Man and Superman: The Elite Athlete and a level playing field

[Charles Carroll]

Dear all,

The following link should take you to an article by Malcolm Gladwell titled
“Man and Superman.” The article was published in the 9 September 2013 issue
of the New Yorker.

I am posting the link because it touches on the subject of the elite
athlete, a subject it seems to me close to the hearts of many of us on RSR.
It also seems to me that the article raises some rather intriguing and
sophisticated questions about doping.

Needless to say I am looking forward to any comments.

Cordially,

Charles

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2013/09/09/130909crat_atlarge_gladwell?currentPage=all


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[sully]

On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11:16:42 AM UTC-8, Charles Carroll wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> The following link should take you to an article by Malcolm Gladwell titled
>
> “Man and Superman.” The article was published in the 9 September 2013 issue
>
> of the New Yorker.
>
>
>
> I am posting the link because it touches on the subject of the elite
>
> athlete, a subject it seems to me close to the hearts of many of us on RSR.
>
> It also seems to me that the article raises some rather intriguing and
>
> sophisticated questions about doping.
>
>
>
> Needless to say I am looking forward to any comments.
>
>
>
> Cordially,
>
>
>
> Charles
>
>
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2013/09/09/130909crat_atlarge_gladwell?currentPage=all
>

good article. It makes a good case for what is missing
in a great many articles about performance enhancement, is
that a great deal of it doesn't actually enhance performance,
it helps your ability to train harder.

[Charles Carroll]

Mike,

If I were participating in a free association exercise and someone were to
say the name Malcom Gladwell, I would instantly say, Gadfly. Gladwell has
made a career out of challenging received opinion.

It is an easy thing to talk about doping in sports as a form of cheating.
Isn�t it the way most of us think of it? It, however, is another matter
altogether to address the questions Gladwell raises in this article.

Gladwell touches on so many things that are dear to me � challenging
received opinions, as I say; looking at a subject through a different lens;
raising questions most of us ignore.

Who would argue against a level field? No one that I know. Don�t we all
value the idea if it?

Yet how often do we question what it means? A level playing field? Isn�t
this just a figurative way of saying that we place high value on being fair?
On ensuring that of everyone who competes has the same chance of winning?

So we spend a lot of time formulating rules that make sure everyone will
enjoy the same opportunity. Yet how can you have true equality of
opportunity without having equality of condition?

Gladwell ends his piece by asking what is so wrong with � � a vision of
sports in which the object of competition is to use science, intelligence,
and sheer will to conquer natural difference. Hamilton and Armstrong may
simply be athletes who regard this kind of achievement as worthier than the
gold medals of a man with the dumb luck to be born with a random genetic
mutation.�

Cordially,

Charles

[Jay]

I'm not sure I can add anything to an article like that, or the following discussion... I enjoy the fact that at 6'4 I seem suited to rowing, and even more so that my body seems to produce results that I feel are beyond what my fitness and strength should really deliver. Essentially, I always feel a little guilty that when it comes to ergo numbers, I can outperform many people who I know train harder. I've always just thought of it as rowing being the sport my body seems to be suited to. And yes, that does give me an advantage over others that I haven't worked for. Is that cheating? No one really thinks so, but it doesn't mean it's strictly fair.

The alternate thought though, is that we are all individuals, we all have quirks that can give us mental or physical advantages, whether it's a quick wit, a natural running gait, large feet, long fingers, better eyesight, perfect pitch or a natural ear for music. I guess in my head it's only unfair or frustrating if someone has that advantage and doesn't make use of it!

Actually, we can lead this to a further point. Steve Redgrave was diagnosed with diabetes with several years to go to Sydney. So although he had the size and shape for rowing, suddenly he was training with a physical disadvantage that left him struggling for energy and recovery. So a reverse of the natural advantage.

Anyway, that article is a great find. I've read a couple of his books, and he has a great knack for getting below the surface of an apparently obvious thought process or assumption, and showing that there is an alternative direction of thought. Always an interesting read, and that article in particular. I've already passed it on to various friends had some interesting discussions. Thank you Charles.

[Carl]

On 12/11/2013 19:16, Charles Carroll wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> The following link should take you to an article by Malcolm Gladwell

> titled “Man and Superman.†The article was published in the 9 September

> 2013 issue of the New Yorker.
>
> I am posting the link because it touches on the subject of the elite
> athlete, a subject it seems to me close to the hearts of many of us on
> RSR. It also seems to me that the article raises some rather intriguing
> and sophisticated questions about doping.
>
> Needless to say I am looking forward to any comments.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Charles
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2013/09/09/130909crat_atlarge_gladwell?currentPage=all
>

We're a mix of attributes and talents. We deserve equal opportunities
but we are _not_ born equal in abilities & must find our own ways of
achieving through honest endeavour. We should neither complain about
nor resent spectacular success & fortune in an athlete born with a
superior gifts for a particular activity.

Being dimmer than another student does not entitle us to cheat in exams.
Being less adept at passing exams means we should seek other avenues
to success - if we're so precious & immature that we can't bear to not
to be considered the best.

In sport the rules are clear. If you take drugs to perform better you
break those rules & you know you are a cheat. By cheating you are also
a liar - you pretend to be drug-free to deceive the testers & your
opponents. And you're a thief - you steal success & the fruits thereof
thereof from those you beat. Anything you need beyond food for the
caloric & health needs of your sport should be ruled out if not part of
a normal person's diet. Performance-enhancing drugs are _never_ part of
a normal person's diet.

If injured, you are perfectly entitled to the best possible treatment so
that you can resume your sport. But if you happen to lack the right
kind of tendons & have them changed surgically, then you are cheating -
the surgeon's knife becomes your performance enhancing drug.

Sport is about fair & open competition. Being a human being entails a
large measure of mutual trust, including not cheating on others. By
seeking bionic or pharmacological enhancement, just to run a bit faster,
means it's no longer just _you_ doing the running - you're cheating.
You wouldn't race someone who always jumps the gun, but morally that's
no different than taking drugs, or impeding your competitor by drugging
them, or messing with their equipment.

Sport is life-enhancing if done in the right spirit. It is also
essentially childish - it's not something we have to do. It's immature
to need to run faster than someone else, but it's satisfying, so we do
it. Sport goes wrong when money & other inducements enter the equation,
as they do now into almost every sport. Winning matters, but winning
for profit or at any price, & cheating to win, are worms in the bud
which corrupt & destroy the flower that is sport for all.

We have too many poor role models: celebs, mendacious politicians, tax
evaders ("only little people pay tax"), rate-fiddling bankers, diving
footballers, cut & paste essayists, data-bending researchers & those who
spy on us in the pretence of keeping us safe. And "sports icons" are no
less fallible or corrupting.

Meanwhile there's no shortage of silver tongued spouters of weaselly
words trying to persuade us that these cheating, devious drug-boosted
speed machines & their puppet masters deserve to be part of sport & try
to dress up cheating as necessary & OK. It's more & more about keeping
the money machine churning, as in professional cycling & so many other
sports at top level. See the upcoming scandals in Jamaican & Kenyan
athletics, the emerging news about Sochi testing, the devious dealings
of USADA & the ITF, the past scandals in both flavours of pre-90s German
sport, & the permanent harm thus done to so many pumped-up sports guinea
pigs.

If sport can't exist without huge cash flows through its coffers,
without demanding ever-better performances, & without its participants
having "jet-set celeb life styles", & without the rest of us being
expected to kiss their fundaments & fund their payments, then it does no
good & it ain't worth doing.

Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: carldouglas.co.uk & now on Facebook @ CarlDouglasRacingShells

[Nosmo]

Glad to see others criticizing that article.

Sure there are gray areas, but that does not mean we should not draw any lines. Gladwell could have just as easily argued that because we don't allow drugs we shouldn't allow laser eye surgery or tendon replacement.

His position embraces rewarding those who will take any risk with their health to win. It also rewards those that have access and can pay for the best drugs and doctors, while poorer athletes and poorer countries need not bother trying.

Would Gladwell would feel the same if a child of his wanted laser eye surgery as he would if the child was taking steroids, EPO and HGH? Are they really the same thing?

Drugs don't even the playing field. Different people respond very differently to drugs.

I thought it was at the very least intellectually sloppy if not dishonest. Nothing in Gladwell's article is new for anyone who has been paying attention. I'm not impressed.

[Jay]

I don't think that as I read it, I saw Gladwell's opinion as one way or the other. I certainly didn't see it as pro drugs, more likely I felt it was anti surgery. Mainly I read it as a discussion of the aspects of natural, surgucal or drug enhanced advantages. Maybe I'm just reading it from a position of ignorance, but in that case, it has engaged thought from someone who wasn't thinking too deeply beyond "Taking drugs is wrong."

Every article needs a target audience, and this wasn't written for a specialist field, just a wide ranging audience.

As I say, could be just me not reading the full depth of it or my interpretation...

Jay.

[Brian Chapman]

I agree, it is not pro drugs, but does challenge what is cheating. If vision is surgically enhanced for an Olympic biathlon skier to improve their shooting, is that not the same as taking drugs. Both are medical interventions, arguably both permanent.

[Carl]

As a long-time wearer of glasses, I would say that sight correction by
one means or another is a necessity of modern life, like food, since
with serious long-sight, short-sight or astigmatism one cannot love a
"normal" life. If vision is surgically enhanced beyond what is normal,
that may beg a question.

The problem with that interesting article, for me, is that it nibbles
away at the anti-drug stance, thus giving comfort to the blatant cheats.
We've already had athletes arguing their way back into sport on the
specious (to me) grounds that not to be able to return to the athletics
deprives them of the means to earn a living. No, it doesn't. It was
their own folly & dishonesty which deprived them of the right to
continue in athletics, but left open to them every other non-sporting
profession under the sun.

[gsl...@gmail.com]

Gladwell uses loaded phrases and posts rhetorical questions but does a poor job of examining the implications.

From the article: "An athlete cannot use a drug to become an improved version of his natural self, even if the drug is used in doses that are not harmful, and is something that—like testosterone—is no more than a copy of a naturally occurring hormone, available by prescription to anyone, virtually anywhere in the world."

An improved version of one's natural self? Seriously? What does that really mean? How much testosterone does one need to take before is no longer a version of one's natural self? You want all the women who win to shave and have deep voices and look like men? How much testosterone should they be allowed to have?
Am I improved if I risk of dying from blood that is too thick? (Unless you have constant monitoring then you can't tell how much of most drugs people are taking.)

"Before we condemn him, though, shouldn’t we have to come up with a good reason that one man is allowed to have lots of red blood cells and another man is not?"
Is Gladwell really that stupid? Because people were dying when EPO wasn't regulated! Because we don't want to give the message to young people that it is OK to take drugs before they have developed the knowledge and wisdom to understand the implications and risks. Because we don't understand the risks of many of these drugs.

"It is a vision of sports in which the object of competition is to use science, intelligence, and sheer will to conquer natural difference. Hamilton and Armstrong may simply be athletes who regard this kind of achievement as worthier than the gold medals of a man with the dumb luck to be born with a random genetic mutation."
So you are left with sports where the random genetic mutations include how one responds to drugs. The top athletes are always freaks of nature with or without drugs. They always have had to use intelligence and sheer will to win. Drugs just change the relative importance of various genetic factors. It doesn't make it more fair.

"Hamilton and Armstrong may simply be athletes who regard this kind of achievement as worthier" And they get to which rules they can break? (In all fairness it was an entire culture that practically required drug taking. As far as I can tell, cyclists are really glad not to have to take drugs to compete at the top level anymore)

Jay, I've heard all of this before from those that argue that drugs in sports are OK, so that may be influencing how I read the article.

Brian wrote: "I agree, it is not pro drugs, but does challenge what is cheating. If vision is surgically enhanced for an Olympic biathlon skier to improve their shooting, is that not the same as taking drugs. Both are medical interventions, arguably both permanent."

Cheating is breaking the established rules of sport. What is so hard about that? There are fuzzy rules. There are stupid and inconsistent rules. In this case the rules are clear.

The line between what is medically helpful and what is performance enhancing can be very fuzzy. That is why you have governing bodies establishing rules. They should try to be reasonable and apply them fairly. But it is not easy, and they will always be inconsistencies, but there are debates and ideally one tries to get it right. The rules change over time. Caffeine above certain doses used to be banned. It is a performance enhancing drug, but the UCI and WADA decided that it is OK.

I'm fine with arguments that the lines are improperly drawn and that eye surgery should be banned or that many more drugs should be allowed, but don't I don't believe they are equivalent any more than I believe EPO is equivalent to Caffeine or even that EPO is equivalent to steroids.

This article really pisses me off. I could go on but will stop now!

[Carl]

On 19/11/2013 04:13, gsl...@gmail.com wrote:
> This article really pisses me off. I could go on but will stop now!

As you indicate, Gladwell's argument is full of holes. I think he
wanted it to be contentious, to stir debates, & he succeeded. But he
has also given far too much comfort to the waverers & those who are
currently on drugs. People's judgement is impaired by competitive
pressures, so they pick up on everything which suggests drug taking's OK
& ignore the restm so I think that widely-read article in a
non-technical journal will leave a sordid legacy.

In that respect it's no better that the wide newspaper reportage of the
false claims by Peter Duesberg that AIDS was not transmissible & was the
spawn of a job-creating conspiracy by researchers, or the more recent
hysteria following news reportage of the unfounded allegations by Andrew
Wakefield against the MMR vaccine, which so impaired MMR uptake that
there has been a recent measles outbreak with unhappy consequences.

Fingering just one of the simple flaws in Gladwell's case: steroids have
been proven to give a _lasting_ competitive physical advantage to the
ex-user. Hardly surprising, since the body changes as it adapts to the
resulting higher muscle mass, loadings & intensities facilitated by
steroids, as it does in response to all forms of training, & those
changes are remain long after the drugs are withdrawn.

[sully]

On Monday, November 18, 2013 8:13:34 PM UTC-8, gsl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Gladwell uses loaded phrases and posts rhetorical questions but does a poor job of examining the implications.
>
>
>
> From the article: "An athlete cannot use a drug to become an improved version of his natural self, even if the drug is used in doses that are not harmful, and is something that—like testosterone—is no more than a copy of a naturally occurring hormone, available by prescription to anyone, virtually anywhere in the world."
>
>
>
> An improved version of one's natural self? Seriously? What does that really mean? How much testosterone does one need to take before is no longer a version of one's natural self? You want all the women who win to shave and have deep voices and look like men? How much testosterone should they be allowed to have?
>
> Am I improved if I risk of dying from blood that is too thick? (Unless you have constant monitoring then you can't tell how much of most drugs people are taking.)
>
>
>
> "Before we condemn him, though, shouldn’t we have to come up with a good reason that one man is allowed to have lots of red blood cells and another man is not?"
>
> Is Gladwell really that stupid? Because people were dying when EPO wasn't regulated! Because we don't want to give the message to young people that it is OK to take drugs before they have developed the knowledge and wisdom to understand the implications and risks. Because we don't understand the risks of many of these drugs.
>
>
>
> "It is a vision of sports in which the object of competition is to use science, intelligence, and sheer will to conquer natural difference. Hamilton and Armstrong may simply be athletes who regard this kind of achievement as worthier than the gold medals of a man with the dumb luck to be born with a random genetic mutation."
>
> So you are left with sports where the random genetic mutations include how one responds to drugs. The top athletes are always freaks of nature with or without drugs. They always have had to use intelligence and sheer will to win. Drugs just change the relative importance of various genetic factors. It doesn't make it more fair.
>
>
>
> "Hamilton and Armstrong may simply be athletes who regard this kind of achievement as worthier" And they get to which rules they can break? (In all fairness it was an entire culture that practically required drug taking. As far as I can tell, cyclists are really glad not to have to take drugs to compete at the top level anymore)
>
>
>
> Jay, I've heard all of this before from those that argue that drugs in sports are OK, so that may be influencing how I read the article.
>
>
>
> Brian wrote: "I agree, it is not pro drugs, but does challenge what is cheating. If vision is surgically enhanced for an Olympic biathlon skier to improve their shooting, is that not the same as taking drugs. Both are medical interventions, arguably both permanent."
>
>
>
> Cheating is breaking the established rules of sport. What is so hard about that? There are fuzzy rules. There are stupid and inconsistent rules. In this case the rules are clear.
>

Cheating is that which breaks the rules. This article does a pretty
good job of challenging the scope of those rules, and yes, does muddy the waters.

What was "cheating" at one point in history, may not be considered
cheating now. Think of the "professional" vs "amateur" rules that
existed for some time. Vice-versa, of course as well, what is considered
cheating now may not have been years back. Lasse Viren blood doped, which
I don't think was then illegal.

If we brought in the scope of the rules in the NCAA, this would further
muddy the field as to what is and isn't "cheating".

This article is excellent because it demonstrates the rationalization
already made by the ppl who do cheat, they don't need help
from the article. The pro cyclists I knew were saying this stuff
years ago, and the ones that chose not to did so out of assessment of
long term risk to their health, not necessarily a sense of fair play,
this according to only one pro I talked to who did not use but
raced for a team that did.

It also makes the case that some "cheats" that gain long term
improvements in our bodies can be done without much risk, and many
of these things that athletes get penalized for are things that
any citizen can do. I'm thinking specifically of some of the
asthmatic swimmers who've been nailed over the years, Dolan who
had a allowable cocktail that kept his asthma under control, DeMont was stripped of his gold for doing something similar years before.

injury rehab technology has come so far that with either drugs,
prosthetics, surgery, etc, ppl who have hit their physical limit
and been hurt, can be not only brought back to 100%, but perhaps
further. A steroid could be used judiciously to train hard
to build strength over a finite period, then abandoned (this is what Barry Bonds did). this is illegal, and considered cheating, of course.

Why is then legal and not considered cheating to use the same steroid
to more rapidly recover from injury?

Wouldn't injury be a part of our limitations?

Add in one thing, intense, high volume training has only arguable health
benefits, and some sports themselves increase risk of severe injury that
athletes and their parents, friends, all assume.

If we learn that certain training in itself can be damaging to our
physiologies, say increasing heart risk, should we place limits on
the training?

The NCAA does, not for this reason, but they limit training.

Thus, by spending more time than allotted teaching an athlete, you are
cheating.

My sense is to how this relates to rowing is to take another tack.
As a sport, should we be pushing it toward more TV marketing, more professionalism, more money, more exposure? If the sport has inherent
value, do it, compete at it, but is it more important to win the Olys
than it is to win Worlds?

Why?

Only because of the exposure, I think. And I think it's the exposure and
possible financial reward that creates the greatest risk toward what we
consider to be cheating.

[gsl...@gmail.com]

>
> Cheating is that which breaks the rules. This article does a pretty
> good job of challenging the scope of those rules, and yes, does muddy the waters.
>

It does challenge the scope of the rules, but in a very limited and sensationalist way. This is like the stuff the Freakonomics people write: very entertaining, provocative and clever. Good for book sales but crappy research posing as good research. It was bad science, bad economics and bad logic.

If you want clear cut consistent rules you have to go to one extreme or the other: everything is permitted (but you would have many more deaths and a lot of ruined health) or a complete ban on all drugs and surgeries (even for injuries). Otherwise there will always be compromises. No matter where the line is drawn one could write a similar article challenging the rules.

[sully]

On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:33:03 PM UTC-8, gsl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
>
> > Cheating is that which breaks the rules. This article does a pretty
>
> > good job of challenging the scope of those rules, and yes, does muddy the waters.
>
> >
>
> It does challenge the scope of the rules, but in a very limited and sensationalist way. This is like the stuff the Freakonomics people write: very entertaining, provocative and clever. Good for book sales but crappy research posing as good research. It was bad science, bad economics and bad logic.
>
>

Please give me an example of something sensational that Gladwell wrote
that was bad science.

>
> If you want clear cut consistent rules you have to go to one extreme or the other: everything is permitted (but you would have many more deaths and a lot of ruined health) or a complete ban on all drugs and surgeries (even for injuries). Otherwise there will always be compromises. No matter where the line is drawn one could write a similar article challenging the rules.

Exactly, and the rules should constantly be challenged, challenged by
the athletes, challenged by writers. Else rowing would still be a sport
designed only for the white gentleman, no women need apply, nobody that
works with their bodies for a living.

I'm not for overturning drug rules, but I do think Gladwell does a
good job at what he intended - to blur those supposed hard lines, which,
yes, made for an entertaining read in the New Yorker.

[gsl...@gmail.com]

> Please give me an example of something sensational that Gladwell wrote
> that was bad science.

I was referring to Levitt and Dubner, the Freakonomics writers, doing bad science not Gladwell. I was overstating things.

> I'm not for overturning drug rules, but I do think Gladwell does a
> good job at what he intended - to blur those supposed hard lines, which,
> yes, made for an entertaining read in the New Yorker.

That is where we differ. He did blur those lines but I think he did a very bad job at it. The analysis is just too shallow. (And I never considered them hard lines.)

[sully]

On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 4:38:12 PM UTC-8, gsl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Please give me an example of something sensational that Gladwell wrote
>
> > that was bad science.
>
> I was referring to Levitt and Dubner, the Freakonomics writers, doing bad science not Gladwell. I was overstating things.

ah, ok. I get it.

>
>
>
> > I'm not for overturning drug rules, but I do think Gladwell does a
>
> > good job at what he intended - to blur those supposed hard lines, which,
>
> > yes, made for an entertaining read in the New Yorker.
>
>
>
>
>
> That is where we differ. He did blur those lines but I think he did a very bad job at it. The analysis is just too shallow. (And I never considered them hard lines.)

no argument. What I found compelling was a comparison I hadn't considered before, that was considering the corrective surgeries and comparing that to the PEDs.

Yes, the analysis was shallow, but the comments by Tyler Hamilton were very illuminating, I think. I'd not heard that from him, and was a different POV from what my friend had told me.

Oh, well if we all agreed, there'd be nothing to talk about on RSR! :^)

[Carl]

On 20/11/2013 02:00, sully wrote:
> Oh, well if we all agreed, there'd be nothing to talk about on RSR! :^)

Are we in agreement on that?

C

[sully]

On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 4:38:12 PM UTC-8, gsl...@gmail.com wrote:

Another thought on this. The lines are difficult to draw, I think. Look at
the debate over Oscar Pistorius where pros and cons of his using his prosthetics
in the world events claimed scientific evidence behind it.

Gladwell isn't making a case that it should be ok to use drugs, but had he
done so, there is a more compelling case to be made.

Because he's only trying to cast doubt on the current thinking, it helps to
NOT be more detailed and complete, better to cherry pick anecdotes and interesting stories that can't be argued.

So in re-thinking this, I get where you're coming from on it and agree with you. (gasp, sully changes his mind).

Make a case FOR using drugs and back it up. That helps us draw the lines more accurately. People are doing this in pro sports in the US now, trying to make a case that drugs are just one of many risks pro athletes take, particularly football players.

[A. Dumas]

sully wrote:
> Cheating is that which breaks the rules.

Exactly. And doping is what is on the doping list. No other definition
will ultimately be meaningful, I think. Plato might argue that there is
an essence of cheating or doping and I agree that everyone has an idea
about what it is, but I think those structures are personal and not
universal. (Not familiar enough with the Theory of Forms to say whether
that would still be part of it.)

For example, "blood manipulation" is now on the WADA list as a doping
method: http://list.wada-ama.org/list/m1-enhancement-of-oxygen-transfer/
So EPO is definitely out, although I'm not even sure whether that is
because of rule M1.2 or M1.3. Maybe both, or maybe neither (it might be
specifically listed as a banned substance or family of substances).
However, there is another way of increasing the haemoglobin count or
efficiency beyond transfusion or EPO etc., namely altitude adaptation.
So lots of (well-funded, pro) athletes go on altitude training camps.
All very natural, right? Healthy people frolicking in the mountains. I
don't think many people would argue that it would fall under M1.2:
"Artificially enhancing the uptake, transport or delivery of oxygen."

However, there is also such a thing as an altitude tent, a hypoxic
chamber for simulating altitude, small enough to use in any house. More
or less the same thing, and arguably has the same physiological effects,
as altitude training camp. No scary needles, no vials of clear liquid
ordered from China. Still natural? Still wholesome? I hear it wrecks
marital life but so do training camps, probably. Two points, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altitude_tent :
- "The ethics of the use of these devices by athletes has been discussed
by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which claimed that it could be
equivalent to blood doping and therefore they should be banned; however,
on September 16, 2006, Dick Pound of the WADA announced that "...the
overwhelming consensus of our health, medicine and research committees –
was that, at this time, it is not appropriate to do so," No explanation
was given as to how WADA would have enforced a ban."
- "The USADA report on doping in the Lance Armstrong case also indicates
that sleeping in an altitude tent can be used to hide doping using EPO,
as natural Erythropoietin production is increased, confusing the tests."

I would never use an altitude tent and would stop coaching people who do
but I have no rational argument against it, assuming it is not used as a
masking tool. One of the most hardcore anti-doping cyclists I know, Adam
Myerson, owns and uses an altitude tent. All very confusing.

Another example. A little while ago there was an incident in American
cyclo-cross where the course tape didn't properly attach to a barrier,
leaving a small gap, giving the opportunity to ride around the barrier
instead of dismounting and going over. Clearly not what the course
designer had in mind, but perfectly fine by the rules which just state
to stay on course which is defined as inside the tape (rowing: buoys). I
think only one cyclist was bold or cocky enough to ride the gap. An
official caught it and made him turn around and go over the barrier,
causing a shit storm on Twitter (not only because no one thought he
cheated but also because the punishment was impromptu, creative,
unsanctioned). I think my friend Plato and I were the only ones calling
him out for going against the course's intention. Clearly the majority
of riders that day agreed with the barrier being part of the Idea of the
course. Or, you know, there wasn't room for everyone to use the gap.

In any case, I tried to explain myself by using a to him perhaps more
familiar analogy, or what I thought was an analogy: unindicated use of
over-the-counter pain medication like paracetamol (acetaminophen,
tylenol). Pop a few "harmless" pills before a race. Not doping, not
against the rules, but very wrong in my opinion. I got mocked and
laughed at, especially after I suggested that it might be a gateway to
using more serious stuff. And again, these were all riders known for
their anti-doping stance, who (rightly) despise Lance Armstrong and his ilk.

Then again, I have no problem with taking a double espresso for better
racing, training, or indeed working. Might be worse for me than 2
paracetamol.

Cheating is that which breaks the rules. If you disagree, change the
rules or go play another game. Even as a spectator, I mostly went and
played another game, my own game. Go ride or row & have fun. All pro
sports stink.

Maybe even all competitive sport.

[Henry Law]

On 21/11/13 13:54, A. Dumas wrote:
> Exactly. And doping is what is on the doping list. No other definition
> will ultimately be meaningful, I think.

Very thought-provoking post, with which I (think I) agree.

And including an on-topic reference to Plato! What other newsgroup ...

--

Henry Law Manchester, England

[A. Dumas]

Henry Law wrote:
> Very thought-provoking post, with which I (think I) agree.

Cheers.

[gsl...@gmail.com]

Thanks A Dumas,
Your post is more insightful intelligent and honest than the Malcolm Gladwell article.

> Exactly. And doping is what is on the doping list. No other definition
> will ultimately be meaningful, I think.

Just to clarify, the rules do ban types of drugs. This is done to outlaw as yet not yet invented drugs or drugs unknown to authorities that have the same effects as those on the list.

Hypoxic chambers are one or those gray areas. I could make the argument either way. I don't particularly like them, but they provide those with the resources to move to high altitude to get the benefit. Plus they work by changing one's environment and the athlete's body has response to that. The effects are self limiting in a way EPO is not and monitoring its use is not very practical. On the other hand one can manipulate your environment in a way that one could not with travel. I'm Not sure Pound got it wrong. As you say all very confusing.

You cyclocross example is very similar to what happened at the Head of the Charles this year, where the cox of the Marin Master's 8+ had people on bridges text message him split times during the race. The vast majority of rowers I've talked to and on the various forums agree this is cheating. One could see that different officials would make different calls on this.

[Kit Davies]

To me, the thing that makes the difference between eg EPO or blood
transfusion on the one hand, and altitude or oxygen tent training, is
that for the latter, the athlete still has to put in a significant
amount of exertion to gain the benefits (indeed, I'm told altitude
training can be a near-death experience). Compare with sitting around,
putting a needle into yourself or popping pills, or for that matter
lying on an operating table having your elbows or eyes renewed.

The exertion alone makes one feel that they have at least earned their
success .

Kit

[A. Dumas]

gsl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thanks A Dumas, Your post is more insightful intelligent and honest
> than the Malcolm Gladwell article.

Cheers!

> You cyclocross example is very similar to what happened at the Head
> of the Charles this year, where the cox of the Marin Master's 8+ had
> people on bridges text message him split times during the race. The
> vast majority of rowers I've talked to and on the various forums
> agree this is cheating. One could see that different officials
> would make different calls on this.

Well, if you mean texting from a person on shore to the cox in the boat,
that's actually in the FISA Rules of Racing, section 7: "Rule 74 –
Coaching during racing - it is prohibited to give any instructions,
advice or directions to rowers or crews that are racing with any
electric, electronic or other technical device, either directly or
indirectly." But maybe it was texting from shore person to shore person
and shouting/signing to cox? That would not be against the rules per se.

[Brian Chapman]

At an age when I am competitive but not training like an Elite athlete, my sole altitude training is my annual cross-country ski trip. I ski with my wife and it is a holiday not training, but the first ergo session when I get back shows the benefits, I do the same pace at about 10 beats per minute less heart rate than usual.

I agree that there is a clear line with drugs and blood doping, some other areas are seen as OK but usually are only of benefit to teams or individuals with the money to spend on the best equipment, full time training and facilities such as altitude camps.

At World & Olympic level all competitors are a small percentage of the population who are blessed with the right physical attributes to excel at their chosen sport. They also need the determination to train hard, and the kind of person who has that drive is also probably close to the slippery slope that starts with gamesmanship and leads to drug taking.

[gsl...@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 22, 2013 2:40:35 AM UTC-8, A. Dumas wrote:

> Well, if you mean texting from a person on shore to the cox in the boat,
> that's actually in the FISA Rules of Racing, section 7: "Rule 74 –
> Coaching during racing - it is prohibited to give any instructions,
> advice or directions to rowers or crews that are racing with any
> electric, electronic or other technical device, either directly or
> indirectly." But maybe it was texting from shore person to shore person
> and shouting/signing to cox? That would not be against the rules per se.

It was texting from someone on each bridge to the cox during the race. The started second and won by a few seconds over the boat that started first. Marin also won the overall team prize.
The Head of the Chuck is not a FISA race and I believe not even a USRowing race, so it is technically not explicitly banned.
long discussion here: http://rowingillustrated.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=6232