NationStates Jolt Archive

Article here (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11848309)

In the article, the Economist makes the case that fairness in sports is somewhat relative, and proposes that perhaps we need to focus on safety when we make anti-doping laws instead of "fairness".

They cite the continued drop in world record times as an example that today's athletes have gotten boosts from new breakthroughs training and other methods that have increased their performance.

With all due respect to the Economist I disagree. Doping creates an un-level playing field and therefore must be banned. For centuries, sports have been a combination of hard work, sacrifice and quite a bit of luck. It is luck that has allowed Eero Mantyranta to create more EPO than the rest of his competitors, and if his competitors took it into their own hands to take that advantage away from Mantyranta through any means other than sweat and sacrifice, they are cheating.

We admire athletes because they can do things that the normal human could never hope to do. If gene and drug doping were to be allowed, what would be the difference between us and them? They stuck a needle in their butt. Call me an idealist but that is not sportsmanship, no way, no how.

Wouldn't taking luck out of the equation (luck such as the genes you happen to get from your parents) make sports more fair? That way people at least start with the same chances, and the rest is hard work and sacrifice.

Wouldn't taking luck out of the equation (luck such as the genes you happen to get from your parents) make sports more fair? That way people at least start with the same chances, and the rest is hard work and sacrifice.

So your idea of sport is to make cloned sportspeople?

I'm looking forward to illegal cybernetics. :)

Wouldn't taking luck out of the equation (luck such as the genes you happen to get from your parents) make sports more fair? That way people at least start with the same chances, and the rest is hard work and sacrifice.

So how would we decide what is luck and what is hard work? Should we set a speed limit on fastballs in baseball so that everyone is equal? At the elite level, nothing is achieved by luck alone, but nothing is achieved without a little bit of luck. There is no way to take it out and still remain fair, the two are inseperable.

We admire athletes because they can do things that the normal human could never hope to do.

A normal human can never work as hard and sacrifice as much as an athlete? SO they're from the moon or something?

A normal human can never work as hard and sacrifice as much as an athlete? SO they're from the moon or something?

A normal human can never hope to break the four minute barrier in the mile, or break a world record, throw a ninety nine mile-per-hour fastball or anything else that elite athletes can do. That is why we admire them.

A normal human can never hope to break the four minute barrier in the mile, or break a world record, throw a ninety nine mile-per-hour fastball or anything else that elite athletes can do. That is why we admire them.

So, normal humans can never do as much work and all that as the people who do these things? I could devote the rest of my life to training, but I wouldn't be able to reach the level of fitness and ability as an elite athlete for some reason?

Only doping isn't going to help anyone - hard work is still required to get up to par.

As such, and given the omnipresence of it (Be it the Tour de France or Olympic gold medals switching ownership years after the event), illegalising it is silly - one could, and should just render doping legal - if everyone has it, the difference once more comes down to that little bit of extra effort (Training).

Well, or life-threatening injections. But that's the territory of natural selection.

The commercial results would be positive, too - just imagine the adds the relevant industries can run, not to mention the sponsorship possibilities :)

For centuries, sports have been a combination of hard work, sacrifice and quite a bit of luck.

For centuries, athletes have tried anything and everything to give them the edge over the competition, today the science of performance enhancement is just a bit more advanced than centuries ago. I mean, isn't having better training equipment available than the others also a dubious way of gaining the advantage?

There's nothing fair about sports, because the whole purpose of competing in sports is trying to win, trying to beat the others, so there will always be an incentive to find the boundaries of what is acceptable, and to cross them.

So, normal humans can never do as much work and all that as the people who do these things? I could devote the rest of my life to training, but I wouldn't be able to reach the level of fitness and ability as an elite athlete for some reason?

Exactly.

Only doping isn't going to help anyone - hard work is still required to get up to par.

As such, and given the omnipresence of it (Be it the Tour de France or Olympic gold medals switching ownership years after the event), illegalising it is silly - one could, and should just render doping legal - if everyone has it, the difference once more comes down to that little bit of extra effort (Training).

Well, or life-threatening injections. But that's the territory of natural selection.

The commercial results would be positive, too - just imagine the adds the relevant industries can run, not to mention the sponsorship possibilities :)

Some would say that there is a responsibility of the sport to protect the athletes, and by extension, children who aspire to play sports from having to dope in order to have a chance.

Exactly.

That's ridiculous. How are they different from me? Why can't I do the same work and get the same benefits from it?

Only doping isn't going to help anyone - hard work is still required to get up to par.

I have no arguments against this.

As such, and given the omnipresence of it (Be it the Tour de France or Olympic gold medals switching ownership years after the event), illegalising it is silly - one could, and should just render doping legal - if everyone has it, the difference once more comes down to that little bit of extra effort (Training).

I have never understood the argument that because it is widespread we should legalize it. Murder is widespread in Iraq, does that mean that they should legalize it?

The commercial results would be positive, too - just imagine the adds the relevant industries can run, not to mention the sponsorship possibilities :)

Just imagine how the general public would react to a MLB that embraced the Barry Bonds, Jose Cansecos and Mark McGwires of the sport, they would turn on it in droves, because no one wants to see artificial numbers and inflated stats and biceps.

For centuries, athletes have tried anything and everything to give them the edge over the competition, today the science of performance enhancement is just a bit more advanced than centuries ago. I mean, isn't having better training equipment available than the others also a dubious way of gaining the advantage?

The advantage given by doping is not comparable to better training equipment, if it were, the Kenyans would never win a single marathon, because they have absolutely NO training equipment. Sure, better technology can help an athlete gain a small advantage against their competition, but that advantage gained is minute compared to that gained by doping.

There's nothing fair about sports, because the whole purpose of competing in sports is trying to win, trying to beat the others, so there will always be an incentive to find the boundaries of what is acceptable, and to cross them.

The entire concept of sport is to beat your opponent on a fair level field of competition, to see who is the better athlete at the most fundamental level, if you eliminate fairness, sports becomes nothing more than semi-reality TV.

So your idea of sport is to make cloned sportspeople?If sports is supposed to be fair.
Or well, at least someone should be able to choose what physical (and perhaps mental) features they want as a base. There may be tradeoffs, where things can be an advantage or disadvantage in different situations (like bicycling in mountainous terrain vs flat terrain). There may very well still be differences; it's just that they'd be chosen, rather than merely the result of chance.

Not, mind you, that if such a change were possible and implemented it would change the fact I don't care for sports.

That's ridiculous. How are they different from me? Why can't I do the same work and get the same benefits from it?

Coz you're lazy? :p

Coz you're lazy? :p

Well there is that.

Well there is that.

petition the Olympic honchos to make laziness a sport

Let 'em dope all they want, and let Pfizer, Merck, BASF & Co. do the sponsoring. At least we'll find out who knows how to make drugs that actually work...

petition the Olympic honchos to make laziness a sport
I should, but it's too much effort.

I should, but it's too much effort.

damn, rock and a hard place i guess.

get Gravlen to do it, put his lawyering to good use

The entire concept of sport is to beat your opponent on a fair level field of competition, to see who is the better athlete at the most fundamental level, if you eliminate fairness, sports becomes nothing more than semi-reality TV.

That may be the idealistic concept, but alas, reality doesn't always follow concepts...

damn, rock and a hard place i guess.

get Gravlen to do it, put his lawyering to good use

You get him to do it.

You get him to do it.

as if i'm any less lazy :p


we'll wait for him to read this thread then, he'll take up the cause. plan is flawless!

Sweet.

Iirc correctly training used to be looked down upon (though not banned) as it was supposed to be an athletes natural fitness that was tested.

I want to find out who the person who is best at running is, not the person who has the best personal pharmacy.

I think people caught should be banned for much longer. Like twelve years. Or life. Doping puts all those who wish to compete with integrity at a disadvantage. It's cheating, plain and simple.

I want to find out who the person who is best at running is, not the person who has the best personal pharmacy.

I think people caught should be banned for much longer. Like twelve years. Or life. Doping puts all those who wish to compete with integrity at a disadvantage. It's cheating, plain and simple.

Where does doping start? Does a specialised diet count as doping, how about a training routine that promotes the natural production of testosterone?

It is very difficult to draw such a clear line between pharmaceutically enhanced performance and 'naturally' enhanced performance.

The only way to eliminate this would be to prevent anyone from doing any form of training whatsoever. Not a very glamorous result.

Where does doping start? Does a specialised diet count as doping, how about a training routine that promotes the natural production of testosterone?

It is very difficult to draw such a clear line between pharmaceutically enhanced performance and 'naturally' enhanced performance.


No it's not. You just said it yourself.

There's a hell of a big difference between eating a healthy diet for, say, a runner, and exercising and practicing, vs. taking steroids.

No it's not. You just said it yourself.

There's a hell of a big difference between eating a healthy diet for, say, a runner, and exercising and practicing, vs. taking steroids.

I didn't say any such thing - go back and reread my last post. There isn't, an enormous difference unless the doping is done to extreme levels.

Not in biochemical terms, nor in effect on the body.

One method, the natural one, demands much greater determination to obtain the results, the other just a willingness to bend the rules and suffer what side effects may occur from the introduction of chemicals that the body is not prepared for.

Distinguishing between the results of obsessive training and diet and those of normal training, diet and a touch of biochemistry is, as far as I am aware, impossible after a week or so.

So how do you decide?

No it's not. You just said it yourself.

There's a hell of a big difference between eating a healthy diet for, say, a runner, and exercising and practicing, vs. taking steroids.

Protein is a substance naturally found within the body, as is testosterone. We allow supplements of one but not the other.

I didn't say any such thing - go back and reread my last post. There isn't, an enormous difference unless the doping is done to extreme levels.

Not in biochemical terms, nor in effect on the body.

One method, the natural one, demands much greater determination to obtain the results, the other just a willingness to bend the rules and suffer what side effects may occur from the introduction of chemicals that the body is not prepared for.

Distinguishing between the results of obsessive training and diet and those of normal training, diet and a touch of biochemistry is, as far as I am aware, impossible after a week or so.

So how do you decide?

So you're saying that doping allows people to be lazier? Why should that be okay?

I thought it was a given that you had to work your ass off to be in the Olympics. Why should we allow those who want to compete fairly at an unnatural disadvantage because some cheaters want to take the easy route?

Protein is a substance naturally found within the body, as is testosterone. We allow supplements of one but not the other.

One is a hormone. The other is not.

So you're saying that doping allows people to be lazier? Why should that be okay?

I thought it was a given that you had to work your ass off to be in the Olympics. Why should we allow those who want to compete fairly at an unnatural disadvantage because some cheaters want to take the easy route?

I'm not saying it is OK. I am asking you how you determine when doping starts. What is it that defines some activity as being doping?

Is it artificially increasing the level of some biochemical in your system? If so, what does the term 'artificially' cover? If I eat some specific diet, no injections, nothing other than normal, if maybe exotic, food and this has the effect of increasing the levels of certain hormones - is this artificially increasing the level? After all I would not have been eating that diet were it not for it having this effect.

I'm not saying it is OK. I am asking you how you determine when doping starts. What is it that defines some activity as being doping?

Is it artificially increasing the level of some biochemical in your system? If so, what does the term 'artificially' cover? If I eat some specific diet, no injections, nothing other than normal, if maybe exotic, food and this has the effect of increasing the levels of certain hormones - is this artificially increasing the level? After all I would not have been eating that diet were it not for it having this effect.

I'd say something created in a lab is doping. Eating some food, that had beneficial properties, not so much. I'm obviously not an expert on nutrition or the various properties of different kinds of foods, especially exotic ones, but it seems like stuff you get just from what you had for dinner isn't really unfair. I am aware, however, that you could just be preparing a debate trap for me by having an extreme example of some sort of food that makes people generate massive levels of testosterone or some such. Hence my vague and moderate language here.

I'd say something created in a lab is doping. Eating some food, that had beneficial properties, not so much. I'm obviously not an expert on nutrition or the various properties of different kinds of foods, especially exotic ones, but it seems like stuff you get just from what you had for dinner isn't really unfair. I am aware, however, that you could just be preparing a debate trap for me by having an extreme example of some sort of food that makes people generate massive levels of testosterone or some such. Hence my vague and moderate language here.

No. No trap.

OK, so you are clear that enhancement through the use of chemicals produced in human laboratories is cheating.

The difficulty is in detecting when this is the case. Levels of hormones vary from person to person, and even vary dramatically over time within the same individual. Hormones are essentially the chemicals of concern here. As far as I am aware there is no way of distinguishing between naturally produced hormones and artificially introduced ones. Chemically they are identical.

How then do you punish the cheaters without punishing those that just happen, by chance, to have higher levels of these chemical naturally present in their system.

No. No trap.

OK, so you are clear that enhancement through the use of chemicals produced in human laboratories is cheating.

The difficulty is in detecting when this is the case. Levels of hormones vary from person to person, and even vary dramatically over time within the same individual. Hormones are essentially the chemicals of concern here. As far as I am aware there is no way of distinguishing between naturally produced hormones and artificially introduced ones. Chemically they are identical.

How then do you punish the cheaters without punishing those that just happen, by chance, to have higher levels of these chemical naturally present in their system.

If I had a better chemistry/biology background, perhaps I could think of a way. But I'm merely a music major (though working on an Earth Sciences minor), so I don't know. I wish I did, but to be honest, the level of organic chemistry needed for devising a way to test for artificially produced chemicals as opposed to naturally produced ones is beyond me.

I don't care about the health effects of doping. The main issue I have is that it's unfair to those who want to compete without doping. It turns it from a competition between athletes to a battle of illicit pharmacists.