An argument against arguing about doping

Rather than taking that for granted, that is an area ripe for discussion, and if anyone were able to produce compelling evidence and examples, would bring great value and knowledge. There is no doubt that doping exists, and performance exists, and that some fraction of the intersection of the two exist, but too little has been done, in or out of this forum, to show how doping can influence elite performance, if at all, compared to non-doping alternatives, and too often non-doping factors are downplayed with empty rhetoric by strong believers in doping always looking for confirmation.

This also misstates what is usually the crux of the issue. It is one thing to say that these things could enhance performance, as suggested by limited short term studies on amateurs, and the collective beliefs of athletes, pundits, and fans alike, but quite another to say that elite performance can *only* be achieved from doping. Other things also enhance performance, e.g. training at altitude, and are similarly scientifically "proven". What usually happens is that, after incredible performances, particularly from large populations living and training at altitude, is that all these other non-doping factors are ignored. This is usually the direction of suspicion but it is backwards, attempting to conclude the assumption without doing any real intellectual work.

The way baseless doping allegations discussions are allowed at this site, and genuine skepticism is mocked and ridiculed, only fans the smoke, and, in my opinion, when done without basis or logic or intellect, but purely on belief and assumption, only serves to add more harm to the sport than doping already inflicts, as any benefit of the doubt is push aside, and the net of suspicion is cast much wider to include anyone and everyone who dares to succeed at every athlete's lifelong goal -- to run fast and win.

I would tend to agree with you that if intelligent discussions cannot be had, better not to have them at all.

Replying 8 minutes after a ChatGPT doping apologism wall of text? You're making it too obvious Rekrunner.

I'd prefer to witness greatness spread across populations and not driven by rampant doping meaning the spread of winners is gone. I'd prefer not to have to break it to kids that they're great and world class until they need to dope up, which is earlier than ever now. I'd prefer if the governing body had ambition to stop doping rather than "protect the sport"...we know how that goes

But mostly I'd prefer if doping apologists stopped with the mental gymnastics that mean they believe the marketing which tells them athletes run clean and use a few brain cells.

I love watching running, but at the same time I'm saddened by what it's become.

The US needs to give up it’s whole witch hunt and war on drugs across the board and the country would be much better off. Probably already too late, but all we’ve seen is cartels grow in immense power and now our athletes can’t sweep the podiums anymore in athletics. Bull crap, you got a random Italian long jumper who never cracked 10 before and a bunch of Jamaicans winning the gold. Yes most athletes in other countries are on the sauce, time to chill out and stop busting everyone over here for minor infractions.

You acknowledge the likelihood of doping and then suggest we should try not to see it. Unfortunately the latter is made unlikely by the former. The "compromise" doesn't work. Hence, most fans prefer outright denial.

“Instead of arguing about doping, lets argue about arguing about doing”

So now we are arguing about whether to argue about doping.

Didn’t even bother to read this.

Somewhere down the line, there is a clean athlete who didn’t advance, because they were beaten out by dopers.

Such an injustice against anyone is an injustice against everyone, and it should be shouted from the rooftops as long as doping exists.

Is there no fact you can get right? It was 6 hours, and no one apologized for doping.

Coevett was the one posting 11 minutes after your post.

What's the percentage of posts by Coevett which include at least one lie? I would estimate well above 50%. And that's only for his posts under his Coevett handle.

Get off your high horse doping endorser. Because that's what you are.

You don't have the moral high ground because you are misinforming young people by telling them that doping improves performance.

It's just another form of bullying. You're a pretend tough guy. It's pathetic. Stop it you coward.

With your competitive sporting life so short these atletes need to do whatever they can to succeed. If that takes doping so be it.

Men can compete as women, so why worry about anything else?

Sounds like maybe you just should stop watching it if it makes you sad. No one is forcing you.

The solution is just to remove the stigma of performance enhancing. Athletics is all about enhancing performance, but when you use the word “doping” it sounds like something dirty.

Take whatever vitamins, eat whatever diet, slather on whatever creams, do whatever workouts, sleep in an altitude tent. It should all be fair game.

Your argument is with all the various antidoping agencies. I suppose they are doping endorsers, too.

You would have liked the Coliseum in ancient Rome. They played by your rules. Anything to win.

As a doping apologist it is ironic you don't know what the term means.

Indeed ironic -- that is precisely what I always think about those who misuse the term -- they don't really ever understand what is being discussed.

It's just childish name-calling among those who cannot rationally justify their own beliefs about the alleged powers of doping in an intellectual world.

You would have liked the witch trials in 17th Century England. They played by your rules. Guilty until proven innocent.

It's wonderful how in your disputing the term you perfectly demonstrate its applicability. That's what an apologist does.