Doping

Hang on a sec. Is the root of your argument that some people think cheating in any form isn't wrong? If so is there really any point in discussing that argument in a thread that makes the implicit assumption that cheating is wrong?

Point 1 explains the suspect performances of @Brave

Isn't the origin of the war on doping, the war on drugs?

And if I'm not mistaken, the summary of that debate is in the definition of "drug". Who decides what's in, what's out and so on?

To say something is outlawed because it makes you faster is not true, because a well structured diet can do that.

Then you have to build the base on safety to the actors: anything that is dangerous is on the list. That starts to get a little shaky too - sugar kills a lot more people than EPO every year. The proof required for this would need to be scientific with a clear line: on this side is safe drugs, that line is dangerous. And it all be a-political.

Then it could be about an even playing field: don't allow things that are very expensive or that are hard to get / not evenly distributed (ie. an effective budget restriction) so that everyone can play. This makes a ton of sense. It's kind of like how stock car racing is structured. I feel like this is where the 'fair' argument is coming from.

It's hard to untangle all of this because of the combination of secrecy, sensationalism and emotion surrounding the topic. The irony is, the more people get emotional about it, the less progress will be made and the more it will go underground.

Who decides what's in, what's out and so on?

WADA. By taking part in any mainstream sport, you are delegating authority to decide on these questions to WADA, whether you agree with them or not. If you disagree profoundly with WADA, put your energy into a sport which isn't governed by their <devil's advocate >arbitrary, poorly-evidenced, capricious, inconsistent</devil's advocate> rules.

True, but doesn't the cultural context decide the starting list? Like the war on drugs, the people that empower WADA, really decide on the list. Taking something off the list that was once thought to be evil but science works out to be not evil is politically hard - because emotion and the want to sell newspapers. It's bad science but good business.

You're right though. If we are talking about the athlete (not me), that's their decision.

I think also the fairness argument applies to how using drugs shifts emphasis from hard work and natural talent to risk taking. Taking drugs in a scenario outside of their intended purpose (e.g. a healthy person taking heart medication) introduces a risk of serious health complications. One athlete might be willing to take that risk and another not, so effectively the most reckless participant gains the edge, unless they overdo it and kill themselves of course.

Edit: I just re-read your post and you kind of made that argument already.

less rational argument, more scandals and insinuations please

If so is there really any point in discussing that argument in a thread that makes the implicit assumption that cheating is wrong?

There's not really much point in discussing that argument at all, I would've said. @The_Kindness_of_Trees does indeed, as far as his posts contain any coherent argument, appear to be suggesting that deliberately cheating at sport isn't morally objectionable because morality is subjective in the absence of religious belief. If so, engagement in rational debate would seem futile.

Although good luck with finding any sport which doesn't have rules which are at times arbitrary, poorly-evidenced, capricious, inconsistent or indeed all of the above.

Darts!

T.U.E

The Professional Darts Corporation's rulebook contains a provision banning the wearing of corduroy during competitions. Rule 5.25.01.

5.25.01 Players are not permitted to wear jeans: neither shall they wear trousers or skirts made with denim or corduroy material which
have been fashioned in a “jeans style”. No training shoes will be
allowed unless the Player provides written medical reasons from a
qualified practitioner. This restriction shall also apply to any form
of “track suit” attire.

The Professional Darts Corporation's rulebook contains a provision banning the wearing of corduroy

That makes sense, the cords act as trips and give an aerodynamic benefit which favours competitors who can afford a lot of wind tunnel time to optimise the cutting pattern.

good luck with finding any sport which doesn't have rules which are at times arbitrary, poorly-evidenced, capricious, inconsistent or indeed all of the above

When we come together to play sports under an agreed set of rules, we accept the rules regardless of how bad they are. We always have the option not to play. What we don't have, even in a godless universe, is the option to play but not by the rules, whatever spurious bullshit @The_Kindness_of_Trees may spout.

less rational argument, more scandals and insinuations please

THIS

they have a legal obligation to maximise shareholder value

Not sure they do, which would meant that any decision to maximise shareholder value in this manner is their choice.

Not sure they do

Well, they have a fiduciary duty to act in the interests of the shareholders. It is up to the shareholders to instruct the directors about their interests, but in most cases maximising value is at the top of the list.

Ford won a case setting a precedent that so long as you're doing something which can be construed as being in the shareholders' interests, they can't sue you (as an officer of the company) for not doing what they specifically want, e.g. not paying them massive dividends and pouring the money into R&D instead.

Actually, they have a fiduciary duty to act in the interests of the company, albeit that if the company is solvent then the interests of the company are generally viewed as being the same as the long-term interests of the shareholders. However, directors can easily claim that the long-term interests of the company do not require or justify immoral conduct. Equally, they can hide behind the duty to act in the best interests of the company if they're weasels, and want an excuse for being weasely.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gasparotto-and-thurau-pulled-from-criterium-du-dauphine-due-to-low-cortisol-levels/

Judge rules that Operation Puerto blood bag names should be released. Oh My Days!

Someone failed to bribe somebody somewhere and shit could very well go down.

The statute of limitations means most will get away scot free though.

Indeed but at least cycling will stop taking the brunt of the doping allegations if it's exposed that football and tennis are just as dirty.

When is it going to happen?