Why Not Legalize Doping?

[punyhuman]

After lurking on this board for a long time and thinking about why doping is banned in sports, I've seem to have come to the conclusion of "Why not legalize doping?". There are two main parts to my thoughts:

[1] Holding back advances in human performance that can be reaped from medicines / drugs is not a viable long term idea. Our technologies evolve as a species over time and there is no reason that we should be artificially restricting enhancements to our bodies. We've evolved technologically and biologically over time and "doping" is a continuation of the survival of the fittest where we are not only enhancing our bodies by breeding, but also by using what is available in our environment.

Should we be luddites and forever forgo artificial enhancements to our bodies? As a species in 100, 50, 20, even 10 years, do you really think that we should stop changing? If you were able to get an injection to make you or your children vastly more intelligent, would you not do it?

Would you stay behind as technology marches ever forwards? I for one cannot accept the idea of shunning doping because it is like refusing to adapt to an ever changing world.


[2] Doping is so rampant it's all but a formality now.

Making athletic doping illegal is about as useful as the USA's "War on Drugs" and criminalizing those that use marijuana. The cat is out of the bag. We can either accept it or waste immense amounts of money and time on nothing.

Ever watched an action movie? I can pretty much guarantee that there is rampant doping by actors / actresses to "bulk" up or to look lean. Those muscles on Sylvester Stallone are not natural. Neither is it on The Rock.


Edit: I should add that this is NOT an April Fools thread.

 

[BYOP88]

If doping was legal, I'd become a pro cyclist

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Why should a pro cyclist be forced to take drugs to keep up with the Jones'?

Yes, they can quit and do something else.

But imagine your own job right now. Imagine some drug comes out that makes people in your job better than they are now. SO much better that they make you look hopeless and inadequate.

Would you be happy if you had to use testosterone to keep your job? And EPO or blood transfusions?

Personally, I have no desire to take drugs to keep my job. None whatsoever.

Gattaca called, they want their script back.

 

[Granville57]

After lurking on this board for a long time...

Not nearly long enough.

Been covered. Multiple times. Multiple threads.

 

[punyhuman]

Why should a pro cyclist be forced to take drugs to keep up with the Jones'?

Yes, they can quit and do something else.

But imagine your own job right now. Imagine some drug comes out that makes people in your job better than they are now. SO much better that they make you look hopeless and inadequate.

Would you be happy if you had to use testosterone to keep your job? And EPO or blood transfusions?

Personally, I have no desire to take drugs to keep my job. None whatsoever.

Gattaca called, they want their script back.

Because one of the jobs of a pro cyclist is to be put out the best athletic performances and whether that happens by "natural" or artificial means is an artificial construct. You could ask the same question of why a pro cyclist be forced to use aero bars to keep up with the Jones'?

If some drug comes out that makes people do my job way better, of course I would take it. Why would I not? Should I just go whither and become homeless just because I'm not will to change with the times? And if the job paid for all the drugs needed along with the medical tests and doctor supervision to minimize the risks, why not?

Not nearly long enough.

Been covered. Multiple times. Multiple threads.

Dang. What was the conclusion of those threads? All I keep seeing is Froome-this, Contador-that, Lance-this, Landis-that, etc...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

If some drug comes out that makes people do my job way better, of course I would take it. Why would I not? Should I just go whither and become homeless just because I'm not will to change with the times? And if the job paid for all the drugs needed along with the medical tests and doctor supervision to minimize the risks, why not?

How ironic that you agree to use testosterone to keep your job but say the alternative is to whither (sic).

Very much ironic.

Equating aerobars with doping makes me think I'll bow out of it before I say something really fvcking bannable.

 

[punyhuman]

How ironic that you agree to use testosterone to keep your job but say the alternative is to whither (sic).

Very much ironic.

Equating aerobars with doping makes me think I'll bow out of it before I say something really fvcking bannable.

I did not specifically mention testosterone but it was the idea in general. If doping was legalized and a doctor advised you on the cycling of testosterone and helped balance your other hormones so you don't experience whithering, then why not? It would be a biological benefit to ensure the "survival of the fittest".

Aerobars are a good comparison for the legalization of doping. Neither of them are "necessary" but both provide immense benefits because technology continuously evolves and we have to adapt to it or get left behind.

 

[JackRabbitSlims]

then it becomes a matter of the team with the biggest budget being able to buy / supply the rider with the best gear and the dodgiest medical staff......oh wait

Ideally, Pharmaceutical companies should all have pro cycling teams as part of their Marketing and Promotion sector....that would be super cool....riders dropping dead all over the place....left ventriculars exploding in their chests....great for bringing in spectators...it's all about bums on seats man.

Can you imagine the anticipation at the start of the season..."oh, I wonder what new gear rider XYZ from company ABC will be on this year".....oh wait

 

[MarkvW]

After lurking on this board for a long time and thinking about why doping is banned in sports, I've seem to have come to the conclusion of "Why not legalize doping?". There are two main parts to my thoughts:

[1] Holding back advances in human performance that can be reaped from medicines / drugs is not a viable long term idea. Our technologies evolve as a species over time and there is no reason that we should be artificially restricting enhancements to our bodies. We've evolved technologically and biologically over time and "doping" is a continuation of the survival of the fittest where we are not only enhancing our bodies by breeding, but also by using what is available in our environment.

Should we be luddites and forever forgo artificial enhancements to our bodies? As a species in 100, 50, 20, even 10 years, do you really think that we should stop changing? If you were able to get an injection to make you or your children vastly more intelligent, would you not do it?

Would you stay behind as technology marches ever forwards? I for one cannot accept the idea of shunning doping because it is like refusing to adapt to an ever changing world.


[2] Doping is so rampant it's all but a formality now.

Making athletic doping illegal is about as useful as the USA's "War on Drugs" and criminalizing those that use marijuana. The cat is out of the bag. We can either accept it or waste immense amounts of money and time on nothing.

Ever watched an action movie? I can pretty much guarantee that there is rampant doping by actors / actresses to "bulk" up or to look lean. Those muscles on Sylvester Stallone are not natural. Neither is it on The Rock.


Edit: I should add that this is NOT an April Fools thread.

Bike races--TO THE DEATH.

And that's not an April Fool's joke, either.

 

[JackRabbitSlims]

Ever watched an action movie? I can pretty much guarantee that there is rampant doping by actors / actresses to "bulk" up or to look lean. Those muscles on Sylvester Stallone are not natural. Neither is it on The Rock.

Wow! - you could be on to something there.

Me, I always thought it was just superior genetics and lots and lots of fight scenes.

 

[punyhuman]

Ideally, Pharmaceutical companies should all have pro cycling teams as part of their Marketing and Promotion sector....that would be super cool....riders dropping dead all over the place....left ventriculars exploding in their chests....great for bringing in spectators...it's all about bums on seats man.

Self-preservation to ensure the survival of your genetic material and the large economic loss incurred by a dead / non-optimal athlete would ensure that your scenario would be highly unlikely. There is no benefit biologically or economically to have the athlete you spend millions just drop dead. Evolutionary pressures would be working the opposite way.

 

[JackRabbitSlims]

somehow, I don't think I'm taking this as serious as you are.

 

[Granville57]

Dang. What was the conclusion of those threads? All I keep seeing is Froome-this, Contador-that, Lance-this, Landis-that, etc...

Then maybe you've haven't been lurking...

Or maybe your search feature doesn't work...

Or maybe you're just trolling?


Here's a few, in no particular order:

CONI prez. Ettore Torri says legalize Doping !
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=10482

Should doping be legalized? Ethics etc.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=13203

Why is doping bad?
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12599

An opinion about legalising doping
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=20040

Why is doping in cycling bad? (serious question - not trolling)
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=20220?

"It is time to allow doping at Tour de France"/Julian Savulescu thread
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=4690

Why is Doping Bad? It should be Legalized and here's Why:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=1989

Floyd says...you've got to legalise doping
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=11934

 

[JackRabbitSlims]

Burn!!

Ouch!!

 

[punyhuman]

Then maybe you've haven't been lurking...

Or maybe your search feature doesn't work...

Or maybe you're just trolling?


Here's a few, in no particular order:

....

I lurk, I don't live here. Forgive me for not coming here every week and reading every thread when it keeps coming back to either Froome, Chris Horner, Richie Porte, Lance, or Landis.

It seems the legalization of doping does have some a strong backing as I casually skim through some of those threads. Seems like it is a only a matter of time before it becomes legalized seeing as how some of those threads show how extremely wide spread it is already.

 

[JackRabbitSlims]

you've been watching too many of those films with "The Rock" and "Sly"

get outside a bit more and ride yah bike.

 

[Merckx index]

IMO there are several good arguments both pro and con on this issue. But as I think usually happens in such situations, the path we take will not be determined by the outcome of reasoned debates but by unfolding events. Your first reason I'm pretty sure will trump all other arguments.

The day is approaching when it will be possible to manipulate the genome, and some if not many parents are going to want to make their children bigger, faster, stronger, smarter, and so on. When that happens, anti-doping rules will no longer be sustainable. People simply will not watch as Tours, WCs, Gold Medals, etc., are won by individuals whom everyone knows are not in fact the best (assuming that non-manipulated athletes can be caught and banned). Particularly when, as time goes on, it won't be just a few genetically enhanced individuals, but perhaps the norm in society.

We're still a long way off from being able to specify all the genes that contribute to athletic superiority, let alone being able to manipulate them safely. And unless parents are comfortable with having children who are so different from themselves as to be hardly biologically related to them, it may not be possible to turn donkeys into racehorses. But the bar is going to be raised so high that I don't see how sports organizations will be able to ignore the change.

 

[MarkvW]

IMO there are several good arguments both pro and con on this issue. But as I think usually happens in such situations, the path we take will not be determined by the outcome of reasoned debates but by unfolding events. Your first reason I'm pretty sure will trump all other arguments.

The day is approaching when it will be possible to manipulate the genome, and some if not many parents are going to want to make their children bigger, faster, stronger, smarter, and so on. When that happens, anti-doping rules will no longer be sustainable. People simply will not watch as Tours, WCs, Gold Medals, etc., are won by individuals whom everyone knows are not in fact the best (assuming that non-manipulated athletes can be caught and banned). Particularly when, as time goes on, it won't be just a few genetically enhanced individuals, but perhaps the norm in society.

We're still a long way off from being able to specify all the genes that contribute to athletic superiority, let alone being able to manipulate them safely. And unless parents are comfortable with having children who are so different from themselves as to be hardly biologically related to them, it may not be possible to turn donkeys into racehorses. But the bar is going to be raised so high that I don't see how sports organizations will be able to ignore the change.

When it can be done safely, I'm all for it. Until then . . . better safe than sorry!

 

[Afrank]

[1] Holding back advances in human performance that can be reaped from medicines / drugs is not a viable long term idea. Our technologies evolve as a species over time and there is no reason that we should be artificially restricting enhancements to our bodies. We've evolved technologically and biologically over time and "doping" is a continuation of the survival of the fittest where we are not only enhancing our bodies by breeding, but also by using what is available in our environment.

Should we be luddites and forever forgo artificial enhancements to our bodies? As a species in 100, 50, 20, even 10 years, do you really think that we should stop changing? If you were able to get an injection to make you or your children vastly more intelligent, would you not do it?

Would you stay behind as technology marches ever forwards? I for one cannot accept the idea of shunning doping because it is like refusing to adapt to an ever changing world.

So let me get this straight. Doping according to you would be a way that we could advance our performances, enhance our bodies, and evolve ourselves overall; all with zero risk. Whatever drug your talking about, I want it. Because it sounds like a miracle drug.

Out of curiosity, ever read Flowers for Algernon? If not I suggest reading it. And pay close attention to the ending especially.

 

[Afrank]

I lurk, I don't live here. Forgive me for not coming here every week and reading every thread when it keeps coming back to either Froome, Chris Horner, Richie Porte, Lance, or Landis.

You don't have to live here to use the search function and look through the results for a couple minutes.

 

[punyhuman]

When it can be done safely, I'm all for it. Until then . . . better safe than sorry!

I think you would need to define for yourself what you mean by "safely" since EVERYTHING we do in life can kill us. I believe that we are already at the point where there is a large variety of drugs / methods that can "safely" be used if you have the medical knowledge and the assistance of doctors. For example, blood transfusions of your own blood.

So let me get this straight. Doping according to you would be a way that we could advance our performances, enhance our bodies, and evolve ourselves overall; all with zero risk. Whatever drug your talking about, I want it. Because it sounds like a miracle drug.

Out of curiosity, ever read Flowers for Algernon? If not I suggest reading it. And pay close attention to the ending especially.

I never said there was "zero risk". EVERYTHING we do in life has risk. Eating a hamburger has a risk of high cholesterol. Driving a car has a risk of crashing and killing yourself. Should we go backwards and ban hamburgers and driving cars because they have a risk of giving you a heart attack and killing yourself in a crash? No, because they provide (unnecessary but advantageous) benefits even though they have glaring downsides.

Technology marches forwards and you are simply left behind if you don't adapt with the times.

No, I have not read Flowers for Algernon. Care to summarize?

 

[MarkvW]

I think you would need to define for yourself what you mean by "safely" since EVERYTHING we do in life can kill us. I believe that we are already at the point where there is a large variety of drugs / methods that can "safely" be used if you have the medical knowledge and the assistance of doctors. For example, blood transfusions of your own blood.

I don't think sleep will kill me. It's always gooooood.

 

[punyhuman]

I don't think sleep will kill me. It's always gooooood.

Yes, sleeping can kill you:

http://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/guide/physical-side-effects-oversleeping

Medical Problems Linked to Oversleeping
Diabetes. Studies have shown that sleeping too long or not enough each night can increase the risk for diabetes.

Obesity. Sleeping too much or too little could make you weigh too much, as well. One recent study showed that people who slept for nine or 10 hours every night were 21% more likely to become obese over a six-year period than were people who slept between seven and eight hours. This association between sleep and obesity remained the same even when food intake and exercise were taken into account.

Headaches. For some people prone to headaches, sleeping longer than usual on a weekend or vacation can cause head pain. Researchers believe this is due to the effect oversleeping has on certain neurotransmitters in the brain, including serotonin. People who sleep too much during the day and disrupt their nighttime sleep may also find themselves suffering from headaches in the morning.

Back pain. There was a time when doctors told people suffering from back pain to head straight to bed. But those days are long gone. You do need to curtail your regular exercise program when you are experiencing back pain. But doctors now realize the health benefits of maintaining a certain level of activity. And they recommend against sleeping more than usual, when possible.

Depression. Although insomnia is more commonly linked to depression than oversleeping, roughly 15% of people with depression sleep too much. This may in turn make their depression worse. That's because regular sleep habits are important to the recovery process. Need another reason not to overdo the ZZZs when you're blue? ? In certain instances, sleep deprivation can have a temporary antidepressant effect.

Heart disease. The Nurses' Health Study involved nearly 72,000 women. A careful analysis of the data from that study showed that women who slept nine to 11 hours per night were 38% more likely to have coronary heart disease than women who slept eight hours. Researchers have not yet identified a reason for the connection between oversleeping and heart disease.

Death. Multiple studies have found that people who sleep nine or more hours a night have significantly higher death rates than people sleeping seven to eight hours a night. No specific reason for this correlation has been determined. But researchers found that depression and low socioeconomic status are also associated with longer sleep. They speculate these factors could be related to the observed increase in mortality for people who sleep too much.

 

[Jspear]

Yes, sleeping can kill you:

http://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/guide/physical-side-effects-oversleeping

And you would die without sleep. It's called moderation. You're overreacting....I'm pretty sure MarkvW was joking(at least to a point.)

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

"Death. Multiple studies have found that people who sleep nine or more hours a night have significantly higher death rates than people sleeping seven to eight hours a night. No specific reason for this correlation has been determined. But researchers found that depression and low socioeconomic status are also associated with longer sleep. They speculate these factors could be related to the observed increase in mortality for people who sleep too much. "

Well, well.... scientics...
They put their numbers in computers, use formulas for this and that, put lines here and there, and still come to wrong conclussions (either by intention to please the orderer, or just because they are nerds in their field; not to mention all the cheating goes on there. They don´t take dope, but on a moral compass they are not higher than politicians, business men or cyclists for example).

Common sense tells you sleeping is good, natural, and healthy. It can not lead to dead.

They had the answer in front of them, but couldn´t see it: Depressed people who sleep longer (which is true) are the reason for the deaths. Sleep itself doesn´t kill. Long sleep makes you live long...