legalise doping in sports

[DeletedUser22]

I am a great cycling fan and enjoy watching the Tour de Frnace that is going on right now. One of the downsides is the ongoing hunt for players who ahve used doping.
Every year, just when the Tour is happening, a former cyclist or a former winner gets accused for using doping. This time it is Lance Armostrong again. Rumours were spread that 5 of his fomer team mates (who are currently all participating in the TdF) would have testified to the USADA against Armstrong . In exchange they would get 6 months of suspension instead of 2 years. Furthermore, the suspension will only be effective in September (just after the TdF and the Olymics).

I am affraid this will continue forever. Athletes find a kind of doping that can't be traced, a few yeasr later methods to trace it are developped and they get caught on old blood and urine samples. But it doesn't matter the new athletes since they are already using a new kind of doping.

Would it be better to give free the sport? Allow all players to use doping.

Now I know some of you would react that some of the athletes will kill themselves and it is to dangerous. Let me give an example. Riis (winner of the tour of 1996) used so much blood doping (epo) to get more red bloodcells (they transport oxygen to the muscles, making them perform better). His blood was so thick, they had to wake him up twice a night just to keep his heart going. So it is dangerous when used with or without it being legal. That is why i would suggest that the checks the athletes get for using doping should be replaced with health checks.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'd imagine doping is illegal because it gives performance enhancement. If you legalize that, then that becomes the new standard: you have to dope in order to be a contender for the sport. And obviously that's not anywhere near fair.

 

[DeletedUser22]

Why wouldn't it be fair? The current situation isn't fair. Some of them are cheating by using doping to enhance their performance while others follow the rules. If you legalise doping, everyone is free to use it (own choice) and it becomes even more fair. Because atleast then nobody has an illegal advantage.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well first off, let's step back and think about what it takes to become an athlete: skill/ability. Doubt anyone disagrees it takes skill/ability to be a professional athlete. By legalizing doping, you pretty much add it to the list of requirements an athlete needs in order to succeed. So the new definition of an athlete, at least for cycling, would be skill/ability plus enhancing drugs or methods. Doesn't matter if it's for some people or across the board, that really isn't how athletes should be viewed, should they? Instead of being natural, you'd like them to be engineered to be the best?

As for the current situation, of course it isn't fair. But that's just how it is. The system of detection is flawed and needs to be constantly updated and developed to catch those who know how to cheat the system. A better solution might be to confiscate the Tour de France award, medal, or trophy (I don't watch cycling) in the event of finding out at any point that doping was used. As you mentioned, blood samples are kept and checked even years later to see if anything was there. Why not do that for all winners and top competitors to ensure that no one is cheating? That seems to be a more logical and sound solution than to pretty much require cyclists to dope in order to do well.

 

[DeletedUser3]

Hmm, how about banning competitive sports?

 

[DeletedUser22]

Well first off, let's step back and think about what it takes to become an athlete: skill/ability. Doubt anyone disagrees it takes skill/ability to be a professional athlete. By legalizing doping, you pretty much add it to the list of requirements an athlete needs in order to succeed. So the new definition of an athlete, at least for cycling, would be skill/ability plus enhancing drugs or methods. Doesn't matter if it's for some people or across the board, that really isn't how athletes should be viewed, should they? Instead of being natural, you'd like them to be engineered to be the best?

What does that change to the excitement of the match? You can't make a race horse from a donkey. The individual skills and talents always need to be there. This just levels the playing field.

As for the current situation, of course it isn't fair. But that's just how it is. The system of detection is flawed and needs to be constantly updated and developed to catch those who know how to cheat the system.

So you would rather watch a sport in which you don't know if it is a fair game or not instead of knowing that the options are available to all in the field?

A better solution might be to confiscate the Tour de France award, medal, or trophy (I don't watch cycling) in the event of finding out at any point that doping was used. As you mentioned, blood samples are kept and checked even years later to see if anything was there. Why not do that for all winners and top competitors to ensure that no one is cheating? That seems to be a more logical and sound solution than to pretty much require cyclists to dope in order to do well.

This already happens. The 2009 and 2010 winner Alberto Contador had to give back the titles due to 50 picograms of clenbotarol (which is still doubtfull to be from acutal doping or through eating contaminated meat).

 

[DeletedUser]

This is just....ugh! Lol sorry but I seriously can't believe we are debating allowing doping. Instead of working towards finding better solutions to the problem of doping, you're considering simply allowing it. I think I'm done here, as I have neither the interest in cycling to continue this nor the energy to refute this absurd (imo) proposal.

 

[DeletedUser]

Human vs. Human > Human/chemicals added vs Human/chemical added.... I like my sports and food unadulterated

 

[DeletedUser3]

Hmm, well there's weightlifting contests, in which we all know illegal steroid use is aplenty. Those who decide to follow the law simply have no chance in these contests. So, it does seem reasonable to "remove" the restrictions. Or, possibly provide two contests --- one with and one without. Those who enter into "without" contests and are caught even once using illegal substances will be permanently banned. Those who entered into a "with" contest at any time in the past, will not be allowed to participate in a "without" contest.

Or, we could just do away with the contests altogether... (yeah, I'm repeating myself)

 

[DeletedUser34]

My opinion of this is, these athletes are role models, and what kind of role model would they be if we told our children, hard work doesn't pay off, but chemically enhancing at the risk of health problems is the way to go. *rolls eyes*

I draw a comparison between models with photo shopped beauty and teenage eating disorders, to be very similar to what you are proposing and the results.

Not to mention, athletes who get busted for doping deserve to pay the piper. I think that sports is fun to watch because it is reality, and you take that reality and cheapen it when you add performance enhancing drugs in the soup.

 

[DeletedUser22]

My opinion of this is, these athletes are role models, and what kind of role model would they be if we told our children, hard work doesn't pay off, but chemically enhancing at the risk of health problems is the way to go. *rolls eyes*

Like i said before, you can't make a racing horse from a donkey. Doping in topsport makes really small differences. Most has to do with regenerating energy quicker or add percentual changes to muscle power. But these dufferences are needed if you want to be better then the rest.

I draw a comparison between models with photo shopped beauty and teenage eating disorders, to be very similar to what you are proposing and the results.

This is a wrong comparison. If you wish to use this, you would need to say that results are edited on tv. Whcih they clearly are not.

I think that sports is fun to watch because it is reality, and you take that reality and cheapen it when you add performance enhancing drugs in the soup.

If you really thnk that any proffesional sport you can watch on televion is clean you are just being naive.

 

[DeletedUser34]

Like i said before, you can't make a racing horse from a donkey. Doping in topsport makes really small differences. Most has to do with regenerating energy quicker or add percentual changes to muscle power. But these dufferences are needed if you want to be better then the rest.

So lets promote the following for the sake of taking the easy way. What ever happened to being a good loser? Your right, athletes today should be free to encourage our young generation to risk serious side effects rather than work hard and do your best.....If you want to be better than the rest, get off your lazy arses and work at it. If your getting old, except that and go from there....but to promote substances that carry serious side effects is just plain STUPID

This is a wrong comparison. If you wish to use this, you would need to say that results are edited on tv. Whcih they clearly are not.

It is NOT the wrong comparison. Young girls are developing serious eating disorders in order to try and look like the models who DO NOT look the way they think. Fake is fake, and bad influence is still bad influence!!

If you really thnk that any proffesional sport you can watch on televion is clean you are just being naive.

Obviously I don't think professional sports are clean, but I do expect the powers that be to crack down on those that cheat. These are role models we are talking about, and if they can't play fair, they shouldn't play, and encourage our youth to possible irreversibly injure themselves

If you think the message of doping to succeed is ok, then I pray you have no children now or in the future. Because if my kid or grand kid were to ever get hurt by some loser who was more interested in an interesting sport in which to drink beer while watching, decided to say bad choices are ok and should be encouraged, well then bucko, we have a problem.

 

[DeletedUser22]

Nice article you posted there. Here is a quote that i took out of it:

In the past 20 years, more effective law enforcement in the United States has pushed much of the illegal steroid industry into the black market. This poses additional health risks because the drugs are either made in other countries and smuggled in or made in clandestine labs in the United States. Either way, they aren't subject to government safety standards and could be impure or mislabeled.

So, they are still being used even when they are illegal. We already concluded that. But now we can conlude that they aren't still being used but they are even more dangerous then when they are being provided in a controlled enviroment with frequent checks on the quality. Another reason to make performance enhancing drugs publically and legally available.

Ow and i have kids, 3 of them. But i fail to see what they have to do with this.

 

[DeletedUser34]

Nice article you posted there. Here is a quote that i took out of it:

So, they are still being used even when they are illegal. We already concluded that. But now we can conlude that they aren't still being used but they are even more dangerous then when they are being provided in a controlled enviroment with frequent checks on the quality. Another reason to make performance enhancing drugs publically and legally available.

Ow and i have kids, 3 of them. But i fail to see what they have to do with this.

This comment was made in ONE sub-catagory, and thereby makes your rebuttal less than useless.
your whole response leaves me speechless. I think I will step out for now, I am trying to remain infraction free here.

 

[DeletedUser]

I draw a comparison between models with photo shopped beauty and teenage eating disorders, to be very similar to what you are proposing and the results.

It is NOT the wrong comparison. Young girls are developing serious eating disorders in order to try and look like the models who DO NOT look the way they think. Fake is fake, and bad influence is still bad influence!!

Actually, I agree we have a solid comparison here. In the media, models are secretly using post-editing to present an unrealistic and dangerous image. (I.e. there is no disclosure as to whether or not an image has been edited.) It has lead to an increase in eating disorders amongst youth who naively strive to achieve a similar image. In sport, many athletes are secretly using performance enhancing drugs to gain an edge over their opponents. However, to my knowledge, it has not lead to any identifiable increase in youth drug abuse.

Perhaps we should simply allow the use of drugs in sport to shatter the false role-model image, the equivalent of plastering an "edited" sticker across our anorexic models, and protect our children from an unrealistic ambition? Heck, doing so may even get them away from watching elite athletes on the TV screen and out to get some exercise themselves.

 

[DeletedUser34]

Actually, I agree we have a solid comparison here. In the media, models are secretly using post-editing to present an unrealistic and dangerous image. (I.e. there is no disclosure as to whether or not an image has been edited.) It has lead to an increase in eating disorders amongst youth who naively strive to achieve a similar image. In sport, many athletes are secretly using performance enhancing drugs to gain an edge over their opponents. However, to my knowledge, it has not lead to any identifiable increase in youth drug abuse.

Perhaps we should simply allow the use of drugs in sport to shatter the false role-model image, the equivalent of plastering an "edited" sticker across our anorexic models, and protect our children from an unrealistic ambition? Heck, doing so may even get them away from watching elite athletes on the TV screen and out to get some exercise themselves.

Eating disorders are not illegal, where as enhancers are. With Disastrous results I might add. So while there is no data regarding the actual increase in high school students (it is after all a crime, and therefore HIDDEN) there is a noticed increase of probability. There are many articles out there about it, as well as the steps schools have had to take in order to combat it. It actually is a no brainer. If the deal is "false" role models, then it is societies responsibility to stop hero-cizing these kinds of people. If we didn't promote morons with bad behavior, they would eventually get a clue. Personally, I hope Armstrong is hung out to dry if he is found guilty. A cheater is a cheater, no matter how you want to dress it up.

 

[DeletedUser]

Eating disorders are not illegal, where as enhancers are. With Disastrous results I might add. So while there is no data regarding the actual increase in high school students (it is after all a crime, and therefore HIDDEN) there is a noticed increase of probability. There are many articles out there about it, as well as the steps schools have had to take in order to combat it.

Crime is hidden? Someone forgot to tell these guys *troll face*

Please provide us with some of these articles that indicate performance enhancing drugs among children and teenagers, i.e. youth younger than our professional athletes (prone to idolise), is more of a dangerous and widespread problem than eating disorders in the same age group.

It actually is a no brainer. If the deal is "false" role models, then it is societies responsibility to stop hero-cizing these kinds of people. If we didn't promote morons with bad behavior, they would eventually get a clue. Personally, I hope Armstrong is hung out to dry if he is found guilty. A cheater is a cheater, no matter how you want to dress it up.

Exactly. Let's stop pretending our elite athletes are mere freaks of nature, earning achievement through sole hard work, and allow them to take these drugs openly. It is the quickest and most effective way to shatter the idol illusion.

 

[DeletedUser34]

Crime is hidden? Someone forgot to tell these guys *troll face*

Did you seriously just post the wiki for DOJ? How can they keep track of crimes that there is no court data for? Diggo, stop pulling a me

Please provide us with some of these articles that indicate performance enhancing drugs among children and teenagers, i.e. youth younger than our professional athletes (prone to idolise), is more of a dangerous and widespread problem than eating disorders in the same age group.

I will when you show me where I said it is a more dangerous and widespread problem

Exactly. Let's stop pretending our elite athletes are mere freaks of nature, earning achievement through sole hard work, and allow them to take these drugs openly. It is the quickest and most effective way to shatter the idol illusion.

I disagree, the cost is entirely to high. That is like saying it is ok for a teacher to show a movie of a murder, so the illusion of its grandeur is removed eh?

 

[DeletedUser]

Did you seriously just post the wiki for DOJ? How can they keep track of crimes that there is no court data for? Diggo, stop pulling a me

So taking performance enhancing drugs is not worthy of any notable legal action nor police report that can be tracked. Big crime that is; how can you possibly argue that you cannot present any data or statistics based upon it being a "crime, and therefore HIDDEN"? There is no need to suppress details as the crime isn't in any way heinous (as you've just indicated), but neither is it so uncommon a [so-called] problem that data is not collected about it (as you've been arguing). I guess that leaves us with option (c), the data doesn't support your argument

I will when you show me where I said it is a more dangerous and widespread problem

You were the one who drew the comparison to eating disorders, not me. The onus is on you to prove this falls on the same magnitude

I disagree, the cost is entirely to high. That is like saying it is ok for a teacher to show a movie of a murder, so the illusion of its grandeur is removed eh?

The cost is too high? We are talking about elite athletes, monitored and serviced by the planet's finest medical staff. If we allowed these staff to participate in the taking of performance enhancing drugs they the athletes would be safer, alot more so than leaving the untrained athlete to administer the drugs themselves and unsupervised in some back alley.

It's nice you decided to present the "movie of a murder" scene though. As I recall, it was viewed by professional detectives. We did not present it to children in a classroom who aspire to be law enforcement agents. Same scenario here: we allow elite athletes to take performance enhancing drugs, not distribute drug packets along with the oranges at kids' weekend sport.

 

[DeletedUser34]

So taking performance enhancing drugs is not worthy of any notable legal action nor police report that can be tracked. Big crime that is; how can you possibly argue that you cannot present any data or statistics based upon it being a "crime, and therefore HIDDEN"? There is no need to suppress details as the crime isn't in any way heinous (as you've just indicated), but neither is it so uncommon a [so-called] problem that data is not collected about it (as you've been arguing). I guess that leaves us with option (c), the data doesn't support your argument

Pshawww!! Putting words in my mouth
That isn't what I said and you know it!! Tsk Tsk Diggo.....*runs to Hellstromm to complain*
Seriously though, DOJ keeps records for things that go boom in the night, that are caught. Until recently (last 5 years or so) colleges have been the biggest abuser of performance drugs by young people. The reason it isn't "tallied" if you will is the same reason Penn State got away with hiding a pedi for so long. Or FL A&M with hazing. They have some leniency on reporting "investigations" and such. A lot of time it doesn't come to light till after the fact. Now High Schools are taking note of the epidemic, and are figuring out ways to combat the issue...ie: random drug testing without warning (TX). But they still don't have to report it, most times the kid gets "counseling" and thrown off the team. *I can only speak for Texas and Florida, and a very little bit about 'bama and Georgia and Louisiana.
NYTimes article.

You were the one who drew the comparison to eating disorders, not me. The onus is on you to prove this falls on the same magnitude

LOL...no, I used it to compare false aspirations. Girls who idolize these models don't realize they aren't real, and if they do, they go to great lengths to follow their "look" anyway, despite the health risks. Same with young kids...why are the athletes so good? Oh....doping...cool...gotcha. Doesn't matter that it isn't real talent, but rather a manufactured one, kids will still emulate them, including doping if need be, rather than hard work OR reality of suckiness.

The cost is too high? We are talking about elite athletes, monitored and serviced by the planet's finest medical staff. If we allowed these staff to participate in the taking of performance enhancing drugs they the athletes would be safer, alot more so than leaving the untrained athlete to administer the drugs themselves and unsupervised in some back alley.

Social costs, health costs, moral costs, ethical costs etc. Steroids are STILL steroids with the same basic side effects. on a side note doping is actually not that expensive......
US Dept of Education on Steroids
Steroid use violence

It's nice you decided to present the "movie of a murder" scene though. As I recall, it was viewed by professional detectives. We did not present it to children in a classroom who aspire to be law enforcement agents. Same scenario here: we allow elite athletes to take performance enhancing drugs, not distribute drug packets along with the oranges at kids' weekend sport.

you like that did ya
I still disagree, but mostly because of the costs stated above. You open that door, who pays? Our kids, who as a general rule in the US have no common sense or sense of boundaries as it is....So let us grown ups, hand them their own pistol.....yep, Americans are GENIUSES!!!!