Why should performance enhancing drugs be banned?

Unfortunately, he doesn't have a better argument for PED use, so he'll keep pushing that angle until everyone else just doesn't bother responding. Same with "dumb" and his insistence on comparing smoking, obesity, and drinking to PED use in athletics.

potato man wrote:

8 of 62 powerlifters died???

Yes, that is absolutely a real stat. Steroids kill.

Boxing is dangerous and plenty of people think it should be banned (along with Judo and other martial arts sports). But the fact remains that risks in those sports are MUCH less than the risks of taking steroids and other PEDs.

yjod wrote:

The difference is that those sports are inherently dangerous. T&F is not inherently dangerous but you would be making it dangerous by legalizing PED's.

Making steroids illegal for one wouldnt help the danger in boxing or bull fighting. If you were actually concerned about health, you would be outraged that boxing exists.

It's as ridculous as a fireman worrying about a mailbox on fire, when theres a fuel truck on fire at the same time.

yuiop wrote:

OppositeMan wrote:

I'm going to start a petition to ban boxing, flying trapeze,rodeo, wrestling, bull fighting, and MMA.

I expect every health concerned person in here to sign it.

This is stupid. Boxers, bull riders, etc. understand there are risks involved in their sport - ridiculous to compare to PED use. Not much risk running 10,000m around a track. A distance guy doesn't want to risk his long-term health and chooses to compete clean, but misses out on Olympic teams, podium finishes, endorsements, and prize money for running clean (without drugs he's one of the best in the world) - sound fair to you?

Are you concrerned or not? Bull riders are suffering as we speak and you're worried about Ben Johnson possibly having some acne?

yuiop wrote:

Unfortunately, he doesn't have a better argument for PED use, so he'll keep pushing that angle until everyone else just doesn't bother responding.

Apologize. Health is not my argument. I'm addressing it. The argument was brought up by a few other people. I'm just addressing the inconsistency in it.

Begin apologizing. Ready? Begin..

HIPAA

OppositeMan wrote:

lost in Boston wrote:

Why is it so hard for you to understand that most people who want to compete in track and field and watch track and field want the sport clean?

Take your drugs and your drug takers elsewhere. You won't be missed.

Start your own drug league. See who joins you.

Why do you have to piss in the water where people want to swim clean?

How is the definition of "dirty" reached?

Those who are operating outside the established rules of the sport - who cannot reveal what they are using without showing that they are indeed violating the rules - are "dirty" (your word, not mine). If the rules of the sport permit it, fine. If the rules do not permit it, then one has to either resort to hiding what one is doing or denying it. It's as simple as being able to show what you are doing in the light and having nothing that needs to be hidden, according to the rules of the sport (which are subject to change over time).

lost in Boston wrote:

OppositeMan wrote:

How is the definition of "dirty" reached?

Those who are operating outside the established rules of the sport - who cannot reveal what they are using without showing that they are indeed violating the rules - are "dirty" (your word, not mine). If the rules of the sport permit it, fine. If the rules do not permit it, then one has to either resort to hiding what one is doing or denying it. It's as simple as being able to show what you are doing in the light and having nothing that needs to be hidden, according to the rules of the sport (which are subject to change over time).

Not so quick. You're missing a step. WHY should that be illegal in the first place? The discussion is why make it a violation? You didn't address that. By saying "dirty" you're attempting to say they broke rules and that's dirty, to break a rule. Why is it a rule that you can't take them? Why shouldnt it be repealed as a rule?

So far we've had health reasons being the reason to keep bans ongoing. That reason really isn't solid. So what else?

Make another case why the rule should be the rule, and not changed to legalized usage.

Also why is it dirty to take them such that there should be a rule in place? What exactly would be dirty if it were legal?

-----------------------

Ie, if you could choke people in football, if it were legal,I could see why you would say they've allowed a dirty practice. Time to put a limit on it. But steroids are dirty legalized or not? How so? Taking a substance that makes u fast is dirty such that it merits a rule?

Again, why would it merit banning to take a substance whcih makes one fast?

My take on the PED thing is many people would dope. Sports is meant to be fun, and recreational. Now we got 80 percent adult males wanting to be superman. We need guys to pick up the trash and man garbage trucks too. Who is going to do the farming if ever Tom, Dick, and Harry can up the ante with a needle.

Why not let athletes cut across the infield? Same difference.

OppositeMan wrote:

I'm going to start a petition to ban boxing, flying trapeze,rodeo, wrestling, bull fighting, and MMA.

I expect every health concerned person in here to sign it.

I can't speak to flying trapeze since it's not organized sport but, for what it's worth, I believe all the rest of these have official anti-doping policies.

This issue is complex. Say for example a person has a condition that can only be resolved with a performance enhancing, as per my friend, who is not an athlete but who uses testosterone gel for a stomach condition. If he wanted to compete, he could not do so in sanctioned meets.

Some masters may be deficient in hgh and has had hgh therapy to improve his quality of life. Should he be disqualified from competition in sanctioned meets?

Now given the likelihood of abuse by individuals with "normal" chemistry, there is a possibility that these substances could risk long term health of these people.

Given the fact that livelihoods are concerned, PED will be the least stressful option, considering the risk of not using. Game theory suggests the plausibility that use must happen to negate the disadvantage of placing ones self at disadvantage.

Given the long term health risks associated with altering biochemistry so much as to risk health, we as a society must create rules to prevent the likelihood of people abusing his or her own health.

The balance of power must make the use more a risk to livelihood than the choice of not using. Suspensions and other punitive results have to date not changed the behavior of professionals. There must be some way to create disincentive greater than the incentives. How that happens, I don't know.

Fishing Instructor wrote:

OppositeMan wrote:

I'm going to start a petition to ban boxing, flying trapeze,rodeo, wrestling, bull fighting, and MMA.

I expect every health concerned person in here to sign it.

I can't speak to flying trapeze since it's not organized sport but, for what it's worth, I believe all the rest of these have official anti-doping policies.

Irrelevant to the point. The discussion started about health risks. These sports themselves are more of a health risk than steroids.

OppositeMan wrote:

Also why is it dirty to take them such that there should be a rule in place? What exactly would be dirty if it were legal?

-----------------------

Ie, if you could choke people in football, if it were legal,I could see why you would say they've allowed a dirty practice. Time to put a limit on it. But steroids are dirty legalized or not? How so? Taking a substance that makes u fast is dirty such that it merits a rule?

Again, why would it merit banning to take a substance whcih makes one fast?

At would age would you start masculising young girls in order to get them ready to compete with all the others? Would you want your daughter to be involved in sport at all?

You have to bear in mind that to compete, in a completely PED free-for-all world, women will have to be as close to being men as possible.

trollism wrote:

It would also mean the end of women's sports as we know them.

The winners would simply be the girls who are willing to relinquish their femininity and be one of the ones who comes as close as possible to turning themselves into men by using testosterone.

I would imagine for a lot of girls, this would be a massive turn-off when making a decision whether to become an athlete or not.

It also opens the door for a whole manner of abuse, particularly in countries with a history of large scale doping systems (and perhaps in those without.)

like anyone gives a shit about women's sports anyway

bigtool05 wrote:

like anyone gives a shit about women's sports anyway

You might if it was your daughter growing the goatee.

R U 1 Of Them wrote:

Randy Oldman wrote:

Why should bikes be banned? They'd certainly make the Steeplechase more interesting.

Not really. Horses, maybe. But bikes? Nobody is getting over the first barrier on a bike.

Come to think of it, helicopters would be cool.