Why are drugs cheating?

My thoughts on your continued "everything goes" hopes for our sport:

- You state you didn't take PEDs basically because you weren't good enough for it to matter. While people can respond differently to PEDs, they likely would have made you better. That's the whole idea. I know they'd make me better. How much better? A non-runner friend of mine asked me that awhile ago, and I hadn't really thought of it. I guessed that as a decent, sub elite runner, I may have been able to get to the point of a national class runner with drugs and enough years of training.

- You get into a discussion of "PEDs for everyday life." First, not everyone uses such a plethora of drugs, as many prefer to live more naturally. But, I'll give you the point that many do take part in the many drugs that are available. While I stick primarily to vitamins and the like, I do take ibuprofen and the occasional medicine for injuries and illnesses. But these and other drugs are just what you said - for everyday life, not competition. One isn't cheating by taking Viagra for sex - it isn't a competition (for most, anyway...). I AM an athlete, and other athletes are my peers. I hold myself and I hold my peers to a higher standard when it comes to our sport. So I am pissed about drug users in my sport and others. I don't think its disingenuous at all to be outraged about it.

- Competing as an athlete is NOT a right. Athletes should be held to high, restrictive standards as there are responsibilities that come along with participation. That way, the sport, the competitions, and the records/statistics will have integrity. If an athlete wants to be the best, or wants to be known as a record holder, that athlete should realize that they have to meet certain criteria - and a primary one is that they can't use PEDs.

- You continue to mention a number of items that have never been as controversial as PEDs (training techniques, shoes, track materials, HR monitors, etc.), if at all. Sure, everyone loves a good message board discussion about how Jim Ryun would have run 5 seconds faster per lap if he was running on today's tracks, instead of the constant uphill/constant headwind, bumpy, muddy, dirt and cinder tracks of yesterday. But logic tells us these aspects are completely different thatn PEDs.

- PEDs should NOT be "excepted" now or later on. That's what this fight is all about. I hope we don't get to the point where the big pro sports are, where the unions (and I generally am in support of much of the union protections) fight to allow the athletes to use drugs.

- Do you support the use of genetic manipulation? If it's possible at some point, would you support the creation of human-animal hybrids (didn't George Bush mention this at one point?)? Why or why not?

- WADA can be a salvation for sport, as an entity truly separate from the governing bodies for sport that have vested interests in the outcome of drug testing. I might not agree with every single thing Dick Pound has said, but it's his job to lead the policing effort of WADA. That's what he and WADA is there for. If we want the police to fight crime, would we want the chief of police to be on TV saying "well, we'd like to catch the murderers, but you know, they're just out there trying to do their thing - don't they have a right to do what they want and not be limited by some arbitrary laws people came up with?" Part of this discussion is centered around the classic topic of freedom vs. order. My view on freedom is that one should be free to do what they want, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's freedom. That's one reason I believe drug cheats should not only be punished within the sports arena and it's federations, but also legally. Drug cheats are committing fraud on a number of levels. In addition to often using illegal (or illegally prescribed) drugs, they're cheating clean athletes out of titles and money. Depending on how things are set up, they're also cheating sponsors, meet/race directors, and federations out of money as well.

- Would this board have considered Lydiard's training techniques immoral 50 years ago? No.

- While I'm no cycling expert, Lemond's tri bars are more on a par with the ever evolving equipment discussions in the pole vault, javelin throw, etc.

- Rabbits? I think the rules here just need to be equally enforced. This is actually a good discussion, especially when one gets into male rabbits in female races. But it's still not on a par with the controversy of drugs. In a hypothetical situation, what do you think would have been/should have been the bigger story had Paula Radcliffe or Deena Kastor tested positive after one of their male rabbitted victories in London - drugs or male rabbits? DRUGS.

You wrote - That's one reason I believe drug cheats should not only be punished within the sports arena and it's federations, but also legally. Drug cheats are committing fraud on a number of levels. In addition to often using illegal (or illegally prescribed) drugs, they're cheating clean athletes out of titles and money. Depending on how things are set up, they're also cheating sponsors, meet/race directors, and federations out of money as well.

Let me take this discussion in a different direction for a moment ....

I believe that all drug testing is doomed to failure. It will never clean up any sport. What might is if other althetes take matter in their own hands. But we're far away from that.

I don't see anyone wanting to sue Justin Galtlin because they were denied opportunity because he cheated.

In 2000 Jason Giambi wont he American League MVP. He then got a $120 million contract from the Yankees. Frank Thomas of the Chicago White Sox finished second. It's demostratable that Giambi cost Thomas a lot of money by cheating him out the MVP award. Yet Thomas does not consider suing Giambi, or does anyone ask him. Ditto Bonds.

Why don't other althetes consider suing? Becuase they UNDERSTAND. And with this mentality, drugs will never go away.

It's a useless fight to try and clean the sport through testing.

You Wrote - Do you support the use of genetic manipulation? If it's possible at some point, would you support the creation of human-animal hybrids (didn't George Bush mention this at one point?)? Why or why not

This is easy, you'll have to define humans. And whether the genetically altered qualify as humans.

As odd as this sounds, we had to do this 25 years ago when Dr. Renee Richards was competing on the women's tennis circuit after a sex change operation. So we had the converstaion of what a man and women is a long-time ago. That's why you haven't seen a 29 minute 10k runner have an operation to set the woman's world record. Rules say he/she cannot do that.

Coach D wrote:

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.

Has there ever been a death caused by proper use of steroids, epo??? Not that I am aware of. There is this wave of propoganda and misinformation put out by people like you with no facts to back it up.

Every year someone dies in an endurance race because of an overdose of WATER. EVERY YEAR. Lets see a list of all the proven deaths to the use of steroids(under proper supervision) for performance.

nyc wrote:

Coach D wrote:

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.

Has there ever been a death caused by proper use of steroids, epo??? Not that I am aware of. There is this wave of propoganda and misinformation put out by people like you with no facts to back it up.

Every year someone dies in an endurance race because of an overdose of WATER. EVERY YEAR. Lets see a list of all the proven deaths to the use of steroids(under proper supervision) for performance.

There is no proper use of steroids, epo, hgh and other PEDs in healthy athletes. None whatsoever. They were developed to help people who were sick. They were tested on people who were sick. All the guidelines, dosing schedules, and research were conducted on people who were sick. Most of these people were/are terribly sick and it makes sense to use drugs even when they have a high potential of negative side effects when the illness itself is very serious.

These drugs cannot be used in healthy athletes under "proper supervison." Anbody administering such drugs is by definition doing something improper.

nyc wrote:

Every year someone dies in an endurance race because of an overdose of WATER. EVERY YEAR.

Overdose of water? What a way to phrase things. Hyponatremia, the latest hype-up media acare, due to over-hydration does not cause deaths every year in endurance events. There are no facts to support your claim.

Well, the 'women' who just won the Canadian Downhill Mountainbike Championship was born a male, but has had a sex change and has apparently been cleared but all sanctioning bodies to compete as a female.

http://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/pique/index.php?cat=C_Sports&content=National+Downhill+champs+1330

http://www.canada.com/topics/sports/story.html?id=15313f56-0f72-4054-9ddd-dd51939ece93&k=11910

so ridiculous i dont know what to say. Could you imagine if every advancement in science was only used for its original intention????? How many inventions and medicines would we not have????? Really stop and think about your argument for a few minutes...meanwhile...... perhaps you should look into what is going on in america. currently there are legal clinics for people who want to increase their testosterone levels. mostly used by older men who dont want to lose their strenght and still be active at an older age.

But hey, that would be an improper use of synthetic testosterone now wouldnt it? Foget it older americans, your unethical need to improve you life is shameful.

If you cheat, you lie to your mates. You make it so you take away the goodness of the game. I understand the pressures with the monies and all. That is why we need to work hard at protecting the sport. Having a camera on the leaders prevents a Rosie Ruiz from stealing Jacquelyn's glory. Steroids and EPO will be there just like computer viruses. You need good anti viral software. By the way, PED are gross. We need to have better testing so as to keep cheating to nil.

Hey I understand the pressures that wall street creates. Ultimately, Phillip Morris had to change their business model. Perhaps sports marketing needs to rise to the occasion and combat that, which cannot be helped on its own. There are no honest brokers when competition is on the line, unless you define what the competition is. Who are they? How will it come to be that we all can play the game and know we got to the finish line with our souls and the real game intact.

Oh my God wrote:

nyc wrote:

Every year someone dies in an endurance race because of an overdose of WATER. EVERY YEAR.

Overdose of water? What a way to phrase things. Hyponatremia, the latest hype-up media acare, due to over-hydration does not cause deaths every year in endurance events. There are no facts to support your claim.

Washington Times.

The deaths of a 35-year-old woman at last year's Marine Corps Marathon and a 28-year-old woman at the Boston Marathon six months earlier were attributed to hyponatremia, the result of fluid intake exceeding fluid depletion.

Wow, took me about 9 seconds to find this.

This discussion has been quite interesting. My personal take on this issue is somewhat mixed.

First off, I cannot see a point in the future where drug testing will be effective. Money dictates this. There is very little money being directed at drug testing in comparison to the money directed at developing new drugs. To add to the dispair, drug users get a boost up from dedicated scientists who do all the grunt work to develop a PED (epo, HGH etc). All the drug users are left of do is make the drug untraceable. Even now, problems are being exposed with the current testing methods and their reliability. Unless there is a radical development somehow in drug testing, it seems doomed to failure.

So where does this leave us? I think there are two basic criteria our sport must try to adhere to. One, the playing field must be as level as possible (basically ensuring that the people with the talent and determination to win do win). Drugs let people take shortcuts, as do other forms of cheating. Secondly, the health of the athletes must be conserved. Someone else might be able to suggest other benchmarks - I can't think of anything else right now.

I think that it is obvious that the current situation in our sport doesn't fufill the first criteia and it is debatable whether or not the second is filled (illicit use of PED's very dangerous to health). The unanswered question is how to fix it.

We seem to be coming back the idea that PEDs are illegal because they are dangerous.

If testing was done to prove they were not dangerous(or no more dangerous than any other form of training), would you then be ok with legailzing that PED?

Is this what the objections is really all about?

nyc wrote:

Has there ever been a death caused by proper use of steroids, epo??? Not that I am aware of. There is this wave of propoganda and misinformation put out by people like you with no facts to back it up.

Need I mention Flojo?

If you do a search, you can find cases of people who took anabolic steroids in early years and died of things like liver cancer attributable to steroid intake. In the case of epo, there were cases in the 1990's where cyclists died with blood as thick as mud attributable to intake of epo. Do a search at places like cyclingnews.com for the background on hemocrit testing. Look up the side effects of HGH abuse, including heart attacks/CHD: Ther's pleny of medical information on this on the web.

As someone else mentioned, much of the real doping is the abuse of medications devised for very sick individuals (epo was developed for people with severe amemia) and the side effects of abusing these drugs can be very severe. If you just spout off without having any facts, you're going to look like a moron.

But has I metioned previously, we need to differentiate between things that need to be prohiited because they can put your and my lives in danger, and things like altitude tents, that may be banned just because some group of power-hungry bureaucrats don't like them (and maybe because the east Africans with "natural" altitude tents are some kind of protected minority?).

Not A Doctor wrote:

If testing was done to prove they were not dangerous(or no more dangerous than any other form of training), would you then be ok with legailzing that PED?

No, I would not. People always play this whole 'are vitamins performance enhancing' rubbish, and it completely misses the point. We have an arbitrarily selected list of banned substances, and if you are an elite athlete you are not allowed to take these. Why do they have to be dangerous, or even performance enhancing? Hell, WADA can put Vitamin C on their list if they want, and if I knew I was a chance to be drug tested I would not take it. Drugs are on the list for different reasons- some of them are dangerous, others aren't. The athlete has to be responsible for their bodies and so if they are busted with ANY of these banned substances in their bodies then they are guilty. Some people on here (such as the ridiculous revisionist historian 'Not a Doctor') are so quick to make excuses for these athletes, but the big names we hear about are professional athletes with little to do but control their athletic lives. You are wasting your sympathy on dishonest cheats.

Coach D wrote:

nyc wrote:

Has there ever been a death caused by proper use of steroids, epo??? Not that I am aware of. There is this wave of propoganda and misinformation put out by people like you with no facts to back it up.

Need I mention Flojo?

If you do a search, you can find cases of people who took anabolic steroids in early years and died of things like liver cancer attributable to steroid intake. In the case of epo, there were cases in the 1990\'s where cyclists died with blood as thick as mud attributable to intake of epo. Do a search at places like cyclingnews.com for the background on hemocrit testing. Look up the side effects of HGH abuse, including heart attacks/CHD: Ther\'s pleny of medical information on this on the web.

Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote, or hearsay. The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, especially evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific because it cannot be investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the \"person who\" fallacy (\"I know a person who...\"; \"I know of a case where...\" etc.) The problem with arguing based on anecdotal evidence is that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; only statistical evidence can determine how typical something is.

PS flojo never tested positive(anecdotal evidence being passed off as medical fact), and epo, just like any drug, can kill you if you don't know what you are doing.

If you just spout off without having any facts, you're going to look like a moron.

[/quote]

Funny. I've backed up everything I have said with facts. You, however, have decided to rely on rumor and anecdotal evidence.

I agree with you on this one. Spouting off without facts does make you look like a moron.

By the way, why dont you let everyone know where you found the medical proof that flo jo's death was PED related. Oh, and while you're at it, because I just cant recall, what was the drug that she tested positive for. Remember now, were looking for facts. Don't want you looking like a moron now.

xbcha1 wrote:

Some people on here (such as the ridiculous revisionist historian 'Not a Doctor') are so quick to make excuses for these athletes, but the big names we hear about are professional athletes with little to do but control their athletic lives. You are wasting your sympathy on dishonest cheats.

What revisionist history are you referring to?

You constantly attempt to portray the facts surrounding drug cheats in a light favourable to them. This is what revisionist historians do- mess with the facts and put an unjustified interpretation on them.

xbcha1 wrote:

You constantly attempt to portray the facts surrounding drug cheats in a light favourable to them. This is what revisionist historians do- mess with the facts and put an unjustified interpretation on them.

Again, what facts are you talking about? I've made no claims about drug cheats on in this post. What I've done is question the motivates and procedrures of WADA. Is that what your talking about?