Doping

Two year ban for Sharapova.

Wow. I was convinced she'd wriggle out ofvit somehow.

Bolt to lose a medal too?

Good to see maybe these fuckers aren't too big to be busted.

Now for Bolt and all the footballers...

and all the footballers...

Imagine what a Premiership club doctor might get paid as hush money if they threatened to spill the beans.

This rather tragic Kimbo Slice story hasn't been mentioned yet.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jun/08/kimbo-slice-awaiting-heart-transplant-died

I'll preface that I know nothing about UFC or any MMA stuff, beyond the mainstream press headlines - so not a lot at all.
What I am finding interesting here is that this chap got done for steroid abuse, when his job is to beat people as hard as he can - and he's being lauded as a really good bloke. Now I can understand that his is an interesting rags to riches story that the fight game loves to embrace, and that he was a generally good person with a sense of humour and kind nature. But that falls down when you see that he artificially enhanced himself to hit way harder and for longer than his own body could manage. It's a step above taking drugs to run faster, isn't it?
Anyway, it looks like he's suffered the fate of Flo-Jo and numerous pro wrestlers with his heart failure. An awful thing all round.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/36482288

Given me a smiley face after a day of funerals and guiness

bollocks just seen somebody beat me to it

Nike said she did not dope intentionally and will continue to support her ! Well we all know where their morals are !

Surely that just reaffirms everything we know about Nike's morals? Namely that they are more than happy to support doped sports people, in fact there is some evidence they facilitate it.

Well we all know where their morals are !

They don't have morals, they have a legal obligation to maximise shareholder value. She still generates money for them even with the doping conviction.

I would have thought that the manufacture of sportswear was a fairly amoral issue. Buy it or not however you see fit.

The obligation to maximise shareholder value isn't 'legal' either. It merely follows that those who invested in the business will be paid their dividend if the company turns a profit.

Doping isn't even a moral issue. Chris Froome takes what products have a tick next to them and avoids those that have a cross. Everybody agrees to do this because it makes for a more level playing field. If it was to do with morality - it's the taking part that counts - then nobody would care because the competitive element would be unimportant.

Since when do morals dictate the removal of the competitive aspect of sport?

What's morality got to do with sport? Sport is arbitrary competition and you'd be hard-pressed to apply ethics to it.

I'm being a little disingenuous here, so let me say this: the moral outrage toward doping strikes me as rather puritanical. So if you're a Protestant then fine, yes, it is a moral issue and God will see to it you are punished if you dope. The rules against doping are otherwise practical, to keep the sport operating in the way we want it to and to keep it interesting and, dare I say, profitable.

Me, puritanical? LOLz.

I like to compete. I don't want to have to fill my already fucked blood supply with dangerous chemicals just to remain competitive. The anti-doping rules are in place to discourage cheating pricks from doing just that. I make no money from sport so the anti-doping rules have nothing to do with profitability. If that was truly the case they'd not bother testing amateurs.

There is no 'god' that's going to punish someone who stops another earning an income from their sport because that someone was cheating. There is WADA though.

Why is doping immoral?

I know it's not desirable, but that's not the same thing.

For doping to be immoral then sport itself as to be moral, but it's not, it's amoral, just a game, fun.

immoral

not conforming to accepted standards of morality.

synonyms: unethical, bad, morally wrong, wrongful, wicked, evil, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonourable, dishonest, unconscionable, iniquitous, disreputable, fraudulent, corrupt, depraved, vile, villainous, nefarious, base, unfair, underhand, devious

Really? You think cheating your peers out of victory is not dishonest or corrupt, etc? What about cheating them out of income?

The fact that some of it is illegal means it clearly isn't conforming to accepted standards of morality.

just a game, fun

Clearly not true when many people are deriving their income from it.

You don't think cyclists enjoy what they do? It's a high-risk career move if you're in it just for the money.

Initially, yes, unless they're a product of some government sports system and then they turn pro and likely give up further education or training to race bikes for money. Their income depends on results. "Rules" and this includes "anti-doping" ensures they are not cheated out of their income by someone breaking the rules.

Not just the riders - think of the whole British Olympic machine. It's funded and the funding is based on results. Imagine if you lot weren't winning because Russia just went "fuck it, give me ALL the drugs". Elite sport in this country would dry up. Knock on effect would be huge.

moral user is moral

your a moral

I take your line of reasoning, but I still think it's got little to do with morality.
You have to take a view. I'm merely saying that a clean rider doesn't not dope not out of the goodness of their heart but because they don't think its worth the risk. If you were to offer Team Sky some new supplement that wasn't illegal but offered a 1% increase in performance then they'd be all over it. Ergo, it's not the act of enhancing of performance that you're defining as immoral but the enhancing of performance by way of a substance that WADA has prohibited. Therefore, it is the breeching of rules you object to, not the desire to gain an advantage over a rival. I'm sure you'll accept that not all rules are moral and are very often based on practicality.

I'm merely saying that a clean rider doesn't not dope not out of the goodness of their heart but because they don't think its worth the risk.

I disagree. I don't cheat because I was brought up to not cheat. My moral compass is aligned to 'play fair'. Given what I do to my body, health issues from doping are much less of a reason to dope than the simple fact I believe it is wrong. I can't be the only one to think this way.

If it's not banned, is it still doping? Remember the WADA code prohibits unknown substances that do stuff like increase oxygen supply to the blood or boost testosterone or whatever. So where would the 1% gain come from? If they find something with a benefit that might cross a line, would they use it? That's where the morality comes into it. It's not just 'is it WADA defined or not?' what if the supplement worked great but killed everyone who used it within a year? Tell me Sky would use it then? "It's just a game, for fun". It's clearly not.

1 - My hypothetical mystery substance that Sky may or may not choose to use was just that - a hypothetical substance.

2 - If your upbringing was anything like mine, then it was instructed by Christianity, regardless of whether you consciously subscribe to the religion's doctrines' (I don't, by the way). If you were born in, say, a Buddhist country your view could be entirely different.

3 - Sport is, by definition, a game. The fact that a business is built around it it does not elevate it beyond that. If a cyclist dopes, nobody dies. They are not faced with ethical dilemmas the way a healthcare professional might be, or a soldier.

"If it's not banned, is it still doping?"

This suggests that prior to it being banned you believe the taking of EPO was perfectly acceptable. Yet if nobody else had access to it, it would still have give a sizeable advantage to those who did, thus depriving those who didn't out of their income?