Armstrong charged and banned

[Flying_Monkey]

Here's one I've always thought relevant; why is it that one branch of medicine - pharmacology - is mostly illegal while another branch of medicine - psychology - is considered perfectly acceptable?

But they aren't the same. What you have done is put two things in one box called 'medicine' and said that we have an inconsistent attitude to 'medicine'. But 1. Psychology could equally be put in a box called 'social science'; and 2. No-one has ever argued that all 'medicine' should be banned. The point is about substances or processes that offer a known physical advantage beyond simply repairing or preventing injury. You can't ban psychological techniques because their advantage is not physical and, in any case, very difficult to demonstrate in any objective way.

 

[ufkacbln]

I suppose that technically there is less "cost" to the individual with psychology than with pharmacology.

Pharmacology has and will push athletes to the limits and beyond. This is where at the worst case deaths occur

It's not new, 1n 1896 Arthur Linton became the first cyclist to die from a performance enhancing drug (Strychnine) in 1960, another cyclists Knud Jensen died of an overdose of amphetamine and Nicotinyl Nitrate, then there is Tom Simpson, with amphetamines and alcohol.

It is unlikely that any psychologist will be able to push an athlete into dangerous realms of performance, they will be limited by the body's ability.

Of course it may also be why many of the "greats" in Sport are thoroughly nasty people as their drive and singularly selfish attitude are exactly what has allowed them to step ahead of the others

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Of course it may also be why many of the "greats" in Sport are thoroughly nasty people as their drive and singularly selfish attitude are exactly what has allowed them to step ahead of the others

I think this is a bit of a stereotype. For every Lance Armstrong, there's a Greg Lemond or a Bradley Wiggins. Chris Hoy is a lovely human being by all accounts. Drive doesn't necessarily equate to being 'nasty' or any kind of morally reprehensible behaviour. In fact, I would argue that it's precisely the line between being driven and being for want of a better word 'over-driven' that leads down the road to cheating.

 

[PaulB]

But they aren't the same. What you have done is put two things in one box called 'medicine' and said that we have an inconsistent attitude to 'medicine'. But 1. Psychology could equally be put in a box called 'social science'; and 2. No-one has ever argued that all 'medicine' should be banned. The point is about substances or processes that offer a known physical advantage beyond simply repairing or preventing injury. You can't ban psychological techniques because their advantage is not physical and, in any case, very difficult to demonstrate in any objective way.

They belong in the same box; both brands are often to be found in the same establishment (a hospital) and are practiced by doctors and consultant doctors of medicine. There is more mental illness than physical illness. I'm not saying they are the same at all and maybe it isn't relevant in this specific case of Lance Armstrong as this thread concerns but since the issue of cost was raised earlier, I threw this one in.

And the mind is a very complex thing and therefore you can and should ban certain psychological techniques as their advantage can well be physical. You could get soldiers to go over the top and walk towards certain death in the past whereas now, you could convince someone to wear a rucksack of bombs and detonate themselves on a bus.

 

[ufkacbln]

I think this is a bit of a stereotype. For every Lance Armstrong, there's a Greg Lemond or a Bradley Wiggins. Chris Hoy is a lovely human being by all accounts. Drive doesn't necessarily equate to being 'nasty' or any kind of morally reprehensible behaviour. In fact, I would argue that it's precisely the line between being driven and being for want of a better word 'over-driven' that leads down the road to cheating.

Which is why I said "many" not "all"

I was specifically relating to adverse and negative effects in both pharmacology and psychology.

 

[Chuffy]

I think this is a bit of a stereotype. For every Lance Armstrong, there's a Greg Lemond or a Bradley Wiggins. Chris Hoy is a lovely human being by all accounts. Drive doesn't necessarily equate to being 'nasty' or any kind of morally reprehensible behaviour. In fact, I would argue that it's precisely the line between being driven and being for want of a better word 'over-driven' that leads down the road to cheating.

Indeed. What seems to happen is that people who like following winners are prepared to excuse behaviour and personality traits that they wouldn't tolerate in a 'lesser' person. You don't have to be an peanut to be a champion and Chris Hoy is the example I always use when this crops up.

 

[Red Light]

It was pretty dull watching Arnstrong dominate the TdF. Just reading a bio of Eddy Merckx - the speed of riders in the late 60s early 70s is still extraordinary! For me, its not about absolute performance - guys competing and giving it their all, far in excess of what I could achieve is the compelling part.

Just out of interest, Merckx believed Armstrong to be innocent and he himself was the subject of a number of unproven allegations of doping which he too denied.

 

[Red Light]

Firstly, not everyone was doping.

True, possibly Kivilev and Zubeldia weren't although the latter's performance in the mountains in 2003 against Ulrich and Armstrong would indicate he was on whatever they were on.

 

[Alun]

Here's one I've always thought relevant; why is it that one branch of medicine - pharmacology - is mostly illegal while another branch of medicine - psychology - is considered perfectly acceptable? That was a question raised, of all people, by Chris Eubank. He'd been beaten by a fighter who boasted he'd been to a hypnotherapist who encouraged his aggression once in the ring. I think Sky are well known to employ psychologists to get the best from their riders and once again, this is the province of the best-funded and will be denied to those teams and nations who don't possess the necessary wealth to employ such specialists.

There will always besome teams who have more money than others, it's not restricted to cycling though. Liverpool FC is one of the richest football clubs in the world, but has consistently underperformed to the disappointment of it's fans.

 

[Chuffy]

[QUOTE 2007846, member: 45"]These people could do with stepping back and taking the idol down off the pedestal. If they'r willing to do this then they'll see things pretty differently.[/quote]
It's just one of the reasons why I don't have, or like the idea of, personal heroes. It requires too much suspension of critical faculties, plus an emotional investment that just seems illogical and stupid.

 

[Ian H]

There are rules and there are unwritten rules. Pro cycling is in the process of changing the unwritten rules (it might take a while for the amateurs to catch up).

 

[Red Light]

Tygart says Armstrong used undetectable drugs. Penalties for the witnesses to be announced in the next few weeks.
http://www.ksdk.com/sports/article/...trong-could-have-kept-5-Tour-de-France-titles

 

[Red Light]

Well, maybe the UCI and others within the sport covering up positive tests was one of the things that prevented them catching Lance sooner? Hmmm?

How did the UCI cover them up? L'Equipe often seemed to know them before WADA or the UCI had been informed.

 

[albion]

There is a sure fire way to catch a drug cheat.

You place him under water for 10 minutes and if he lives he is innocent. You then hang him for witchcraft.

 

[Get In The Van]

It's just one of the reasons why I don't have, or like the idea of, personal heroes. It requires too much suspension of critical faculties, plus an emotional investment that just seems illogical and stupid.

John Lydon sums it best for me
"i don't have any heros, they're all useless"