Do Anti-Doping Policies Have a place in sport?

[swak]

PLEASE ANSWER HONESTLY BEFORE LOOKING AT POSTS...
*EDIT: Just noticed typo in "poll question" Should be Anti-doping.... Not ANT-Doping


What do you think?
Is this just an academic/corporate concern, and is it just a proverbial 'moral panic' like that in the 1800's and the burning of witches at the stake because we feared they were evil?

OR

Is it, as stated in the World Anti-Doping Agency's explanation for policy:
- harmful to athletes
- harmful to the spirit of sport; and
- causal of an unfair playing field?

OR

Do you not care/not know anything about sport?

[Modelexis]

I don't think I can make an informed decision until I've myself had the experience of doping first hand.

Anyone have a reliable dealer? :)

[dewytrain]

Originally posted by Modelexis
I don't think I can make an informed decision until I've myself had the experience of doping first hand.

Anyone have a reliable dealer? :)

PM sent

[Disoblige]

Do not buy from dewytrain. Inferior product, overpriced too. Garbage.

[-relk-]

I for one would be pro-doping.


- harmful to athletes
It does have its health side effects, but if an athlete is monitored while doping, and a professional controls the amount of drugs the athlete is taking, I can see it being done in a safe manner (I have next to 0 knowledge on a scientific basis of methods of doping, so I could be wrong).


- harmful to the spirit of sport
I do not think it is harmful to the spirit of sport at all, its the opposite imo. If doping was a normality in sport, ALL athletes using it would be in better physical shape, which in turn would increase the level of play throughout the sport.


- causal of an unfair playing field?
It would cause an unfair playing field, but I don't see this as a problem. You still have to work your ass off in order to see good results while doping, so its not like somebody would reap all the benefits while sitting on their ass.

[swak]

You bring up some good points, i'm not bashing your opinions, as i definitely agree with you on a lot of them.
But, just would like to know your opinion if you expanded


Originally posted by -relk-
I for one would be pro-doping.

RE: ATHLETE HARM
It does have its health side effects, but if an athlete is monitored while doping, and a professional controls the amount of drugs the athlete is taking, I can see it being done in a safe manner (I have next to 0 knowledge on a scientific basis of methods of doping, so I could be wrong).

You need to reevaluate your definition of harm. Not only are the physical factors of harm evident (which can be monitored)
But also psychological (roid rage), social (stresses), and to sport.....



RE: SPIRIT OF SPORT
I do not think it is harmful to the spirit of sport at all, its the opposite imo. If doping was a normality in sport, ALL athletes using it would be in better physical shape, which in turn would increase the level of play throughout the sport.

But not all athletes are doping, nor do all athletes want to. The idea is to win with pure hard work - vs. using exerior means.



RE: PLAYING FIELD
It would cause an unfair playing field, but I don't see this as a problem. You still have to work your ass off in order to see good results while doping, so its not like somebody would reap all the benefits while sitting on their ass.

Again, not all athletes are using.... Taking out ban would force all athletes to use just to have a chance, regardless if they want to or not.... This leads to bigger issues.

[ExtraSlow]

I did not answer, because none of the choices reflect my thoughts.

Here's what I think:
- Each sport need to make it's own doping rules, but if it's going to have anti-doping rules, it needs clear guidelines for how testing is to be done. I think all testing for a particular event/season needs to be done at the same time of that event/season.

- Any person who tests positive under those guidlines, is deemed to have not won the contest.

- any person who does not test positive DURING THAT season or competition, can never be removed from the record books, stripped of wins/medals, regardless of witness testimony, future advances in testing technology, or other hindsight.

I'd rather have a record book that was set in stone. If everyone finds out that a former chamion tested positive the next season, they'll make thier own judgements about the legitimacy of that champion. But giving a win to someone who did not win is madness.

[buh_buh]

I'm only for anti-doping because I want to see athletes do things I feel like I can maybe do (though unlikely). Its what makes these feats amazing, is because these are supposed to be regular human beings that can run 100m in less than 10s, or jump 45" in the air, or take a clapper at 100mph.

If doping is allowed everywhere, it takes away from some of that, that I feel like I could MAYBE do that, or that these are real human accomplishments. But then again, that depends on where you want to draw the line, because you could consider taking supplements a form of cheating too if you really wanted to.

[dirtsniffer]

all pro sports dope. If you have a paid doctor on staff I guarantee you don't know what he is giving you half the time. And you know its newer than the doping guidlines... Just gotta stay ahead.

[Mibz]

Hm. I imagine that anti-doping rules have created great strides in the field of medicine. New drugs that can't be detected, or using existing drugs in a way that can't be detected, and all the accidental discoveries that came along with them. Good progress for the "wrong" reasons.

If you remove anti-doping laws then people will find other ways to gain an advantage. What's the next step? Motherfucking cyborg implants.

I say we let everybody take drugs, it just means inexpensive robot arms for me in 20 years.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by swak

You need to reevaluate your definition of harm. Not only are the physical factors of harm evident (which can be monitored)
But also psychological (roid rage), social (stresses), and to sport.....

But not all athletes are doping, nor do all athletes want to. The idea is to win with pure hard work - vs. using exerior means.


These are my two points for anti-doping rules.

You basically are forcing athletes to take drugs that are bad for them. Or else they can't compete. That is a f*&ked up world view if you think in order for somebody to do something, they should just take drugs.

Athletes are also very influential role models for kids. I find it hard to give carte blanche to go all out when that exact attitude can get passed down to kids. Yes, I am going there with the think of the children, and I hate that shit.

[[Yu]]

I'm pro for doping.

After all, a lot of sports are in a sense meant for entertainment. This allows for athletes to recover faster and perform at levels above what they were previously capable of.

In my opinion, I would prefer the governing bodies to allow a league with doping instead of just enforcing anti-doping procedures.


Create sports with two leagues, thus eliminating the case where you force an athlete to use it.

As for the moral issue, if the two leagues are created, let the viewers decide what is moral and not. I have a feeling that after awhile, viewers may become accustomed to these "dopers" and enjoy competition at this level.

Even sports nowadays, people claim they prefer to watch this "clean" league because it is pure and honest. But lets be honest, a lot of athletes dope and just go undetected. This comment is directed at the post where the OP wanted to see feats that are "amazing" because it was done through hard work. Many people that follow sports or are involved know that many athletes dope. To believe that what we see is pure handwork is just naive.

[buh_buh]

Even if you have 2 leagues, you will have more athletes playing in the clean league using performance enhancers to gain an advantage. How many pro athletes would also willingly admit and play in a performance enhanced league?

[[Yu]]

Originally posted by buh_buh
Even if you have 2 leagues, you will have more athletes playing in the clean league using performance enhancers to gain an advantage. How many pro athletes would also willingly admit and play in a performance enhanced league?

Ahh you are very right. When I pressed submit reply and went away I knew I forgot something.

If there isn't ever going to be a doping league, I at least want more stringent anti-doping practices. The governing bodies structure for testing is a joke. I would love to see monthly testing if you are a registered professional athlete, that way people cant just get on and off the bicycle.

As for Pros admitting to use. I agree, until people remove the stigma of doping, no athlete will come clean. I guess I view athletes as everyday workers. Employees do whatever they can to get ahead at work because they have to provide for their families, and I see no difference in sports.

Regular people sacrifice time and can slave up to 16+ hours of work a day, which I would assume would put their body at risk. But nobody complains about how this affects them.

Then you have athletes who want to dope and it can place physical/psychological harm onto themselves, but everyone gets up in this guy's grill.

[Hallowed_point]

3KzGfuFFSxA

[-relk-]

Originally posted by swak
You need to reevaluate your definition of harm. Not only are the physical factors of harm evident (which can be monitored)
But also psychological (roid rage), social (stresses), and to sport.....
Those are some good points. The way I see it, a monitored and controlled dosage of drugs (doping) to an athlete could potentially be no more harmful than the repeated beatings they get in their sport (football being the worst for this, aside from the fighting sports).


Originally posted by swak
Again, not all athletes are using.... Taking out ban would force all athletes to use just to have a chance, regardless if they want to or not.... This leads to bigger issues.
This is the single biggest issue with doping. All athletes are forced to stay in top physical shape right now, so if there were no harmful effects of doping, why would adding doping to their regimine make any difference? There are bad side effects to steriod use though, but I have always wondered if that is because the people who use them overuse them, or if there will always be the risk of heart disease and the like from using steriods.

[colinxx235]

Definitely against them. Largely for the health reasons and to me it goes against what a natural athlete stands for.

Also I did lose a friend earlier this year to steroids, granted his usage of them was not what the typical professional does.

[swak]

Originally posted by -relk-

Those are some good points. The way I see it, a monitored and controlled dosage of drugs (doping) to an athlete could potentially be no more harmful than the repeated beatings they get in their sport (football being the worst for this, aside from the fighting sports).

But monitoring doping, you're still going to have 'cheaters' and athletes trying to gain that extra edge. Is this the answer?



This is the single biggest issue with doping. All athletes are forced to stay in top physical shape right now, so if there were no harmful effects of doping, why would adding doping to their regimine make any difference? There are bad side effects to steriod use though, but I have always wondered if that is because the people who use them overuse them, or if there will always be the risk of heart disease and the like from using steriods.

I agree to disagree with you on this point.
I believe we need to lax the policies a little bit, to the extent of protecting athlete health (ie. allowing cough medicine for example).
But not allowing drugs to a performance enhancing manner. (ie. EPO and Steroids)

HOWEVER, we do allow altitude training, which arguable promotes the same effects of EPO use. So why is one allowed vs the other?

[GS430]

A lot of great points in this thread, thanks OP for bringing this up.

I think in theory they are trying to protect the atheletes, the fans, and the overall integrity of the sport.

As Swak mentioned though, they do tend to go overboard with these things.

[max_boost]

Do you think performance enhancers help all sports? What about hockey for example? :dunno:

[colinxx235]

Originally posted by max_boost
Do you think performance enhancers help all sports? What about hockey for example? :dunno:


Faster, stronger, more endurance. Pretty much translates to everything not?

Also greatly increases recovery time from injuries.

[swak]

Originally posted by colinxx235



Faster, stronger, more endurance. Pretty much translates to everything not?

Also greatly increases recovery time from injuries.

Bingo!

I say this loosely, but a 'colleague' of mine studied a group of athletes looking at their perceptions of doping in their sport (this is a sport like hockey where skill is involved (ie. hockey, basketball, volleyball, etc. vs strength athletes: ie. cycling, track, bodybuilding....) and noted that the athletes thought they wouldn't get anything out of it.... IE. team sport athletes are stupid when it comes to doping! They don't know how to! haha...

Shouldn't advertise this...
But yes, there is great benefit to all athletes!

[max_boost]

Interesting. I guess when there is fame and fortune on the line, why the heck not. :poosie:

[swak]

Originally posted by max_boost
Interesting. I guess when there is fame and fortune on the line, why the heck not. :poosie:

haha... indeed! :thumbsup:

I think it would be naive to say that all the big business names haven't done a little bit of cheating and stealing to get to the top.

However, how i see it, those policing (ie. well... Police and WADA) need to be there for this reason. Not something we want to see - rather something we want to prevent.

[CanmoreOrLess]

Yes! Let's see how extreme the human body can go. No rules, no tests, just pure science.

[buh_buh]

If there's no rules, no tests, pure science, they would just create a bionic man or robot. Infinite endurance, and strength levels humans can't achieve. Where do you draw the line?

Performance enhancers help every sport, including hockey. You'd be pretty naive if you thought it only helped certain sports. You have the ability to train harder, more frequently, and with better results.