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!

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_%28sport%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyborgs_in_sports

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...