Sorry, I didn't see this thread before I added to my own.
I said it 5-1/2 months before Logan, I said it here, and I think I said it better. Look to this old thread for some discussion:
Sorry, I didn't see this thread before I added to my own.
I said it 5-1/2 months before Logan, I said it here, and I think I said it better. Look to this old thread for some discussion:
So, therefor, if it's virtually zero that they would investigate, then every arrest for PEDs is a result of USADA enforcement. Disagree. Police make busts for distributers and users of PEDs locally. I know first-hand of people that went down for that and if you think the police wouldnt investigate that you're wrong. That's a drug bust. Now investigating national athletes... there's always the gray area where athletes get special priveleges then the common man. They can get away with murder! (pun intended)
I think runners shouldn't dope but bikers it's different, since biking is already an unnatural sport. You have the bike between you and the road already.
Lance armstrong doping doesn't bother me as much, since biking is unnatural already, and they all do it.
I think runners shouldn't dope but bikers it's different, since biking is already an unnatural sport. You have the bike between you and the road already. What if one guy is riding a mountain bike and another guy is riding a sports bike. It already isn't a natural sport like swimming or running.
Lance armstrong doping doesn't bother me as much, since biking is unnatural already, and they all do it.
I agree with the argument that as it is, people who dope only do it a little bit. If you legalized it, there would be an arms race.
But the problem is that as it is, those people who do it "a little bit" get an advantage over those who don't. The guy who is honest gets penalized.
If you legalized it, then that advantage would go away.
I also agree with the argument about high responders and low responders, made in other threads.
But doping in running kind of spoils the naturalness of it in my opinion.
photofinish wrote:
He didn't publicly endorse PEDs. He said that fighting the battle against them is a losing fight. That is very different than endorsing them.
You are correct, he doesn't specifically say people SHOULD use PEDs. When I made the title of the thread, I meant more along the lines of "by saying we should give up on trying to stop PEDs, he is effectively endorsing them". In other words, if you are in a position of power and you endorse a policy that you are sure will bring about a certain result, you are in some sense endorsing that result. But I don't want to turn it into a semantics argument; if the title of the thread read "Doug Logan says we should not test athletes for PEDs and we should let them "use their best judgment as to what is, or is not, good for them", that would be fine with me. It's just a little too long.
ataglance. wrote:
[quote]Gamera wrote:
I think making athletics into a PED free-for-all would be a death-knell for the sport - maybe most sports. If you dreamed of being an elite runner, even trying to succeed without taking PEDs would be pointless when you knew the competition had such a large advantage. There would no longer really be the issue of having to resist the temptation to cheat. It would just be standard procedure. ....
.
People used the same arguments against professionalism in T&F and allowing athletes to get paid.
quote]
+1
On the men's side, I'm a doping libertarian. Let people use whatever they want, conduct studies on what works, what the health risks really are, let people make their own decisions.
Unfortunately, I don't think that works on the women's side at all, and it's also problematic with juniors.
ummmm wrote:
So, therefor, if it's virtually zero that they would investigate, then every arrest for PEDs is a result of USADA enforcement. Disagree. Police make busts for distributers and users of PEDs locally. I know first-hand of people that went down for that and if you think the police wouldnt investigate that you're wrong. That's a drug bust. Now investigating national athletes... there's always the gray area where athletes get special priveleges then the common man. They can get away with murder! (pun intended)
The police will investigate people for importing or distributing prescription drugs illegally if it comes to their attention and there are bodybuilders who have been busted for illegal importation or selling of steroids. That's not the same as investigating whether the winner in an athletic competition won because he or she doped.
For example, bodybuilding competitions don't enforce anti-doping laws and realistically you can't win competitions like Mr. Olympia without illegal doping, so all of the competitors illegally dope and everyone knows it. Current criminal laws are plainly ineffective to prevent this because they only affect a few flagrant or reported instances of illegal prescription drug use. Track would be the same way if it didn't enforce the rules itself.
Daryl Basarab wrote:
I think runners shouldn't dope but bikers it's different, since biking is already an unnatural sport. You have the bike between you and the road already.
Lance armstrong doping doesn't bother me as much, since biking is unnatural already, and they all do it.
What about triathletes (or duathletes)? They are participating in 2 "natural" and one "unnatural" disciplines. Allow PED's or not?
Dear Doug Logan,
How much (and which companies) are paying you to make these absurd arguments?
Sincerely,
My children who want a level playing field
sounds like he might be working (a rep) for big pharma
Arguments Against Allowing Doping
-It works against people who already have what others gets from doping. For example, a sprinter who already has powerful muscles won't benefit from steriods as much as one who doesn't.
-It could kill you.
-Expenses.
-It isn't "natural." (But this really doesn't apply to certain methods, like blood transfusion).
Arguments for Allowing Doping
-Even playing field
-The money argument is bs, since not everyone has altitude tents.
-If dopers were honest about their doping, it wouldn't invalidate the clean performances. As it is now, doping performances are confused with clean performances.
-People can already use supplements, creatine, etc.
What if the policy was that people are allowed to dope, but aren't allowed to lie about it?
That way if a doper finishes first, they will have an asterix next to their name. On the other hand they can say they beat the other dopers.
The police will investigate people for importing or distributing prescription drugs illegally if it comes to their attention and there are bodybuilders who have been busted for illegal importation or selling of steroids. That's not the same as investigating whether the winner in an athletic competition won because he or she doped.[/quote]
I think I should clarify my point. I see PED use in the same light as I see white collar crime. It's the intentional use of deceit to deprive the clean athletes from their money. Lestrun community--am I wrong on this one?
Most athletes would prefer sports to be drug-free. They don't want to be exposed to unknown long term health effects of the drugs. Unregulated, would how many athletes wind up like the East German female swimmers? That's unacceptable. Some level of regulation is absolutely necessary to protect the health of the athletes, not to mention the integrity of competition. But any kind of regulation has to be rigorously enforced, hence the necessity for mandatory testing. It's idiotic and irresponsible to try to walk away from this. We all know it's a hard job, but it's really irresponsible to claim that it's unnecessary.
poster1 wrote:
The police will investigate people for importing or distributing prescription drugs illegally if it comes to their attention and there are bodybuilders who have been busted for illegal importation or selling of steroids. That's not the same as investigating whether the winner in an athletic competition won because he or she doped.
I think I should clarify my point. I see PED use in the same light as I see white collar crime. It's the intentional use of deceit to deprive the clean athletes from their money. Lestrun community--am I wrong on this one?[/quote]
I agree that doping is like white collar crime - at least in a moral sense - because it cheats honest people out of what they are entitled to.
What I'm saying is that counting on the police and prosecutors to keep people from doping will never work. They might stumble on people who have violated laws against illegal prescribing or distributing, but they will not keep the sport clean or enforce its rules against dopers. The result of counting only on the police would be that track would end up like competitive bodybuilding where everyone who wants to win dopes and is probably breaking the law to do it.
Remember that before regulation, there were cyclists in Europe who literally killed themselves by doping to the point of heart failure. End enforcement, and we'll be right back to that scenario. There will be athletes willing to push the doping boundaries beyond what their doctors tell them is safe, and some of them will die during training or competition. I for one do not want to watch a sport where competitors would randomly die from time to time. The same thing would happen in our high schools and middle schools, and it would be horrific.
We're not winning the war on terrorism either. Doesn't mean we shouldn't fight a fight worth fighting.
Like Ed Moses said - There's never a case where the whole field is on drugs. There's thousands of athletes who don't dope and are shut out by the cheaters.
"I agree. You've got a son who is a good athlete and wants to go to the next level?"
The next level? Please!
The next level is your son finding a career that he likes that also pays well. Track and field is not that career. Let high school (and maybe college) athletics teach him how to work hard to become the best that he can be. And then learn to apply that attitude / philosophy to everything else in his life.
No one should be involved with any activity where they are forced to cheat in order to be successful.
What about creating natural and synthetic divisions?
Don't they do that for horse racing and bodybuilding?