Why Don't They Just Allow Drugs And Level The Playing Field?

>>Drugs cannot formaly be permitted or allowed.

I enjoyed your post and love the concept of common people and them being kept in the dark.

However we already allow drugs. That which we allow is a social construction and as such is open to debate and change.Lets widen what we allow,this may stop the rush to GM athletes.

The old steroid users are now being studied by medicine and are found to be in an unusual state.

carhartt wrote:

dude do you think running 25 laps as hard as you can is healthy?

I quite agree with your question. Although the real health problems, certainly in my case, came after I'd finished the hard work. People outside of athletics would comment on how thin I looked. We would regard that as being normal.

As for GM athletes, I give it 20-25 years before they start to appear. At the moment it is illegal in most western countries to produce GM humans. But since when has legality ever stopped anybody?

>>At the moment it is illegal in most western countries to produce GM humans

Gene therapy,I think this is allowed .Different from cloning.

I'm getting kind of sick of all the health issues arguments. This is a pointless argument.

"doping is bad for you health and that's why it's illegal, so doping is cheating."

This isn't the issue, and is hardly a legitimate argument.

Doping is cheating because just like strapping a rocket Engine up you ass which is against the rules of competitive running. What the point of everyone strapping a rocket engine up their ass. None. The line has been drawn and there is NO legitimate reason to change it.

What is the argument here... "doping should be allowed because it would level the playing field."

The playing field is level when everyone follows the rules and guideline set forth. If you want to cheat then just get the hell out of the sport because you’re in it for the wrong reasons. It seems to me like the people that think doping should be legal are the same people that would sue McDonalds because they are a fat ass.

The poster said that she would never take drugs. She thinks it is unfair that athletes are losing to those athletes who are willing to take drugs, yet who may never be caught.

Besides, how are drugs different than supplements, really? There is a continuum--and rocket packs are not the same as drugs. Besides, probably most top athletes are already taking them. This is mostly just a plea to allow the 5% honest people to have a fair run for their millions in endorsements.

thinittru wrote:

>>...The old steroid users are now being studied by medicine and are found to be in an unusual state...

What you write there is interesting. I honestly don't know much about it; can you expand on this? What conclusions have been reached about old steroid users and the changes in their bodies?

Charlie Francis quote:

"There is a level playing field out there. It just isn't the playing field you thought it was."

>>Doping is cheating because just like strapping a rocket Engine up you ass which is against the rules of competitive running. What the point of everyone strapping a rocket engine up their ass. None. The line has been drawn and there is NO legitimate reason to change it.

Some doping is cheating as it is against the rules.Change the rules and you have no cheating.

The Q becomes why do we have drug rules,as there has never been a debate as to why we have the rules there is No legitimate reason why they should stay the same.Indeed they dont ,they change all the time.

Oxygen tents ,altitude ZMA and loads of things are enhancers but we allow them.

I still await reasons why some things are banned and some not.

can you read? wrote:

probably most top athletes are already taking them.

How many top athletes can afford to take them? Or are they state funded? Or part of the endorsement package? Or are they so cheap nowadays that cost is not a problem?

The only thing I know for sure is that everyone on this board claims that virtually all of the pros are taking drugs. Also it seems that many athletes who have won medals are looking extremely suspect at the moment.

Will everyone have the money? Nope, but those are the breaks. I graduated with huge student loans because my family couldn't afford to send me to college or pay for my post-graduate work. Do you think the government (or anyone else) cared about my plight? I'll give you the heads up: they didn't.

The only answer is that people will have to claw their way to the top the old-fashioned way, until they are good enough to get sponsors who will pay for their drugs.

I don't think virtually all pros take drugs, how can you say that?

Insulin is a safe drug. However I do place a caveat on it. It's safe for diabetics like me, but for a non-diabetic injecting insulin...well the results could be bad. However even if a non-diabetic took insulin to enhance performance, I doubt it would reduce that athlete's lifespan.

>>However even if a non-diabetic took insulin to enhance performance, I doubt it would reduce that athlete's lifespan

Why not ask Steve Redgrave

I have no idea whether any pros take drugs. I'm basically saying that is the idea that I have formed based on reading these boards and generally following the news. I'm also saying that assuming this is true, then the 5% honest athletes deserve to make their own decision on the issue of drugs.

I dearly hope and even assume that NONE of the pros take ANY drugs, but I get the feeling that is a very naive assumption.

Sorry, can you explain your point?

thinittru wrote:

>>However even if a non-diabetic took insulin to enhance performance, I doubt it would reduce that athlete's lifespan

Why not ask Steve Redgrave

Allowing the use of performance-enhancing drugs will change the nature of the sport. Instead of a competition of talent + training + race strategy, it becomes largely a pharmeceutical competition. Much in the way that car racing (as I understand it, which is probably flawed) is as much about the engineers who build the engines as it is about the guy driving the car. While there are many examples of how science has created products that athletes use to improve performance (e.g shoes, supplements, those bodysuits that sprinters wear) I don't think we can argue that any one of those has been shown to have a drastic effect on performance similar to steroids, EPO, et al. In the trials, you may have one person taking supplements, one person living in an oxygen tent, and everyone with great shoes, but I still think it really came down to who combined genetic gifts, years of putting on the miles, and competitive grit. Unless of course, that person was able to buy the latest drug, and escape detection.

Please learn,Compare what Jim Ryun did on dirt/cinders Vs. what Webb is doing now on mondo. Who is better? Ryun of course. BUT the track surface is faster now. Do you think Pre lived in an altitude house paid for by NIKE? No, he lived in a trailer down by the river & worked part time. He ran what, 27:43 solo. Pre is no longer in the top ten all time, better faster surfaces, better races with money involved pushed his time off of the list. Do you really think Ritz or Dan Browne are better, shit no.The sport moves forward of course, drugs or no drugs.What do you think will be the percentage of drug users in each track final next month?All is Fair in Love & War.Will I enjoy the races, hell yes!

Michael Bautista wrote:

I don't think virtually all pros take drugs, how can you say that?

Many don't - but politics dictates that certain people get away with it. Sure MJ was fouled up a bit by the BALCO mess, but no doubt the rest of the US sprinters in the 100 are juiced to the eyeballs, and most of the rest in the women's 200 and 400. Felix at least LOOKS clean. There is little doubt that Trevor Graham's guys in the 100 and 200 are filthy. But, American sprinters have politics and American TV and shoe money behind them. The E. Africans are just as dirty. What started as being "nice", letting them get away with drug use to "help them out" has turned into a Frankenstein monster. Look at Lagat, guilty as the day is long, but let off with a silly excuse - and the IAAF calling it a "technicality" and threatening his manager. It's all bs. Take away the drugs, and some of the top Kenyans and Ethiopians might not be the best guys on their teams, they might just be the top responders to drugs. Take away the drugs, and a 12:37 guy might just turn out to be a 12:58 runner, or even a 13:08 runner.

I'm not really sure what the point is that you think you are making. Only an idiot would fail to realize that the tracks are faster now. So what? It doesn't give anyone an advantage over someone else, only against history. And I am well aware that Pre lived in a van down by the river, but I don't really care who is "better." Dan Browne and Ritz have run faster. Is it any less impressive because Browne lives in an altitude house? It's not like he just lays around and gets faster.

Yes, sport moves ahead. But when that moving ahead changes the basic nature of the sport, you adjust the rules. Make the lane wider, shrink the strike zone, ban performance enhacing drugs, whatever. The examples you have mentioned will not and have not revolutionized track and field.

[quote]it's a secret wrote:

Please learn,

Compare what Jim Ryun did on dirt/cinders Vs. what Webb is doing now on mondo. Who is better? Ryun of course. BUT the track surface is faster now.

Do you think Pre lived in an altitude house paid for by NIKE? No, he lived in a trailer down by the river & worked part time. He ran what, 27:43 solo. Pre is no longer in the top ten all time, better faster surfaces, better races with money involved pushed his time off of the list. Do you really think Ritz or Dan Browne are better, shit no.

The sport moves forward of course, drugs or no drugs.

What do you think will be the percentage of drug users in each track final next month?

All is Fair in Love & War.

Will I enjoy the races, hell yes!