I've always been told, and for the most part believed, that doping in sports is inherently evil. That dopers are simply cheaters who disgrace themselves and their sport, and that anything they accomplish should be expunged, and forgotten. Even if, in being a former racer, I understood the motivation behind doing everything one possibly could, to be the best that one could be, I still knew, or at least felt strongly, that doping was wrong. But lately I've been considering the subject from a different perspective, and I thought that I would solicit the opinions of this forum.
The idea that doping is wrong, basically boils down to three distinct arguments. One, is that doping gives the offender an artificial advantage over his fellow competitors. Two, is that doping is detrimental to the long term health of the doper. And three, allowing athletes to use performance enhancing drugs will encourage the abuse of those drugs among young athletes, and wanna be athletes. For the most part everyone understands, and can at least in part, agree with these three concerns. But now let's look at the subject of doping from a different point of view.
Let's say that instead of taking a pill or supplement that made you stronger, or faster, or gave you more endurance, that instead, you took a pill that made you smarter. In fact, this is probably happening in some sense already. Things like energy drinks help people be more alert and focused. They can help students, professionals, and lay people alike perform at an elevated level. But we don't consider this cheating. It doesn't give someone superhuman intelligence, or turn anyone into an Einstein. It just helps you function at your optimum level. If a college student were to find that there was some pill that could help them perform better on a test, would we consider this as giving them an "unfair" advantage? Would we consider instituting drug testing to catch the "dopers".
Truth be told, doping can't make you a superhuman athlete, or suddenly turn you into an Einstein. As my coach used to say, "The body will not do, what the mind will not do. But the body CAN NOT do, what the body CAN NOT do." No amount of doping could turn me into Einstein or Lance Armstrong. You're still limited by what God or your genes gave you. You may be able to enhance it a little bit, but you can't turn a run of the mill club racer into Lance Armstrong. I had the tenacity to be a good racer, but not the talent to be a great one, and doping could never bridge that gap. There are things that can help you perform at your best, intellectually and physically, but they aren't miracle drugs, in the end it's talent and tenacity that count.
On the second issue, of health concerns tied to doping. How can anyone really take such an argument seriously when you look at what the overwhelming majority of society puts in their bodies every day? Ninety-nine percent of what you find in grocery stores today, is junk. Being a former racer I still keep a close eye on what I eat, and I can tell you that most people have no idea about how unhealthy their diets are. The epidemic of obesity, diabetes, and a sundry of other health concerns, now means that for the first time in the history of America, our children will have shorter lifespans than their parents. It seems rather hypocritical for society to be railing against the unhealthy effects of doping in sports, while at the same time taking such a languid approach to the more pressing issue of the unhealthy lifestyles in society as a whole.
Athletes are undoubtedly more attune to the effects of what they put in their bodies then the average person, and although most dopers are probably dismissive of the health concerns, overall they are likely doing less harm to their long term health, than the average couch potato. There are many sports, cycling included, in which the demands of competing at the highest level are actually detrimental to one's health. The physical limits that top athletes push themselves to, often go beyond what is healthy for the human body. But we expect this, we even applaud it. Most drugs used by athletes today are used in ways and amounts that pose minimal risk to their long term health. The days of massively over dosing have been replaced by a more scientific regimen that hopefully produces the desired effect, while greatly diminishing the risk. Of course any drug can be abused to such an extent that it causes physical harm. There's no accounting for the ignorance of some people who believe that if a little is good, then a lot must be even better. Any drug can be abused.
The third and best argument against doping is the example that doping sets for young people. The professional athlete may know the risks, be prepared to accept them, and better equipped to manage them, but the young people who idolize and emulate them, are probably not prepared to understand and control those risks. Therefore it may be necessary to regulate the use of performance enhancing drugs, not because such use is unethical or dangerous to the elite athlete, but because of the unintended consequences that it has upon impressionable minds, who have neither the knowledge nor guidance to use those drugs in a safe manner. Allow the use of doping, and you will inevitably foster the misuse, and abuse of doping. Like it or not, professional athletes are role models. What they do, and how they act, matters. It's unfair in a way, to ask athletes to be accountable not only for their performance on the field, but also for the actions that their behavior may encourage in others, off the field. But it's a sport, and at its heart it's simply entertainment. Although an entertainment that asks an awful lot of it's performers.
Doping doesn't make our sports heroes more courageous, or their efforts more inspirational. Even without doping, athletes will push themselves to superhuman levels. They will astonish and inspire us. They will display discipline and perseverance beyond our comprehension. They may not be able to win seven TDF's in a row, but even those who fail, will be respected for the attempt, as they always have been. I realize that athletes, and sports, are engrained with an overwhelming desire and pressure to win, and I doubt that that will soon change. So although it may be necessary to ban doping in sports, and to publicly abhor such behavior, we can at least understand and admit that these are the levels to which we ourselves, push our heroes. They drive themselves beyond the limit of what should be humanly possible, and sometimes in so doing they push themselves beyond what is socially acceptable. When they have, by their efforts, pushed the limits of human capabilities, we must forgive them some weakness. They are after all, only human.
Like I say, no amount of doping could enable me to win the TDF, the Boston Marathon, or the Olympic decathlon. These things take extraordinary people. Unfortunately for many, the things which they achieved, have been overshadowed by the times in which they achieved them. For some history may find their accomplishments even more inspiring, for others there may be a bit of bloom taken off the rose. Such is the wisdom and luxury of hindsight, it puts all things in their proper place. When all is said and done history is often the kindest judge.
The idea that doping is wrong, basically boils down to three distinct arguments. One, is that doping gives the offender an artificial advantage over his fellow competitors. Two, is that doping is detrimental to the long term health of the doper. And three, allowing athletes to use performance enhancing drugs will encourage the abuse of those drugs among young athletes, and wanna be athletes. For the most part everyone understands, and can at least in part, agree with these three concerns. But now let's look at the subject of doping from a different point of view.
Let's say that instead of taking a pill or supplement that made you stronger, or faster, or gave you more endurance, that instead, you took a pill that made you smarter. In fact, this is probably happening in some sense already. Things like energy drinks help people be more alert and focused. They can help students, professionals, and lay people alike perform at an elevated level. But we don't consider this cheating. It doesn't give someone superhuman intelligence, or turn anyone into an Einstein. It just helps you function at your optimum level. If a college student were to find that there was some pill that could help them perform better on a test, would we consider this as giving them an "unfair" advantage? Would we consider instituting drug testing to catch the "dopers".
Truth be told, doping can't make you a superhuman athlete, or suddenly turn you into an Einstein. As my coach used to say, "The body will not do, what the mind will not do. But the body CAN NOT do, what the body CAN NOT do." No amount of doping could turn me into Einstein or Lance Armstrong. You're still limited by what God or your genes gave you. You may be able to enhance it a little bit, but you can't turn a run of the mill club racer into Lance Armstrong. I had the tenacity to be a good racer, but not the talent to be a great one, and doping could never bridge that gap. There are things that can help you perform at your best, intellectually and physically, but they aren't miracle drugs, in the end it's talent and tenacity that count.
On the second issue, of health concerns tied to doping. How can anyone really take such an argument seriously when you look at what the overwhelming majority of society puts in their bodies every day? Ninety-nine percent of what you find in grocery stores today, is junk. Being a former racer I still keep a close eye on what I eat, and I can tell you that most people have no idea about how unhealthy their diets are. The epidemic of obesity, diabetes, and a sundry of other health concerns, now means that for the first time in the history of America, our children will have shorter lifespans than their parents. It seems rather hypocritical for society to be railing against the unhealthy effects of doping in sports, while at the same time taking such a languid approach to the more pressing issue of the unhealthy lifestyles in society as a whole.
Athletes are undoubtedly more attune to the effects of what they put in their bodies then the average person, and although most dopers are probably dismissive of the health concerns, overall they are likely doing less harm to their long term health, than the average couch potato. There are many sports, cycling included, in which the demands of competing at the highest level are actually detrimental to one's health. The physical limits that top athletes push themselves to, often go beyond what is healthy for the human body. But we expect this, we even applaud it. Most drugs used by athletes today are used in ways and amounts that pose minimal risk to their long term health. The days of massively over dosing have been replaced by a more scientific regimen that hopefully produces the desired effect, while greatly diminishing the risk. Of course any drug can be abused to such an extent that it causes physical harm. There's no accounting for the ignorance of some people who believe that if a little is good, then a lot must be even better. Any drug can be abused.
The third and best argument against doping is the example that doping sets for young people. The professional athlete may know the risks, be prepared to accept them, and better equipped to manage them, but the young people who idolize and emulate them, are probably not prepared to understand and control those risks. Therefore it may be necessary to regulate the use of performance enhancing drugs, not because such use is unethical or dangerous to the elite athlete, but because of the unintended consequences that it has upon impressionable minds, who have neither the knowledge nor guidance to use those drugs in a safe manner. Allow the use of doping, and you will inevitably foster the misuse, and abuse of doping. Like it or not, professional athletes are role models. What they do, and how they act, matters. It's unfair in a way, to ask athletes to be accountable not only for their performance on the field, but also for the actions that their behavior may encourage in others, off the field. But it's a sport, and at its heart it's simply entertainment. Although an entertainment that asks an awful lot of it's performers.
Doping doesn't make our sports heroes more courageous, or their efforts more inspirational. Even without doping, athletes will push themselves to superhuman levels. They will astonish and inspire us. They will display discipline and perseverance beyond our comprehension. They may not be able to win seven TDF's in a row, but even those who fail, will be respected for the attempt, as they always have been. I realize that athletes, and sports, are engrained with an overwhelming desire and pressure to win, and I doubt that that will soon change. So although it may be necessary to ban doping in sports, and to publicly abhor such behavior, we can at least understand and admit that these are the levels to which we ourselves, push our heroes. They drive themselves beyond the limit of what should be humanly possible, and sometimes in so doing they push themselves beyond what is socially acceptable. When they have, by their efforts, pushed the limits of human capabilities, we must forgive them some weakness. They are after all, only human.
Like I say, no amount of doping could enable me to win the TDF, the Boston Marathon, or the Olympic decathlon. These things take extraordinary people. Unfortunately for many, the things which they achieved, have been overshadowed by the times in which they achieved them. For some history may find their accomplishments even more inspiring, for others there may be a bit of bloom taken off the rose. Such is the wisdom and luxury of hindsight, it puts all things in their proper place. When all is said and done history is often the kindest judge.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram