trollism wrote:
If you were a coach, what age would the kids be when you first started doping them?
Coaches should make it sure that kids are not using PEDs in a risky way.
trollism wrote:
If you were a coach, what age would the kids be when you first started doping them?
Coaches should make it sure that kids are not using PEDs in a risky way.
The negative effects of current drugs aren't that bad.
But if they were legal they would get worse and worse.
Let's say we legalize and 20 years from now the 100m world record is 7.50 seconds. There is a new drug that will let an athlete run 7 seconds flat, which will bring him fame and fortune, but there is a 50-50 shot it will kill him during the race.
Now you are basically asking people to commit suicide for your entertainment.
Pretty macabre, don't you think?
because there woudnt be any woman
categorically wrote:
The negative effects of current drugs aren't that bad.
But if they were legal they would get worse and worse.
Let's say we legalize and 20 years from now the 100m world record is 7.50 seconds. There is a new drug that will let an athlete run 7 seconds flat, which will bring him fame and fortune, but there is a 50-50 shot it will kill him during the race.
Now you are basically asking people to commit suicide for your entertainment.
Pretty macabre, don't you think?
Athletes already risk their lives. Go to a rodeo. Or a boxing match. Or go back and watch pole vaulting from the 40's where they landed on no mat. If people want to take risks they will. Guys jump over 30 cars on a motorcycle. Is that 50/50? I think it is. Risks are something people decide to do.
Car racing, theres a risk.
dumb wrote:
trollism wrote:If you were a coach, what age would the kids be when you first started doping them?
Coaches should make it sure that kids are not using PEDs in a risky way.
Wouldn't doctors be the appropriate 'authority' to monitor safe PED use? What happens when an over zealous parent decides the doctor isn't giving their 'gifted' kid enough drugs?
You'd basically see the same thing at every level. Even if the medical profession could agree on safe levels of PED use, there will always be athletes wanting to take it a step further, so even with legal PED use, there will still be cheaters. Those willing to take a little more, even at risk of their health, to be the best in the world.
And the problem with legalizing PEDs, is the assumption that it "levels the playing field" when in reality some are simply better responders than others. The 100m champion would be the best PED responder not the fastest man on Earth. Lance Armstrong was a perfect example. Until he was under a sophisticated doping program and had the UCI under his thumb, he was just a good pro rider who had shown zero ability to compete well in a grand tour.
And anyone getting into a race car (boxing match, rodeo, etc.) understands that there are risks involved. Your analogy to PED use doesn't work.
categorically wrote:
The negative effects of current drugs aren't that bad.
But if they were legal they would get worse and worse.
Let's say we legalize and 20 years from now the 100m world record is 7.50 seconds. There is a new drug that will let an athlete run 7 seconds flat, which will bring him fame and fortune, but there is a 50-50 shot it will kill him during the race.
Now you are basically asking people to commit suicide for your entertainment.
Pretty macabre, don't you think?
Same thing with boxing or car racing. Except that there are no such drugs that you are describing.
PEDs would never be a major health concern like junk food, tobacco or alcohol.
Oh my point being, if risk was the case, then there are far more risky athletic feats out there right now. If this was really about safety, wouldn't it make sense that the more risky would be tackled first? I don't see that though. People will walk around the olympic venues , reporters, extolling the virtues of safety, and bashing any runner who uses a substance which is far less dangerous than the boxing and judo matches at the same Olympics. It just seems like they're missing the point. Personally I think it's more concerning to run a distance race in 97 degree weather, with 98 percent humidity, where people have been known to collapse. Where's the level of scrutiny? Is it more dangerous to take a steroid, than it is to hurl in a bobsled at 90mph? Is the steroids helping while they push more dangerous than gravity is when they sled?
OppositeMan wrote:
Athletes already risk their lives. Go to a rodeo. Or a boxing match. Or go back and watch pole vaulting from the 40's where they landed on no mat. If people want to take risks they will. Guys jump over 30 cars on a motorcycle. Is that 50/50? I think it is. Risks are something people decide to do.
Rodeo, boxing and pole vault have all been made more safer over time through better tech, healthcare and equipment. No one in boxing would suggest fights without gloves just to get more knockouts.
Car jumping stunts and the like are set up to look dangerous when they really aren't. If half (or even just 1%) of people died doing those things there would also be laws to prevent them. Also, jumping over cars is only dangerous in the act itself, whereas PEDs have lasting effects that can cause damage years and decades later.
Randy Oldman wrote:
Why should bikes be banned? They'd certainly make the Steeplechase more interesting.
Not really. Horses, maybe. But bikes? Nobody is getting over the first barrier on a bike.
Come to think of it, helicopters would be cool.
yuiop wrote:
And anyone getting into a race car (boxing match, rodeo, etc.) understands that there are risks involved. Your analogy to PED use doesn't work.
same could be said of ped, and car racing is more dangerous yet people do it. So long as they know the risk, why would you agrue? Seems youve lend more credence to steroid risk taking with that statement
it is stupid to think about legalization of drugs. do you want to see mutants? athleticks is about natural body and its development not about chemistry
categorically wrote:
Car jumping stunts and the like are set up to look dangerous when they really aren't. If half (or even just 1%) of people died doing those things there would also be laws to prevent them. Also, jumping over cars is only dangerous in the act itself, whereas PEDs have lasting effects that can cause damage years and decades later.
' 50 percent using ped arent dead. Boxing no matter how "safer" is still way more dangerous than taking steroids. So is car racing. So are rodeos. We are talking about collision sports here. Riding wild animals. Seriously, do you really think the safety precausions taken have made these sports less risky than steroids? Football is more dangerous to play, than taking steroids. Rugby is more dangerous. Judo is more dangerous. Gymnasts vaulting is more dangrerous. No matter how many precausions they have, these things are still way more brutal if they lose concentration.
There will always be people who like to smoke, eat junk food and drink alcohol. That is their choice.
Some are better responders to training too. Some have better natural genetics. Being a great responder to some drug would just be one gift among other gifts. Nothing wrong with that.
Banning PEDs gives rich athletes like Armstrong an advantage over other athletes who do not have the same resources.
Because sports are about finding the best athletes, not the best chemists.
OppositeMan wrote:
same could be said of ped, and car racing is more dangerous yet people do it. So long as they know the risk, why would you agrue? Seems youve lend more credence to steroid risk taking with that statement
I think you are getting to an important point. No one knows the true risks of PEDs. And you can't test them. How would you do that? Ask a bunch of people to try something and see who dies?
Drugs in the US have to be approved by the FDA after a rigorous approval process. Dangerous drugs are approved only for specific circumstances. You don't take chemotherapy unless you have cancer, for example, even if it would help you lose weight.
Medical doctors have a motto - Do no harm. You can't legalize PEDs without upending the basis of all modern medicine.
What if you made it so that PED use was contingent upon a doctor monitoring said use. Without a Doctor's note then no PED use. This would move the liability and risk over to the Doctor monitoring the usage and would encourage more safe use of these substances.
While this would provide a financial barrier for many, it would also make the sport more interesting and safe. As it stands most people try to secure drugs from questionable sources and then likely dope ineffectively putting themselves at risk. If doping was legal contingent upon a doctor review then I'm sure most athletes/programs would take the extra step of securing a doctor who was trained on the risks/side effect profile of these drugs.
I think this is the best solution, it wouldn't solve everything, but it would make doping safer and in a way level the playing field for professionals/NCAA athletes in that all athletes would have access to PED's if they so choose contingent upon doctor review.
Go start a "no test" league. Recruit Gay, Gatlin, Powell, whoever else has a history of drug use and let them have at it.
See who will support it. See who will give a sh*t whether they run fast or not. See which sponsors want to associate with them. See what parents will guide their children to look up to them or emulate them.
Why do the dopers have to ruin the sport for clean athletes?
Go dirty and stay dirty - but stay amongst yourselves. Don't come to the Olympics or any other major event.
Drug yourselves into oblivion, but don't ruin it for everyone else.
Why can't you get that?
But what about the athlete that doesn't want to take the PED risk? So, hypothetically, you're one of the 8 fastest men in the world without drugs, maybe the fastest on a given day. You decide to not cheat and run clean. Your competitors all take PEDs. You continue to get beat by all 7, placing 8th in every major championship. If everyone is clean, you might actually be the best and you would certainly contend for a medal. Over a career 1 or 2 will test positive and you'll move up some, but the next willing dopers pass you up. Twenty years later, a couple die prematurely from their PED use. You had a nice career, but missed out on thousands of dollars in sponsorships, prize money, endorsements, and fame - would you be ok with that scenario?
And enough with "if we legalize it, it'll be safe" argument. Many athletes will choose to take more to get that extra advantage over the guys doing what the rules state.