From: les@SAIL.Stanford.edu (Les Earnest)
Subject: Re: Cycling and Doping
Reply-To: les@cs.stanford.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Dec22.160230.18662@cbnews.cb.att.com>
	<1992Dec24.114303.1657@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 00:54:44 GMT

Following up on remarks by John Ampe, Daniel Cohen writes:
   I can't accept that it "has nothing to do with morality". Why should
   people be banned from using drugs that have known harmful effects?
   (rhetorical question, before anyone gets worked up :-) If the taking of
   such a drug had no impact on anyone else in the world, and the taker was
   over 18 and of sound mind, I can't see why we would want to restrict his
   freedom of choice. So, the reason these drugs are banned is because of
   the effect they have on other people (mainly the other competitors in
   the case of performance-enhancing drugs). ie. it is not considered
   MORAL to impose on other competitors that they have to expose
   themselves to these dangers if they want to compete.

It appears to me that there is actually no disagreement between John
and Daniel.  Just a subtle miscommunication due to the fact that in
the U.S. the term "morality" often has religious connotations that are
(or should be) inapplicable to sports drug testing.  It is for that
reason that I refer to this as an issue of ethics.

   In an "unrestricted" class of competition, as has been proposed on this
   group recently, use of dangerous drugs would probably be considered
   moral, which is why I think the only objection I've seen on this group
   to the proposal is a potential legal problem. I personally hate the
   idea, but have to admit to the logic.

I must again disagree with the claim that there is a legal issue
involved.  Very few of the UCI-prohibited substances are illegal.

   Perhaps the crumbling
   amateur/professional divide will be replaced by a clean/unrestricted
   divide in sport. I suspect that people would lose interest in
   drug-enhanced sport, which would reduce the rewards for success and
   hence reduce the incentive to take drugs and compete in this class.
   Perhaps there would be a few sports (like powerlifting) in which the
   unrestricted class was significant but I think the rest would remain
   dominated by supposedly clean competitions, which might mean that the
   problem wouldn't go away after all.

I expect that if unrestricted competition were offered as an
alternative, most people would still elect to stay in drug-restricted
competition.  However, the playing field would be level in both cases,
which is the point of athletic competition rules.

With respect to illegal drugs, IMAO governments have no business
making laws prohibiting the sale of any drugs.  They should
require disclosure of dangers inherent in things offered for sale
but there should be no laws prohibiting such sales.  Unfortunately,
the laws of many countries have been influenced by a conspiracy
between certain political elements who are always looking for new ways
to control the public and to incarcerate those who get out of line and
the medical and pharmaceutical establishments who wish to ensure their
ongoing control of a very profitable business.  The rest of us pay dearly.

Let me acknowledge, however, that this is getting a bit far from the
subject of rec.bicycles.racing.

Have a jolly holiday!
--
Les Earnest           Phone:  415 941-3984    Fax: 415 941-3934
Internet: Les@cs.Stanford.edu              USMail: 12769 Dianne Drive
UUCP: . . . decwrl!cs.Stanford.edu!Les         Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing