When does “having an advantage” become cheating?

E.coli

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118589514#Comment_118589514

If doping was legalised would you encourage your kids into the sport if it meant that it could have detrimental impact on health?

Likewise would you feel comfortable sending your kid down to local athletics club where a coach might be more focused on short term success vs long term health and development (look at attritional rates of Juveniles and you can get a sense for this)

babacool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118589561#Comment_118589561

Good question. And the answer is no to the club and yes to sport but trying to guide them on the right path depending on whatever the right path is in my eyes. Same time again it’s a personal choice. I wouldn’t want to make that decision for my kids (sending to a club where doping is standard) but if at some point they would go down that path I would be unhappy and disagree but couldn’t stop them (after they hit a certain age).

again good question same time isn’t that exactly what happens right now? A group of people trying to tell others what to do and what not? 🙂 and please don’t link that to covid. That’s a completely different story 😁. Your action or non action on covid has an immediate physical impact on others! That’s a whole different level. If I dope I risk my own health but not yours. Yours is only impacted if you chose to go down the same path.

babacool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118589478#Comment_118589478

Isn’t having a brand new pair of shoe the same as having some drugs? It improves your performance for a certain period of time. So why is that different?

why is it on the list?

simple: all of those items depend on your personal situation if you have access to it or not. So where would you draw the line and why?

why would you say “having a nutritionist who helps me design a superfood meal” is not cheating but a doctor who “helps me design a super cocktail” is?

again, I’m not arguing with you or saying you are right or wrong. Just would like to dig deeper into your thought process behind it 🙂

sydthebeat

"Isn’t having a brand new pair of shoe the same as having some drugs?"

Ah here, thread finally jumped the shark

babacool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118589667#Comment_118589667

Nope. This isn’t about the shoes. Not at all or at least not about “supershoes”. You can apply that to a 10€ runner. Just look at it from the perspective of a poor child in Africa who has to run barefoot. Isn’t that a disadvantage already? And why are we ok with that? Just because “it isn’t our fault that this kid can’t afford a pair of runners”?

so no: “thread not finally jumped the shark” 😉 yet I wonder why did you think that in the first place?

robinph

It's just the agreed rules of the sport. If that be the technical gear you can use to make a fair competition, or what drugs you can use. They are probably banned for health purposes, but knocking back some amphetamines before playing snooker isn't going to help you any, but taking the opposite drug would and is so going to be on the banned list. Whilst a stimulant for someone running a sprint event might be useful, getting a ban for smoking a joint is just plain silly.

It's happened, but nobody would claim a sprinter was cheating for smoking a joint. Different drugs are determined to be beneficial above what humans should be naturally capable of, and except for caffeine, are therefore banned depending on the sport.

babacool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118591074#Comment_118591074

So you are purely going by the rules?! If you could make the rules, what would you do?

why would you ban one thing but be ok with something else? Where would you draw the line?

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118591543#Comment_118591543

Well the lines move over time. It used to be considered cheating to take a sip of water before mile 10 of the marathon for example.

Maybe some other drug yet appears which over time is then accepted rather than banned.

spc78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118589514#Comment_118589514

I don't think you can say health risks are up to individual choice - in Ireland & the UK for instance the State is left to pay for people who have made poor health choices. Why for instance I don't have a problem with a high tax on cigarettes & alcohol and why I don't have a problem with cigarettes being eventually banned as our taxes pay for the healthcare system left to deal with problems from abuse of those substances. The idea of sport is to have a competitive product - legalising doping is not going to make the sport any more entertaining so why do it?

Sport aside, EPO is an illegal drug which no doctor can legally ever prescribe to someone healthy so 'doping' is a moot point as regards the sporting federations opinions - e.g if they decide in UFC that theres no tapouts, that killing your opponent is allowed then authorities will step in pretty quick to stop that.

DeepBlue

Or let me ask it differently:

I pay for training - is that ok or cheating?

i buy 5 new pairs of shoes every year - ok or cheating?

i have a nutritionist to get my diet right - ok or cheating?

If I would take epo - ok or cheating?

Pay for training = Not cheating (there's no guarantee the training will actually make you better than you could have achieved with non-paid training)

5 new pairs of shoes = Not cheating (the shoes won't run the race for you)

Nutritionist = Not cheating (this is a bit like saying is training cheating?) I suspect those who pay for a nutritionist are more motivated to follow the advice than the same guy who reads the same info from a few good nutrition books. The "I'm paying for this so I better do it" kicks in.

EPO - definitely cheating as you're tricking your body to perform better artificially. You'll get a similar effect with high altitude training but again that's not cheating as it's not artificial (although most likely costly).

^^ Since I'll never trouble a podium this is all just spit balling opinion to me but I guess if you're in the group of runners who might be in the top 10 or 15 at races and think you probably have a shot then perhaps perspectives will differ considerably and your concept of a "level playing field" differs.

babacool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118595772#Comment_118595772

But who guarantees that taking EPO will give you an improvement at least enough to get to the next level? And why is having a nutritionist who creates a super cocktail for you not the same? Just that he would use foods you may not even have heard of before?

And if I understand your point correctly, according to you cheating is when: you do something that guarantees you an improvement!

which means the moment an athlete would try a new pharmaceutical cocktail that has not shown a guaranteed improvement yet, it is ok to do so. But the moment this cocktail guarantees you it should be banned?

so the first few people can have it as they are just trying it and their success counts but after that it is no longer available?

babacool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118595311#Comment_118595311

I beg to differ on the entertainment side. If everyone has free access to all drugs in the world and if the tax payer wouldn’t have to pay for the health issues eventually, a race up the mountains is as exciting with or without drugs. You still have to run up the hill as hard as you can, clean or not. but that’s not the discussion here 😁.

question is why is it illegal? And when does it become illegal? Aren’t there enhancement drugs that are banned from sport but still used to heal people? So where is the “cut off point” on what is ok and what not? Where would you draw the line if you only look at yourself and the person next to you?

how would you feel if you do something or have access to that he doesn’t or vice versa? Would you be ok with having an advantage or would you say “that’s not fair”?

DeepBlue

And if I understand your point correctly, according to you cheating is when: you do something that guarantees you an improvement!

No, that wouldn't be my point. It's more when you do something artificial.

if you went and legalised all drugs then each Olympics would just be Vladimir Putin turning up, taking a swig from a bottle, and winning the 100m. It would be more of science lab competition rather than an Athletics competition.

On the nutrition front - if your nutritionist is Alberto Salazar, then yes you probably have an unfair advantage.

babacool

Thank you all those who contributed to this thread. 🙂 in case anyone else feels like continuing the debate or contributing to it, please go ahead. As for me the “experiment” is over.

the following I wanted to see:

1. How much of interest would a simple thread create just purely by a certain subject line?
2. What sort of reactions would it create? What type of responses?
3. Would someone be willing to change his/her opinion or at least trying to acknowledge a different point of view?

so what I found is:

1. almost 900 views within 2 days. Isn’t that impressive. But compared to other topics started around the same time it’s great and even more impressive, it’s been 400 views within the initial 12hrs and that involved nighttime! So the topic “cheating” is definitely something that interests members.
2. it’s interesting how those who responded (except the latest entry) didn’t really answer the questions but jumped straight on to assumptions and doping, assuming that this thread is about doping only.
3. also interesting that some assumed that by mentioning shoes it just had to be about supershoes whereas this was just about any shoe. For what it is worth it could be the 20€ Runner from lidl 🙂 that triggered this question.
4. also interesting that no one really tried to even understand my point of view or only a few questions been asked to really understand why this topic has been raised (btw I’m not pro doping or cheating of any sorts I just couldn’t care less if someone does. I can’t control the actions of others and can therefore only focus on myself. And yes I still enjoy watching a cycle race despite knowing that probably most of the field isn’t clean. It’s still entertaining 😉). Why jumping straight into conclusions/assumptions? Additionally it felt like only one or two were really open to having a debate. Exchanging and throwing things back and forth (something I personally enjoy a lot! It’s not about being right or wrong but challenging each other’s point of view whilst still remaining respectful 🙂).
5. it’s interesting to see that we either don’t really question what we do or really are ok with having an advantage as long as we don’t have a disadvantage. It’s not a bad thing I suppose (that’s my statement/opinion. It does not have to be right neither it might not be wrong either).

the only concluding ask I would have is to really appreciate how lucky we all are. We have access to training, access to materials (shoes, clothes you name it), we get support to help us stay healthy, injury free, to improve in whatever we want to improve (legally I hope 😉).

The person next to you in a race might not be that lucky and still tries to get to where you are or beyond! And although it may not look like you “cheated” to you, he might sees it differently or at least would wish to have the same “advantage”.

thank you all and I promise to not start anything like this again!

bike2wkr

You're hypothesis has many holes in it. Yes If a person has access to a dietician, coach or better shoes then it gives that person an advantage, perhaps unfair but it's not cheating.

What about all the great African runners living at altitude, running to /from school on dirt tracks (better for runners than tarmac/concrete), living a meagre lifestyle, spartan lifestyle. Alot of these are things that give an athlete an advantage. Would you say this is cheating? :)

The answer is No. I think having access to all of those fancy things *can help but you still have to do the training.

Mellor

Isn’t having a brand new pair of shoe the same as having some drugs? It improves your performance for a certain period of time.

No, not the same at all. Drugs increase performance/abilities to supra-physiological levels. New shoes do not. That is the difference.

why is it on the list?

Why is what on the list? EPO. I explain why in the post you quoted.

simple: all of those items depend on your personal situation if you have access to it or not. So where would you draw the line and why?

They do depend on a persons circumstance. Pretty much everything does when you think about it. But that has nothing to do with the legalities of sports.

why would you say “having a nutritionist who helps me design a superfood meal” is not cheating but a doctor who “helps me design a super cocktail” is?

Because one is natural food. The other synthetic drugs. There is a benefit from food, but it's minor and natural. The drugs give a much larger benefit. This benefit is considered supra-psychology, and not natural.

athlone573

The only thing there I'd consider cheating is the aul EPO. Health risks and not something we want to encourage for our young people or anyone else. I'm even uneasy about creatine or other supplements and think a balanced normal diet is safest for the body long term.

If anyone can afford multiple trips to lanza, a personal trainer and a new pair of shoes every fortnight more power to them!