There is evidence to suggest there is no such thing as a level playing field

[ethan]

when it comes to sport. So why don't we finally accept and allow the use of performance enhancing drugs (in the olympics etc)?

A previous piece of research I read indicated that those who had once taken steroids still retained the benefits in some degree despite having abstained for a number of years. Also, new research has found for example, that certain athletes have a 577R allele in their ACTN3 gene which has been found to contribute to better running ability. It’s been found in virtually all male Olympic caliber runners and appears in 85% of people of African descent and 50% of those of Asian or European descent. Thus an argument could be presented that some people of a certain race have an unfair advantage and that others should be allowed to use genetic manipulation to level the playing field.

It is also assumed that more genetic variants will almost certainly be discovered that give different people different advantages in different sports. How will such information be used, and by whom? And how will those who make the rules on who can compete and who can’t ever decide? At some point, they argue, the science will overwhelm the ability of authorities to govern the use of genetic enhancement which will lead to widespread use of genetic engineering to create what will most assuredly be, super athletes.

 

[Vonhelmet]

All of which is begging the question (in the true use of the fallacy) - why do we want to level the playing field in this way?

 

[ethan]

Simply because it's a fallacy to accept that all atheletes are just getting by or are winning medals on true grit and determinism (alone).

 

[semi-pro waster]

It is also assumed that more genetic variants will almost certainly be discovered that give different people different advantages in different sports. How will such information be used, and by whom? And how will those who make the rules on who can compete and who can’t ever decide? At some point, they argue, the science will overwhelm the ability of authorities to govern the use of genetic enhancement which will lead to widespread use of genetic engineering to create what will most assuredly be, super athletes.

So essentially the main determining factor will eventually be how good your scientists are? It's an option I guess but not one with much to recommend it from my point of view - some people are naturally better at certain pursuits and with training can become world class, others will merely improve with training but either way is fine. It's when you decide to circumvent this that you come into problems, both moral/ethical and physiological.

I suppose you could ask what would be the incentive to watch athletes who are genetically engineered to be supreme at their sport - it may become a bit like watching robots compete, it can be impressive but you start to lose the human element of struggle and it becomes a bit soulless. I'm well aware that athletics or indeed sports in general are not without their problems but I don't think embracing them is the way to go.

 

[Jonny69]

So why don't we finally accept and allow the use of performance enhancing drugs (in the olympics etc)?

Because not all female athletes want to be genetically male? Because huge numbers of athletes don't want to have to dope just to reach top level? Because steroids shrink your balls? Because misuse can kill you? Do you want me to go on?

 

[Vonhelmet]

Simply because it's a fallacy to accept that all atheletes are just getting by or are winning medals on true grit and determinism (alone).

I'm not sure how many people have ever believed in this level playing field you're mourning.

 

[ethan]

I'm not sure how many people have ever believed in this level playing field you're mourning.

I'm hardly heartbroken about it but hey, perhaps I'm the only one ?Tbh, I was thinking of the British Olympic Association and its recent debackle/attitude concerning Dwain Chambers and other associated drug cheats. I was also thinking of the attitude of other competing (non drug taking) athletes to drug taking ones when no objection is drawn to somebody with naturally higher levels of EPO etc.

 

[LOAM]

Personally I have no respect for someone who has filled themselves with drugs to achieve performance level fitness where as I have the utmost respect for people who have worked insanely hard to get there. I would simply loose interest in a sport that condoned drug taking in the same way that I wouldn't watch an event that had a rigged outcome.

 

[ethan]

I suppose you could ask what would be the incentive to watch athletes who are genetically engineered to be supreme at their sport - it may become a bit like watching robots compete, it can be impressive but you start to lose the human element of struggle and it becomes a bit soulless.

I assume we are already doing this to a large degree except that those at the top of their sport along with their advantages are simply engineered by nature. I don't believe we will lose the human element from genetic engineering either. I am however left wondering whether we are really concerned with individuals competing (with each other) or giving atheletes the chance to break more records? Regarding the latter, it seems there is everything to play for concerning the distinction between doing something that's against the rules, and introducing some new thing that's not actually (yet) against the rules."

Personally I have no respect for someone who has filled themselves with drugs to achieve performance level fitness where as I have the utmost respect for people who have worked insanely hard to get there. I would simply loose interest in a sport that condoned drug taking in the same way that I wouldn't watch an event that had a rigged outcome.

I understand and respect the sentiment but wonder whether you would still regard it applicable to the point about introducing something new that's not actually yet against the rules?

 

[Cristian]

Because not all female athletes want to be genetically male? Because huge numbers of athletes don't want to have to dope just to reach top level? Because steroids shrink your balls? Because misuse can kill you? Do you want me to go on?

Don't tell me that you are naive enough to believe that all top level world class athletes are 100% natural?

Whether there are blood transfusions, certain untraceable compounds, growth hormone or designer steroids with masking agents the vast majority of top athletes use one thing or another.

In some sports the usage is universal (see bodybuilding, wrestling) In others there is an extremely high proportion - American football, Rugby, Baseball.
There is indeed drug testing going on so they can't buy the old classic stuff but have no fear there will always be ways around it. Every now and then someone messes up or is drug tested at the wrong time and gets caught, that's simply the way of the game.

Have a look at those (natural) female marathon runners and tell me what is so feminine/curvy about them? Or to go extreme how feminine is a 110+ kg female powerlifter?

On the other hand, I can understand why usage is kept under the radar, simply because the average population isn't ready for the truth and this would have a very negative impact on children who have such athletes as role models. It's better to tell someone that "you can achieve anything you want with hard work and determination" rather than telling them that you can achieve anything you want with hard work and determination, sacrificing all your life and then maybe if you have the right genetics you'll get to be a top level athlete.

 

[uniQ]

Can you back any of the above with real stats rather than "the majority of top athletes" which without proof is frankly laughable.

 

[The Running Man]

like Messi had his growth hormones to make him uber at football.

also what are peoples thoughts on TRT...?

Also what are peoples thoughts on certain races naturally producing higher levels of testosterone fom 18-30, leading to increase ability to put on muscle, strenght.

 

[GAC]

il agree with some of what your saying cristian, american football, baseball, ice hockey, boxing and football are rife with drug use. rugby not so much same for cycling (honestly if it was as bad as the media claim there would be a hell of a lot more positive test results coming back).

in short any sport thats got a lot of money being thrown about will have some level of usage. its human nature. but dont just tar everyone with the same brush though as theres plenty of top level athletes who wont be on something as they are genuinely that physically gifted.

as for messi, having skill is just that you cant gain skill out of a bottle, you could gain better concentration and be able to run and react a bit faster though. hence you have seemingly healthy 20 somethings having heart attacks the last year or so.

i do think a lot of the reporting that comes out about drug use is built on the back of peoples attitudes due to being in poor shape and because they cant get in shape it must be down to drugs everyone else is. iv played against people in contact sports that are known users and iv made them look like idiots, more so when you factor in how much more they can lift and the fact there taking gear.

 

[The Running Man]

as for messi, having skill is just that you cant gain skill out of a bottle, you could gain better concentration and be able to run and react a bit faster though. hence you have seemingly healthy 20 somethings having heart attacks the last year or so.
.

With Messi, the drugs didnt give him the skill. They just give him the much more rugged physique he has for a small guy that he wouldnt have had sans drugs. therefore he'd weigh much less, have much less mucle mass and be unlikely to be able to produce the same skill literally bouncing off pother players to retain the ball and be as effective.

Now say you started to give the same drugs to christiano ronaldo on top of his diet then he'd be Uberonaldo. where should it stop?

 

[Cristian]

Can you back any of the above with real stats rather than "the majority of top athletes" which without proof is frankly laughable.

It all depends on how you define top athletes, as not all sports are that much dependent on physique. For example football is demanding, there is no doubt in that, but the high importance of skill/talent makes drug usage much less common than american football for example. Skill is needed in both sports there is no doubt in that, but the different proportion of how physically demanding a sport is correlates with how many users are there.

As for the request in real stats, no matter what you may think about steroids, they do not make you retarded!
Given the perception and regulations, what kind of athlete would willingly declare that he uses drugs and instantly throw all his career away?

GAC There is no doubt that you can put users to shame, after all in contact sports physical ability is equally important to skill. He might be able to lift much more than you but if there's half the skill...

 

[elmuzzy66.]

With Messi, the drugs didnt give him the skill. They just give him the much more rugged physique he has for a small guy that he wouldnt have had sans drugs. therefore he'd weigh much less, have much less mucle mass and be unlikely to be able to produce the same skill literally bouncing off pother players to retain the ball and be as effective.

Now say you started to give the same drugs to christiano ronaldo on top of his diet then he'd be Uberonaldo. where should it stop?

Again, like the last time you brought this up about messi you are wrong. You can't compare bonefide medical treatment to doping. Its just plain wrong.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I assume we are already doing this to a large degree except that those at the top of their sport along with their advantages are simply engineered by nature. I don't believe we will lose the human element from genetic engineering either. I am however left wondering whether we are really concerned with individuals competing (with each other) or giving atheletes the chance to break more records? Regarding the latter, it seems there is everything to play for concerning the distinction between doing something that's against the rules, and introducing some new thing that's not actually (yet) against the rules."

Personally I'd prefer a principles based approach rather than a prescriptive approach - if you rely on rules alone you're always likely to be behind with little that can be done about it (retrospective punishments are bad and all that), if you make it principles based then you can much more easily pick up on people who are not competing within the "spirit" of the sport.

To a certain extent I can be impressed by athletes who take drugs and produce amazing performances - I recognise that there's still lots of hard work that goes into those performances but it just doesn't mean as much to me, it's as if the "shortcut" taken diminishes the achievement. If there's only one person in a generation that's a "natural genetic freak" who can destroy records then that's fine by me, I'd much prefer to watch them than to watch half a dozen sportspeople who've been genetically engineered to surpass the normal limits.

I'd probably find it difficult to quantify precisely why I think it means less and I can understand arguments about why it shouldn't matter but on a fairly fundamental emotional level I would always, instinctively, prefer to watch an athlete I thought was clean than one I knew had taken a performance enhancing drug. We can argue about precisely where the line should be drawn between acceptable supplements and illegal drugs for the purposes of sport but it's rather dancing around the issue.

 

[ethan]

Personally I'd prefer a principles based approach rather than a prescriptive approach - if you rely on rules alone you're always likely to be behind with little that can be done about it (retrospective punishments are bad and all that), if you make it principles based then you can much more easily pick up on people who are not competing within the "spirit" of the sport.

...assuming there still is a spirit of the sport to begin with? (I don't know?) I do think that within the next 20-25 years given current technological progess we will have a situation in which the best of our athletes, our fastest sprinters, strongest weightlifters, gymnasts and long distance runners will not be in the Olympics but will just be "walking the streets" if banned and if they are not doing this already? ( Cyber Punk ).

 

[Omaeka]

Thing is, what are athletes (especially in MMA) going to do when there are performance enhancing drugs out that makes steroids look like something youd pick up in a pik n mix at your local supermarket? People will find ways to take them without being caught, then the 'clean' athletes are doomed.

Allow PED's in my opinion, so long as they are safe, that will only save 'clean' athletes the embarrassment in the future.

 

[GAC]

id say the ufc is fairly clean, take brock lesner he came from the wwe and dropped a lot of weight, the reasoning is so he's fitter. id bet its more to do with having to stop taking what he was while wrestling.