You are ridiculous. Dopers don't offer themselves as subjects for health research, just as they don't volunteer to show the effects of their doping on performance. Yet you are sure of what you think you know about the former while being unconvinced of the latter. If you think you know about the health effects of doping then the same can be said of its effects on performance - we can be just as sure about that, because they are subject to the same measures of data in a clandestine practice.
Maybe I don't know about the health effects of doping, either.
But I don't need any dopers to offer themselves for any health research -- every drug that has been approved for human use has been thoroughly tested by the drug manufacturer, going through several phases of large scale clinical trials, to determine effectiveness, while cataloging harmful side-effects, and establishing safe dosages, developing a deep body of knowledge about the safety as well as the potential for harm. Have you never seen drug commercials in the USA, each one with a laundry list of possible side-effects spoken quietly at double speed? Drugs that are not approved are considered potentially harmful, because we don't know if they are safe.
You seem to be arguing that we don't know if any drugs are ever harmful, because dopers know more than the drug manufacturers and administrations and organizations, and dopers keep that part secret from them you and me. And furthermore, from this lack of knowledge, we can conclude that all drugs can enhance all performance in all sports, specific knowledge that we also lack. In your world, nothing is really known about the drugs, except by the dopers, so we must conclude the mythology must be real, even if we cannot see it reflected in performance. In my world, whether drugs are harmful is completely independent of whether they are performance enhancing. We cannot conclude one from the other. Both are causes for concern in sport.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
You are ridiculous. Dopers don't offer themselves as subjects for health research, just as they don't volunteer to show the effects of their doping on performance. Yet you are sure of what you think you know about the former while being unconvinced of the latter. If you think you know about the health effects of doping then the same can be said of its effects on performance - we can be just as sure about that, because they are subject to the same measures of data in a clandestine practice.
Maybe I don't know about the health effects of doping, either.
But I don't need any dopers to offer themselves for any health research -- every drug that has been approved for human use has been thoroughly tested by the drug manufacturer, going through several phases of large scale clinical trials, to determine effectiveness, while cataloging harmful side-effects, and establishing safe dosages, developing a deep body of knowledge about the safety as well as the potential for harm. Have you never seen drug commercials in the USA, each one with a laundry list of possible side-effects spoken quietly at double speed? Drugs that are not approved are considered potentially harmful, because we don't know if they are safe.
You seem to be arguing that we don't know if any drugs are ever harmful, because dopers know more than the drug manufacturers and administrations and organizations, and dopers keep that part secret from them you and me. And furthermore, from this lack of knowledge, we can conclude that all drugs can enhance all performance in all sports, specific knowledge that we also lack. In your world, nothing is really known about the drugs, except by the dopers, so we must conclude the mythology must be real, even if we cannot see it reflected in performance. In my world, whether drugs are harmful is completely independent of whether they are performance enhancing. We cannot conclude one from the other. Both are causes for concern in sport.
Drugs that are used illicitly by dopers aren't being used for medical purposes. The conditions are not the same and there is no way that the drugs used in that way can be tested except in doped athletes. Doped athletes don't offer themselves for medical research. That is why WADA concerns itself with "possible" side-effects. They don't know for sure what they will be, nor are such side-effects inevitable and indeed can be managed with expert medical advice. Furthermore, most drugs are not prescribed if there is a significant likelihood of adverse health consequences - that is contrary to the very purpose of the drugs, which is to address health problems. But some drugs may have side-effects and these could be serious if the drugs are abused. The problem with doping is that the drugs are being used in a way that isn't what they were intended for or subject to medical supervision, so the consequences include possible health-risks. But these remain speculative as dopers aren't ready participants into medical research. However athletes don't generally use drugs that adversely affect their health because that would be contrary to their purpose in using them, and by using them in a medically controlled setting they can avoid those adverse effects. This is shown by the fact that drug use amongst sportsmen/women substantially exceeds the estimated numbers of those who suffer health side-effects. If it were not so doping would long ago have been seen as simply poisoning athletes for whatever temporary advantage they may have gained. That isn't what happens. Ask "nandrolone" Shelby. She looks fine. Or Justin, Kiprop or Ramzi.
Drugs that are used illicitly by dopers aren't being used for medical purposes. The conditions are not the same and there is no way that the drugs used in that way can be tested except in doped athletes. Doped athletes don't offer themselves for medical research. That is why WADA concerns itself with "possible" side-effects. They don't know for sure what they will be, nor are such side-effects inevitable and indeed can be managed with expert medical advice. Furthermore, most drugs are not prescribed if there is a significant likelihood of adverse health consequences - that is contrary to the very purpose of the drugs, which is to address health problems. But some drugs may have side-effects and these could be serious if the drugs are abused. The problem with doping is that the drugs are being used in a way that isn't what they were intended for or subject to medical supervision, so the consequences include possible health-risks. But these remain speculative as dopers aren't ready participants into medical research. However athletes don't generally use drugs that adversely affect their health because that would be contrary to their purpose in using them, and by using them in a medically controlled setting they can avoid those adverse effects. This is shown by the fact that drug use amongst sportsmen/women substantially exceeds the estimated numbers of those who suffer health side-effects. If it were not so doping would long ago have been seen as simply poisoning athletes for whatever temporary advantage they may have gained. That isn't what happens. Ask "nandrolone" Shelby. She looks fine. Or Justin, Kiprop or Ramzi.
In other words, everything is speculation, rather than knowledge.
Drugs that are used illicitly by dopers aren't being used for medical purposes. The conditions are not the same and there is no way that the drugs used in that way can be tested except in doped athletes. Doped athletes don't offer themselves for medical research. That is why WADA concerns itself with "possible" side-effects. They don't know for sure what they will be, nor are such side-effects inevitable and indeed can be managed with expert medical advice. Furthermore, most drugs are not prescribed if there is a significant likelihood of adverse health consequences - that is contrary to the very purpose of the drugs, which is to address health problems. But some drugs may have side-effects and these could be serious if the drugs are abused. The problem with doping is that the drugs are being used in a way that isn't what they were intended for or subject to medical supervision, so the consequences include possible health-risks. But these remain speculative as dopers aren't ready participants into medical research. However athletes don't generally use drugs that adversely affect their health because that would be contrary to their purpose in using them, and by using them in a medically controlled setting they can avoid those adverse effects. This is shown by the fact that drug use amongst sportsmen/women substantially exceeds the estimated numbers of those who suffer health side-effects. If it were not so doping would long ago have been seen as simply poisoning athletes for whatever temporary advantage they may have gained. That isn't what happens. Ask "nandrolone" Shelby. She looks fine. Or Justin, Kiprop or Ramzi.
In other words, everything is speculation, rather than knowledge.
Thanks for helping me make my point.
No, it isn't mere speculation. As usual, nothing helps you make your points.