Should doping be legalized? Ethics etc.

[Dr. Maserati]

Arbitary rules would include things like number of players on each side, size of pitch/field, length of time of a match, many of the rules regarding equipment- at least to some extent. (It amazes me that there is no standard size for a soccer field!) and some of the rules the UCI have come up with regarding what consitutes a bike as well probably!

But again these are rules that applied 'fairly' - all teams have the same numbers, length of times of matches are the same, everyone gets to play at the other grounds.

If there was one rule for one team/athlete and a different rule for another I might see your point.

 

[Granville57]

Well no - having surgery to repair something is not enhancing, its repairing and bringing you back to what your capability was.

Most often, this seems to be the case. However, surgery can be performance enhancing if it's approached as such.

In regards to the OP, you if need other references for your essay, you might also explore some of the links from this thread:
Surgical Doping

 

[brianf7]

While WADA and others are parinoid about catching cheats doping is not ilegal if you go to your Doctor and he gives you a testosterone injection its quite legal even without a TUE.

The only way its ilegal is if you use it enough to enhance performance and win big $$$$ . Just a little bit more than prescribed.

So you get cought with a drug that a doctor gave you. you can sue the Doctor if WADA wont give you a TUE or if WADA experts state you didnt need the stuff .

Very complicated but made easy for WADA because you sign a agreement to have all sport offences dealt with in CAS .

If it was dealt with in a proper court the matter would be different. Inocent untill proven guilty. Your Doctor is the one who they will listen to.

 

[SirLes]

But again these are rules that applied 'fairly' - all teams have the same numbers, length of times of matches are the same, everyone gets to play at the other grounds.

If there was one rule for one team/athlete and a different rule for another I might see your point.

I didn't mean that rules should not be applied unfairly. All rules should be applied equally it's just a question of why those rules exist in the first place.

As it stands certain substences are against the rules of particular sports. Whether that should be the case or not is not an ethical question but a medical one. That I think was m original point, although I'm getting confused myself now.

However I suppose the decision to legalise certain drugs could be an ethical one if the health considerations were unknown or there was a small health risk. Given what we've already said regarding risks of sports, is it ever justifiable to allow the use of substances that increase performance but at some personal risk? Or what if it is to limit the damage caused by the sport itself?

I think I need to go to bed.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

While WADA and others are parinoid about catching cheats doping is not ilegal if you go to your Doctor and he gives you a testosterone injection its quite legal even without a TUE.

The only way its ilegal is if you use it enough to enhance performance and win big $$$$ . Just a little bit more than prescribed.

So you get cought with a drug that a doctor gave you. you can sue the Doctor if WADA wont give you a TUE or if WADA experts state you didnt need the stuff .

Very complicated but made easy for WADA because you sign a agreement to have all sport offences dealt with in CAS .

If it was dealt with in a proper court the matter would be different. Inocent untill proven guilty. Your Doctor is the one who they will listen to.

Actually its quite simple, but you have tried to complicate it.

WADA don't try and catch cheats, they draw up and impliment the rules.
Doping is illegal in some countries.

Then there is your scenario of the Doctor giving a PED without a TUE so you sue them but its innocent until proven guilty and courts will side with the Doctor? Who wins that case?

 

[python]

Actually its quite simple, but you have tried to complicate it.

WADA don't try and catch cheats, they draw up and impliment the rules.
Doping is illegal in some countries.

Then there is your scenario of the Doctor giving a PED without a TUE so you sue them but its innocent until proven guilty and courts will side with the Doctor? Who wins that case?

to the bolded...you are wrong regarding the first statement (in red). you're quite right regarding the rest that was bolded.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I didn't mean that rules should not be applied unfairly. All rules should be applied equally it's just a question of why those rules exist in the first place.

Fair point- which can be asked of almost all rules but most rules are drawn up to maintain a standard and try to insure fairness.

As it stands certain substences are against the rules of particular sports. Whether that should be the case or not is not an ethical question but a medical one. That I think was m original point, although I'm getting confused myself now.

No - and this is a point I have seen get confused on here often.
When anti-doping rules are introduced it is not done solely on Medical grounds - there are a varity of reasons, moral/ethical, fairness etc are all parts too.

The main over riding reason is people want sports to be decided by the best natural athlete using the same (standard) 'tools' (ie bike, ball, bat) - allowing any type of Performance Enhancing Drug turns sport in to a chemisrty competition

However I suppose the decision to legalise certain drugs could be an ethical one if the health considerations were unknown or there was a small health risk. Given what we've already said regarding risks of sports, is it ever justifiable to allow the use of substances that increase performance but at some personal risk? Or what if it is to limit the damage caused by the sport itself?

I think I need to go to bed.

Again it is not if a substance (or method) is harmful. (Without even going in to what could be harmful for one person may not be harmful for another).

 

[blackcat]

Oxford prof Julian Savulescu

ethics... well medical ethics. Did he undergrad med with a ethics unit under the Princeston prof Peter Singer, of animal rights fame

 

[Dr. Maserati]

to the bolded...you are wrong regarding the first statement (in red). you're quite right regarding the rest that was bolded.

Mr Python, are you trying to out pedantic me?

WADA don't try and catch cheats - they impliment the rules, they are not part of the sanctioning process but they do have the right to appeal if they feel their rules have not been implimented

Oxford prof Julian Savulescu

ethics... well medical ethics. Did he undergrad med with a ethics unit under the Princeston prof Peter Singer, of animal rights fame

Well done - I was trying to remember who it was.

Here is a youtube clip where he is debating for the legalisation of PEDs.

 

[patricknd]

weird post and a stupid idea. unless of course, the sense of humour was even wierder.

it's cute when you pretend to understand humor

 

[blackcat]

Oxford prof Julian Savulescu

ethics... well medical ethics. Did the undergrad med with an ethics unit under the Princeston prof Peter Singer, of animal rights fame

edits 4 typoz

 

[python]

Mr Python, are you trying to out pedantic me?

WADA don't try and catch cheats - they impliment the rules, they are not part of the sanctioning process but they do have the right to appeal if they feel their rules have not been implimented

it's not about being pedantic but the accuracy of the statement regarding a mission of wada. an important point i think you and many others under appreciate.

wada can and does, if they find it necessary, occasionally manage* anti doping tests in some sports

you don't hear about this in cycling but for ex. in cross country skiing they've been known to do just that.

* 'manage' in this case means completely independent, ooc no-advance notice selection of an athlete for a test.
the results management is up to an individual sport federation. wada uses this tool to keep an eye on some 'special' sports and athletes.

 

[Magnus]

Well no - having surgery to repair something is not enhancing, its repairing and bringing you back to what your capability was.

As for rules - well yes, some rules are brought in for various reasons but essentially rules are there to apply to everyone.
If you have some examples of arbitrary rules I may understand your point better.

But during a GT your hematocrit level drops and taking epo only brings you back to the hematocrit level you had before starting the GT.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But during a GT your hematocrit level drops and taking epo only brings you back to the hematocrit level you had before starting the GT.

It looks like a plausible scenario but it is not a simple case and you need to look at the logical conclusion.
Firstly HCT is only one parameter in performance but even if it wasn't everyones HCT starts and drops differently, where do you 'regulate'? Have everyone start at 50? Would that not be unfair on the guy who was on 49 against someone on 44? How much do you top up by?
(Leaving aside how easily it is to manipulate HCT)

Your HCT falls naturally - some falls more than other, thats genetics.

More importantly having any tolerence to it sidelines those who do not wish to take PEDs whatever their reasons (health, religious, ethics etc).

 

[Magnus]

@ Dr:

I'm just pointing out that the logic that allows surgery can also allow doping: that you're allowed to use medical aid to return to some 'basic level'. This 'basic level' can then be defined in a number of different ways.

And clearly: having surgery (edit: when needed, not in general) is performance enhancing compared not to having surgery and having any tolerence to it sidelines those who do not wish to undergo surgery whatever their reasons (health, religious, ethics etc).

 

[Dr. Maserati]

@ Dr:

I'm just pointing out that the logic that allows surgery can also allow doping: that you're allowed to use medical aid to return to some 'basic level'. This 'basic level' can then be defined in a number of different ways.

And clearly: having surgery (edit: when needed, not in general) is performance enhancing compared not to having surgery and having any tolerence to it sidelines those who do not wish to undergo surgery whatever their reasons (health, religious, ethics etc).

The 'basic level' has been defined - is your treatment to restore your health or is it to enhance it? If its enhancing then it is likely to be against the code.

Having sugery 'when needed' is not enhancing. You need surgery to correct a condition, not enhance what you have.

As for your comment that "surgery sidelines those who do not wish to undergo surgery whatever their reasons (health, religious, ethics etc)"
Health? Ah, isn't that why you need surgery in the first place?
Religion - other than (IIRC) Johova witnesses who refuse blood transfusions, I can't think how religion would stop someone having surgery.
Ethics - again, can't see anyones ethics stoping them going for surgery.

 

[Magnus]

The 'basic level' has been defined - is your treatment to restore your health or is it to enhance it? If its enhancing then it is likely to be against the code.

Having sugery 'when needed' is not enhancing. You need surgery to correct a condition, not enhance what you have.

As for your comment that "surgery sidelines those who do not wish to undergo surgery whatever their reasons (health, religious, ethics etc)"
Health? Ah, isn't that why you need surgery in the first place?
Religion - other than (IIRC) Johova witnesses who refuse blood transfusions, I can't think how religion would stop someone having surgery.
Ethics - again, can't see anyones ethics stoping them going for surgery.

You'll have to excuse me as English is not my mother tongue. I understand performance enhancing as performance improving. When Museeuw smashed his knee he would have lost his leg had he not undergone medical treatment. Clearly your performance is improved by having two legs as opposed to one.
I'm not saying I think medical treatment in this case should be illegal.

So you define the 'basic level' by if you're restoring your health or enhancing it. But here again you need some reference.
What is the level you're restoring to and what is the level you're enhancing from?
I'm not saying there is no reference. I'm just saying that it isn't (at least to me) clear how it is defined in a canonical way.

People die in operations. That's a pretty serious health risk imo.

 

[DirtyWorks]

We all use them [caffeine, modafinil, add drugs etc] in our lives to improve our performance. Can't think of a competition use for viagra but heck get it in the essay somehow for added bling.
No one cares when athletes get lasik for enhanced 20/25 vision. William Saletan has a series on this in Slate magazine.
Good subject for an essay as you can go either way. Unworkable but why not split competitions into two -the sponsored by 'Pfizer, Merck and others' games and the clean ones that no one will watch.

Buried in this and another comment are a couple of logical tricks used to make doping okay.

1. ignore the unintended consequences.
We already had dead children in the late 80's as a result of EPO use. We already have long-term, socially expensive, medical complications from the use of PED's. I believe you can ask Joe Papp for some testimonial on the latter. And now the dope-friendly would geometrically expand the population of chronic illness where there was none before.

2. ignore the force of rules.
This one casts rules as unnecessary overhead. Essentially, this is arguing for a shan-gri-la where bike races happen without any rules at all. The beauty of this one is the argument is perfectly defensible. The abuser can perpetually modify his argument to make it work against all challenges. When in fact, it's failed from the start.

 

[DirtyWorks]

But during a GT your hematocrit level drops and taking epo only brings you back to the hematocrit level you had before starting the GT.

1. What is the hematocrit level at the start of the GT? Prior to 'safe' hematocrit metrics being established, riders could and did die from having life threatening hematocrit levels. A gentle reminder of the unintended consequences of permitting doping.

2. Doping for a GT is a multi-factored arms race. Using just one drug to make a case is nothing like the reality of the situation. It isn't a good way to distill the discussion of doping either.

Finally, the 'canonical' definition of acceptable medical procedures are those that enable anyone to have a productive life with minimal chronic injury. That these procedures are done to a cyclist adds nothing.

 

[ludwig]

It's important to keep in mind that the argument is full of ambiguity.

-Forbidding doping is in sports is considered socially necessary, because it is believed that if athletes get to take potentially dangerous drugs then it's ok for anybody to take them.
-However, the athletes are required to subvert the rules in order to be competitiive and stay at the top of the sport. Hence one of the prices they pay to be a pro athlete is adopting a double standard--privately they believe themselves above mere morality and are prepared to do what they need to do to maintain or upgrade their sporting status. Publicly, they must condemn drugs and drug usage.
-Hence the temptation to legalize. But this runs into numerous problems, among them 1) social problems if ordinary people come to think of PEDs as ok 2) the problem of excess...if everything is allowed the extremes get more extreme 3) if the sport is percieved as drug-soaked fans lose interest.
-In the past, the science of doping has far surpassed the science of testing, and this continues today.
-It's also important to note that the leadership and mentors in the sport of cycling were participants in the doping culture at the time...indeed doping in cycling has a long history and goes back to the roots of the sport. But naturally it is essential for the sport to keep this buried in order to remain economically viable.

It's a structural problem. There are no good guys and bad guys. Just imperfect human beings in an imperfect system.

 

[DirtyWorks]

It's important to keep in mind that the argument is full of ambiguity.

-Forbidding doping is in sports is considered socially necessary, because it is believed that if athletes get to take potentially dangerous drugs then it's ok for anybody to take them.

No, there's no abiguity.

How about forbidding PED's because of all the laws broken? Violation of possession of controlled substances is just one legitimate law that is turned on its head if you permit doping.

How about forbidding doping because it tends to kill athletes in the experimental phase in a given sport?

How about forbidding doping because there are known illness consequences?

Your complex categorization of the problem tacitly permits doping. It's as obvious as the sun and most definitely NOT ASKING FOR HUMAN PERFECTION to forbid doping.

As to the detection problem, that's different.

 

[Magnus]

No, there's no abiguity.

Then why are you on this forum?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You'll have to excuse me as English is not my mother tongue. I understand performance enhancing as performance improving. When Museeuw smashed his knee he would have lost his leg had he not undergone medical treatment. Clearly your performance is improved by having two legs as opposed to one.
I'm not saying I think medical treatment in this case should be illegal.

So you define the 'basic level' by if you're restoring your health or enhancing it. But here again you need some reference.
What is the level you're restoring to and what is the level you're enhancing from?
I'm not saying there is no reference. I'm just saying that it isn't (at least to me) clear how it is defined in a canonical way.

People die in operations. That's a pretty serious health risk imo.

Ok - I realize English is not your first language.

But Performance Enhancing is having a (natural) base level and then getting above that level.
If you break your leg your base level declines - having surgery only brings you back to the base level you were at before you broke your leg (if you're lucky).

As for people die during operations - thats why they get you or your family to sign a waiver before they operate.