Simon Barnes: On Drugs, Rock&Roll & Doping and Sport

Seems that talk about doping is flavour of the month!

After the Lance Armstrong scandalous confession, the floodgates have opened...

This time last year word "doping" was a taboo. People were banned from tennis forums for writing articles on that theme; at best, their threads were deleted.
Now it seems the road is free for all.

Perfectly timed after the Lance Armstrong saga comes Dr Fuentes trial, and probably many more "doctors" waiting in the pipeline: Morales, doping revelations in Australia....China and East Europe are old news, of course....
Naturally, sports top pen Simon Barnes of The Times has an opinion and comes with an interesting view on the whole thing of doping:

If Drug Use Be the Food of Music, Play On.....

Did you read The Times sports pages yesterday? On facing pages, we carried the latest details of post-confessional Lance Armstrong and stuff about the reformed drug user Dwain Chambers. It's pretty clear that drugs are a bad thing. Drug users that repenteth are allowed back grudgingly, if at all.
Turn then to the middle pages of the paper, where the papers greeted the return of Fleetwood Mac, and the re-release of their album Rumours with a big interview Christine McVie told Will Hodgkinson: "If you got too high you had a drink, and if you got too drunk you had another line of coke. We did that every night until three or four in the morning."
The memory was produced, Hodgkinson wrote, "in the fond manner of someone remembering high jinks at school." There was no moral condemnation, rather the reverse. The line about coke was lifted out and printed in large type. Rock stars not only take drugs, their drug use is acceptable. Even, in a way, morally appropriate.
I was in The Times office this week and noticed a framed copy of an old front page. The times had brought serial rights to Keith Richards's autobiography, the headline was "Sex, drugs and me, by Keith Richards." The implication was that Richards was a great man, not in spite of the drugs but because of the drugs. He was a man to be celebrated: piratical survivor and living national treasure.
The louche lifestyle is an aspect of the art of Richards and the Rolling Stones and drugs were part of the creative process of performance and composition. Drugs gave us the Stones, so drugs are, at least in a way, a good thing. Drugs are part of the history of rock music. They are accepted as an equivocal thing at worst, sometimes as unambiguously good.
Without drugs the Beatles would not have given us Tomorrow Never Knows, She said She Said, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. One of their accepted masterpieces, A Day in the Life, deals with the fragmented experiences and moments of transcedence associated with drugs. I tends:"I'd love to turn you on."
Bob Dylan is the nearest thing rock music has to Shakespeare. His works include the comic masterpiece Rainy Day Women, which has a chorus line of "Everybody must get stoned." To call Mr Tambourine Man drugs song would be a failure to understand it, but it's got drugs in it all right" "Take me disappearin' through the smoke rings of my mind...A ,more significant line hints that drugged experience is related to the elusive experience of songwriting:"If you hear vague traces of skippin' reels of rhyme..."

Drugs have inspired musicians across the ages. If we love the music, we must accept the drugs. bob Marley smoked a lot of ganga, his songs are still adored. The performances of musicians, live, in the studio, in the throes of composition, have often been enhanced by drugs and the experience of drugs. We accept this entirely in the world of music; and yet when we turn to sport, we spit on someone who tested positive for an inappropriate cold cure. Christine Ohuruogy became a national hate figure and she didn't even fail a drugs test, she just missed a few from sloppy diary-keeping.
It is clear, then, that we have different standards about drugs for musicians and athletes.
Why?
Perhaps it's because sport is competitive...as if the music business were not. An athlete will do an awful lot to gain a edge; a musician's life is dedicated to finding a good song. Drugs helped Ben Johnson and they helped Bob Dylan.
Drugs can be destructive no matter what reason they're taken for. Lives have been ruined by steroids, alcohol, barbituarates, cocaine, LSD, heroin. Drugs can harm you when they're legal and when they're illegal. Drugs kill rock stars who write inspiring music, they kill people who merely listen to it, they kill people who hate the bloody stuff.
Perhaps the difference is that drugs taken for sport affect the body while the drugs musicians take affect the mind. But that doesn't really stand up. Johnson knew he was full of the "right stuff" that blazing day i Seoul. I bet if he'd been given Smarties and told they were the business, he'd still have won.
Armstrong gained a massive psychological advantage on those mad climbs by knowing that he was backed up by one of the most professional doping organisations in the history of sport.
All drugs have a psychological effect, just as all drugs have a physical effect. That's why we take 'em.
We have radically different standards for the people who bring us our favourite songs and the people who bring us our greatest sporting moments. Ben in Seoul, Jimi playing The Star-spangled Banner at Woodstock: two high points of drugs culture - one a transcendent moment of greatness, the other, a moment of eternal shame.
And it goes on. Amy Winehouse sang about rehab and died. She is remembered as a great singer with a powerful story.
Meanwhile, Armstrong is reviled. I don't have the answer to this, as columistis are supposed to. I'm not arguing that we should take drugs less seriously in sport or more seriously in music. I am just pointing out that our acceptance of drug use is profoundly inconsistent. We don't have an absolute moral stance on drugs. Profession matters. Just as we are more shocked by a vicar's sexual shenanigans than those of a professional athlete, we are more shocked by the drug use of an athlete than that of a musician.
There's absolute morality...and then again, there's the morality of taste. We demand higher standards of professional athletes than we do of most other people in public life. We love sport at least partly because we want to believe that the winner is not only brilliant but morally sound. We love Jessica Ennis because we believe that she is not only a great athlete, she is also a very decent person. We want our winners to be good.
Sport represents our strait-laced, moral, puritanical side. When we need to stress the libertine within ourselves, we face the music and dance - and do so beneath the diamond sky with one hand waving free, silhouetted by the sea, circled by the circus sands.....

Completely disagree with this article
One is cheating,the other isnt..its as simple as that
Im not saying I am in favour if recreational drugs,but when someone does recreational drugs,they arent stealing titles or prize money form someone else
Barnes need to reevaluate the real point which is not about taking drugs,the point is cheating
Taking drugs is merely the by product of cheating or a means to do so
If there were other ways of cheating rather than taking drugs Im sure the athletes would pursue those options if the benefits were greater

noleisthebest wrote:
This time last year word "doping" was a taboo. People were banned from tennis forums for writing articles on that theme; at best, their threads were deleted.
Now it seems the road is free for all.

Isn't that so true? Those fans were so stupid to believe that a smile from their idol was enough to trust them.
It's peopel credulity which allows sport and the world in general to go so wrong.

Yes, there are surprisingly too many obvious holes in Barnes's argument here.
I don't think he is trying to sit on the fence of doping here, though, rather, he is just exposing our hypocrisy of tolerating drugs in one area and not the other.
It's is a fascinating phenomenon and just throws light on usually black and white simple ways which today's bombastic media use cheaply in order to sell papers.
The article kind of portrays us, the consumers as dopers, in a way. Because if we tolerate one and not the other, then we have different set of standards and they are corrupt.
Problem is, as he says, it is hard for us to have absolute morals on just about anything in life. It all works fine on paper but when the rubber hits the road, we are proven to be weak, and in no position to be judgemental on others.
Still, we can't help ourselves expecting higher standards, it's also in our nature to dream, and sport, with play at its heart draws us back to childhood purity when all was "fair" and full of promise.

noleisthebest wrote:Yes, there are surprisingly too many obvious holes in Barnes's argument here.
I don't think he is trying to sit on the fence of doping here, though, rather, he is just exposing our hypocrisy of tolerating drugs in one area and not the other.
It's is a fascinating phenomenon and just throws light on usually black and white simple ways which today's bombastic media use cheaply in order to sell papers.
The article kind of portrays us, the consumers as dopers, in a way. Because if we tolerate one and not the other, then we have different set of standards and they are corrupt.
Problem is, as he says, it is hard for us to have absolute morals on just about anything in life. It all works fine on paper but when the rubber hits the road, we are proven to be weak, and in no position to be judgemental on others.
Still, we can't help ourselves expecting higher standards, it's also in our nature to dream, and sport, with play at its heart draws us back to childhood purity when all was "fair" and full of promise.

I dont think there is hypocrisy because the two cannot be compared
Athletes dont take drugs because they want to or love to,or are addicted to it,they take it to cheat.Their sole motive is to cheat and taking drugs is the means in which they can cheat, doping is simply a by product of cheating
Taking recreational drugs is not cheating,so I can totally understand why one is frowned on more the the other
As I said the subject about doping is sport is cheating,not taking drugs
If there were better ways to cheat then taking drugs the athletes would be pursuing that rather then take drugs,so the problem isn't taking drugs the problem is cheating
With recreational drugs,people are chasing a high,so the problem there is the drugs
The 2 subjects are very different,one is drugs the other is cheating

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
This time last year word "doping" was a taboo. People were banned from tennis forums for writing articles on that theme; at best, their threads were deleted.
Now it seems the road is free for all.

Isn't that so true? Those fans were so stupid to believe that a smile from their idol was enough to trust them.
It's peopel credulity which allows sport and the world in general to go so wrong.

managed to dig this out, will be fun to read it again...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A76371582

This a pathetic article. Is he writing an apology of doping and drug consumption in general?
What an idiot! First art may have been linked to drugs but it can be argued that the finest chef d'oeuvres were not. I doubt Shakespear, William Blake and Mozart were drug users. Also our own bodies can release their own "drugs", this is a natural phenomenon and probably what sorts the more talented ones from the rest. Federer for instance says he can see the ball in slow mo and the strings move when hitting the ball. Some get this sensation when taking meth (like Agassi), as it gave them an extra split second to their reactions, hence why soldiers have been using it on battle fields.
But here anyway we are not even talking about drugs that make you a sharper player but drugs that turns your body into an unfatigable machine to actually destroy the more refine, sharp and subtle games.
Guys like Simon Barnes do not deserve their jobs, he is most likely on drugs himself, but still can't produce enough fine ideas to save himself.

Yes, it's usually the drug users themselves who show understanding & sympathy for other drug users.
I don't know how many rock&roll stars use(d) drugs, but am sure they are in a minority.
I also don't think it's the drugs that created the work, drugs probably came after the best stuff was made, as a result of them not being able to cope with pressures of fame and money and realisation of the futility of it all.

He manages to capture majority quite well, though in the way they have double standards in tolerating one group and not the other. That was the point, I think.

Veejay wrote:

With recreational drugs,people are chasing a high,so the problem there is the drugs
The 2 subjects are very different,one is drugs the other is cheating

I agree.
Still, think how many young people were cheated into trying drugs because they were/are socially acceptable among rock stars.
The "cool" image...Yes, it's the stupid ones that fall for it, but still....the damage done by recreational drugs is probably more widespread than the damage inflicted from athlete doping.
The two are incomparable in many ways, but isn't it interesting how we hate doping in sport yet don't care about the other?

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
This time last year word "doping" was a taboo. People were banned from tennis forums for writing articles on that theme; at best, their threads were deleted.
Now it seems the road is free for all.

Isn't that so true? Those fans were so stupid to believe that a smile from their idol was enough to trust them.
It's peopel credulity which allows sport and the world in general to go so wrong.

managed to dig this out, will be fun to read it again...

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A76371582

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A76371582[/quote[/url]]
That was such a good read. We shoudl publish a book about old 606 posts.

I remember I was so worried they would delete the article at the time, but it survived somehow.
Good it stood the test of time and still looks relevant!

There were a few like that....they eventually cost me the ban ....but again it was not the mods complaining it was the same wailing fans not being able to face the possibility that the big muscles we were seeing coudl have been steroided.

Nadal seems to attract people who defend him to the point of life and death, taking everything so personally, certainly worth a study

such as amrit and haddie nuff, i actually find hawkeye the least annoying!

luvsports! wrote:such as amrit and haddie nuff, i actually find hawkeye the least annoying!

I agree that HE is less annoying cause unlike the others she can understand the view of a Fed fan as she is one herself..but still a pain.

i actually find her constant criticism of murray, at first amusing, now so tautological. I think she is obsessed, if murray did what nadal does on the court in terms of gamesmanship, she would be even more unbearable x 100

luvsports! wrote:i actually find her constant criticism of murray, at first amusing, now so tautological. I think she is obsessed, if murray did what nadal does on the court in terms of gamesmanship, she would be even more unbearable x 100

Yes this hatred of Murray is ridculous. constant bashing....a bit like me with Nadal but I back it up and it's not down to nationality which I suspect is HE's motive.

speaking of HN she is soooo infuriating and gets uber defensive its a joke! I thought younger people got like that but shes very old?!?! :P soz dat was harsh.

But still she is so entrenched in her views and attacks those who talk about doping and make 1 mention to nadal, out come the claws!

http://www.606v2.com/t39747p200-tennis-to-step-up-drug-fight-in-light-of-lance-armstrong-scandal
at the bottom.

Well looks like you can start doping thread on v2 now as well.
HN is one of the worst poster out there...if not the worst.

not sure i can be asked with people like that 2bh.

My point is simple. Just because there is no evidence, don't just assume everything is hunky dory, be suspicious. CONSTANT VIGILANCE!

so HN thinks that means "STOP ATTACKING RAFA! THERE IS NO PROOF I LOVE HIM, I WON'T LET YOU SAY ONE BAD THING ABOUT HIM!"

think that just about sums it up.

Well I am glad we don't have any thought police here, just basic civility and manners required.
It would be nice if some people from there came and commented now and then, but no big deal if they don't, I know they regularly come and read what we say anyway .
We have a very nice, quality bunch here

i agree with that. Also you guys know more about the sport than me so obvs win win there but also its good to have this on top of v2 as it gives a different perspective and not get entrenched in their v2 dogma

luvsports! wrote:not sure i can be asked with people like that 2bh.

My point is simple. Just because there is no evidence, don't just assume everything is hunky dory, be suspicious. CONSTANT VIGILANCE!

so HN thinks that means "STOP ATTACKING RAFA! THERE IS NO PROOF I LOVE HIM, I WON'T LET YOU SAY ONE BAD THING ABOUT HIM!"

think that just about sums it up.

Yes unfortunately in professional sport there is no point being vigilante, if someone wins nowadays thanks to better fitness, it;s simply down to doping, or special science anyway. In the past you had guys like Borg and others who had amazing low heart beats and some kind of genetic predisposition allowing more O2 being carried by blood cells but nowadays you can run faster and longer than all those special natural conditions even if like Murray or Djoko you certainly did not look particularly fit younger.
So for me it;s not a question of being vigilent I simply know they do. And all the stories I hear around simply conforts me. Just watch a rugby team nowadays. Do we need more evidence?

One I woudl like to have here is Catalan Power. Do we know where he is? He hated Federer but he was smart and lots of fun...always pretty polite too.