Drug testing

[skbuncks]

...Please elaborate further on why it's a bad idea.

I, for one, would watch it. Why watch the 100m being done in 9.5 secs when you can see it done in 6? Why watch the someone chuck a spear 80m when you can watch someone throw it 100m?...

skb

[tolman]

I, for one, would watch it. Why watch the 100m being done in 9.5 secs when you can see it done in 6?

But imagine what someone who could do it in 6 seconds would look like. Euuughhh

What's the fascination with the 100m anyway, apart maybe from people with pathologically short attention spans?

What's the point of a 'sport' you can't really appreciate without replays and slow-motion, and which you could easily miss the entirety of while having a good yawn?

[skbuncks]

With motor racing, surely almost all the risks are pretty immediate ones - you either crash in a race or you don't, and the extent of your injuries depends in a relatively understandable way on the various safety features?
With drugs, athletes might easily not know exactly what they were taking, and would be relying on someone else to tell them what the risks were, even if drugs were constantly changing and long-term effects weren't fully understood.

There are health risks in just about any profession. Many of which were unknown 10/20 years ago. Mouse wrist anyone? SHE works from the bottom up as well as from the top down. We have an individual responsibility to learn what the inherent risks are in our chosen occupations. If those risks are unacceptable then get a different job.
For example, I am a research chemist. I am therefore constantly exposed to carcinogic, mutagenic, teratogenic etc chemicals on a daily basis. Not only that I have the potential for reactions blowing up in my face, other peoples reactions blowing up in my face, manufacturing plants blowing up in my face and getting small acid burns in my clothes. I am aware of these risks and take measure to combat them. If I didn't I would probably be dead by now, or hideously scarred or nipping down to the shops for some new jeans.
That said, even with all safety measures in place it is possible that some chemical I have been handling which was thought to non-toxic turns out to be carcinogenic. In a case like that, I'm fubared, but this is a risk I accept.

So, if some athlete wants to take a performance enhancing drug that may lead to, say, increased risk of heart attack in later life, then so long as they are aware of that risk and accept it, then let them.

skb

ETA: One more point, its not like many things we do recreationally don't carry an inherent risk to health in later life. And we don't even get paid for doing them.

[Tony Williams]

I, for one, would watch it. Why watch the 100m being done in 9.5 secs when you can see it done in 6? Why watch the someone chuck a spear 80m when you can watch someone throw it 100m?...

A heck of a lot of people would watch gladiators fighting to the death, too. Or public executions. That doesn't make it a good idea.

My enjoyment of druggy athletics would be spoiled by two things: the knowledge that it isn't the athletes that matter, it isn't human endeavour but the chemists; and the realisation that the athletes are probably slowly (or not so slowly) killing themselves.

[tolman]

So, if some athlete wants to take a performance enhancing drug that may lead to, say, increased risk of heart attack in later life, then so long as they are aware of that risk and accept it, then let them.

Presumably the point is that for cutting-edge drugs, they may be aware there's the possibility of a risk, but have no idea what the risk actually is, plus they only have someone else's word for what they're being given.

Also, bear in mind that with sport, we're often talking about people who've been training from childhood, who may well be motivated to the point of obsession with winning, and who may be being driven by other people who want them to succeed for noble or otherwise motives.
That's maybe not the best scenario for mature and informed decision making.

You could maybe ban performance enhancing drugs in under-18s, but then just sit back and wait for the people who've just turned 18 and arrive suspiciously fully-formed on the world stage.

[skbuncks]

A heck of a lot of people would watch gladiators fighting to the death, too. Or public executions. That doesn't make it a good idea.

No doubt they would, but that is something of a red herring here. We are not talking about people having their heads hacked off. Combat to first blood however...

My enjoyment of druggy athletics would be spoiled by two things: the knowledge that it isn't the athletes that matter, it isn't human endeavour but the chemists; and the realisation that the athletes are probably slowly (or not so slowly) killing themselves.

It's their choice. I think if athletes started dropping dead at an early age there would be very few people who wanted to do it*. It would therefore be upto the chemists to develop new drugs which wouldn't kill them. You could even have GSK sponsoring the new Olympics Extreme TM.
Additionally, it's not like the athletes would no longer have to train hard and insteasd just get an injection of Miracle RunTM, so the human endeavour aspect would still be there. Just with added extras.

One further aspect is why limit it to pharmacology when we can throw performance enhancing surgery or mechanical attachments into the pot.
[rose tinted spectacles]You can even envision a scenario whereby procedures developed for enhancing the performance of athletes could have applications for treating disabilities in the everyday population.[/rose tinted spectacles]

skb

* There would be a need for some controls, like deliberately mis-informing on the deleterious side affects of a particular drug would be a big no-no.

[tolman]

One further aspect is why limit it to pharmacology when we can throw performance enhancing surgery or mechanical attachments into the pot.

Count me in for the CBR600 in the 100m, then.

[smudge]

Yet no-one is saying we should abolish that sort of competitition. The suggestion is to introduce a competivie code where the appeal is less about a historical conception of of physical fitness and more about pushing the biological machine that is the human body as far as it will go. Perhaps not something that appeals to you but nevertheless an intriguing possibiliy for an increasingly post human world.

Please elaborate further on why it's a bad idea.

Because the long term effects of drug enhanced sport are damaging to health.
I made the point earlier in the thread; there would be an inevitable trickle down effect, kids wanting to be involved and compete at a high level would be drawn into activities that damage health rather than improve it.

I am sure a drug fueled games of some sort would be hugely popular and entertaining (for many). Does that make it OK? I think not. Think of dog fighting, gladiators in ancient rome, X Factor (!!)...It would be car crash TV. Compelling but morally indefensible.

If there were a way to "push the biological machine that is the human body" without making it a spectacle that may be another matter....

I guess it's an example of how anarchy quickly evolves into something like contract libertarianism or anarchocapitalism.

This is an interesting idea. The damage of long term drug use would be masked for many years and so the pressure/urge to compete and win be too strong to balance it out. The consequences of drug use invisible until too late. Add to that the addictive nature of competing and winning and it compounds the potential problem.

[smudge]

Hey everyone, you did get it that it was supposed to be a bit of comedy - right?

Hey Graham.....
Open a can of worms then run whydontcha??!!

[brianp]

What's the fascination with the 100m anyway, apart maybe from people with pathologically short attention spans?

Or were smokers who couldn't run any further - like me at school. For me, the 100 yds (this was in civilized times before we metricated everything) was great, cross-country was hell on earth, and the intermediate distances represented increasing levels of torture. Thanks to the 100 yds I had the kudos of competing in the annual sports day - without it I would have had no chance.

[skbuncks]

Count me in for the CBR600 in the 100m, then.

Lol. Thats motorised not mechanical. I actually had things like this in mind.



If you had Olympic events whereby the use of such devices was encouraged there would be mass investment in developing new, better designs.
For our new Olympics ExtremeTM we're going to need at least three classes for each event.

1) Drug enhanced
2) Artificial aid enhanced
3) Both.

skb

[smudge]

For our new Olympics ExtremeTM we're going to need at least three classes for each event.

1) Drug enhanced
2) Artificial aid enhanced
3) Both.

skb

So... we'd then have kids wanting to start steroids at Junior school. Others severing limbs coz they really liked the idea of competing with an artificial aid....
Part human part robot, drug fueled, psycho doom war imminent! Or am I getting carried away....?

[Tony Williams]

Drifting a little off-topic, but the potential for future genetic meddling is already obvious. At the moment, the top athletes get there partly through hard work, partly through the environment in which they live, partly through genetic advantages (it's no coincidence that most of the world's top long-distance runners come from high-altitude African countries, especially Ethiopia and Kenya). And one of the best swimmers of recent times had size 17 feet - like wearing flippers!

I hate to think what might happen in the future, if it becomes feasible to select the characteristics of children through genetic meddling. Some parents will do anything to see their children succeed.

[skbuncks]

So... we'd then have kids wanting to start steroids at Junior school. Others severing limbs coz they really liked the idea of competing with an artificial aid....

Would that be any worse than kids at junior school wanting to start smoking, drinking and taking recreational drugs?
There would be no need to amputate limbs, the running aid pictured above can be fitted to fully able bodied people. You can even buy them ont intertubes.

Part human part robot, drug fueled, psycho doom war imminent! Or am I getting carried away....?

Carried away? Yes, but I like the cut of your jib .

skb

[tolman]

Lol. Thats motorised not mechanical. I actually had things like this in mind.



If you had Olympic events whereby the use of such devices was encouraged there would be mass investment in developing new, better designs.

Spring-assisted stilt running *could* be amusing to watch, especially when the runners get a bit too close together, and crash out at superhuman speed.