Drugs + Sports.

Welcome to the Gentlemen's Club!

Not the strip-club but the more original meaning of the term. Sorry, Trev.

So the point of making this topic was that this could be the area where we can discuss/converse such vexing, curious or just downright quirky issues (pronounced: /is/ kiss /yooz/ use) that abound in this world which he happen to find ourselves having to—whether we like it or not—eke out some semblance of an existence (some more successfully than others).

Anyway, the forum title can be changed.

So for the inaugural topic for discussion I was going to (attempt) to write a small piece on this topic but almost as soon as I began to do a little research on the subject I very quickly came across someone that had already done just that, only better in every way than I could have done it (except mine would’ve had way more exciting punctuation).

So here’s the article. http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/drugsinsport.html

Peruse it, mull over it, muse, contemplate, ponder, reflect, speculate, excogitate and do many of the other synonyms that my PC dictionary can provide for that concept. Do whatever you must, and return to engage and enlighten the rest of us with your ideas.

…we could call it: “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”

Loved this bit:
"So is cheating here to stay? Drugs are against the rules. But we define the rules of sport. If we made drugs legal and freely available, there would be no cheating."
It's like saying "if we abolished all laws there would be no crime"

Then this:
"Sport discriminates against the genetically unfit. Sport is the province of the genetic elite (or freak)."
Anyone else think that this guy I a fat nerd who was always picked last for sport at school?

Good point, well, at least the first one was. I won't comment on the second.

I think it was, perhaps, poorly phrased. There are obviously many more ways in which athletes can cheat, and legalising drugs won't mean no cheating. But, using the 'law of generosity', or whatever they call it, where we try to reconstruct the author's argument in the most positive and strong way that we can, I think he's argument went a little something like this:

We say dug taking is illegal, therefore it's 'cheating'. It's not illegal because it's cheating. There's no reasoning (at least no good reasoning) behind the decision, just an arbitrary order. To remove the illegality of it would leave it no longer being considered cheating. Just like if we were to arbitrarily say that it's illegal to compete whilst being black. Then it would be considered 'cheating' to compete whilst being black.

That's what I'm thinking.

Well, a lot of substances used in athletics doping are actually illegal and potentially harmful, with side-effects and the like. (I'm mostly thinking of steroids here.)

Marc wrote:Well, a lot of substances used in athletics doping are actually illegal and potentially harmful, with side-effects and the like. (I'm mostly thinking of steroids here.)

I don't get it... wait, did you read the article Marc? He said that: yes some 'drugs' could be harmful, but that's precisely why the use of them should be monitored.

I'm the President, I don't have time to read things. Just give it here and I'll sign it.

I don't understand his reasoning when he says that the goal is to "level the playing field." What's the point of that? The point of a sprinting race is to find out who is the fastest (I don't think his rebuttal of us being human, as opposed to being horses, is effective or meaningful at all). If everybody is physically the same, what "skill" is there to running quickly? We might as well build identical model cars and race them down a straight track.

I also don't believe that everyone using drugs would level the playing field. Athletes with naturally superior muscles are likely to still be stronger than an inferior athlete if they both take drugs. If both Floyd Mayweather and I take steroids, he's still going to be faster and stronger than I am. So again, what's the point?

Marc wrote:(I don't think his rebuttal of us being human, as opposed to being horses, is effective or meaningful at all).

Couldn't agree more.

Marc wrote:I don't understand his reasoning when he says that the goal is to "level the playing field." What's the point of that? The point of a sprinting race is to find out who is the fastest (...).

But in what context? Okay, you could say: well it's just to find out 'who is the fastest?' full-stop. But if that was the case wouldn't we just pick people 'off the street', so to speak, and race them? But we don't, because it's not 'who is the fastest?', it's 'who is the fastest after they have spent a significant amount of time honing, augmenting, and adjusting their bodies in a whole manner of different ways in order to achieve the best they think they can?', I would suggest. This is because they alter their diet, they target specific muscles for over-training them and they use the most up to date technology (that's allowed) e.g. shoes and uniforms (which DO make a difference: see swimming news recently) to enhance their performance.
Also, I do see what your getting at about the questioning of 'levelling the playing field' but I think there is something in it. Competitions are supposed to be about who is better when the majority of factors are the same. You don't see a football match in which one team get's rifles; then we would see 'which team was better'.

Marc wrote:I also don't believe that everyone using drugs would level the playing field. Athletes with naturally superior muscles are likely to still be stronger than an inferior athlete if they both take drugs. If both Floyd Mayweather and I take steroids, he's still going to be faster and stronger than I am. So again, what's the point?

That's precisely the point. Drugs don't produce winners. I would say that almost anyone who has won and taken drugs were almost certain to win anyway (Marion Jones is good example). But then why shouldn't they, after realising that other opponents already have an advantage, be allowed to try to 'level the playing field'. Shouldn't they have the right?

1) Well, it's not "fastest full stop." It's fastest in the world or whatever. The rest of your point rests on comparing drugs to other enhancements such as training and equipment. Which is a comparison that I don't really think holds up. I think there's a fundamental difference between overtraining and the use of drugs to overtrain. One involves rigorous diet and excercise, the other involves taking a pill/injection. And there are limits on the equipment that you can use, it's not like they're completely unregulated and you can put turbines on your swim team.

2) Surely if the current regulations against performance enhancing drugs were enforced properly there would be no problem with some athletes having an advantage? I know this kind of thinking has failed in the war on recreational drugs, but in the performance enhancing area, surely there's an easily manageable choke-point....test after events.

Marc wrote:1) Well, it's not "fastest full stop." It's fastest in the world or whatever. The rest of your point rests on comparing drugs to other enhancements such as training and equipment.

True, I think

Marc wrote:Which is a comparison that I don't really think holds up. I think there's a fundamental difference between overtraining and the use of drugs to overtrain. One involves rigorous diet and excercise, the other involves taking a pill/injection.

This I disagree with. I'm not trying to misinterpret you, but I'll say what I think anyways. 'One involves diet + training, the other involves pill'. I would say, 'One involves diet + training, the other involves pill + diet + training'.

Marc wrote:And there are limits on the equipment that you can use, it's not like they're completely unregulated and you can put turbines on your swim team.

True, and funny.
But, what difference does it make that there are limits? It's enough (in my mind) that they are allowed equipment. Not everyone gets the same. There has been talk recently over the swimming that seems to be accepted widely, even by the swimmers, that the suits that some swimmers wore contributed to their performance i.e. breaking the world-record. It doesn't mean that they aren't good/great swimmers, but it did mean they shaved a few seconds of their time. And having regulations on drug use, wouldn't that be the same?

Marc wrote:2) Surely if the current regulations against performance enhancing drugs were enforced properly there would be no problem with some athletes having an advantage?

You mean 'enforced properly' in the sense that no-one was able to take drugs? I don't know if I would have no problem with some athletes having an advantage.

Marc wrote:I know this kind of thinking has failed in the war on recreational drugs, but in the performance enhancing area, surely there's an easily manageable choke-point....test after events.

I think it's getting harder and harder (and in the future perhaps impossible) to detect the drugs. I just thought i'd add that.
But also, does that mean only test the winners? That seems slightly odd...

1) I see it as an extra enhancement that cheapens the rest of the effort that goes into training.

2) The same suits are available to all, aren't they? (I could be wrong about that.) And I know you can make the same argument that the same drugs are available to all, but I think another issue that was dealt with rather glibly in the article was safety. The suits can't hurt someone. His argument for the safety of the drugs was basically "We'll have to be extra sure it doesn't hurt them."

3) I meant enforced properly in that nobody was able to take the drugs. Surely that's the most level playing field possible? I think you misunderstand what I meant by "no problem"; I meant that if there was no drugs in use, then no athlete would have an unfair advantage over another, and therefore using drugs to correct this imbalance is unnecessary.

4) I meant test all competitors, having done precisely zero research into the cost of this procedure. But if it becomes impossible to detect drugs, any ban/lack of ban becomes moot anyway.

Bah, I don't really believe point #1. I was just enjoying the debate.

I've refrained from using the "quote" thing as my posts were becoming annoyingly enlarged (much like Tom's appendage when he talks about Ray Ramano, sorry that's an in-joke, and a bad one at that)

1)
Well I was going to comment on this but then I read your add-on post.

2)
In one sense the suits aren't available to all (I think), in that certain swimmers are sponsored and given these suits. Either that or they just don't all wear the same suits...
I don't know that he's argument about safety was so poor, even though it did really amount to what you summarised it as, I think if athletes were just told about the real risks of taking certain drugs (if there are any) and watched, like they are done now, then there wouldn't be a problem. Of course they could screw it up and kill themselves, if they were stupid, but what's stopping them doing that now with diet/training; if they're stupid they could harm themselves.

3)
This is the point that I totally disagree with, if I understand it correctly. I think that having no drugs leaves a huge gap in terms of 'levelling the playing field'. To re-use the example provided in the article and to add my own little thought experiment on top; there was this scandinavian dude who had a higher than average level of a certain hormone which increased the concentration of Red Blood Cells (RBC) in his blood. This gave him a noticeable advantage. Lets say I take a syringe and inject an amount of that natural hormone in to my system to bring me to an equal level of that hormone. Is that cheating? Under the rules, yes.

I feel that my second point is extremely valid and explains everything.

One of my big worries on the subject is that if we allow athletes to take Performance enhancing drugs then they will ALL HAVE TO TAKE THEM- let's face it, the drugs allow top athletes to shave more than fractions of a second off, and athletes that want to perform at their personal best which, correct me if i'm wrong, is the point of organized competition- those athletes who don't take the drugs wont stand a chance.

In addition, i'm struggling with the idea that these athletes aren't being seen as people in the article- he seems to treat them as machines for our amusement, yes there is an element of these people performing for the audience- but isn't it supposed to be them performing at their peak- not them plus an artificial implant.

And while sponsorship gives some athletes better gear- at an Olympic (and in some case professional) level, isn't that all heavily regulated? the blow up over Michael Klim's suit, Matthew Hayden metal bat, come to mind... in short, Yes we do allow athlete's to use advantageous equipment, but not when it will outrageously give them an advantage- Michael Klim is bloody fast, with or without the suit!

In any case- i'm rambling, and need to eat some dinner, chat more soon!