Sports - Doping.

[paulsterio]

From the Lance Armstrong case as well as after reading this post from kingpomba:

Some people think doping in sport should be allowed (part of my pharmacology class) but thats a whole other issue..

I've decided to open up this debate because I just think it'd be quite interesting to see what people's views are regarding doping.

Obviously there are both positives and negatives to making doping legal.

I'll put some points to start us off. On the positives side, obviously we would have that:
- If doping is allowed, money wouldn't have to be spent on testing and time wouldn't be wasted
- It would eliminate the need/desire to cheat

Against, we have:
- Health issues
- Not a level playing field - some countries such as the USA would have more access than other countries
- Leads to a "drugs race" - where competitors will find race to find the best drug

[Eriny]

I think Annabelle Crabbe suggested we have a doping Olympics and a non-doping one (and hell, at the doping olympics, why not also use other performance enhances like flippers and pogo sticks)

[MJRomeo81]

Making doping legal leads to a bit of a slippery slope imo. If we allow doping, do we also allow HGH in baseball since everyone is on it? There needs to be tougher penalties.

- It would eliminate  the need/desire to cheat

Cyclists would just find another way of breaking the rules. Doping has become the norm in professional cycling because everyone else is doing it, and I guess riders can't help but feel that they are at a disadvantage playing by the rules.

The main problem I see with legalising drugs at the top level is the snowball effect it will have on lower tiers of sport. It is already challenging enough to make the jump from 'very good amateur' to 'professional.' If drugs are legalised at elite level, drugs will inevitably be taken by the next level down so as to be able to compete with the artificially enhanced professionals.

But we must also examine the worthwhile nature of legalisation. If a performance-enhancing drugs means I can cut my time by 0.2 secs and win, I have an advantage. If this drug and advantage is available to all, the advantage immediately disappears.

[paulsterio]

I still think it would be unfair on those who cannot afford it or gain access to it. Surely, there are countries out there which cannot afford to have their athletes on drug regimes and hence, they will be unfairly losing.

On the other hand - sports is always about extremities, pushing the boundaries of what the body can do - they already eat in certain ways, train in certain ways and wear clothing that will enhance their performance to their limits, track and field athletes are always looking for the best shoes...etc.

So in the end, sports is a combination of five things, I believe:

1) Technique
2) Body Anatomy and Physiology
3) Discipline and Training
4) Legal Aides (e.g. swimming with swimming caps, running with running bibs and running shoes)
5) Illegal Aides (e.g. drugs, non-textile swimming suits that were banned)

So what's the line between a legal aide and an illegal aide? Where do we (or the governing bodies) draw the line?

[pi]

So what's the line between a legal aide and an illegal aide? Where do we (or the governing bodies) draw the line?

Haha, they asked me this in my JCU med interview

[paulsterio]

What'd you say?

[pi]

Well, basically that any enhancer that makes someone better than they normally are (ie. pain killers and the like are fine) should not be allowed. And if there are currently any drugs that do specifically enhance an athlete's performance now, that I'm against those being legal too.

[paulsterio]

Yeah, but how do you explain things such as, for example, running shoes - they make an athlete faster than if they were to run without the high-tech shoes.

[lexitu]

Well, basically that any enhancer that makes someone better than they normally are (ie. pain killers and the like are fine) should not be allowed. And if there are currently any drugs that do specifically enhance an athlete's performance now, that I'm against those being legal too.

There needs to be more than that criterion though (and there is):
- Does it enhance performance?
- Does it present a significant health risk?
- Is it against the spirit of sport?

Those checks need to be met (in some cases, just one criterion will do - e.g. it's against the spirit of sport) otherwise, anything, like eating nutritious food (to make an exaggerated point) will be banned and classified as enhancing performance.

In some cases the line is very fine - e.g. the swimming suits and intravenous hydration which were once allowed and are now banned.

[lexitu]

Yeah, but how do you explain things such as, for example, running shoes - they make an athlete faster than if they were to run without the high-tech shoes.

They have guidelines (e.g. the heel has to be within a certain range, no springs allowed, etc.). But yeah, the influence of technology is a very contentious issue. Personally, I'm fine with it, so long as it doesn't seem to completely override one's "natural" abilities, and there is fairly equal access to said technologies.