Doping in sports

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

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

How on earth did you get that from Laserdan's post? The point is that the reason no one has done it is that it's illegal. So, the fact that no one has done it does not show that there wouldn't be demand for it. Then, to ramify that argument, he made the point that PEDs are mostly illegal for bullshit reasons — so their illegality is no evidence that they're bad.

[Izawwlgood]

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.

A) Providing athletes with a choice, either participate in this competition and 'agree to not use PEDs' or don't participate isn't really a choice, if that competition is the only one there is. Major league football, basketball, baseball, hockey, etc, in America all have rules about not taking drugs, but that's obviously not what happens in terms of the choices that get made. Just like making marijuana illegal obviously doesn't mean everyone agrees that they won't take it.
B) Just because you can't frame your arguments coherently, cogently, or effectively, isn't our fault. Just because you are... utterly unable... to engage in a discussion without absolutely ridiculously off point and unsubstantiated comments, also isn't our fault.

[blowfishhootie]

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

How on earth did you get that from Laserdan's post? The point is that the reason no one has done it is that it's illegal. So, the fact that no one has done it does not show that there wouldn't be demand for it. Then, to ramify that argument, he made the point that PEDs are mostly illegal for bullshit reasons — so their illegality is no evidence that they're bad.

Unless I misspoke, I've never said the drugs are illegal because they're bad. I have said they pose a health risk, it is a health risk not all athletes are willing to take, and so athletes collectively agree to enter competitions where they are banned. Athletes who then take that risk anyway for an unfair advantage - unfair because they have specifically agreed not to do it - are cheating. I understand why athletes don't want to take steroids, and I don't think they should be forced to. Allowing steroids would, though, in effect force athletes to take steroids, because those who do not would quickly become irrelevant.

If athletes who DO want to enter competitions where everyone has to take drugs to compete, they can do that, to whatever extent the law permits. If you want to argue that steroids should not be against the law, that is separate and not something I have an opinion on. I do think marijuana should be legal, for example, so I would probably have to say I think steroids should be legal too. But it's not something I've really thought about before right now. Suffice it to say, though, that not ALL performance enhancing drugs are illegal, and not all countries have made all types steroids, et al, illegal.

But in the Olympics, in the Tour de France, in the NFL, and on an on and on, they are banned because that is what the athletes keep agreeing to. Do you think if all the world's top cyclists stopped competing in the Tour de France because they wanted to take drugs, the rules wouldn't change? Either the rules would change or the Tour de France would become irrelevant. But neither of those are happening, because athletes are not calling for it to happen, and the world's top cyclists all continue to participate.

[Izawwlgood]

But in the Olympics, in the Tour de France, in the NFL, and on an on and on, they are banned because that is what the athletes keep agreeing to.

I think you should reread what's been said in regards to this hilariously wrong claim, and try and wrap your head around how wrong you are for thinking it.

Allowing steroids would, though, in effect force athletes to take steroids, because those who do not would quickly become irrelevant.

Lets try this again, from the top!
League that allows PEDs != ALL sports become doping competitions.

[JohnGalt]

B) Just because you can't frame your arguments coherently, cogently, or effectively, isn't our fault. Just because you are... utterly unable... to engage in a discussion without absolutely ridiculously off point and unsubstantiated comments, also isn't our fault.

I would say the person who has made the least sense and who has made the least amount effort to address any of the points in this discussion so far would be you. Square wheels? What does that have to do with anything... This may come as a surprise but; cybernetic implants are completely and entirely, from any perspective you may choose, unnatural. So are steroids. So is blood doping. Diets and investment have nothing... nothing to do with the discussion.

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'll quote myself to answer this one:

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.

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.

I specifically limited my points to competitions such as the Olympics because I know that those arguments do not hold for something like body building. Athletes and body builders have very different motivations.

For the record; I do not agree with the criminalisation of drugs. But these competitions - contrary to what Izawwlgood might think - are completely voluntary, and have rules to which every athlete agree by virtue of entering the competition. Those rules are there for a reason, as I have pointed out, the use of PEDs defeats the purpose of the competition. If you do not understand that , you do not understand these competitions. Rules of voluntary competitions and laws are not the same

[Izawwlgood]

I would say the person who has made the least sense and who has made the least amount effort to address any of the points in this discussion so far would be you. Square wheels? What does that have to do with anything... This may come as a surprise but; cybernetic implants are completely and entirely, from any perspective you may choose, unnatural. So are steroids. So is blood doping. Diets and investment have nothing... nothing to do with the discussion.

With due respect, I urge you to reread some of this thread then.
As for the above bolded, it has been mentioned now by a few people that the arbitrary line in the rules that we've decided are to be drawn are arbitrary, and thus entirely relevant to the conversation at hand.

Generally, only equipment that eliminate TRIVIAL factors such as grip on the road is used.

So you've never heard of the controversies surrounding the Tour de France bikes? You've never heard of illegally putting weights in Bobsleds? I'm sorry, but claiming that equipment has a trivial factor on athletic performance is ignorant at best, willfully misleading at worst.

For the record; I do not agree with the criminalisation of drugs. But these competitions - contrary to what Izawwlgood might think - are completely voluntary, and have rules to which every athlete agree by virtue of entering the competition. Those rules are there for a reason, as I have pointed out, the use of PEDs defeats the purpose of the competition. If you do not understand that , you do not understand these competitions. Rules of voluntary competitions and laws are not the same

Ah, ok, I see you too are unable to coherently exchange conversation points as well!
Competition in these leagues is voluntary, but participation does not = agreement to every bylaw. It means adding another choice; do athletes accept the legal risks associated with doping? The answer, as we can abundantly see, is yes, which doesn't suggest that athletes 'agree by virtue of participation' by any stretch of the mind.

So, what is the purpose of competition? In the Olympics, as already mentioned, the purpose isn't necessarily to beat the next guy. The purpose is just as often (I have no data to ascertain how often) to break world records. Pretty hilarious coming from the individual who already stated that the purpose to many competitions is to push the boundaries of human possibility.

[JohnGalt]

Competition in these leagues is voluntary, but participation does not = agreement to every bylaw

Typically, before you enter the competition you are presented with the rules. The rules define the competition. If you do not agree to those rules, you are not entering the competition, its as simple as that.

Honestly, everything else you said looks like you are addressing someone else.

[blowfishhootie]

I just wanted to sum up my thoughts one more time, then I'm going to bow out of this thread, because I think we're just going in circles:

- It is an unfortunate truth about arguing on the Internet that every participant seems to get lumped into black-and-white absolutist categories, whether they fit it or not. Despite this argument, and I think I said this earlier in the thread, I would not be too bothered by it if my favorite sports leagues decided to stop drug testing. I would be against the decision, for sure, but it's not something that is super important to me. I think it would be bad due in large part to the fact that it may discourage otherwise gifted athletes from participating if they are not willing to deal with the side effects of steroid use.

- There is some risk inherently involved in becoming a professional athlete. This does not mean every single risk an athlete could potentially take is on the table. Some risks all athletes have directly or indirectly agreed to, and those ones comprise many of the rules that define a competition. Other risks, not all athletes have agreed to, and to keep the playing field as close to level as possible, those risks are banned by an agreement of all athletes who enter competitions that outlaw said risks. Besides that, comparisons to other questionable, risky training tactics don't hold water to me because one thing being dangerous doesn't justify doing something else that is dangerous. If high-altitude training or whatever else you want to point to is as dangerous as steroid use, then perhaps it should be similarly banned or restricted. The fact that it is not banned is not an argument in favor of lifting the ban on steroids - at best, it is an argument that steroids and that particular training method should be handled similarly, but that doesn't explain what that handling should be.

- Nothing is stopping athletes who want to dope up from doing so, it just means they can't enter competitions that ban doping. Unfortunately for those athletes, as JohnGalt pointed out so well, without the ability to dope up AND compete against people who are not doped up, using drugs loses a lot of its incentive. Drugs as a means to be a better athlete are only worthwhile in a competition against others who are not using drugs, ergo the use of drugs is almost always going to be about gaining an unfair advantage.

- The continued participation by athletes in competitions of all levels of prestige that ban the use of performance-enhancing drugs implies, to me, that at least a majority of professional athletes are against allowing doping into their competitions. Athletes definitely have the clout to change the policies, if they so choose - the Super Bowl wouldn't be the big-money event that it is if the world's top American football players weren't interested in playing in it.

- None of this has to do with the legalization of drugs. Steroids should probably be legalized, though I don't think I know enough about the arguments in favor of keeping them illegal to say that definitively. What I do know is, that is a totally separate argument from the one that started this thread.

... and with that, I'm out. Thanks to most of the other posters here for a thought-provoking discussion.

[Izawwlgood]

Typically, before you enter the competition you are presented with the rules. The rules define the competition. If you do not agree to those rules, you are not entering the competition, its as simple as that.

Really, you guys aren't even trying to have a conversation here. Do you truthfully believe that all athletes competing are routinely agreeing to the rules and the rules are in place because the athletes keep agreeing to them? Are you choosing to ignore, or simply unaware of the '90% of major league baseball players were doping' bit that's been tossed around? Are you choosing to ignore, or simply unaware of issues with equipment rigging in sports?
The rules are in place because committees have drawn arbitrary lines as to what is acceptable and what isn't. Taking aspirin is acceptable; taking morphine is not. Cortisone injections are legal, steroids are not. Having a trainer regulate your dietary intake is acceptable; having a trainer reinject your own blood back into your body is not. These lines are arbitrary and have nothing to do with 'purity' of the sport.

Honestly, everything else you said looks like you are addressing someone else.

Yes, your inability to respond to points and arguments is rather evident at this stage in the discussion.

The continued participation by athletes in competitions of all levels of prestige that ban the use of performance-enhancing drugs implies, to me, that at least a majority of professional athletes are against allowing doping into their competitions.

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.

I truthfully don't know how you can wrap your head around this double speak.

[blowfishhootie]

Well I know I said I'm bowing out, but I hadn't even closed the window yet and you bring up a good point. :) The answer I can provide is:

- Baseball players make up a very small percentage of the world's athletes,
- The paraphrased quote from Canseco says nothing of what players thought of it once they did try it, only that they tried steroids at least once in their careers, and
- Ultimately, the resolution was for the players collectively to agree to ban steroids, agree to drug testing, and agree to punishments for those who failed said drug tests. And what objections they DID raise had nothing to do with a desire to see steroids stay in the game, but rather had to do with procedures and appeals to make sure no players were mistakenly punished. So I'm not sure how baseball's steroid saga, taken as a whole instead of one specific slice of time according to one specific player (however credible he may be), can be taken as anything but support for my claim that the athletes themselves support banning steroids from sports. I don't see any conflict: I have acknowledged that, if left unchecked, the nature of sports provides incentives for athletes to use steroids, either to gain an unfair advantage against those they believe are NOT doping, or in order to keep up with those who ARE doping. That is why it is in the athletes' best interest to ban and actually enforce bans on drugs, and it is why athletes repeatedly agree to do so.

Now I'm done for real, I promise.

[Laserdan]

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

How on earth did you get that from Laserdan's post? The point is that the reason no one has done it is that it's illegal. So, the fact that no one has done it does not show that there wouldn't be demand for it. Then, to ramify that argument, he made the point that PEDs are mostly illegal for bullshit reasons — so their illegality is no evidence that they're bad.

Thank you so much, I already started doubting that anything I wrote is understandable. That was exactly my point. I won't elaborate on that anymore because the point seems clear.

I'm also not on the "just let them dope as much as they want", blowfish. I'll sum up my problem with your argument as concisely as I can:

I find the distinctions you make between "doping" and "everything else athletes do" arbitrary, and you did not, so far, strengthen your argument by facts that support this schism - optimally, it contains references to the comparative dangers.
As long as you don't do this, you're simply asserting that doping is somehow worse for your health (independently of the skill and caution with which they're used) than typical elite training techniques (with which you aren't familiar at all, as indicated by your brushing away the point with a general non-statement.

The problem with all this "they agreed to the rules"-stuff is that this is a status quo that can be described, but it's nothing that is relevant to WHY this is and what the alternatives are.

[Izawwlgood]

I find the distinctions you make between "doping" and "everything else athletes do" arbitrary, and you did not, so far, strengthen your argument by facts that support this schism - optimally, it contains references to the comparative dangers.

Additionally, 'everything else athletes do' is poorly distinguished from doping itself.

[sam_i_am]

how does one define drugs that are to be made illegal?

Would Nicotine, and Caffeine be worthy to be made illegal? Would it be illegal to take 5-hour energy shots, or red bull before the sport?

[Izawwlgood]

That's rather precisely the point that some of us have been making this whole time.

[Laserdan]

how does one define drugs that are to be made illegal?

Would Nicotine, and Caffeine be worthy to be made illegal? Would it be illegal to take 5-hour energy shots, or red bull before the sport?

At least for a time (I didn't follow sports much the las t couple of years) Caffeine was either banned or restricted (meaning, if you cross a certain threshold of caffeine in your blood, it's doping), I forgot which one exactly. Of course Coca Cola as one of the world's biggest sport sponsors would probably throw in everything they can to avoid such a ban.

[Dr. Diaphanous]

how does one define drugs that are to be made illegal?

Would Nicotine, and Caffeine be worthy to be made illegal? Would it be illegal to take 5-hour energy shots, or red bull before the sport?

In theory, the ones that are safe should be allowed, and the ones that pose a health risk (over a certain threshold) should be banned/in a separate league.

In practice, of course, It's problematic not only to know where to draw the line of how dangerous it has to be to get banned, but also to know the danger level of each chemical or combination of chemicals. And that's assuming everyone takes the correct dose.

[ahammel]

how does one define drugs that are to be made illegal?

I imagine you do a rough risk/benefit calculation and draw a somewhat arbitrary line. The rules of a game are bound to be somewhat arbitrary anyhow, so I don't see anything wrong with deciding caffeine is ok but anabolic steroids aren't; any more than there's anything wrong with saying tennis racket with a 15.5" long head is allowed but a 16.0" racket isn't.

[Dr. Diaphanous]

Since there's a lot of talk about drugs being no worse than the entry barriers/dangers/costs of an intense training schedule with a team of nutritionists, coaches, etc: How about an Amateur Olympics which returns to the original amateur spirit of the olympics, i.e. zero or minimum funding, therefore competitors work ordinary jobs? And then a Professional Olympics that is like the current rules, possibly with laxer drug rules (or have Unrestricted Olympics as a third event?)

[Laserdan]

Since there's a lot of talk about drugs being no worse than the entry barriers/dangers/costs of an intense training schedule with a team of nutritionists, coaches, etc: How about an Amateur Olympics which returns to the original amateur spirit of the olympics, i.e. zero or minimum funding, therefore competitors work ordinary jobs? And then a Professional Olympics that is like the current rules, possibly with laxer drug rules (or have Unrestricted Olympics as a third event?)

I'd like to add that I always requested evidence/fact-based comparison from the people making the claim that drugs are worse than certain training-schedules/lifestyles. It is not an established point that they are not more dangerous - that's something facts have to decide. However, the subtle moral judgement (revealed by the fact that blowfishhootie did not care for the facts at all) that drugs are somehow inherently worse is the problematic one.

I don't think that retro-Olympics would have much of a chance against "regular" or "everything's allowed" Olympics because watching a somewhat hyped star like Usain Bolt outjog the other runners breaking record after record is probably more interesting than watching G. Willikers doing the 100m in 11 seconds and without all the media fluff.

[ahammel]

I'd like to add that I always requested evidence/fact-based comparison from the people making the claim that drugs are worse than certain training-schedules/lifestyles. It is not an established point that they are not more dangerous - that's something facts have to decide.

It's not really an either/or deal, though, is it? Even if you're juicing, you still have to follow a training schedule pretty similar to what non-steroid-using athletes do, don't you?

It would certainly be nice to have a rigorous comparison with double-blinding and suchlike, but it's not going to happen for ethical reasons. ("Here, take these pills. We'll come back in eight years and see if your knees have turned to grape jelly faster than the placebo group.") You could try to do a retrospective looking at the injury rates in athletes who admit to using steroids vs. those who don't, but right away you've got the problem of your non-steroid using group being contaminated by athletes who are lying. There are also going to be a ton of confounding variables.

[Laserdan]

Yes, it is clear that a rigorous evaluation is impossible. But blowfish could've at least checked out the most commonly used drugs for doping (androgens and anabolics, amphetamines, opiate-based pain killers, and maybe some kind of "misc drugs" like EPO that have effects which are not easily classified) and the extreme, yet typical training /eating schemes.

At least trying and getting it "peer-reviewed" here in this thread would have done more good than deciding doping is bad and then basically writing books after the fact to somehow retrofit it (what blowfish did).

I'm personally familiar with the positive and negative effects of certain anabolics, how they can be used and where the dangers lie, and at the same time, they are much less bad than people think, and at the same time much worse than people think (kinda like your typical street drug).

An example would be extremely restricted diets to start in a weight class you'd not be naturally in; things like not drinking for almost a day while jogging around in thick and warm clothes so they just barely fall under the maximum weight and then use their body - optimal for a higher weight class - to basically dominate the realistically lower weight class. It is dangerous, can even be lethal, and it's common on every level in basically every sport where weight classes mean something.

[Eomund]

As I see it, every rule in a sport comes downs to one of two reasons.

1) Safety. Some rules are made to minimize injury to the participants and spectators. In ice hockey (the sport I am most familiar with) some examples would be you have to wear a helmet, no checking from behind and no kicking.

2) Fairness. These rules are more or less arbitrary. They are put in place so that there can be some framework for competition to exist in. Some example are icing, holding, how many players you can have on the ice etc. The only thing that matters about these rules is that everyone plays by them. You could have an extra player on the ice without serious consequnces. (You might have a different game, but you could still play).

Some rules overlap the two. Highsticking can be dangerous but doesn't often lead to injury so it is more of a continuum. As for doping, excepting the drugs with safety concerns, I would say it firmly falls into the second issue. Sure it could work if players used steroids but it is an "artibitrary" rule that players don't use drugs.

As for my personal opinion, I would like to see drugs stay out. As it is, it can be very difficult to compare stats from different eras. To allow steroids would only further this difficulty. Like others said, if you think a sport would benefit from allowing doping go start it. If it really is better people will play in/watch it. (Just like you could start a hockey league with six skaters on a team).

[Izawwlgood]

1) Safety. Some rules are made to minimize injury to the participants and spectators. In ice hockey (the sport I am most familiar with) some examples would be you have to wear a helmet, no checking from behind and no kicking.

We've already been over why the routine of training is in many ways already quite dangerous, especially given the weight dropping many athletes do. In regards to your example with helmets, I assume you've never seen this film? Even the safety requirement of equipment is something that A) is transiently in or out of vogue and B) of questionable safety to the athletes themselves.

2) Fairness. These rules are more or less arbitrary. They are put in place so that there can be some framework for competition to exist in. Some example are icing, holding, how many players you can have on the ice etc. The only thing that matters about these rules is that everyone plays by them. You could have an extra player on the ice without serious consequnces. (You might have a different game, but you could still play).

We've also been over this; there is a direct correlation to the amount of money a country spends on it's Olympic program and the amount of gold medals it takes home. How is that more 'fair' than an athlete taking PEDs?

[ahammel]

1) Safety. Some rules are made to minimize injury to the participants and spectators. In ice hockey (the sport I am most familiar with) some examples would be you have to wear a helmet, no checking from behind and no kicking.

We've already been over why the routine of training is in many ways already quite dangerous, especially given the weight dropping many athletes do.

I think it would be most sensible to have the athletes' unions hash it out with the leagues, since the athletes are the ones who are taking the risks. If they all think "using steroids is too dangerous and I don't want to feel that I have to take them in order to compete", then I think it's fair that they stay banned.

Highsticking can be dangerous but doesn't often lead to injury so it is more of a continuum

Might want to talk to Bryan Berard about that.

[Izawwlgood]

I think it would be most sensible to have the athletes' unions hash it out with the leagues, since the athletes are the ones who are taking the risks. If they all think "using steroids is too dangerous and I don't want to feel that I have to take them in order to compete", then I think it's fair that they stay banned.

Right, but the propensity for athletes to then take steroids suggests that it has less to do with safety concerns and more to do with cheating concerns. Which is no more or less valid, but my guess is even a group of athletes convening to discuss what PEDs or activities should be allowable is going to be RIFE with politicking.

[ahammel]

I think it would be most sensible to have the athletes' unions hash it out with the leagues, since the athletes are the ones who are taking the risks. If they all think "using steroids is too dangerous and I don't want to feel that I have to take them in order to compete", then I think it's fair that they stay banned.

Right, but the propensity for athletes to then take steroids suggests that it has less to do with safety concerns and more to do with cheating concerns.

Not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that the athletes who are doping are more concerned about getting an illegal edge that personal safety? I can only agree, but if that's the case I can imagine that the athletes who feel that they would prefer not to use PEDs would be arguing for stricter enforcement in a collective bargaining situation.

[M]y guess is even a group of athletes convening to discuss what PEDs or activities should be allowable is going to be RIFE with politicking.

Yup. My guess is that a group of athletes convening to discuss what kind of pizza to order would be rife with politicking.

[Eomund]

1) Safety. Some rules are made to minimize injury to the participants and spectators. In ice hockey (the sport I am most familiar with) some examples would be you have to wear a helmet, no checking from behind and no kicking.

We've already been over why the routine of training is in many ways already quite dangerous, especially given the weight dropping many athletes do.

I think it would be most sensible to have the athletes' unions hash it out with the leagues, since the athletes are the ones who are taking the risks. If they all think "using steroids is too dangerous and I don't want to feel that I have to take them in order to compete", then I think it's fair that they stay banned.

I agree. (But one league banning them wouldn't stop a new league starting that did allow them if there was demand for it.

Highsticking can be dangerous but doesn't often lead to injury so it is more of a continuum

Might want to talk to Bryan Berard about that.

It certainly can cause injury, but, from what I've seen, most high sticking incidents don't end in injuries.

[K-R]

We've also been over this; there is a direct correlation to the amount of money a country spends on it's Olympic program and the amount of gold medals it takes home.

Are you talking about the Wired article that was linked to that said absolutely nothing of the sort?

[Izawwlgood]

We've also been over this; there is a direct correlation to the amount of money a country spends on it's Olympic program and the amount of gold medals it takes home.

Are you talking about the Wired article that was linked to that said absolutely nothing of the sort?

You'll have to explain how you feel the article said nothing of the sort, when the purpose of the article was outlining Australia's multi-million dollar athletic training program and how immediately after it was established, Australia went from winning ~4 medals to ~30 in the subsequent Olympics. I.e., the article made a very strong case for money being incredibly important to a countries Olympic success.

[K-R]

Buh? "Australia spent lots of money, and then was successful" doesn't establish any sort of correlation at all. Perhaps there's an amount of money required to be successful, after which success and money spent don't correlate, and Australia was previously below this threshold. Or something else happened in Australia at approximately the same time.

The article covers one country. One. That's an utterly pathetic sample size, and not one that can be used to assert anything at all.

[Izawwlgood]

Did you not read the article? It plainly spells out how 20 million dollars invested for a single Olympics used technology and an army of professional trainers to maximize the output of their athletes, and Australia went on to win more medals per capita of any country competing. I concur that N=1 doesn't indicate that money = medals, but with respect to unfair advantages in the Olympics, a country that throws 20 million at it's training program doesn't seem any more reasonable to me than an athlete who takes PEDs.

[K-R]

I concur that N=1 doesn't indicate that money = medals

Then why did you say it did?

[Izawwlgood]

Because you made a valid point so I modified my statement? Did you read the article?