Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Biotech Technology

Swedish Athletes Back GPS Implants to Combat Drug Use 299

Posted by samzenpus
from the i-can't-be-trusted-with-my-freedoms-please-take-them dept.
paulraps writes "Swedish athletes Carolina Klüft and Stefan Holm have proposed a radical technological measure to stop top level competitors from taking performance-enhancing drugs. Klüft and Holm, reigning Olympic champions in the heptathlon and high-jump events, argue that competitors at the highest level should either have computer chips implanted into their skin or GPS transmitters attached to their training bags so that the authorities can keep tabs on them at all times."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Swedish Athletes Back GPS Implants to Combat Drug Use

Comments Filter:
  • Stupid Scientists (Score:2, Insightful)

    by pete-classic (75983)
    Man, when are those stupid Scientists going to come up with a technological substitute for honor?

    -Peter
    • Man, when are those stupid Scientists going to come up with a technological substitute for honor?

      Hey, it's a hard job. How can they come up with a technological substitute for an idea that might have been completely illusory to begin with?
      • by Plutonite (999141)
        All "ideas" stemming from human emotion are the product of evolved psychological instincts, which are all "imaginary", but likely to be important nonetheless.

        Your disgust at killing babies is every bit as imaginary as your resilience in withholding your own desires because of your vow to serve the betterment of society in some way (i.e honor). Evolution explains everything.
        • by Moraelin (679338) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @01:20AM (#21761754) Journal
          I'm sorry, but from human emotion? Other than some quick modern redefinition, the idea of "honour" was mostly what it is on WoW. I can think of at least one time and place off the top of my head, where they actually had honour points for killing enemies. Ok, not everyone was that organized, but mostly it was about warfare and your duty to go die for your king, just because kings are so awesome and have a divine right.

          So, I'm sorry, but exactly which fundamental human emotion was at work there? Do we have that fundamental an instinct to kill each other? Or what?

          It and the closely related notion of "chivalry" was also warped to fit the current interests of the rich and powerful, and included such quirks as:

          - while you were supposed to afford chivalry and honour to the enemy nobles and knights, because they could be ransomed for good money, it was perfectly ok to kill prisoners if they're pesants and mercenary. (Before Agincourt, for example, Henry V told his troops that while the nobles would be captured and held for ransome, everyone else damn better fight for their lives. And just to illustrate that he _was_ right, when the French managed to capture the undefended English baggage train, they did kill the unarmed attendants and page boys, mostly children.)

          - same about your fucking _own_ troops, if they're of low birth. (E.g., at Crecy, the French knights rode over their own Genoese crossbowmen mercenaries, who were retreating after taking heavy losses from the English crossbowmen. Apparently precisely _because_ of such a fucked up idea of honour: the knights were apparently disgusted that the mercenary cowards wouldn't stand there and die gladly for the king.)

          - but it's ok to kill the captured nobles too, if you can't hold on to them or it's otherwise too inconvenient. (E.g., Henry V at Agincourt again.)

          - and those rules of chivalry only applied if you weren't outnumbered or something (See, the Black Prince.)

          - and while chest-thumping about honour and chivalry in battle, it was ok to loot the peasants' grain for your troops and horses along your way. Both enemy peasants and your own.

          - the same knights who'd be all chivalrous to other knights, had no problem with beating their wives _literally_ senseless. (There are "manuals" for knights who recommended exactly that. Oh, and at least one recommended breaking the wife's nose, so other guys won't find her pretty while you're away.)

          Etc, etc, etc.

          And just so I'm not so euro-centric, the Japanese atrocities in WW2 were almost all motivated by a fucked-up feudal idea of "honour" too.

          The massacre of Nanking, for example, was because the oh-so-honourable Japanese warriors were disgusted at the idea that an enemy soldier would do something as dishonourable as throwing away their uniform and hiding among the civilians instead of surrendering. So, you know, going on a rape and massacre rampage was the proper way to punish that dishonour.

          Or their atrocious treatment of prisoners was motivated, or at least rationalized, by some fucked up idea that a properly honourable warrior dies, but never surrenders. So obviously the enemies that surrendered were so dishonoured, as to not even qualify as humans any more.

          To make things funny, some of those exaggerated ideas of Samurai honour and valour, stemmed from an era where Japan had no wars for hundreds of years. So they wrote a lot about being fearless and stuff, without having actually seen a battlefield in their lives, and knowing that they probably never will. And each author tried to sound even more completely fearless than the previous generation... on paper.

          Etc.

          So, heh, human emotion? The history of "honour" is just a codified justification for being an arsehole. It was part indoctrination so some dolts would go die for you, and part rationalization of why you're an arsehole and it's good to be one. The only good aspects of it, were the ones where you stood to make a personal gain. E.g., yeah, you were supposed to be honourable and hospitable with captured nobles, because they could be ransomed, but that didn't extend to anyone who couldn't be ransomed.
          • by lordholm (649770) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @03:44AM (#21762342) Homepage
            Well, you make a few good points, but the origins of honour comes from preliterate societies where trust and being true to ones word ment everything (as the only contracts you had were oral). Honour is not necessarily a battlefield issue, but can be a social one.

            In Swedish, there are two words that translate roughly to the English "honour", they are "heder" and "ära". "Ära" is closely related to "glory", but is not necessarily exactly the same, and is often translated as "honour".

            So while what you were saying is true, it does not paint the whole picture due to the ambiguity of the English word "honour". Further, the germanic pre-christian notion of honour had nothing to do with being good to your king, but being true to ones word. If you made a pledge to the king, you were of course bound to that, but making that pledge were something you decided about and not something you had to do.
            • by Moraelin (679338) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @07:15AM (#21763120) Journal
              Well, if what you're trying to tell me that other cultures had different words, which meant different things, well, I can't say I'm surprised there. Even English has some thousands of different words which mean different things :P

              E.g., even in English if you wanted to say "true to one's word", there are words like "honest", "truthful", and the like. Very unambiguous words, those.

              That ambiguity however, is part of what the English word "honour" _is_. It's not two (or more) distinct words or meanings, which just happen to be pronounced that way. It's something which includes more meanings as an integral part of what it is. And the focus tended to always be more on the "duty" aspect, than on the "honesty" aspect.

              There's not much point in debating what "honour" meant before literacy or the middle ages, because, you know, English as a language didn't exist before that point. But if we're to trace its origins through French to Latin, it never was the equivalent of "honest". The French medieval society wasn't that different from the English one later, seeing that the English culture largely evolved from what the Norman conquerors brought over.

              Or if we're going to equate to "honour" any foreign word that gets (mis)translated as "honour", you end up including some pretty warped concepts too, not just "heder". You end up including, for example, the concept of female virginity as an integral part of her father's honour, and in some cultures the duty of a father to _murder_ his own daughter if she lost her virginity outside of marriage. (Even via rape.)

              Or you end up trying to shoehorn such concepts as the asian concept of "face" into "honour", although the former too actually consists of two different things that get lumped together when translated as "honour" or "face". Only in that case it's more like "respect" someone gets, and "authority" he has. And it's very possible to cause someone a loss of respect, without undermining his authority, and viceversa.

              More interestingly, neither of the two has anything to do with honesty. Telling a lie is, in fact, an accepted and _expected_ way to save "face" in either of the two senses. Being unable to achieve something, and admitting it, would actually cause a loss of face, but telling a lie to cover your arse does not.

              So, there you go, a foreign couple of words that get translated sometimes as "honour" and really have nothing to do with being honest.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Plutonite (999141)
            I think you are mixing things up. First of all, if it was indoctrination, honor would not have spread as a concept to all corners of the earth as a central part of an individual's sense of worth among his/her peers. Like religion, honor is fueled by instinct, and that is how they can be better understood and controlled so that the terrible things you speak of don't happen.

            Terrible things have happened in the name of honor because it is egoistical in nature, and egos make people blind. Still: I am honorable
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by megaditto (982598)
      Taking steroids IS honorable!

      With steroids, everybody is equal and has a sporting chance, so anyone can have 165 IQ and be athletic. It really only comes down to the willpower and determination, not what set of genes you have. What's wrong with that?

      Otherwise, activities such as bodybuilding would be impossible (without steroids) for most normal people, since their genes will not allow them to starve and build up muscles at the same time.
      • by OrangeTide (124937) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @11:21PM (#21760992) Homepage Journal
        steroids have significant side effects and damage your body severely if used long term. To compete in professional sports should not require everyone to burn the candle at both ends.

        Come up with performance enhancing drugs that don't have long term side-effects, then we can talk about allowing them in sports.
        • To compete in professional sports should not require everyone to burn the candle at both ends.

          It seems to me that, so long as there is competition (whether in sports, business, etc.), anybody that wants to compete at any level significantly above that of hobbyist will be required to burn the candle at both ends. Anybody really interested in competing will invest a lot of time in it, and--in general--competition is about doing better than your peers, so there's always going to be this strong skew towards t

          • Oops, I just noticed that you said "everyone." But I still think you're going to have the majority of competitors needing to invest lots and lots of time/effort, since people can go watch mediocre players at their local little league game.
        • To compete in professional sports should not require everyone to burn the candle at both ends.

          Bollocks. That's exactly what a professional athlete should be doing if they want to win. They get paid millions for their performance.

          Come up with performance enhancing drugs that don't have long term side-effects, then we can talk about allowing them in sports.

          It's up to the individual. If they want to risk their health for money and glory that's their choice. As long as they understand the risks they should be allowed to do as they wish.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Allison Geode (598914)
      honor in sports is dead, all thats left is the ability to sell yourself. without your picture on a wheaties box, without a nike shoe named after you, or a flavor of bubblicious that bears your name, you are nothing.
    • You'd think that a gold medal achieved by cheating would feel a bit tinny, but I guess the prestige,pressure and potential $$proffits$$ from endorsements etc do motivate people to cheat.
    • by ultranova (717540) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @05:59AM (#21762900)

      Man, when are those stupid Scientists going to come up with a technological substitute for honor?

      Which version of it ? A Japanese samurai following bushido and some cretin murdering his sister because she was raped are both being honorable, as far as themselves are concerned, but their behaviors aren't really compatible.

  • Sport is dead (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Tweekster (949766)
    Sport truely is dead if that is what is required to keep it even somewhat honest. It is fairly obvious that level of competition is nowhere close to being honest anyways.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Compare the modern cheating athletes to good old Babe.
      He made all his home runs, etc. while drinking and whoring, and looking like a fat pig.
      Most of his home runs had to have been made while he was dealing with a massive hang over.

      Now Barry Bonds has to lower the pitcher's mound, shoot up, and use mechanical assists to score as much as Babe.

      Put an asterisk next to Barry's name and move on.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Waffle Iron (339739)
        Maybe so, but Babe Ruth was probably hitting against pitchers who were also mostly whoring drinking fatsos, while Barry Bonds hits against his fellow steroid gobbling supermen. So it all evens out.
      • by rwyoder (759998)

        He made all his home runs, etc. while drinking and whoring, and looking like a fat pig. ... Now Barry Bonds has to lower the pitcher's mound, shoot up, and use mechanical assists to score as much as Babe.
        Which kind of "scoring"?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Butisol (994224)
      The phrase "I lost my toe while hunting for raccoons behind the trailer park" is also acceptable English. It just says something about the person who uses such a phrase.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by whereiswaldo (459052)
      It's rare that I can stand watching olympic sports. I mean, the difference between first and second can be a hundredth of a second! To me it's ridiculous sitting through events that are won and lost by insignificant amounts of time. An athlete could sneeze and lose that much time.

      Then you've got sports that measure style (diving, ice skating) and are just crying out to be biased. I won't even mention the scandals and corruption.

      I love that athletes put such devotion into their sport, but the whole olymp
  • Why stop 'em? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Wansu (846) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @10:07PM (#21760444)
    Why not create a "modified division" for those who take performance enhancing substances?

    • Re:Why stop 'em? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Opportunist (166417) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @10:14PM (#21760512)
      Because in some countries, the athlets wouldn't take them willingly. They're simply "convinced" that it's better for their health. Or that of their loved ones.
      • by rolfwind (528248)
        I wonder...

        I think you comment has a lot of merit.

        But if the motivation is to be the best, or for money, or for glory -- would the untainted divisions have the highest level of prestige and thus keep those oppressive countries honest (and make them push their athletes stay untainted)? Or will the general public not care after a point and vote with their dollars and watch the best overall despite drugs/no drugs?

        In a sport like boxing, I could see public apathy -- they want to see the biggest fighters beat u
    • by the_humeister (922869) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @10:34PM (#21760684)
      You mean like this??? [youtube.com]
    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      Why not create a "modified division" for those who take performance enhancing substances?

      How do you make ensure athletes are taking such substances in a "healthy" manner?
      What do you do to prevent abuse? Regulations? Blood testing? If you limit athletes to a "safe" dosage, you obviously will have those who try to take more to gain an edge.

      Banning performance enhancers is only partly about keeping the playing field level. A lot of it has to do with keeping the athletes healthy and safe. East Germany was very strong from the 60's (when steroids were first being used) through the 90's in the Olymp

      • by jamesh (87723)

        How do you make ensure athletes are taking such substances in a "healthy" manner?

        You don't.

        Not to mention that we have zero clue about the long term effects of all the designer performance enhancers that are being cooked up today.

        Well... this is one way of finding out.

        I think Red Dwarf touched on this idea. Soccer teams were starting to put on players who had obviously been genetically enhanced, so they booted them out into their own league, which buried normal Soccer in a year, and only ended when one of t

    • Just wait 'til we get real cyborgs, ala "The Six Million Dollar Man". There's a "modified" division for you.
    • The question is whether it would be popular.
      One of the attractions to sport is that fans have the illusion of relating to the athletes. If the athelete is so different that such relation cannot be established, the fan enjoyment will deminish.
    • by pla (258480)
      Why not create a "modified division" for those who take performance enhancing substances?

      Why bother? Pro sports, or the olympics, supposedly show us the peak of human performance. If it takes steroids or other drugs (did you know the IOC bans caffeine, so virtually all of us count as "users of banned substances" just to get through the workday?) to even rank, then let the trained monkeys take steroids!

      This whole mess reminds me of nothing more than the mock-furor over Janet's Boob, or Imus's nappy-he
  • Monitoring. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @10:07PM (#21760450) Homepage Journal
    GPS-style monitoring is just silly, there are many ways to continue doping in spite of being monitored in that fashion. It won't be effective unless the device could detect and monitor levels of dope in the bloodstream, in real time.

    • In Soviet Russia, performance enhancing drugs find you!!

      Tracking the athletes with GPS won't do diddly squat with couriers, and the post delivering them to their homes.

      "Performance enchancing drugs? When have I had the time to buy that, between the 8 hours of training I do a day in the gym and the 8 hours of ebaying I do at night!"
    • by iktos (166530)
      GPS monitoring is to be able to FIND them at all times, for tests. They're already supposed to be available for testing at any time, so this is to reduce the number of excuses when someone isn't where they were supposed to be.
      • by mpe (36238)
        GPS monitoring is to be able to FIND them at all times, for tests. They're already supposed to be available for testing at any time, so this is to reduce the number of excuses when someone isn't where they were supposed to be.

        What's the point, given that a missed drug test is considered a "fail"...
  • Things will change. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PHAEDRU5 (213667) <(instascreed) (at) (gmail.com)> on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @10:08PM (#21760458) Homepage
    A few years out we're going to be watching athletic events that *highlight* the mods. ("Fred Bloggs is using corpuscles engineered at Georgia Tech that guarantee his ability to sprint for 15 minutes without having to take a breath.")

    This whole bias against tech augmentation is getting me down. The sooner we embrace it, and the more we embrace it, the longer we'll live, and with higher quality of life.

    Hell, we ought to be giving awards to people who volunteer to test exotic human enhancement technologies right now.
    • by Tweekster (949766)
      Then why not just remove humans from it totally.
      • by PHAEDRU5 (213667)
        Kind of exactly my point.

        Olympic athletes are already waaaaaaaay outside the main flow of humanity; why not set them free, and then take advantage of what they generate?
    • by paleo2002 (1079697) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @10:53PM (#21760804)

      This brings up a number of new problems:

      1) Do we mix the cyborgs, mutants, and chemically-enhanced athletes together or have separate leagues?

      2) Will there be a "research capital cap"?

      3) If a player's arm lands in the stands, does someone get to keep it?

    • by novakyu (636495)
      Not to mention highly irregular. Athletics has got to be the only field where participants are heavily handicapped by what they can and what they can't do. Even if we ignore the anachronistic rules stipulating that Olympics participants not be professional athletes (which, to me, sounds like stipulating that Putnam competition participants not be mathematics majors), all this fascistic fetish over what athletes can consume and cannot has an unnatural feel to it.

      If we held every other field by the same rules
  • I wouldn't mind, so long as it was a temporary thing, and it had a few rules attached.

    -GPS and data are encrypted for no fussing.
    -All data is logged and downloaded via cable rather than transmitted.
    -the data couldn't be collected by any news agency and if it was collected by unapproved methods it cannot be used without paying the athlete 100k up front with no less than 2 days notice. Only 10k with 30 days notice.
    -Data would only be accessible only by key people on the olympic comittee and a few handpicked p
  • I've always figured professional sports should be like auto racing. Whereas they have separate stock car, modified and Formula 1 categories, the sports world should have separate substance-free and substance-allowed events.
  • really bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Raisey-raison (850922) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @10:17PM (#21760532)
    This is a really bad idea. This is where it starts - with Star athletes. Then people wonder about dangerous criminals (ie after they have completed their sentences). Then it moves to children (to keep them safe). Very soon it no longer is a 'choice'. You can't keep your job without it. And eventually it becomes mandated by law. When some private company knows where you are 24/7 it's certain that if the government wants to know, it will easily be able to find out (especially now due to the patriot act). Imagine - no more cops using radar to give out tickets. They can do it from a central computer.

    Then the chip might be able to monitor a bit more about you. What level of hormone x or y, diseases or how oxygenated your blood is. They could figure out your mood. What's next? Perhaps a feedback loop. If hormone x is too high get the chip to release an electric signal. You insurance company might drop you if they don't like your lifestyle as measured by the chip. Child custody dispute...go look at the data from the chip. Then I am betting some people who remove their chips be criminalized for doing so.

    Beyond or the legal uses will be the illegal ones. People hacking into the database to plan the perfect robbery or the perfect blackmailing.. Or the FBI abusing its powers to snoop anyway.

    The worst part about it is that it is so unnecessary. Some athletes do drugs. Big deal. They are hurting themselves. Perhaps hurting professional sports. Are we going to sacrifice personal liberty to ensure the integrity of professional sports. And please don't give me 'its for the children'. If we followed that excuse every time we would end up with a police state and no freedom.
    • There is no need to go all tinfoil hat regarding implants, just go with real news that suggests there may be a cancer issue.

      "Earlier this month, it was reported that some lab animals implanted with chips developed cancer and sarcoma. Other possible adverse effects include tissue reactions, migration of the implanted chip, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) incompatibility, electrical hazards, infection and even compromised information security."
      http://www.news-medical.net/?id=30061 [news-medical.net]
    • by TeraCo (410407)
      "This is where it starts"??? Has there -ever- been a case where something like this has started in the past with elite atheletes?
      • by DeadChobi (740395)
        No, but only because we have not had the technology to track people 24/7 with implants in the past.
    • This is where it starts - with Star athletes.
      ... in every tin-foil hat, slippery slope fantasy I could come up with, not one of them started there.
    • by ayjay29 (144994)
      >>Very soon it no longer is a 'choice'. You can't keep your job without it.

      How soon is now [slashdot.org]?

  • How long do you think it will take for the media to learn how to get that data? Do you really want to read in the next sports news how your training plan looks like, down to the question how often and for how long you sit on the pot, and how many times you had sex last night (and with how many partners)?
  • who came to the games with another country's team.

    that'll take care of alerting if the athlete dopes up.
  • Getting results now is a higher priority over the medical consequences later. Owners and agents will pump athletes full of god knows what and how much just to make a buck.


    If the athletes and the athlete's union want to cover 100% of those consequences then so be it, but I should not have to pay for Barry Bond's liver problems caused by steroid abuse.

    • by NEOtaku17 (679902)
      You don't have to pay for Bonds' liver. He will pay for it with his health insurance. Unless of course socialized medicine advocates get their way. Then you will pay for athlete's liver problems and my vegan neighbor will pay for Micheal Moore's heart problems. That's fair, right?
  • Seeing how much you can damage your liver through competitive drug use?

    [posting from my new OLPC! Woohoo!]
  • by Animats (122034) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @10:32PM (#21760680) Homepage

    We can't actually build a small implantable GPS yet. Passive RFID tags, yes; GPS receiver with uplink, no.

    Well, in theory you could build a pacemaker-sized device powered by a nuclear battery [orau.org], but that would take major surgery to install, and approval from the FDA and DOE.

  • Why not keep them locked in their training camps between events and transport them to and from the shows^H^H^H^H^Hcompetitions under armed guard?
  • Is it worth it? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kissaki (1205692)
    The question a human being needs to ask is whether the glory and rewards of competing fairly in a sport is worth the special treatment as a caged animal. You could argue that even now professional athletes are not owners of themselves and their image, but this would seal the deal wouldn't it?
  • What is this "Sports" thing I keep hearing about? Is it some new FPS?
  • So, athletes will be supervised via GPS to see whether they go to a steroids lab or not. Big deal: athletes will not go to the labs to get the cream or the clear any longer, but they will now get doped from the comfort of their own homes. The GPS transmitter won't know whether they are watching TV or watching a needle being stuck into their arm...
  • by Arrogant-Bastard (141720) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @11:31PM (#21761060)

    Obvious point first: knowing where someone is doesn't tell you what they're doing. They could be watching TV in their basement, or they could be watching TV while getting a blood transfusion. And so on. (And the training bags? Easy enough to have someone else transport them around while the owner is elsewhere.)

    And using such a technique could open up vulnerabilities, as in "Hmmm.... Johann is not in his assigned room in the team dorm at the Pan-Am Games, so this would be a good time to plant the syringes there." I'm sure some creative thought will reveal other possibilities.

    More generally though -- and I speak as someone who's competed at the national level and served on my sport's national board of directors -- everyone (including the IOC) knows that there's no way to stop anyone from doping if they're sufficiently careful and sufficiently clever. The tests just can't keep up with newly-developed methods, and the boundaries between legitimate medications (e.g., anti-sting kits for those who risk anaphylactic shock if stung by an insect) and performance-enhancing drugs are often blurred.

    The best clues are often available to coaches and other team staff, who have detailed performance data on all athletes and should be able to spot anomalies. However, they don't have much motivation to share these observations -- with anyone. Which is why one of the things that needs to happen is that the governing bodies for each sport need to emphasize doping detection by coaches as much (or possibly more) as they do results production...and that means "put it in their contracts".

    And those of us who watch sports need to do something as well: we need to lose our winning-is-everything, second-place-means-losing mentality. (That includes the media, by the way.) That attitude fuels a number of unpleasant trends in sports, not just doping. We need to keep in mind that the reason athletes go to events like the Olympics is not to win -- but to participate. When we show the same respect and admiration for the effort of the last-place finisher in the 10K, or the basketball team that loses by 50, or the skier who falls, as we do for the gold medal winners, then we'll have done our part to remove part of the motivation/temptation that drives doping.

  • by binarybum (468664) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @11:46PM (#21761188) Homepage
    i don't care what anybody says. I think this is the most best idea ever, and I can't think of anything wrong with this idea at all and it will work perfectly and no sportspeople will ever use drugs everagain and BarryBonds will never hit another homerun for the baseball team. And I will be able to login to a website - probably www.wherearetheathletes.com (and you bet it will be dot com and not dot org because only the gay people use dot org and it is not okay to put gps in them.... yet) and watch where all of my favorite squashball players are not buying drugs superimposed on google (tm, evilcorp dot com) maps!!
      Pedro! where the fuck are you?! come refill my crack-pipe!
  • Libertarians Beware (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @11:47PM (#21761190) Journal
    These people are free to choose to restrict their own freedoms. If they want to do this, who are we to try to stop them?
    • by bint (125997)
      But they are free to implant a GPS chip* in themselves if they want to. However, I think they want *other* athletes to have them implanted too.

      * = well, I doubt it'd work at all.
  • No, these athletes may be fast and strong, but they're not that smart. We don't need Big Brother stopping every athlete from doing drugs, or anything else unscheduled. What we need is an Extra Special Olympics, with mandatory drug tests to qualify for admission. To pass, the tests must come up positive.

    Drugs, hormones, electroshock, implants/transplants/bionics. Death row inmates offered freedom for victory, so long as they've got artificial enhancements.

    That league will have the highest scores, the most ex
    • In a nutshell, that's what my sister said when she was 5 years old ;)

      Enter in the "Drug Olympics". No holds barred.
    • And this would actually have a similar impact to medicine as formula 1 has had for car safety. Drugs would lead to ways to maximize human strength without killing them. Bones would be replaced with titanium/nanomaterials to avoid breaking all the time. Eventually, even the mentality of the athletes would be modified to keep their confidence and mental activity at maximum during events and training.

      This in turn would lead to more fulfilling lives for elderly who are weak, people with a whole range of disease
  • i also support implantable rfid to combat global warming (how does that work?)

    and i support artificial breast implants to combat third world hunger (how does that work?)

    how the HELL does GPS, nevermind implantable, combat drug use in sports?

    i think the particular athletes who came up with this lame brain idea should do more running and weight lifting and less thinking, it doesn't suit them
  • by coaxial (28297) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @03:14AM (#21762200) Homepage
    The athletes don't have to go the drug dealers. The drug dealers can make house calls.
  • I mean, when the athletes are competing they're probably to be found on the court/track whatever, right?

    When they're not competing, they're either preparing/training or taking some time off. If they're doing stuff (drugs) during that time that affects their performance, it has to be tracable during the following event if it has any effect. Otherwise we have to ban milk during childhood because it helps build stronger bones which will benefit athletic performance later in life - and so on. Completely stupid.
  • For chuff's sake, you're solving the wrong problem already!

    First, accept that there are always going to be some athletes who take drugs. Only then can you deal with it properly.

    I suggest splitting the competition. Create an athlete's championship and a pharmacist's championship (as in Formula One, where there are separate prizes for the drivers and constructors). Then either do some sort of handicapping, or simply have separate drugged and non-drugged events.
  • by Jeppe Salvesen (101622) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @05:38AM (#21762798)
    There is so much money in professional sports that there is an inherent incentive to use sophisticated performance-enhancing drugs that non-professional competitors would not be able to afford. After all, if someone is not doping themselves, they will have a huge disadvantage and will therefore not attract sponsor money. They might not even make it into professional sports due to lacking performance.

    The solution is simple: Kill professional sports, or allow doping. Since doping is harmful to the athletes on the long term, we should kill professional sports.

    Disclaimer: I think professional sports is a travesty. Grow the hell up, nobody should make their livelihood doing unproductive play. (No, standup comedians do not fall under this category, neither to artists. The arts as a whole contribute positively to society, while watching sports is empty entertainment)

"'Tis true, 'tis pity, and pity 'tis 'tis true." -- Poloniouius, in Willie the Shake's _Hamlet, Prince of Darkness_

Working...