Should professional rabbits be allowed to dope?

are you stupid?

just wondering wrote:

are you stupid?

No, I'm extremely smart. But I do use hallucinogens on a regular basis, watch the news with the volume turned all the way down, and hold my breath for hours at a time. Now answer the question, please.

how nice I used to use hallucinogens to. But can`t since running dictates that I stay healthy. Turning pro sucks cuz it just leaves you with less stuff you can do and stay competitive.

(I'm thinking more of track than road events here) and it might help them do their jobs better

that is why they call it a job dude, and why you get paid money for it. If it where so fun and easy everyone would do it and no one would get paid.

I'd say the answer is still no. To my mind, there are two reasons to be against doping: fairness of competition and health of the athlete. The first reason is not entirley clear-cut. Does the well-funded athlete who can afford to buy an altitude sleeping tent have an unfair advantage over someone who cannot? If the goal is to raise hemocrit, what is wrong with using EPO (under close medical supervision) to achieve the same result? Well, it requires more discipline to sleep in an altitude tent. But where does one draw the line? (There are several examples of this sort.) The second reason is more compelling. Steroids, EPO, HGH are increasinlgy shown to have bad long-term side effects to their abuse. (Sudden death included.) The best way to protect young athletes--young enough that they don't have perspective on what they are doing--from taking these substances is to make them illegal. The fear of getting caught will probably be a greater deterent for them than the potential health threats. (Call this the East German scenario.) Your question is rather specialized, and therefore, eliminates consideration of the first reason. But the second reason still stands. It certainly wouldn't be the first time in history that people injured their health to make a living but it's not something an athletics organization should encourage. Healthy in body and spirit is what athletics should be about.

Thanks. I agree completely, Frank. I think people generally assume that if a poster here posits something controversial (or, if you will, "stupid"), he must be unconditionally endorsing it, when in fact opinion-seeking is the only aim and superficial devil's advocacy its vehicle.

Frank--it isn't your responsibility, nor is it mine, to tell someone else what is or isn't good for them. If they wish to engage in risky behavior, it is not for me to say that they cannot unless their behavior adversely affects me.An athlete who takes performance enhancing substances to better themselves as an athlete does not hurt me. Let them make the choice.Since you are believe in paternalistic rules and laws, would you support a rule that a mature runner cannot run more than 200 miles a week? A runner under the age of 16 cannot run more than 50 miles a week? Such rules would protect the athlete from long term physical damage caused by excessive running. Why is that not a good idea?

Drug usage to gain an advantage hurts those who compete within the rules by so often keeping the honest athlete off the team or off the medal stand. It is not a victimless crime.

Additionally, those that have used drugs to achieve prominence have greatly damaged the popularity of the sport as a whole.

The stench of drug use does not leave the nostrils readily.

I'd say it are the rules that hurt those who choose not to use them. As someone said in an above post, athletes choose not to use drugs because they are afraid of getting caught. Many athletes believe the benefits outweigh the risk and costs of getting caught...and therefore dope up. These doped up athletes win races--thereby keeping the clean boys, who want the dope, from winning.If drugs were legal, most of the clean boys would be doping under a physician's guidance--and the playing field will be level, in an open and honest way.I reject your argument.

perspective wrote:

Drug usage to gain an advantage hurts those who compete within the rules by so often keeping the honest athlete off the team or off the medal stand. It is not a victimless crime.

Additionally, those that have used drugs to achieve prominence have greatly damaged the popularity of the sport as a whole.

The stench of drug use does not leave the nostrils readily.

I think this is an excellent question.

The answer exists only after answering the big question which is whether we are prohibitting drug use because (a) it is bad for you, or (b) it is unfair.

If the answer is (a), then, no, rabbits should not be allowed to dope. This is similar to America's horrible drug laws, though, and assumes that adults can not make their own decisions.

If the answer is (b), then, hell yeah, let those rabbits chose the path of physical destruction at their own discression.

How about a rule that if the rabbit doesn't drop out we shoot them with rubber bullets until they give in?

Hmmmm .... perhaps those who are currently relegated to do the rabbiting are the clean ones?

Many athletes choose not to use drugs because they consider it cheating to do so. Some of those athletes pay a great price, as lesser talents who take the drugs are then able to place higher than them.

In the end, however, I'm thinking that it will all balance out.

There are more important things than moments of fleeting fame and fortune. As it was put by a mid eastener once: "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

What, you mean like the easter rabbit? Course they're allowed to.

It has been going on for many years already...in the early 80's one of the best rabbits would juice up as he could "race" more often then get clean during the winter and then repeat the cycle...

Yo,

My sense is that you are just baiting for the sake of an argument but I'll reply as though you were serious. If you read my first post carefully, you'll see why I adopt the paternalism. Yes, I agree it's that. But of a benign sort. My guess is that you too have been subjected to this kind of paternalism. For example, have you ever had any vaccinations? Did you consent, when you were an infant, to all of those? No, of course not. But your parents and your doctors, all of whom were at that point far wiser than you, thought it in your best interests to help you avoid diseases such as polio and the mumps. Paternalism can be a good thing. In this instance, particularly, my concern would be for young athletes (teenagers) who show enormous natural talent and fall prey to coaches and advisors who pressure them to take performance enhancing drugs because, well, it WILL improve their chances of winning it all. Strictly speaking, this too is a form of paternalism. A bad sort. The kind of paternalism that the East German olympic machine used regularly on their young athletes. If you took the time to do a survey of the survivors of that regime, you would find many many adults who would gladly give back their olympic medals if they could regain their health.

Sure enough, I'm willing to own up to the fact that I'm willing to extend my kind of paternalism to include adults as well. Why? Well, see my reason number one in my original post, for starters. Two, see my reason number two. The more I think about it the more incoherent your argument seems. Even taking performance enhancing drugs under a doctor's supervision is subjecting oneself to, yes, paternalism of a kind. It's his or her say-so the athlete must defer to. And most doctors will tell you that these drugs are bad for you, in the long run, if not the short. They take an oath too. The first edict of which is, "first, do no harm."

Stellar,

The rubber bullets idea is funny.

Same as letting men rabbit women's races?

I don't think so. But that's a good twist. When you talk about the marathon, I haven't minded the men rabbits in the women's field because, at least in Radcliffe's case, there just aren't any women who could rabbit her, unless they hired two rabbits to each run a half or four rabbits to do 10k each. Shouldn't she get the 6-7% benefit of the draft, same as Khannouchi does? Your point is, I think, that now that there is a precedent why not have men rabbit all women's track races too. (Then Suzy Hamilton wouldn't have to complain about Regina's sit and kick mentality.) My feeling is, let's do it. My opposition to doping goes back to concern for the health of the rabbits as equals to the finishers. I'd be uncomfortable with a setting in which some runners risked grievous bodily harm in order to help others set world records. This would not be the case should men rabbit women's race. So I'd say it would be okay for them to do so.

Should we revisit this topic so the "right to earn a living argument" no longer holds water.