People can agree that running is mostly talent. So, why is it unethical and morally wrong to dope in order to close a talent gap?
Running is to see who is the fastest; it isn't an exercise in social justice so that everyone is equal. Doping isn't some kind of affirmative action for the "talent-deprived". For every winner there has to be losers.
People pay money (award) for results. Top performers get top money.
Person with talent can do it again and again. Person doping can't. If you dope every day then maybe sure - that's pro wrestling or porn.
But if you're being measured at your ability to perform without aids like at a job than having someone perform for you means we should pay them not you.
Also if you can dope why shouldn't pros? why can't they level the playing field against some bum (you) who wants to cheat to steal their livelihood?
This is specifically why what cars people drive don't excite me - you can just buy a faster car.
People can agree that running is mostly talent. So, why is it unethical and morally wrong to dope in order to close a talent gap?
Running is to see who is the fastest; it isn't an exercise in social justice so that everyone is equal. Doping isn't some kind of affirmative action for the "talent-deprived". For every winner there has to be losers.
what. in affirmative action there also is a loser for every winner.
The cheating you mentioned does not involve closing a talent gap. Doping would be equivalent to purchasing a better tutor and reaching a new potential you haven’t realized.
Success in life is mostly talent. Some people are naturally smarter than others, it is not exclusive to athletics.
I think we should have a clean and not clean division, and you can choose to participate into that one division only (and once you go to the doping division, you can never go back). If you get caught doping while you're in the clean division, you are banned for life (or maybe even criminal charges).
This will make the sport more interesting. Drug companies will be sponsoring the doping division, just like F1. Imagine a super roided runner braking the 12min 5k barrier, decorated with all the logos of the companies that supply his drugs, and dying 5min later from a heart attack, sacrificing his life to show us what the absolute limits are...
People can agree that running is mostly talent. So, why is it unethical and morally wrong to dope in order to close a talent gap?
I have to disagree with your premise. Success in running like most endeavors, its about how much you put into it and NOT due to talent. For example, I bumped my mileage up from 35 to 50 mpw over this summer and I jumped from 5th man, to 3rd man on my XC team. I’ve incorporated vitamins and a stretching routine for this spring and have elevated my goals on the track to top 3 at sectionals. Who knows how far I can take it. You gotta work hard and believe in yourself. Have faith.
Interesting discussion thus far. By the way, I am talking about the high level athletes, not casual runners. As in sub 13:40 5k, sub 28 10k.
I’d like to add that because doping and other PEDs have negative side effects down the line and can affect one’s lifespan, one could argue that the risk someone took to do the PEDs is worth something in itself. If someone is that driven to become the best, I don’t believe they should be shamed for it. it’s commendable.
People can agree that running is mostly talent. So, why is it unethical and morally wrong to dope in order to close a talent gap?
The premise is wrong. It's not about talent or whether it is wrong to dope to get faster. It is about the fairness of competition, and competitors abiding by the rules laid out when they agree to compete. It's cheating to violate the competition doping rules.
Running could set up a free for all dopers category if they want, but it would be a side show and fans would probably not be interested.
All these dopers want the glory of people believing they are actually that fast through talent, training and hard work.
But if you dope, you’re still using your own legs and lungs and heart to get to the finish line. Whether you train and work hard or not doesn’t change the fact that your body is propelling you to the glory. Especially if EVERYONE is allowed to use the same drugs. It’s more honest than using technology like the super shoes in terms of what your body itself is capable of. It’s like holding a roll of quarters in your fist and punching someone.
if doping were legal, athletes would still have to work really hard to be the best. That’s competition. They may just have health issues or even die if they push too hard. Kind of gnarly, but also the ultimate commitment.
There’s already plenty of sports where you can die. Surfing, cycling, downhill skiing, ski jumping, boxing etc.
I think it’s disingenuous to say most care about athletes well-being. Only if it’s family or friends or teammates do people feel bad. Think about driving by a fatal car accident- it slowed you down getting home to your family more than it emotionally troubled you.
Regulate the uniforms and footwear and equipment, not the chemicals.
Just addressing the ethics, I would say it is indeed unethical because running on your talent alone is the ethical thing to do and using drugs that make you run faster is the unethical thing to do. It's just like if you're an A- minus student but you cheat to get an A+, that's unethical because you cheated. When you are unethical in an athletic event you hurt yourself and those you complete against.
Running is to see who is the fastest; it isn't an exercise in social justice so that everyone is equal. Doping isn't some kind of affirmative action for the "talent-deprived". For every winner there has to be losers.
what. in affirmative action there also is a loser for every winner.
No, there isn't. The example given is that everyone gets to the starting line and they all finish together (which isn't the point of running). Only the right wing maintains every form of affirmative action is a zero-sum game.
Interesting discussion thus far. By the way, I am talking about the high level athletes, not casual runners. As in sub 13:40 5k, sub 28 10k.
I’d like to add that because doping and other PEDs have negative side effects down the line and can affect one’s lifespan, one could argue that the risk someone took to do the PEDs is worth something in itself. If someone is that driven to become the best, I don’t believe they should be shamed for it. it’s commendable.
By the same argument, it is "commendable" that criminals and other fraudsters take risks to get what they want.
The premise is wrong. It's not about talent or whether it is wrong to dope to get faster. It is about the fairness of competition, and competitors abiding by the rules laid out when they agree to compete. It's cheating to violate the competition doping rules.
Running could set up a free for all dopers category if they want, but it would be a side show and fans would probably not be interested.
All these dopers want the glory of people believing they are actually that fast through talent, training and hard work.
But if you dope, you’re still using your own legs and lungs and heart to get to the finish line. Whether you train and work hard or not doesn’t change the fact that your body is propelling you to the glory. Especially if EVERYONE is allowed to use the same drugs. It’s more honest than using technology like the super shoes in terms of what your body itself is capable of. It’s like holding a roll of quarters in your fist and punching someone.
if doping were legal, athletes would still have to work really hard to be the best. That’s competition. They may just have health issues or even die if they push too hard. Kind of gnarly, but also the ultimate commitment.
There’s already plenty of sports where you can die. Surfing, cycling, downhill skiing, ski jumping, boxing etc.
I think it’s disingenuous to say most care about athletes well-being. Only if it’s family or friends or teammates do people feel bad. Think about driving by a fatal car accident- it slowed you down getting home to your family more than it emotionally troubled you.
Regulate the uniforms and footwear and equipment, not the chemicals.
So you're "principled" about the unfair advantage of equipment like shoes but not "chemicals". It's ok what you put in your body to cheat but not what you put on it. Yet either way you're seeking to get an advantage others won't have - or why do it?
Everything we do regarding training is a form of performance enhancement. Running in itself is something that allows one to run faster. Why not just make running except in races illegal so that we can truly see who has the most talent?
shoes, altitude tents, altitude itself, training environment, teammates, wealth, drugs, food, supplements, etc., are all performance enhancers.
But if you dope, you’re still using your own legs and lungs and heart to get to the finish line. Whether you train and work hard or not doesn’t change the fact that your body is propelling you to the glory. Especially if EVERYONE is allowed to use the same drugs. It’s more honest than using technology like the super shoes in terms of what your body itself is capable of. It’s like holding a roll of quarters in your fist and punching someone.
if doping were legal, athletes would still have to work really hard to be the best. That’s competition. They may just have health issues or even die if they push too hard. Kind of gnarly, but also the ultimate commitment.
There’s already plenty of sports where you can die. Surfing, cycling, downhill skiing, ski jumping, boxing etc.
I think it’s disingenuous to say most care about athletes well-being. Only if it’s family or friends or teammates do people feel bad. Think about driving by a fatal car accident- it slowed you down getting home to your family more than it emotionally troubled you.
Regulate the uniforms and footwear and equipment, not the chemicals.
So you're "principled" about the unfair advantage of equipment like shoes but not "chemicals". It's ok what you put in your body to cheat but not what you put on it. Yet either way you're seeking to get an advantage others won't have - or why do it?
Why do you write the others won’t have the advantage?
Everybody would have access to the dope, just like everyone has access to the super shoes. I don’t think the shoes are unfair, because they’re legal and even amateurs like us can buy them.
Im not principled about the shoes, just a realist that acknowledges the MASSIVE benefit they provide to running fast times. It’s comical the times being run since their introduction. If it’s not the shoes, it’s likely a chemical. My and other friend’s marathon times have gone way down and we’re in our late 30’s/early 40’s.
Give Bernard Lagat and Kenny B and El G etc the shoes in their day and the times drop. Grant Fisher is probably not faster than Lagat in a 5,000m