Should The Olympics Just Allow Doping?

Should The Olympics Just Allow Doping?


The Olympics has always been the ultimate
test of the fastest, highest and strongest athletes. And now, it seems like a test of which athletes
and countries can get away with using prohibited drugs or supplements to win that test. According to a 2014 report from the World
Anti-Doping Agency, between 1-3% of elite athletes test positive for the presence of
at least 1 banned substance. So your mind probably turns to those who have
been caught—Lance Armstrong, Marion Jones, Ben Johnson, and — very recently — Russian
gymnast Nikolai Kusenkov. And 1 or 2% of athletes doesn’t seem like
a big deal. But in another 2010 report, an anonymous survey
revealed that 29-45% of athletes admitted to doping. It seems like Lance and Marion have a fair
bit of company. So, why do only a small percentage of athletes
who are doping get caught and reprimanded for it? And how is that fair to the athletes who actually
follow the rules? A big problem is that doping is difficult
to catch—biological testing fails to detect a lot of these substances. And there are a lot of substances! According to the United States Anti-Doping
Agency, there are 10 different classes of drugs most commonly used. The most well known are anabolic agents or
steroids, peptide hormones and human growth factor. Other classes of performance enhancing drugs
include Beta-2 agonists (which typically treat asthma), stimulants (used for ADHD), narcotics,
cannabinoids (derived from marijuana), glucocorticosteroids, beta blockers, and diuretics. And a somewhat newer performance enhancement,
blood doping, includes some medications like erythropoietin (EPO), synthetic oxygen carriers,
and blood transfusions; all used in order to increase an athlete’s red blood cell
count.2 That’s a pretty long list. And each class of drugs, and each individual
drug has a different physiological effect on the body. For example, testosterone, an anabolic agent,
helps build muscle mass without increasing fat, it increases aerobic endurance and overall
strength. But on the flip side, it can also cause acne,
male pattern baldness, increased aggression, and stunted growth in younger athletes. Another prohibited substance, Human Growth
Factor, is thought to increase an athlete’s muscle mass, energy, and exercise capacity,
but can also cause an athlete to experience severe headaches, arthritis, high blood pressure,
and even tumors. These physiological side effects are pretty
obvious and it is possible to test for these drugs. Other forms of doping are much more difficult
to detect, like blood transfusions. And each require its own test. And each test takes time. Also, new performance enhancing drugs are
constantly being developed and some athletes are always looking for new ways to dope undetected. Taking epitestosterone alongside testosterone
often fools drug tests, as does taking several different performance-enhancing drugs at low
doses. It’s no wonder that so many athletes are
able to slip through drug tests undetected. Social psychology research has shown when
the risk of getting caught is lower, more people cheat. And when people are perceived to be cheating,
it’s more likely others start to cheat too. So to stop doping from a psychological perspective,
the chances of getting caught need to increase, and the benefits of cheating need to decrease. But this assumes that in the world of banned
substances, both getting caught and cheating have a somewhat linear relationship – and
it’s complicated. Not all performance enhancing drugs are banned
from professional sports. Caffeine, for example, was legalized in 2004
despite being known to extend endurance. Using an altitude tent to increase the number
of red blood cells in your blood is also okay; while injecting the hormone EPO — which has
the same effect — is not. According to University of Oxford bioethicist
Julian Savulescu, certain methods of doping are allowed because we, as a society, see
them as “natural.” He calls it the Nature Bias, where we take
a moral stance that anything “artificial” is bad for the spirit of sports. So instead of allowing this nature bias to
influence how we determine what performance enhancers are acceptable, why don’t sports
just allow doping? They allow other unnatural aspects of sports,
like carbon fibre vaulting poles and aerodynamic helmets. In The Conversation, Savulescu writes that
we should allow physiological doping – putting limits on hormone levels and red blood cell
counts, and testing whether those levels are safe, rather than how they were achieved. If we had an enforceable set of rules, experts
and doctors could assist and monitor athletes to make sure they’re healthy; rather than
athletes and teams self-administering drugs that are potentially harmful just to get an
edge. Athletic agencies would also be able to better
focus their drug tests, narrowing in on just the most dangerous methods of performance
enhancement. The doping problem isn’t going away. Instead of trying to eliminate it, should
we meet in the middle? To find out more of the weird and interesting
effects of performance enhancing drugs on your body, head over to the awesome channel
Life Noggin, where Blocko has maybe a bit too much juice? And don’t forget to subscribe. And let me know your thoughts – should more
performance enhancing drugs be legalised and regulated? Or is that a bit… dopey? I’ll see you down in the comments.

100 Replies to “Should The Olympics Just Allow Doping?”

  1. I don't think doping should be allowed since the Olympics is testing your ability to do the sport with training and etc. I think an alternative route would to just allow other methods like caffeine, saunas, and other types of muscle therapy to be allowed.

  2. The fact sports are an entertainment demands that the athletes juice to satisfy us, the gawking spectator. They're doing what we want, to see and celebrate a winner.

  3. I have to thank you Vanessa, your explanation of Nature Bias has given me a topic to talk about in a persuasive essay on cloning.
    Very useful.

  4. They should have two olympics one with doping one without. With the first we see the limits of safe doping and how far we can push human strength with science. The second tests the natural strength in humans. This would make the regular olympics less likely to be riddled with dopers as dopers have their own olympics

  5. I feel that most forms of competitive sports are fundamentally designed to push and celebrate human potential. When it comes to competitive team sports there are several factors which can contribute to success, which includes culture, and here is where things get tricky for me. Because I am, fundamentally speaking, for the use of performance enhancing drugs. The key factors for this support is the fact that technology and science should be allowed to expand human potential in sports, because it is already being used today in other areas, and it is in our very nature to push beyond our individual capabilities. Also, I believe it would herald a push to make certain hazard drugs into safe drugs faster due to the fact that there would be a greater demand for it.

    That said, the current culture of competitive sports pivots around unfair advantages, and if most performance enhancing drugs were made legal, then the next hurdle (pun intended) to gain the unfair advantage would be to use the more dangerous drugs far more, regardless of the consequences.

    I have read a great deal about how athletes are groomed into using illegal substances by organizations more lax in their feelings toward the dangers. Mind you, some of the time these athletes don't even know what they are taking until it is too late, and some of them are too young to understand the dangers. Then there is the the problem of "available information" on said topic, and who controls the narrative. These days, and I hate to say it, there are groups out there that are more than happy to present the positives of said drug without fully researching/disclosing the dangerous side effects.

    Until the culture of doping and competitive sports change in fundamental and systemic ways, I could never see people being simply "ok" with playing on the same playing field as everyone else. All I see is an alarming degree of premature death's for athletes who over doped simply because the had no other choice.

  6. Punishment needs to be a lot harsher. Trainer and athlete banned for life from professional sports. Athlete goes to prison at least 10 years.

  7. Instead of stopping doping we should just split dopers into their own category of olympics, then you get the best of both worlds.

  8. Endurance sports are shit.
    Watch team or skill sports. Everything else is shit, will be shit, has always been shit.

  9. Would we even be testing humans anymore or just a concoction that is just sub human. The olympics is supposed to be about how far we can push the human experience physically, you start letting people do more drugs then your really taking away what humans really are.

    idk im not wording this very well i feel. wisecracked had a very interesting video about a similar topic if you want to have a listen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtPfyn4QLPc

  10. Barry Bonds hit them over my head in 2001. In the park most difficult to hit homeruns for distance, he hit them farther than anyone through the fog. it was a most impressive youth, and now baseball has become a defensive game as per the 1970s and 1980s. It is slower than ever also as the pace is hindered by replay. I remember those times fondly, McGuire, Sosa, Bonds, Rodriguez, they had super powers. Tell me cap, what kind of America is this where super soldier serum is looked down upon in shame?

  11. Cheating by doping is essentially no different than cheating on your tax returns. Many will do it and it's just an expected part of life that isn't going to go away.

  12. But then it would become a race of who can make the best doping substances, rather than rewarding the hard work and natural ability showcased and enjoyed in the olympic games. However there is still a huge doping problem in athletics, so I'm sure this is happening anyway behind the cameras…

  13. I think the reason people don't like performance enhancers that seem unnatural is because deep down what we are trying to establish ( or are pretending to establish) is genetic superiority of our nation over others. It sounds kind of "Nazi -ish" I guess but I really think that our enjoyment of competitive sport comes from an instinct to show off our good genes through competition for mates. If you look at it from this perspective then things like doping and professionalism ( which is still theoretically against the rules too) spoil our Han e to decide which country has the most "natural born ability." Even if you only see the games as entertainment though, if they allow doping they would be effectively REQUIREING doping since every one will then do it. To me that would be disgusting and I hope they don't allow it.

  14. Classic double moral when banning doping, while allowing performance enhancing technology like shoes and aerodynamic clothing.

  15. your take on it sure does add to the conversation. but i think that sports are about the hardwork and effort you've put in to achieve certain standards, so i don't think doping should be allowed because it's basically not fair for the non-dopers. if the athlete wants to use it to increase their performance in training and etc then they can and it's alright, but if they use it to win a gold medal then it's not acceptable.

  16. To answer the question posed needs a clearer explanation of the rationale behind banned substances and processes doesn't it?

    One point is that banned procedures are potentially extremely harmful (eg the blood thickening properties of EPO) and allowing them would encourage desperate "athletes" to use it to the point of death. Flo-Jo?

  17. There is the spirit of the sport to consider. What are we hoping to test in these games? what is the text and/or the spirit of THE goal of any of the games? Is it that we all have human bodies that can be trained to achieve great feats? or should it be who can afford and is willing to use science-made, non-body-made chemicals to alter the body? Is the test who can train the best to develop body and skill, or who can use chemistry? My basic question is: in the olympics, what is gold supposed to mean? all rules flow from that.

    And even if doping were regulated and controlled, cheating would persist. there are those that put the importance of winning above any rules that would get in winnings way. That's why doping exists today, and it would afterward. and with the importance placed on winning at the olympics, and people so willing to use them, there's serious money to be made which will be persude, regulated or not. it seems like a damned if you do damned if you dont.

    In which case, I think things are better where they are now, which is still not a great place. But I also concern myself with those that honestly want to test their bodies and see what their real limits are without the shortcut of doping. it's not fair to them whether doping is illegal OR regulated. And if regulated, what does that to the honest-limits? what does that say to us as a species or a civilization? Where is the hubris in this situation?

  18. As I imagine an olympic coach, an honest olympic coach, would say: "you dont just take the easy road because things get hard."

  19. I think there are 2 questions that play a key role in deciding what is and isn't permitted.
    1. Is the enhancer something that is available to everyone?
    2. Does the enhancer pose a threat to the long term health of the athlete?

    If the enhancer is going to be permitted, all athletes should have equal opportunity to use said enhancer. Ultimately the point here is that all athletes should fairly compete. Those competing from a poor background or a poor country should have equal opportunities presented to them as those that from the large rich nations.

    And while I'm on my soap box I've never supported the ability for professional athletes to be allowed to compete, their talents are constantly on display and in essence every time they play they represent their country. Having deep pockets and not needing to support yourself with a career, other than practicing your sport, also creates a very unfair insurmountable playing field for the talented little guy that simply wants to represent his/her country the best they can on the worldwide spotlight.

    The purpose of the Olympics has shifted from representing your country the best you can, fostering a since of pride and achievement, toward creating a making money machine and that only proves that endless resources from rich backers can produce gold.

  20. I think there should be 2 different classes, 1 with drugs and 1 without, it lets us see what the max capacity I'd human ability can be both ob and off ofdrugs

  21. I really don't care. There is too much emphasis on sports anyway. Modern athletes are over paid for the contributions they make to society, after a few years nobody even remembers them unless they were extremely good in their time. Even if they are a major success they really don't have an effect on the human condition, the same can be said of actors also.

  22. I've heard one gymnastics team that used doping ended up with small penises. Luckily, it was a female gymnastics team.

  23. Great video. I've been thinking the same for decades. Not that doping should simply be allowed but that the health of the athlete is the ultimate factor.

  24. Why do athletes that primarily rely on their legs spend so much time developing their upper bodies, e.g., sprinters?

  25. If we allowed doping, every athlete were equal in performance, therefore many would search for even more effective (and much more dangerous) drugs. This uncontrolled sport would lead something as horrible as when women athletes looked like men in the 70s. I didn't need a psychology Phd to state the obvious.

    Oh yeah and as they mentioned in the comments: have you heard the story of Zyzz?

  26. When you see someone win just think that is what the all drug olympics would look like. It is literally who gets caught.

  27. Many of the best athletes in Olympic Weightlifting (Ilya Ilyin is one of them) have recently been suspended due to failed drug tests, and as an Olympic Weightlifting fan, this just makes me lose interest in the sport. These are the guys (and girls) setting records, the ones at the top, the athletes everyone wants to see, and the IOC and IWF seem to want to push these guys out of the sport. To me, the IWF and IOC are alienating real fans of Olympic Weightlifting (of which there aren't many, especially in the USA) and discouraging me from even watching competitions, because they treat us like we're stupid. We know they're using steroids, it's a part of Olympic Weightlifting and no amount of advances in nutritional science (lol) or training can make up for drugs. I want to see world records broken, not the best athletes in the sport barred from competition. Keep suspending the athletes, keep ruining their careers, keep defaming them and calling them cheats when everyone's doing it, and eventually we're all gonna get fed up and stop watching.

    The people who seem to care the most aren't athletes. They don't compete. They don't play a sport, they don't lift, they don't run, they don't swim, they don't cycle, they don't understand. Most of them have probably never worked out consistently for more than a few weeks or a month of their lives. They seem to think that using steroids or other PEDs magically turns you into some sort of super-athlete which no one can possibly compete with, not realizing that with drugs or not, they still work just as hard, if not harder, than athletes who are "clean" (read: yet to be caught). There is no easy way to the top and all of the drugs in the world won't change that.

  28. I think they should allow it for all major professional sports. Especially with as much as it costs to be a fan and attend events – I kind of want to see how far we can push limits. Annnnnnnnnd like you said 45% admit it anyways so it's probably like 80% that do it already in one form or another. How long before we have cybernetic enhancements? Bionic eyeballs or synthetic muscle systems, etc. – people will start modding their bodies with tech eventually – it's our destiny either way.

  29. I recently met one of the gold medal winners of the last years. We where talking about doping and joking around about it because it was so big in media. She never did drugs or doping because of her conviction and her religion. She has a really tough lifestyle to being able to achieve her goals. In her and my opinion doping is a shortcut which takes away the beauty of the sport. Knowing that someone worked extremely hard for something is much inspiring than someone who takes the shortcut. In many situation in life the shortcut is smarter but some shortcuts just defeat their purpose. It's not about winning – it's being the one who deserves to win and then actually wins. If kids watch the games and get inspired by sports it is a message I can support: Work hard and be a winner. The doping message would be that you can only achieve something if you get external stimulance. This is nothing I would teach anybody.

  30. The problem I see in allowing Doping is that it would force everybody to use it. And how would you become a great athlete in the first place? You would have to do that dangerous auto-medication thing until you get the attention of bigger, more specialized agency for support… Just my 2 cents…

  31. love this video! the only reason I would stop doping is if its not safe. the purpose of sports is to be the biggest fastest and strongest. We allow new technology in equipment, skates, shoes, sticks, but draw the line at "certain" drugs. It makes no sense. I want to see the biggest strongest athletes and I want them to be safe and healthy, not hiding in the shadows.

  32. This is especially relevant, what with the Russian swimmer Yulia Efimova (who was said to be doping) being beaten by Lily King. I think what we need is more research into the various ways athletes can get an edge (but in the case of Lily King, she won by strategy-she incorporated her touching the wall into her stroke, so thus she was able to touch the wall first even though Efimova was closely matching her) through drugs, and maybe having more oversight over athlete training, because if Putin's government has been caught doing it, then other countries are sure to be doing it.

    But with how much attention the subject of doping has received after the ban of the 100+ Russian athletes, maybe the problem will be fixed, or at least dealt with 🙂

  33. I'd say higher than 50%, although obviously depends on the sport in question. Can't even trust people to self report on anonymous surveys, so the 29-45% number is obviously low. Just allow it.

  34. The way I see it, doping should not be allowed. Doping is different from things like an altitude tent because it takes physical effort. Popping a pill that increases the size of your muscles is not training and takes no effort to do. The olympics is about athletes training to compete on a global scale, representing their countries and pushing the limits of mankind. Popping a pill is not pushing the limits of mankind.
    ps. Saying that allowing carbon fiber poles in pole vaulting is the same as allowing doping is just misguided. You have to vault with some kind of pole.

  35. How about 2 olympic events at seperate times, the one we have where doping is forbidden.
    and another, the Doping Olympic events, where athletes push their bodies to the limit with drugs.
    so what if it's dangerous, people dumb enough to accidentally suicide with drugs probably deserve it, we have a responsibility as adults to take care of our own bodies anyway.
    only the foolish and desperate would die from professional overdosing, there would still be medical staff of site.
    I'd for sure watch Doping Olympics. I do not watch ''normal'' Olympics.

    This isn't my own idea, Credit goes to Anders Matthesen. Comedian, Actor, Voice Actor and singer/song writer.

  36. Great video but unfortunately you have not addressed to psychology of the spectators. Would I watch a sport where I knew everyone was on performance enhancement drugs? No. Such athletes would not inspire me as a fellow human being to take interest in the sport. Furthermore parents would be very concerned about such athletes that takes drugs as role models to their children.

    The only winners in what you propose, besides the drug industry (and your fellow scientist in the drug industry), would be the gambling industry. And when there are high stakes involved in gambling and betting on athletes and teams then great pressure would be borne down upon the athletes to push their bodies chemical intake beyond its limits. This pressure would even come from the athletes fellow team mates.

    Sports ultimately exists to serve a customer base and if you had done a course in sales or management you would realise the customer base of sports is we the spectators and you would have factored us into any product or business plan you proposed. But you haven't. How many children do you believe would be inspired to take sports, and as such requiring their parents to buy sports equipment, if they realised that at the end of the day they can't be winners unless they can take drugs as well? I believe a lot of sports equipment manufacturer's would be very upset at your product and business plan.

    Don't be just just another naive scientist that doesn't understand how the world truly works beyond the theory.

  37. I think that the focus needs to be on athletes health and not just on short term results. If athletes and trainers are made highly aware of the adverse affects of doping agents then they can make educated decisions about how to treat their body. At the end of the day, if an athlete is willing to take that risk on their body then really that is their decision but it is much safer for everybody if they do so in an educated manner where their health is monitored. If the whole point of elite sport is to find the fastest/strongest human then surely we should be able to 'upgrade' ourselves in the same way that we can upgrade our equipment now that we have the knowledge and technology to do so, but at least it can then be monitored and the athletes can be eliminated based on health grounds that can be supported rather than on unreliable drugs tests.

  38. How about instead of legalizing doping, we raise the stakes on getting caught and raise the punishment? Like banning the athlete for LIFE? That ought to teach them not to dope.

  39. Shouldn't be legal for the following reason. If you ask a top athlete, would you give 10 years of your life if it guaranteed that you have a 50% greater chance at winning. Many would say yes, which is the problem. Heck some may be willing to take things that kill them in a couple of years if they can win because of it. Many don't / won't, but some athlete would do anything to win. If you legalize doping or making anything someone wants to take legal, then drugs that are not even in use yet that may have even worse repercussions could become used by more athletes. You need to keep it illegal or things would just go crazy, have a drug arms race, and new and more dangerous drugs available. We are already in the middle, there are plenty of things you can do that are legal, but should more be legalized, maybe.. but never ever should you have an everything goes situation.

  40. I vote we let athletes use all the performance enhancement they want. It might actually make sports interesting

  41. This is similar to the alcohol prohibition in the USA. Many people were killing themselves from their own home brews that the government eventually just said "fine, it's legal again, just stopping killing yourselves ya ijots."

  42. Will doping become as acceptable as being a professional athlete?
    Initially, the Olympics were only for amateurs, and someone who used the skill required for the sport in their daily job (such as a postman who did his delivery route skiing during the winter) was considered grounds for disqualification.

  43. Olympics and professional competition are about technology :
    – have the best shoes, the new bike's handlebar or wheel
    – have the best medical support (cryostasis)
    – have the best mental support

    Doping is just a side effect of the medical technology. Now, we argue that doping create disease for athletes but how many athletes have to stop competition on injuries? Should we allow 13 years girls to be trained so hard their growth is stopped?

    In competition athletes are slave of their passion and of people that can make money of this. But would we forbid professional competition? I don't think so.

    For french lecturer you can read this fiction book about Olympic War in 2200: http://www.noosfere.org/icarus/livres/niourf.asp?numlivre=1356

  44. Cannabinoids enhance athletic performance in what way? Or is it banned in sports because there is a treaty sign by many nations banning cannabis?

  45. Should only sober musician's get to win a Grammy? Imagine if comedians couldn't get a gig if they couldn't pass a urine test. What if no writers except those that were clean could publish? Should science youtubers that use cognitive enhancers while editing videos not get to use Patreon for resources? This is the same thing. These athletes choose to destroy their own bodies for most of the events they are competing in. Adding a chemical isn't any different. Female gymnasts that have menstruated twice in twenty five years, people lifting weights that no human should try to lift, broken bones, torn ligaments, constant ketosis, etc aren't a group making choices based on long term health. Imagine we both work at the same job and we both suffer from anxiety. I try meditation (natural) and you take valium. You get better results and begin doing better work. Should I get the only offered raise because I did it "naturally"? No. If we were truly worried about the health of these athletes most of the events wouldn't be allowed in the first place. If the athletes are truly concerned about their health they wouldn't take the chemicals no matter what and they wouldn't be destroying their bodies in these events. Let them be. If you don't "want it" as bad as someone who will self destruct to win, then congratulations, you aren't an idiot. This choice will probably keep you from competing as well as the nutters in the Olympics that will. So be it.

  46. it would also mean the developed nations would have a huge advantage over non-developed nations that can't afford the drugs needed to compete.I think legalising doping in sport is a stupid idea

  47. Speaking as an athlete who has compted, and has used PED's, I think they should be allowed and certain health perameters set up…

    athletes will always seek an edge, even if PED's were made legal for competition and new upper limits were set you would still find athletes seeking to create an edge. Why? Because athletes strive to be the best, the most dominant. Athletes seek glory, the self esteem acquired from achieving excellence, monetary gain, social approval, and all the side benefits of coming in first.

    For many of these athletes, who start athletics at pre teen or early teen level much of their self identity is built on the positive attention they acquire from winning performances, not to mention the growth in self esteem acquired from mastery and progression in their chosen sport. …This creates a euthoric feeling, which is pretty addictive, and only increases as the athlete climbs the ladder to elite level.

    The rewards outway the risk for most athletes, so this will continue.

    And athletes are not unique in this regard you will see the same behavior in any activity where rewards are high but rare, examples are politics, business, schooling, relationships, plastic surgery, etc

    Humans tend to seek advantage when the stakes are high

  48. Great video.
    I don't give a fuck about the olympic games because they are run inconsistently, arbitrarily, and by a group of people known to not know what the hell they're doing. Jumping into the pool taken as seriously as a contest of strength? It's silly.
    A proper contest of actual athleticism, with many of the same events, WITH an open-chemical category would be a wonderful replacement. It's an open niche, if any of you entrepreneurs want to fill it.

  49. allowing doping in sports would only make drugs the spectacle not the athletes… it would become which chemist or drug manufacturer makes the best drugs instead of who trained the most or who worked the hardest.
    And you might try to counter this by saying "but if they allow carbon fibre poles and aerodynamic gear and other lightweight products that might increase chances why can't they allow drugs?
    Well….. first off gear is gear, if someone else is wearing a slipstream uniform that would reduce air resistance and so on do the same thing and get something similar, it's like saying because I didn't get a 2 litre bottle of water that other marathon runners are getting they cheated.
    doping is stupid and 90% of athletes you see on the screen in Olympics and other competitions are juiced up on stuff the governing bodies can't track yet

  50. Idk, we need way better testing or just allow it in extent, that wont be harmfull. Ironically it would be more fair.

  51. And what about past-fairnes? I mean, the old athletics did not have all this stuff, so now we can easly break their records. Thats preety unfair in my opinion.

    Also sorry for bad english

  52. 100% agree with the argument that we have utilised material technologies to improve the performance of sports equipment (eg. Carbon fibre bikes, carbon fibre poles, springy rubber shoes etc) but we cannot enhance the body's physical output to break records set by genetic marvels. If people want to go natural, introduce natural Olympics events seperate from the enhanced.

  53. I have been having this very same thought for a long time. If anything legalizing doping means proper legal research will be done in order for countries to get the upper hand which would lead to improvements in medicine (for everyone) and also making it less dangerous for the athletes who take these substances.

  54. Testing know-how seems terribly over-matched by wide ranging, even highly sophisticated doping practices. Plus, regulatory bodies seem more at odds with one another than against dopers.

  55. What about the advantage of time and money? Some people have more than others. If a guy buys a better diet and has enough money to train more than the second place finisher of a race the should that first place winner be called a cheat? There will never be fair and level circumstances for athletes.

  56. A large part of answering the question is in the fact that sports are 'games'; systems of seemingly arbitrary rules intended to restrict operations and outcomes, creating a micro-environment where changes are few and measurable. To dope or not is just another arbitrary rule which must be put toward the same aim, such as having to run in a straight line or throw in a particular way.

    A large part of what makes games sustainable for prolonged ages is that they are 'fun' and at least relatively 'safe'. So we have to ask: does doping make games more fun to watch? Does it make the game less safe?

    There are certainly ways in which doping isn't safe, in the cases where it grows tumors and increases rage. But arguably it makes games more fun for spectators, because it allows feats previously deemed outside of the realm of human possibility.

    I reckon doping should be legal, on the grounds that it conditions the human body for its part in the game, and the human body cannot be removed from these sorts of games. Any athlete who runs, jumps, lifts, swims, or strains their body in any way is already risking considerable injury to themselves in an attempt to condition their body. It isn't a 'safe' thing to do at all. Doping is just the next technological step toward the same goal – and if doping were legal, there would be far greater incentives to develop safe performance enhancers and corrective treatments which could find a use both in and out of sports.

  57. to me its obvious that the war on doping is neverending. but i personally say that it is necessary to keep it running, because an almost 100% even competition between doped athlets is worse than an not 100% even competition between non-doped athlets. we should not make it a burden to become a successful athlet that the "contender" is forced to accept the use of harmful substances just to keep up, use his talent and show the results of his training

  58. we should just stop olympics alltogether. Or any professional sports for that matter. They push people to their very limits. They shouldn't race, they shouldn't try to beat each other. Maybe they should just try to play fun games. Without pushing their bodies to their limits.

  59. All sports should allow doping. After all we want to see super humans playing sports, not just regular dudes playing sports. It’s called entertainment. I’d much rather see a game of basketball where all the guys are doped and are at peak performance rather than a bunch of normal dudes.

  60. I'm with Frankie Boyle who joked that he wants to watch the pinnacle of human developement run the 100m in six seconds flat!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *