whats gives us the right to decide what athletes put in their bodies

If the athletes want to compete under a governing body and receive the benefits of those governing bodies such as IAAF or usatf (such as having their travel paid for or being selected for a national team) they must play by the drug rules.

I can go take testoboost and epo and race my friends at the local track all I want but I would be forfeiting my ability to comPete where the money and fans are at. (In theory of course! We know that some people still cheat)

Also it is for safety. Out of control drug use will eventually lead to people sometimes dying on the track because of some effects of PEDs. Of course many will say " let the idiots kill themselves for their foolish ways!" BUT it looks terrible for a sport as a whole to have people dying. So this must be avoided

unruly wafer wrote:

Also it is for safety. Out of control drug use will eventually lead to people sometimes dying on the track because of some effects of PEDs. Of course many will say " let the idiots kill themselves for their foolish ways!" BUT it looks terrible for a sport as a whole to have people dying. So this must be avoided

And consider the athlete who has world-class ability in a non-drugged world. He/She has to forego an athletic career or risk their long-term health to be competitive.

As stated earlier, the athletes decide. They agree to compete in sanctioned competitions and follow the rules and regulations.

They don't have to do that. They could seek unsanctioned competition, even market their own "no PED rules" competitions.

PEDs are harmful, even EPO.

linky thing wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/19/us/stamina-building-drug-linked-to-athletes-deaths.html

course I understand what the down side of drug use is, I was just looking to see other people's input on it, as I am gonna write an article about peoples view point's

It only really matters when money is at stake.

Rules: Pro athletes cant dope just like stock traders can't be insider traders. It is like stealing money.

But they don't stop either from happening.

They can put whatever the hell they want in their bodies. No one is stopping that. But they can't compete, if they use certain substances. Pretty simple really.

Polly P wrote:

They can put whatever the hell they want in their bodies. No one is stopping that. But they can't compete, if they use certain substances. Pretty simple really.

I think this goes without saying.

The OP may have been asking what give others the right to prevent doping in competition.

Simple enough?

It would have been simple, if that's what he asked. But it wasn't.

linky thing wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/19/us/stamina-building-drug-linked-to-athletes-deaths.html

Why link an article from 24 years ago? 61 years ago people thought your heart wild explode if you ran sub 4.

How many EPO deaths have there been in athletics in the past 30 years? It's not as dangerous as you want to believe and it is useless to say that we should ban it. People are going to compete and win on it no matter what.

Polly P wrote:

It would have been simple, if that's what he asked. But it wasn't.

In all seriousness, I ask what gives us the right to decide what athletes put in their bodies? Steroids, EPO, testosterone, etc. What makes people get to decide what is legal and what is not?

???? how is this not what he asked ????

Because those are LEGAL to put into your body. My mother gets monthly EPO shots. Try to keep up.

Polly P wrote:

Because those are LEGAL to put into your body. My mother gets monthly EPO shots. Try to keep up.

Exactly. EPO is LEGAL in the context of regular life. OP asked about bans stupid.

It is ILLEGAL for SPORT/COMPETITION! We're not talking about prison sentences here.

What gives us the right to say athletes cannot dope on competiton?

Sorry for not keeping up with your attempt to be glib, which was also irrelevant.

But they are not banned. Do you not understand English? The OP did not reference competition. If he had, this would be a different discussion.

Polly P wrote:

But they are not banned. Do you not understand English? The OP did not reference competition. If he had, this would be a different discussion.

EPO isn't banned?

Anyways, I thought the OP was referring to competition. Why else would we care if people who ran for fun took drugs?

Besides, the question is what gives us the right to ban certain PEDs. I think it is part safety but also because sport would just become more about who has the best doctors and more money. At some point, we need a cuttoff. Everybody can afford protein shakes and multivitamins, and they won't kill you, so that is a good balance IMO.

You are correct that EPO is not banned. And the OP did not mention competition. If you taken the time to read this brief thread, you'd know both of those.

?????????? wrote:

Polly P wrote:

But they are not banned. Do you not understand English? The OP did not reference competition. If he had, this would be a different discussion.

EPO isn't banned?

Anyways, I thought the OP was referring to competition. Why else would we care if people who ran for fun took drugs?

Besides, the question is what gives us the right to ban certain PEDs. I think it is part safety but also because sport would just become more about who has the best doctors and more money. At some point, we need a cuttoff. Everybody can afford protein shakes and multivitamins, and they won't kill you, so that is a good balance IMO.

Nothing better then an athlete on banned substances going 9.76 in the 100 at your local summer series track meet lol, or a sub 13 5k at your local fun run......... but it would be funny

Anyways, I agree therw has to be a cut off at some point.