Why are drugs cheating?

Yes, this is always a fun discussion. What is really PED, should vitamin C be declared a PED? How about training itself? Should we just have people show up at the track and see what they can run "naturally." Only as far back as Bannister is was not considered gentlemanly to train for competition, maybe we need to go back to that.

I think they should allow PEDs that way top level athletes can include them in their training and they could be administered by a Dr. rather than self injecting, etc..

But then again I'm for the decriminalization of marijuana and ecstasy too.

I think the issue has to be connected to the affect these substances have on one's long term health. If I were a "clean" 2:12 marathoner who just kept missing wins and high placings because the guys ahead of me were on something, I'd be tempted to get on that stuff as well in much the same way that I'd be tempted to imitate the training of someone who was beating me. But while there is no downside, healthwise, to imitating training, there can be one to stuffing yourself with PEDs. Thus taking a banned substance is not just a matter of an athlete choosing to rish his own health. He's also creating an atmosphere in the sport where others are forced to choose between their own long term health and the ability to compete for major championships, etc.

Also, there is the matter of honesty as it applies to records, performances, comparisons and so on. Let's use my other favorite sport, baseball, as a reference point.

The Roger Maris/ Babe Ruth 61/60 home runs in a season record was quite the icon in the sport. For years, other home run hitters would get off to a fast early pace and there's be all this speculation and excitement about whether or not that hitter would be able to maintain the pace and break those records. Of course, none ever did until Maguire and that was wonderful. Finally we had a home run hitter of even greater stature than Maris or Ruth. Or did we? How much of what Maguire did was based on merit and ability? How much of that was a sham? How much of what Bonds did was a sham?

Derek Clayton's 2:08:33 stood as a very imposing World Best in the marathon for 14 years. Loads of great marathon runners weren't able to run any faster. The stature of Clayton's performance grew with each of those failed attempts and when DeCastella finally ran faster I thought it was a wonderful accoplishment. Not only that, but Clayton always made certain pronouncements about the way someone would need to train in order to run faster than he did. DeCastella didn't train that way, so we can make a decent assessment of the accuracy of Clayton's comments.

Now, suppose that Clayton's record was beaten by someone who "naturally" was only capable of 2:10 or so. The accomplishment seems less, the training comparisons less valid.

Not A Doctor wrote:

In fact I remember epo being called the "poor man's altitude tent" when it first came on the scene years ago. So why discrinimate against those that cannot afford altitude tents? .

You remember that? Were you on LSD at the time? Altitude tents would be a "poor man's epo" if anything.

My friend, compare prices on each item before saying something that idiotic.

deep thinker wrote:

Not A Doctor wrote:

In fact I remember epo being called the "poor man's altitude tent" when it first came on the scene years ago. So why discrinimate against those that cannot afford altitude tents? .

You remember that? Were you on LSD at the time? Altitude tents would be a "poor man's epo" if anything.

I'm not a doctor either but I have noticed that a few top athletes have had heart attacks because their blood was thicker than ketchup.

Apart from safety I have a problem with it because all of the former world records, national records, meet records were not drug influenced in distance running before a certain time. It doesn't seem right when records are broken by chemicals and not ability or training alone.

bob barker wrote:

My friend, compare prices on each item before saying something that idiotic.

You're kidding? Go back to Dyestat.

otter wrote:

I'm not a doctor either but I have noticed that a few top athletes have had heart attacks because their blood was thicker than ketchup.

Name one.

There was a time when drugs, including steroids, WERE legal. But athletes started to be concerned about what these things, especially steroids, were doing to their bodies. And if the drugs were to be permitted and they aided performance, then everyone would have to risk their life in order to compete. Thus, certain things, starting with anabolic steroids, were banned.

Some of the PEDs can indeed kill you: steroids, epo, HGH (if abused) and a few others. Some cyclists on epo did turn up dead, so they test for hemocrit now.

But a bunch of the stuff on the banned lists--asthma medication, all kinds of stimulants, sudafed (banned until a couple of years ago), maybe altitude tents soon--seems to me to be indicative of a system out of control. You've got asshole athletes willing to do anything, legal or not, to win, but you've also got asshole egotistical control freaks (Dick Pound) willing to do anything to create the appearance that every athlete is cheating so they (the bureaucrats) can increase their own power. Does anybody really think that smoking pot can make you run faster??

Cut the list (and the administrators' power) back to things that are truly performance-enhancing and dangerous, and I think the sports would be healthier.

I am a physician and I agree with the above poster regarding pound and athletes. I also add sportswriters who single cycling and Track as the main culprits in doping. Doping is at least as prevalent in NBA, MLS and NFL.for the simple reason there is more money involved and thsu more motication to have the competitive edge. Major sports also have players unions and better paid attorneys to protect them from "rights violations" in the form of drug testing.

to answer the thread...

Drugs are cheating because they are against the rules...seems like a redundant statement but that is the reason. Are the rules arbitrary? of course they are. We do know that if an sprinter takes steroids they have an a distinct advantage over those that do not just like a Baskeball player woul dhave a distinct advantage over his opposition if he could advance the ball down the court without dribbling. UNless the rules are changed...it is cheating

deep thinker wrote:

otter wrote:

I'm not a doctor either but I have noticed that a few top athletes have had heart attacks because their blood was thicker than ketchup.

Name one.

Alem Techale. Bekele knows who she is. How quickly we forget.

Some logical and sarcastic thoughts on "the dark side," your post, etc.:

- Why ban drugs for high school and college athletes if it isn't dangerous (your words)? If it isn't dangerous when administered by experienced doctors, why not give it to the grass roots level kids and really develop our youth programs?

- And why in your hypothetical world should the pros taking drugs have to disclose what they're taking and be tested? Why would any additional money be spent on testing?

- I think WADA is in a little better position to decide what is and isn't a performance enhancing drug than you are. And just because there's some grey areas doesn't mean we should give up and allow everything. That being said, the majority of the banned drugs/methods are obviously wrong. Taking human growth hormone IS different than taking ibuprofen. Blood doping IS different than consuming vitamin C. And if you think we should allow EPO and HGH because they're no different than bandaids and shoelaces, I suppose you think genetic manipulation is perfectly acceptable.

- Go to the WADA site if you really want to learn a little more about the how/why/what of the banned drugs/methods list. (http://www.wada-ama.org/en/index.ch2)

- If you buy the theory that simply training at altitude is what it takes to win, it is not particularly expensive to move someplace high. Yeah, Boulder's not cheap, but even in Colorado there are plenty of places where you can live relatively cheaply if high altitude is all you are looking for. I say why discriminate against those unwilling to take performance enhancing drugs to continue their career? We're there (or almost there) at the top levels already, and if we legalize everything, you'd require everyone to use something to continue their athletic careers.

- There's a difference in giving a cancer patient EPO and basically requiring endurance athletes to take EPO (or the like) to compete. I don't know anyone who thinks athletes with cancer should not receive whatever medical care necessary to live. That doesn't mean those drugs should then be seen as 100% safe and allowable for healthy athletes to take. If you don't think EPO and blood doping is dangerous, even when administered by experienced doctors, talk to the Dutch cyclists who used it in the 80s & 90s (the ones who died in their sleep). Ask the athletes and agents who have appearance contracts with road race directors that state they won't race if the temperature is over a certain level (so they won't die when their already thick blood gets even thicker due to dehyrdration). I'm not an alarmist who saw Lyle Alzado die and instantly thought that steroids would be killing everyone who took them. But there are dangers to performance enhancing drugs (even those administered by experienced doctors) that athletes shouldn't be subjected to as a prerequisite for professional competition.

- In your world, why is anything wrong? I'm no moral absolutist, but there are some basic things we can decide are wrong and enforce those rules/laws. If I decide to kill you, is it only wrong "becasue someone arbirtarily said it was"?

- The sport of track & field especially is tied into statistics, personal bests, and records. Baseball is much the same way, and it's why drugs have only recently become an issue in the sport (home run records). Drugs are a bigger issue in these sports because the numbers DO mean something. In a way, a sporting event like the Tour de France has it better, as the times don't really matter. It doesn't matter now if riders are riding faster than 10, 20, 30 years ago, because the whole tour and each day varies from year to year. And it wouldn't matter if drugs could somehow be eliminated or drastically reduced, because the slower times would be irrelevant.

- The level playing field concept is an important one. Our sport should not be a competition of doctors, pharmacists, and genetic manipulators.

"But a bunch of the stuff on the banned lists--asthma medication, all kinds of stimulants....seems to me to be indicative of a system out of control."

Why is it that people have a hard time with stimulants being banned? In a sprint event that can often be decided by THOUSANDTHS of a second, why is it wrong to ban a substance that can give one a slightly illegal chemical advantage?

People always want to make excuses for athletes busted for stimulant use, whether it's gymnasts supposedly taking a cold medication, baseball players using amphetimines, or a sprinter taking narcolepsy medicine. These drugs are performance enhancing. As for asthma medicine, increased awareness of asthma alone does not explain the skyrocketing number of athletes declaring themselves as asthmatic so that they can take certain medications.

Damn, I swear half the people making statements on here are on drugs of their own...

A theme that is developing is that PED's are dangerous and we ban them for the health of the althete. Ok, what about PEDs that are not danergous? Should we legalize blood doping (so long as dangerous PEDs are not in the tranfsued blood).

Is the safety of the athlete what it is all about?

And regarding banning them from high school and college althetes if they are not dangerous. We do that all the time right now. We restrict the number of prcatices, meets (games) and the availabilty of private coaches (at the high school level, see Jorge Torres in HS). So, restricting the use of PEDs for high school athletes, for whatever reason, is perfectly consistent with what we do now.

Lastly, I also remember ABC doing the olympics in, I beleive, 1976 doing a big segment on blood doping. The remarked that it was a "new tool" that would enchance the perfromance of the althete. No one thought it illegal at the time and it was done out in the open.

Well put TGeldean.

For all the talk and examples of athletes that have died using PEDs, why can't that be attributed to bad management of PEDs? No one seriously says ban distance running every time a run gets hit by a car. When it happens, we think it's unfortunate and a warning for the rest of us to pay attention. So, why isn't it the same with PEDs?

I'll answer your last questions, but you've used up your allotted number of questions and need to start answering.

Healthy athletes should not be required to take drugs, blood dope, or use other similar methods as part of remaining competitive in the sport. These are not the same as using interval training. Why do you think that many of the top dopers are involved with "bad management of PEDs"? These athletes use some top doctors who are actually quite experienced with what they're doing. "Straight" doctors don't have the experience of prescribing performance enhancing drugs to healthy athletes, so they really wouldn't be ideal. There are inherent dangers in using many of the PED's that shouldn't have to be a necessary risk for competition.

And it's more than just the dangers. It has to do with the integrity of the sport. Our sport should not be a competition of chemists, doctors, pharmacists, and sleazy coaches. Our sport, at it's most basic level, is about as pure as it can get. Put a bunch of guys on a track, road, trail or XC course, and see who's the fastest, and how fast everyone can run.

Performance enhancing drugs CHANGE our sport for the worse. Why not just let runners cut the course? Why not let them use wheels, motors, or wings? Why not let teammates tackle your competitors at any time? In your mind (and words), these are just other arbitarily written rules. We don't allow these activities, because that would make it a different sport. That's what performance enhancing drugs create - a dirtier, more dangerous, crappier and different sport.

And your line about why we don't ban distance running because of the dangers of being hit by a car is simply silly. First off, I rarely run where there are cars, so roads don't have to be a problem. Second, being hit by a car is not exclusive to distance runners - it's a risk associated with any type of transportation involving roads (walking, riding, driving, waiting for a bus, playing in the street, etc.). You should really drop this part of your argument if you want anyone to take you seriously.

- Why is it that when we have some high profile drug busts, people like you start making excuses for the busted drug cheats?

- I get people giving busted athletes the benefit of the doubt, to a point. We all know PED use is at least a small problem at the top levels of sport, so why, when they finally DO bust someone (not easy to do), do people have a hard time believing it?

- Do you take performance enhancing drugs, or do you want to take performance enhancing drugs? Why or why not? You're posting anonymously, so there shouldn't be any issue with admitting what you're doing or would like to do.

Ok I'll start answering questions (in no partucular order).

First, no I do not take PEDs. Then again I'm no longer a competitive althete. I did not take them when I was competing as I did not go farther than HS. I wasn't good enough for it to matter.

Many Americans, however, do take PEDs. Viagra, is one of the most prscribed drugs, isn't it a PED? Sudafed, Testerole, asthma medication, antihistamines, all kinds of stimulants, even a cup of coffee are common in our society. In fact, using PEDs is our way of life. So, isn't it disingenuous for us to get outraged when althetes use them?

And be this definition, I do take PEDs, as you problably do too. When I have a cold I take antihistamines. When I ache, I use sudafed. I drink coffee in the morning. If WADA knocked on my door today and tested me, I'd probably test positive, as would most Americans. Few realize their testing procedure as that restrictive.

You wrote - Our sport should not be a competition of chemists, doctors, pharmacists, and sleazy coaches. Our sport, at it's most basic level, is about as pure as it can get. Put a bunch of guys on a track, road, trail or XC course, and see who's the fastest, and how fast everyone can run.

I agree our sport is about as pure as it gets. And since the beginning of time, we have been having this debate. At first it was the concept of training. As noted here before, into the 1940s many thought it "unseemingly" that you would actually train for an event. The idea was to show up and see who was the best. Then it was equipment, either better shoes and/or rubber track surfaces. Then came advanced training techniques, heart rate monitors and/or lactate threshold testing, cross training and weight training.

Point being, "pure sports" like distance runners are always about people finding an edge. The history of our sport is the advanced techniques are shunned initially and excepted later on. Maybe it's time to start excepting the use of PEDs. If so, should we start looking at PEDs just the next in a long line of training techiques.

You Wrote - Why not just let runners cut the course? Why not let them use wheels, motors, or wings?

We do all the time, they are called different sports. What is a XC race with wheels? Moto-cross and/or NASCAR (depending on the number of wheels).

You Wrote - Why is it that when we have some high profile drug busts, people like you start making excuses for the busted drug cheats?

I'm not making excuses for Landis. What I've been asking is why people don't criticize WADA more often. As was stated well above, WADA is not interested in saving any sport, it's about Dick Pound expanding his influence and power. So they promote the idea that all these sports are a bunch of doped up zombies doing inhuman things so they can get more power and money.

It seems most on this board believes every WADA claim with little criticism. Now we have many arguing that yes one little shot of T will give you inhuman abilities on your bike in the alps for 24 hours. This is pure science fiction and it bothers me that many that should know better apparently don't.

Lastly, while I completely understand why PEDs are illegal (because we said it is) I'm still struggling to see why. If this board exsited 50 years ago, would be be calling Lyriad's training techniques immoral as they get away from the idea of a pure sport and seeing who is the best?

Final thoughts -

A lot of people thought Greg Lemond cheated when he snapped some tri-bars on this time trial bike. Was he?

I've seen threads on this board suggesting that world reords set in rabbited races should either not count or come with an asterik? Do you agree?

What's this all about?