[mike777]

Most if not all major USA sport unions fight like heck to stop or limit drug testing.
They in fact do yell more about the testing than the cheating.

In any event my main point was not that there is cheating but how do you define cheating. Football players and baseball players take many many chemical drugs that for some reason are not considered cheating but enhance performance in one way or another.

As others have mentioned as we aging baby boomers take more botox, enhancement surgery or pills or chemicals of one shape or another to enhance something or other how can we mind if are sports players do also.

Just look at all the drugs we give kids today to enhance something or other in the kid.

The trend seems to be towards taking more chemical compounds injected or transplanted into us rather than less. If we think we can improve on what Mother Nature gave to us at birth, why not.

[pclayton]

Golf could be next.

Nobody is safe.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Aug 1 2007, 01:03 AM, said:

The trend seems to be towards taking more chemical compounds injected or transplanted into us rather than less.  If we think we can improve on what Mother Nature gave to us at birth, why not.

The primary argument leveled against performance enhancing drugs has to do with negative side effects. In many case, performance enhancing drugs have a significant impact on individual lifespan. If you start tinkering with red blood cells, you start risking heart attacks, strokes, and the like.

If performance enhancing drugs are allowed by sports federations it will (essentially) force any players who hope to be competitive to start doping. The vast majority of these individuals will never compete at the elite level, will never bring in the big bucks, and will still suffer all the negative side effects.

I personally don't have a problem if the sports federations take a strong position to ban different types of doping. Personally, I'm surprised that more players don't take a strong stance in favor of bans. (Doping is a classic example of a Prisoner's Dilemma. The best way to escape the sub-optimal equilibrium is tying ones hands)

For whats its worth, I feel very differently about recreational drugs. (I favor legalizing these)

[mike777]

This keeps getting back to what drugs are legal and why?

Many chemical compounds are legal and enhance performance while others are not? It just seems arbitrary.

Look how many negative effects football players and other players have from taking various pain killers to keep playing. Owners, unions, players and fans seem to care less. Buckle up and play tough. Who cares if your life is shortened or ruined in old age. Who cares if you need hip replacements, knee replacements, you have concussions and etc. Just play tough.

If the fans do not care that much it does seem that almost any performance enhancing chemical will be allowed. Those with more benefits to costs will be used more. Those with more costs and less benefits will be used much less.

[irdoz]

The two most common methods of blood doping are transfusion of red blood cells and erythopoietin.

Erythopoietin (EPO) is significantly more dangerous (the FDA recently issued a warning about its use in some cancer patients where a trial was stopped beacuse it seemed to diminish rather than enhance quality of life). EPO is associated in the short term with increased risk of a cardiovascular accident. In the long term it can cause polycythemia which puts increased stress on the cardiovascular system. The number of elite athletes who have died at a young age from heart attacks is in many instances probably associated with EPO use.

Transfusion - particularly autologous (self) transfusion - is significantly safer if properly (medically) supervised.

However. EPO is usually preferred because it is harder to detect. Frozen blood cells are hard to hide and a simple blood test can easily detect a recent transfusion because of the altered ratio of mature to immature red blood cells.

So one outcome of the current system is that less safe harder to detect methods are chosen. That being said I think hrothgars post a few above this one agrees exactly with how I feel. If enhancing agents/methods were legalised, then in order to succeed in their sport, elite athletes would have to use potentially dangerous products. It's one thing to choose to use them knowingly - but quite another to feel like you have to use them in order to be competitive.

[mike777]

irdoz, on Aug 1 2007, 01:18 AM, said:

  If enhancing agents/methods were legalised, then in order to succeed in their sport, elite athletes would have to use potentially dangerous products. It's one thing to choose to use them knowingly - but quite another to feel like you have to use them in order to be competitive.

You seem to have missed my main point though I have made it many times.

Enhancing agents are legal. Many of them are legal. If you think we should make all enhancing agents illegal ok, but they are not.

Water is an enhancing agent, aspirin is an enhancing agent, vitamins, pain killers, sport drinks, cortosone needle shots, the list is endless. People are dying or at the very least getting very hurt from these things directly or indirectly. See American Football players.

Basic natural water makes millions very sick around the globe, but I do not think anyone wants to ban water based on the rule it can be very dangerous.

What enhancing agents are you going to allow? arbitrary or some other rule?

Please note enhancing agents are used much more often in the general public than by sports players.

[hotShot]

cherdano, on Jul 31 2007, 07:20 PM, said:

Anyway, the benefit from doping is obviously a lot higher in cycling than football or American football.

I don't think thats true.

Football (Soccer) player at top level have to run about 10-12 km a game (about 90 min) top clubs often have 2 games per week over long periods. Perhaps you noticed that injured players recover in incredible short time.

Obviously a player who is not exhausted at the end of the game has a big advantage. (e.g. Blood doping, EPO ...)
Obviously anything that keeps a player going at high levels over weeks (with lots of games) is a big advantage. (e.g. EPO and Testosterone)
Obviously a fast recovery from injuries, is a big advantage. (e.g. steroids, growth hormone, Testosterone).

"Fortunately" football player are only tested after competition (usually only 2-3 of a team) and usually only urine tests are made.

[irdoz]

No I did not miss your point at all mike777. I just didnt want to get into a long policy discussion about where and how to draw the line because Ive seen attempts and they are all messy. Some of your examples are or have been in the past banned substances - maybe not by american football but by some olympic sport federations.

Water and EPO are clearly different. They may both be enhancing agents in some contexts - but only EPO is associated with early death. Breathing is also performance enhancing and as the saying goes 'breathing is fatal'. Indeed I regularly talk to people about their health in my work - and their excuse for not adopting healthier lifestyles is precisely like this - 'well everything is harmful' or 'breathing is fatal'... Their logic seems somewhat similar to yours... but water is ok and performance enhancing so why isnt EPO treated the samw way?

Clearly we are not about to ban either breathing or water - if you want to argue that they are logically no different from something like EPO because they are both performance enhancing go right ahead. I don't think it takes us anywhere useful.

[mike777]

irdoz, on Aug 1 2007, 02:33 AM, said:

No I did not miss your point at all mike777. I just didnt want to get into a long policy discussion about where and how to draw the line because Ive seen attempts and they are all messy. Some of your examples are or have been in the past  banned substances - maybe not by american football but by some olympic sport federations.

Water and EPO are clearly different. They may both be enhancing agents in some contexts - but only EPO is associated with early death. Breathing is also performance enhancing and as the saying goes 'breathing is fatal'. Clearly we are not about to ban either breathing or water - if you want to argue that they are logically no different from something like EPO because they are both performance enhancing go right ahead. I dont find iy useful or insightful myself.

I am willing to bet more early death from water than epo.....maybe hundred times more?

As I said this all seems very random to me.
Some chemicals ok..other chemicals not ok
Some chemicals kill more than others but still ok......
Pain killers ok.....speed ok....greenies, ok...reds ok alcohol.....etc etc...but not epo? ok but why?

If epo is useless or kills on contact ok...just say so.

Let me try another line of questions.

If I can have a surgery that makes my arm or legs stronger than before is that legal?

Can I put some foreign object in my body, say ligaments from another animal or something or a steel plate...it that still legal?

Can I ever, ever, use artificial blood or artificial skin and still play sports?

Can i replace a hip or joint or muscle?

The list is endless.

If any I mean any enhancement is ok as long as it does not kill you too much ok...but I do not see our sports saying that.

[irdoz]

Quote

I am willing to bet more early death from water than epo.....maybe hundred times more?

I assume you dont mean drowning in water sports. Sure hyperhydration after intense exercise is sadly still too common a cause of death. And yes more people will have died from hyperhydration after intense exercise than from EPO. But the water which is being used that causes death in hyperhydration is generally being used after the 'performance' - and not to enhance performance. And although hyperhydration is often commonly referred to as 'water poisoining' the cause of death is usually attributed to the underlying cause - dehydration after intense exercise.

Quote

Pain killers ok.....speed ok....greenies, ok...reds ok alcohol.....etc etc...but not epo?

1. Pain killers are banned by most olympic sports federations
2. Speed is banned by all olympic federations.
3. Greenies - something to do with people who like trees?
4. Reds - an old fashioned term to describe communists?
5. EPO is not some 'exception'...the banned list is quite long.

But then while you may have a poiint about the difficulty of determining a dividing line you have missed the point about the necessity of a line - and no i dont want to define the parameters for divining such a line.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Aug 1 2007, 01:05 AM, said:

If performance enhancing drugs are allowed by sports federations it will (essentially) force any players who hope to be competitive to start doping. The vast majority of these individuals will never compete at the elite, will never bring in the big bucks, and will still suffer all the negative side effects.

Suppose there was no World Suctionssport Federation, but instead two competing federations, the World Doped Suctionsport Federation and the World Dopefree Suctionsport Federation. So two World Champions, the dopped one having scored higher. Now sponsors, wannabe athletes, media and spectators can chose which of the two federations they support.

Maybe I'm overselling my faith in market forces. You do have a valid point, Richard.

[mike777]

irdoz, on Aug 1 2007, 03:03 AM, said:

Quote

I am willing to bet more early death from water than epo.....maybe hundred times more?

I assume you dont mean drowning in water sports. Sure hyperhydration after intense exercise is sadly still too common a cause of death. And yes more people will have died from hyperhydration after intense exercise than from EPO. But the water which is being used that causes death in hyperhydration is generally being used after the 'performance' - and not to enhance performance. And although hyperhydration is often commonly referred to as 'water poisoining' the cause of death is usually attributed to the underlying cause - dehydration after intense exercise.

Quote

Pain killers ok.....speed ok....greenies, ok...reds ok alcohol.....etc etc...but not epo?

1. Pain killers are banned by most olympic sports federations
2. Speed is banned by all olympic federations.
3. Greenies - something to do with people who like trees?
4. Reds - an old fashioned term to describe communists?
5. EPO is not some 'exception'...the banned list is quite long.

But then while you may have a poiint about the difficulty of determining a dividing line you have missed the point about the necessity of a line - and no i dont want to define the parameters for divining such a line.

ok again I see many seem not to understand the basics

If you do not know what greenies or reds are I give up
If you do not know that millions get sick from natural drinking water..I give up

Again it seems everyone defines...enhancing or chemicals much too narrow.

My main point to repeat is....enhancing chemicals are allowed in many forms...these chemicals make millions sick or kill all over the world.

Of course epo and aspirin are not exactly the same, so what?
They are both chemicals, they both enhance performance...they both make people ill. For all I know asprin kills almost as many as epo or more?

I am willing to bet pain killers lead to more deaths or illness than epo...muchmore.

Again this all seems arbitrary.

No one even comments on things such as enhanced surgery etc....

The world of sports is much bigger than olympics...I fail to see why posts continue to define this stuff in such tiny, tiny terms...

As helene points out there are many many more than two federations of sports, worldwide,, think bigger.

[irdoz]

You seem to be making a lot of points that do not fit together well into a logical argument.

Quote

If you do not know what greenies or reds are I give up

Yes I know what they are in the context you are using them. If you cannot see a joke or sarcasm I give up? You see how easy it is to be insulting and argumentative instead of having a reasoned conversation?

Quote

If you do not know that millions get sick from natural drinking water..I give up

Yes millions get sick from drinknig 'water'. Yes I have in the past volunteered to work in countries where large volumes of such deaths occur - so I am very aware of the impact of drinking 'natural' 'water'. This has exactly nothing to do with the use of water as a performance enhancing agent in sport.

If you want to say EPO and aspirin are the same go ahead becasue 'they are both chemicals and both enhancing' go ahead. Jumping from a 1 foot cliif and jumping from a 200 meter cliff are both jumping so therefore they are the same and should be treated equally. Oh Realy? If this is your logic perhaps indeed giving up is a good idea.