Let the Games Be Doped

Off Topic
41

[quote]tedro wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The equipment allows for better conversion of an input. You seem stuck on using the word “force”, so let’s go with that. If I can lean harder, push harder on a piece of equipment because of an increase in efficiency of energy transferance - that enhances performance.

I acknowledged this in my first post in this thread. The equipment does not change the force that your body is applying, it only changes the force that is being applied to the medium. In other words, it diminishes the inefficiences found in more primitive equipment.[/quote]

So it’s okay to improve the output as long as you don’t mess with the natural input?

PED’s diminish the inefficiencies of input probably to a much lesser degree than improved equipment diminishes the inefficiencies of conversion.

[quote]It’s really simple. You are trying to draw a line between external enhancers and internal enhancers.

No, I’m drawing a line between enhancers that increase the actual force production of humans, beyond those that are inherent to sport, and enhancers that simply allow for better transfer of force.

My line stands.[/quote]

What, precisely, is “force production of humans that is inherent to sport?” By that definition alone, you are against nutrition in support of getting bigger stronger or faster.

The use of protein powders and/or amino acids, or even creatine should be banned from anyone who endeavors to be the best he can be, if one is to objectively apply this “rule”.

You still can’t see hypocrisy, can you? You pick an arbitrary point and say, “this is the line” with no objective point from which to base such a judgment.

You should get a job with the IOC, or perhaps the US Congress. They love people with double standards.

42

[quote]Thatguy1083 wrote:

What difference does it make whether they had surgery or wear contact lenses?

But see, there’s a standard for that, and it’s to have 20/20 vision. Correcting someone to see 20/20 is different than making them see 20/15.[/quote]

So then what about those athletes with low levels of testosterone? Should they be allowed HRT to bring them back into the normal range? Should they be allowed to go to the high-normal range? Should they even be allowed HRT at all?

43

[quote]malonetd wrote:
tedro wrote:
malonetd wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
Like it or not, some people believe steroids are immoral. Letting everyone use forces people to use who otherwise wouldn’t.

Maybe if there wasn’t such a negative stigma attached to steroids, people wouldn’t think of them as immoral.

I think it’s safe to say that those that are educated on steroids, yet are still against their use, would not use them regardless of the stigma the media and society places on them.

Well then they don’t want to be the best, do they?[/quote]

Excluding people for a personal choice doesn’t make much sense to me.

44

[quote]malonetd wrote:
Thatguy1083 wrote:

What difference does it make whether they had surgery or wear contact lenses?

But see, there’s a standard for that, and it’s to have 20/20 vision. Correcting someone to see 20/20 is different than making them see 20/15.

So then what about those athletes with low levels of testosterone? Should they be allowed HRT to bring them back into the normal range? Should they be allowed to go to the high-normal range? Should they even be allowed HRT at all?[/quote]

I can’t even answer that. Damn.

You can take the same argument to creatine levels, CNS efficiency, bone density, insulin sensitivity, etc.

45

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
what about from a health perspective? I’m not saying they’re unhealthy. But maybe somebody wouldn’t want to risk it just to be able to compete.

Then one could say, well it’s up to them at that point if they want to succeed or not. But, why should they be punished if they choose to do it naturally.[/quote]

Why is it considered a “punishment” if someone can’t compete at the highest level? I’m 5’6" and never had much of chance in any professional sports. If I were 6’6" I think I would have made a pretty good offensive lineman. My height isn’t a punishment; I just can’t naturally compete at the highest level of football.

There are sacrifices involved with being the best at anything. Usually the person willing to make those sacrifices is the on who will become the best. It has nothing to do with punishment.

46

[quote]malonetd wrote:
No, it makes total sense. Science is used to advance all aspects of sports. Everything is advanced. Even instant replay is an advancement that MLB looks like it’s going to make.

If every other aspect of a sport is advanced in every possible way, why stop at the body? Someone please explain that to me, because I just can’t wrap my head around it.
[/quote]

Science is not used to advance all aspects of sports. Football can be played at a much higher speed on astro-turf, yet more and more fields are going to grass or field-turf. Baseball’s fly much farther off of aluminum bats.

Golf has all sorts of rules regulating it’s equipment. Track has certain standards regarding the levelness of the surface. We’d see a lot of records if they could run downhill. There are many limitations placed on sports by the governing bodies besides those placed on the body.

Adding replay has nothing to do with the topic of discussion, it is simply a way to bring about better officiating.

It’s not taboo, the body is improved in many ways through science. Computer technology, nutritional knowledge, advanced training and recovering methods just to name a few.

Because people want to see the best athletes compete on a level playing field at the highest level they can perform given their natural abilities and work ethic for training. The majority does not care about Biosports.

Where are you going to draw that line? Everything goes? What happens when the Olympics turns into professional bodybuilding? What happens when people start cutting off body parts to make a lower weight class? What about plastic implants to make one’s face more aerodynamic? Your argument has approaced a slippery slope.

[quote]
Again, someone please tell me, why do some people want to prevent athletes from being and doing the best they can?[/quote]

Because most people want to leave the competition to the athletes, not the scientists.

47

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
malonetd wrote:
tedro wrote:
malonetd wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
Like it or not, some people believe steroids are immoral. Letting everyone use forces people to use who otherwise wouldn’t.

Maybe if there wasn’t such a negative stigma attached to steroids, people wouldn’t think of them as immoral.

I think it’s safe to say that those that are educated on steroids, yet are still against their use, would not use them regardless of the stigma the media and society places on them.

Well then they don’t want to be the best, do they?

Excluding people for a personal choice doesn’t make much sense to me.[/quote]

It makes all the sense in the world. That person isn’t doing what it takes to be the best. They’re excluding themselves. How does this confuse anyone?

48

[quote]rainjack wrote:
<<< Make PED’s available to all Olympic athletes. It’s what the Greeks would have done.

[/quote]

Anybody who doesn’t believe this, or that the gladiators would have been kept natural had the technology been available has no idea whatsoever about human nature.

49

[quote]malonetd wrote:
Again, someone please tell me, why do some people want to prevent athletes from being and doing the best they can?[/quote]

Perhaps because some feel that it takes the “human” element out of the sport.

In regards to advances in equipment - yes, you may be able to use a cutting-edge club that enables you to drive the ball farther, or shoes that allow you to run faster, or a speedo that makes you able to glide through the water better, but at the end of the day, it is still a regular old human doing the grunt work (the swinging, the running, the swimming, etc).

In regards to the Lasik argument - it is a corrective surgery. It corrects a deficiency in vision - it doesn’t give people the ability to see farther than human beings are necessarily capable of naturally.

As far as PED’s vs. advances in training and nutrition - once again, this goes back to human vs. superhuman…while breakthroughs in nutrition and training allow people to train harder and more efficiently than before, they are still working within the confines of basic human physiology.

PED’s allow one to overshoot (drastically, in some cases) the cap set on what humans are genetically capable of doing, thus giving their performances a “superhuman” aspect to it.

That is what it comes down to in my mind - the human vs. superhuman element to the competition (though one can argue Olympians, in and of themselves, are “superhuman”).

I think the biggest reason why some are against it is because it defies the natural capabilities of us as people…no one wants to see Joe Olympian with enough chemicals in his bloodstream to start his own pharmacy competing any more than they want to see a cyborg using his trebuchet third-arm to catapult a shot put a quarter of a mile…

it’s simply not “human” and takes away from the awe we experience in seeing what we are capable of, in and of ourselves.

I apologize if this is rambling and nonsensical, I’m not one to be able to get all my thoughts in order in just one post and am rushing this as I need to head out for a bit…

50

[quote]rainjack wrote:
So it’s okay to improve the output as long as you don’t mess with the natural input?
[/quote]

Yes, that’s the argument I am making here. There are a multitude of other reasons to be against steroid use, and more specifically steroid use in sports, but admittedly it is very difficult to argue against steroids in sports. This argument is logical and stands on its own, without excluding most other equipment.

That’s very arguable, but it does not contradict my force production argument in any way.

Just because you put it in quotation marks doesn’t mean I said it. “Inherent to sport” only refers to the training regimen that one would naturally use to improve their skills for a given competition.

This training would of course increase force production, but only up to the levels that one could naturally achieve. This training should also be assumed, and always has, to be a natural extension of the sport.

[quote]
You still can’t see hypocrisy, can you? You pick an arbitrary point and say, “this is the line” with no objective point from which to base such a judgment.

You should get a job with the IOC, or perhaps the US Congress. They love people with double standards. [/quote]

You keep accusing me of being hypocritical, yet you are unable to show why. You accuse me of making arbitrary points with no objective point, yet you call me a hypocrite with no objective reasoning as to why.

It’s kind of ironic.

51

[quote]anonym wrote:

In regards to the Lasik argument - it is a corrective surgery. It corrects a deficiency in vision - it doesn’t give people the ability to see farther than human beings are necessarily capable of naturally.[/quote]

Uhm, people who run really fast and break records are running FASTER than humans “[quote]are necessarily capable of naturally.[/quote]” That is what makes them RECORD BREAKING FEATS. Therefore, we have never been against people doing something better than most can…until this one topic.

52

[quote]tedro wrote:
malonetd wrote:
No, it makes total sense. Science is used to advance all aspects of sports. Everything is advanced. Even instant replay is an advancement that MLB looks like it’s going to make.

If every other aspect of a sport is advanced in every possible way, why stop at the body? Someone please explain that to me, because I just can’t wrap my head around it.

Science is not used to advance all aspects of sports. Football can be played at a much higher speed on astro-turf, yet more and more fields are going to grass or field-turf. Baseball’s fly much farther off of aluminum bats.

lf has all sorts of rules regulating it’s equipment. Track has certain standards regarding the levelness of the surface. We’d see a lot of records if they could run downhill. There are many limitations placed on sports by the governing bodies besides those placed on the body.

Adding replay has nothing to do with the topic of discussion, it is simply a way to bring about better officiating.[/quote]

It brings better officiating through artificial means. Just like this conversation is about – improving sports through artificial means. It fits right in.

[quote]
Equipment is made to offer even the tiniest, sometimes negligible improvement. Why is it taboo, then, to improve the body through science?

It’s not taboo, the body is improved in many ways through science. Computer technology, nutritional knowledge, advanced training and recovering methods just to name a few.

I want to see the best damn athletes competing at the highest levels. Why do people not want this?

Because people want to see the best athletes compete on a level playing field at the highest level they can perform given their natural abilities and work ethic for training. The majority does not care about Biosports.[/quote]
How’s that level playing field working out so far? C’mon, we both know there’s only one way to truly level the playing field.

[quote]
I thought sports were about being the best. I thought once we pot past elementary school tee ball, sports were about winning and playing at a high level, not participation and feelings. If someone doesn’t want to juice, then that person doesn’t have what it takes to be the best. It’s a simple as that.

Where are you going to draw that line? Everything goes? What happens when the Olympics turns into professional bodybuilding? What happens when people start cutting off body parts to make a lower weight class? What about plastic implants to make one’s face more aerodynamic? Your argument has approaced a slippery slope.[/quote]

I’m not going to even attempt to draw a line right now It would take a lot more thought than the couple minutes it takes to write this. I don’t even know if there should be a line.

[quote]
Again, someone please tell me, why do some people want to prevent athletes from being and doing the best they can?

Because most people want to leave the competition to the athletes, not the scientists. [/quote]

Yet, people fell in love with baseball all over again in 1998. Most people just want to see good competition and a good sports story.

53

[quote]Professor X wrote:
anonym wrote:

In regards to the Lasik argument - it is a corrective surgery. It corrects a deficiency in vision - it doesn’t give people the ability to see farther than human beings are necessarily capable of naturally.

Uhm, people who run really fast and break records are running FASTER than humans “are necessarily capable of naturally.” That is what makes them RECORD BREAKING FEATS. Therefore, we have never been against people doing something better than most can…until this one topic.[/quote]

It is still a human achievement, though. A record broken while staying within the confines of our physiology.

I’m sorry, it’s one of those days for me, and I’m just not seeing what you’re getting at - does being able to run faster than anyone else on the planet and break a record take away from the idea that you are still, at the physiological level, just another human?

54

[quote]tedro wrote:
Science is not used to advance all aspects of sports. Football can be played at a much higher speed on astro-turf, yet more and more fields are going to grass or field-turf. Baseball’s fly much farther off of aluminum bats.

Golf has all sorts of rules regulating it’s equipment. Track has certain standards regarding the levelness of the surface. We’d see a lot of records if they could run downhill. There are many limitations placed on sports by the governing bodies besides those placed on the body.[/quote]

  1. Metal woods - Golf

  2. Multiple dimple patterns - Golf

  3. Aerodynamic helmets - cycling

  4. Tommy John surgery - baseball

  5. Lighter, stronger helmets and pads - football

  6. Carbon Fiber vaulting poles - track

  7. Vastly improved shoe design - all sports

Nope - science has not been used to enhance performance. Not even a little.

You seem to think that it is being said that we should scrap all the rules. No one is saying that. The slope is not nearly as slippery as you fear it to be.

55

I still don�??t see how BBers that are juicing can say bad things about synthol and implants. How about calf implants in BBing to make up for bad genetics?

56

[quote]Professor X wrote:
anonym wrote:

In regards to the Lasik argument - it is a corrective surgery. It corrects a deficiency in vision - it doesn’t give people the ability to see farther than human beings are necessarily capable of naturally.

Uhm, people who run really fast and break records are running FASTER than humans “are necessarily capable of naturally.” That is what makes them RECORD BREAKING FEATS. Therefore, we have never been against people doing something better than most can…until this one topic.[/quote]

No. They’re running faster than was is run normally. If they’re natural, then they’re running fast natural, so how can they run faster than natural?

57

[quote]anonym wrote:
Professor X wrote:
anonym wrote:

In regards to the Lasik argument - it is a corrective surgery. It corrects a deficiency in vision - it doesn’t give people the ability to see farther than human beings are necessarily capable of naturally.

Uhm, people who run really fast and break records are running FASTER than humans “are necessarily capable of naturally.” That is what makes them RECORD BREAKING FEATS. Therefore, we have never been against people doing something better than most can…until this one topic.

It is still a human achievement, though. A record broken while staying within the confines of our physiology.

I’m sorry, it’s one of those days for me, and I’m just not seeing what you’re getting at - does being able to run faster than anyone else on the planet and break a record take away from the idea that you are still, at the physiological level, just another human?[/quote]

Why do you think someone using anabolics is somehow performing at a level that is not “physiological”?

Think about it, would a human from 3,000 years ago have the same advances in diet and training that we do today? Wouldn’t we technically be able to perform at greater levels than humans in past eras simply because of WHEN we were born?

Why does this one topic keep people from seeing this?

Enhancement is our future. It always has been.

58

[quote]rainjack wrote:
tedro wrote:
Science is not used to advance all aspects of sports. Football can be played at a much higher speed on astro-turf, yet more and more fields are going to grass or field-turf. Baseball’s fly much farther off of aluminum bats.

Golf has all sorts of rules regulating it’s equipment. Track has certain standards regarding the levelness of the surface. We’d see a lot of records if they could run downhill. There are many limitations placed on sports by the governing bodies besides those placed on the body.

  1. Metal woods - Golf

  2. Multiple dimple patterns - Golf

  3. Aerodynamic helmets - cycling

  4. Tommy John surgery - baseball

  5. Lighter, stronger helmets and pads - football

  6. Carbon Fiber vaulting poles - track

  7. Vastly improved shoe design - all sports

Nope - science has not been used to enhance performance. Not even a little.

You seem to think that it is being said that we should scrap all the rules. No one is saying that. The slope is not nearly as slippery as you fear it to be.

[/quote]

So then where does one draw the line? Body modification?

59

[quote]tedro wrote:

You keep accusing me of being hypocritical, yet you are unable to show why. You accuse me of making arbitrary points with no objective point, yet you call me a hypocrite with no objective reasoning as to why.

It’s kind of ironic.[/quote]

Just because you can’t grasp the concept does not mean I have not done my part to show you.

Maybe this will help the light bulb go on: instead of hypocritical, let’s just say you have a very subjective double standard?

There should be no line beyond the rules of the game/ sport in question. People like you who stand in the middle to protect misconceived notion of crossing a line are no different than the idiots who brought the games back 115, or however many years ago and wanted to keep undesirables out by claiming the games are for amateurs.

60

[quote]malonetd wrote:
It brings better officiating through artificial means. Just like this conversation is about – improving sports through artificial means. It fits right in.
[/quote]

It in no way increases the athletic ability of the athletes. It improves the fairness through artificial means. Replay would be better compared to drug testing.

This is debatable, and impossible to improve either way, so don’t try to argue it:
I don’t think drug use is near as widespread as many believe, so I would honestly so drug testing is doing a pretty good job at leveling the playing field. Regardless, simply because a rule is difficult to enforce is poor reasoning to scrap it.

How many holding penalties go uncalled in your average football game? How many sexual predators get away with crimes every day?

[quote]
I’m not going to even attempt to draw a line right now It would take a lot more thought than the couple minutes it takes to write this. I don’t even know if there should be a line.

Yet, people fell in love with baseball all over again in 1998. Most people just want to see good competition and a good sports story.[/quote]

The media wasn’t near as caught up on drug use in 1998 as it is now. How supportive are people of McGuire and Sosa today compared to then?