[badge118]

Okay I read this today Hoberman Q&A: Outlining corruption, doping collusion at the IOC, UCI

this line made me search...

In fact, the latest word from the top of WADA is that the war against doping cannot be won.

I found this...

WADA Chief: 'We will never win war against doping' - Innsbruck 2012

So this got me thinking. It has taken close to 100 years for the US and other countries to start realizing that prohibition doesn't work. It wastes resources that could be used for treatment, education, on a battle that simply can not be won.

If WADA themselves says the battle can not be won, that

Maybe one or two percent of athletes that dope are being caught

Are we better off regulating where the doping is done (focusing MUCH more resources on the youth ranks) and how it is done where it is permitted for the safety of the athletes.

Doping for performance enhancement is as old as Pharmocolgy. Chinese "herbal remedies" etc. have existed for THOUSANDS of years. When you look at it you are not looking at a 60-100 year history of doping for performance enhancement. You are looking rather at a 60-100 year history of "madern" pharamcology and the scientific method being applied.

Now full disclosure. Maybe I am just a cynic. I have spent the last 15 years directly participating in the "drug war" many of them as a specialist in that field. That war is going no where and the doping war seems to be almost identical both in the resources spent and the lack of success over all (getting Armstrong makes about as much of a practical difference as killing Pablo Escobar did... meaning none.) When it comes down to it the arguments for both are not about numbers, not about dollars and cents, they are rather based on moral arguments that over time clearly evolve even in the US (read Colorado and Washington State.)

 

[Local Hero]

I can't say much about the pro level. It seems that the bio passport is a step in the right direction. But with exotic new drugs and genetic doping, will testers even be anything closer than two steps behind the cheats?

There's some debate about testing in my district. On the local amateur level, I am torn. While testing is a deterrent, even with testing there is now way to confirm that the field is clean. So is it a waste of money to spend $10,000 on testing for the appearance of compliance?

Last year 17 masters were tested. Zero came up positive. Is that effective testing?

And what of the USAC/ORBA debacle? What if USAC tests but ORBA does not. Does that make one any more clean than the other?

Ultimately, I just want to race my bike. It might be better to put my head in the sand and pretend that this doesn't matter, as none of it really matters to me.

 

[Cinelli 82220]

Badge, although prohibition doesn't work, alcohol use is still controlled. There are DUI laws, workplace rules, and I've heard pilots say "24 hours from bottle to throttle".

Same with PED users. If someone wants to juice up at the local gym so he can bench more, I don't care. But regulation in competition is possible.

We have speed limits and traffic laws. People still speed and drive like idiots. But we don't throw out all the traffic laws and allow a free for all on the roads.

 

[badge118]

Badge, although prohibition doesn't work, alcohol use is still controlled. There are DUI laws, workplace rules, and I've heard pilots say "24 hours from bottle to throttle".

Same with PED users. If someone wants to juice up at the local gym so he can bench more, I don't care. But regulation in competition is possible.

We have speed limits and traffic laws. People still speed and drive like idiots. But we don't throw out all the traffic laws and allow a free for all on the roads.

DUI laws are not a good example though. A drunk driver can kill another person. Actually most traffic laws are because a car speeding, blowing a stop sign or light can take another life. PEDs are like crack. The crack itself only effects the person taking it. The illegal market around it's sale is what endangers others (unless you are driving of course but then we are back to the DUI law that is there to protect others from real harm and/or death.)

According to WADA themselves successful regulation is NOT possible and with traffic laws being an whole inaccurate analogy, we are again left simply at "does prohibition work and if as WADA says it is a battle so lob sided in the authorities losing is pro level enforcement right?"

Note I am NOT saying NO enforcement. What I am saying is have the money spent where it might do some good....at the grass roots level. Have education and testing in youth/junior/u-23. Try to change the mindset when that mindset is changeable. At the pro-level you are dealing with adults. There they can make informed decisions. There you change it from "enforcement" to regulation.

Hell you could even tax it. Does team X want a "doping license?" If yes they pay money. That money goes to the grass roots programs. Lets be honest as well. If as time goes on drugs are legalized and/or decriminalized does not the argument against PEDs at the top level become a dark comedy?

 

[Alaska Mike]

re: Crack-
There are wards of crack babies that might disagree with you. There are families of crack addicts that might offer a different viewpoint than your own.

As for the rest, are you trying to post-date a justification for doping? Do you really believe you can prohibit substances for junior athletes ,encourage their use in adult athletes, and expect that you can "program" the juniors to resist doping in the future?

People cheat in every sport. The point of the regulating bodies (both interbal and extrenal) is to prevent that. Your suggestions make you sound like you're running for a position on the UCI or IOC. If you take that as a compliment, don't.

 

[Bluenote]

This. My wife has worked with Doctors who treated teenagers for liver failure from steroid deaths. Some deaths, some serious complications.

 

[Local Hero]

Even crack is a bad example.

How many people become addicted to or die from transfusing their own blood under medical supervision?

 

[spade2you]

Even crack is a bad example.

How many people become addicted to or die from transfusing their own blood under medical supervision?

Infusing blood and blood products is not without risk, or so I've learned in the hospital.

A few teams have botched transfusions before like TVM and Kelme. Ricco had his wonderful botched transfusion, too.

 

[badge118]

re: Crack-
There are wards of crack babies that might disagree with you. There are families of crack addicts that might offer a different viewpoint than your own.

As for the rest, are you trying to post-date a justification for doping? Do you really believe you can prohibit substances for junior athletes ,encourage their use in adult athletes, and expect that you can "program" the juniors to resist doping in the future?

People cheat in every sport. The point of the regulating bodies (both interbal and extrenal) is to prevent that. Your suggestions make you sound like you're running for a position on the UCI or IOC. If you take that as a compliment, don't.

Regarding babies...right now the science shows that alcoholism and the resulting fetal alcohol Syndrome can be far worse over the long haul. The problem with the "crack baby" syndrome is that as most users of crack are poorly educated and of lower socioeconomic status the effects of inadequate prenatal care; abuse and neglect of the children, maternal nutrition, other health problems and exposure to sexually transmitted diseases obscure the data. If one says "crack babies" means cocaine should be illegal then logically alcohol hell even smoking should be illegal.

What I am saying is that outside of prohibitionists in the war on drugs, many health policy planners now advocate decriminalization or outright legalization. They show studies that reveal that early education (my idea for testing etc in the grass roots) and proper treatment and rehab programs, is A) more financially sound and B) is simply better policy because it removes the violence and death to others (for the most part).

Essentially they say ask "are these perfect solutions?" Their answer is even "No" but at the same time since you can NOT win he war on drugs do you spend more money and watch more people get gunned down in the inner city on a principal OR do you divert the money into a system that is less expensive AND has a lower overall cost on society in terms of lives and blood on the streets?

All I ask for out of life is consistency. It is clear that society is moving in the above direction. I suspect we will see that world in the next decade or two. Legalizing Marjuana is a legal gateway just as much as it is considered by some a "gateway drug."

Listen, if WADA themselves had not said "we only catch 2%" and "we will never win" I would not be thinking this way but what is the FFFing point of all the money at the pro-ranks and little to none where it REALLY matter for health and safety (the youth ranks)? We are spending millions a year to catch the 2% of spoiled pro athletes, unlucky enough to get caught, while the youth athletes learn the bad habits and seriously harm themselves due to the lack of funding at their level. So divert money fromj the war you can not win to a war where you can A) create good habits and actually save freaking lives and/or health. Right now we are spending money on principles of fairness and not on practical societal good. Sorry in the end imo principles be damned practicality and life saving comes first.

 

[badge118]

Infusing blood and blood products is not without risk, or so I've learned in the hospital.

A few teams have botched transfusions before like TVM and Kelme. Ricco had his wonderful botched transfusion, too.

These were ones though not operating under proper medical supervision...which I think was local's point.

 

[badge118]

My point was as a matter of policy. Crack is a down right dangerous drug. Instantly addictive. Deaths directly attributed to crack and not the drug trade however are VERY rare (heroin is a different story however). You can not actually "overdose" on cocaine the way you can heroin. What happens is similar to alcohol poisoning. Ultimaely it is a toxic substance and if you ingest enough (in the case of cocaine a HUGE amount) you get a level of toxicity in the system that can kill. A drug like heroin however in small doses, as it is a suppressant, can shut down your cardivascular system by it's very nature.

That dope 101 out of the way the reason it was mentioned is because in terms of health policy they are similar if applied logically. The reason for decriminalization of illegal drugs (or outright legalization) is that the drugs in and of themselves have the most profound effect on the user. They do not in and of themselves directly harm the rest of greater society. If you remove the illegal market a crack addict would have about as much an effect on the larger society as an alcoholic or a heavy smoker when looked at from a public health policy stand point. It is through this health policy lense that I am looking, crack just happens to be part of that larger picture.