).

No dilemma. It is a matter of who wants to win most.
Then he does anything he deems necessary to win. Good
people are not pushed into doping. People dope because
they want to.

--
Michael Press

Quoted message said:

On Feb 23, 6:49 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Both are cheating.

Discuss.

dumbass,

of course and time trials are the perfect venue for cheating.

in one TT incident i know of the coach drove up next to the racer and
pushed her up a major climb at 60 kph.

You're a cynic. It might not have been cheating. It could have been
sexual harassment. It all depends on the location of the offending
hand and whether she ever said no.

R

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

No dilemma. It is a matter of who wants to win most.
Then he does anything he deems necessary to win. Good
people are not pushed into doping. People dope because
they want to.

That simply isn't true Michael. Most racers don't understand the full
implications of doping. If you're getting vitamin injections, IV hydration
and constant pressure to succeed, you may lose sight of the idea that doping
is cheating. For instance, if everyone is fixed to 50% hematocrit, it
doesn't seem like doping to meet the criteria - it only seems like you're
keeping yourself at your peak.

It's plain that a great deal of doping is being excused away by racers as
only keeping their health up to par.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Doping is a problem of asymmetrical information -
people don't know that the other guys are doping, so
they may have to assume the worst and feel like they
have to dope themselves to keep up. This can lead to
a Prisoner's Dilemma type situation in which everybody
dopes and the racing isn't significantly different
(in terms of competetive advantage/disadvantage).

No dilemma. It is a matter of who wants to win most.
Then he does anything he deems necessary to win. Good
people are not pushed into doping. People dope because
they want to.

--
Michael Press

The issue is how people define themselves as "good." When I raced, back in
the 70s, I paid zero attention to what was going on around me, at least in
terms of how I felt it affected my own racing. Rather strange, that. It
*never* crossed my mind that, if others were on uppers or asthma medication
(I knew of quite a number who were), that they might have an advantage at
the finish line. I viewed it as an extension of recreational drug usage.
Since I didn't do recreational drugs (one of 4 who graduated UC Santa Cruz
who didn't?), it was just part of a different world, nothing to be concerned
about. And it's quite possible some of them actually did see it as such an
extension (of recreational drug usage) and didn't see any ethical issues in
doing so.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Doping is a problem of asymmetrical information -
people don't know that the other guys are doping, so
they may have to assume the worst and feel like they
have to dope themselves to keep up. This can lead to
a Prisoner's Dilemma type situation in which everybody
dopes and the racing isn't significantly different
(in terms of competetive advantage/disadvantage).

Quoted message said:

No dilemma. It is a matter of who wants to win most.
Then he does anything he deems necessary to win. Good
people are not pushed into doping. People dope because
they want to.

Quoted message said:

--
Michael Press

The issue is how people define themselves as "good." When I raced, back in
the 70s, I paid zero attention to what was going on around me, at least in
terms of how I felt it affected my own racing. Rather strange, that. It
*never* crossed my mind that, if others were on uppers or asthma medication
(I knew of quite a number who were), that they might have an advantage at
the finish line. I viewed it as an extension of recreational drug usage.
Since I didn't do recreational drugs (one of 4 who graduated UC Santa Cruz
who didn't?), it was just part of a different world, nothing to be concerned
about. And it's quite possible some of them actually did see it as such an
extension (of recreational drug usage) and didn't see any ethical issues in
doing so.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Did you mean one in four, as in 25%, or one of four, as in there were
only four of you???

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The issue is how people define themselves as "good." When I raced, back
in
the 70s, I paid zero attention to what was going on around me, at least
in
terms of how I felt it affected my own racing. Rather strange, that. It
*never* crossed my mind that, if others were on uppers or asthma
medication
(I knew of quite a number who were), that they might have an advantage at
the finish line. I viewed it as an extension of recreational drug usage.
Since I didn't do recreational drugs (one of 4 who graduated UC Santa
Cruz
who didn't?), it was just part of a different world, nothing to be
concerned
about. And it's quite possible some of them actually did see it as such
an
extension (of recreational drug usage) and didn't see any ethical issues
in
doing so.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Did you mean one in four, as in 25%, or one of four, as in there were
only four of you???

Joking just slightly; UCSC had quite the reputation back in the day. Never
could figure out how you could enjoy something you couldn't remember.

Great school though. Did end my bike racing days; first time in my life I
had to actually spend time studying. I remember when the movie "Paper Chase"
came out and it was like wow, a *second* movie made about part of my life
(the first was "Breaking Away", of course).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

No dilemma. It is a matter of who wants to win most.
Then he does anything he deems necessary to win. Good
people are not pushed into doping. People dope because
they want to.

That simply isn't true Michael. Most racers don't understand the full
implications of doping. If you're getting vitamin injections, IV hydration
and constant pressure to succeed, you may lose sight of the idea that doping
is cheating. For instance, if everyone is fixed to 50% hematocrit, it
doesn't seem like doping to meet the criteria - it only seems like you're
keeping yourself at your peak.

It's plain that a great deal of doping is being excused away by racers as
only keeping their health up to par.

I do not know where you disagree with what I said. That
some racers dope because they want to? I stand by that.
I avoid words like `cheating.' Then again, a few people
cheat because they want to cheat. From what has been
said here, many medical interventions for a rider are
no more than support for a stressed physiology. That is
to say he is better off for it in the short run and the
long run. Some riders will take banned medicines,
expecting them to improve their output, because they
are out to win. I am not passing judgment.

--
Michael Press

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Doping is a problem of asymmetrical information -
people don't know that the other guys are doping, so
they may have to assume the worst and feel like they
have to dope themselves to keep up. This can lead to
a Prisoner's Dilemma type situation in which everybody
dopes and the racing isn't significantly different
(in terms of competetive advantage/disadvantage).

No dilemma. It is a matter of who wants to win most.
Then he does anything he deems necessary to win. Good
people are not pushed into doping. People dope because
they want to.

The issue is how people define themselves as "good." When I raced, back in
the 70s, I paid zero attention to what was going on around me, at least in
terms of how I felt it affected my own racing. Rather strange, that. It
*never* crossed my mind that, if others were on uppers or asthma medication
(I knew of quite a number who were), that they might have an advantage at
the finish line. I viewed it as an extension of recreational drug usage.
Since I didn't do recreational drugs (one of 4 who graduated UC Santa Cruz
who didn't?), it was just part of a different world, nothing to be concerned
about. And it's quite possible some of them actually did see it as such an
extension (of recreational drug usage) and didn't see any ethical issues in
doing so.

I experienced much the same kind of eye-opening.
Nothing much to do with me is the overall feeling. To
me there are no ethical issues. I expect people to keep
their word; nothing to do with ethics. Neither would I
commit to an undertaking where I agree to drug tests.
If someone does not trust me to keep my word on such
matters, I cannot trust them to keep their word. We are
supposed to be adults.

I seem to have a double standard, and no excuse for it.
I really do not care if riders take drugs. When it is a
question of drug enforcement, I side with people who
want to use drugs. I think drugs ultimately are
counter-productive, but in the short term folks ought
to try them out. I do care if trainers exert pressure
on a rider to take more supplements than the rider
wants.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

"[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Doping is a problem of asymmetrical information -
people don't know that the other guys are doping, so
they may have to assume the worst and feel like they
have to dope themselves to keep up. This can lead to
a Prisoner's Dilemma type situation in which everybody
dopes and the racing isn't significantly different
(in terms of competetive advantage/disadvantage).

No dilemma. It is a matter of who wants to win most.
Then he does anything he deems necessary to win. Good
people are not pushed into doping. People dope because
they want to.

IMO, the use of "good people" here is inflammatory
and also conflates moral standards with ethical
standards. Not doping is an ethical issue, rather
than a moral issue. That is, there is an ethical
code of fair competition, which doping violates,
but doping is not an intrinsically immoral act
in the absence of that particular sporting code.
Unlike say kicking kittens, which is immoral -
in today's world, you know without being told by the
UCI or ASPCA that kicking kittens is wrong.

There are plenty of examples of people who used dope
and are also individuals that aren't sociopaths and
would probably be good reliable friends. (I've referred
before to an essay Vaughters wrote about Javier
Pascual Llorente after JPL got busted, talking about
how much JPL had helped Vaughters during the Santa
Clara fiasco.) However, I doubt one can say the
same about serial kitten-kickers.

I also think that athletes get into bike racing
(or anything else) thinking they don't need stuff,
and gradually come to accept first minor infractions
and then major ones. It would be easy to say they
should refuse the first sniff and then depart for
cleaner climes, but the problem of asymmetrical
information persists. If you fear that the ethical
standards are a farce because everyone else is
breaking them, does upholding the standards, even
if it means you won't get a new contract, make
you a paragon of virtue, or a sucker? Since you
don't _know_ what everyone else is doing, it is
easy to believe the worst and excuse your own breach.

Ben

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

Michael Press said:

"[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Doping is a problem of asymmetrical information -
people don't know that the other guys are doping, so
they may have to assume the worst and feel like they
have to dope themselves to keep up. This can lead to
a Prisoner's Dilemma type situation in which everybody
dopes and the racing isn't significantly different
(in terms of competetive advantage/disadvantage).

No dilemma. It is a matter of who wants to win most.
Then he does anything he deems necessary to win. Good
people are not pushed into doping. People dope because
they want to.

IMO, the use of "good people" here is inflammatory
and also conflates moral standards with ethical
standards. Not doping is an ethical issue, rather
than a moral issue. That is, there is an ethical
code of fair competition, which doping violates,
but doping is not an intrinsically immoral act
in the absence of that particular sporting code.
Unlike say kicking kittens, which is immoral -
in today's world, you know without being told by the
UCI or ASPCA that kicking kittens is wrong.

Someone forgot to tell Bill Frist.

http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/02/worst-american-birthdays_22.html

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

No dilemma. It is a matter of who wants to win most.
Then he does anything he deems necessary to win. Good
people are not pushed into doping. People dope because
they want to.

That simply isn't true Michael. Most racers don't understand the full
implications of doping. If you're getting vitamin injections, IV
hydration
and constant pressure to succeed, you may lose sight of the idea that
doping
is cheating. For instance, if everyone is fixed to 50% hematocrit, it
doesn't seem like doping to meet the criteria - it only seems like you're
keeping yourself at your peak.

It's plain that a great deal of doping is being excused away by racers as
only keeping their health up to par.

I do not know where you disagree with what I said. That
some racers dope because they want to? I stand by that.
I avoid words like `cheating.' Then again, a few people
cheat because they want to cheat. From what has been
said here, many medical interventions for a rider are
no more than support for a stressed physiology. That is
to say he is better off for it in the short run and the
long run. Some riders will take banned medicines,
expecting them to improve their output, because they
are out to win. I am not passing judgment.

I disagree with your apparent belief that all doping cyclists made a
decision to dope. Some of them didn't even know it was happening. "Here,
take these pills every morning until it runs out."

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> No dilemma. It is a matter of who wants to win most.
> Then he does anything he deems necessary to win. Good
> people are not pushed into doping. People dope because
> they want to.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That simply isn't true Michael. Most racers don't understand the full
implications of doping. If you're getting vitamin injections, IV
hydration
and constant pressure to succeed, you may lose sight of the idea that
doping
is cheating. For instance, if everyone is fixed to 50% hematocrit, it
doesn't seem like doping to meet the criteria - it only seems like you're
keeping yourself at your peak.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's plain that a great deal of doping is being excused away by racers as
only keeping their health up to par.

Quoted message said:

I do not know where you disagree with what I said. That
some racers dope because they want to? I stand by that.
I avoid words like `cheating.' Then again, a few people
cheat because they want to cheat. From what has been
said here, many medical interventions for a rider are
no more than support for a stressed physiology. That is
to say he is better off for it in the short run and the
long run. Some riders will take banned medicines,
expecting them to improve their output, because they
are out to win. I am not passing judgment.

I disagree with your apparent belief that all doping cyclists made a
decision to dope. Some of them didn't even know it was happening. "Here,
take these pills every morning until it runs out."

I agree, Bonds really thought he was taking flaxseed oil.