Why Not Legalize Doping?

[Jspear]

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.

Just because we can't contain a problem doesn't mean that we legalize it. I agree the system is a mess, but you don't solve it by legalizing it. You're second point is not a valid point at all.

Hey you know something - gun violence is on the rise....it's gonna be hard to contain, so let's just legalize murder and drive by shootings.

 

[punyhuman]

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.

Yes, I don't think it will be one "ah-ha!" moment where all the anti-doping agencies and sport leagues see the futility of their non-evolutionary ways. It will likely be that our non-WADA lives will be so greatly enhanced by artificial means that it would be a tremendous sacrifice for someone to want to compete in sports "cleanly". Genetic modifications could become so common place that it would be easier to ask who hasn't been modified than who has been modified. There is also the question of physically disabled athletics. If we have the technology to enhance physically disabled athletes and these enhancements provide greater performance than what a "clean" athlete is able to obtain, then we will seriously have to rewrite or throw out WADA laws. Imagine if we could build artificial legs that burned carbohydrates for energy just like regular legs but weigh a quarter the amount. Would we consider that doping if a physically disabled athlete wore them?

 

[Afrank]

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?

By legalizing doping you would pretty much be opening the door for riders to find and use any drug they could get their hands on to increase their performance as much as possible. Currently I think most riders are using some form of doping, but make it legal and use of those drugs would increase greatly.

And this is going to open up the door to much greater health risks and health problems. EPO, steriods, and whatever other drugs you can think of, while they may increase your performance, are not exactly good for your health. I don't think we need to open up the door to this. To quote just one post by L'arriviste from a previous thread asking why not allow doping.

Originally Posted by Salon.com, 1999
... For two weeks [Mauro] Gianetti festered in intensive care, his body fluttering on the verge of multiple-organ shutdown.

... Two-time tour winner Bernard Thevenet went to the hospital with a steroid-rotted liver.

... [Jean-François] Quinet estimates that because of EPO, as many as 80 riders died in the 1980s and '90s, their doped-up blood coagulated to stone.

... [T]he strain EPO abuse puts on an athlete's heart is horrific. Oversaturated with oxygen-carrying red blood cells, blood can become like molasses, clogging the heart until the blood stops flowing.

Flowers for Algernon, have to read it to get all the meanings from it. But basically, a person is put through a experiment to increase his intelligence, it works, but then it regresses and his intelligence shrinks back down below it's previous levels. My point in bringing it up, things are not always as great as they may at first seem to be. Sure, doping may at first sound like a perfect way to enhance ourselves. But I think we would quickly find the negatives would outweigh the positives.

Further more, the sport I think we would find would evolve to becoming a competition between which riders can get the best drugs. Riders controlled by pharmaceutical companies and the drugs they make. It's bad enough having riders controlled by their powermeters today.

 

[Jspear]

"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...

It's funny how "scientific" studies change over the years. When I was younger they told parents that it was best to have their infant sleep on their stomach. Then later studies said it was best to have their infant sleeping on its back. Now who knows what they are saying....It was interesting though because both studies where shown as absolute, fact, science.... bottom line for me is I have very little faith in the "studies" that come out. They're subject to change, and they're not as accurate as the scientist or experts make them out to be.

 

[punyhuman]

"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...

If you read the section on depression in my quote:

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.

You can piece together that sleeping too much CAN lead to your death because the oversleeping can prevent recovery (likely hormonal). This is akin to a hamburger causing a heart attack.

Just because we can't contain a problem doesn't mean that we legalize it. I agree the system is a mess, but you don't solve it by legalizing it. You're second point is not a valid point at all.

Hey you know something - gun violence is on the rise....it's gonna be hard to contain, so let's just legalize murder and drive by shootings.

It is not correct to compare American gun violence to legalizing doping. Gun violence inflicts physical harm on victims. Doping is victimless "crime".

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

It's funny how "scientific" studies change over the years. When I was younger they told parents that it was best to have their infant sleep on their stomach. Then later studies said it was best to have their infant sleeping on its back. Now who knows what they are saying....It was interesting though because both studies where shown as absolute, fact, science.... bottom line for me is I have very little faith in the "studies" that come out. They're subject to change, and they're not as accurate as the scientist or experts make them out to be.

Or look how they examined Michael Johnson, and come to the conclusion a sprinter needs to have short legs with fast high speed steps. Only ten years later it´s the opposite; you need to be tall as Bolt, use less strides to become a world best sprinter.... BTW, in the 80s it needed to be bulked up and explosive start (Ben Johnson)...

Or take the cancer studies, they come up with the new therapy now and then... And after all is said and done, as said as it is, they still use the 70s "killer tactic"; cut, rays, chemo...

Science... one sad story. Corrupted from A to Z.

 

[MarkvW]

By legalizing doping you would pretty much be opening the door for riders to find and use any drug they could get their hands on to increase their performance as much as possible. Currently I think most riders are using some form of doping, but make it legal and use of those drugs would increase greatly.

And this is going to open up the door to much greater health risks and health problems. EPO, steriods, and whatever other drugs you can think of, while they may increase your performance, are not exactly good for your health. I don't think we need to open up the door to this. To quote just one post by L'arriviste from a previous thread asking why not allow doping.



Flowers for Algernon, have to read it to get all the meanings from it. But basically, a person is put through a experiment to increase his intelligence, it works, but then it regresses and his intelligence shrinks back down below it's previous levels. My point in bringing it up, things are not always as great as they may at first seem to be. Sure, doping may at first sound like a perfect way to enhance ourselves. But I think we would quickly find the negatives would outweigh the positives.

Further more, the sport I think we would find would evolve to becoming a competition between which riders can get the best drugs. Riders controlled by pharmaceutical companies and the drugs they make. It's bad enough having riders controlled by their powermeters today.

If it can be done, it will be done. There's no stopping it. People are that way.

And Charly may have regressed at the end, but we all regress and die. He lived the full life experience (albeit in a very abbreviated form) thanks to the treatment he got.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

You can piece together that sleeping too much CAN lead to your death because the oversleeping can prevent recovery (likely hormonal). This is akin to a hamburger causing a heart attack.

Nope. 1st of all, there is no oversleeping. You wake up naturally, and that´s it (me I need circa 9 hours before I wake up).
2nd, sleep does never lead to death.
Some circumstances may let you sleep long (but uneven, unhealthy, unsettled) when you for example have depressions. Sleep is not the cause for death. No matter how many studies want to underline this until people think "hey work longer for your rich owner, you don´t need to sleep, woken up by a buzzer is healthy for you". You see the absurdity, right?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Ugh. Correlation is not causation.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Ugh. Correlation is not causation.

True... And imagine, some of high paid scientists still didn´t got it (especially statisticans who leave their field to tell others how they should do their work).

 

[RobbieCanuck]

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?".

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

Absolutely not! It is common knowledge that doping products have different physiological effects on every human being, so they do not have an equal effect nor do they level the playing field.

The side effects of doping are severe - check out the USADA web site.

It is immoral. It is wrong. It turns sport into a cynical cauldron of tainted athleticism. It is cheating, fraud and false pretences all wrapped up into one big immoral choice, the repercussions of which had made cycling a mess and the lives of many, many riders hellish (Simpson (death), Hamilton (depression), Landis (depression), Armstrong (hated and shamed), Pantini (drug abuse), Millar (shame), Riis (depression), Michael Barry (extreme shame))

Lastly it is the cowardly way out of dealing with the problem.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

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?".

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

Absolutely not! It is common knowledge that doping products have different physiological effects on every human being, so they do not have an equal effect nor do they level the playing field.

The side effects of doping are severe - check out the USADA web site.

It is immoral. It is wrong. It turns sport into a cynical cauldron of tainted athleticism. It is cheating, fraud and false pretences all wrapped up into one big immoral choice, the repercussions of which had made cycling a mess and the lives of many, many riders hellish (Simpson (death), Hamilton (depression), Landis (depression), Armstrong (hated and shamed), Pantini (drug abuse), Millar (shame), Riis (depression), Michael Barry (extreme shame))

Lastly it is the cowardly way out of dealing with the problem. Your suggestion is just a cop out based on the erroneous assumption commonly made in the Clinic that everyone dopes.

 

[punyhuman]

By legalizing doping you would pretty much be opening the door for riders to find and use any drug they could get their hands on to increase their performance as much as possible. Currently I think most riders are using some form of doping, but make it legal and use of those drugs would increase greatly.

And this is going to open up the door to much greater health risks and health problems. EPO, steriods, and whatever other drugs you can think of, while they may increase your performance, are not exactly good for your health. I don't think we need to open up the door to this. To quote just one post by L'arriviste from a previous thread asking why not allow doping.

And are riders right now not finding and using any drug they can get their hands on to increase their performance? I think what you quoted is fear mongering and contains glaring logical flaws. You have to ask yourself if those health problems from your writing and the quote were greatly increased because the riders didn't have adequate access to health care because doping is "illegal". You have to ask yourself if the riders navigated the dark waters by themselves because they would be shunned by the anti-doping brigade if they seeked medical guidance. If doping is made legal, they wouldn't have to hide and use blind methods. They wouldn't have to live in fear of asking for help. They wouldn't have to wait until it is too late because they are taking the wrong dosages.

Flowers for Algernon, have to read it to get all the meanings from it. But basically, a person is put through a experiment to increase his intelligence, it works, but then it regresses and his intelligence shrinks back down below it's previous levels. My point in bringing it up, things are not always as great as they may at first seem to be. Sure, doping may at first sound like a perfect way to enhance ourselves. But I think we would quickly find the negatives would outweigh the positives.

Further more, the sport I think we would find would evolve to becoming a competition between which riders can get the best drugs. Riders controlled by pharmaceutical companies and the drugs they make. It's bad enough having riders controlled by their powermeters today.

You never know if you don't try. Right now, all we are doing is sweeping things under the rug and pretending things are ok when in fact they are not.

And what is any different than cycling being a competition of who has the best genetics and most money? Is it really fair that if I am born with inferior genetics that I can never win a bike race? Is that really fair?

 

[JackRabbitSlims]

Is it really fair that if I am born with inferior genetics that I can never win a bike race? Is that really fair?

so this is what you're all about.....p!ssed that you couldn't win a bike race and even more P!ssed that you can't get your hands on the right gear......

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Is it really fair that if I am born with inferior genetics that I can never win a bike race? Is that really fair?

so this is what you're all about.....p!ssed that you couldn't win a bike race and even more P!ssed that you can't get your hands on the right gear......

And unwilling to work with what they have. The self-entitled, instant gratification crowd is the new thing, so it must be right.

 

[Ripper]

Is it really fair that if I am born with inferior genetics that I can never win a bike race? Is that really fair?

The short answer - yes it is.

 

[Afrank]

And are riders right now not finding and using any drug they can get their hands on to increase their performance? I think what you quoted is fear mongering and contains glaring logical flaws. You have to ask yourself if those health problems from your writing and the quote were greatly increased because the riders didn't have adequate access to health care because doping is "illegal". You have to ask yourself if the riders navigated the dark waters by themselves because they would be shunned by the anti-doping brigade if they seeked medical guidance. If doping is made legal, they wouldn't have to hide and use blind methods. They wouldn't have to live in fear of asking for help. They wouldn't have to wait until it is too late because they are taking the wrong dosages.

Sure, if a rider can get away with it they'll take whatever drugs they can get if it will help them win more. But make it legal and taking whatever drugs you can get becomes much easier.

we can never fully eliminate doping, it would be foolish to think we could, but we can make it harder to dope and not be caught.

To the bolded, I don't believe it follow that if doping were legal riders would dope safely and within the limits of their health. I think they would dope themselves beyond their limits. And it would be easy to do so. Riders would continuously look for the next best drug to give themselves that little bit more of an edge.

You never know if you don't try. Right now, all we are doing is sweeping things under the rug and pretending things are ok when in fact they are not.

And what is any different than cycling being a competition of who has the best genetics and most money? Is it really fair that if I am born with inferior genetics that I can never win a bike race? Is that really fair?

Winning a race isn't all about genes or money, it's about a lot more. To quote a favorite poem of mine "Life's battles don't always go to the stronger or faster man, but sooner or later, the man who wins, is the fellow who thinks he can."

 

[MarkvW]

The short answer - yes it is.

But that won't always be true. Sooner or later the athletically less-endowed will be able to level the playing field so that they can participate in a meaningful way.

 

[punyhuman]

Or look how they examined Michael Johnson, and come to the conclusion a sprinter needs to have short legs with fast high speed steps. Only ten years later it´s the opposite; you need to be tall as Bolt, use less strides to become a world best sprinter.... BTW, in the 80s it needed to be bulked up and explosive start (Ben Johnson)...

Or take the cancer studies, they come up with the new therapy now and then... And after all is said and done, as said as it is, they still use the 70s "killer tactic"; cut, rays, chemo...

Science... one sad story. Corrupted from A to Z.

Wow. I'm so shocked I don't even know where to start to shred what you wrote to pieces. Who is this "they" you continuously refer to? Who is this "Science" that you say is "Corrupted from A to Z"?

And do you know what is a key tenant of the scientific method is? (Answer: Being able to admit you are wrong when new evidence comes to light.)

And unwilling to work with what they have. The self-entitled, instant gratification crowd is the new thing, so it must be right.

If you are born with inferior genetics, you can't "work with" what you have to become a champion no matter what you do short of levelling the playing field with "doping".

 

[Ripper]

Doping is victimless "crime".

That is a pretty untrue statement ... an opinion masquerading as a fact. Don't tell anyone beaten by a doping cheat they are not a victim.

 

[Ripper]

But that won't always be true. Sooner or later the athletically less-endowed will be able to level the playing field so that they can participate in a meaningful way.

Not sure if you are talking about doping to level the playing field, or if you are talking about doing what you 'legally' can do, and choosing a sport you can do well enough in, so you can participate.

My point was not that folks with genetically less 'capacity' cannot or should not participate in a meaningful way, but that they may not be able to become a world champion at something.

Of course, if it were simply genetics, then we could just take a test in a lab and be declared a winner. The world is full of folks who might not have been the strongest or the fastest, but they still have won due to their particular skills and smarts.

 

[punyhuman]

The short answer - yes it is.

Why do you think me having inferior genetics is fair? I didn't choose my genetics, I didn't choose my parents. It was not my choice. I shouldn't have to be stuck with inferior genetics that I had no say in when there exist methods to fix it with genetic engineering and drugs.

That is a pretty untrue statement ... an opinion masquerading as a fact. Don't tell anyone beaten by a doping cheat they are not a victim.

I think your "victim" is also a "doping cheat" seeing as how extremely widespread doping is. It's like calling the kettle black.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Wow. I'm so shocked I don't even know where to start to shred what you wrote to pieces. Who is this "they" you continuously refer to? Who is this "Science" that you say is "Corrupted from A to Z"?

And do you know what is a key tenant of the scientific method is? (Answer: Being able to admit you are wrong when new evidence comes to light.)

How about you start with A?
Serious, with them I mean the liars who change parameters in their studies (like in clinical trials), with them I mean those who manipulate their "studies" until they fit for the orderes wish, with them I mean those who speak in the name of science and yet are paid by big business, whose only concern is to make max profit.

Tell me the last "scientic thing" found out, that hadn´t serious bad side effects to human kind or nature.

And when I read such nonsense like oversleep, I instantly know where it comes from and go havoc...

 

[Afrank]

How would legalizing doping level the playing field for those that don't have superior genetics? Would people with superior genetics not dope too?

 

[Ripper]

Why do you think me having inferior genetics is fair? I didn't choose my genetics, I didn't choose my parents. It was not my choice. I shouldn't have to be stuck with inferior genetics that I had no say in when there exist methods to fix it with genetic engineering and drugs..

LMAO. You should talk to the researchers and ethicists. You are correct though, you cannot choose your parents. The conundrum of what to do, what to do.

I think your "victim" is also a "doping cheat" seeing as extremely widespread doping is. It's like calling the kettle black.

I think you've lost the plot there a bit. There's lots of folks who have not doped. I don't think you're going to see a lot of agreement that they are the pot calling the doping kettle black. They may not whine about it (or may be they will), but doping is hardly a victimless crime.

Now, I'm not entirely sure if you are trolling or just a combination of adversarial and a bit of a contrarian. But hey, time will tell