Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Doping, is it really that bad?

A cancer survivor with seven Tour de France titles and a world renowned charity to his name, Lance Armstrong, is one of a kind.  He led the U.S. Postal Service team to a record seven consecutive wins between 1999 and 2005, and has been regarded as the best cyclist of all time.  But now, a year after his official retirement, the world has found out that Armstrong was doping.  He has admitted to taking and receiving blood transfusions that contained a higher number of red blood cells.  Lance Armstrong is really just a cheater— right?

The sport of professional cycling is filled to its core with the use of "banned substances."  Armstrong’s former teammates, Levi Leipheimer, wrote, "A sport where the athletes at the highest level — perhaps without exception — used banned substances. A sport where doping was so accepted that riders from different teams — who were competitors on the road — coordinated their doping to keep up with other riders doing the same thing.”  In cycling these blood transfusions are so routine Armstrong described it as simple as having to put, "air in your tires and water in your bottle."  

The question now is— Why is doping, even with your own blood, bad?  It does not stop others from performing at their best. And it does not hurt the person that is doping.  When used, correctly drugs are not inherently bad.  Adderall helps those with ADHD focus.  Painkillers help to relieve pain.  Ambien works wonders for people with insomnia.  And EPO increases the number of oxygen carrying blood cells which leads to more energy.  

The reasons for banning EPO and blood transfusions just doesn't make sense.  If the Union Cycliste Internationale, cycling's governing body, truly wants an organic sport then it will have to add a few pages to the list of banned substances.  Because after all, shouldn't Gatorade be added the the list of banned substances?  It contains sodium, chloride, and potassium to help you restore lost electrolytes...that could be classified as a performance enhancing drug. 

The UCI needs to take a hard look at their banned substances policy to redetermine what  cheating really is.  Because they are currently basing the sport's regulations on liquid view points that do not make logical sense.  When the day comes where blood transfusions in cycling are as commonplace as drinking Gatorade during a football game, we will look back at Lance Armstrong as the champion he truly is.   

5 comments:

  1. I think its interesting that people just basically drew and random line in the sand and said "anything past here is cheating." Like Ray Lewis with the deer antler spray, thats about as natural as a product can get yet it is still banned by the NFL.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If they had just left it alone more athletes would have continued doing it and the sport would have been more interesting to watch because the winners were finishing at much faster times.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You have an interesting point, however the comparison of EPO to gatorade (like Will said in my blog) is like comparing apples to oranges. By taking gatorade you replenish nececesacry vitmans into the body, which you could argue EPO does the same thing however, unlike EPO, gatorade dose not lead to Heart Faliure, Stroke, or possibly lead to cancer. I believe society as a whole is drifiting away from the orginal intention of competition. Which in my opinion is for human beings of natural composition to compete and discover who is the better.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I wonder if the dialogue is not starting to get down to a fundamental question regarding is there anything inherently wrong about any particular substance, and when is it wrong? Obviously the very notion of a banned substance comes from a certain sense of revulsion against unfairness--but why is it unfair?

    My sense is that, and this is a good example of moral sense thinking, that our sense of unfairness is about taking shortcuts. This should apply even if these substances were openly allowed.

    Of course, in Armstrong's case there are moral issues beyond just taking banned substances--many people have more of a problem with his denials than with what he actually did.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think that a sport like cycling should not worry about if athletes are doping because they're competing more against the course than each other, whereas in a sport like football if people are moving artificially faster and are stronger than is natural players will hurt each other at an increased rate. Also it seems silly to strip armstrong of his wins since everyone was cheating and he was still the best

    ReplyDelete