Let the Games Be Doped 773
Hugh Pickens writes "John Tierney poses the question in the New York Times 'what if we let athletes do whatever they wanted to excel?' Before you dismiss the notion, consider what we're stuck with today — a system designed to create a level playing field, protect athletes' health and set an example for children, that fails on all counts. The journal Nature, in an editorial in the current issue, complains that 'antidoping authorities have fostered a sporting culture of suspicion, secrecy and fear' by relying on unscientifically calibrated tests, like the unreliable test for synthetic testosterone that cost Floyd Landis his 2006 Tour de France victory and even if the authorities manage to correct their tests, they can't possibly keep up with the accelerating advances in biology." Read on for more.
Hugh Pickens continues: "Bengt Kayser, the director of a sports medicine institute at the University of Geneva argues in an article that has been supported by more than 30 scholars in the British Medical Journal that legalizing doping would "encourage more sensible, informed use of drugs in amateur sport, leading to an overall decline in the rate of health problems associated with doping (pdf). In the competition between increasingly sophisticated doping — e.g. gene transfer — and antidoping technology, there will never be a clear winner. Consequently, such a futile but expensive strategy is difficult to defend.""
Sure, and then.... (Score:5, Insightful)
... we could allow mopeds in Tour de Frace :o)
Re:Sure, and then.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Sure, and then.... (Score:5, Insightful)
--
JimFive
Re:Sure, and then.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong direction, everyone should be riding the exact same bike. The Tour is about the athletes not the equipment.
It's a bicycle race. The equipment is a huge part of it (it's what the sport is named after). Foot racing is all about the athletes. Cycling, by its very nature, is about both.
Re:Sure, and then.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd love if we created "The People's Olympics" where we draw at random who is going to participate. If the people in your country are more fit than the others, you have more chances to collect medals. No proxy to do all the competition for you.
We just have to draw lots of names to account for people who won't come.
Re:Sure, and then.... (Score:5, Funny)
And more for those who die on the track...
It would be just my luck to get picked for the ski-jumping...
Triathlon Deathmatch (Score:3, Funny)
My brother is of the opinion that they should put the swimming as the last part of the triathlon. That would really weed out the field.
Re:Sure, and then.... (Score:5, Insightful)
No smoking; fine as long as then you kill yourself (Score:4, Insightful)
Your OBVIOUSLY wrong about smoking laws. Smoking does EXACTLY what you mention later - it kills other people.
These laws don't prevent YOU from smoking and killing yourself, they only prevent you from doing so IN (generally enclosed) public places and forcing (unfiltered!) carcinogens on everyone ELSE. Whether you think that's 'fair' or not, smoking in a public place isn't a 'private' matter unless you're so antiscience you don't believe in second hand smoke. You're not normally allowed to walk around spraying other known toxins into the air in great quantities. Most of these laws don't prohibit chew, because it's not about you killing you - it's about keeping you from killing me. And I've heard that modern US cigarettes are actually quite a bit worse than just rolling up a bunch of old natural tobacco was, including things like Polonium.
Everything ELSE you've just said is fine with me, honestly - as long as then you die. Because every single one of the above doesn't just improve statistics, it costs the government, and therefore us, the taxpayer, a bunch of money.
So I think you SHOULD be allowed to not wear a helmet - if you've signed a waiver saying that under no circumstances will my taxes pick up any part of the astronomical bill for your long term brain damaged life - or if you're going to off yourself if that happens. Since we're not presently at peace as a society with just letting you publicly rot in an acute way, the only way this currently works that I can see is if you pick up a sufficiently large long term insurance policy from a sufficiently well rated insurer. If you just die, that's not usually an excessive cost, relatively speaking.
Do you have even the slightest conception what kind of costs are involved in long term care for cancer or a debilitating brain injury? Sure, depending on where you are, on the thinly stretched public dime you might end up in some crazy terrible place with substandard care - but even THAT will be costing the taxpayers a very pretty penny, while being a fraction of the cost to give you top-flight care.
And I'm absolutely not making a point to be fanciful - I think motorcycle companies should sell helmet vs no helmet insurance, and I think if you have an appropriate long-term-care coverage you should be free to ride helmetless. I'm not even sure that would make motorcycle insurance that much MORE expensive. Maybe I'm wrong and the cost difference would be trivial, even.
Lest I come across wrong to the Slashdot masses - I decidedly think helmet laws are your strongest point... because the people who die without them have some balancing effect on the people who live with more debilitating injuries with them. Everything else is much more reliably costly.
And if you don't think obesity increases health costs, and that many of these health costs are in the poor, and that this dramatically increases the unreimbursed expenditures of emergency rooms, you're sorely misguided.
As an amusing note, last time I checked in Alaska you could legally ride without a helmet - but if you have a passenger without a helmet, YOU get a ticket.
Re:Sure, and then.... (Score:5, Funny)
Wrong direction, everyone should be riding the exact same bike. The Tour is about the athletes not the equipment.
I completely disagree with this. There are approximately 200 athletes in the Tour de France and I think it would be cruel and unusual to make them share one bike. It would be hard enough to get them to fit on there let alone figure out who actually won.
Indeed (Score:3, Funny)
Give them all drugs and you have leveled the playing field. Its not as if its about anything but money anyway.
Re:Sure, and then.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Love to see a Recumbent on the Pyrenees or the Alps. It would be interesting to see what tech could do to allow one to climb those hills.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Recumbents would get slaughtered on the climbs. Their advantage is on the flats and downhills, but they wouldn't be able to make up the time lost on the uphill portion of the stage.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, they don't currently have to use the same bike (and certainly not the same parts) for the entire race. They can use special bikes for time trials that aren't allowed in mass start road races. There are other parts changes that can be done for particular conditions; on mountain stages they might use a rear gear cluster (and possibly chainrings) with lower gear ratios on the low end -- on flat stages they use narrower gear ranges to stay as close as possible to optimum RPM at all times.
Re:Sure, and then.... (Score:5, Funny)
I draw the line at androids! no athlete should have less then 40% natural body parts! THEIR body parts!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
draw the line at androids! no athlete should have less then 40% natural body parts! THEIR body parts!
Like this runner? [wikipedia.org]
Re:Sure, and then.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're being modded funny, but you should also be modded insightful, because that is probably how it would start. It would end with the Men's 1500 meters being won by a chap in a Formula 1 car, or perhaps a helicopter. Afterall - why not? All sports have arbitrary rules, designed to keep the game and competition fun. Without them, the game becomes a simple and boring arms race.
Re:Sure, and then.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anybody remember? (Score:5, Insightful)
East German Gymnasts?
That is reason enough.
Re:Anybody remember? (Score:5, Funny)
Well if it is your mother, she is quite mannish.
Won't work. (Score:5, Insightful)
Legalizing doping will only raise the bar to the next level. Now that everyone can be doped, some will be more doped than others. Thus we are back to the original problem, that some people are more doped than others.
If they legalize doping, they will say what? You can take 50mg of this substance. How can they make sure everyone only takes this much? It will require even more policing.
The reason for doping are purely economic ones, people like cyclists on Tour de France get many green pieces of paper with dead presidents on them. Take out the money incentive from sports and you eliminate doping.
Re:Won't work. (Score:5, Insightful)
Drugs don't make you perfect all at one, there's still hard work to be done and if used liberally or even a little improperly, many of these 'sport enhancing' drugs can destroy a person's fitness.
There's no sense in setting arbitrary boundaries, you just get to square one again, I think the author suggests the only reasonable way to commit to allowing people to drug themselves is to do it without a limit.
There's no chance or even a good reason to take money out of competition. Some of these people spend their entire waking lives preparing for these events; there's just no room for a regular job. Sponsorship is vital and winning should be rewarded for the sacrifice.
Re:Won't work. (Score:5, Insightful)
How can they make sure everyone only takes this much? It will require even more policing.
The reason for doping are purely economic ones, people like cyclists on Tour de France get many green pieces of paper with dead presidents on them. Take out the money incentive from sports and you eliminate doping.
Well, for MY money, I'd like to see how far the human body can be willingly pushed. I mean, they are doping anyway...so for the people that want to, let them, and see how much faster/stronger they become. It's their choice how much they are willing to take or risk overdose. It's also current athletes choice how hard they train, or push themselves at an event.
And there is other side benefits, as the article suggested, like there being alot more data to reliably check athletes that aren't in the dope olympics.
Re:Won't work. (Score:4, Insightful)
If they legalize doping, they will say what? You can take 50mg of this substance. How can they make sure everyone only takes this much? It will require even more policing.
Not to mention that everyone metabolizes 'substances' at different rates.
How do you tell the difference between a fast metabolizer taking 75mg, looking like they're taking 50mg and a slow metabolizer taking 50, but looking like they're taking 75mg?
You essentially shift the competition to a different, internal playing field.
And its a playing field that isn't affected by training or diet regimines.
Re:Won't work. (Score:5, Insightful)
The reasons may be purely economic if you take a broad enough view of economics to render your final solution impossible. Olympic athletes have done just as much doping as professional ones. They don't get paid for their olympic performances, but they benefit economically in other ways (endorsements, and special career opportunities that come with celebrity status). Besides, sponsors and coaches may have money on the line in more direct ways, and could pressure amateurs. To eliminate all this, you'd have to *fully* eliminate the money incentive, which means that nobody is even interested.
But I don't think the reasons are purely economic anyway. People cheat all the time for little reason but just to win. Have you ever just dominated a little kid at checkers? The last thing they do before throwing the board at you is to try to cheat. People like winning. People that like winning even more than most are much more likely to train hard in sports for their whole lives. And people that have trained very hard are likely to become more determined to win, in order to validate that their effort was worth something. These people want to win a lot and they're surrounded by people that also want them to win.
Re:Won't work. (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, I have dominated a little kid at checkers, and I enjoyed every moment of my victory, including the precious look of frustration moments before he threw the board and started crying. As a matter of fact, before we even started playing, I super-glued the board to the table to make sure he couldn't even throw the board. *THAT* was a priceless look of frustration, let me tell you.
I also made sure I got to play the black side, and I put needles in the red pieces, so every time he tried to move a piece, I got to see him wince -- and once, when I let him make a move that would king him, he got so excited he gripped the piece hard -- whoo boy, the screams and the hint of blood on his finger just cracked me up.
Seriously, who dominates a little kid at checkers? If you're going to win, at least make it close. Present the kid with options of multiple decent moves, and let him experience the ramifications of choosing the better move, and the ramifications of choosing the worse move. Use the game to reward strategic thinking, to reward planning ahead.
Aside from your checkers example, though, you make a very good point. The system in which the athletes perform rewards winning, and it rewards cheating without being caught. It does not reward honest play directly.
Re:Won't work. (Score:5, Insightful)
Make doping legal and you destroy the games. Pure and simple. You will effectively turn the games into more comedy than sport when you suddenly start seeing crazy side-effects resulting from all kinds of dope combinations.
In addition, you will also be forcing athletes to dope if they ever want to have a hope of winning. That cannot be a good thing because you're forcing them to basically destroy themselves mentally and physically.
Finally, if you were the athlete and you were all doped up because you had to and you won a race, would you not wonder whether it was you or the dope? Do we want to take that sense of achievement away from our athletes? Definitely not.
The Olympics are there to show us what the human body is capable of when trained. Not when doped. Make that a separate event, where they can dope and then see how many will want to participate when they know others will be too.
What encourages doping in an athlete is the drive to win at any cost and a mentality that makes them cheat. Cheating is a reality and will always be a problem that has to be dealt with until we have a way to make it impossible to cheat. Its the mental drive to break rules if necessary. Do you seriously think that new rules will help the cause?
An Immodest Proposal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine you are the parent of a child who shows some kind of sporting talent early on- Do you encourage him, knowing that weird drug induced side-effects might overshadow his life?.... (...No, you don't)
Nope, not gonna happen, at least where rich countries are involved. Current drug tests may not be perfect, but they act as a massive break on the worst of this corrosive problem.
Re:An Immodest Proposal... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, given your example I wouldn't let my kid take these drugs, if the side effects overshadow their life. But the drugs that are banned go beyond ones like steroids and into the realm of performance enhancement.
For instance Creatine. Would I let my daughter take it if she wanted to use it to better her work outs? Scientifically I have no reason not to. Ephedrine? I got a problem with it. Steroids? Never. There is a huge difference between them all though. You can't just say "drugs bad" and then move on. And that is my point. What drugs are we talking about? People think it's all steroids and you end up with "Bob had bitch tits". But that's not true. These anti-doping organizations are going the extra mile and saying anything that isn't on the approved list is against the rules, regardless of scientific merit in using them. Why? Because the bogeyman that's why.
If anything it's simply patronizing us all putting them all under the controlled substance label or insinuating that anyone that wishes to take a chemical is somehow a dirt bag, well that's nonsense imo.
Re:An Immodest Proposal... (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree with your first statement. I think it depends on what sport you are talking about. Take football for example, where even from an early age, many kids who show a genetic or physical aptitude for the sport begin training to become specialized athletic instruments. In Texas, and other southern states, it is not terribly uncommon for parents to hold their children back a year in school so that they will be bigger to compete in football.
At the professional level, our current stock of "drug free" football players are some of the most fearsome and amazing physical specimens to ever walk the earth. And the willingness already inherent to the sport to risk life and limb for results is already accepted by both athlete and fan. Do some reading on what it's like to be a lineman in between games or off season. Read about how a lot of these former players have completely ruined their bodies in regard to retirement. The nature of game as I describe here would welcome the next stage in human evolution. Players who are accustomed to sacrificing their bodies for the game will gladly volunteer for doping, "bionic" body treatments and the like. Plus, since our society is unfortunately much more centered on professional sports, than on education and science, doing so will immediately create a high budget research field for human enhancement, both at the molecular and the tissue levels. No one is holding a gun to these athletes' heads, (not in this country anyway) telling them to do these things to themselves. If a grown man of consentual age wants to put himself in harm's way, I see no need to intervene.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No one is holding a gun to these athletes' heads, (not in this country anyway) telling them to do these things to themselves. If a grown man of consentual age wants to put himself in harm's way, I see no need to intervene.
If society has to pick up the pieces after these "grown" men fall apart, doesn't society deserve to have a say in what is or isn't good for the public health?
That's why Congress is always threatening to intervene legislatively whenever there is a perceived problem with the NFL/MLB/NHL/etc.
Just because you see no need to intervene doesn't mean we (as a society, as a government) don't have the power to intervene, haven't already intervened, and won't intervene as necessary. It just happens to be easier to pre
Re:An Immodest Proposal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Permitting doping in any sport is the road to that sport's ruin.
I wish that were the case.
Bodybuilding didn't take off until steroids entered the picture. The "natural" bodybuilding events (see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_bodybuilding [wikipedia.org] ) are basically niche sports by comparison.
American football does pretty well, and while performance drug use is not technically allowed it's been essentially overlooked since steroids entered the league in 1962. Nobody has the same "strike them from the record books" outcry against teams like the 1970s Steelers and 1980s 49ers dynasties who had players that are well-known to have used performance enhancing drugs regularly. Even with the increased public pressure against them, you see the Carolina Panthers and others (Rodney Harrison with the Pats, Chris Henry with the Titans, really tons of others not limited to any small set of teams) get tiny slaps on the wrist and at most maybe a 4-game suspension.
Heck, rather than outrage you actually see people writing things about guys like Shaun Merriman like "17 sacks in 12 games last year? Without the 4 game steroid suspension that extrapolates to 22.67 sacks for the season and the NFL record is 22.5!"
Hardly seems like people care enough about extant widespread use for it to ruin the sport.
I've already seen this (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I've already seen this (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.broadcaster.com/clip/9253 [broadcaster.com]
Should work... if not... in the "All Drug Olympics" "Sergei Akmudov(?)" is going for the world weightlifting record (over 1500 pounds)... and proceeds to rip his arms out of his sockets.
And then the olympics will die. (Score:5, Insightful)
It'll just become another freak show competition. WE don't want a bunch of "The hulks" competing with each other to see which company has the better steroids mix.
In fact, by letting (and therefore FORCING) all competitors to get doped, we're just throwing our money at the big pharmas. Is that what a sports competition is about?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And then the olympics will die. (Score:5, Interesting)
Face it. They say the gene splicing will be untraceable so it will be a moot point to attempt to screen athletes. It will infiltrate all sports... not just the Olympics. And if this is the case, then shouldn't droids be allowed to compete?
Re:And then the olympics will die. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously. You don't get to be a world class athlete by being "normal". Why, for example, is having crazy high hematocrit because your ancestors have been gasping for air at MANYthousand feet above sea level since forever good, while having crazy high hematocrit because you've been shooting a little EPO evil?
The whole thing looks particularly silly with the "biological passport" system they've been pushing. Because athletes are carefully selected freaks, they can't easily tell which ones are doping and which ones are just naturally high in testosterone or whatever(Wait! You mean that the world's best athletes are likely to have naturally high concentrations of chemicals that aid athletic performance? Shocking!). So, the idea is to do exhaustive historical testing, so as to decide what is "natural" for that athlete(rather than the current system of just assigning an arbitrary cutoff point).
Re:And then the olympics will die. (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, by letting (and therefore FORCING) all competitors to get doped, we're just throwing our money at the big pharmas. Is that what a sports competition is about?
Also, by effectively forcing all the competitors to get doped in order to stay competitive, you're also effectively forcing everyone who wants to try out to do the same thing. On down the chain it goes. So essentially every kid with dreams of making it into the Olympics will be encouraged to resort to increasingly dangerous performance enhancements from the get-go.
There's just no reason to condone these sorts of practices. The summary says, "Before you dismiss the notion, consider what we're stuck with today â" a system designed to create a level playing field, protect athletes' health and set an example for children, that fails on all counts." I don't see how encouraging athletes to out-steroid each other is going to help.
If you buy into those sorts of things, then you may as well say, "What if we allowed people to murder each other without legal consequences? Before you dismiss the notion, consider what we're stuck with today-- a system designed to protect people, discourage violence, and punish the guilty, that fails on all counts. People murder other people and get away with it, while other people are falsely accused."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What about Shark Skin? It was about which company had the best coefficient of drag through water. There were numerous world records broken at Sydney because of Shark Skin.
And steroids aren't the only 'performance enhancing' things you can do. What about the biathlon, I've heard reports of people undergoing LASIK for no good reason other than they wanted better vision.
Although they have gone overboard when they stripped the gold medal from the Canadian when he tested positive for Pot. Seriously, Pot as a per
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If we're going to make people ruining their lives with drugs a spectator sport, we really should go all the way. Give them some swords and throw in some lions (also drugged up, of course).
Re:And then the olympics will die. (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you SEEN the swimmers? I know they're taking all sorts of tests to show they aren't doping, but perhaps they've just found another way.
Yup. It's called "speedo".
Re:And then the olympics will die. (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the Danish commentators for the swimming events is Mette Jacobsen [wikipedia.org]. She is a former European champion swimmer, and I believe she managed to get in the finals of at least one of her events in each of the five olympics she participated in.
She hasn't tried the suit, but has spent a lot of time talking to the swimmers, and the general consensus is that it will cut your times by about a second every 100 meters in the short evens, half that in the longer events. And interestingly that also seems to be the case when you look at the new records. Especially the olympic records, as they were all set before the suit.
Now, while 1 second on 100 meters sounds like a lot - after all, a sprinter does that in about 10 seconds. But take freestyle - the fastest of the disciplines. World Record for 100 meter freestyle, set in 2000, is 47.84 seconds,or 2.09 meters/second. With the suit that should change to about 46.84 seconds or 2.13 meters/second. A "measly" 4 cm/second advantage.
Re:And then the olympics will die. (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you SEEN the swimmers? I know they're taking all sorts of tests to show they aren't doping, but perhaps they've just found another way. I'm wondering if some of them have an extra cloned lung or two, or a surgically expanded chest cavity, or somehting like that.
The swimmers? They're not particularly muscular compared to other, more strength-based sports. Too much muscle makes you a bad swimmer (which is why there's virtually no steroid use in men's swimming).
I was a world ranked swimmer and national finalist in the late 90's, and never took any illegal drugs. In fact, I didn't even use creatine. I was never offered illegal drugs by coaches, and never heard anyone mention them in a positive light. My interest in the sport wasn't to see how much attention I could get no matter the cost. I wanted to see what my (natural) limits were. I really can't vouch for the whole sport, but I can at least say with some confidence that some of my close friends were elite swimmers and didn't do any illegal drugs either. Our unusual V02 ability (compared to nonswimmers) was purely from hours and hours of hard training. I swam more than 25,000 miles in a span of about 10 years.
That said, however, there certainly are cheaters in swimming. I just don't think it's very widespread. Fortunately, except for every 4 years, the whole world basically ignores swimming. That takes away a lot of motivation to cheat. There just isn't much money or fame in it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But they aren't "freaks" — Phelps, for example, is a perfectly normal 23-year old [nbcolympics.com]. The beach volleyball babes are quite attractive, and so on. They are normal, and the "living to train" is a choice a person can make — without also choosing to chemically alter their body.
Oblig. bad Car Analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And establish a rule that, once you compete in the Unlimited Games, you are forever barred from competing in an unaugmented event, regardless of sport.
Are you not entertained?!? (Score:5, Funny)
I think we should give them steroids & in the case of American Football, chainsaws as well.
A couple of hundred years later... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think the problem is (Score:5, Interesting)
that what might, in some argument be a sensible behavior for a professional athlete or a full time adult amateur athlete is in no way sensible for young athletes who are essentially practicing in a very publicized hobby.
Calling open season in the upper tiers of athletics would certainly have the effect of more young folks (and hell even that guy who cares too much about company soft ball) doing more drugs, and that isn't healthy and it isn't good.
I don't believe in the criminalization of drugs myself, but for something so explicitly about the body, athletics should really not be helping sell young people on the idea of dangerous chemical recreation.
I hate the drug war, but it is important to note that our world would be a lot better without certain drugs.
Let the Market Decide (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
--
JimFive
Re:Let the Market Decide (Score:5, Insightful)
My bet is that athletes would continue to hide their doping so that they could win the Pure category, and the Open category dies in 2-3 years from lack of interest.
There is no glory in taking the drugs, only in winning.
because it is not transferable genetically (Score:5, Interesting)
Synthetic Testosterone (Score:3, Interesting)
The test that cost Landis his victory and title is actually very well calibrated - he got tripped up by the amount of testosterone in his blood that is not produced by his own body, as identified by carbon-isotope markers.
That said, legalized doping will still lead to issues, as there will always be something that is unsafe and illegal to take, and which will be taken by unscrupulous athletes. Sadly, there is no way to prevent cheating, unless you simply say "no rules". And then I expect someone to show up with an aircraft carrier at a water polo game.
Oblig. Futurama Quote (Score:5, Funny)
FARNSWORTH: He's good, alright. But he's no Clem Johnson. And Johnson played back in the days before steroid injections were mandatory.
BENDER: Clem Johnson? That skin bag wouldn't have lasted one pitch in the old Robot Leagues! Now Wireless Joe Jackson, there was a blern hitting machine!
LEELA: Exactly! He was a machine designed to hit blerns! I mean, come on, Wireless Joe was nothing but a programmable bat on wheels.
BENDER: Oh, and I suppose Pitchomat 5000 was just a modified howitzer?
LEELA: Yep.
Garbage (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is all a confusion of symptoms with causes. Sure, the current standoff between doping and dopers has created a somewhat unpleasant situation, but I think it goes deeper than just the doping. The real problem, as far as I'm concerned at least, is that high level competitive sports on nearly every front exist in a culture concerned only with winning--at any cost. Doping, the lack of sportsmanlike conduct, and all the other problems in high level competition--the way I see it these things all stem from such a strong emphasis on winning over simply playing the game for its own sake. I don't think legalizing doping, or finally preventing it completely, either way, will solve the problems we see. We'll just see a new symptom of the deeper ill manifest. What really needs to change is the whole culture of sports.
My two cents anyway.
Re:Garbage (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is all a confusion of symptoms with causes. Sure, the current standoff between doping and dopers has created a somewhat unpleasant situation, but I think it goes deeper than just the doping. The real problem, as far as I'm concerned at least, is that high level competitive sports on nearly every front exist in a culture concerned only with winning--at any cost. Doping, the lack of sportsmanlike conduct, and all the other problems in high level competition--the way I see it these things all stem from such a strong emphasis on winning over simply playing the game for its own sake. I don't think legalizing doping, or finally preventing it completely, either way, will solve the problems we see. We'll just see a new symptom of the deeper ill manifest. What really needs to change is the whole culture of sports.
My two cents anyway.
Playing the game for it's own sake goes out the window the second you start paying a athlete. As long as your paycheck depends on winning your not going to play for the love of the game.
Re:Garbage (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh bullshit. So if you love your job, and you're getting paid to do it, you don't really love it. Being an athlete is their job. Guess what? If I don't do what I'm asked to do at work, I get fired too, yet I still follow the rules.
I know some professional athletes (I used to work for a pro football team), they love the sport, they live it, they breath it. They have a passion for it that trumps about anything else.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why the Olympics are SUPPOSED to be an amateur (i.e. your paycheck does not depend on it) competition.
They should enforce that rule. Near the olympics they keep playing commercials about the poor athletes, we should donate to help them, such and such a company is really good because it gives money to olympians...
Amateur athletes should have to work to support themselves, and train for their sport in their spare time. That's what makes them amateur athletes.
Re:Garbage (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, first off, the reason to play a competitive gamre is to win, not to play the game. That's why it's called a competition. I, for one, do not relish the thought of a "group swim for the fun of swimming" event at the olympics :)
That said, I recently read a piece in NJ Monthly about the Special Olympics, where a young girl with Downs Syndrome & some other issues was winning a race, and slowed down to hold hands with a competitor to cross the finish line together. Somehow I can't imagine that happening at the regular Olympics, but boy would that make me start to view the world with a little optimism.
another example is of a softball player who hit a home run, but blew out her knee, in her last college appearance. Members of the opposing team picked her up and carried her around the bases, since the rules forbade members of her own team from doing so.
Sportmanship is hard to find in professional sports (and yes, for the most part, olympic athletes are professionals), but it exists at other levels. Sometimes it even exists at the professional level, like in soccer... an example would be when a player is injured, and the other team kicks the ball out of bounds to give a stop in play... and then the favor is returned whenthe injured player's team gives the ball back when play resumes. I just wish it were publicized better, and given attention at the professional level.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I, for one, do not relish the thought of a "group swim for the fun of swimming" event at the olympics :)
I, on the other hand, think you just came up with a fantastic idea for a new event. All female swimmers have to wear bikinis and group-swim. It's a requirement.
Sci Am had a good peice on this (Score:5, Interesting)
Ehh, will probably go away anyway... (Score:3, Insightful)
...just like the "all amateur" Olympics.
Before:
Bob Mathias was not permitted to complete in a third Olympics in the decathlon because he had made a movie and was paid for it. The IOC determined that the movie makers paid him to make the movie because he was an athlete and therefore was now a "professional athlete".
Today:
You have countless professionals playing in Basketball, Tennis, Cycling, etc.
Love the hyperbole (Score:5, Insightful)
Before you dismiss the notion, consider what we're stuck with today -- a system designed to create a level playing field, protect athletes' health and set an example for children, that fails on all counts.
Lack of perfection is not failure.
Could it better? Yes. Will it always be an arms race? Yes. Will athletes always try and get an edge? Yes.
Using this logic to justify unlimited PEDs is like saying that since we can't stop criminals from stealing, therefore, we should just give up and let people steal whatever they want. After all, you can't stop a determined thief, so why not just let them have what they want?
Sweet! (Score:5, Funny)
I say let 'em go for it. Have an "Unlimited" class of Olympic events, with half-ton, fission-powered, gene-spliced, titanium-boned monstrosities jacked up on nervous system stimulants strong enough to make Case from Neuromancer piss himself. Pole vaulting with nuclear pulse detonation boosters? Biathlon with AEGIS-guided weaponry?
We'd of course need to clear a sufficient radius around the arena so we can squash the frothing bastards' inevitable thirst for global domination by nuking the hell out of them at the "closing ceremonies".
Intelligent article in Scientific American (Score:5, Interesting)
Gladiators anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Should we allow fights to the death as sport so long as the contestants aren't forced into it?
You pose good questions, and after having contemplated it, I think the answer is clear. We need more steroids and, far more importantly, good old fashion blood sports.
UFC with knives? Greatest suggestion... ever.
You really framed that whole thing well, thanks.
What's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
The appeal of sporting events like the Olympics is the idea of the dedication of regular people pushing themselves to extreme personal discipline. I respect athletes who get up at 5:30 am every morning to run or swim for 4 hours.
I don't respect someone who's doped themselves up to take a short cut; anymore that I do someone who pays off a ref. No one with impeccable discipline should be forced to compete with a cheater willing to destroy his body or mind.
BTW, this is what the recent Congressional hearings on steroids use were trying to warn us about. We now have kids in middle school pumping themselves up with steroids in order to secure positions on high school teams. The testimony from stars like Clemens was supposed to be bait to get people to pay attention, but the media couldn't see past the glittering lights of pro athletes to the testimony from the medical community.
A sound rebuttle against this (Score:5, Insightful)
First, I read all three articles. Once you overcome that heart attack, allow me to rebuff this nonsense.
the NYT article and the summary say:
Before you dismiss this notion, consider what we're stuck with today. The system is ostensibly designed to create a level playing field, protect athletes' health and set an example for children, but it fails on all counts.
Exactly how does it fail on all accounts? Where is the proof of this allegation in this article? I don't myself see this as a broken system, so this statement is not self evident. If someone has some proof please provide it. To dissect this statement, I don't see athletes dropping dead in sports where steroids are banned, and I know plenty of kids who think Steroids are wrong. I also see that, at least in high schools, steroids are the exception, not the rule. I have however, seen stories of kids and athletes dropping dead from a steroid overdose, or running into emotional, or worse, legal, problems resulting from behavioral changes that current steroids are known to cause. So show me what's broken.
The rest of the article falls on it's face because it's making an assumption I don't see as being there.
The journal Nature, in an editorial in the current issue, complains that "antidoping authorities have fostered a sporting culture of suspicion, secrecy and fear"
If you read the Nature article, it's slant is more a rebuke of the drug testing authorities who are not open about their processes, and athletes who are having problems disputing drug tests. I agree with that, if you are accused of doping you have a moral right to contest that. But to me that doesn't give any weight to a pro doping stance.
If doping was allowed, would there be an increase in the rate of death and chronic illness among athletes? Would athletes have a shorter lifespan than the general population? Would there be more examples like the widespread use of performance-enhancing drugs in the former East-German republic? We do not think so. Only a small proportion of the population engages in elite sports. Furthermore, legalisation of doping, we believe, would encourage more sensible, informed use of drugs in amateur sport, leading to an overall decline in the rate of health problems associated with doping. Finally, by allowing medically supervised doping, the drugs used could be assessed for a clearer view of what is dangerous and what is not.
This is from the PDF. More false assumptions. Only a small proportion of the population engages in elite sports because only a few are gifted to play that sport. The point is that with doping, more may attempt to be just that gifted, and then you have an explosion of talent. Everyone wants to be like Mike, just shoot up and you will be! That will then lead to health problems and side effects that come from doping. Sure you are guaranteed to get muscles and improve your performance, but there's more to life than sports, and if you dope for sports, absolutely everything else suffers.
And it's not the kids and the athletes I really have a problem with when it comes to doping. The number one problem I have with doping are all the people surrounding kids and athletes who will pressure the kids to dope! Coaches with pride on the line (and maybe an increased paycheck), principals and superintendents trying to increase notoriety of their school district. Deans trying to increase enrollments. Endorsers promising big contracts for more touchdowns this season. The money chain will explode! All at the expense of he health of one kid who just wants to be badass and land a big contract. Other people get fat and rich at his expense. I absolutely abhor that possibility.
There are things in health science that are working to improve performance of athletes without doping. It's my understanding that doping not only gives you an unfair competitive edge, but also leads to health problems down the road. If that's not true, someone please dispute what I'm saying. But that's the basis for the ban country wide of Steroids. The last thing we need are mega corporations shoving athletic performance enhancing drugs down our gullets, because if you think prescription drugs are bad now..............
Up to the athletes? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're naively assuming that it's up to the athletes at all. Given what goes on with doping being illegal, it would be a field day for sport club owners and countries; anyone who would benefit greatly without taking any of the risk. For them, to hell with the health concerns of the athlete, as long as they bring back sacks of gold. (and silver and bronze, but mostly gold).
Karma to burn... (Score:4, Interesting)
What difference does it make? Doped or not doped, the entirety of professional sports is a sham. These people are treated with far greater respect, given far more opportunities to excel and far more financial compensation than any scientist, engineer or teacher ever will. Someone making 30 million a year for what amounts to being lucky to have their genetics is ridiculous (sure, training is involved, but training without supporting genetics means squat).
And I say all of this as an avid sports enthusiast: lots of mountain climbing, hiking, soccer, cycling, etc... but none professionally. People in science, education, arts and entrepreneurial business have to work their asses off to achieve something tangible as opposed to one of these "sports professionals" who have trained themselves to run REALLY fast in a straight line (sometimes in an oval too!)
I say fuck the games, let's simply let professional sport die as it should and leave sports as an enjoyable hobby / past time; not the enormous waste of time, money and space that it currently enjoys.
Doped athletics is not athletics. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't set clear limits on technology in sports, the competition is no longer one of athletics, but of engineering. The skill and effort of the participant becomes less important than the biochemists and engineers who have "rebuilt him".
While such a competition among bioengineers would be quite interesting to see, it would be highly unethical to use humans like this, as building materials in a glorified Pinewood Derby contest.
In all sports that can be called sports, the emphasis is on the effort of the participant, not the technology. Even technological sports like auto racing set up strict limits to the kinds of technology that can be used. Otherwise, NASCAR racing, for example, would just be a contest to see who can stick the biggest engine on four wheels.
Sports already has plenty of controversy with possibly-unbalanced technological advantantages: consider the Speedo LZR racing swimsuit, Oscar Pistorius, and so on. Allow biotech into the mix, and it's a nightmare. And we lose focus on what's important: the athlete.
Gattica discussed this (Score:3, Informative)
This issue was raised in the Movie Gattica, everyone is addressing the issue of current doping while ignoring what the original poster is discussing with his future projections. That is, what happens when biology excels to the point that we as humans begin modifying the gene code to improve humans. First we will start by eliminating genetic diseases, then people will start improving their children. Probably clandestine at first but I have no doubt it will grow into a culturally approved and even expected process. At the point when you can genetically create the perfect human swimmer do you ban them from the Olympics? What happens in the beginning when you can subtly make a stronger faster human and the enhanced humans aren't common, how do you select and prohibit those that were modified?
It's an essential question because at the point where we begin altering the human genome and improving the strength, speed and intellect of humans at the genetic level, doping is a non issue and those without the modifications become incapable of competing against those that have been. Not only that, but it's going to be nearly impossible to tell if someone was modified at the genetic level before birth. It's decades away, but it is going to happen, I have no doubt, the genie was out of the bottle years ago and making it illegal won't change the fact that we will start changing the human genome while trying to make a better human being than the one nature created.
Re:No (Score:5, Funny)
You should join the debate club with that incredible logic you're using.
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
What is why we should discourage exploration in some areas of science? You haven't really offered a reason, just a vaguely articulated fear.
Re:No (Score:5, Funny)
I can see your point.
Re:No (Score:5, Funny)
Just think of it as evolution in action. Plus how else are you going to get free lab rats for human enhancement technologies? Let the gene and drug doping flow, then we can just cherry pick the ones that stand the test of time and use em on real people.
Only socially constructive use for professional athletes i can think of, anyway ...
/joking
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
already the case (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, I can understand how people who care about competitive sports and participate in them would be annoyed because they have to guess they keep losing just because the other guy is using a less tracable kind of doping or just because they're worse at whatever sport they play, even if I don't really see why you'd want to risk your life for it, but as someone above you already suggested in a roundabout way, it may be the only thing someone is capable of doing.
But it seems to me that the current culture (specifically in marathony/cycling long distances) is pretty much destroyed already by the mentioned suspicion, as pretty much nobody will want to risk being the only guy who isn't cheating, and consistently losing because of it.
For them, legalizing doping would just create more openness/honesty
Re:already the case (Score:5, Interesting)
Except for the recent US team at the Tour De France that volunteered for extra testing and established personal baselines for all their hormone levels. They signed a pact with each other that they were all willing to lose on their own merits, but to complete cleanly. This actually led to bigger sponsorships as they were clear of the cloud of suspicion. Ya, cycling is hard, but just because you lose doesnt mean that the guy who bet you cheated.
Re:already the case (Score:4, Insightful)
That could be a good argument for removing the bans too.
If it becomes a matter of choice, "clean" athletes and teams get a market differentiator they can use to get better sponsorships and fans - while doped athletes would not risk the health hazards of an illegal practice.
If that were to happen, I'd actually expect "clean" leagues to pop up, perhaps splitting the spectators more interested in sports than hyper-competitiveness.
Of course, I'd also expect drug manufacturers to massively sponsor the doping and use it as a testing ground for new tech, much as equipment manufacturers do right now. This wouldn't benefit the athletes themselves - but it would provide a strong motivation for open-ness vs secrecy - and others would benefit from the research.
There would be a lot of complications, but I can see why many think it would be better than the status quo.
Re:already the case (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet you feel that this isn't the case already?
No, frankly it is not the case already.
People around here (and this is somewhat unique to this site) can be both absolutist and incredibly defeatist when it comes to issues like this.
But this logic can be used to justify anything. "People murder other people anyway, why not just let them do it?" Well, for one thing, such an argument displays a complete lack of morality and ethics. Ethics is not about the results of an action, it's about the reasoning behind an action. So by taking such a stand, you are throwing out any sense of ethical rule-making - and you are telling everybody else that ethics and morality don't matter. What, then, are you left with? Why not throw out every rule, regulation and law?
This is important because not only do you legalize what was previously illegal, you also legitimize it. You're saying one of two things: a) this was a bad rule/law, and what it forbade should not have been forbade, or b) ethical conduct doesn't matter, so do what you want.
You're essentially actively encouraging what you were previously forbidding. It's not a neutral act, repealing a rule or law.
Second, while it's true that *some* "people murder other people anyway", it's certainly *not* true that *most* people do or that laws against it have no effect. There most certainly is both a factor of deterrence and a natural lowering of the incidence of crime due to incarceration of the offenders who are caught.
The same is true of doping. It is simply untrue to say doping tests are "ineffective". The only way you could say that is if nobody had been caught. Well, plenty of people have been caught - not just athletes, but suppliers as well. Investigators don't only go after the athletes anymore, they go to the source, and it's very hard to even get banned substances anymore. And they don't rely only on tests - they follow the paper trail, like any other investigative body.
They also store blood and urine for 8 years. So if you think that just because there's no test for a particular substance today, there probably will be before those samples expire. Athletes know this too - it's a cat and mouse game, but the athletes are forever on the wrong end of it.
Several US athletes including Michael Phelps have volunteered this time around to be "super-tested" - from what I remember, they get blood and urine tests every single day, and they get followed around all over the place by USOC officials. These are gold medal athletes who have volunteered for this.
*All* of the other athletes are tested regularly. And anyone suspected of doping literally has their trash gone through, their phone records checked, their bank accounts examined. It's just not worth it for most athletes.
Does that mean there's no doping? No. But it's like any other rule - the fact that a few people break it doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater. The rules work, for the most part.
Re:already the case (Score:4, Insightful)
If doping were legalized, the sky would be the limit. Athletes would dope themselves to levels just short of death in their pursuit of glory. There would be no choice: every aspiring gold medalist would be forced to risk their health if they want a chance to win.
I would hate forcing people to risk their lives for my entertainment. So the current anti-doping regime, as imperfect as it is, is still vastly preferable to laissez-faire.
(I am somewhat more open to legalizing recreational drugs for the general population. Normal people have no incentive to overdose themselves, and most would be sensible.)
Re:No (Score:5, Interesting)
I say let's create a new set of games specifically for this reason. Let the "all natural" athletes have their own games, and we'll hold separate ones for those who sacrifice their own bodies for their performance.
And why limit it to drugs? I say let them include anything and everything they want so long as it meets two requirements: First, it must be entirely self-contained (no power cables or wireless control links). Second, it must be operated directly from the user's nervous system (eg no buttons or switches - direct wetware interfaces only).
Just think of the medical advances a pharmaceutically and cybernetically enhanced olympics could produce once it catches on!
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
kinda like what formula 1 had for car development in the early days?
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
Achilles' Choice (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No (Score:5, Funny)
We shouldn't let journalists dope either. Case in point: this article.
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
My dad is an athlete and has to use a steroid to combat his psoriasis. Your argument is a fat steaming lump of FAIL.
On top of that he has to use a barbiturate for medical purposes (epilepsy).
I suppose as far as you're concerned his achievements are bullshit.
Re:No (Score:4, Informative)
The governing bodies may not care, but anabolic steroids and the steroids used for medical treatments are very different.
Re:No (Score:4, Informative)
Idiots modded idiot parent "informative" . There are anabolic steroids and corticosteroids - both used in medicine. Exactly same anabolic steroids used s in strength and bodybuilding as well. Most anabolic steroids were developed for their medical applications.
Corticosteroids are immunosuppressants.
Where do you draw the line? (Score:5, Interesting)
BTW Using a steriod cream for psoriasis is very different to taking the amounts used for body building/weight lifting, though the steroid cream would possibly trigger first-level tests.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they want to remove their legs just below the knees so they can supplant them with carbon fibre fins, they can.
If they want to get juiced up on steroids 'til they're a quivering mass of muscle, they can.
If they want to have implants in their feet th
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Rollerball!