Just Curious

Squirrel

Do you think that there is a problem with performance enhancing drugs in athletics?

After you vote could you please post why you think this

Cheers,
Squirrel

Amz

I think the fact that performance enhancing drugs are used at all indicates that there is a problem. It doesn't just exist in athletics though.

However drug use isn't the biggest problem facing athletics in Ireland, although that's probably best kept for another thread.

*shrug*

cavedave

Hackers use coffee, share dealers use ritalin, truck drivers use speed why is drug use in sports such a problem? If you banned all the products of drug use you would severly disrupt our lives yet drugs in sport are regarded as hideous.
Drug use breaks the rules of a sport and as such should be punished but why is it regarded as a moral problem whereas fouling is pretty much taken as standard.
David

Amz

Performance enhancing drugs are what people have a problem with. If someone uses a substance which enables them to compete at a higher level than they would be naturally competing at then that’s cheating plain and simple. In athletics people would like to see athletes compete on what they perceive as a level playing field.

If all the athletes are clean and there are no doubts about substance use then it makes it a greater sporting spectacle as people are achieving things in competition, using only their natural talents, physical gifts etc.
If there is a doubt about a certain athlete then their achievements are somewhat tainted, whether they’re taking these performance enhancing substances, or not.

In Ireland we’ve seen how cynical people are towards sports such as swimming and athletics etc. due to the substance abuse cases in this country alone. People don’t pay as much attention to these sports any more, there’s always a doubt about whether an athlete’s win was assisted in any way by performance enhancing substances, or whether it was down to sheer talent.

People don’t like to think that someone cheated to achieve anything, particularly in sport.

thebuyer

the problem for me is its the best chemist who wins not the best athlete.

cavedave

If someone uses a substance which enables them to compete at a higher level than they would be naturally competing at then that’s cheating plain and simple.

Lance Armstrong was given EPO when he had cancer purely for medical reasons. Naturally he'd be dead, as would most of us who have used antibiotics, how is this usage of performance enhancing drugs of a different calliber? To further blur the boundary is a child who takes growth hormone to combat dwarfism banned from competing for life in all sports?

the problem for me is its the best chemist who wins not the best athlete.

At the moment its the best athlete with the best coach, nutritionist, kiniseologist, computer modelling, physio, physiologist and funding why is adding a chemist such a problem?
David

Amz

cavedave wrote:

Lance Armstrong was given EPO when he had cancer purely for medical reasons. Naturally he'd be dead, as would most of us who have used antibiotics, how is this usage of performance enhancing drugs of a different calliber?

The rules governing cycling are different from those governing athletics which is what we're discussing in this thread.

The fact that Armstrong took EPO means that many people view his achievments in the Tour de France cynically now. He's no longer viewed as the world's greatest cyclist. His victories have been tainted ...

To further blur the boundary is a child who takes growth hormone to combat dwarfism banned from competing for life in all sports?

I don't know are they?

Again, that's not the issue here, presumably if a child is taking them for the reason you give, by the time they reach maturity they'll no longer need them and as such the growth hormones they took as a child no longer impact on their development etc.

At the moment its the best athlete with the best coach, nutritionist, kiniseologist, computer modelling, physio, physiologist and funding why is adding a chemist such a problem?

Because the above mentioned "experts" work with what the athlete already has and/or potentially has through training etc.

Adding a chemist to the mix gives the athlete an unfair advantage over those using training etc. to achieve their goals. It is cheating!

If you're not good enough because your genes prevent you from being the best, or because your not training hard enough, or because you've failed to utilise what you've got naturally then why should someone who is able to utilise what they've got, but chooses to avoid performance enhancing substances lose out because they don't wish to cheat, because they don't feel the need to cheat.

There are also the hidden risks attributed to these designer drugs. Side effects which may not present themselves until further down the line.

At the end of the day it mostly boils down to money. Winners make the big bucks. At the time of competition they're not interested in the health risks down the line, or the sanctions for being caught. I feel that something seriously needs to be done to combat this, but as yet haven't figured out what that is ...

However funding doesn't always mean that you'll be the best, in rugby 7s Fiji are one of the most underfunded sides in the world yet they've learned to utilise their natural skills and talent and their physiology to be consistantly one of the top sides in the world.

Glipmac

Hell if these people wanna take drugs let them it might be more interesting!

Glip

Amz

Many of the people who want to take them probably are taking them.

It's the lack of transparency that's the problem. Because we're never sure who is and who isn't taking these substances it throws into doubt a lot of performances.

Perhaps I'm just too cynical ...

Pherekydes

What about altitude training or sleeping in hypoxic tents?

The people who utilise these have an unfair advantage over those who can't afford them. It's the same with warm-weather training.

And what about people who have TUEs and can avail of otherwise banned drugs? Surely they have an unfair advantage. Surely their genes have handicapped them with, say, asthma, but they're getting around their genetic disadvantage in an unfair way.

And what if someone has had an illness, like LA, and has to use EPO. Why should they be banned for life? Is there any evidence that the advantages of EPO use last longer than a few months?

Amz

Slow coach wrote:

What about altitude training or sleeping in hypoxic tents?

The people who utilise these have an unfair advantage over those who can't afford them. It's the same with warm-weather training.

Many people who train at altitude, or in warm climates can do so because of their geographical location, an accident of birth, large amounts of funding aren't always neccessary for this type of training.

I agree it's unfair that people with money can afford to utilise more facilities and have greater access to new technologies etc. but this happens in all areas of life. Unless the area of funding is regulated somewhat, or there is equity in that area then there will always be this problem.

You cannot realistically compare genetic advantages with monetary advantages.

What about people who receive large amounts of funding and are genetically predisposed to being top athletes yet take no substances to enhance their performance?

And what about people who have TUEs and can avail of otherwise banned drugs? Surely they have an unfair advantage. Surely their genes have handicapped them with, say, asthma, but they're getting around their genetic disadvantage in an unfair way.

The people with asthma etc. who use medications to counter the effects of it are merely attempting to compensate for their physiological deficiancy (possibly the wrong word to use here) and as such are bringing their physiology i.e. lung cpacity/respiratory system up to what would be considered "normal" functional levels.

And what if someone has had an illness, like LA, and has to use EPO. Why should they be banned for life? Is there any evidence that the advantages of EPO use last longer than a few months?

I agree with you, a person should not be banned for life for receiving substances like EPO during the treatment of an illness. However if after treatment they are at an unfair advantage over other competitors then there should be some allowances made.

I'm not particularly familiar with the long lasting effects of EPO use and their use during the treatments received by Lance Armstrong so I'm not really in a position to give an informed opinion.

*shrug*

I'm going home now because I'm tired, I'll probably edit this later as I didn't make my points particularly well

Pherekydes

Amz wrote:

The people with asthma etc. who use medications to counter the effects of it are merely attempting to compensate for their physiological deficiancy

Isn't that what every person who takes any type of PED is doing?

If, in the future, you won a large contract (presumably of the accountancy type) despite using, say, caffeine pills, would you not feel you'd cheated?

Should you not be banned for life from accounting?

(Silly example, but anyway...)

Maybe to you and lots of others sport is sport, but to those taking part, like Armstrong, Radcliffe, et al, it's big business, a serious way to improve their life and make lotsa money.

I would prefer if those taking part didn't use PEDs, but when you have some people sleeping in hypoxic tents, and others using inhalers, the hypocrisy of it is too much for me.

Amz

Slow coach wrote:

Isn't that what every person who takes any type of PED is doing?

If, in the future, you won a large contract (presumably of the accountancy type) despite using, say, caffeine pills, would you not feel you'd cheated?

Should you not be banned for life from accounting?

(Silly example, but anyway...)

Uhm ...

As far as I'm aware the use of Caffeine pills in accountancy isn't considered bad practice and there are no sanctions place on those found to be using them for the enhancment of their accountancy performance.

I'm not an accountant though so I could be wrong.

Maybe to you and lots of others sport is sport, but to those taking part, like Armstrong, Radcliffe, et al, it's big business, a serious way to improve their life and make lotsa money.

I'm aware of the unfortunate reality.

Alas until incentives to perform well without using performance enhancing drugs are introduced then things aren't going to change.

I would prefer if those taking part didn't use PEDs, but when you have some people sleeping in hypoxic tents, and others using inhalers, the hypocrisy of it is too much for me.

The way sports science is developing future elite athletes will be selected almost at birth based on their genetic properties. I took part in a study last year that is looking at the genetic properties of muscle and the various muscle types and how each respond to training. The study is hoping to identify genes present in individuals which predispose them to specific athletic ability.

If this does happen I'd be very interested to see what changes, if any, occur in the whole doping area of sport.