Doping in sports

[Dr. Diaphanous]

Should the use of performance-enhancing drugs be banned in sport?

One argument is that drugs give an unfair advantage. However, I don't believe this is a problem- world-class athletes have all sorts of advantages, such as expert coaching, full-time dedication to their sport, professional nutritionists, and expensive equipment that are not available to most people (and also genetic advantages). I don't see the difference between using drugs and having a specialised diet.

The side-effects and health-damaging effects are a bigger issue, because if drugs were allowed, athletes would be effectively forced to take drugs to stay competitive. However, does this mean that if a drug was proven to have no negative effects, it would be legalised? What if there were negative effects but less drastic than other dangers in the sport such as risk of injury and requirement for huge amounts of effort and time?

There are many drugs that can boost performance in sport, including anabolic steroids, painkillers, stimulants, and erythropoietin. Blood doping (injecting extra red blood cells before an event) is also possible. In the future, gene therapies will be able to introduce performance-enhancing genes into an athlete's genome. I think it would be interesting to see what records could be broken using these enhancements.

[blowfishhootie]

Should the use of performance-enhancing drugs be banned in sport?

One argument is that drugs give an unfair advantage. However, I don't believe this is a problem- world-class athletes have all sorts of advantages, such as expert coaching, full-time dedication to their sport, professional nutritionists, and expensive equipment that are not available to most people (and also genetic advantages). I don't see the difference between using drugs and having a specialised diet.

The side-effects and health-damaging effects are a bigger issue, because if drugs were allowed, athletes would be effectively forced to take drugs to stay competitive.

You have answered your own question. Steroids, et al, DO give an unfair advantage because only those willing to potentially sacrifice years off their life (or risk other harmful side effects) gain the advantage. This is not true of specialized training and expensive equipment: Everyone can choose to use those without any known risk to their health.

However, does this mean that if a drug was proven to have no negative effects, it would be legalised?

Uh, yes, duh? This is already the case. There are plenty of drugs athletes are already allowed to use. Certain pain killers come to mind.

[Ormurinn]

You have answered your own question. Steroids, et al, DO give an unfair advantage because only those willing to potentially sacrifice years off their life (or risk other harmful side effects) gain the advantage. This is not true of specialized training and expensive equipment: Everyone can choose to use those without any known risk to their health.

Woah. MASSIVE citation needed here. Top-level athletes regularly put their bodies through regimes that cause serious deterioration in quality of life, and possibly shorten lifespans - to say nothing of the rigours of the sport itself.

Look at all the cyclists with severe osteoarthritis, or martial artists with brain damage, or ruby players with spinal cord injuries, or arrhythmia in endurance athletes? What about rhabdomyolysis caused by intense training, or ketoacidosis from dieting to fit into a weight class?

To answer OP's question, I think there should be doped and non-doped competitions. If someone wants to set up a league with chemical enhancement allowed, they should be permitted to do so. Drugs are just another tool - and It seems demeaning to take the paternalistic attitude that athletes can't make the choice (to dope or not to dope) that best suits them.

52% of Olympic athletes would give themselves 5 years to live, if it meant taking home a gold medal*. That's a choice I think athletes should be allowed to make for themselves, assuming they're in a doping-permissive league.

*I remember the stat from a guardian article, but can't find the article in question.

[blowfishhootie]

You have answered your own question. Steroids, et al, DO give an unfair advantage because only those willing to potentially sacrifice years off their life (or risk other harmful side effects) gain the advantage. This is not true of specialized training and expensive equipment: Everyone can choose to use those without any known risk to their health.

Woah. MASSIVE citation needed here. Top-level athletes regularly put their bodies through regimes that cause serious deterioration in quality of life, and possibly shorten lifespans - to say nothing of the rigours of the sport itself.

None of those are caused by wearing certain shoes or hiring specific trainers, so I'm not sure what you are arguing about, to be honest. Maybe you haven't actually read what I wrote? The question wasn't how long athletes plan to live, the question was why taking illegal drugs is a different means of gaining an advantage from wearing top-of-the-line equipment (et al) is.

The original post said exactly this: "I don't see the difference between using drugs and having a specialised diet." If you are arguing that a "specialized diet" (a broad term, to be sure) is as harmful as taking steroids, I'd love to read YOUR "massive" citation.

EDIT: Regarding the rest of your post, there is absolutely nothing stopping drug-abusing athletes from forming their own league right now where they can kill themselves all they want. But they don't because in most cases I don't think as many people would watch, and therefore there would be less money to be made. You say athletes should be "allowed" to compete with each other knowing they are all doped up. What's stopping that from happening know, assuming the dope you are defending isn't a substance banned by law? In what way are they not allowed?

[elasto]

None of those are caused by wearing certain shoes or hiring specific trainers, so I'm not sure what you are arguing about, to be honest. Maybe you haven't actually read what I wrote?

You wrote that "specialized training ... [is] without any known risk to their health" and Ormurinn was merely pointing out that the specialized training that every elite athlete undergoes is invariably highly deleterious to their health. Someone who plays football at an elite level for 20 years will probably have the knees of someone twice their age. Someone who boxes for a decade will have a greatly increased chance of brain-damage etc. Ormurinn gave many examples of how people will suffer as a result of undergoing years of high intensity training. Illegal drugs differ only really to the degree to which they damage health, they aren't really different in kind. The only sport I can think of where doing years of 30/40/50 hours a week of training won't prematurely wear a person's body out is swimming - and that's only because it is so low impact.

I also agree that gene therapy is going to cause a real headache to the anti-drug lobby: Most elite sprinters will be 80/20 fast/slow twitch fibers just through the genetic lottery. Suppose there's a really fast sprinter who is only 50/50 and they have gene therapy to push them up to 80/20 and become world-beating as a result. Is that cheating or is it just leveling the playing field? Suppose another person has gene therapy to have many more red blood cells circulating than before. Is that cheating if that gene could occur naturally?

There are some interesting times just around the corner...

[blowfishhootie]

None of those are caused by wearing certain shoes or hiring specific trainers, so I'm not sure what you are arguing about, to be honest. Maybe you haven't actually read what I wrote?

You wrote that "specialized training ... [is] without any known risk to their health" and Ormurinn was merely pointing out that the specialized training that every elite athlete undergoes is invariably highly deleterious to their health. Someone who plays football at an elite level for 20 years will probably have the knees of someone twice their age. Someone who boxes for a decade will have a greatly increased chance of brain-damage etc. Ormurinn gave many examples of how people will suffer as a result of undergoing years of high intensity training. Illegal drugs differ only really to the degree to which they damage health, they aren't really different in kind. The only sport I can think of where doing years of 30/40/50 hours a week of training won't prematurely wear a person's body out is swimming - and that's only because it is so low impact.

In most, but not all, of these examples, it is a risk that every athlete takes. In other words, it is not really possible to box without taking the risk of serious head injuries. It is not really possible to play football without risking damage to your knees. So therefor, it is a given that every single person involved has agreed to that risk. The same is not true of steroids - not everyone has agreed to use them, and in fact the athletes have most of the time agreed NOT to use them. You don't have to use steroids to be a boxer. You do have to box to be a boxer. One risk is necessary, the other is not.

As has been mentioned, professional athletes are free to go form their own competitions that allow for the use of any legal substance they want to permit. But they don't, because there isn't as much money in that. So instead, they enter competitions where everyone has agreed NOT to take those added risks, risks that are not inherent in playing the given sport. And so those who enter these competitions and DO take those added risks are cheaters. They are blatantly disregarding rules they have agreed to.

I'm not someone who takes some sort of snobbish moral stand where steroids are involved - the feigned moral outrage every time an athlete gets busted using them really annoys me. The amount of money at stake directly and indirectly in professional sports encourages seeking every edge one can, legal or otherwise, and it is naive to believe otherwise. If the professional sports leagues I watch decided to allow them, I wouldn't be that upset, though I would disagree with the decision. I think athletes that don't want to take any more of a health risk than they have to in order to be successful should be encouraged, not drowned out.

[CorruptUser]

Think of steroids as a prisoner's dilemma. If neither athlete does 'roids, the naturally better athlete has a better chance of winning. If one athlete does 'roids, that athlete wins but also gets health problems. If both do 'roids, the naturally better athlete still has the better chance of winning, and both get health problems. Clearly the best scenario is where no one does 'roids. But it's in each's interest to do 'roids, no matter what the other athlete chooses, so both will do 'roids, unless the reward for 'roids is reduced. So punish the ever loving shit out of the 'roid users.


Also, somewhat tangental, does the IOC allow trans women compete in the women's olympics?

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Also, somewhat tangental, does the IOC allow trans women compete in the women's olympics?

Yes.

[blowfishhootie]

I just wanted to add this: Maybe I'm just jaded by the steroids witch hunt in baseball over the past decade, or the never-ending Lance Armstrong saga, but I don't believe that any major sports that involves pushing the human body to unnatural limits* is anywhere even remotely close to being free of performance-enhancing drugs. Jose Canseco estimated that at its peak, baseball was filled with players about 90 percent of whom were on the juice. A lot of other evidence has made Canseco more and more credible the more time passes, so even if that number is a little inflated I have no problem believing it is closer to the truth than you would expect based on the small handful of players that have been caught by baseball's drug testing program in the time since. I won't put a number on it, but I am guessing there is a pretty sizable population of athletes in any given sport that are on some banned substance.

So even if I think PEDs suck and should be out of sports, I'm not arguing that they aren't there.

* - I don't know if this is the best way to phrase it. Specifically, I'm trying to exclude auto racing, table tennis, and other sports that don't take exceptional strength, speed, etc, to be successful. But I'm sure even in those sports there are shady practices used to gain an edge, I just don't know anything about them.

[Izawwlgood]

I think we should have a separate league that has zero rules pertaining to what athletes can consume.

I'm probably alone in this, but I don't really watch the Olympics for the 'spirit of competition', but to watch humankind break records. I don't care who medals, or what country takes home more accolades, I want to see records smashed.

So doping in sports? Yeah. Sure. All the drugs. I don't really think the 'health concern' is the actual motivation behind banning anything, because frankly, a lot of sports shave years off athletes lives with the constant physical demand and risk of injury. And that's an athletes choice. The only real reason to have these limitations in place is to agree to some sort of baseline to equalize each competitor, as mentioned, to prevent those who choose NOT to dope from being at a disadvantage. But given how minimal the health risks are if administered properly, and how poor the security protocols obviously are, it seems rather stupid to have a rule you can't enforce in place.

And besides, if Cool Runnings taught me anything it's that a team without financial resources is effectively at a disadvantage anyway. You think a million dollar training program is somehow any more 'honest' than a dude who shoots himself up with 500 bucks of hormone?

[yurell]

Also, somewhat tangental, does the IOC allow trans women compete in the women's olympics?

Both trans men and trans women, but post-op (SRS) only, and only from countries that allow a legal change of sex (and only then if the athlete is actually 'suitable' to be given that legal status).

[blowfishhootie]

I'm probably alone in this, but I don't really watch the Olympics for the 'spirit of competition', but to watch humankind break records. I don't care who medals, or what country takes home more accolades, I want to see records smashed.

So stick to video games, then. If all you care about is seeing some number pop up on your TV screen regardless of the context in which the number is achieved, then what's the difference?

Throughout your post you use quotation marks in ways that confuse me, because nobody here has even alluded to "spirit of competition." I don't watch the Olympics out of a general curiosity as to which country produces the best athlete I've never heard of in a certain discipline. I watch because I enjoy the strategy of the sports I enjoy, because I enjoy seeing teams or individuals overcome adversity, and because I like seeing hard work pay off. A powerful sports moment is no different from watching a movie - except see enough movies, and you can usually guess how it's going to end before it's even over.

So doping in sports? Yeah. Sure. All the drugs. I don't really think the 'health concern' is the actual motivation behind banning anything, because frankly, a lot of sports shave years off athletes lives with the constant physical demand and risk of injury. And that's an athletes choice. The only real reason to have these limitations in place is to agree to some sort of baseline to equalize each competitor, as mentioned, to prevent those who choose NOT to dope from being at a disadvantage.

The health concern is one of the reasons an individual athlete would resist PEDs, and it is a totally reasonable concern, which is why it creates the unfair advantage. The two are not mutually exclusive. Because it is a health concern, not everyone does it, which creates an unlevel playing field.

But given how minimal the health risks are if administered properly

This is an absurd blanket statement that covers such a wide range of drugs and such a wide range of their applications that it is basically useless. Besides, whether or not an individual athlete thinks the risk is minimal enough to be worth it is not your personal call to make.

And besides, if Cool Runnings taught me anything it's that a team without financial resources is effectively at a disadvantage anyway. You think a million dollar training program is somehow any more 'honest' than a dude who shoots himself up with 500 bucks of hormone?

One competitive imbalance does not justify another. And this is not only about the Olympics - in most major American sports leagues, for example, the discrepancy between big and small spending teams, while present, is nowhere near what you seem to think it is. And because of the way spending is distributed, it is very, very rare for any one team to be very far removed from at least a handful of other teams also spending in the same range. And if money is all it takes, why don't the New York Yankees win the World Series every single year?

[Ormurinn]

I think we should have a separate league that has zero rules pertaining to what athletes can consume.

I'm probably alone in this, but I don't really watch the Olympics for the 'spirit of competition', but to watch humankind break records. I don't care who medals, or what country takes home more accolades, I want to see records smashed.

So doping in sports? Yeah. Sure. All the drugs. I don't really think the 'health concern' is the actual motivation behind banning anything, because frankly, a lot of sports shave years off athletes lives with the constant physical demand and risk of injury. And that's an athletes choice. The only real reason to have these limitations in place is to agree to some sort of baseline to equalize each competitor, as mentioned, to prevent those who choose NOT to dope from being at a disadvantage. But given how minimal the health risks are if administered properly, and how poor the security protocols obviously are, it seems rather stupid to have a rule you can't enforce in place.

And besides, if Cool Runnings taught me anything it's that a team without financial resources is effectively at a disadvantage anyway. You think a million dollar training program is somehow any more 'honest' than a dude who shoots himself up with 500 bucks of hormone?

I completely agree - you've made the point's I was going to, far more cogently.

In most, but not all, of these examples, it is a risk that every athlete takes. In other words, it is not really possible to box without taking the risk of serious head injuries. It is not really possible to play football without risking damage to your knees. So therefor, it is a given that every single person involved has agreed to that risk. The same is not true of steroids - not everyone has agreed to use them, and in fact the athletes have most of the time agreed NOT to use them.

It'd be entirely possible for say, cyclists to agree not to train in such a way as to develop osteoarthritis - mandate fixed training times. You would of course, see that as ridiculous. You say it's a given that everyone competing at a top level has consented to risks caused by training - but in an environment where doping was common, they'd all have consented to the risks of doping too.

So doping in sports? Yeah. Sure. All the drugs. I don't really think the 'health concern' is the actual motivation behind banning anything, because frankly, a lot of sports shave years off athletes lives with the constant physical demand and risk of injury. And that's an athletes choice. The only real reason to have these limitations in place is to agree to some sort of baseline to equalize each competitor, as mentioned, to prevent those who choose NOT to dope from being at a disadvantage.

The health concern is one of the reasons an individual athlete would resist PEDs, and it is a totally reasonable concern, which is why it creates the unfair advantage. The two are not mutually exclusive. Because it is a health concern, not everyone does it, which creates an unlevel playing field.

Would you also like to apply that logic to high altitude training? Since it increases the risk of thrombosis, and some athletes might logically not participate because of that, it's creating an unfair playing field.

You have yet to present an actual, qualitative difference between doping and high-intensity training that doesn't rely on the naturalistic fallacy. Your argument is based so far on the paternalistic assumption that you are a better judge of the athlete's welfare than they are themselves.

But given how minimal the health risks are if administered properly

This is an absurd blanket statement that covers such a wide range of drugs and such a wide range of their applications that it is basically useless. Besides, whether or not an individual athlete thinks the risk is minimal enough to be worth it is not your personal call to make.

You realise this is the opposite of what Izawlgood is supporting, and exactly what you are advocating? He's saying it's the athletes call to make, you're insisting that it's yours.

[blowfishhootie]

I think we should have a separate league that has zero rules pertaining to what athletes can consume.

I'm probably alone in this, but I don't really watch the Olympics for the 'spirit of competition', but to watch humankind break records. I don't care who medals, or what country takes home more accolades, I want to see records smashed.

So doping in sports? Yeah. Sure. All the drugs. I don't really think the 'health concern' is the actual motivation behind banning anything, because frankly, a lot of sports shave years off athletes lives with the constant physical demand and risk of injury. And that's an athletes choice. The only real reason to have these limitations in place is to agree to some sort of baseline to equalize each competitor, as mentioned, to prevent those who choose NOT to dope from being at a disadvantage. But given how minimal the health risks are if administered properly, and how poor the security protocols obviously are, it seems rather stupid to have a rule you can't enforce in place.

And besides, if Cool Runnings taught me anything it's that a team without financial resources is effectively at a disadvantage anyway. You think a million dollar training program is somehow any more 'honest' than a dude who shoots himself up with 500 bucks of hormone?

I completely agree - you've made the point's I was going to, far more cogently.

In most, but not all, of these examples, it is a risk that every athlete takes. In other words, it is not really possible to box without taking the risk of serious head injuries. It is not really possible to play football without risking damage to your knees. So therefor, it is a given that every single person involved has agreed to that risk. The same is not true of steroids - not everyone has agreed to use them, and in fact the athletes have most of the time agreed NOT to use them.

It'd be entirely possible for say, cyclists to agree not to train in such a way as to develop osteoarthritis - mandate fixed training times. You would of course, see that as ridiculous.

No, I wouldn't. If cyclists wanted to enter a competition where the rules said they could only train certain ways for certain amounts of time, that would be fine. By the same logic, every single cyclist who enters the Tour de France is agreeing to enter a competition where doping is not allowed - ergo, they should not be doping.

You say it's a given that everyone competing at a top level has consented to risks caused by training - but in an environment where doping was common, they'd all have consented to the risks of doping too.

That's fantastic. But as that reality does not exist and is nowhere near existing, I fail to see its relevance.

So doping in sports? Yeah. Sure. All the drugs. I don't really think the 'health concern' is the actual motivation behind banning anything, because frankly, a lot of sports shave years off athletes lives with the constant physical demand and risk of injury. And that's an athletes choice. The only real reason to have these limitations in place is to agree to some sort of baseline to equalize each competitor, as mentioned, to prevent those who choose NOT to dope from being at a disadvantage.

The health concern is one of the reasons an individual athlete would resist PEDs, and it is a totally reasonable concern, which is why it creates the unfair advantage. The two are not mutually exclusive. Because it is a health concern, not everyone does it, which creates an unlevel playing field.

Would you also like to apply that logic to high altitude training? Since it increases the risk of thrombosis, and some athletes might logically not participate because of that, it's creating an unfair playing field.

You have yet to present an actual, qualitative difference between doping and high-intensity training that doesn't rely on the naturalistic fallacy. Your argument is based so far on the paternalistic assumption that you are a better judge of the athlete's welfare than they are themselves.

Considering athletes continue to enter competitions in which the rules clearly ban using steroids and many other PEDs, I'm not sure where this argument is coming from. A majority of the world's professional athletes seem to be in agreement with my judgment, though of course there's really no way to say for sure how many are doping and how many aren't.

I don't know anything about high-altitude training, and I don't care. If it is life-threatening, perhaps it should be banned or at least regulated. I have no opinion on the matter though. I fail to see how one thing being life-threatening makes it a good idea to encourage people to do another thing that can be life-threatening. I can die driving my car on the highway, that doesn't mean I'm going to take a gun to my head.

But given how minimal the health risks are if administered properly

This is an absurd blanket statement that covers such a wide range of drugs and such a wide range of their applications that it is basically useless. Besides, whether or not an individual athlete thinks the risk is minimal enough to be worth it is not your personal call to make.

You realise this is the opposite of what Izawlgood is supporting, and exactly what you are advocating? He's saying it's the athletes call to make, you're insisting that it's yours.

No, see, the athletes have made the decisions themselves. I have acknowledged repeatedly that athletes are free to dope up as much as they want - it would just require not entering competitions that ban doping.

[Izawwlgood]

So stick to video games, then. If all you care about is seeing some number pop up on your TV screen regardless of the context in which the number is achieved, then what's the difference?

I think I was fairly clear when I stated I wanted to see HUMANS break records.

Throughout your post you use quotation marks in ways that confuse me, because nobody here has even alluded to "spirit of competition."

This may come as a shock to you, but the use of quotations isn't always in reference to something someone said in a discussion thread.

I don't watch the Olympics out of a general curiosity as to which country produces the best athlete I've never heard of in a certain discipline. I watch because I enjoy the strategy of the sports I enjoy,

Holy shit... we may watch the Olympics for different reasons! Was... that your only point?

A powerful sports moment is no different from watching a movie - except see enough movies, and you can usually guess how it's going to end before it's even over.

Then maybe you should watch better movies?

The health concern is one of the reasons an individual athlete would resist PEDs, and it is a totally reasonable concern, which is why it creates the unfair advantage. The two are not mutually exclusive. Because it is a health concern, not everyone does it, which creates an unlevel playing field.

Which is why this thread was created; to discuss the hypothetical of creating a sports league in which all athletes who have decided to take PEDs can join and compete.

This is an absurd blanket statement that covers such a wide range of drugs and such a wide range of their applications that it is basically useless. Besides, whether or not an individual athlete thinks the risk is minimal enough to be worth it is not your personal call to make.

I'll have to dig up the paper, but I recall reading that the biggest risk from PEDs is risks associated with incorrect administration. But;
Yes, it is NOT my personal call to make it is... wait for it... their call to make, if such a 'all doping was legal' league was created.

One competitive imbalance does not justify another. And this is not only about the Olympics - in most major American sports leagues, for example, the discrepancy between big and small spending teams, while present, is nowhere near what you seem to think it is. And because of the way spending is distributed, it is very, very rare for any one team to be very far removed from at least a handful of other teams also spending in the same range. And if money is all it takes, why don't the New York Yankees win the World Series every single year?

You evidently haven't read much about athlete training? Spoiler; the more money a country invests in it's training program, the more golds they take home!

[blowfishhootie]

I don't watch the Olympics out of a general curiosity as to which country produces the best athlete I've never heard of in a certain discipline. I watch because I enjoy the strategy of the sports I enjoy,

Holy shit... we may watch the Olympics for different reasons! Was... that your only point?

This is absurd. How is my comment about the reason I watch the Olympics any different from yours?

The health concern is one of the reasons an individual athlete would resist PEDs, and it is a totally reasonable concern, which is why it creates the unfair advantage. The two are not mutually exclusive. Because it is a health concern, not everyone does it, which creates an unlevel playing field.

Which is why this thread was created; to discuss the hypothetical of creating a sports league in which all athletes who have decided to take PEDs can join and compete.

So why don't they? Why hasn't that league been created, if it's such a viable idea? What's stopping it?

(Hint: It's because it's not a viable idea.)

One competitive imbalance does not justify another. And this is not only about the Olympics - in most major American sports leagues, for example, the discrepancy between big and small spending teams, while present, is nowhere near what you seem to think it is. And because of the way spending is distributed, it is very, very rare for any one team to be very far removed from at least a handful of other teams also spending in the same range. And if money is all it takes, why don't the New York Yankees win the World Series every single year?

You evidently haven't read much about athlete training? Spoiler; the more money a country invests in it's training program, the more golds they take home!

"This is not only about the Olympics." Your response is not at all related to my comment.

[JohnGalt]

Athletes that take PEDs always do so in the hope that it gives them an unfair advantage, an edge so to speak. That is my opinion so don't ask for citation, but I think its pretty obvious.

If everyone was allowed to take drugs then that edge disappears and the only reason to take drugs is just to stay even with the other athletes. I don't think any athlete would prefer this situation. Besides this, most Olympic sports were created not just out of the "spirit of competition" but to test the human body. Sure you can take drugs, but that defeats the purpose in the same way as using a motorbike in a 100m sprint race or a pogo stick in long jump would, excuse the hyperbole but my point stands.

[yurell]

Besides this, most Olympic sports were created ... to test the human body. Sure you can take drugs, but that defeats the purpose in the same way as using a motorbike in a 100m sprint race or a pogo stick in long jump would, excuse the hyperbole but my point stands.

How so? It's more comparable to having a competition to see who has the fastest car, and then put limitations on what fuel you can use, and how much you're allowed to improve it. So long as it's still a car, the purpose isn't defeated; you're still finding the fastest car.

[JohnGalt]

How so? It's more comparable to having a competition to see who has the fastest car, and then put limitations on what fuel you can use, and how much you're allowed to improve it. So long as it's still a car, the purpose isn't defeated; you're still finding the fastest car.

If the purpose of the car races are to find the fastest car, then yes, it would be silly to limit types of fuel and improvement and such. As it happens most car races have another purpose of testing the drivers' and the teams' technical and strategic ability. It depends on the race, in my opinion Formula 1, for example, is about pushing the limit of vehicle technology, so most of the rules it has are silly... celebrity culture has turned it into being about the drivers...

The idea is to test the human body's limitations, as in, how fast can a man/woman run on his/her own, i.e. without drugs, without external propulsion, etc.. We're not trying to see how fast the human body can travel, else we would've just held rocket races at the Olympics.

[yurell]

The idea is to test the human body's limitations, as in, how fast can a man/woman run on his/her own, i.e. without drugs, without external propulsion, etc.. We're not trying to see how fast the human body can travel, else we would've just held rocket races at the Olympics.

Then why do we allow specifically customised outfits and shoes? Those are pretty big enhancements by themselves with the amount of science being poured into them; why are they acceptable but drugs not, since we're trying to find what people can do 'on their own'?

[JohnGalt]

I KNEW you were going to say that. To a certain extent its true that equipment are similar to drugs in enhancing the user's abilities. Shoes, for example, are not like that in my opinion because they only raise the bar by eliminating imperfections in the arena, i.e. we want to test the athlete's running ability in a perfect world with no slippage. For that matter we can also give them lightweight breathing masks and evacuate the entire stadium to have them running without drag, but we have to draw the line somewhere. If you look closely you will see that in the Olympics, the equipment is pretty limited to just the basics, and everyone's equipment is kept basically the same. The bows used in the archery competition is relatively basic, those slick swimming suites are not allowed, etc.. Generally, only equipment that eliminate trivial factors such as grip on the road is used.

Cycling is another matter, I will admit that the same argument cannot be applied here, same for shooting and so on, because those sports are partly centered on the equipment, but if I am not mistaken, everyone uses the same design bike or rifle or pistol or bow or whatever.

[Izawwlgood]

So why don't they? Why hasn't that league been created, if it's such a viable idea? What's stopping it?

(Hint: It's because it's not a viable idea.)

Because this is relatively new in the realm of human history? (Actually, I don't think this is true; I think people have been taking things they think will help them since the beginning of the sport. I wager someone somewhere was grinding up bull testicles and eating them ages ago). Because we have some weird ethical quandaries surrounding our PED use? Let me ask ask you, again, why is it acceptable for a country to invest millions of dollars into a super scientific training program aimed at maximizing athletic output, but it isn't acceptable for an athlete to dose themselves with a compound that already occurs in their body?

"This is not only about the Olympics." Your response is not at all related to my comment.

And your comment indicates you didn't read my response. Like virtually every other response you gave.

Sure you can take drugs, but that defeats the purpose in the same way as using a motorbike in a 100m sprint race or a pogo stick in long jump would, excuse the hyperbole but my point stands.

To use your metaphor, if we're interested in seeing how fast a human can drive a motorbike in a 100m sprint, why are we insisting they use square wheels?
d

The idea is to test the human body's limitations, as in, how fast can a man/woman run on his/her own, i.e. without drugs, without external propulsion, etc.. We're not trying to see how fast the human body can travel, else we would've just held rocket races at the Olympics.

Again, the limitations that we place are fairly arbitrary; why is it acceptable to spend millions of dollars on an athlete, or in some cases, on the equipment itself, but not on a PED? If you're going to argue that Olympians must start from the same baseline in terms of training allowances, then you need to cap the amount of money a country can spend on their training. Then Bobsleds/skis/bows/bikes need to all be the same and provided by by the Olympic committee.

[nitePhyyre]

There seems to be 2 common points brought up so far in this thread that are very wrong.

1) If an athlete wants to take drugs, no one else should say anything because if they want to take to shorten their lives in exchange for increased performance, it is their call.

This point has been argued with comparisons to intense physical training that has a similar, if not identical, cost/benefit exchange. This heavily ignores things like roidrage. The comparison shouldn't be between doping and training. It should be between doping and drunk driving.

2) There is a lot of talk about creating unfair advantages.

There really wouldn't be unfair advantages. Not at the professional level. If doping was allowed, everyone would dope. Pure and simple. The few people who refused to dope simply would be unable to compete with those who did dope.

If you allowed doping, it would make no difference to the spectator. Sure it would take 9 seconds to run a race instead of 10. But for most people, entertainment is derived not from how long it takes to run a race, but the .01 seconds between first and second place. That .01 second difference wouldn't change because everyone is doping. At the end of the day, allowing doping creates a giant moral hazard for no benefit.

Sure you can take drugs, but that defeats the purpose in the same way as using a motorbike in a 100m sprint race or a pogo stick in long jump would, excuse the hyperbole but my point stands.

To use your metaphor, if we're interested in seeing how fast a human can drive a motorbike in a 100m sprint, why are we insisting they use square wheels?

If you agree that sport is about testing the limits of the human body, do motor bikes, pogo sticks, or drugs test those limits? Are drugs quantitatively different, the way intense training is, or, are drugs qualitatively different, the way motorbikes are? There is no metaphor. Not only is there no metaphor here, your metaphor about introducing arbitrary disadvantages like square wheels is utter nonsense in a conversation about doping in sports.

[Izawwlgood]

roidrage... It should be between doping and drunk driving.

Which may be a result of athletes doping THEMSELVES, i.e., not taking steroids from a medical professional. Because your drunk driving point is correct; it is potentially an issue of excess, not an issue of taking the substance in the first place.

If doping was allowed, everyone would dope. Pure and simple

It's already been pointed out in this thread that conservative estimates of major league baseball players placed 90% of them as steroid users. So... if we remove these rules, you could argue that you're actually EQUALIZING the playing field by more reasonably regulating things.

If you allowed doping, it would make no difference to the spectator.

Perhaps, some people really enjoy seeing what a world record race looks like. Like I already said, I'm watching because I want to see people do what no person has done before.

Are drugs quantitatively different, the way intense training is, or, are drugs qualitatively different, the way motorbikes are? There is no metaphor.

Not sure; metaphors and analogies aren't perfect. Perhaps drug use in sports is akin to replacing shitty tires with better tires. Maybe it's even worse; maybe it's akin to a 150cc motorcross race, and someone entering a 300cc bike.

[Dr. Diaphanous]

Does anyone know of any sports league that does allow drugs? I googled around a bit and all I could find was bodybuilding. It would seem that although doping is technically banned by the International Federation for Bodybuilding, they usually turn a blind eye to it and most bodybuilders admit to using steroids. (cite) (I guess that's the same in other sports, including baseball if the 90% figure is anywhere near true).

maybe it's akin to a 150cc motorcross race, and someone entering a 300cc bike.

Why IS there a restriction on what bike you can use?

[Izawwlgood]

Why IS there a restriction on what bike you can use?

For different 'leagues' (for lack of the right term? division?), it makes sense to equalize the competition. The problem is, in most professional sports now a days, as pointed out, competitors randomly using 300cc bikes in a 150cc division (cup?) are really common.

Now, in the vein of 'how far can humans push the envelope', I'd like to see bigger engines being entered into competition. No individual competitor should have an advantage over another, so, everyone should be able to submit an engine of their own creation. So to speak.

[blowfishhootie]

(I guess that's the same in other sports, including baseball if the 90% figure is anywhere near true).

Just to be clear, the 90 percent figure that Jose Canseco claimed and that I referenced was referring to, I think, some vaguely defined time during Canseco's Major League Baseball career, which ended in 2001. He said at the time his book "Juiced" was published in 2005 something to the effect of, "If you played Major League Baseball in the past 25 years, there is a 90 percent chance you were on the juice at some point in your career" - which even then is a pretty different statement from saying 90 percent of players at any given time are roided up. I think most analysts would likely say steroid use has probably gone down significantly from whatever percentage it was at its peak in baseball, be it 90 percent or something much lower.

[Lucrece]

Steroids are demonized for the same reason cosmetic surgery is. Apparently we only allow for "natural" (genetic) advantages, as if that was fair to begin with. It's the case of the 6 foot guy telling the 5'6 guy "Geez, why don't you drop that weapon and fight me with your fists, you coward!" The advantaged always want to goad the disadvantaged into accepting an uneven ground that they pretend is even while knowing the odds are stacked in their favor. People should be more willing to deny others the opportunity to keep their advantages, or at least defending against emotional blackmailing when they seek to diminish those advantages.

[blowfishhootie]

Steroids are demonized for the same reason cosmetic surgery is.

Steroids are demonized because they are dangerous. Also, in the U.S. at least, many of them are illegal - though that's really just a different way of saying the same thing (they are illegal because they are dangerous).

It's the case of the 6 foot guy telling the 5'6 guy "Geez, why don't you drop that weapon and fight me with your fists, you coward!" The advantaged always want to goad the disadvantaged into accepting an uneven ground that they pretend is even while knowing the odds are stacked in their favor.

Uh, except, it's the sports fans and administrators (that is, the "5'6" guy" in your analogy) calling for the athletes to stop using steroids. And some other athletes, to be sure, but I don't think that's where the most vocal calls come from.

[yurell]

Steroids are demonized because they are dangerous.

If misused.

[blowfishhootie]

Steroids are demonized because they are dangerous.

If misused.

I'm pretty sure any use of anabolic steroids that would be enough to pay dividends to a professional athlete would have to be classified as "misuse." I don't think there's a way to use them that is safe AND makes you significantly more likely to be a world class athlete.

[Izawwlgood]

I'm pretty sure any use of anabolic steroids that would be enough to pay dividends to a professional athlete would have to be classified as "misuse." I don't think there's a way to use them that is safe AND makes you significantly more likely to be a world class athlete.

There's plenty of advice out there about how to use steroids safely, and the advice tends to be 'use low amounts at regular intervals'. There's plenty of warnings about high doses, which suggests that there's a history among body builders for abusing steroids.
This means two things: 1) steroid use can safely provide large returns on performance at safe to consume levels and 2) the dangers of steroids are possibly/probably solely due to athlete MISUSE (as many people in this thread have already stated).

At the very least, the notion that there was a reported 90% probability of any given major league baseball player being on steroids provides a rather large sample population to assess for risk associated with steroid consumption. Since I wager at least some of these athletes were taking responsible dosage, administered from a professional (well, a trainer at the very least), I bet many baseball steroid users suffered minimal if any side effects from their use.

[Laserdan]

Steroids are demonized because they are dangerous.

If misused.

I'm pretty sure any use of anabolic steroids that would be enough to pay dividends to a professional athlete would have to be classified as "misuse." I don't think there's a way to use them that is safe AND makes you significantly more likely to be a world class athlete.

Every post of yours in this thread reads like you decided PEDs are bad and now you pull all kind of fallacies just to not admit that it's simply not like that. You say you don't think there's such a way, but thinking something in a way that fits your argument and is not rooted in facts is not called "a good argument". With your idea about how those things should be, are you against anything people do that (maybe) shortens their life span? Because THAT kind of idea quickly spirals into the absurd because it is absurd to begin with.

Personally, I find that legalized and regulated doping in sport could actually add to the excitement (like, in a special league) in the same way that the differences between parts in racing cars are exciting and strategically important.

Your point about "what humans can do" is moot because those athletes already push the edge of human performance so far away from what any typical human could even dream of, with various methods with varying degrees of danger. But they only show what the body is capable of. PEDs don't give you magical powers to run twice as fast as the other guy, they unlock resources that are usually reserved for times of lethal danger and similar.

As long as you can't build an argument why exactly doping is more dangerous (meaning you stop not caring about training methods and actual PEDs used and trying to push irrational opinions as some kind of standard, and instead start to explore the world of actual facts), you're not making any sense. I've got quite a bit of knowledge in the area, so you're welcome to try to persuade me.

[Роберт]

All of the sports should be done completely nude so it's just the human body. No dental fillings, no artificial limbs, no jock straps, just people.

[blowfishhootie]

With your idea about how those things should be, are you against anything people do that (maybe) shortens their life span? Because THAT kind of idea quickly spirals into the absurd because it is absurd to begin with.

I don't know how many times I have to say this. If being a professional athlete is inherently dangerous to one's health, which might be the case based on links provided by someone else earlier, that is still a risk that everyone has inherently agreed to by becoming a professional athlete. Steroids are a risk that are not inherent in becoming an athlete, so those who do use them are pressuring those who do not to take a risk that they haven't agreed to - in fact, in virtually all cases, the athletes involved have specifically agreed NOT to do steroids. This is not complicated, and I have stated it very, very clearly multiple times. It is not my fault if you can't be bothered to read it.

Personally, I find that legalized and regulated doping in sport could actually add to the excitement (like, in a special league) in the same way that the differences between parts in racing cars are exciting and strategically important.

That's great. I reiterate my question then that nobody has answered: If this is such a good idea, why hasn't it been done? If this all-doping league would be better than a league that bans doping, why has nobody done it?

Your point about "what humans can do"

My what now? You seem to be attributing every single argument in this thread supporting anti-doping regulations to me. You know more than two people have posted in this thread, right? This just further drives home the reality that you haven't actually paid attention to the previous posts.

[Izawwlgood]

in fact, in virtually all cases, the athletes involved have specifically agreed NOT to do steroids.

I am a citizen of the United States of America; does that mean I have specifically agreed NOT to smoke marijuana? Drink before I was 21?

Don't be fooled; participating in something that requires you agree to a series of rules/stipulations is not the same as wanting those stipulations or rules yourself. I'd be surprised to hear that athletes themselves want those rules to be in place.

Steroids are a risk that are not inherent in becoming an athlete, so those who do use them are pressuring those who do not to take a risk that they haven't agreed to

You're going to have to explain how this is inherently true, if you yourself have written about how ~90% of major league baseball players have taken steroids, I'd wager your above claim is actually patently false.

[JohnGalt]

Personally, I find that legalized and regulated doping in sport could actually add to the excitement (like, in a special league) in the same way that the differences between parts in racing cars are exciting and strategically important.

You are missing the point, as are those who argue about how dangerous or not PEDs may be. Do you honestly think that doping athletes competing in competitions such as the Olympics use PEDs because they hope to unlock the full potential of their bodies and excite you all the more? I'm not an athlete but I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Those athletes that do use them during competitions such as the Olympics do so for the sole reason of trying to gain an advantage over the other athletes, which they hope will not also use PEDs. They use PEDs because they KNOW in these competitions it will give them an unfair advantage. They mainly hide the fact because they want people to think they achieved victory under their own natural strength.

If PEDs are allowed, that unfair advantage disappears, and so do the incentive, because in the end those sports are about your own limits. And yes, your body limits itself, limits that are imposed by nature. Athletic sports are a test to see to what extent we can push those limits with our own brute strength and determination. We are not interested in using technology (such as drugs) to lower the bar for ourselves - what would be the point of that.

Also, the added excitement of different car parts is only possible because of the rapid rate of innovation and development that is characteristic of that field. Medicine is an extremely slow field, everyone will quickly be using the same drug in the same efficient way. Except the better drugs will of course be extremely expensive, thus increasing the already many barriers of entry into high level competitive sport.

[Laserdan]

You're not the only one, but you're the most vehement and most irrational one, so I adress you - naturally! I assumed the "what humans can do"-point about you, which I retract and I apologize for that.

The "inherent risk" argument makes no sense to me, and you seem to imagine some dude deciding he will be a professional athlete, BUT ONLY with a specific ruleset that is based on anti-drug propaganda. How do you even KNOW that PEDs (you're keeping it quite general) are inherently dangerous in a way that can't be controlled? Even Heroin is barely life-shortening by itself if you avoid overdosing (which is only hard sometimes BECAUSE there are senseless regulations). Point being, you sweep over the whole field to fit it to your morally conceived picture of what is and what is not permissible in sports, taking away an athlete's choice. They agreed to not use steroids because they have to to be allowed to compete.

Are you really asking why it hasn't been done? Well, why don't we have legalized drugs so far (they've been legal for pretty much all of human history)? Because it's an issue that is often discussed without any reference to facts, and mainly about what people "feel" is fair. It's been proven time and again that people seriously lack in the "judging fairness"-department. It isn't fair at all, doping or not! Moral arguments are pointless here because the playing field is inherently unlevelable. And with all that, you completely miss the fact that there are sports with such a league split. Professional bodybuilding works like that. Yeah, the IFBB says they are against doping, but that is (I suspect) because of image and law problems.
Usage of doping is considered legitimate (even necessary) and broadly accepted inside that sport, which can be seen in the fact that there are no real doping tests. There's is also a "natural BB" community. I leave it to you to look up which one is the more popular league.
Saying that they can go and create such a league by themselves (with the legal restrictions on drugs) is similar to saying "we all agree cannabis is bad for you. If you don't like it, open your own state!". Such organizations don't just pop out, and a hundred years of telling people about bad drugs can actually change public perception, you know? Your reasoning is circular here.

And even then, all of this is not the main point. You haven't provided any facts or comparisons - PEDs are bad and that's it, and you quickly brush away the dangers of elite sports training by pointing out they agreed to that and telling us they could agree to a doping league when that's not even possible to do legally in pretty much all cases.

Show us facts and statistics about the comparative danger of doping and high-end training, and possibly HOW they differ in terms of enhancing performance? Without referring to "agreement" when the base for the agreement itself is disputed to be standing on facts.

@JohnGalt: fair point, but I assumed that this point (excitement about the technical side of doping) is purely opinion because it's understood that not everybody likes the same things. But you are basically right that it does not HAVE to be better with doping - a point I agree with.

But we already use lots of technology to improve sports performance, something that also requires much more than brute strength. Much of modern high-intensity training is designed to remove limitations and put the bar higher up of what can be done. This is extremely visible if you compare early 20th century sports performance to modern performance.

I do agree that many athletes don't do it directly to excite us or to have a great spirit of competition through a leveling effect. They want money and fame, I suspect. But I don't have the slightest interest in their intentions. What matters is the entertainment.

[Izawwlgood]

Athletic sports are a test to see to what extent we can push those limits with our own brute strength and determination.

But again, the problem is that in sports, we have drawn a series of very arbitrary lines. Is it 'natural' to invest millions of dollars in a training program? Super regimented diets? Is blood doping 'unnatural'? Are steroids? Are cybernetic implants?

Athletes take performance enhancing drugs to do the best they can, plain and simple. That provides them with an advantage over their opponents, and over the clock. The latter point is extremely important; we are past the point of 'peak human performance', as evidenced by the marginal improvements to world records over the last 50 years. We'll squeeze a few more percentage point improvements as we get better at training routines, but the next advent of improvement is going to require something more than 'good diet' and 'lots of spirit'.

[blowfishhootie]

You're not the only one, but you're the most vehement and most irrational one, so I adress you - naturally! I assumed the "what humans can do"-point about you, which I retract and I apologize for that.

The "inherent risk" argument makes no sense to me, and you seem to imagine some dude deciding he will be a professional athlete, BUT ONLY with a specific ruleset that is based on anti-drug propaganda. How do you even KNOW that PEDs (you're keeping it quite general) are inherently dangerous in a way that can't be controlled? Even Heroin is barely life-shortening by itself if you avoid overdosing (which is only hard sometimes BECAUSE there are senseless regulations). Point being, you sweep over the whole field to fit it to your morally conceived picture of what is and what is not permissible in sports, taking away an athlete's choice. They agreed to not use steroids because they have to to be allowed to compete.

Again, this phrase, "allowed to compete." I can go have a footrace in my backyard if I want to. Anyone is allowed to compete. The only thing a doping athlete is not allowed to do is compete in contests that ban doping. In what way does this ban them from competing at all?

Are you really asking why it hasn't been done? Well, why don't we have legalized drugs so far (they've been legal for pretty much all of human history)? Because it's an issue that is often discussed without any reference to facts, and mainly about what people "feel" is fair. It's been proven time and again that people seriously lack in the "judging fairness"-department. It isn't fair at all, doping or not! Moral arguments are pointless here because the playing field is inherently unlevelable.

So we just shouldn't have rules, or what?

And with all that, you completely miss the fact that there are sports with such a league split. Professional bodybuilding works like that. Yeah, the IFBB says they are against doping, but that is (I suspect) because of image and law problems.
Usage of doping is considered legitimate (even necessary) and broadly accepted inside that sport, which can be seen in the fact that there are no real doping tests. There's is also a "natural BB" community. I leave it to you to look up which one is the more popular league.
Saying that they can go and create such a league by themselves (with the legal restrictions on drugs) is similar to saying "we all agree cannabis is bad for you. If you don't like it, open your own state!".

Except, it is nothing at all like that. There are no barriers preventing a bunch of doped up athletes from competing exclusively against one another, except their desire to earn money, and there is more money involved in competitions that ban doped up athletes. I'm sure they can get whatever drug manufacturer to sponsor such an event. Has anyone tried? I suspect not, because of motives I think John Gault has done a pretty succinct job of outlining.

You haven't provided any facts or comparisons - PEDs are bad and that's it, and you quickly brush away the dangers of elite sports training by pointing out they agreed to that and telling us they could agree to a doping league when that's not even possible to do legally in pretty much all cases.

Show us facts and statistics about the comparative danger of doping and high-end training, and possibly HOW they differ in terms of enhancing performance? Without referring to "agreement" when the base for the agreement itself is disputed to be standing on facts.

I don't know what to tell you. Athletes enter competitions with rules. If that is not the same as agreeing to those rules, in your view, then ... I guess you're entitled to your opinion, as weird as it may be. Professional athletes would not enter competitions that ban training because ... then they're not professional athletes, right? It seems incredibly simple to me. I'm not all that concerned with whether you can wrap your head around it.