No the same doesnt apply.It's perfectly fair for entrants to use whichever frame or helmet they wish. But steroids have an adverse effect on competitor's physical and mental wellbeing so it's not fair to officially incorporate them into the sport and expect everybody to take them.
I have to add that I couldnt care less if these people dope themselves up to the eyeballs and have heart attacks. But if I was a 'clean' cyclist, it would put me off competitive cycling.
(,
Tue 10 Aug 2010, 14:53,
archived)
I have to add that I couldnt care less if these people dope themselves up to the eyeballs and have heart attacks. But if I was a 'clean' cyclist, it would put me off competitive cycling.
But it's also perfectly fair for competitors to use drugs as they wish.Participating in elite sport is much more dangerous than not doing so - exercise might be good for you, but elite sport demands much more than that - so if they were risk-averse to that extent, they oughtn't to be elite athletes.
A properly-administered drug need not add noticeably to the risk of participating to begin with. It might actually reduce it. Of course, there could be some people who'll take the drugs recklessly, but there's no argumet that'll account for that anyway, so we can ignore those outliers.
Moreover, the point stands that an above-board drug regime is, by its nature, likely to minimise risks just because proper testing and dosage regimens can be implemented: I think that the safety argument comes out against prohibition. (This applies for all drugs, btw, not just those used in sport.)
Your objection seems not to be to the use of performance enhancers (PEs), so much as to either the use of dangerous PEs, or the dangerous use of PEs. There is, though, no necessary link between the use of PEs and significantly raised danger.
Moreover, as I said above, we generally accept that agents ought to have the freedom to participate in all kinds of dangerous stuff; so if you accept that, it's hard to see why this situation ought to be any different.
(A properly-administered drug need not add noticeably to the risk of participating to begin with. It might actually reduce it. Of course, there could be some people who'll take the drugs recklessly, but there's no argumet that'll account for that anyway, so we can ignore those outliers.
Moreover, the point stands that an above-board drug regime is, by its nature, likely to minimise risks just because proper testing and dosage regimens can be implemented: I think that the safety argument comes out against prohibition. (This applies for all drugs, btw, not just those used in sport.)
Your objection seems not to be to the use of performance enhancers (PEs), so much as to either the use of dangerous PEs, or the dangerous use of PEs. There is, though, no necessary link between the use of PEs and significantly raised danger.
Moreover, as I said above, we generally accept that agents ought to have the freedom to participate in all kinds of dangerous stuff; so if you accept that, it's hard to see why this situation ought to be any different.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Tue 10 Aug 2010, 15:09,
archived)
I think we might have to agree to disagree.I'm not an expert in this field but I think I'm right in saying that most PEs arent illegal, only prohibitted by the sport's administrative bodies.
If this is the case, what's to stop a group of PE taking cyclists hiving off to form a new competition?
(,
Tue 10 Aug 2010, 15:28,
archived)
If this is the case, what's to stop a group of PE taking cyclists hiving off to form a new competition?
Ah, well, there I kind of agree with you.I don't see any problem with them doing that. But it raises the question of why, if it's permissible to have a druggy alternative TdF, the original one would maintain its stance. I can't see any merit in the current rules; I can see a number of problems with them.
Therefore I think that it'd be easier and better simply to change the rules.
(Therefore I think that it'd be easier and better simply to change the rules.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Tue 10 Aug 2010, 15:41,
archived)