Dublin Girl Accuses Tour Hero

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Understood and good points. That's why I ask the question. So a couple thoughts come to mind after you mention the skier (an obsurd situation how does one get a competive advantage in Downhill Sking from a cold medication pushes the envelope) as I think there have been situations whereby asthma sufferers suffer the same fate. Recall the PGA golfer who was handicapped and wanted to use a cart?

I think the argument can be made that if you have a condition and the resultant medication gives you an advantage then you can't compete.

Maybe something that will have to be explored some more as better prosethic limbs are developed. Do we allow a cyclist or a baseball pitcher to compete if their bionic prosethic limb is better than the origional?
If you're ill you're ill and your performance would normally suffer. Therefore, if you took a medication to overcome the symptons of illness then it has to classed as performance enhancing, even if it's a nasal spray and if you take it to extremes, an aspirin for a headache.

With regards to prosthetics and bionic limbs, I thought that's why we had Paralympic games?

I believe the Paralympic games are for those that have paralysis but they may include amputees?

I only bring it up because I know of at least one guy who took part in the Ironman Tri that had an artificial leg and I think they have several entries in the New York Marathon every year. Pretty certain there are lots of events that amputees enter every year.

We also have the Americans with Disabilities Act that I think the golfer used as his justification but it didn't work.

I understand where you are coming from in that if an athelete is inhibited by illness they need to suffer through it or not compete but also think at some point we have to come to a determination whether it arises to giving them a competitive advantage or it simply allows them to perform to their normal capability.

The rhetorical question remains the same. Just as some would take steroids or something else that is not good for them to get an advantage, if bionics get to that point and it is decided amputees can compete with them would we see people amputate limbs just to get the bionics?

I guess I am just trying to illustrate how this question can be absurd from both sides and what it says about human nature.