Drugs in Sport

[1eyedtiger]

Hi All,

I have been thinking about this for a while and now with the 2 year ban given to Alberto Contador, I would like others opinions on the subject.


http://www.foxsports.com.au/other-sports/spanish-cyclist-alberto-contador-cops-two-year-suspension-and-is-stripped-of-2010-tour-de-france-title/story-e6frf56c-1226264160206


I know there's already a thread on drugs but I consider drugs used in sport as performance enhancers as a separate issue to recreational drug use by the general public.
My reasoning behind this is that I'm curious as to how far the human body can be pushed and what humans can achieve, drug assisted or not. If there are athletes out there willing to take the risks and accept the possible consequences of prolonged drug use, then I can't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to. I don't see it as any different to athletes developing improved training methods and nutrition to gain an edge other athletes.

The issue to me is how it's handled by the governing bodies of various sports.

Using cycling as an example, I can't see why there can't simply be different classes of competition, allowing the athlete to choose which class he/she competes. Obviously, there would need to be penalties if a drug enhanced athlete is caught completing in the non-drug classes, and teams would have decide which classes to compete in. In races like the Tour De France, a team would have to enter a particular class and all cyclists in that team competing in that class.

I can't see how it work in sports like the AFL, but sports where individuals compete shouldn't have any problems with this.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

What parent in their right mind is going to encourage their kid to become an athlete if it requires subjecting yourself to unknown long-term consequences in order to compete? Perhaps you have some medical knowledge regarding the possibilities, but the things I've read about - cancer, mental illness, deformity, miscarriage - aren't very appealing.

Responsible government has a duty (to an extent) to protect people from themselves. PED's well and truly come under that umbrella. Sorry, but I think it's a crazy idea. It should find some support among those demanding the legalisation of "recreational" drugs, though.

 

[Baloo]

It becomes a race between chemists, not athletes anymore.

The other aspect is do you want to condone a practice that puts a competitors life at risk to the extent and unfetered performance enhancing programme would generate ? I doubt they'd wait the 5 or 6 years of clinical trials before releasing the newest muscle juice onto the competing athletes.

 

[1eyedtiger]

There was never any intention of encouraging people to put their lives at risk and I would never condone that.

People are supposedly intelligent.
Government need to protect people from others, not people from themselves. I'm sorry, but with all the complaints about the 'nanny state', people can start taking responsibility for their own actions.
Your responses don't imply a lack of responsibility on the part of the athletes, but rather that of the pharmaceutical companies.

There was never any suggestion that parents should encourage their kids to take drugs or that drugs should somehow between mandatory for athletes.
The only suggestion was that athletes be allowed to make an informed choice and compete in the relevant classes of their chosen sport. But if you want to argue against the use of drugs in sport, then why not call for a ban on all drugs including painkillers? They affect an athletes performance by allowing them to perform for longer. Surely that's an advantage and furthermore, may cause undue damage to the athlete as they cannot feel the damage that is being done.

It's up to the governing body of each sport to decide how to handle it.

Once again, my main interest is in the limits of the human body.

As for recreational drugs - The implications of such drug use on other members of society other than the user are well known. I don't agree with legalization of such drugs. As for sporting enhancing drugs, as far as I'm aware, most of the risks are to the users themselves. That is acceptable as long as they were warned beforehand. As long as it doesn't affect anyone else, then so be it.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Government need to protect people from others, not people from themselves. I'm sorry, but with all the complaints about the 'nanny state', people can start taking responsibility for their own actions.

If that was the case there'd be no need to ban tobacco advertising.

Once again, my main interest is in the limits of the human body.

As Baloo suggests, I'm sure they would quickly come up with something that would produce phenomenal performance gains at the cost of certain severe side effects later on.

The only suggestion was that athletes be allowed to make an informed choice

Live now, pay later? Credit using your health as collateral? How can you make an "informed" choice when the consequences are unknown? Sounds like you just want to see super-athletes smash records, and when they suffer genetic code mutations in middle age you'll just write it off as "their choice". Then what - ship them off to The Island Of Dr. Moreau?

You asked for opinions - I say you're insane, Dr. Frankenstein!

 

[Big Cat Lover]

You asked for opinions - I say you're insane, Dr. Frankenstein!

Ditto

 

[mld]

If health problems are the major concern, what if performance-enhancing drugs could undergo clinical trials to demonstrate safety, identify/characterise possible side effects and be regulated by the TGA? The idea of having safe, prescribed performance-enhancing drugs is quite interesting.

I don't really support the use of performance-enhancing drugs, as I'm in the camp of wanting to see the best athletes, not chemists. There is the other argument though, that such moves would help level the playing field in favour of the honest athletes. I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand.

 

[IanG]

I know there's already a thread on drugs but I consider drugs used in sport as performance enhancers as a separate issue to recreational drug use by the general public.
My reasoning behind this is that I'm curious as to how far the human body can be pushed and what humans can achieve, drug assisted or not. If there are athletes out there willing to take the risks and accept the possible consequences of prolonged drug use, then I can't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to. I don't see it as any different to athletes developing improved training methods and nutrition to gain an edge other athletes.

Of course its different, the performance gains are clearly greater from using performance enhancing drugs.

 

[Rosy]

I don't really support the use of performance-enhancing drugs, as I'm in the camp of wanting to see the best athletes, not chemists. There is the other argument though, that such moves would help level the playing field in favour of the honest athletes. I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand.

How does it level the playing field in favour of the honest athletes mld? I don't see how it would be any different to the situation now.

 

[1eyedtiger]

Tobacco - Once again, it is the governments responsibility to protect people from others. In this case, the tobacco industry. But they won't because there's far too much money to lose. $$$ means more than people these days. But that's another topic for another thread. By the way, how many years of clinical testing was performed before tobacco was allowed to be sold to the general public? And how many years did the tobacco industry know about the side effects (and deny it) until they finally came clean? This world is full such examples in all industries. But of course, the general public make perfect test subjects whether we like it or not. And there is no accountability as the government will always absolve industries from their own irresponsible actions.

Maybe there is a little Dr Frankenstein in me, so what? What they develop in sport may have benefits for mainstream society. I wouldn't say I'm insane though, more curious. If others (in this case athletes) are prepared to take the risks, why shouldn't they be allowed to and who is anyone to tell them they can't?

Let's be cynical here for a minute - I've yet to see an athlete banned for using drugs because of the possible side effects. It's always been because the drugs have given the athlete an unfair advantage over those who aren't using the drugs. Since when has any of the sporting bodies given a toss about the side effects? All they're interested in is the amount of dirt heading their way. Well I say, give the drug assisted athletes their own class to compete in and be done with it.

I still haven't heard anyone complain about the possible side effects of a footballer being given a painkilling injection at half time despite the fact they may go back out on the ground and further damage the injury.
How many athletes end up with arthritis in later life as a result of their (relatively short compared to most) sporting career? What if the drugs they develop can prevent this?

I agree to some extent with Baloo that it may become a race between the chemists, but there is still a person behind the drugs and that person still has to perform.

What is it that people don't like about this?

Is it the possible side effects? What if there were none?
Is it the perceived removal of the human factor? It's like some people see drug assisted athletes as not being human at all.

As long as athletes competed on the appropriate classes to maintain an even playing field, what's the problem?

 

[Tigers of Old]

What is it that people don't like about this?

Is it the perceived removal of the human factor? It's like some people see drug assisted athletes as not being human at all.

This for me.
Ultimately I simply cannot relate to any athlete who has to take drugs in order to compete. It's entirely a faux production and I would have no interest in any sport that encouraged artificial enhancers. Sportsmen are only worshiped because they're better than the rest of us punters..naturally.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Maybe there is a little Dr Frankenstein in me, so what? What they develop in sport may have benefits for mainstream society. I wouldn't say I'm insane though, more curious.

Sorry mate, those comments weren't meant to be taken too literally!

Let's be cynical here for a minute - I've yet to see an athlete banned for using drugs because of the possible side effects. It's always been because the drugs have given the athlete an unfair advantage over those who aren't using the drugs. Since when has any of the sporting bodies given a toss about the side effects? All they're interested in is the amount of dirt heading their way. Well I say, give the drug assisted athletes their own class to compete in and be done with it.

Professional sport is nothing without sponsorship. I'd like to think no reputable organisation would put its image on the line by backing this.

The thoroughbred parallel is Rocket Racer, all-the-way winner of the Perth Cup by a big space after being doped to the eyeballs with etorphine ("elephant juice"). Upon passing the post after racing for two miles, it just kept running with the jockey unable to pull it up. A disgraceful spectacle followed on return to scale with the distressed horse ordered to be led away from the gaze of the public holiday crowd. It died some weeks afterwards. This embarrassed authorities into cleaning up Perth racing. Where is the glory in a human athlete doing similar?

Here's the footage of RR being half-carried back to the stalls. You'll be pleased to know he almost broke the track record in 40 degree heat...

[youtube=560,315]1PLE0BSKc6Y[/youtube]

 

[Massive Tiger]

Surely Golf is played on drugs?

 

[Joe Lynn Turnip]

Surely Golf is played on drugs?

No, but you need to be on drugs to watch it and enjoy it.

 

[1eyedtiger]

LeeToRainesToRoach,
The horse racing industry has been through a similar debate here with the use of horse whips in racing. You are comparing a horse who has no say in the matter (and unbeknown to the horse, racing for his very life), and a human athlete who has the ability to make an intelligent decision whether or not to use drugs.

I don't think people realize the possible benefits to medicine if drugs in sport was allowed as long as it was in separate classes to non drug assisted athletes. I've personally benefited from surgical procedures that at one time, would have seen the pioneers of such procedures seen in the same light as 'Frankenstein'. In fact, anyone who has had a operation or taken drugs for any medical reason has benefited from the knowledge gained from such people. Aside from the curiosity of how drug assisted athletes would perform compared to 'natural' athletes, the benefits that may come to the general public is immeasurable.

The main point for me as that drug assisted athletes be allowed to complete in their own classes of competition. This way, 'natural' athletes would have no fear of being cheated. It would all be out in the open and conducted in a transparent and controlled manner.

 

[Baloo]

You would still have drug cheats entering the clean comps as you do today, but with better drugs.

If you want to see drugs in sport, watch WWE.

 

[1eyedtiger]

You're probably right Baloo, if someone can't win the in the correct class and they're desperate enough, they'll try and cheat in a different class.
At the moment, I don't really have a solution for this but I still stand by my reasoning as it would at least give athletes the choice and maybe give something back to mainstream medicine. At the moment, there is no choice and they'll use whatever drugs they have at their disposal anyway. If they have a choice, there will be no excuse for them not disclosing their drug use.

PS. I haven't watched wrestling since I was a kid when you had Mr T and co. competing (not sure if it was WWE back then or something else) and when I think back, it was pretty lame then. Is it even a sport anymore?

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

I don't think people realize the possible benefits to medicine if drugs in sport was allowed

I don't. Only ever read about this type of side effect.

"They killed Heidi"

Experts say the next step for sportsmen and women looking for an illegal boost to physical performance could be gene therapy -- so-called "gene doping."

Sports physician Willi Heepe said gene therapy means the body will basically dope itself.

If that happens, "the human monster will be a reality," he told CNN.

Krieger is worried that the pressure to win could create new victims.

"If today's athletes say they want to take the risk, they really don't know what risk they are taking," he said.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-11/world/sexchange.athlete_1_gene-doping-gene-therapy-oral-turinabol?_s=PM:WORLD

 

[Rosy]

At the moment, there is no choice and they'll use whatever drugs they have at their disposal anyway. If they have a choice, there will be no excuse for them not disclosing their drug use.

I doubt that would be the case. Drugs might improve individual results but there will still always be some who are better than others. Seeing so much is about winning what would prevent the less successful in the druggies group entering non-drug events in hopes their artificially enhanced performance might increase their chances of success, same as they do now?

 

[Tigers of Old]

I still have massive doubts over the legitimacy of the 2006 Weagles premiership given the drug culture at that club.
Daniel Chick's post career steroid issues only added further suspicions. It should be marked with an asterisk.