Does PED use really bother you?

hoop de doo dum. wrote:

I think it's a fine line. Wejo admitted to using caffeine to boost performance. Is that a PED, it was performance enhancing. But it wasn't Legal. What about those runners that use ADHD meds or people that take drugs to mask pain so they can perform.

Caffeine is legal (at least now) and not tested for. It's so ubiquitous in foods and beverages it's no longer of concern. There is nothing detrimental about altitude tents, which is why they are not banned either. It allows those who can't uproot their life the opportunity to stay where they are and get the [debatably] same benefit as those who live and train at high altitude. The stuff that's banned is banned for a reason- it's detrimental to one's health (see East German doping program). Anyone who thinks "lets legalize it" is not considering the negative consequences those drugs can have on an otherwise healthy person.

I don't understand the moral conscious of those who think drug use is Ok. Do you cheat in other aspects of your life too? On your wife/husband? In your job? Did you copy off the person sitting next to you in 2nd grade? Did you cheat your way into med school? Karma is a *****.

Actually wrote:

The thing I find interesting is PED use actual levels the playing field some what.

This observation is based on what exactly? Most others seem to think doping does the exact opposite. In Lance's case, he had connections to testing protocol, he had access to the best doping doctor, he had a lot of money (doping isn't cheap), he was a excellent responder, and he was willing to take the risks involved. It's not a level playing field.

I agree with the comment about one and done. A lifetime ban might make many PED users think twice about cheating.

I agree with everything except your altitude tent theory. It allows athletes to do sea level workouts, avoid the hasssles of zero degree wether at altitude, etc. If you want to train at altitude you should have to put up with its inclement aspects. Other than that, pretty spot on.

Sorry I wasn't clear , wasn't speaking specifically of the PED in cycling in the past. But more as a general case if all had access. Everyone can have the same level of testosterone, hemo-crit etc.Though I do assume (perhaps erroneously ) that the top cyclists probably were on and had access to the same type of drugs.I also think the term level playing field in general is a concept that just doesn't exist in sports regardless of sports and it is silly to think there is.There has always been a difference in raw genetic ability, access to state of the art training concepts. The ones we marvel at from the best were most likely genetic freaks and outliers. Or stumbled across better training methods before others.Don't get me wrong, I marvel at what many athletes can do, that I can't hope to but it isn't all about hard work.

Tor wrote:

Actually wrote:

The thing I find interesting is PED use actual levels the playing field some what.

This observation is based on what exactly? Most others seem to think doping does the exact opposite. In Lance's case, he had connections to testing protocol, he had access to the best doping doctor, he had a lot of money (doping isn't cheap), he was a excellent responder, and he was willing to take the risks involved. It's not a level playing field.

I agree with the comment about one and done. A lifetime ban might make many PED users think twice about cheating.

"...There has always been a difference in raw genetic ability, access to state of the art training concepts. The ones we marvel at from the best were most likely genetic freaks and outliers. Or stumbled across better training methods before others."

Don't get me wrong, I marvel at what many athletes can do, that I can't hope to but it isn't all about hard work. "

And What's wrong with that?

That has always been what sports were all about. Using your own given abilities to try to succeed in something that many thought you couldn't because of your so called disadvantages.

Maybe you are "too short" , so be faster.

May you are too slow, so be smarter.

Is it not fun to watch a small player outplay a tall one in basketball?

Is it not fun to see a stronger fighter be beaten by the smarter smaller fighter?

Is hard work alone enough to succeed in sports? probably not, but in a clean sport there is always hope that you can be the exception if with just a bit of talent, passion and if you try hard enough nothing is impossible.

Add the drugs to the equation and that exception is gone forever!

Only dedicated freaks willing to win at all costs (including cheating) have a shot.

Actually,

Here is my take... being an "elite" runner takes talent and hard work. I'm ok with those things (plus some intangibles) separating the elite from the sub-elite and the sub-sub-elite, etc.

PEDs change the equation drastically. If there were no side effects and everyone took the same amount, then maybe using PEDs would be ok, but even if PED use was monitored by doctors, there will always be the motivation (money, fame) to push the envelope and some would find a way to "cheat" the system.

spot on. gauge.

I see it both ways. If I were actually good enough that dopers were pushing me off the podium in important events, I'd be pissed. But I'm not that good. So running and cycling, viewed as a fan (because I'm not at the top level), is entertainment. Dopers, etc. are like plot twists - are they going to get caught - like Ramzi? Or not? I followed cycling from the early '80s up until a few years ago, and I knew full well the whole time that most of the top riders were doping, but it was still fun to follow. Same with running and cross country skiing.

How many of you who are bothered by PEDs watch NFL or MLB or other popular sports? Does it bother your that most of the NFL is probably doping? Or do you just enjoy it for what it is? This isn't just a rhetorical question - please answer, because I'd like to know. I think PEDs in running and, to an extent cycling, bother us more because it hits closer to home.

There's people out there believing murder, rape and molestation of children is okay and they claim to be realists. I call these people mentally ill. Get help. Maybe they'll put you on torozine since you think further expansion of drug use is the right way to go.

Your Hollywood TV Producer wrote:

PEDs have brought us exciting finishes in recent years. Solinskis AR, Rupps SM, Farahs two GM, Gouchers BM, Bolts WRs and GMs, Matt Cains PG, spectacular performances from Peyton Manning/Aaron Rodgers/etc. Without PEDs we wouldn't be rolling in cash here in Tinseltown.

So being entertained is more important than the right of pro's to not have to take unecessary risks with their health? If entertainment value is the most important thing why don't we just start up the Coliseum again?

Those of you who say "everybody was doing it" don't know what you're talking about. Kevin Sullivan never took PED's. He got 5th at Sydney in the 1500m.

Legalizing performance enhancing drugs may lead to an improvement in race results, but at what cost? I agree that athletes should strive to perform at the highest level possible, provided that it is within reason. By this I mean that athletes shouldn’t have to risk their health or compromise their morals by taking drugs to be competitive. Perhaps one day PEDs will be safe to use, but the reason that they are currently banned is because of the health risks associated with them. And even when our current PEDs are safe to use, people will move on to find and create a better drug possessing new health risks. I understand that it takes a lot of hard work to run at a high level even while on PEDs, but legalizing them would put less emphasis on training and more on developing the next best drug and creating the perfect doping regime.

Some athletes might not have any qualms about taking PEDs once legalized, but there would be many who would. Some of our most prominent athletes are known Christians (Hall, Meb) who have spoken out against PED use. Other athletes might not be comfortable with taking drugs to compete. The legalization of PEDs would force these athletes to choose between taking PEDs and being uncompetitive which would subsequently ruin their careers. Legalizing PEDs would make drugs a vital aspect of our sport. Track & Field is built on our passion for running and training – not taking drugs to run fast.

It bothers me that so many people are completely brainwashed by the PED concept. You don't need drugs to be the best in the world or the fastest.

mstars wrote:

It bothers me due to the fact that my husband was a clean elite athlete competing for prize purses against athletes that doped. He worked his butt off to be competitive and finish on the podium and to know that he should have placed higher is a bummer. I personally believe that PED use should be a one and done offense. If you are caught and the retest of the B sample is positive, then you are done for life. Your athletic performances should be about you, not your prescriptions.

This^.

To answer the question that was posed, no PED use does not really bother me.

I do not get worked up about it nor angry in any way.

I once competed in the Olympic Trials but didn't think about what others were doing. Just worried about myself.

I do not think they should be legal.

I do think it could be safe under proper supervision.

But I don't think that those not willing to accept potential risks should feel the need to change that attitude to compete.

And I think at the sub-elite level and high school level, they will not have access to safe use but be more encouraged to experiment if it is legal at the pro level.

I don't care who uses but I don't want it to be legal.

Things that don't bother me as much as they seem to bother most people:

-PED use

-non-violent child molestation

-Obama's drone program

Things that probably bother me more than they bother most people:

-acts of violence against innocents

-people who lack empathy for others, particularly those who enjoy hurting others

-intellectual elitism

-Grammar nazis (ties in with the above)

hypocrites are another thing that doesn't bother me as much as it does other people

Do people here understand why there are anti-doping programs to begin with?

It started with the ATHLETES who were concerned about that they were (forced to be) putting into their bodies. Steroids and Epo HAVE killed athletes, and other things like HGH have terrible side effects.

Fans of NFL/MLB etc. don't seem to care, so the advertisers at games don't seem to care. But the IOC has taken control of anti-doping because the (mostly American) companies that put up the money for Olympic sports don't want to be connected with drugged-up athletes.

If they stop drug testing, pro track and field would likely disappear due to major sponsors pulling out.

Ahhh! Yes is bothers me. Just too tired to deal with it anymore. Maybe I am jaded. Maybe I am getting old. Maybe I am just numb. Did try not caring. Underneath that scab of a scar I guess it does hurt.

'The drugs and side effects will eventually reach a point that they are safe for consumption by all, if they are not yet already at that point'

That sentence alone shows such a lack of knowledge and intelligence there is no need to take any of your views seriously.