Comments on: Nash Equilibrium, the Omerta Rule, and Doping in Cycling

By: Steven Novella

Steven Novella — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:17:48 +0000

Doping makes it impossible for people who want to compete but do not want to risk their lives with dangerous doping. Non-dopers cannot compete with dopers, so this creates a huge incentive to dope.

Competitions can set their own internal rules, and it is reasonable for those rules to include safeguards for athletes.

By: Ora Leon

Ora Leon — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:58:59 +0000

Why should they feel guilty about doping? It is THEIR OWN LIVES they are putting at stake…

Since doping was first invented by cyclists and first prohibited because a cyclist died, I suggest: ban these huge cycling competitions like tour de France.

Or just make doping free for all and whoever wants to kill himself can kill himself.

By: Corie Kellie

Corie Kellie — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 04:50:04 +0000

I admit it is strange that I found a post that I can’t find a few things wrong with it. This might actually be an exception. I don’t see any huge grammatical mistakes, nothing extremely naive talked about, and a theme that doesn’t look like a cat walked across your keyboard during creation. Am I impressed? Kind of; but definitely better than many.

By: mtbgirl

mtbgirl — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:19:37 +0000

sorry but that is just a pessimistic approach. its liek giving up and a lot of young athletes who are enthusiastic about their sports would disagree that if you stop fighting something its goin to continue but if you do something about it maybe it will be a clean sport eventually

By: mtbgirl

mtbgirl — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:17:42 +0000

yeh its their choice but there are rules and its like schoolkids wearing school uniform they dont want to in general but they have to. just because athletes want to do drugs doesnt mean they can. cyclists are part of the cycling body and in becoming a pro they arent supposed to dope.

By: mtbgirl

mtbgirl — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:13:32 +0000

i reckon the lines drawn where the rules are. the uci are there for a reason and when its not drugs people may complain but they do accept the rules such as when a sprint is taking place sprinters must stick to their line. i know the two rules have no relation whatsoever but they are the rules and theyre there to be followed.
also Ryan originally said “manipulate the body”. when stuff is specifically designed to manipulate the body it makes me think of like brainwashing or sumthin like that that your body is not supposed to do naturally. if sumthin aint natural i think thats where the line should be drawn. people might say lance armstrong winning the tour 7 times isnt natural but (for arguments sake hes not doping) he trains his body naturally not with drugs to make his body able to cope with that.

By: mtbgirl

mtbgirl — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:02:36 +0000

i like this idea it might give athlete the chance to start over. if a cyclist has been using drugs for ages it would be hard to stop especially because of the media’s reaction to drugs at thsi time. if a cyclist suddenly stops performing well and goes to being dropped people are going to get suspicious and someone WILL say that they are doping if it goes on. if ammnesty was given it could give them peace of mind to stop. train. then race clean. altho tbh the media have a lot to do with it building up the pressure, accusing people falsley nd all that.

By: Justin

Justin — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:13:38 +0000

Very true. And this is why simply allowing PEDs in sport is not the answer. It may or may not be the answer to legalize drugs in the “real world”; but in sport, where the rules are what make the games just that, lines (no matter how arbitrary) must be drawn and enforced. In this case, mostly for the reason you’ve mentioned here, it is easier to draw a line that disallows PEDs.

By: Mario

Mario — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 06:11:27 +0000

This is the tendency of us human to demand from others to be a better person, to look up for role models for our children when we should be those models; the vast majority speaks about PED’s like magic shots that over the night produce amazing improvements, reality its quite different, athletes still have to work really hard to achieve their goals; but we like to rationalize our lies or cheats over the ones used by the others i.e. My use of alcohol, caffeine or cheating on my taxes its not as bad as when athletes, singers or presidents cheat, when in fact they are the same…a lie.

For me its just another example of the double moral that permeates human nature. Athletes are adults and should be let to decide whether they use them or not; I recommend the documentary Bigger Stronger Faster.

By: Oskar

Oskar — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 12:04:00 +0000

First of all, musicians/dancers using drugs to “soothe the jitters” might just have the “jitters” as a result of drug use/addiction, not vice versa. Are you implying that most, or a considerable portion, of Americans knew about or suspected the drugs given to Judy Garland during the filming, and paid to see the film regardless? I think that argument is valid, only if this is the case, as one cannot decry what one does not know. I am interested to know if that was common knowledge at the time. Also interested to know if the Home Alone kid got hooked on any drugs during filming.

I think a big part of the difference in this case is that notion of “celebrity”. E.g. an unknown blues guitarist gigging for his wage is a musician, but Amy Winehouse is something different. The blues guitarist shouldn’t do drugs, because it’s blowing his hard-earned cash, but we love the Schadenfreude in each photo of Ms. Winehouse passed out in yet another back-alley dumpster.

I think the biggest point of difference is that Rock and Roll has never had rules, besides the musical aspects which would need be present to define it as Rock and Roll. The radio has rules, record labels have rules, theaters have rules, sure, but Rock and Roll does not. Hip Hop does not. Jazz most certainly does not. Societies/Markets… have rules, in that we will or will not continue to consume the product, based on the actions of the maker of the product. Also, is the competition to write better songs, or to sell more albums? I’m sure the owners of team franchises more than understand this concept. “Gee, my Dallas Cowboys didn’t make the Superbowl, but we sold the most tickets and jerseys. I think I won.”

Even still, I think the major reason why the creative minds aren’t held to the same standard as athletes, is because, while there is potential for benefit, there is also far greater potential for loss. Off the top of your head, how many rock-stars can you name who have overdosed while still in the peak of their careers? Now try to name the athletes that did… How many stars didn’t die from chemical abuse, but definitely lost their careers over it? The public will tolerate and even expect some debauchery, but if you can’t perform a show without getting into a drunken fist-fight with your guitarist/brother while on-stage, we probably wont buy many copies of your next album. I’ve been awake too long today to write this eloquently. Anyone wanna refine the crude oil of my thoughts into cerebral gasoline?