For those of you who read The New York Times Sunday Magazine, Randy Cohen’s name will be familiar. He writes a column every week called The Ethicist. He has a column in today’s paper which talks about baseball and steroids, but could be applied to almost any sport, including cycling. (In fact, he mentions cycling at one point in his essay.) Here’s an interesting quote from Cohen’s article, just to whet your appetite.
[T]he way to curtail [the use of steroids] is not by denouncing putative failures of individual rectitude — baseball has tried that for years with unimpressive results — but to recast the issue as one of workplace safety.
Interesting idea, recasting doping as a workplace safety issue. Many of the performance-enhancing drugs used by cyclists and other athletes also present a safety issue, especially if administered by someone not trained in the proper use of such drugs (for those that are legal in other aspects of life, that is). Of course, the devil is in the details. Exactly how would that work?
A bit later on, Cohen notes that there is a need for “clear rules, consistent enforcement (and requisite testing), appropriate penalties and a moratorium on consigning transgressors to eternal hellfire.” I’m sure that will strike a note with cycling fans, especially those who’ve followed the umpteen-million doping scandals that have rocked the sport over the last decade, too.
Take a few moments to read the whole article. Randy Cohen makes a well-reasoned and balanced argument on why baseball (and really, by extension, all sports) should pursue a different approach in dealing with the issue of doping.
So here are some questions to consider: If the UCI and the sport of cycling tried Cohen’s approach, do you think it could work? What would happen if WADA changed its approach to what Cohen suggests? (Or are they already too entrenched with their current enforcement model to be able to switch gears?)
Some of the modern-day doping doctors have already put forward the claim that what they are doing is medically responsible treatment for conditions caused by the extreme levels of physical activity required in modern top-level sport.
In the case of the health check on hematocrit, when this first went into effect and there were no tests for EPO, it became a de facto limit on how much you could cheat: it’s ok to take EPO, just don’t take too much of it.
So while I think there’s a lot of value in what he’s saying, there’s plenty of devil in the details.
tom
Tom,
I don’t know if you like Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. or not, but right now I’m reading Armageddon in Retrospect. The chapter I’m on right now, which shares its title with the book, presents an interesting (though entirely unrelated to doping) take on the Devil being in the details.
For those of you fond of literary exercises, compare the doping issue as “workplace safety” to Michael Barry’s article on that issue:
http://www.velonews.com/article/92236/michael-barry-s-diary—a-matter-of-safety
And something else to ponder (if you’re a LeMond follower):
http://www.aroundtherings.com/articles/view.aspx?id=32267
While this is an interesting idea, I personally think that there is little if anything to gain by recasting the doping issue into one of workplace safety. It has been known for years that at least some forms of doping entail risks to health and life: ask the 1960 Danish Olympic cycling team, or a bit later the Peugeot teammates of Tom Simpson. Recall too the informal survey a few years ago at the US Olympi Training Center, where most of the athletes said they would take a drug that guaranteed a gold medal at the expense of dying 10 years later.
For that matter, cycle racing is an inherently dangerous sport: a number of notable cyclists have been killed in crashes during racing or training and the number is much larger when you include all the relatively unknown low level amateur cyclists who have met this fate.
In addition, there is the distinct possibility that some forms of doping, if done under medical supervision, might not be all that risky. After all, the US military has, at least in the past, routinely made amphetamines available to troops in combat or airmen undertaking lengthy missions.
The helmet issue in the NHL seems to me to be an inappropriate analogy. Not wearing a helmet could, in theory, give one a very slight advantage in a game situation: less weight, better ventilation; but then a case could be made that wearing a helmet gives an advantage in that one might be more willing to initiate or receive contact, being less concerned about head injuries. Furthermore (as mentioned in the article), compliance is very easy to achieve. While there was a transition period in the NHL, during which players who were in the league as of a certain date were allowed to compete without a helmet, if they so choose; there has never been a case where a player or team attempted to gain an unfair advantage by violating the helmet rule.
There is one thing I agree with: doping will not be solved until there is a sea change in attitude. I don’t think such changes can be legislated.
William,
Good point about the inherent dangers of cycling. Many sports have certain inherent dangers or risks. To make the “workplace” completely safe would fundamentally alter how those sports are played (if at all). I agree that the doping problem can’t be solved without a sea change in attitudes. Attitudes definitely can’t be legislated, no matter how hard the powers that be might try.
eightzero,
Interesting about LeMond. I’d certainly like to be a fly on the wall at that presentation.