What a complex, yet hypothetical, and extremely specifically limited question. So in this fictitious dichotomy, we have to assume our choice is between destitution, hunger, and disease, for the us and our families, and that choosing PEDs could result in millions of dollars, saving us all.If East Africans are too destitute to buy food and medicine, who is paying for the PEDs? They need a rich investor, or a national infrastructure.If so many East Africans are deciding to use PEDs, how many are getting a positive return on the investment? There is only one winner in each race. Wouldn't this be a false dream for the rest?Do you really think the decision point revolves around how it affects rich westerners?The thing is, so many East Africans have dominated for so long, it's hard to imagine how such a successful long term result involving so many athletes would be funded, if PEDs were a main factor in this domination. In my opinion, this line of reasoning raises more questions than it answers.Who is paying for PEDs?Why only East Africans, or better yet, some specific subsets of East Africans?I'm not sure naive is the right word in this situation, but if you really want to "talk about this" in an intelligent way, you need to bring into the discussion more than mere speculation based on winning. For example, looking at cycling, here you could compare performances before EPO, during EPO, and after EPO testing was introduced, to propose for discussion a connection between EPO and performance.How is it more credible that someone is funding drug regimes for so many East Africans? Show me the money.
Let's talk about this wrote:
Isn't it naive of us to assume that East Africans would choose not to use PEDs which would help them and their families escape destitution, hunger, and disease out of some high minded ideal that their use would be unfair to the already rich westerners (who likely have easier access to drugs)?