Drugs + Sports.

Glad you could join us Glen. Welcome to the World of Tomorrow!—uhh, I mean the Gentlemen’s Club.

Okay. “Every body has to use drugs” (When I use quotes I’ll just be paraphrasing. Correct me if I misinterpret). I agree that everyone should be allowed to use drugs, for the fairness factor obviously. Whether they have to takes me to my next point, which is in response to the statement “drugs make a huge difference”. I would rather put it as: The effects drugs can produce may give an advantage (even the potential advantages may not be significant when isolated from the many other factors). This, I feel, is the main point and I will expand on it last.

Not treating athletes as people: I see your point but don’t we already do that too a huge degree, disregarding any sort of drug related stuff, I think it’s probably an inescapable outcome of the whole competition thing. Just to add this: Athletes wouldn't have available to them all the huge resources that they do now if there wasn’t such a huge fan base physically pumping in money, or indirectly pumping in money (though all of that is another topic).

“Should be athletes performing, not athletes + implants”. I feel this topic was somewhat covered in previous posts, where credit goes to Marc’s praise-worthy job of playing Devil’s Advocate, but maybe it wasn’t illuminated out as best I thought. That’s okay because it too ties in with the main point that I mentioned above and mentioned would come soon.

“Equipment is regulated”. Yes it is, and with good cause. Why couldn’t drugs be? I think your argument is that drugs provide more of an advantage than any equipment does. Here’s where that main point comes in: It’s the effects that drugs can produce in athletes bodies that could give them an advantage, not the act of taking drugs themselves. It’s most probably just a psychological issue that we have that we perceive drug taking to be ‘bad’. Most drugs (at least a lot of them) are exactly the same as those produced in your or I, some just drugs just mimic the natural ones. These drugs affect the rate at which normal physiological processes occur. Everyone produces a different quantity, mainly (if not always) due to genetic diversity and therefore people already have different rates of these processes. The question is ‘Why shouldn’t an athlete be allowed to alter their level of production of the compound to match that being produced by another athlete?'

Hang on- you can't tell me Anabolic Steroids just reproduce what your body does anyway. That has as much truth to it as saying a cigarette lighter and a nuclear missile have equal strength. Yes, our bodies produce testosterone, yes that helps us to build muscle- but no one can match (or even come close to) the level produced/ built when this type of steroid is introduced. I am not an expert in steroids- but the massive physiological (and to a lesser degree, psychological) damage produced by these steroids has been documented.

My issue with Athletes being able to use drugs would be that because some do all would have to- just to keep up... think about it, one guy trains hard works out, lives his life so that he can perform at his peak- another doesn't have to work as hard and gets the same if not better result. This was the problem occurring in both Baseball and NFL some years ago- i'll try to find an article.

Yes to some degree athletes are not treated as people- but here's where i was going with it. what happens when these guys are only sports stars because they use drugs? What value is left in the game/ competition. for myself, i'd see these men and women as poor substitutes for robots, no longer would it be "Who's the most talented player" the sport would become "Who's got the best pharmacist".

My last question would be in response to yours ‘Why shouldn’t an athlete be allowed to alter their level of production of the compound to match that being produced by another athlete?'. What's the point of competition if everyone is identical? I am 198.9cm tall- this means i have an advantage in say, Basketball. That doesn't mean someone shorter can't be better than me, faster or more accurate (abilities that can be improved through training), but if every player takes growth stimulants to be exactly the same height then what's the point of having a competition anymore? We may as well all have a huge love-in where everyone gets a prize and mediocrity is hailed as genius.

What would happen if we applied the same ethos to Economics- people would stop earning, and our economies would crash. Academics? people would get bored, and our intelligence would stagnate. Competition is vital to keep people striving for their best. drugs (yes i'm referring to the effects of) in sport belittle the efforts of "Clean" athletes. Look at what's happened at the Tour de France, look how someone as gifted as Lance Armstrong has been defamed for even allegations of drug use.

Geez- i hope that all made sense?

Yes i know, Wikipedia isn't always accurate- but it gives us somewhere to start.

“No one can come close to […] the level”
I don’t think that is relevant; it’s enough that there already is a difference in the levels. Regulation could deal with the potential damage.

“another doesn’t have to work as hard […]”
This happens already! That is my point. Legalising drugs could act more to combat this, not exacerbate it.

“What’s the point of competition if everyone is identical?”
Well, I guess it’s true that there may be no point, but people don’t want a point when they watch sport, they want to be entertained. But the issue I want to raise is that people have an illusory view of what fairness and equality is. It does seem to be the opinion of most that the underlying philosophy of sport is “Who’s the most talented”. But what does that even mean? I argue, we think it means that: ‘well, Swedish-Dude won, ergo he is the bomb.’ But what if we discover that Swedish-Dude possesses a certain trait that gave him an advantage. Then in what sense is he the best? What if 2nd-Place-Guy had had that trait? Maybe he would have won. I think that addresses your height issue: to equalise all heights would eliminate it as a variable that you could possibly gain an advantage from. I am aware of what must entail if we take this argument to its logical conclusion, and all I can say is ‘and?...’.

Here’s the crux of the issue, as I see it: It is purely our gut reaction, i.e. emotional reaction, to drug taking that is the reason for its being considered ‘cheating’. It is simply because of the contrasting natures of what I will call ‘Pre-birth enhancements’ vs. ‘Post-birth enhancements’, specifically, the former being rather invisible and the latter more visible.

Permit me another interminable thought experiment. It’s a tad long, I’ll try keep it short but you leave me little recourse as I feel the point just isn’t making it across the divide.

John uses a syringe to raise the level of ‘steroids’ that would otherwise normally be produced in his system. He is a dirty cheat-whore.
Carl, at around 25yrs of age, implants a new piece of technology that releases ‘steroids’ into his system, also raising his level of the ‘steroid’ above its ‘natural’ level. He too achieves the rank of Cheat-Whore.
Sebastian, at birth, is implanted with the same device as was just mentioned. He, I assume, when caught, would be considered a cheat (let us ignore the issue of ‘choice’/‘free will’, or whatever other wanky term we could apply to it, that isn’t the issue, though it does raise interesting questions about our perspective of what it is to be a cheat. If you must, replace ‘is a cheat’ with ‘is disqualified’).
Johannes is born with a specific biological device, a.k.a. testicles, with a slight modification (call it a mutation), that also, just like the previous device, increases his level of the ‘steroid’ above its ‘natural’ level. He is not a cheater.

The application of this philosophy towards areas such as Academics (if it could even be applied to that… (?) ) would, I feel, have exactly the opposite effect of what you suggest: if everyone had access to the same resources then I do wonder at how much the rate of our acquisition of knowledge would sky-rocket, the thought that so many potential brilliant minds will simply never get the opportunity to work their magic is very depressing.

To summarise: the point is not about what effect this will have on sport, or about the potential damage to athletes. It is ‘should these people be considered cheats?’.

I'm sorry Andy but i can't see having a naturally occurring genetic mutation (like bigger testicles) being equated with taking steroids. let's take Sebastian out of the equation, He, i think, would be considered separately as the whole choice thing would make lots of lawyers very wealthy. In answer to you final question- adding something that your body just cannot reproduce (i.e. large doses of growth hormones/ steroids) is definitely cheating. Why? you are no longer competing of your own merits... to look at it from a third view: why is having a hack considered cheating in a computer game? because you are getting results that you have not earned.

"Legalizing...combat..." I really don't think this is a good response- we get back to the whole issue of damaging people. It's a little like saying, if we get rid of law, there's no crime. or we can wipe out underage drinking if we just lower the age- These laws exist to protect people/ organizations from not just others but themselves. People are sometimes too dumb to realize that what they are doing is harmful- to themselves and others.

The difference thing? I'm saying let's leave it to nature- fair or not, when it comes to sport surely we must leave people to what they can "naturally" achieve (yes i understand equipment plays a part- but not compared to doubling your muscle size without working hard).

I guess we see this from different points of view- but i can assure you, as i said above it's not an emotional response, my objection is to the damage point of view, and second to that, the whole getting results they didn't work for.

Indeed we do seem to have different views.

“i can't see a naturally occurring genetic mutation being equated with taking steroids.”
Here’s the thing; it is. Where the divide arises is that you’re constantly viewing drug taking as involving a huge increase in the level of that drug, which is fair enough, but it need not be. All that’s needed is a difference in the levels that people have. This happens, we observe it.

“no longer competing of your own merits”
Perhaps. Though I restate: this already occurs. If you argue this then I would argue that you must accept the conclusion that someone such as the Finnish skier who ‘naturally’ had approx. 50% more red blood cells would be cheating. The hack analogy only further illustrates this. Let me extend it further: you download a hack (which by definition doesn’t come with the game). You’re a cheat. I buy the game and the hack comes inbuilt i.e. it’s a natural part of the game that all the programmers agree should be added. I am not a cheat.

“get rid of law, there's no crime”
Mmm, why do I feel like I’m stuck in a car going round a roundabout? I know the argument was long but I would suggest it’s wise to be familiar with what’s already been said, if not for my sake then for your credibility. =) This was the first point Trev said, and I do, just like I did with Trev, see the point of it. I won’t repeat myself here, read the 3rd post. …though curiously I’m not sure how it related to my original point; I suggested legalising in reference to equalising, the health factor wasn’t considered.


“leave it to nature- fair or not”
I guess. To be honest I don’t mind. What I want is to address this issue people have with the use of drugs. It is, I must insist, an emotional response. Even to say it like that: “Use of drugs” carries negative connotations, which are inherently unconscious responses. I understand your concerns with health problems, and I grant them, but that is not the issue; regulation would be there to attempt to address this (not perfect but not the issue). The problem with athletes getting results they didn’t work for and doubling muscles without workout: you still have to, and these athletes do, work hard. Very hard. They just get better results, which is what is happening now with the existing different natural levels. Do not think that taking drugs must necessarily involve grotesque amounts of drugs, all that's needed is an amount that would EQUAL that of a set level e.g. that of the highest measured in another athlete, then there is no getting results people didn’t deserve, PERIOD.

*takes deep breathe, wipes sweat from brow* =P

Well, I’ve lost faith in the ability of my argument to penetrate to any depth (j/k), so I’ll call upon the awesome collective genius that is the Simpsons crew. Although it doesn’t really support my argument it’s damn funny.

Mr Burns: I've always felt that there's far too much hysteria these days about so-called cheating. If you can take advantage of a situation in some way, it's your duty as an American to do it. Why should the race always be to the swift or the jumble to the quick-witted? Should they be allowed to win merely because of the gifts God gave them? Well, I say cheating is the gift man gives himself!


There never was a difference of opinion, philosophical conundrum or universal question that couldn’t be settled by The Simpsons.

UPDATE: Homer sleeps nude in an oxygen tent...

What I wanted to add was that I heard on that same sports show as mentioned in the other post(s) them talking about the swimming and the new swim suits. They were referring to the recent French National Championships in which Laure Manaudou, who had entirely owned the 400m in the past 4 years or so, only came third. The pertinent point was that the two that beat her wore the shiny new ‘Speedo-victoryismine' suits while she had her old cruddy ‘Arena-sorryulose’ suit. She didn’t even bother to compete in the 200m after that.

It’s all really fascinating...

Was the new suit unavailable to her?

no, she is not sponsored by speedo so she doesn't get one.

Well that's just mean.

Nick wrote:

Marc wrote:Was the new suit unavailable to her?

no, she is not sponsored by speedo so she doesn't get one.

Yea—I mean, No—I mean... stop confusing me, you two. The suit was not available, or was unavailable, depending on your preference, for the reasons stated by Nick.

If only she had had some drugs to level the playing field... when will people learn.

http://news.smh.com.au/italians-dig-for-truth-over-swim-suits/20080430-29le.html

It's really kicking up quite a storm.