1: Since for example "cheating" is pretty much accepted in Formula 1, (all gates included) the recent Mercedes illegal testing saga has provided us in all likely hood that these teams could drug cheat and get away with it with minimal punishment, maybe even brushing it under the carpet to protect the F1 image and we all know Bernie is a massive manipulator on that matter. He would never allow his product to be damaged so he would rather pay off the right people and keep them quiet. So because of that knowledge all of the teams would likely think of using that advantage because it outweighs the punishments. 2: Consider this; when one person cheats the others will react and then hope the rest do the same as well, so then the whole field is using the same substance making it "equal" again, doesn't that make the sport fairer by that logic? Would you rather risk your career knowing the top 20% of your peers "possibly" cheat and lose vasts amount of sponsors and wages because the sporting body is blind to sort this problem out. Or do you cheat like the other 20% and have an equal fighting chance against those "cheaters". I would very likely choose the latter option though I would prefer the governing body to give me 99.9% chance that drugs cheats will always be caught before competing in events and I would never use drugs to achieve it. Because unlike the average public I have a mansion and sports car to maintain and having my rivals cheat me out of my hard effort will not happen on my watch. But would it tar other close sports, probably not likely but it would raise questions that no sport is safe on the matter. 3:(With regards to your question to armed robbery situation *hypothetically of course* It would depend on the temptation and the likelyhood of getting away with it as the Super Ego side of my brain would estimate "would this work out for me, yes/no". Of course with modern technology I would never attempt such a thing as I would very likely get caught and punished so my super ego would tell me to avoid it as the cons far outweigh the pros as I would lose more than I gained in that situation. But if you are asking me would I pick up a bag of money, unmarked untraceable and full well knowing I wouldn't get punished HELL YEAH, without a thought and without any guilt after buying my new supercar. I'm certain I wouldn't be the only one to say that either, though most would deny it to save face *socially*, I'm not so dishonest though! The London riots are a great example of this, people who never committed a single crime in their lives go and break into stores stealing TV's, Phones etc... all because of no police and no security to prevent him/her to consider the consequences, they thought they could get away with it so they did it when the timing was right. So it only supports my point that yes you can tar everybody with the same brush when the temptation is there and Formula 1 is a prime example when the FIA are afraid to punish them. They only felt guilty the second they were found out they were going to have a little visit by the police. Before that little nugget they were happy with what they did because they were able to gain an advantage socially by cutting a few corners which in evolutionary terms (could) be considered and advantage to have when procreating as mates look for unique and advantageous aspects of the individual, (strength, intelligence, looks, wealth, height weight etc....) and dishonesty is one of those traits some are attracted by it, some are turned away by it because they only care about how well it will work in the long run for them and their future family. ((If you want my honest opinion on the matter I reckon Vettel and Lewis are drug cheating. Vettel is known to be the lightest driver on the grid and so I reckon he is using diet pills to keep his weight down like Yaya Toure who got done a few years ago, that and a Nootropic variation for concentration. Lewis for me is using steroids, his muscle mass from 2011 to 2012 all of a sudden doubled before his previous health regimes for years. You see a lot of before and afters with baseball players having the same effect and MOST of them have been found cheating, that and his natural balding which was present up until 2012 has also stopped. Though he might of just of had a Rooney hairjob...)) But the guy who is mainly pushing for this improvement on the war on sports drugs is Mark Webber and he has many bones to pick with Vettel and Lewis IMO but he wouldn't sell his mate Fernando down the river so Alonso seems an unlikely target. Hay I might be paranoid and off the mark but we shall see wont we!
Silver, your points are indeed well thought out and constructed, but like Cosi has said, the sweeping generalisation of applying those thoughts to all just does not work. To use your London point, not EVERY Londoner went out and raided their nearest electronics store, or set fire to departments stores. Just because one did and thought they got away with it, a minority got swept up in it all and thought they'd have a crack. Not everyone did. Same with what you are saying. If one driver used enhancing drugs and got away with it (how they would do that in secret with the rest knowing is another question, but we'll put that to one side) it does not mean that ALL drivers would then think it okay to do. It's not just a point of illegality, it's morals as well. Yes, they still do exist!
Interesting question for a mid-season lull! I think whilst pushing the grey areas in terms of technical regulations is an accepted part of F1, enhancing the performance of the driver chemically has never been endorsed. The FIA use WADA for testing, and the driver's are signed up to the same, very stringent, regulations as any other athlete. In no way have the FIA suggested it's any more acceptable that elsewhere. In my opinion, yes it did, and that was to an extent born out when it was revealed that something like one podium finisher in a decade of tour de france races was clean. However, in F1 I think the advantages are less, for greater risks, so the chances of someone doing it are lessened. If a cyclist takes a drug which hasn't been fully tested, the very worst that happens is they die (either from strain on their body or a crash), and potentially take a couple of other riders off, breaking a few limbs/ribs. If an F1 driver takes (for example) a concentration-enhancing supplement and blacks out at high speed, they're effectively sending an unguided missile towards other drivers, fans, marshals, and the risk to other people is much, much higher. It's not just a team agreeing to risk the life of the cyclist for gains, it's asking the driver to risk his own life, that of his colleagues and others, and it's something that any team boss would have to live with if the worst happened. Are WADA/FIA currently doing enough? I'd still argue no. From what I've found online, the last 'full' drugs test was in March, with Alonso, Ricciardo and Perez tested. Rosberg was tested once on holiday in 2009 apparently. There are a couple of random tests at events during the season, but they only take urine and not blood samples, and apparently only from a handful of drivers. I'd like to see an increase in testing both during the season and out of it, simply because the risks are so much higher if it is going undetected. I think urine samples (which take what, a minute), should be taken each race, from a random 50% of the competing drivers, with blood tests conducted several times a year too.
Very true but the majority had the security to make them think twice of doing it so they prevented it but the places they couldn't they went crazy. But you do support me *in a way* that you agree some would get swept up in it if given the option to do so. Hence why I disagree with Cosicave saying if Vettel was found guilty Red Bull would be the only possible guilty party of the matter and the rest of the grid not so. Yes you can't tar everybody but you better have a few pots handy if they were given the same chances which they have IMO in this sport. Finding 1 driver being a drugs cheat would only be tip of the iceberg in F1 IMO.
Let's say that Vettel was found do be doping... Would I assume that he was the only one doing it? Nope... Would I assume EVERYBODY was doping? Nope, not at all. Just because one person chooses to break the rules, doesn't automatically mean everybody does... And if Grosjean is doping, maybe he should consider cutting them out.
Ultimately, SAINZ, integrity is a personal thing. Not everyone exploits a weakness. Not everyone with opportunity to steal during the London riots did so. I say in all honesty that my professional achievements have never come about through cheating. I should add that if I ever discovered a competitor's victory over me to have come about through such means, I would not follow suit â even if I felt sure I would get away with it. I would know the truth that I had not really been beaten; even though I would have to accept that, through ignorance, others might draw different conclusions. My contributions to motor racing fora over the years are consistent: they demonstrate a passionate intolerance toward cheating. (Lots of stuff about Schumacher, for instance; and never an inconsistency, so far as I am aware). Oddly enough, it was precisely this which prompted me to take an initial interest in opinions about motor racing, as expressed over the internet. Never before was there a bigger platform for a fuller spectrum of opinion. I found the extent to which so many were taken in quite alarming, yet at the same time was reassured to find others with a more discerning wisdom. It's also why I've not yet gone away! However, more to the point, one thing I am still confident of, from the motor racing perspective, is that any effect performance enhancing drugs may have for the purposes of driving are necessarily, relatively limited. There are three fundamental factors involved in driving: Training Practice Talent. That is: a predisposition towards success which may offset the two points above to some extent, as is the case in any other field of expertise. Any improvement achieved over the above through drugs is surely limited to only the tiniest enhancement, relative to them; and is realistically limited to speeding up thinking processes and endurance, such as is the case with common stimulants, including coffee or indeed, Red Bull! This is rather different to using drugs to build muscle which allow one to lift far heavier weights or run much faster, since the relative gain here is potentially enormous, by comparison. To put it another way: gains for race drivers, through the use of drugs, are severely limited in comparison to their potential in most other competitive arenas, since driving ability comes about through knowledge and its application. As yet, I am not aware of drugs which can teach, train or coach. But I do accept the possibility that this might be ignorance borne of not having taken the right stuff!
Seriously... with his grin, I think he's on something. It might be sherbet dips, but he's at something.
Just to be clear, SAINZ, I was not actually suggesting this at all. I merely cited it as possible conclusion, along with all the others, which was consistent with your own logic. What I am saying is that tarring any with the same brush requires defining the sub-set to which it applies*. *e.g. F1 drivers; or Red Bull; or the Vettel family; or blonde haired males; or Germans; or Caucasian Europeans; or the whole of humanity! In this sense, "F1 drivers", "Red Bull", or "the whole of humanity" are equivalent. I merely used it to present the question, "just who do we single out as guilty by extension?"
I'd be surprised if we ever had drivers on performing enhancing drugs, IMO there is not too much to be gained with certain drugs in a sport like F1. Irony is that a guy from the french anti doping council as said that he is sure drivers have used tacrine which is supposed to help with memory which seems odd as the drivers learn the tracks very quickly anyway after 4-5 laps. I would not even like to think about the long term damage that would be applied to the sport if a Vettel/Hamilton was found to be on drugs.
Although F1 is a very physical sport it is mostly talent that gets you through so that rules out most drugs being worth it even to the stupidest of drivers. As a sport usually the deciding factor is the car as you could be a drugged up Senna and still not get a point in a Marussia. Its simply not worth the risk before we even get on to the fact you're a big fat cheat
I think the above two posts highlight the problem of disrepute being brought upon any sport where cheats are found out. This is quite different to the suggestion that all participants where one is discovered must also be cheats, but it certainly brings them all under greater scrutiny. F1 has been brought into disrepute by various events, especially over the past few decades; but fortunately, thus far at least, it has not extended to drug abuse. But let's keep this in perspective: BLS' post reinforces what I was saying about the relative merits (please forgive the contradiction in terms) of using drugs to gain competitive advantage in motor sport. The benefit of any such gains, even if proven, are necessarily confined to a tiny (and I mean tiny!) part of a much bigger equation. Driving is a skill produced almost entirely through process: a process of training and practice; and only then, at the very top end of its spectrum, does talent come into play. And talent is by far the smallest contributor of the three. And then, compared to talent, any contribution which could be made through the use of drugs is minuscule. Thus it should be seen that any difference drugs might make to the total skill-set of competitive driving is virtually infinitesimal. Nonetheless, it is right that it still be tested, since any cheating is wrong in principle.
Saintz..just be a little careful with that penultimate paragraph...just in case lawyers are looking at this....just my opinion.
