VeloNews, the “journal of competitive cycling’, apparently censors comments that are critical of anti-doping policy and/or the United States Anti-Doping Agency. I have been blocked from commenting on their website due to the comments I posted earlier today.
In a series of thoughtful and respectful commentaries posted on the VeloNews website, I raised several issue about medically-supervised doping, harm reduction in sports, the standards of evidence used by the United States Anti-Doping Agency, as well as the motivations of athletes who dope. My comments involved no bigotry, hateful or obscene language and/or name-calling.
Yet my four comments were deleted within a matter of hours and I was blocked from posting new comments on the VeloNews website.
I think it is critical that we have an open and honest dialogue regarding steroids and performance-enhancement drugs to effectively deal with this issue. It is disappointing that a popular and influential company decides to censor/ban individuals who simply express a perspective or opinion with which they disagree with rather than something that is truly objectionable.
Here are the comments that I posted deemed worthy of a ban:
“The desire to be faster/higher/stronger represents the spirit of sport and doping is entirely consistent with that objective. As such, there is nothing inherently immoral about the use of performance enhancing substances.
It only becomes a “moral issue” because of the creation of anti-doping policy. If sport were to allow supervised medical doping, then it would no longer be immoral. What is considered doping is totally arbitrary and capricious.
Why would an older athlete uses PEDs? It’s not about money. It has never been about money. It is about competition and the competitive spirit. Doping is pervasive in the subculture of elite competitive sports, particularly cycling.
Doping simply represents an “overconformity” to the norms of the sport as sociologist Dr. Jay Coakley would explain.”
Originally posted at: velonews.competitor.com
The increase in the number of “non-analytical” positives in cycling and other sports should be a concern because it tends to represent an increasing involvement and cooperation with law enforcement to enforce morality. Anti-doping organizations are able to obtain evidence of these nonanalytical positives through means that would otherwise be illegal if the government did not endorse it.
While some may think government-enforced morality is a noble pursuit when it comes to doping in sport, how would you like it if they starting enforcing a moral code upon its citizens that you did not subscribe to?
The increasing involvement of the government and taxpayer funds in the war on doping is a dangerous precedent.
Originally posted at: velonews.competitor.com
“”By no means do I wish to sanction supervision of doping by physicians in a misguided attempt to make it safer.” — Dawn Richardson, MD
Great interview of Joe Papp by Dr. Richardson. Except her disclaimer at the end is quite disturbing. Discouraging physicians from supervising athletes who dope is based on morality and NOT medical judgment.
What is the alternative to doctors supervising doping athletes? Allow them to suffer negative health consequences? Allow them to risk death like Joe Papp?
Ironically, the interview with Papp was a prime example why there SHOULD be medically-supervised doping. Doping is pervasive. What’s wrong with a little harm reduction to keep them from hurting themselves? Or do the morally self-righteous among us WANT them to suffer, to die as punishment for their immorality? Sad.
Dr. Richardson also has some insulting statements for the medical profession suggesting that even the best doctors wouldn’t [place] an athlete’s health above performance. Harm reduction is a good thing, not a bad thing. It should be encouraged and sanctioned by anyone who care about the health of athletes, doped or not.
“Even the best and brightest physicians will put performance ahead of athlete safety once they have compromised their ethicsand become involved in doping.” – Dr. Dawn Richardson”
Originally posted in reference to: velonews.competitor.com
“Something to consider when using “non-analytical positives” to ban athletes is the flimsy standards of evidence required for guilt by anti-doping agencies.
I can’t imagine the degree of uproar if our own imperfect criminal justice system in the United States abandoned “beyond a reasonable doubt” and “preponderance of the evidence” and adopted the “comfortable satisfaction” standard advocated by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).
Of course, if USADA adopted the same standards as the US criminal justice system, they would never be able to convict and ban athletes based on non-analytic positives.”
Originally posted at: velonews.competitor.com
About the author
Millard writes about anabolic steroids and performance enhancing drugs and their use and impact in sport and society. He discusses the medical and non-medical uses of anabolic-androgenic steroids while advocating a harm reduction approach to steroid education.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.