Say yes to drugs in sport

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Steve H. said:
I would argue it essentially diminishes the human element. It is no longer man against himself. As "doping" becomes more accepted, for whatever reason, the performances, which may or may not be more exciting to watch, become less attributed to the athlete(human) thereby trivializing any achievement. It would lower the value placed on human beings in general. I feel doping actually never lets you find and test your limits, but the effectiveness of the chosen method of doping.
Elegantly put.
Apr 3, 2011
Steve H. said:
How far will medical enhancements go? Why stop at drugs? Maybe an athlete can have surgery to implant a device inside their body instead of the "motor" Cancellara had. Electrical impulses to work the muscles beyond capacity. Brain surgery to remove feelings of pain. How about transplants? The asthmatic can swap out his lungs or maybe just add to them and be the first 6 liter athlete.
In this way, we can devise any "sport" we like and build the athlete to fit.
Maybe gene splicing is the way to go, part horse, cheetah and human!
the future is different - why bother with transplant patching here and there if you can design and breed a champion starting from his DNA?
Oct 4, 2011
The divide at the top of sport is huge. To really compete you need money. Money for equipment, training facilities, coaches, to live while training and devoting your life to your chosen field.

If you add drugs to this the gulf gets even wider. It becomes who can afford the best doping enhancement plan to win. The rich get richer,the poor get poorer.
To even argue that drugs should be allowed is without much thought to the consequences for sport and the health of those in the sport. Every sport has its cases of people losing their lives too young from drug use. If money is devoted to usage for those with money, well maybe those deaths will be lessened but you can be sure that cheaper drugs will become available to less wealthy nations or people, and the consequences will be the same if not worse.

As has been mentioned sport is man against man and man against himself. It is not about how fast a man goes up a mountain, but how he competes against the others that do the same.
People who want win at any cost lose perspective on what it is all about. Scientists use science and debate its merits. With epo and other performance enhancers great feats can be done. But do them in the name of science and endeavour so all know what can be done, not in the name of sport.
IMO the Article is horribly written & the title of this thread differs completely from what the article in question refers-which revolves around the "ethical reasoning" of banning PEDs under the "health risk" title, rather than "fairness, equal & balanced competition". The Author also takes the debate over the use of PED's as "therapeutic method of training", implying the mayor benefit from the banned substances comes from "recovery" rather than the gains in the areas that matters the most for athletes, such as strength, speed, endurance & fitness.

& the fact that the articles posts a photo of LA, seems to me that there is certain biased position behind it & aims to reach out for some form of "comprehension, understanding & compassion" of what's coming for him.......
Oct 30, 2011
I prefer to use mental doping. The conviction that if I wasn't lazy, and didn't enjoy a drink, food that's bad for me and the occasional cigarette, I would be a champion.