This is a question I’ve long pondered, and came to mind again with the thread about the neutered man taking some sort of women’s cycling championship.

I take a drug to compensate for what my thyroid should be doing but isn’t. I don’t know whether my medication would disqualify me from competing in the Olympics, but if it didn’t, someone could legitimately complain that it enhanced my performance over what it would be without the medication. Many people with severe diabetes take drugs to compensate for their bodies’ malfunctions, and there are countless other examples that could be cited.

On a more mundane level, and just as we humans have been genetically modifying our food for thousands of years before Monsanto, what complaint would be made if I found that eating Snickers® bars increased my strength and endurance? Would a test for Snickers metabolites be developed and mandated for Olympians?

Unlike having one’s penis removed to not shock the women in the aquatic center changing room, “performance-enhancing” drugs hold the promise of potentially doing just that: enhancing human performance. And why would that be a bad thing? We know of course that many such chemicals are potentially dangerous, but so? No one (well, except, perhaps, the governments of the UK and New York) keeps us from subsisting on sweet tea, pepperoni-lovers’ pizza with extra cheese, and cigarettes, so how can we justify banning performance enhancers on health grounds?

Well, we say: “The records would be meaningless.” Again, so? Why are athletic records so important as compared with the possibility of discovering a safe drug that would improve the performance of soldiers in combat? If everything is banned, that’s not going to happen unless we hazard volunteers (and not-so-volunteers; remember anthrax vaccine?) by testing it on them. Wouldn’t it be better to just let the people who believe it’s a good idea do it to themselves? As for the records, and to cite merely one example, Jim Thorpe was stripped of his Olympic medals because he played minor league baseball, something that would not be a disqualifier now—and was reportedly a common evasion of the rules even then. Records have been affected by just such things as minor equipment advancements. But to reiterate, wouldn’t the possibility of discovering supplements that improve human performance be worth the need to put some asterisks in the old records?

As I say, I’ve thought about this a long time and I’m interested in comments. Keep in mind, though, I won’t be impressed by the “records” argument, and not necessarily by the “it’s dangerous” argument. The latter could be valid (IMO), but only if it goes beyond the effect on the individual athlete (unless, of course, it turns him into a mass murderer).

He's pulled his arms off.........

Many of us of a certain age were brought up to believe in “playing by the rules.” The rules were published in advance so everyone had a chance to be informed.

These rules covered nearly everything and were often gradually added to, to cover situations not plainly covered previously. Often these rules were for uniformity, or arose from notions of fair play, hopefully to give everyone a chance to win.

No matter what the rules were, there were folks who didn’t want to be limited by these rules, or felt they were entitled to an exemption especially if they were prominent players. Pete Rose in baseball, Lance Armstrong in bicycle racing,to name a couple.

Do we want to know whether Jim can beat Bob or if Jim has a better chemist than Bob?

Think of taking drugs as similar to being able to put jet engines on your bicycle in competition.

The spirit of competition is to be the strongest, fastest, etc by natural means.

Doping is not natural. Your diet is natural. Working out is natural. There are ways to increase your body potential and performance naturally. Doping is not one of them. You are using something man-made in your body to increase performance. Like jet engines on a bike.

Here's another look at it. Look at Nascar. What wins a race? The performance of the car in large part. And what is that based on? The design, parts, ingenuity of the crew etc. In other words, the competition is a lot about how you get a car to perform. It's not only about the performance. It's about how you get there. You need to work within the parameters of what a car is. You couldn't put a jet engine on the car to use my previous example. Or there are rules around the size of the cylinders, and the engine needs to be V8 I think. Why? Because you are not allowed to enhance the performing instrument, for lack of a better term, unnaturally. A car is a car - not a jet plane on the ground.

In my opinion, competitive sports at the professional/Olympic level should have zero tolerance for PEDs. Most athletes at these levels have a huge opportunity to make a ton of money from either contracts or endorsements. As such, each athlete should have to succeed solely as a result of their natural talent, not who can cheat the best.

I see it as opposite, at least for professional sports. The athetes are putting on a show. Juiced up, they put on a better show.

As far as the olympics, run it like a shooting tournament, have limited and unlimited classes. Limited is au natural. Unlimited, they can take anything they want.

quote:

Originally posted by Spiff_P239:
In my opinion, competitive sports at the professional/Olympic level should have zero tolerance for PEDs. Most athletes at these levels have a huge opportunity to make a ton of money from either contracts or endorsements. As such, each athlete should have to succeed solely as a result of their natural talent, not who can cheat the best.

Cheating is cheating. Pure and simple.

Money trumps everything now a days though.

The cheaters are always a step or two ahead it seems.

This has been a huge topic in the archery community as of late. Bob Eyler, this year's Las Vegas Champion was stripped of his title, forced to payback prize money and forced to pay back some endorsement money as well. Why? He tested positive for a beta blocker and THC. He then gave conflicting statements over the course of the investigation and the appeal.

Yes, beta blockers are considered a performance enhancing drug. They can lower one's heart rate which in archery can be an advantage. And well, weed is still illegal by most athletic governing bodies.

Here's the thing, the rules are set in an attempt to have an even playing field. They're printed, everyone has access to them and everyone must sign a waiver before competing stating that they have read the rules. In my mind taking a performance enhancing drug is no different than standing 5 yards closer to the target, it's an attempt to gain an unfair advantage.

There's a list of what they test for, what is allowed and what is banned. An athlete can apply for a TUE, temporary use exemption for medications that they are prescribed by a doctor. They submit their application and the governing board either approves it, disapproves it or may suggest that a different type of medication be prescribed. In Bob Eyler's case, if he was aware of the rules, he could have applied for a TUE for hs beta blocker and benign the clear for that. The weed, well, he'd still be busted.

Some of the kids that I have coached have gone through the TUE process for their prescribed medications. So far it has not been a big deal. But yes, even kids at a National or World event in archery are subject to random drug testing. So my 13 year old daughter could be asked to pee in a cup at Vegas or any other national tournament. As far as I know, at least in the US they have not tested below the 15 year old age group, but in theory it could happen.

So I'm very much in favor of drug screening of athletes. My daughter competes at a national level and there should be an equal opportunity at success for all. I'm not willing to put my daughter's health in danger in the hopes that she might pick up a couple of extra points and a win. Unfortunately, not all parents feel the same way.

Regarding doping or using performance enhancing drugs in competition - I watch sports and competition to see people do exceptionally well, not unnaturally so.

Plenty of it going on.

I’d imagine if it was encouraged, it’d set a bad example for young athletes who’d want to get the stuff (a good amount do now).

There’s some crazy shit out there, and promoting the use of something that is dangerous probably isn’t good.

Also, steroids can be addictive. Once you feel or see the effects, you want more and to have it all the time.

People with a competitive mindset will do whatever it takes to win, even if it means future health issues.

Besides the cheating aspect, they are used at levels that can cause severe long term health problems.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
I see it as opposite, at least for professional sports. The athetes are putting on a show. Juiced up, they put on a better show.

LOL. Let’s level the playing field. Every player in MLB the NFL get a shot of T in one cheek and a shot of Deca in the other once a week.

The Olympics? China and Russia have always cheated and still do.

I say not in a million years. It will cause kids who want to be pros or top tier athletes to dope.

99.9% of these kids have 0 chance of becoming the athlete they dream about so you are essentially encouraging them to poison themselves.


That's an extremely bad idea.

quote:

Originally posted by Timdogg6:
I say not in a million years. It will cause kids who want to be pros or top tier athletes to dope.

99.9% of these kids have 0 chance of becoming the athlete they dream about so you are essentially encouraging them to poison themselves.


That's an extremely bad idea.

Totally agree.

Not only that but at some point you will have clean athletes competing against juiced to the gills athletes.

Another point is that most of these drugs are illegal. No one is being prescribed Deca or the like for a “condition”.

quote:

Originally posted by Timdogg6:
...so you are essentially encouraging them to poison themselves.

PEDs are prescription/OTC drugs that are listed on the banned roster of the respective ametuer and professional sporting organizations.

Most “PEDs” are administered by health care providers to keep people healthy.

Many drugs can be toxic when taken in excessive doses.

To say PEDs are poisonous is disingenuous.

Well then, I’m gonna take a shit ton of PEDS to make sure I win and gain the fame and glory I crave!

Now where’s my wheel barrel? I need to go to the PED store for some hormones and amphetamines.

I see two points here. First, the rules are there for a reason and participating in the game should mean following the letter and spirit of the rules. I think being part of society has the same tacit agreement. A social contract that implies polite interaction in social settings; behavior that puts everyone's needs ahead of one's own.

Second, to the OP's point, if doping were to be allowed then why not? I agree with the "pro" crowd here. Allow doping to any extent athletes are willing to go. All legal drugs and supplements are "fair game". If I watched pro football I'd be 100% for a 6'8" 320 pound dude who could run a 3.8 second 40 yard dash. Yes, the down side would be catastrophic, youth sports would likely be more tainted than ever and children (up to college age) would feel the pressure to improve their bodies exponentially. But to the average fan of sports the entertainment value would be worth it, no?

Are you not entertained!?

quote:

Originally posted by 1s1k:
Another point is that most of these drugs are illegal. No one is being prescribed Deca or the like for a “condition”.

Deca is widely available throughout the world as an Rx or OTC. It was Rx only in the US until 2002/3 and had many theraputic uses including burns, HIV, chronic infections, etc. Too many uses to list here.

When it was removed from the US market and replaced with oxandrolone, aka Anavar, it was only produced by a couple of pharmaceuticals. You know why it was withdrawn from the US market? Deca is approximately $10 per dose. When it was replaced by oxandrolone the monthly cost rose to $700-800 per month. That’s right. Fuck the patient and fuck the insurance company. The cost has come down a bit but the point is obvious. If you have a good reason to need injectable Deca it might be prescribed through a compounding lab. The oxandrolone is a daily oral - less preferable to an occasional injectable.

Interestingly, Deca is marketed in some countries as an anabolic steroid and in other countries simply as an OTC steroidal anti-inflammatory.

As far as PEDs being illegal, almost all are legitimate prescription or OTC drugs. Most sanctioning bodies list their banned substances online. There is a SIGforum archery thread going on at this moment. Beta blockers such as Topral were mentioned as a banned substance for archery competition. It’s also listed as a banned substance by shooting sanctioning bodies. I wonder how many here are competing while using a beta-blocker to treat their high blood pressure?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: PD,

A lot of overlapping and related concepts going on here.

"Pro Sports competition" is a business and an entertainment. People don't want their kids dying from EPO or steroid-related disease, and so they won't allow their kids to idolize or participate unless it is a "clean" sport, generally. But then there are always cheaters and those who push the rules.

Maybe there should be a "drugs-OK" version of pro sports, and when the top athletes die at age 30, we just consider it "an extra sacrifice". But the general attitude of society is against that.

Nothing going on in "sports" prevents "medical science" from developing bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, humans. In fact, all that seems to be going on in parallel. The results just aren't allowed in "athletic competition".

"Theraputic Use Exemptions" are already allowed for people who can prove that they are just correcting themselves back to "normal" from a disease. Most of those are not actually "performance enhancing" drugs, except insofar as your performance would be degraded without it (asthma drugs are the best example). But even that is controversial, and with gray areas.

Bottom line is that a myriad of considerations influence what is allowed in "sports competition". There is not a single pure ideology. They set the rules, and then people do the best they can, which often involves "pushing the boundary".