Unrestricted warfare should be declared in athletics

While it never did make sense to ban substances in the first place, doing so now would be pointless simply because there is too much money involved in the process.

I'm starting to like the idea of polygraphs - how cool would it be if Nike and Adidas and NB started requiring annual polygraph tests of their athletes?

Someone else suggested this recently and it has been stewing around in my head. Tasty.

Polygraphs are useless.

Intrinsically they aren't very good, but that's not the biggest weakness.

Athletes could easily be given things without their knowledge, in which case a polygraph would prove nothing.

agip wrote:

I'm starting to like the idea of polygraphs - how cool would it be if Nike and Adidas and NB started requiring annual polygraph tests of their athletes?

Someone else suggested this recently and it has been stewing around in my head. Tasty.

Polygraphs are less reliable than a coin toss. Good luck.

Not to mention that Nike knew all along that Lance was doping. The shoe companies don't care at all.

A big problem not addressed by an unrestricted competition policy would be the provision of PED's to kids.

Everybody knows that lots of HS kids are using, especially in football-rich environments. We also have evidence that middle-school kids are using.

So that cat's out of the bag already. Doping control has not stopped the practice.

Furthermore, we have evidence now that different people react differently to huge doses of drugs, throughout the trajectories of their lives. For every east german who is physiologically f'd, there is a Johnson or Mitchell who seem to be just fine. You just never can tell what will happen.

At some point when people reach an age of majority, they have to make their own decisions about their own health. If they, as an adult, weigh the benefits against the drawbacks and decide to do it, so be it--just like people who drink too much caffeine, or who achieve Type II diabetic status, or who smoke.

Problems may arise in how publicly-subsidized health care deals with adverse health effects, but that is another discussion, for which the path is well-worn.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Like I have been saying for years (not because I'm guessing, but because I know), anybody in athletics who really wants to dope can do it and not get caught, if they go about it correctly, in most countries.

Which countries can athletes not go about it?

Nobody really cares except for a few purists like me, who hold out hope that humanity can somehow better itself.

2 things have happened in my case:

1) I'm losing faith in the improvement of the individual over time and over generations, and

2) I'm no longer so sure that PED's are ultimately that damaging to the individual, if used with some degree of discretion and competent supervision.

Great idea. In order to compete in athletics you would have to ruin your health by doping. And then we could have races to see who had the best or most extreme doping program. That would really make track and field more popular.

I'm not going to say that there are countries where it is impossible, but I will say that there are countries where it is more difficult.

Unless you are elite, or are projected to become elite, in which case it is still easy.

The only way you can screw yourself is if you piss off the wrong person, and they choose to make an example of you, or to wage a personal battle.

"In order to compete in athletics you would have to ruin your health by doping. And then we could have races to see who had the best or most extreme doping program."

You have just described exactly what happens today, except that it costs us more to run the system than it should.

The only change I'm advocating is a reduction in costs.

Plus, like I said, I'm not seeing that great, incontrovertible, universal evidence of ruined health.

And again, even if it does happen, so what. We allow people to eat crap, to smoke, to drink unlimited caffeine and combine it with over-the-counter meds.

And that is in advanced countries. Most countries allow pretty much anything.

Fellow Nursing Home Refugee wrote:

Great idea. In order to compete in athletics you would have to ruin your health by doping. And then we could have races to see who had the best or most extreme doping program. That would really make track and field more popular.

As sad as it is to say, yes, it probably would make it more popular. I mean, think about NASCAR and NFL... Higher, Faster, Stronger.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

I'm not going to say that there are countries where it is impossible, but I will say that there are countries where it is more difficult.

Which countries is it more difficult? Which countries it is easier?

No

agip wrote:

I'm starting to like the idea of polygraphs - how cool would it be if Nike and Adidas and NB started requiring annual polygraph tests of their athletes?

Someone else suggested this recently and it has been stewing around in my head. Tasty.

So, like best liar wins?

wowza wrote:

agip wrote:

I'm starting to like the idea of polygraphs - how cool would it be if Nike and Adidas and NB started requiring annual polygraph tests of their athletes?

Someone else suggested this recently and it has been stewing around in my head. Tasty.

Polygraphs are less reliable than a coin toss. Good luck.

Wouldn't that make them more reliable in a way?

Look, the battle as it is currently framed has been lost.

It's about time that we stopped denying this fact. And it's only getting worse, as places in the world see and emulate the success that other places in the world are having.

Yes, there are athletes who are clean. And yes, there are athletes who aren't--and as a general rule, they don't get caught.

I've seen a lot of the world, and believe me when I tell you that they don't care about anything except money. Most of the world will do anything for money, because resources are getting scarcer, and it sucks to be poor, especially in places with the greatest disparities between rich and poor.

Sure there are some individual exceptions, but that's what it amounts to, in the big picture.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Yes, there are athletes who are clean.

So in your plan, are clean athletes supposed to start doping or quit running?

Do you propose to change US law (UK law, etc.) so that it's legal for doctors issue non-therapeutic prescriptions of steroids or EPO to all athletes who want to dope, or are you counting on the people who are clean now being able to find unethical doctors?