In professional sports taking drugs is not considered a secret, it's common practice
Fixed. Cycling has one of the strictest out-of-competition testing regimens. Which isn't to say doping doesn't exist - it does, no question - only that it's WAY better now than during the Armstrong era.
They're still fighting a losing battle. The business of cycling dictates that they remain ever vigilant and attempt to catch dopers and keep the sport "clean", while the science of what the atheletes are trying to do suggests they should just accept the reality and not police legal vs. illegal. It's like a drug-free body building contenst; what's the point?
I'm not sure I'd call it a losing battle. But, I agree vigilance is necessary.
But, I also view anti-doping measures as more of a safety issue than a fairness issue (maybe 60/40-ish). First priority - prevent athletes (and their coaches/sponsors) killing or crippling themselves with chemicals. Second order - guarantee some baseline level of fairness (because without it, the fans go elsewhere).
This isn't really different than rules in motor racing. Gotta keep the drivers safe first, and keep the race entertaining (nobody outside Italy wants to see two Ferraris dominate every F1 GP).
Also to make it a sports contest and not a pharma contest.
It's the same reason there's a minimum weight for bikes used in the race: people tend to disregard security when making lighter bikes, and the cost of experiments means that some competitors exit the sport because they can't compete on funding.
Probably a case to be made for doing that. At least with martial arts/combat sports, American football, and probably rugby (mostly related to brain damage, not broken bones/joints).
There is a common refrain about the Armstrong era "all the top guys were taking them so it's fair" but it's not really accurate. Because yes, the people at the top were all taking them, but that's because the clean guys that _would_ have been at the top otherwise aren't there: the prevalence of doping meant that you had to dope to even be in the conversation at that level, and so the clean athletes that might have won otherwise aren't coming in 18th, they're at home on the couch or they're racing at the pro-conti level.
For example, Greg LeMond won the TdF in 1990. In 1991 he came 7th, and then never completed it again. There is some complication here because of the hunting accident he suffered in '87, but he also said "The speeds were faster and riders that I had easily outperformed were now dropping me", and the guy who won in 1991 was Indurain who was basically the first mega-doper.
Without EPO and blood doping becoming prevalent, does Greg LeMond compete for a few more years? Do other guys with similar talent who aren't willing to dope also make it to that top level. I think the answer is probably yes, and so all those guys who doped are responsible for excluding those clean athletes from the top level.
You're spot on, and there's another point that makes doping unfair even if it was widespread. There is a max hematocrit rule, but riders had different pre-doping base hematocrit levels. Those with the lowest level could benefit more from doping before reaching the limit. In a way, the less gifted would be more advantaged by EPO.
My personal semi-conspiracy theory is that cycling is the only sport that took anti doping measures seriously and sort of fucked itself over. All the "anti" doping measures in major sports are laughable. There's too much money involved for the athletes to be not on steroids.
If it were only for the money...In CrossFit, even in competitions at the regional or provincial level, the top positions are practically all taken by athletes who use performance-enhancing drugs. Or, to take another example, in jiu jitsu, a discipline in which you almost always have to pay to compete and win nothing but a medal that will cost five dollars at the department store, I would venture to say that at least 90% of those placed in the top positions use PEDs.
EPO and other red-cell increasing drugs provide a massive gain for endurance athletes (runners, cyclists, XC skiing). Steroids are a massive gain for strength athletes (sprinters/athletics, contact sports).
Both can be used "safely" or "unsafely" depending on dosage, combinations with other drugs, etc.
My understanding of steroids is that they increase muscle mass all over the body. And that it's a long term health issue for the heart, because having a heart with excess muscle is actually bad long term. A few lifting YouTubers I follow have made videos on the subject. It seems like there's "less unsafe" steroid use, but there will be a life expectancy sacrifice with any level of use.
I don't know what the story is like for EPO and other red-cell increasing drugs. Would be curious to hear yours and a few others' understanding of the cost/benefit.
My opinion is that roids are much worse. And I included meth for dramatic contrast. It's not so much about the gain it's about the danger and harm. But I'm sure this will invite all sorts of semantic bickering about the meaning of the word "danger". As I said it's my opinion about where the line should be drawn.
What's the distinction? What about taking something when you have a cold, or nutritional supplements? It seems weird to draw an arbitrary line between things that make a body perform by stimulating natural production vs directly using synthetics.
Seconded, there is no clear line between banned drugs that help you cheat and drugs that fix medical conditions. There are drugs that are allowed if you have a doctor's note, and there are drugs that you can use only up to a certain amount.
Asthma meds for cycling, some of which are steroids, are one of the more popular examples:
> Two out of three factors have to be present to ban a drug:
> - be performance enhancing - present a health risk - violate the spirit of sport
There also are drugs banned that mask the use of performance enhancing drugs. You could call that “violate the spirit of the sport”, but that’s so vague a term it could cover anything.
