Doping and Comeptition

[Tugg Speedman]

Until about 100 years ago, training for any competition was consider unseemly and wrong.  Athletes were expected to perform "naturally."  (until the 17th century, athletes were expected  to compete in the nude and even wearing shoes were considered an unfair advantage.)

The point is their was always a "limit" to training for a competition.  Today that limit is Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) otherwise know as doping.

Question, should doping really be illegal?

A couple of things to consider:

Most PEDs are legal for other uses, many are available over the counter at places like GNC and the Vitamin Store.

Most have a libertarian attitude about doping ... whatever a professional athlete wants to do is fine by them.

The problem with this argument is what parent wants to take their prodigy kid (think 14 year old tennis player or 16 year old soccer player) to a doctor to start them on a doping regime?  If professionals can do it, they will never progress to the point of joining those ranks without doping.  Making age requirement for doping (as in no doping until 21) will work as well as drinking ages and again deny the under 21 athletes the ability to progress like the over 21 athletes.

Thoughts?

[forgetful]

Until about 100 years ago, training for any competition was consider unseemly and wrong.  Athletes were expected to perform "naturally."  (until the 17th century, athletes were expected  to compete in the nude and even wearing shoes were considered an unfair advantage.)

The point is their was always a "limit" to training for a competition.  Today that limit is Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) otherwise know as doping.

Question, should doping really be illegal?

A couple of things to consider:

Most PEDs are legal for other uses, many are available over the counter at places like GNC and the Vitamin Store.

Most have a libertarian attitude about doping ... whatever a professional athlete wants to do is fine by them.

The problem with this argument is what parent wants to take their prodigy kid (think 14 year old tennis player or 16 year old soccer player) to a doctor to start them on a doping regime?  If professionals can do it, they will never progress to the point of joining those ranks without doping.  Making age requirement for doping (as in no doping until 21) will work as well as drinking ages and again deny the under 21 athletes the ability to progress like the over 21 athletes.

Thoughts?

Similar to the other thread, I find this to be an interesting and difficult question. 

Right now there is doping going on in the West, using undetectable methods that are masked as natural.  There is doping everywhere, we catch probably about 1% of the actual dopers. 

I would argue the reason PEDs are still banned is that it gives the West (leaders in science right now) a competitive advantage as they are constantly developing new undetectable methods (Balco, was nothing).

On top of that the doping rules are arbitrary. 

If the other thread is right, testosterone and other androgens do not enhance female performance, so why are they banned? 

Why is meldonium banned (even with a prescription) even though it has never been shown to have performance enhancing effects.  But with a prescription an individual can take stimulants (for ADHD) that have a rich history of performance enhancing abilities. 

The problem (and it relates to the other thread) is we want athletics to be about courage, spirit and fortitude, but need to find a way to separate it from natural and unnatural advantages. 

To separate it from natural/unnatural advantages we arbitrary define things like gender, PEDs to give the illusion of an equal playing field.  But everyone is cheating and gender is fluid...it's all an illusion.

If we get rid of bans on PEDs, this illusion is broken and with it may go competitive spirit or at least thats the fear.

As for kids taking these, there are teenagers across this country already taking HGH, hCG, testosterone and other drugs to grow stronger and taller.  Legal or not, there is a lot of it going on.

[forgetful]

I can't find the article anymore, but awhile back there was a study asking elite scientists whether they take drugs to enhance cognitive ability.  Something like 60% admit to doing so, despite not having a medical need.

[Tugg Speedman]

The problem (and it relates to the other thread) is we want athletics to be about courage, spirit and fortitude, but need to find a way to separate it from natural and unnatural advantages. 

The 1987 winner of the Tour de France was Spaniard Pedro Delgado.  In his defense to doping charges against him he said that if tour rides did not take "medicine"  that by the third week of the race most of the riders would barely be able to stay upright.  And if that happened, the sport would be uninteresting and die.

I think he is 100% correct.  Yes 100% of Tour rides are dopers.  They have to be.  They could not put of that type of effort for three weeks without "assistance."  And if the sport was truly clean, most would hate it.  (just like most would hate football if that sports got drugs out of it).

[Blackhat]

I'm close to jumping on board for open PED use.   However, with new drugs always entering the market without long term study on side effects there is a chance for severe repercussions.   I would also feel bad for the superior natural athletes whose God given ability would be diluted.   

Last thing I want is WWE type roiders dying early and killing their wives upon retirement, although the NFL is close to being there already.   

Dopers will always be around and you can drop to their level and spread PEDs to take away their competitive advantage, but I don't think we're there yet and testing is making strides although very $$$.

[warriorchick]

I can't find the article anymore, but awhile back there was a study asking elite scientists whether they take drugs to enhance cognitive ability.  Something like 60% admit to doing so, despite not having a medical need.

Caffeine enhances cognitive ability. I bet the true percentage of doping scientists  approaches 100.

[Tugg Speedman]

Caffeine enhances cognitive ability. I bet the true percentage of doping scientists  approaches 100.

Actually caffeine has been a hotly contested issue.  WADA (world anti-doping agency) wants to ban caffeine but the push back has been too great ... for now.

[Tugg Speedman]

I'm close to jumping on board for open PED use.   However, with new drugs always entering the market without long term study on side effects there is a chance for severe repercussions.   I would also feel bad for the superior natural athletes whose God given ability would be diluted.   

Last thing I want is WWE type roiders dying early and killing their wives upon retirement, although the NFL is close to being there already.   

Dopers will always be around and you can drop to their level and spread PEDs to take away their competitive advantage, but I don't think we're there yet and testing is making strides although very $$$.

Close to jumping on the PEDs issue ... I'm with you.

Answer this ...

Option 1 - you have a 16 year old son.  He broke 4 minutes in the mile in high school.  He's so good that his options have gone from Stanford to a pro contract with Nike.  But first ... you have to take him to see "this guy" to start him on a doping program so he can go to the next level.  What do you do?

Option 2 - You have a 16 year old son.   He is getting some looks by D1 schools in (pick your sport).  You would really like him to get a full ride to college as it matters a lot for your family finances.  If PEDs are legal, do you take him to "this guy" to start him on a doping program so he can go to the next level.  What do you do?

Option 3 - You have a 16 year old son.  He really wants to make his High School varsity team more than anything else.  He comes to you and asks you to take him to  "this guy" to start him on a doping program so he can go to the next level.  It is all legal.  What do you do?

[warriorchick]

Close to jumping on the PEDs issue ... I'm with you.

Answer this ...

Option 1 - you have a 16 year old son.  He broke 4 minutes in the mile in high school.  He's so good that his options have gone from Stanford to a pro contract with Nike.  But first ... you have to take him to see "this guy" to start him on a doping program so he can go to the next level.  What do you do?

Option 2 - You have a 16 year old son.   He is getting some looks by D1 schools in (pick your sport).  You would really like him to get a full ride to college as it matters a lot for your family finances.  If PEDs are legal, do you take him to "this guy" to start him on a doping program so he can go to the next level.  What do you do?

Option 3 - You have a 16 year old son.  He really wants to make his High School varsity team more than anything else.  He comes to you and asks you to take him to  "this guy" to start him on a doping program so he can go to the next level.  It is all legal.  What do you do?

What kind of doping?  There is a huge difference between taking a short-term stimulant and injecting a kid with drugs that can (will) have long-term detrimental health consequences.

[Tugg Speedman]

What kind of doping?  There is a huge difference between taking a short-term stimulant and injecting a kid with drugs that can (will) have long-term detrimental health consequences.

The kind of doping program that will make a real difference.  In other words, more than stimulants. 

What kind?  Depends of what kind of athlete you are and what you are trying to achieve.

[Benny B]

Until about 100 years ago, training for any competition was consider unseemly and wrong.

This is extremely misleading.  Athletes didn't train for two major reasons:

1) The overwhelming consensus in many European countries was that a muscular body inhibits one's ability to perform.  Counter-intuitive as it may be, athletic competitions weren't so much about brute force and strength as they were finesse and technique back in the day.  To most, a few pounds of added muscle only meant having to carry more weight.

2) People worked or they didn't eat, and athletics were not professions... every athlete had a day job.  There was no social security, no unemployment, no breadlines, no sponsorships, etc., yet the importance of good nutrition was recognized.  And the only way to ensure proper nutrition as an athlete was to work, but that came at the expense of having the necessary time for training.

Training wasn't considered taboo, it was the victim of priority and primitive science.

[Tugg Speedman]

This is extremely misleading.  Athletes didn't train for two major reasons:

1) The overwhelming consensus in many European countries was that a muscular body inhibits one's ability to perform.  Counter-intuitive as it may be, athletic competitions weren't so much about brute force and strength as they were finesse and technique back in the day.  To most, a few pounds of added muscle only meant having to carry more weight.

2) People worked or they didn't eat, and athletics were not professions... every athlete had a day job.  There was no social security, no unemployment, no breadlines, no sponsorships, etc., yet the importance of good nutrition was recognized.  And the only way to ensure proper nutrition as an athlete was to work, but that came at the expense of having the necessary time for training.

Training wasn't considered taboo, it was the victim of priority and primitive science.

The concept of "athletic training" was invented at Harvard in 1881

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletic_training

Prior to this the idea of training was a alien concept, or worse, something that "professional athletes" did meaning it was unclean, or taboo.

And their have been "athletes" for hundreds of years.  Prior to the 20th century, they made their living not unlike race horses, they were either paid by bettors, or bet on themselves.

As the link below shows, "professionals" that trained and competed for money were systemically driven out of sports in favor of "amateurs" who showed up and competed naturally.

(FYI - the article below was written on the 50th anniversary of Roger Bannister breaking the 4 minute mile.  It argued that they is plenty of evidence that the 4 minute mile was broken by "professionals" in the 17th century and even marathon runners as early as 1730 were running about 2 hours and 10 minutes, which would have been top 5 in last week's Olympics)

The time a land forgot
May 1, 2004
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2004/may/02/athletics.comment1

Before the Amateur Athletic Association became the controlling force of athletics in 1880, men and women of all social classes ran for money on the streets and on the moors and greens of England. Later, the sport was policed to eliminate the undesirables who ran for money, or whose jobs tainted them and rendered them 'professionals'. They also excluded women.

The new political correctness also caused writers to airbrush out the professionals of the past and to start a new page of athletics. For them the sport began in Exeter College, Oxford in 1850, untainted by the runners who had run for money for at least 200 years previously. For a while, two sets of records were kept and these can still be seen and compared in the 1888 work British Rural Sports by JH Walsh, who wrote under the pseudonym Stonehenge. They confirm that one of the motivating forces behind the new amateur athletics was that there were many middle-class men who wanted to take part in sport but who were 'far from being good enough to hold their own in professional company'. If you can't beat them, exclude them.

This move to keep athletics pure and free from the contamination of money had a big effect on the history of the four-minute mile. Any runner who wanted to take the time to train and run seriously and needed money to do it, was systematically removed from the scene.

[Benny B]

The concept of "athletic training" was invented at Harvard in 1881

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletic_training

Prior to this the idea of training was a alien concept.

And their have been "athletes" for hundreds of years.  Prior to the 19th century, they made their living not unlike race horses, they were either paid by bettors, or bet on themselves.

The time a land forgot
May 1, 2004
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2004/may/02/athletics.comment1

Before the Amateur Athletic Association became the controlling force of athletics in 1880, men and women of all social classes ran for money on the streets and on the moors and greens of England. Later, the sport was policed to eliminate the undesirables who ran for money, or whose jobs tainted them and rendered them 'professionals'. They also excluded women.

The new political correctness also caused writers to airbrush out the professionals of the past and to start a new page of athletics. For them the sport began in Exeter College, Oxford in 1850, untainted by the runners who had run for money for at least 200 years previously. For a while, two sets of records were kept and these can still be seen and compared in the 1888 work British Rural Sports by JH Walsh, who wrote under the pseudonym Stonehenge. They confirm that one of the motivating forces behind the new amateur athletics was that there were many middle-class men who wanted to take part in sport but who were 'far from being good enough to hold their own in professional company'. If you can't beat them, exclude them.

This move to keep athletics pure and free from the contamination of money had a big effect on the history of the four-minute mile. Any runner who wanted to take the time to train and run seriously and needed money to do it, was systematically removed from the scene.

So do you now agree that your original characterization of training as being "unseemly and wrong" is misleading?

[jficke13]

[4everwarriors]

Willin' to cut Maria some slack 'cuz she's hot, hey?

[Tugg Speedman]

So do you now agree that your original characterization of training as being "unseemly and wrong" is misleading?

I thought my link argued exactly my point.  "Professional" athletes were taboo in the 19th century and driven out of sports in favor of amateurs, who did not train.  Training (the term was not even invented until 1881) was taboo and only done by "unclean" professionals who competed for money.

Now why professionals were considered unclean might have to do with your points.

[muwarrior69]

Close to jumping on the PEDs issue ... I'm with you.

Answer this ...

Option 1 - you have a 16 year old son.  He broke 4 minutes in the mile in high school.  He's so good that his options have gone from Stanford to a pro contract with Nike.  But first ... you have to take him to see "this guy" to start him on a doping program so he can go to the next level.  What do you do?

Option 2 - You have a 16 year old son.   He is getting some looks by D1 schools in (pick your sport).  You would really like him to get a full ride to college as it matters a lot for your family finances.  If PEDs are legal, do you take him to "this guy" to start him on a doping program so he can go to the next level.  What do you do?

Option 3 - You have a 16 year old son.  He really wants to make his High School varsity team more than anything else.  He comes to you and asks you to take him to  "this guy" to start him on a doping program so he can go to the next level.  It is all legal.  What do you do?

I think Lyle Alzado would say no on all 3.

[Benny B]

I thought my link argued exactly my point.  "Professional" athletes were taboo in the 19th century and driven out of sports in favor of amateurs, who did not train.  Training (the term was not even invented until 1881) was taboo and only done by "unclean" professionals who competed for money.

Now why professionals were considered unclean might have to do with your points.

Inigo Montoya has something to say about your use of "unclean."

[forgetful]

Caffeine enhances cognitive ability. I bet the true percentage of doping scientists  approaches 100.

Not quite 100%, I know a few Mormon scientists that claim to be clean.

To clarify though, the study had focused on prescription medications not being used for their intended purposes, rather to enhance cognitive ability.

[MUsoxfan]

I support all doping. It's a constant in all sports. Let the athletes assume the risk

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I support all doping. It's a constant in all sports. Let the athletes assume the risk

"I want my sports like I want my video games....event and unrealistic." -Daniel Tosh

[brandx]

I think Lyle Alzado would say no on all 3.

Why?

[Pakuni]

Why?

Given that he died just after his 43rd birthday thoroughly convinced that PEDs were to blame for his early demise, I think it's a good bet he'd recommend that his teenage son not take PEDs.

[Spotcheck Billy]

I understand the 'Doping' in the thread title but what is this 'Comeptition'?

[Benny B]

I understand the 'Doping' in the thread title but what is this 'Comeptition'?

Essentially, it's a measure of kegel muscle strength.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

I think Lyle Alzado would say no on all 3.

Alzado was a 200 lb, average football player at a podunk college in Yankton f*cking south Dakota going no where.  After his freshman year, he started the anabolic steroids and became a raving, muscle bound lunatic.  He did a "Bluto in the lunch line on animal house" daily.  He went to Townie bars and beat up the entire tribe of Indians in the bar.  He went on to play a long career in the NFL, TV and movie and more money than he could have ever imagined.

[4everwarriors]

Didn't work out as well for Tony Fookin' Mandrich, ai na?