Malcolm Gladwell has read Epstein's book - wonders why dopers are condemned for trying to overcome genetic disadvantages

tadpole wrote:

Many of the posts on here are refuting what Gladwell has to say. If most of you were familiar with any of the other topics that Gladwell writes on, as much as you are with PED use/misuse, you'd feel the same way about the rest of the stuff he writes too.

Exactly. Gladwell's only formal training is as a journalist. He's made a career-- and a very lucrative one at that-- as a purveyor of pop-sociology/psychology. From his criminological arguments in the "Tipping Point" to these musing on drugs in sport, he has consistently infuriated experts in the field, professional and otherwise. He's a nifty writer, but he's not in the business of research, or even of thinking things through in a rigorous way (that is, if the rigor comes at the expense of the entertainment). While people are busy tearing apart his latest edu-tainments, he has already decamped for his next adventure. He's not a charlatan; he just doesn't care all that much about anything but cutting his latest record. Nothing wrong with this, of course, as long as everyone remains aware that this is precisely what he's doing.

Sport is supposed to be a level playing field.

Malcolm Gladwell is uninteresting.

He is a great promoter of mildly interesting observations, such as 10,000 hours of practice will make you pretty good at something.

No sh1t sherlock!

Original Olympic concept wrote:

Waco Taco wrote:

Sports are meant to showcase natural ability, not how much you can increase your performance using drugs.

So should you then ban athletes who have been undergoing any form of organised athletic training? Sports right now may only be showcasing the athletes who have done the best or most training, not those with the most natural ability. And besides different athletes could respond differently to training which further complicates discerning those with the most "natural ability".

I think part of Gladwell's purpose is to explore the thought process of the actual athletes rationalizing their use of these different PED's. He extensively quotes Tyler Hamilton's book to show how Hamilton justified using PED's not only because of their pervasiveness among cyclists, but also because he felt that they leveled the playing field: "[Races] weren't rolls of the genetic dice, or who happened to be on form that day. They didn't depend on who you were. They depended on *what you did* -- how hard you worked, how attentive and professional you were in your preparation."

I don't disagree with the previous posters who point out all the problems associated with PED's, but it does seem sometimes that we're moving toward a "brave new world" where many different things are possible or nearly possible. Professional sports allow procedures such as Tommy John's surgery and lasix, in part because they permanently alter the body, presumably for the better.

So, follow me here: What if scientists developed some sort of gene splicing therapy that would fix myopia permanently? How would that therapy be different in principle than lasix? Next step, what if some gene therapy were to become available -- a la Mantyranta -- to cause an athlete's body to of its own accord increase the production of red blood cells -- to raise someone like Hamilton's red blood cells from low-normal to high-normal?

The next 20 or 30 years are going to be pretty interesting in sports.

Thanks for the article. I had heard of the Goldman studies (especially the sickening result that 195 out of 198 athletes would take a banned substance if it guaranteed both a win and not getting caught), but didn't hear about the study with the nonathletes.

The only level playing field is a blind lottery, which is why politicians love them. No one is responsible for the outcome and no one can be credited with earned superiority.Athletic contests produce information to the extent that the outcomes are unexpected or surprising. Thus Gladwell's desire for full transparency implies a demand for no-information events, no surprises, perfect handicapping, where everyone gets a medal and no one wins or loses. This is oxymoronic, no competition games.

GenericID wrote:

Sport is supposed to be a level playing field.

Is it? Since when?

I think the book and the issues it brings light to regarding genetics and athletic ability offers some interesting areas for debate...I don't think those areas should lead us to considering the "fairness" of added drugs for athletes that have a genetic disadvantage.

Not everyone is born to be Usain Bolt.

It does bring up a more interesting area for discussion such as how early to start genetic testing and identifying talented endurance athletes etc.

We could test all athletes at age 8 or something, and get a real bead on who has the potential to be a gold medalist in 16 years or so...

Well, not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing with Gladwell, but without TJ for an injured pitcher they couldn't pitch.

They are replacing a damaged part and they can pitch. The surgery enhances their performance. The alternative for most would be never pitching again b/c it wouldn't heal naturally.

That isn't an unfair advantage to those that can afford to have or even better have Dr. James Andrews perform it?

HGH has legitimate medical use. Why isn't that the same as the surgery itself if used to recover from surgery as the surgery itself? You can use cortico steroids but not anabolic ones? Who decides this.

In the loosest definition anything (ex. naproxen, cortisone shot, inhaler for asthmatics) can improve your performance if you have an ailment (chronic or not). You couldn't perform that way without those things.

Also, some younger pitchers are now having TJ earlier in life as so many people end up having it at some point that they are just doing it like the women who have masectomy's b/c they have a family history of cancer.

I have never been inclined to do any of those things and don't think I want the wild wild west.

However, you still have to play the games and run the races no matter how much juice people are on. They're still contests to be decided on the field of play. The competition is the sport clean or not. The decisions, moves, mistakes, etc..

It's happening now with juiced people and we only seem to care about baseball and track (on this board at least) b/c you are a fool if you think football players aren't juicing to a large degree. Plus they take more harmful crap to get out there every week than most people can imagine, and football is the most popular sport by far right now in America.

Alex Hutchinson at Sweat Science doesn't think much of Gladwell's idea-

http://www.runnersworld.com/general-interest/drugs-ethics-and-gladwell

and with a funny link to the All Drug Olympics-

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/update-all-drug-olympics/n9691/