Doping

A bit more detail on the Sharapova case. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/36486050

She took it on the day of every match she played at the Ausie Open. Sounds like she knew exactly how it helped her performances. She missed that bit out of her swanky news conference confession.

If a cyclist dopes, nobody dies. They are not faced with ethical dilemmas the way a healthcare professional might be, or a soldier.

This is patently untrue given the long history of doping related deaths in cycling. The ethical dilemmas involved in pushing a human being's physiology into unknown realms and in so doing, potentially damaging their health is likewise manifestly obvious for all to see. There will no doubt be a spate of premature deaths in a few years because of a cancer-inducing substance like AICAR for instance.

I'm not sure if you're entirely serious in your argument, but given that Amgen, producer of EPO, still sponsors the Tour of California, the link between pharmaceutical companies, sport, and marketing is undeniable. Ferrari himself spoke of his guilt that his testosterone treatments on Armstrong had if not actually caused the cancer, made it spread far faster than it might have done.

Re: religion-the Olympics spans all races and faiths. All have agreed to compete on an agreed platform that bans doping and are subject to the same rules. The geopolitical posturing of say, Russia, that involves state-sponsored juicing of their athletes-possibly against their wishes or choice-and damaging their health I would argue is a deeply immoral thing, both on an individual for the sake of the athletes and doctors and on a national level whereby clean athletes are having their hard work sabbotaged by doping. Religion doesn't really come into it.

You dope, it's you who dies, not someone else. I assumed this went without saying.

The link between pharmaceutical companies and sport is interesting and one that I do feel wanders into the realms of ethics. That said, nobody's being physically forced to dope.

The last point, I haven't got time to go into in great detail, but I never alluded to state-sponsored doping (again, this is a more murky subject). What I was doing was kicking against this demonisation of individuals that have opted to dope vs. the supposed honesty of those who haven't.

Finally, with regard to religion not having anything to do with it, on what other basis are you deciding what's right or wrong? Thou shall not do this, thou shall not do that. On what authority? We may not, generally, as a society believe much in God, but our moral standards are very much devolved from the teachings of the New Testament. And if you say they're not and they're just born out of some evolutionary imperative, then so too could the mind-set of the person who cheats - for all we know, they could be ahead of the evolutionary curve. Anyway, I don't really want to get into all that - just wanted to point our how puritanical that string of thinking can sound. (Oh, the irony.)

1. and?
   
2. and?
   
3. "If a cyclist dopes, nobody dies". Google "EPO deaths"
   
   

taking of EPO was perfectly acceptable

No, I was talking of your hypothetical drug and how the WADA rules ban such things already.

She's a cheat. She just happens to be a stupid cheat too.

You dope, it's you who dies, not someone else. I assumed this went without saying.

That's not even true either. What of the recent stories about crashes being caused in races because riders are using hardcore painkillers that are making them groggy?
How are the drugs obtained? If there's any smuggling there's a black market trade and money changing hands illicitly = possible violence.

It's not like they're walking into their local Boots and asking for a course of EPO.

with regard to religion not having anything to do with it, on what other basis are you deciding what's right or wrong?

dafuq?

You are completely missing/avoiding my points.

1 - Let's assume the new substance was a natural plant extract - or crisps.
2 - Not all Religions have the same view, so why is one view any more valid than the next?
3 - See my reply to uber-gruber. The ethics of reciprocity is all that really counts, so if you're not forcing harm on others....

Right, I have no idea what you're talking about any more so I'm going back to work.

I don't agree with cheating. Doping is cheating. Dopers can fuck off.

It appears that we have taken this as far as we can, unless you've got some interesting theory as to what defines right or wrong, other than what your parents could come up with or whatever it is you have decided you want it to be.

Cheating is wrong. Doping is a form of cheating. Doping is wrong.

I don't think that this has taken anything very far at all.

If you are stating religion is the sole source of morality in the world I might direct you to the atheist David Hume and a vein of empirical philosophy that has existed since the 18th Century Enlightenment and has been one of the most influential figures in Western thought alongside Bacon, Hobbes and Locke.

I'm not religious, but have been known to cheat at monopoly - coincidence?

Yeah, I'm well aware of all that.

I'm only stating that religion is the sole source of morality in as much it's the one source of morality that backs itself up with the notion of the divine, which is hard to argue with.
If man creates his own morality then it cannot be immutable because the physical world is not immutable: at what point would it turn around and say, yes, we've got it right and nothing shall change from here on in? The moment a cyclist cheats and we decide it's not on, perhaps?

Is this a real person or just an ethics-themed lorem ipsum gobbledygook generator?

I'm only stating that religion is the sole source of morality in as much it's the one source of morality that backs itself up with the notion of the divine, which is hard to argue with

Religion back up morality with the divine, yes. I don't recall anyone claiming otherwise, or that cycling was some kind of transcendent religious experience, even if Rapha would like to do a limited edition Turn-shroud suffering jacket.

To say that religion has cornered morality, or that humankind are incapable of forming a secular code of morality is false-we have a secular legal system and a criminal code, the code of conduct in relation to sport and doping is no different. You don't see anyone turning round and appealing a red card on the ground that the Pope hasn't issued a bull validating the decision, do you? Rules surrounding doping change all the time-caffeine used to be on the banned substance list ffs-and even the case with Sharapova reflects changing stances of what is and isn't acceptable based on revised scientific knowledge.

"To say that religion has cornered morality, or that humankind are incapable of forming a secular code of morality is false-we have a secular legal system and a criminal code, the code of conduct in relation to sport and doping is no different."

Didn't say that religion has cornered morality or that it was incapable of forming a secular code, just that morality without the divine to back it up is fairly arbitrary - utilitarian, if you will.

I do love a tenuous philosophical argument. I once witnessed a massive bellend in my circle of friends nick an old saucepan out of a pile of junk in someone's front garden. When the angry owner ran out and confronted him the dickhead genuinely opened with the argument that property ownership was an artificial construct and neither of them truly owned the pan. Angry pan-owner convincingly countered that he might use a second bigger pan to smash the little twat's head in and get his property back.

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.

Strictly, they have a legal obligation to act in the interests of the shareholders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revlon,_Inc._v._MacAndrews_%26_Forbes_Holdings,_Inc.

morality without the divine to back it up is fairly arbitrary - utilitarian, if you will.

I think religious morality is just as utilitarian both for the institution (sponging money out of the plebs) and the plebs (not going to hell/getting a few thousand virgins/etc). Morals are there to help society function on some level, enforced by a sky-wizard or a truncheon, or massive financial penalty, I don't really see either being more arbitrary than the other insofar they've all been written down by people to serve a particular end, whether that's not cheating on your spouse or rigging the Derby.

utilitarian, if you will.

Eh? There are no deontological moral codes that are not based on religion?

Tiger Woods made $45 million last year, less than 1% of it from tournament winnings, so clearly a bad reputation is no bar to making money in sport.

This has got dick all to do with the philosophy. This has to do with people judging other people against their own moral standard and maintaining that their moral standard is somehow absolute. I'm saying that someone who dopes might not even consider that what they're doing is wrong - like how Maradonna thought his handball against England was perfectly legitimate, as did however million South Americans.

Sure, but religion's morality is not up for debate, wherein the secular world we're not so sure of ourselves, less inclined to judge, more tolerant of opposing views, etc.
It can just get a bit 'burn the witch' with regard to doping around here, which is more something you'd expect from the religious.

Actually my anecdote is (accidentally) relevant to your point. You can make arguments about what morality is and isn't* but it doesn't really matter if it is is clear in the minds of 99.9% of the population that a transgression has taken place. Saucepan-thief might be a genius and absolutely right in his argument but everyone who witnessed his altercation thought he was a cunt.

• This sounds a lot like philosophy to me.