You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 08:41:40 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports  (Read 1916 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« on: August 11, 2013, 08:54:38 PM »
Okay, maybe I'm a bit old..and recall when the Baseball League chairman banned Pete Rose from Baseball and YET we have multiple cases of Baseball Players (and other sports players) using drugs to cheat the system as well BUT they get off with relatively short times out (a year or so) and fines that when you look at the fines vs their income.. financial stings.

I would like to see some lifetime bans come down. No fine will be real, no 'X # of games' ban will make anyone consider NOT doing it. You need to toss out a 'banned for life' and a HUGE fine of MILLIONS to a few of these guys to make the other players realize that they can lose something. 

I got this outlook listening to some sports writer blaming the FANS for this stuff. His arguement was we keep expecting more and more from our players. BS. They are looking to last longer, perform better, and do more. Better stats mean more endorsements, and to push their limits they do more with performance enhancers.

So, pro-leagues.. do one of two things. Either come down hard on your dopers.. or put out and 'accepted usage' list and reveal who is doing what.

Me.. I say ban a few guys..and suddenly the others will think twice before trying anything.


For example.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/us/alex-rodriguez-suspension-appeal
« Last Edit: August 11, 2013, 09:00:35 PM by Callie Del Noire »

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2013, 09:25:23 PM »
I have this discussion with Mr. Oniya all the time.  Two points he always brings up:

1) Steroids have a prescription use of reducing inflammation, speeding the healing process.  A doctor trying to help get a player back to doing his job could end up costing him his career.  This almost happened to U.Ga student, Kolton Houston.
2) Players who were not doing anything illegal at the time they were playing are being stigmatized when it comes out that they used steroids.  Roger Clemens will forever be linked to steroid use, will probably not make it into the Hall of Fame as a result, and at the time that he was injected, steroids were perfectly legal to use.

Mind you, I think that they should put a warning label on the things, like they do cigarettes:  Warning!  Will shrink your nuts to the size of the ones in your Cracker Jack!  See how many teenage boys go for them after learning that.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2013, 09:50:39 PM »
In track and field, where there's been a long, long string of doping scandals, rumours and busts, from Ben Johnson (long before him, of course, but he's become the biggest poster name of steroids) to Tyson Gay, it really risks undercutting the whole stature of these disciplines, both to athletes, spectators, sponsors and everybody else involved. I mean, anyone who achieves outstanding results in running, jumping, hammer throwing or anything of the kind now incurs suspicions with some people that they must have been doped. And when the next big name is tested positive for something - and it doesn't have to be steroids or amphetamin - it serves to convince some of these that "yeah, everybody's doing it!"

I watched Usain Bolt winning another strong 100 m race last night, at the championships in Moscow, under difficult circumstances - heavy rain and unfavourable wind. The guy's amazing of course, and in London he almost made the entire field behind him look like second class compared to himself. Some people would say he's just too good to be true, and 'there's something fishy about tiny Jamaica bringing out so many top-rate runners'. I am fairly sure he is not (and hasn't been) taking any illegal substances, but there's a limit to how far the records can be pressed down in most track and field events, no one's going to run 100 meters at under 8.50 unless it's a half-human half-robot, and if those events are going to remain viable and exciting, I think spectators and sports media will have to stop defining the greatness of a day on the arena just by, were there any new world records, or even broken national records? At some point there isn't going to be a whole lot of space to push actual world records - not in events that depend 99% on just the body resources of the single athlete - and if anyone who could score new records invites talk of doping, it puts those events in a bit of a fix.

« Last Edit: August 11, 2013, 09:59:15 PM by gaggedLouise »

Offline elone

Re: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2013, 12:40:20 AM »
I have to say that I am in agreement with Callie Del Noire in the belief that all performance enhancing drugs or any other procedure that gives an athlete an advantage over another should result in a lifetime ban. Of course, a procedure need to be put in place that leaves no doubt that the individual was using a banned substance. Right now, I don't believe that testing is adequate or foolproof. I don't know if A Rod or the others actually tested positive or if it was the testimony and records of those who provided the drugs that led to their suspensions. Until a means of testing is foolproof and definitive, it is hard to put a lifetime ban on anyone.

One thing is clear however, and that is that those who do not use such means are the ones who are hurt by those that do. Perhaps the players unions should think about those athletes as much as they do the cheaters.

As for fans, I don't think that fans, in particular baseball fans where records are kept for so many categories, are rabid enough to just look at records without regard to how they are achieved. If at some point, track and field athletes hit a wall, so be it. Unless we get to the point where all those in a race are running a dead heat, there will still be a winner of a race.

It is a sad commentary on all sports when cheating the system, whether for fame or monetary gain, becomes more important than the event.

Offline Cyrano Johnson

  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2012
  • Location: The Occidental Wilds of the Realm of Canadia.
  • Gender: Male
  • "Do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the law.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2013, 01:12:17 AM »
Funny, I was just thinking about this the other day.

Here's the thing. There's two kinds of sport you can have:

1. You can have sport that's about the healthy, wholesome enjoyment of the game, beating your personal best and revelling in the challenge of facing off against other athletes doing the same thing.

2. You can have sport that's about the grand spectacle of infinite perfectability of human power and ability, about cash and endorsements and the Big Event that draws millions, or billions, in to watch from across [such-and-such] country and around the world.

What you cannot have is both of them at the same time. Model #1 just isn't compatible with producing spectacles on the order demanded by model #2. And the thing is: we all know that people aren't going to tune in by the millions to watch model #1 in action, because why should they? They're already doing it on their local softball field or football pitch. The model that drives broadcast and big-budget sporting events is model #2.

There was a certain span of time in the Twentieth Century where you could pretend that the standards of model #1 could be fruitfully applied to model #2. But we're past that, decades past it, because the baseline human body is not infinitely perfectible without help, without technology, and yes, without performance enhancers. When the top half of the field in the Tour de France is distinguishable from the bottom half by who's juicing and who isn't, that's a clear signal that model #2 has left model #1 behind. They're just no longer in the same league.

When you realize this, there comes to seem a certain ugly hypocrisy about continuing to demand that model #2 should be held to the moral standards of model #1, when they're no longer about the same things. Call it "blaming the fans" if you want, but the fans, the endorsement machine, the stats-driven broadcast media, the entire edifice of professional sport is set up to prioritize results above all and drive forward spectacle above all. Doing so and then carrying out periodic witch hunts about "performance enhancement" is not morality; it's a lie. All it does is punish those who don't have the technology to beat the current testing regime, and reward those who do. It's not catching all the so-called "cheaters" and there is no prospect of its doing so.

So, it's time for a reality check. Is model #1 what you, as a fan, want from professional sport? Then say so. Boycott events that track achievement stats and world record times and distances and batting averages, demand from your sporting media that they change their focus to who's enjoying the game the most and who's beating his personal best. If OTOH that model is not what you want... then make your peace with performance enhancement, because in one form or another it will happen in any system that incentivizes it.

Offline elone

Re: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2013, 01:50:19 AM »

What you cannot have is both of them at the same time. Model #1 just isn't compatible with producing spectacles on the order demanded by model #2. And the thing is: we all know that people aren't going to tune in by the millions to watch model #1 in action, because why should they? They're already doing it on their local softball field or football pitch. The model that drives broadcast and big-budget sporting events is model #2.


I can't quite agree with this. If you want spectacle you can have WWE and such nonsense. As for people watching non drugged athletes, I believe that was the case for hundreds of years before the current era of performance enhancing drugs. There was certainly no lack of fan base for baseball, football, tennis, track, basketball, etc. before say the 1980's or whenever the use of performance enhancing substances came into sport. Probably earlier, I remember the East German women in the olympics who looked like bodybuilders and talked like Arnold Schwarzenegger

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2013, 02:59:17 AM »
I can't quite agree with this. If you want spectacle you can have WWE and such nonsense. As for people watching non drugged athletes, I believe that was the case for hundreds of years before the current era of performance enhancing drugs. There was certainly no lack of fan base for baseball, football, tennis, track, basketball, etc. before say the 1980's or whenever the use of performance enhancing substances came into sport. Probably earlier, I remember the East German women in the olympics who looked like bodybuilders and talked like Arnold Schwarzenegger

Maybe no lack of a fan base in the part of the world where you live, but before the age of modern broad professional sports, there was a decided lack of space for young talents, large numbers of them, to get on the ladder and make a living from their prowess and their talent. For the kids next door in most sports to really build any kind of career from the sport they were on to, stay on track and move from being the local talent into the top level, there had to be a realistic spectrum of ways to make money and a livable career - while you were moving up, once you've reached the elite level, and post-career.

Back in the amateur age in sports such as track and field, football (soccer) and skiing (not commenting on baseball here because unfamiliar with U.S. ball game leagues, but the overall map is the same I think in big international sports), the deal was: unless you belonged among the top ten who could get cool publicity deals for appearing in commercials and so on, your being an elite athlete could mean living around your parents' house for years, while most of your friends got an education, moved out and actually began making more regular money than you. How come? Because going for an elite career in sports means training so much you don't have any time for a 9-to-5 job or for studying. Most people with a big talent in sports can't be competitive both in their event on a high level and on an ordinary daytime job - not without lots of assistance and understanding bosses. And earnings from the actual sports events, even for the champ of the day's event, were  limited back then, often symbolic. So unless your family were so rich they could pay the way for your living on your own, journeys, training resources etc on the run-up to move into the elite level, unless you had a rich family or a wealthy national association in your event behind you early on, you would be hard put for money to meet expenses while trying to get up into the top. A daytime job would often not work, and all your parents would have the money for, if even that, would be to let you live in a side room of the house while you were trying to make it for real. Even if one was garnering support from the national track and field association or from the football club because they saw one's talent, that was the deal for most up-and-coming people, because there was much less money in sports itself.

Back in those days, football teams and county track-and-field clubs were 90% made up of people who had some sort of steady job outside of sports. And people got tired of this, got tired of having to languish under an amateur principle that was being held in place by the IOC, the IAAF and other sports associations and by the media, but which made it much tougher to get anywhere. Eventually the bigwig associations had to give in and accept that athletes could live as professionals, get sponsorship deals and accept big money for a game, or for being in a team, at any time, already in their teens actually. If this hadn't happened, the Olympics and the current big track-and-field championships (probably some of the US leagues too, though I'm not familiar with those) would have begun losing more and more new talents to fresh "pay sports" leagues and championships, and those would have begun encroaching on the amount of space for tv sports showing.

What audiences and athletes wanted was moving away from the model of a strictly idealistic, clean white sports world where only results on equal terms would count, and where the amateur principle (no accepting of any big money, prize money or pro wages, for being in the game as such) was seen as the guardian of this. People were pointing their fingers at the state-supported athletes of eastern Europe and saying 'hey, those look like they are going on some strange substances' - okay, but as soon as the amateur wall burst in the west, the same kind of doping began coming out into the open on top levels here too. Florence Griffith-Joyner looked every bit as unnaturally muscular as the East German girls, improved her performances suspiciously fast, and many people remain convinced she had been souping up with steroids and blood doping. The age when the amateur norm came under attack and was finally abandoned were also the years when doping became a more obvious thing in most sports.

Today there's much more sports on tv and a busier events calendar outside of what goes on tv, much more money in sports and much more options of making money on your sports than there's ever been - across the planet, and in the U.S. too, right? Many more people are able to get on the ladder and they build longer careers, because there's so much more money in this, and more of it actually reaches young athletes on the way up. Yeah, that means there are more substances around too. Of course. But I think Cyrano is right that the kind of spectacle we've come to expect of sports, and the actual breadth and level of activity, can't be sustained together with the idea that sports is ultimately about going "higher, faster, stronger" in only natural ways - if there's also going to be a really hardline watch on doping. If those two are going to coexist, the business side of sports (including the options many  people have of making a living out of their events) and the mystique of sports, then substances are gonna be on the scene too.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 05:49:15 AM by gaggedLouise »

Offline Cyrano Johnson

  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2012
  • Location: The Occidental Wilds of the Realm of Canadia.
  • Gender: Male
  • "Do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the law.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2013, 09:28:22 AM »
I can't quite agree with this. If you want spectacle you can have WWE and such nonsense.

You seriously don't think pro sports is about spectacle? I guess all those sports networks had better hang it up and go home, then, eh? :)

Of course professional sport is about spectacle, and WWE isn't a sports spectacle, that's why they have to call it "sports entertainment." Sports fans want someone really knocking the ball out of the park, beating the last guy's record for doing so (and the guy before him and the guy before him etc), genuinely shaving another tenth of a second off the world-record time in the 100 m men's sprint. The fact of someone doing it is the attraction. That's what they're paying for, or at any rate it's what they show up for.

This of course is also what drives the hysteria over performance enhancers, and at a certain level I get it. Like I said, there was a certain span of time in the Twentieth Century where you could pretend that the standards of model #1 could be fruitfully applied to model #2 -- when unenhanced athletes could compete and keep on providing that spectacle of besting the standards of yesteryear. They can't do that anymore, because at a certain point the unenhanced human body just stops being able to best the standards of yesteryear. And because people are not being honest with themselves about this -- and because sport institutions are not being honest with them about it -- they feel somehow "cheated" or faked-out to learn that the modern athletes they're watching aren't doing it all according to some standard of "purity."

But the feeling that drugs or other technological aids to training are "cheating" overlooks the fact that no amount of drugs alone can make you a great athlete: it's not like the Lance Armstrongs of the world are shooting up horse testosterone and lying around on the couch while their mighty muscles grow in. The effort, the struggle, the passion that goes into modern athletic training is no less than it ever was, in fact I wouldn't be surprised to find modern regimens far more strenuous. These people aren't doing any less to earn their records. They're just being punished, unevenly, for doing what is necessary to provide the spectacle.

In the end, performance enhancers are only "cheating" when nobody will admit out loud that they're necessary to compete at the highest level in the model of modern professional sport. In an informal sense, the bulk of the competitive field in any sport where there's an incentive for their use will wind up using them. It's the culture of denial that has ensures that this means there is no longer a level playing field; it's prohibition that ensures the whole business is carried out in the shadows, that there's a hidden element in modern sport of who happened upon the coach and program with the best technological resources and the most money. That doesn't have to be the case: but you can't eliminate the performance enhancers and keep the spectacle.

You can, however, eliminate prohibition and forthrightly regulate the performance enhancers to ensure that people aren't poisoning themselves, and to ensure that everyone has access to the same resources. This would IMO be a more sane, more honest and more moral solution than what's happening now with drug testing.

Quote
As for people watching non drugged athletes, I believe that was the case for hundreds of years before the current era of performance enhancing drugs.

For hundreds of years there was nothing equivalent to modern televised sport. Now, if you prefer to go back to the model of the elite "amateur" athlete who did it for the thrill and sportsmanship that's all well and good, but I sometimes think people who think they want this haven't really thought through the implications. The "amateur" athletes who built the early Olympic movement, for instance, were mostly aristocrats or at least well-off, the kind of people who could afford a sporting lifestyle (which, as Louise points out in her excellent post, hardly pays for itself). The age of modern sport is also the age of mass participation in sport, especially of organized leagues that can feed into the professional athletic ranks and give a kid from the slums a genuine shot at becoming the next athletic superstar: and it's ultimately the spectacle that pays for the programs that make that kind of story possible.

Now, I don't know, maybe it would be for the best if all that went away. A side effect of the rags-to-riches professional athlete is that a tonne of people who could be useful to their communities in other ways die clinging to dreams of making it big in pro sports; it can be a harmful mirage for some just as it's a legitimate inspiration for others. But what I'm pretty sure about is that nobody has any intention of relinquishing the spectacle.

Offline Torch

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2013, 09:50:12 AM »
There was certainly no lack of fan base for baseball, football, tennis, track, basketball, etc. before say the 1980's or whenever the use of performance enhancing substances came into sport.

Athletes have been using performance enhancing substances long before the 1980's. As early as the 1880's, professional baseball players used testosterone supplements derived from animals. Amphetamine usage was rampant in Major League Baseball during the 20th century, with players like Mickey Mantle injecting themselves with cocktails made up of speed and steroids. Mike Schmidt and Goose Gossage both admitted to using amphetamines during their careers, and they are only the tip of the iceberg.

The great Bob Gibson, a pitcher so dominating that Major League Baseball decided to lower the pitching mound because it was giving him an unfair advantage, has stated flat out that if PED's were available in the 60's when he was playing, he would have at least tried them. That's the mindset of a professional athlete who will win at all costs. 

Offline elone

Re: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2013, 09:51:08 AM »

Quote
They're just being punished, unevenly, for doing what is necessary to provide the spectacle.


Sports existed well before there were drugs involved with a big fan base. Television was around then as well and millions watched. Do you seriously believe that people will quit watching, and thus financially supporting sports if drugging is not allowed?

Just for argument, let us suppose that we all acknowledged that doping is needed to keep setting records and that fans and money will all disappear if we don't see athletes running faster, jumping higher etc.  We all say that doping is fine and everyone starts doing it, monitored and somewhat safe, if that is possible.

Eventually, we will be right back where we started from, everyone will be doping and thus the advantage will be lost. Athletes will eventually hit a wall where they can no longer improve their performance. So, will the fans leave and the money dry up suddenly?  Also, those who do not want to put substances in their bodies will be excluded. Either that or we will have two categories of athletes, like bodybuilding does, dopers and non-dopers.

So why not just be clean?
« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 10:01:46 AM by elone »

Offline Cyrano Johnson

  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2012
  • Location: The Occidental Wilds of the Realm of Canadia.
  • Gender: Male
  • "Do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the law.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2013, 10:30:56 AM »
Do you seriously believe that people will quit watching, and thus financially supporting sports if drugging is not allowed?

I think so long as the model of continuing improvement over yesteryear exists, it will out-sell and out-compete other models as far as spectacles go, without doubt.

Quote
Eventually, we will be right back where we started from, everyone will be doping and thus the advantage will be lost.

We're already there. As far as athletes who are actually competitive at the top of their fields, pretty much everyone is already doping. (Cycling will not be the last sport in which we finally reach this point of open revelation, I can pretty much guarantee you.) They're not doing it for "advantage," they're doing it because the physical level of competition has escalated to the point where it's necessary to be competitive at all.

Quote
Athletes will eventually hit a wall where they can no longer improve their performance.

We are at the very beginning of the curve of athlete enhancement, arguing over the most primitive possible versions thereof. (Well, perhaps not quite the most primitive versions, I didn't know that about 1880's baseball players, thanks Torch!) This is the beginning of a very, very long controversy which ultimately will be about how close to baseline human professional athletes need to be to still be relevant as icons of human achievement. The prospect of lifting the prohibition regime on doping will simply open the doors to other forms of enhancement. I can't pretend to predict what forms they will take -- although recalling the controversy over the "unfair advantage" of Oscar Pistorius' blades, I don't think it's just the cyberpunk fan in me that anticipates that artificial implants will eventually enter the picture -- or where that conversation will ultimately wind up. Genetic therapy and engineering in particular is a huge X-factor. But I do think we'll reach a frontier far beyond just doping before people are really willing to question their commitment to the whole exercise.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 10:34:25 AM by Cyrano Johnson »

Offline Cyrano Johnson

  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2012
  • Location: The Occidental Wilds of the Realm of Canadia.
  • Gender: Male
  • "Do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the law.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2013, 10:41:47 AM »
Although honestly? I would love to see someone make a go of turning beer league softball or curling into a televised spectator sport. I think that could actually be kind of awesome. (EDIT: Curses! Somebody stole my idea and then travelled back in time!)
« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 10:58:17 AM by Cyrano Johnson »

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2013, 10:51:28 AM »
Curling has a fascination that goes beyond any given athlete's ability.  I'd love to know who came up with it and why!

'So, we take this big weight, and sling it across the ice and see how far it goes.  No, wait, it gets better:  We get these guys with brooms to scrub the ice in front of it so it goes farther.  Oh, and then we allow one team's weight to knock another team's weight out of the scoring area!'

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« Reply #13 on: August 12, 2013, 10:52:40 AM »
Thing is Cyrano. The Pro Leagues still maintain that it's pure athleticism and focus, not drugs that the athletes are pursuing.

My grouse is that if they are maintaining the illusion they should punish just as hard as they do for other offenses.

I've had to use steroids before. A torn muscle in my thigh after falling 20-30 feet down an aircraft ladder in the service. It was short, sweet very limited uses, and for nearly two years I had to state as such for my drug screenings. Simple informed participation. What these guys are doing is continued fraud,using masking agents, stand ins and cutting edge biotech to stay ahead of testing. Pete Rose got a life time ban for betting on ball games, though they never proved he bet against his own team. I want to see a few of these guys who are clearly lying to themselves and everyone as much as Rose did, get similar treatments.

Offline Cyrano Johnson

  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2012
  • Location: The Occidental Wilds of the Realm of Canadia.
  • Gender: Male
  • "Do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the law.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« Reply #14 on: August 12, 2013, 11:06:56 AM »
Thing is Cyrano. The Pro Leagues still maintain that it's pure athleticism and focus, not drugs that the athletes are pursuing.

My grouse is that if they are maintaining the illusion they should punish just as hard as they do for other offenses.

I get you. Except it's an illusion precisely because trying to genuinely consistently punish all the guilty would wipe out the top ranks of any affected sport. (Or, say, force the Olympics to drop entire sports... but notice that they backed down from that threat with cycling.) All I'm saying is when you're at that point, maybe it's the illusion that needs to give way. I mean, it's all very well to talk about the athletes using fraud... but what does that really mean when the sporting "standard" they're deviating from is itself a fraud, a fantasy, an illusion?
« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 11:13:03 AM by Cyrano Johnson »

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2013, 11:13:06 AM »
I get you. Except it's an illusion precisely because trying to genuinely consistently punish all the guilty would wipe out the top ranks of any affected sport. (Or, say, force the Olympics to drop entire sports... but notice that they backed down from that threat with cycling.) All I'm saying is when you're at that point, maybe it's the illusion that needs to give way.

Well I say we should do it. Either end the hypocrisy by regulating it.. or start hammering the offenders like they say they will.

Offline vtboy

Re: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« Reply #16 on: August 12, 2013, 12:00:04 PM »
Is there really a principled difference between PEDs and, say, Tommy John surgery? Lasik? Wearing eyeglasses? In each case, the athlete takes advantage of artificial means to achieve a physical capacity beyond that of his or her unaided body.

Perhaps, in the fullness of time, the use of steroids and HGH will be seen as not much different from drinking high protein shakes as part of a body building regimen.

Offline Retribution

  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: First star to the right straight on till morning
  • Gender: Male
  • When I'm good I'm good when I'm bad I'm better
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« Reply #17 on: August 12, 2013, 01:28:43 PM »
Hell, they got to be pretty dam scientific to beat the tests. I was a lower tier college and world level athlete and the piss tests are well something that will do away with your inhibitions. First one I took I had a serious case of stage fright because they literally watch you pee in the bottle. I mean dude right there, up close making sure it is your penis spraying into said hole in bottle. Then you put your own tamper proof seal on the dam bottle yourself so when I hear people say their test was tampered with it makes me laugh. Hell, took me an hour to actually pee the first time with someone watching that close.

My son who has a knack for getting pulled for random tests told me it is even worse these days. It all keeps me wondering if they put as much effort into practicing as they do beating the tests if the end results would not be the same.

Offline Cyrano Johnson

  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2012
  • Location: The Occidental Wilds of the Realm of Canadia.
  • Gender: Male
  • "Do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the law.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« Reply #18 on: August 12, 2013, 02:00:23 PM »
Is there really a principled difference between PEDs and, say, Tommy John surgery? Lasik? Wearing eyeglasses? In each case, the athlete takes advantage of artificial means to achieve a physical capacity beyond that of his or her unaided body.

Perhaps, in the fullness of time, the use of steroids and HGH will be seen as not much different from drinking high protein shakes as part of a body building regimen.

The best argument in favour of anti-doping rules is that it's bad for athlete health. This interesting article suggests that I'm probably wrong to describe the issue being athletes taking performance enhancers in a race to keep up with records and such, so much as that, like Torch suggested, anti-doping campaigners are trying to intervene in athlete mentality and set of practices and incentives that has always been there:

Quote from: Christie Aschwanden
Doping, or using a substance to enhance performance, is nothing new. Contrary to romantic notions about the purity of Olympic sports, ancient Greeks ingested special drinks and potions to give them an edge, and at the 1904 Games, athletes downed potent mixtures of cocaine, heroin and strych- nine. For most of Olympic history, using drugs wasn’t considered cheating. Then, in the 1960 Olympics, Danish cyclist Knut Jensen passed out during a race, cracked his skull and later died. The coroner blamed the death on amphetamines, and the case led to anti-doping rules. Drug testing began with the 1968 Games, with a goal to protect athlete health. In addition to short-term damage, certain drugs also appear to increase the risk of heart disease and possibly cancer.

Better to have it in the open and fight the dangerous drugs than pretend the drugs aren't there, it looks like. (Also: cocaine, heroin and strychnine?! Yipes.)
« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 02:01:31 PM by Cyrano Johnson »

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« Reply #19 on: August 12, 2013, 02:03:32 PM »
Strychnine?  That's going to disagree with you sooner or later.

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« Reply #20 on: August 12, 2013, 02:06:41 PM »
Hell, they got to be pretty dam scientific to beat the tests. I was a lower tier college and world level athlete and the piss tests are well something that will do away with your inhibitions. First one I took I had a serious case of stage fright because they literally watch you pee in the bottle. I mean dude right there, up close making sure it is your penis spraying into said hole in bottle. Then you put your own tamper proof seal on the dam bottle yourself so when I hear people say their test was tampered with it makes me laugh. Hell, took me an hour to actually pee the first time with someone watching that close.

My son who has a knack for getting pulled for random tests told me it is even worse these days. It all keeps me wondering if they put as much effort into practicing as they do beating the tests if the end results would not be the same.

You know.. I have never had to deal with Athlete screening BUT I have had to deal with the DoD drug screening in two of the most heavily screened commands in the Navy. (At the time I was in them) I once had three drug screenings in six working days. The fun of 'random screening' in a command of 1300 airmen/officers.

I also, as a screener, got to hear some of the 'solutions' that folks would do to fox a test. How about this one: Filling your bladder with 'donor' urine. Yeah, they caught a guy who had foxed SIX screenings by literally piping urine INTO his bladder. Other cases we've found in the process of time including folks putting all sorts of things in their system in hopes of flushing it.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« Reply #21 on: August 12, 2013, 02:08:43 PM »
I didn't know they made Foleys that could do that.  O_O  I guess I always thought there was a one-way valve in there somewhere.

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« Reply #22 on: August 12, 2013, 03:12:06 PM »
I didn't know they made Foleys that could do that.  O_O  I guess I always thought there was a one-way valve in there somewhere.

That one I heard from a chief on the Nimitz.. I have see 'prosthetic devices' that are fleshtoned to look like male genitalia and tucked in yer pants. (They had one in our observer indoc class.. yes we had a class. Not for the 'observer' part but all the procedures and damn paperwork)

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« Reply #23 on: August 12, 2013, 03:17:35 PM »
The fake penis thing I can comprehend.  (You have no idea how many phrasings I discarded for that! *laughs*) Using a catheter in reverse is mind-boggling.

Offline Cyrano Johnson

  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2012
  • Location: The Occidental Wilds of the Realm of Canadia.
  • Gender: Male
  • "Do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the law.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Performance Enhancers and Pro Sports
« Reply #24 on: August 12, 2013, 03:19:13 PM »
The fake penis thing I can comprehend.  (You have no idea how many phrasings I discarded for that! *laughs*) Using a catheter in reverse is mind-boggling.

Yeah, the "donor urine" thing gave me a full-body shudder. That is messed up.