"No Dope, No Hope" - Why Should Spectators Care About "Doping" In Sports?

Ronald Bailey|Jan. 18, 2013 10:52 am



It's official. Lance Armstrong admitted to Oprah last night that he "doped' his way to victory in the sport of cycling. So what? Well, the only reasonable objection is that it violated the rules; but other than that, why would any spectator care? Is the thrill of witnsessing a hard-fought competition thus somehow diminished? If enhancements undermine the competition, why not require cyclists to ride the same sort of bikes that were used in the first Tour de France in 1903? Surely the use of optimized light-weight bikes today is an enhancement?

Speaking of the 1903 Tour de France, "doping" was then an acceptable part of the race. At various points, cyclists evidently used ether, strychnine, and amphetamines to gain an edge. In 1998, a German rider told Der Spiegel:


"For as long as the Tour has existed, since 1903, its participants have been doping themselves. No dope, no hope. The Tour, in fact, is only possible because - not despite the fact - there is doping. For 60 years this was allowed. For the past 30 years it has been officially prohibited. Yet the fact remains; great cyclists have been doping themselves, then as now."

Some people will argue that athletes must be protected against the temptataion to use enhancements because they could harm their health. However, athletes already take all kinds of health-harming risks just to play their games. Why shouldn't adults be able to make up their own minds about the risk/reward calculus of using biological enhancements? The best way that policymakers and sports officials can reduce the harm to athletes that might result from using enhancements would be to bring their use out of the shadows and let it be done with the benefit of medical oversight and good research.

A while back, I proposed an experiment in which sports leagues could be divided into the Naturals and the Enhanced. As I wrote:


"Why not solve the future problem of gene doping and the current problem of steroid use in professional sports by creating two kinds of sports leagues? One would be free of genetic and pharmacologic enhancements - call them the Natural Leagues. The other would allow players to use gene fixes and other enhancements - call them the Enhanced Leagues. Let fans decide which play they prefer."

Why not indeed?

**** steroids and **** Lance Armstrong. Bring back Ty Cobb and let Pete Rose into the Hall of Fame.

You know what doping and PED use hurts? It kills inspiration in a sport like cycling, or even baseball, where someone of less than perfect, hulking physical stature can still succeed. I personally hated the home run derby of the late 90s. I've recently come to think that that's because I HAVE NO HOPE OF EVER HITTING A HOME RUN. I am weak and puny, but, you know what? I can probably make contact, steal a base, maybe play some defense. Or, on a bike, dammit, I can ride from here to San Francisco if I need to.

Watching baseball players or cyclists who you think are doing these things through natural ability, you do become inspired. I've ridden up mountains on a bike, with panniers and gear, and it takes a lot of determination and conditioning. Seeing Floyd Landis win that epic stage in the 2006 Tour de France, I had some small measure of understanding what it takes to do that.

Then you learn that they all doped and think, well, no, I no longer relate to that. It in fact becomes uninspiring, and I do not admire the ability or willingness to wreck your body in that pursuit.

People that who get locked into a vision, that's it. That's their drive. That's their passion. Critics don't matter, this don't matter. They're going to do whatever it **** takes to be the best at what they do. Most people in society will never understand that because they've never had passion about anything.

I still don't get the hatred for Pete Rose. He bet on himself to win... so what?

I don't know why I bother coming back to these threads, but ... In Rose's case you can argue, but probably never prove, that the pressure of winning might have led him to alter his strategy or influence his moves in ways that could harm one of his players. Say he bet on his team - since he wasn't just betting on himself - to win one day, but his starter just doesn't have it. But, say his bullpen is shot (maybe because he wore it out trying to win the day before) - does he leave the guy in longer than he might otherwise, hoping he can keep his team in the game, possibly leading to injury? Is that fair to the player?