Ain't got nothing.

Usain Bolt. That was some run, huh? 6 foot high legs. How can you compete with that?

Michael Phelps. 8/8 gold medals. Wow. Some swimmer. All that disproportionately distributed 6ft 4in frame with its 6tf 7in wingspan and size 14 feet cruising through the water using its ‘hyper-mobile’ (that’s a medical term, I hear) movements.

I pity those poor fools who try to use drugs to beat these guys. Nothing can trump the glory of the holy genetic combination that they lucked upon.

Usain Bolt... I saw his hundred metres and then 200 metres races. He wasn't even trying. Credible source Matty T told me Bolt reckons he'll be the first dude to crack 9.5 seconds.

Is this a sneeky way of starting the drugs in sport thing again???

Alex wrote:Bolt reckons he'll be the first dude to crack 9.5 seconds.

Totally.
I hear his 200m may even be more impressive, since apparently that's his favourite.

Nick wrote:Is this a sneeky way of starting the drugs in sport thing again???

mmmKinda.

I knew it, I still think your drug leveling argument is just wrong.

Awww. I was hoping my chronic nagging would have you convinced.

Here's a little something to think about, maybe, I dunno if it makes sense. You're having some trouble respecting that these guys are the "best" at their fields, because of the fact that they are genetic freaks. But that's what makes people better at purely athletic disciplines.

a) We want to hold a race to see who is the fastest man in the world
b) The race is held
c) Bolt wins
d) Therefore, Bolt is the fastest man in the world
e) We've found the fastest man in the world, so the race is successful

Ok. Good point. I do agree with most of what's been said by the negative team against drugs in sports. I guess this sorta comes back to what Nick was saying about these sports are just supposed to be testing athletes natural abilities, or something, which I think is true.

Now, I don't wanna annoy everyone and tweeze this thing out, again. But I'm going to say this:

I reckon your argument is spot on. But I remember asking before about what we mean when we ask "who is the fastest?" and what it actually was asking. Then we agreed that it wasn't completely on "natural talent" since all athletes use special equipment that improve their capabilities. But, then it was found that that was ok because, either, everyone was allowed them, or they didn't make that much of a difference; whereas drugs was seen to be in a different league, with too much of an effect and unequal distribution. (There could be other reasons, maybe?)

The more I think about this the more I think it doesn't hold water. Equipment makes a huge difference. It is performance enhancing equipment. Show me a sprinter running in bare feet, with no starting blocks, on a dirt track (maybe) and naked versus a sprinter of today. I don't think there'd be a chance the former would win, simply because of the latter's performance enhancing equipment. We only accept this because (1) everybody gets the equipment (usually!), (2) equipment doesn't really damage health, (3) equipment is easy to regulate, but mainly (4) it's happened so gradually that we just haven't noticed.

Depending on the equipment and sport, drugs may not improve performance as much as the equipment; the runner without any equipment but drugs would probably be thrashed by the runner with all the modern equipment sans drugs. I cannot see why drugs cannot be accepted as what they are: another piece of performance enhancing equipment. Probably the strongest argument is (2) about health, which I think is a good argument against them, but under monitored conditions most drugs aren't hugely damaging to the body, at least, not any more damaging than these high contact, elite level, physical activities already are to the body.

That's just what I've thought. There's more to it, but that summary will do. I guess.

Its a good point Andy, and i would like to subscribe to your magazine. I agree with you that drugs won't actually help as much as technology. However I don't agree that they should be allowed.

A person who uses sprint blocks, who uses special sprinting shoes and who wears spandex to decrease wind resistance has an advantage over a bare footed, naked man running on the same surface i agree. However that person, who has all the high tech gadgets, is still a supremely talented person who has had to train and train and train to become as superbly fit and superbly talented and learn to use the technology in order to obtain that fastest time. Basically what i am saying is that if you took away their technology and put them up against a bare footed man it would even the playing field because they are basically a person underneith.

A person on drugs doesn't have this same capability. They have drugs for everything from dulling the pain of a marathon to making your muscles bigger and twichier so that you run faster. A person taking drugs doesn't have to put in the same amount of effort to reach that highest platform. They don't have to go through the agonising last few k's because they can't feel the last few k's. They don't have to push at the boundaries of human endurance or human capability because they have gone past them with drugs.

There is also another concern that needs to be addressed. There are many athletes who like their balls, who enjoy the feeling of a clean body and who don't want to use drugs. Sure there are also athletes who don't like to wear the sporting equipment but they eventually do because it isn't detrimental to their health, it is in fact better for them to have foot support etc etc. What would you say to those athletes who are being beaten, day in day out by people willing to subject their bodies to unhealthiness later ( i know it aint a real word) in order to win now.

take steroids for instance. Gives you great muscle mass, can increase everything from speed to strenght. But it makes them grow too fast and you can end up getting torn ligaments etc. I am sure that there are people out there who are willing to sacrifice a ligament for a gold, but there are many more who wouldn't. Does that mean that the person who used the substance, injurred themselves should get the gold?

There are many who would say yes because it meant they were 'going the extra mile' but i think that it is unfair to those who don't want to take that risk to say that they didn't put in that little extra.

But i don't agree with what Kathy Freemen did in her gold medal race.. I love that she won, but that suit looked rediculous and clearly gave her an advantage.

So we’re in agreement then: Cathy Freeman looked like a tool in that body suit. If only she’d used drugs to cheat instead of that ridiculous get-up.

I thought your specific example about the pain killers was a good one. I had not thought of that specific class of drugs before. And because of that I’ve felt the need to make clearer, even to myself, something that I hadn’t really said clear before. In fact, I may not have even had this opinion before.

My opinion is that some drugs should be allowed but regulated. That may sound silly, since drugs are drugs, right? You can’t allow some and not others; they’re either bad or good. I don’t believe this is the case. After all, we allow some ‘equipment’ but not others. I think drugs suffer from being grouped together like this (and I have often made the mistake of referring to them in that way).

I agree that it may be unfair on an athlete who doesn’t want to use drugs, but I think the main thrust of that argument relies on the fact of those specific drugs being damaging – and there certainly seems to be drugs that are – but what if we were to only focus on those drugs that aren’t considered as harmful, especially when moderated appropriately?

Deciding which drugs should be allowed may not be easy – it’s not easy deciding which equipment should be allowed – and it most likely won’t be perfect. But the games aren’t perfect now, and I think that at least looking at the drugs issue (rather than treating it as taboo, like a lot of the hype I’ve heard in the media) would go towards achieving a more even playing field.

Holding the Olympics in Africa with the athletes running barefoot in dirt is looking better and better.
Bring on the Trevlympics!
There won't be any McDonalds advertising either....

You realise that dirt is fact a worldwide resource, not limited to Africa?

Trizender wrote:Bring on the Trevlympics!
There won't be any McDonalds advertising either....

But how will I get emotionally attached to the games then? Without seeing those 3-generation-living-together families, or those close knit group of friends, or those strangers in a bar who've put aside their differences sit down and watch the Trevlympics and then celebrate with some fast food the olympics would be empty, and shallow.

No, no, no, if anything you need more fast food sponsors. Like, all of them. And make sure that no food other than fast food is available for the whole month (yes it will go for a month. Maybe longer.)

Tom wrote:and i would like to subscribe to your magazine.

Two subscripitions?! That counts as a list. I better get started. Dun worry, it'll be soon... soon.

Are we offically off topic yet???

I don't remember what the topic was, one sec...

Oh. Yeah, we're off it. You wanna fight about it?