You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 02:43:41 PM

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: Should some "doping" be allowed in professional sports.  (Read 766 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Orval WintermuteTopic starter

  • I am a champion and you're gonna hear me
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2013
  • Gender: Male
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Should some "doping" be allowed in professional sports.
« on: August 22, 2016, 05:17:40 AM »
I'm sure lots of people about the controversy that has followed Caster Semenya her entire career about exactly what sex she is. One of the commentators was explaining how the IAAF has been revising it's tests\criteria for the sex of athletes, initially they were using a strip test then they moved to chromosome testing.
That testing changed again so that it is based on testosterone levels, the level of testosterone in 99% of female athlete's blood is around 3 nmol\L and the ruling was made that any female athlete with a level of more than 10 nmol\L would have to reduce that level somehow (medication,surgery). However that ruling has been provisionally overturned until the IAAF can produce evidence that high testosterone levels in female athletes make a performance difference.

All of this got me thinking, if the IAAF can't produce the evidence to support their claim should all athletes be able to inject as much testosterone as they like? Or if they do produce the evidence should all female athlete's be allowed to artificially raise their testosterone levels to the 10 nmol\L limit?  Allowing them to do this would create a bio-chemically level playing field.

And if there are hard limits for one hormone, why not do the same for every other hormone and chemical the body produces?

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: Should some "doping" be allowed in professional sports.
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2016, 01:45:44 PM »
I think Kurt Vonnegut Jr. had some words to say about that sort of thing.  Mind you, we've got a few years before 2081.

If I have a biochemical condition that makes me better at, say, chess than other people, should I be precluded from tournament play?  Should I be forced into 'treatments' or even surgery to lower that advantage?  Should other players be encouraged to alter their own biochemistry (or have surgery) to 'keep up'?

Offline Orval WintermuteTopic starter

  • I am a champion and you're gonna hear me
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2013
  • Gender: Male
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Should some "doping" be allowed in professional sports.
« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2016, 03:05:12 PM »
Sports, which depending on your definition could include chess, are generally predicated on there being some sort of level playing field, a contest of equals and those equalities are created by dividing people into groups based on different criteria . People with low chess rankings don't to compete for the world championship because it would be so one sided; two boxers may have equal technical skills but if one is a heavyweight and the other is a flyweight the fight only ends one way; Usain Bolt will have more fast twitch muscle and Mo Farrah more slow twitch muscle, both are incredible athletes and Olympians but because of genetic factors any race between them is going be decided by the distance instead of anything else.

So what happens with people that for no fault of their own don't fall into any existing grouping? If you put them in group A then are at a disadvantage so they might as well not compete. If you put them in group B then they have a huge advantage and everyone else in group B might as well not compete. The obvious answer would be to create group C and have them compete there, but if defining group C is next to impossible there aren't many options left. Do you allow group B a way to remove their relative disadvantage or do you give anyone in group C the equivalent of a golf handicap?

The answer is going to be different depending on how those groups are defined but if nothing is done and the 'contest of equals' is removed then contest itself becomes irrelevant.

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Should some "doping" be allowed in professional sports.
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2016, 03:24:36 PM »
And following on from your mention of golf handicaps, horse racing does the same. The board game Go does the same. Loads of sports do it. Parachutes payments for teams dropping s league over here. The way the draft picks work in American football. This isn't some handicapper general thing, it's literally the way sports work.

Offline Nachtmahr

  • Glorious Fiend.
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Location: Always out of sight, never out of mind.
  • The curse of life is the curse of want.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Should some "doping" be allowed in professional sports.
« Reply #4 on: August 22, 2016, 03:59:06 PM »
Alright, I removed my original post because I felt like it was kind of all over the place. Instead I'll sum up my point.

My point was, basically, that the point of sports is to find the very best at certain things, and genetics is a huge part of this. In my opinion we can't and shouldn't deny that. Some people are going to be better than other people at a particular thing. Some barriers maybe can't be crossed without genetics on your side, and that's alright. That's the point of competitive sports and competitions in general. The idea that everyone is equal in sports is more of a philosophical construct that it is something that could ever actually be achieved. You would literally have to "De-Dope" everyone until they were at the same genetic level as the lowest common denominator, and that wouldn't make any sense. It would defeat the point of the exercise. If you have a tiny edge when running the 100 meter and you've then spend the better half of your life sharpening it to the point where you're the best in the world.. Then you shouldn't be considered a cheater.

Genetics and mental capacity goes hand in hand with doing anything on an elite level. Not everyone gets a shot at being the best in the world at everything. That's just not how reality works. I used basketball as an example here: You don't have to be taller than average to play basketball, but if you ever find yourself playing it at a professional level then.. Chances are that you most likely are. That's not a rule that's being enforced by anyone, it's simply a fact that being a taller athlete makes you better at some of the core aspects of basketball.

I think there's an alarming shadow of the radical "Safe-Space!"-mindset over the concept of making everyone equal. In the Olympics, every viable competitor gets to compete, but not everyone gets to be the best. Maybe you've practiced 16 hours a day all your life, but then someone shows up who's been half as dedicated but still beats you.. That's life.

I think we should do everything we possibly can to eliminate doping and make sure that athletes are only allowed to use their bodies as they are and no artificial aids. But I genuinely think it's crazy to think that it's unfair that someone was just born with a body better suited for one very specific task. It also basically cheapens all the effort that these people have put in to go "Yeah, well.. You only won because you got lucky at birth". In fact, I think it's borderline childish to think that.

To me, the point of sports is to find the best, most dedicated, most fit person or people within a certain group of athletes. As citizens, we're all created equal, but as individuals we're not. Some people are just better at some things, and one person gets to be the best.

Online HairyHeretic

  • Lei varai barbu - The true bearded one
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Location: Ireland
  • Gender: Male
  • And the Scorpion said "Little frog .. I can swim."
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Should some "doping" be allowed in professional sports.
« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2016, 04:49:43 PM »
I'm more curious to see what will happen when genetic engineering progresses to the point where you can enhance someone's abilities at a genetic level. Will a natural person be able to compete then?

Offline Nachtmahr

  • Glorious Fiend.
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Location: Always out of sight, never out of mind.
  • The curse of life is the curse of want.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Should some "doping" be allowed in professional sports.
« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2016, 06:48:53 AM »
I'm more curious to see what will happen when genetic engineering progresses to the point where you can enhance someone's abilities at a genetic level. Will a natural person be able to compete then?

It's funny, I was genuinely thinking about that because of YouTube video I watched recently about the potential future of genetic engineering. I was pondering the exact same question: In a world where you could potentially create the perfect athlete, would that person not be allowed to compete? Would "Normal" people not be allowed to compete? Would we need Paralympics, Special Olympics, Regular Olympics and Super Olympics?

With advancing medicine and technology, fact of the matter is that the question about doping becomes both increasingly relevant and increasingly hard to answer. It's not just about huffing asthma medicine in the changing room anymore. Things have gotten crazy to the point where some people are willing to do almost anything for a chance at athletic glory and some nations actively encourage that sort of behavior on a governmental level.

I'll stick to my point that I think doping should be fought as hard as possible, but that sports is all about finding out who is most fit for a certain discipline, genes and all.

Maybe the ultimate question is whether or not it's feasible to preserve "Honest" sports at all though? Does it even make sense to try in a world where body-hacking has become a reality?

Offline Renegade Vile

Re: Should some "doping" be allowed in professional sports.
« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2016, 09:26:47 AM »
I'm more curious to see what will happen when genetic engineering progresses to the point where you can enhance someone's abilities at a genetic level. Will a natural person be able to compete then?

Depends entirely on what kind of genetic engineering and to what extent is even legal or ethically responsible; something you see pop up in A LOT of sci-fi settings/stories. Same for cybernetics. If I have replaced my right arm with a souped up cybernetic replacement, should I be allowed to throw straight rights in a boxing match with people without a metal jaw? A silly analogy I know, but it's not usually as easy to answer as that.

As things stand, I think the ban on doping should remain as strict as it is (or is claimed to be, because let's face it, some people with a lot of money can probably buy themselves a pass...) if for no other reason than the health of the athletes. This is by no means applicable to all forms of doping, but a lot of them have seriously detrimental effects on long-term health, even more so than insanely competitive, top level sports already does on those who are not as cautious as they possibly could be.
A good example is pro-wrestling, where three more superstars were recently hit with a suspension for taking substances that WWE does not clear. One might wonder why it matters in a scripted sport, but given some of the side-effects of some of the substances people could be taking to enhance their performance in the ring and make sure to impress enough to get that desirable main event spot, is it at all surprising anymore?

Offline Orval WintermuteTopic starter

  • I am a champion and you're gonna hear me
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2013
  • Gender: Male
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Should some "doping" be allowed in professional sports.
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2016, 09:54:15 AM »
The WWE really isn't a great example, 2 of those suspensions are thought have more to do with contract disputes than substance abuse, and the third wass supposedly the result of a misnotification. But they still let Brock Lesnar on the air while he's still under a UFC drugs ban because WWE's Wellness Policy doesn't apply to part-time employees. Because it's supposed to be family friendly entertainment, they want to avoid headlines about drug overdoses or roid rage incidents or heart attacks after years of drug use or murder\suicides. It's about protecting the brand not the athlete's.

Offline Renegade Vile

Re: Should some "doping" be allowed in professional sports.
« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2016, 10:10:12 AM »
The WWE really isn't a great example, 2 of those suspensions are thought have more to do with contract disputes than substance abuse, and the third wass supposedly the result of a misnotification. But they still let Brock Lesnar on the air while he's still under a UFC drugs ban because WWE's Wellness Policy doesn't apply to part-time employees. Because it's supposed to be family friendly entertainment, they want to avoid headlines about drug overdoses or roid rage incidents or heart attacks after years of drug use or murder\suicides. It's about protecting the brand not the athlete's.

I'm not going to give an opinion on Alberto Del Rio and Paige just yet, since we know very little, though in Eva Marie's case it was paperwork shenanigans. Now I'm not claiming WWE's Wellness Policy is good or not, I'm just using it as an example as to one of the major reasons why doping should be at least heavily controlled. Whether their reasons for doing so is to protect the brand or not, the implications to the athlete's health is still there. I wish that their motivation would be the longevity of their employees, but that's the corporate world for you *shrugs*.

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: Should some "doping" be allowed in professional sports.
« Reply #10 on: August 27, 2016, 02:44:35 AM »
I'm sure lots of people about the controversy that has followed Caster Semenya her entire career about exactly what sex she is. One of the commentators was explaining how the IAAF has been revising it's tests\criteria for the sex of athletes, initially they were using a strip test then they moved to chromosome testing.
That testing changed again so that it is based on testosterone levels, the level of testosterone in 99% of female athlete's blood is around 3 nmol\L and the ruling was made that any female athlete with a level of more than 10 nmol\L would have to reduce that level somehow (medication,surgery). However that ruling has been provisionally overturned until the IAAF can produce evidence that high testosterone levels in female athletes make a performance difference.
There are a couple of points here that are incorrect, or at least might need some clarification (based on the Interim Award in the Dutee Chand case):

1.) The test for testosterone is not a "sex/gender test". It's not used to determine the gender of an athlete, unlike previous testing regimes. A female athlete with levels at 10nmol/L or higher is not classified as a male. That's part of the problem, because it will prevent those athletes from starting in the female category, but not allow them to start in the male category either, because they are still female. They can't start anywhere, unlike an athlete who may have been categorized as male after previously starting as female and therefore be allowed to compete in the male field.

2.) The IAAF's reasoning is that, according to them and their expert witnesses in this case, male athletes enjoy a performance advantage over female athletes of something like 10-15%. What they claim is that very high testosterone levels lead to a performance advantage for female athletes that fall within the same range (primarily because of testosterones role in how the body creates lean body mass (LBM)). The IAAF's argument is that this is such a significant advantage that these women clearly fall outside the "normal" performance envelope of female athletes. (The watchword here is significant, as that is what the legal arguments mostly focus on.) In other words, the IAAF won't have to show that testosterone makes any difference - it will have to prove the significance and levels of advantage.

3.) The CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sports) Tribunal has agreed that separating sports into male and female categories is a legitimate way of ensuring a level playing field for athletes, as the performance differences between male and female athletes are significant enough to justify that split of sports into two different categories. That was not really a question before the tribunal anyway, and it was not contested by Chand. But what the tribunal found problematic is that this test is not used to divide male and female athletes, but rather creates a test within the female category.

4.) The Tribunal does not agree with the IAAF on the significance of elevated testosterone levels and the proportionality of excluding female athletes from events on those grounds alone. Or, in the words of the tribunal:
Quote
Specifically,  the  IAAF  has  not provided  sufficient  scientific  evidence  about  the  quantitative  relationship  between enhanced  testosterone  levels  and  improved  athletic  performance  in  hyperandrogenic athletes. In  the  absence  of  such  evidence,  the  Panel  is  unable  to  conclude  that hyperandrogenic female athletes may enjoy such a significant performance advantage that it is necessary to exclude them from competing in the female category.

Now this is just my personal impression after reading the award's conclusions (the "juicy bits" start at para 500, page 144) and about half of the full text, but the way I read this award is that the IAAF will have its work cut out for it, if it really wants to challenge this interim award with new evidence. I have a feeling the tribunal has quite strong reservations about:
(i) the fact that the exclusion of certain female athletes is based on just one single biological marker, that testosterone levels alone are used by the IAAF when there can be other natural factors also giving some athletes a performance advantage;
(ii) the fact that this rule creates a category of female athletes that can compete in neither the female or male category;
(iii) the fact that high levels of testosterone can lead to a perfromance advantage, but that androgen insensitivity can also mean that a female athlete with elevated testosterone levels does not enjoy any corresponding advantage, something which the current tests don't sufficiently account for.

Offline Orval WintermuteTopic starter

  • I am a champion and you're gonna hear me
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2013
  • Gender: Male
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Should some "doping" be allowed in professional sports.
« Reply #11 on: August 27, 2016, 02:14:13 PM »
As this article (http://sportsscientists.com/2016/07/caster-semenya-debate/) points out there is a difference between sex and gender.
Gender is how an individual self-identifies, so Dutee Chand and Caster Semenya both identify as female so that is their gender. Sex however is biological and from a biological perspective Caster Semenya is both male and female, she is an intersex athlete. So her biology and her gender are not the same. Which then had me wondering about trans-gendered athlete's, which led me to this article

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jan/25/ioc-rules-transgender-athletes-can-take-part-in-olympics-without-surgery
Female-to-male athletes can compete with no restrictions but male-to-female athletes have to be on hormone therapy and demonstrate testosterone levels below the "magic" 10 nmol\L for a year being allowed to compete. Now whether that particular standard is the correct one for measuring eligibility to compete as a female athlete is a whole other discussion, but if there is a standard then it should apply to everyone. Looking at it from the perspective of trans-athletes, the IAAF created another type of trans-athlete Intersex-to-female that had to abide by the rules laid down for other trans-athletes. That Grauniad article had a couple of interesting quotes from the IOC.
Quote
It is necessary to ensure insofar as possible that trans athletes are not excluded from the opportunity to participate in sporting competition..The overriding sporting objective is and remains the guarantee of fair competition.
But what happens if that "guarantee of fair competition" is nullified by the inclusion of a trans-athlete? In those cases the IOC believes it is right to exclude them from competition, "insofar as possible" says that arguments of fair competition outweigh arguments about inclusion. 

Quote
To avoid discrimination, if not eligible for female competition, the athlete should be eligible to compete in male competition,
The IOC aren't saying that athletes should be prevented from competing at all, just that if they fail to meet certain criteria they can't compete under a certain category of competition. From what I can see the CAS, IAAF & IOC rulings have created three different types of female athlete:
Female sex & gender athletes, that are limited to low levels of a specific anabolic steroid in their bodies.
Male-to-female transgender athletes, that are allowed significantly higher levels of a specific anabolic steroid in their bodies.
Intersex female  athletes, that have no uppper limit on the amount of a specific anabolic steroid in their bodies.
I'm not sure that these groups as they stand allow for the guarantee of fair competition. If there is a standard for any area of competition then all competitors should meet it, and if there is an upper limit on weight, height etc. then as long as it isn't exceeded then all competitors should be allowed to go to that limit. 

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: Should some "doping" be allowed in professional sports.
« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2016, 02:50:11 AM »
As this article (http://sportsscientists.com/2016/07/caster-semenya-debate/) points out there is a difference between sex and gender.
Gender is how an individual self-identifies, so Dutee Chand and Caster Semenya both identify as female so that is their gender. Sex however is biological and from a biological perspective Caster Semenya is both male and female, she is an intersex athlete.

Do we know that for a fact? I know there has been some innuendo by officials to that effect ("female, but perhaps not 100% female"), but I don't think the results of her tests were ever made public. Or has there been a leak of the test results that I am unaware of?


The IOC aren't saying that athletes should be prevented from competing at all, just that if they fail to meet certain criteria they can't compete under a certain category of competition. From what I can see the CAS, IAAF & IOC rulings have created three different types of female athlete:
Female sex & gender athletes, that are limited to low levels of a specific anabolic steroid in their bodies.
Male-to-female transgender athletes, that are allowed significantly higher levels of a specific anabolic steroid in their bodies.
Intersex female  athletes, that have no uppper limit on the amount of a specific anabolic steroid in their bodies.
I'm not sure that these groups as they stand allow for the guarantee of fair competition. If there is a standard for any area of competition then all competitors should meet it, and if there is an upper limit on weight, height etc. then as long as it isn't exceeded then all competitors should be allowed to go to that limit.
Not quite. The "females limited to certain levels of testosterone" category has been struck down by the CAS (at least for now). So, for the moment, I don't think there is any difference between "cis" and "inter" female athletes. Granted, the IAAF still has time to present new evidence to get the limit reinstated, but I still believe they will have a difficult time finding evidence that the tribunal would regard as compelling enough to overturn the interim award.

Also, we'll have to wait and see if the IOC guidelines are adopted as rules by the national olympic committees. The whole matter is in flux right now and I doubt we'll see any clear picture emerge until the CAS has rendered a final award in the Dutee Chand case.

Offline Mantis Shrimp Prime

Re: Should some "doping" be allowed in professional sports.
« Reply #13 on: August 31, 2016, 01:56:42 AM »
I think that... sports are just not something that can be easily measured. The standards are always going to change.
Because sports, by their nature, are artificial. They have rules and such.

Take the rules you have in combat sports.
But if it was a street fight, it would only matter who is standing at the end of the fight. Methods, weapons, doping, doesn't matter.
They might win do to superior strength, training, technique, or just plain luck depending on circumstances.

Sports try to create rules to limit the nature of the competition, and try to give a sense of "fairness". Which is ultimately illusory since the rules will always favor someone who is best suited to work within their framework.

Sometimes it can feel arbitrary too. Like... someone who focus on nutrition, eating right, building their body properly, will have a major advantage over someone who doesn't, possibly even if that person trained more in their life or has a genetic advantage.
Heck, even for two people who were totally equal, nutrition could make or break the match even that day, if one person ate a healthy breakfast giving them energy and the other one skipped it. 
No one would ever call that unfair.


I don't think doping is something to allow. But if it were, that might not be totally bad. The ideas of sports and competition are going to keep getting questioned and changing, and I don't think that's a bad thing.



Don't meant to pick on Nachtmahr but if I could make a couple devil's advocate-ish statements...

Quote
Maybe you've practiced 16 hours a day all your life, but then someone shows up who's been half as dedicated but still beats you.. That's life.

And hey, maybe you treated your body like a temple with no unnatural additives, and then someone who juiced up on drugs shows up and beats you. Also life.

Quote
To me, the point of sports is to find the best, most dedicated, most fit person or people within a certain group of athletes. As citizens, we're all created equal, but as individuals we're not. Some people are just better at some things, and one person gets to be the best.

Some would say it's to drive and push human limits. Not to find the best human, but to see just how good humans can get. It's not "by any means necessary" yet, but maybe it should be?
I mean... the most dedicated... what if dedication includes pushing yourself at any cost, seeking any advantage? Being willing even to overcome your natural weaknesses through whatever substances you can get your hands on, even if it kills you?
Maybe not something to encourage, but it all comes down to the subjective values of human culture, which are always changing.









Online LostInTheMist

Re: Should some "doping" be allowed in professional sports.
« Reply #14 on: September 16, 2016, 04:59:59 PM »
My views on this are fairly simple, and I don't have a great argument beyond the emotional component. There are great sportsmen out there who are role models and heroes to tons of people, young and old. When I found out about Lance Armstrong's doping, I felt betrayed. I felt like Barry Bonds tarnished the game, as did all those others who used PEDs. Each one was betrayal, and in some cases worse than others. I have tremendous respect for those athletes who got where they are through hard work and determination, rather than through some chemical cocktail.

Simply put, I believe doping should be forbidden in all sports, and that getting caught doping should result in a permanent ban from any and all future competition, should make you ineligible for any hall of fame, etc.

I mean Pete Rose just gambled, and yet we're allowing people who literally cheated to get elected to the hall of fame?

Offline SmokingCamels

Re: Should some "doping" be allowed in professional sports.
« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2016, 07:31:29 AM »
Alright OP.  You have my attention.  I like this discussion.  :)

Alright.  From a pro-wrestler's perspective, I look at it like this.  Take the dope.  Don't take the dope.  I'm going too.  I'm going to out perform you every day of the week.  I'm going to be stronger.  I'm going to have a better body.  I'm going to get more girls at the parties.  I'm going to make more money.  And I'm going to be a star in the big leagues.  After a few years of bouncing around in the minor leagues, you're going to wash out and go home. 

Let's be perfectly honest.  Your job is to market your body and be as absolutely appealing as possible to as many people as possible so asses sit in seats and you get paid.  A male athlete on steroids is no different then a female model getting a boob job.  Is it cheating?  Technically I suppose so since you weren't born with it.  When your job is to market your body, you do everything you can to make your body as best as you possibly can.

But, I also understand the people who are against it.  That's fine.  I don't agree.  I think everyone should be on performance enhancers.  Soldiers absolutely.  Athletes, definitely.  People who work with manual labor?  Of course.  Take the juice.  Use it like any other medicine.  Make yourself better so you can do a better job. 

Offline Scribbles

Re: Should some "doping" be allowed in professional sports.
« Reply #16 on: October 14, 2016, 01:03:48 PM »
Sports as a whole feels like it's going down a bad road. If the world ever masters the art of manipulating the human body, will we end up going into a discussion on whether or not the boxer that substituted their arms with a gorilla's should be allowed to compete?

I get that there's a lot of money at stake, with many people dedicating their entire lives to success in their chosen field. The problem with permitting doping is that by allowing it, we're essentially condemning everyone involved to either dope up or play at a heavy disadvantage and lose. It doesn't seem fair.

Not to mention, chemical manipulation hardly seems seamless or precise enough to be implemented in such a way, and it appears to bring a lot of adverse effects with it. From what little I know, you risk your body, health and mind by playing around with your chemistry in such a fashion.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2016, 01:05:53 PM by Scribbles »