Why Don't They Just Allow Drugs And Level The Playing Field?

The playing field will never be perfectly level, but that's no reason to allow drugs. If they ever create a free-for-all any-drug-you-want system, then I'd start pushing for the allowance of rollerskates and rocket backpacks.

They tried an all-drug Olympics in the last 70's. It was called Studio 54. It didn't work out.

That should read "late 70's" I just woke up. leave me alone.

Thanks for all of the input on my question.

I'm wondering whether any recreational athletes use this drug, or is this only the domain of the professional runners? In other words, are these people running my local 5K or only the championships (or the largest races with prize money that attract professionals)? Also, how much faster do the drugs make an endurance runner in distances ranging from 5K to the marathon? Finally (stupid question), what is EPO? What does it do?

(question to above poster): Adderall can be legally prescribed by doctors for ADD or ADHD--do I understand you correctly in that it is still illegal in the eyes of the track world?)

What if your kid was a decent runner? Would you encourage them to take drugs to "level the playing field" and try to compete with the best?

Ritalin can be legally prescribed by a doctor, so can EPO, so can a great deal of the drugs on the WADA banned list. But simply having a doctor's prescription is not going to give the athlete the right to use it. For example, Kelli White was prescribed modafinil by her psychiatrist to combat a sleep disorder, took it, and got slapped with a 2 year ban because of the positive test.

The whole prescription issue is actually a tricky one, that has caused a ton of problems for athletes in the past. USADA, IOC, WADA, etc pretty much don't want to see banned substances in your blood, no matter what the excuse. That makes some sense, in that we all know that finding a doctor to give you a scrip is not that hard!

The NCAA, on the other hand, will give medical exemptions if an athlete can show cause. That also has some justification. If someone say, has serious, well-diagnosed ADD issues, and is going to flunk out of school because the NCAA is basically forcing them to give up ritalin, how is that a good thing? Also, in many cases the chemicals actually level the playing field (i.e. someone has a genetic disorder which gives them far subnormal levels of testosterone).

But the unfortunate result is that there have been some athletes in the past who go through their NCAA season thinking their use of a drug is fine, show up at a non-NCAA meet (i.e. US Juniors, US Nationals, Grand Prix), get tested, and then get slapped with doping charges.

RE: earlier reponse to health justification, I don't disagree that doping regs do have some sort of deterrent effect on attempts to use of various chemical enhancers. However, simply because a law (or rule) is somewhat (though the actual degree of deterrence is highly arguable) effective does not mean it is justified.

Whoops-

the WADA code does allow for therepeutic use exemptions in the case of ADD, which is a change from the past (I think).

http://www.usatf.org/groups/Elite/newsletter/2004-01.asp

Also, Outside Magazine published a fascinating article about the effect of doping on the "weekend warrior." It was the "Supersize Me" of doping. Basically, the writer went on a full regiment of performance enhancing drugs with the assistance of a (very shady) physician. I think the article came out last November, but can't be sure. I remember the scariest thing was that after taking one drug, even the guy's vision improved. Scary.

Well, this is an easy question since I don't have any kids. I would not want my kids to take any drugs, prescription or otherwise, unless they were about to die on the gurny. I'm overstating a little, but I'm NOT a fan of drugs.

However, I think adult runners should be able to make up their own minds ASSUMING the drugs do not cause long term negative health effects. I do not think drugs should be allowed IF they cause negative long term health effects because that would not be fair to those runners who do not want to shorten their lives in the pursuit of sports.

I guess no one knows whether many non-professional athletes use drugs??

Also, how much do these drugs help racing speeds? Give me some numbers, please. How much would my 5K time be reduced if I took the best drugs? I'm really curious. Thanks.

do away with shoes.

do away with mondo tracks go back to dirt or grass.

do away with any nutritional advances that the whole world may not have.

Drugs are the evolution of the sport

BUT is that running? Do you want to run or rollerblade?

JimFiore wrote:

The playing field will never be perfectly level, but that's no reason to allow drugs. If they ever create a free-for-all any-drug-you-want system, then I'd start pushing for the allowance of rollerskates and rocket backpacks.

Lyle Alzado died of AIDS related cancer

So if you had kids and they hit 18 years old, then it would be OK for them to take drugs as long as they become a good athlete?

I thought Alzado died of brain cancer? You could argue anything could be caused by drugs, but I didn't heard anything about the AIDS.

The people out there that think drugs are the next step in the sport are complete idiots that have no clue what running or even sports are about. Drugs should be illegal not just because of any harmful effects on the body but because their use is cheating. They make competition pointless. Drugs are Illegal for the same reason there are wind restriction in the 100 meter. If you think drugs should be legal then I but you would be all for down hill tracks that go in a strait line and have a 100 mile an hour wind blowing down them. That sounds like a great evolution of track. The playing field would be level if there weren’t cheaters out there. It's the people in favor of drugs that make the field uneven.

Today's sport(s) is/are not backyard volleyball & family croquet. I have a clue. Next time you take that morning multi-vit think of the countless SOBs that live in other parts of the world that would think that unnatural or unfair.

Apparently, my rocket backpack idea was not far fetched enough. Here are some other ideas that I'd push for if wide-open drugging was allowed:

1. Spring-loaded running shoes. These would be wound up by the athlete prior to event so that no one could complain of motorized assistance.

2. Bungee cords attached from the athlete to the far end of the straight (sprinters only). Again, the athletes would walk from the start line to the blocks to tension the cord under their own power.

3. For Longer events, the bungee of #2 could be wrapped around a metal hub just inside of lane 1.

4. Rotating tracks mounted on a large pivoting center joint, thus allowing the leaders to always run downhill. (Just think how much more you could charge for seating on the front straight.)

5. The release of large carnivores at the start of the home straight, just as the leaders pass, as an added incentive to kick for all you're worth.

6. Hovercraft would be allowed to follow the athletes from the infield, giving them direct I-V infusion of any desired materials such as gluscose, amphetamines, etc., as well as the ability to extract blood, modify it (reduce lactic acid for example or hyper-oxygenate the blood), and return it to the athlete.

7. Star Trek "beaming" technology to replace tired muscle fibers with fresh ones, mid-race.

8. Highly focused and accurate earthquake production technology designed to resonate at a specific runner's stride, and thus give them an added push.

Hey, it's all just a matter of accepting new or unique technology, right?

Right On JimFiore!!!

I'm not a complete idiot. I appreciate your thoughts on taking drugs. All joking aside, I would never take drugs, even if I were on the verge of Olympic gold. Never. I care far too much about my health.

I just think it is a shame that the testing is incomplete and probably will never be full-proof, which means that many hard working athletes will continue to lose unfairly.

If 90% of the professionals would take drugs if they were permitted, even if that meant significantly shortening their lives, then who am I to say that they shouldn't be allowed to do so?? Legalization would at least allow everyone a fair shot at competing with the people who are willing to take drugs and who do not get caught.

If that study was accurately conveyed, 90% is a pretty overwhelming statistic, don't you think? I wouldn't judge the decision-making of top-level athletes unless I had walked in their shoes.

[quote]JimFiore wrote:

"Apparently, my rocket backpack idea was not far fetched enough. Here are some other ideas that I'd push for if wide-open drugging was allowed:

1. Spring-loaded running shoes. These would be wound up by the athlete prior to event so that no one could complain of motorized assistance...."

Not that I disagree with the sentiment behind pointing out the slippery slope consequences of allowing doping (I actually think doping control is a good - not great - but good idea, but for other reasons). But the answer raises it's own question. Where, exactly, do we draw the line? Why do we draw the line there (at banning doping)? Sports DO change quite a bit over time, why is this particualr change the one that opens the floodgates? (Why wasn't it at the point where athletes started forcibly opening up their nasal passages with bizarre semi-stiff strips?)