[quote]jehovasfitness 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.
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?[/quote]
You missed the point. He claimed Lasix doesn’t give someone the ability to see “unnaturally far”…but there ARE humans who can see better than nearly all humans.
Until a record is broken, there are no humans who have done it before. Therefore, someone claiming that we should not allow abilities that are not seen “naturally” should also not want any more records to be broken since most humans can not do such things.
What most people can do should not have a say in what is allowed in sports testing who can be the best.
[quote]tedro wrote:
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.[/quote]
You know what, I don’t think it’s as widespread as some believe either. Which, in a way, is why I think it’s less of a big deal to allow steroids. I think a lot of natural athletes would still be able to compete, especially in team sports.
[quote]
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 don’t want to scrap it because it’s difficult to enforce. I want to scrap it to see better athletes and a higher level of competition.
[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.
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?[/quote]
I think that’s exactly why people are less supportive of McGwire and Sosa – because the media stuck its big, sensationalizing, steroid-hating head in there. I feel bad for McGwire and Sosa.
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. Not picking a side, just food for thought.
regardless, I think the article was very good.[/quote]
If a person is basing their decisions off of a health perspective, they’ll never be an elite level athlete. Sports, at the highest level, are not healthy for people. If you’re worried about health more than doing everything you can to win, you’re never going to be one of the best, and competitive sports aren’t for you.
Nope - science has not been used to enhance performance. Not even a little.
[/quote]
Show me where I denied that science has been used to enhance performance. The argument I have made it against external means of enhancing force production. The arguments I have set forth easily explain the permittance of everything in your little list.
The only reference to a slippery slope I made was to malonetd’s arguments that there should be no regulations holding people back from wanting to be the best. Quit with the strawmen.
Do you have anything to actually contradict my arguments? Are you against my force production stance? Why? You have failed to come up with any reasonable respone, or anything that even remotely discredits my statements, you have only stuck to your hypocrisy claim with no reasoning.
Well crap, I thought I was really going to get an argument with that one. No one wants to touch that one huh? Me equating synthol and implants in BBing to the performance enhancement argument�?� no takers huh? Professor X�?�…
[quote]rainjack wrote:
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?
[/quote]
There is no double standard! I have set a rule, that is pretty clear. If the equipment or enhancement is on one side, it’s ok. If it’s on the other, it’s not.
If you think hard enough you can probably come up with some equipment that would fall on the same side as steroids, and therefore I would be against that equipment. I already gave you one. Again, this is not a standard.
There will, and must, always be lines. Comparing a line that prevents equipment that increases the maximum possible force production of an individual with excluding pros from the Olympics is nonsensical.
It brings better officiating through artificial means. Just like this conversation is about – improving sports through artificial means. It fits right in.
[/quote]
No the conversation was about improving the body to be able to compete in sports. It got twisted into imporoving sports through artificial means by steroid heads(rainjack), in order to back an argument.
On what way is this? Are you saying if steroids were legal it would be level? That if EVERYBODY is using steroids, someone won’t go looking for another chemical edge?
The line has been drawn for you, and others. Don’t use steroids. If you do it’s cheating. The IOC’s job isn’t to study steriods, tell you if it’s bad for you, or determine your life expectancy of it.
It’s an attempt to try and have guide lines, and people just want to break the rules because they want to win so bad. If you want to participate in the Olympics follow the rules, if you don’t go have a steroid olympics. They already have the paralympics.
[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.[/quote] Until they felt betrayed by roids.
They have bodybuilding and natural bodybuilding competitions. Yet there are still people who try to take steriods then compete in the natural, lets face it people just want to cheat. Then they get mad when they get caught.
Same with the olympics, everybody knows the rules and everybody tries to get around it. Just because someone gets caught doesn’t mean they should go around changing the rules.
Nope - science has not been used to enhance performance. Not even a little.
Show me where I denied that science has been used to enhance performance. The argument I have made it against external means of enhancing force production. The arguments I have set forth easily explain the permittance of everything in your little list.[/quote]
tedro wrote:
Science is not used to advance all aspects of sports.
Here is what you said. I will make the list longer to show that science has, in fact, changed all aspects of sports if you need me to. I was hoping you could see what I was getting at without having to go list every scientific improvement in every sport.
[quote]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.
The only reference to a slippery slope I made was to malonetd’s arguments that there should be no regulations holding people back from wanting to be the best. Quit with the strawmen.[/quote]
You need to go back and learn the definition of a strawman. I am commenting only on your words. I have added nothing. No strawman. At least not on this side.
My points are the same as they have been been. Your line drawing is arbitrary at the very least. “It’s okay to improve equipment - but leave the athlete alone”.
There should be no line. You say there is a difference between improved performance through science in the middle and on the backside, and improved performance on the front side. If you support improved performance on one end, it is hypocritical to be against it on the other.
Very highly subjective line drawing - in lieu of “hypocrisy”, since you have trouble understanding that word as it applies to your stance here.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Yes, equipment can be improved.
Yes, there are limitations set on equipment.
Yes, the human body can be improved.
Yes, there are limitations on the human body.
Where’s the argument here? I really don’t see how RJ you’re saying there is one.
There are lines established with equipment.
There are line established with the human body.[/quote]
The only lines established with the human body are based on what is seen in majority in most people. Until records are broken, those speeds are UNnatural since they do not occur in nature beforehand. That alone makes this desire for all “natural” athletes ridiculous and some self serving attempt at enforcing “morals”.
[quote]rainjack wrote: tedro wrote:
Science is not used to advance all aspects of sports.
Here is what you said. I will make the list longer to show that science has, in fact, changed all aspects of sports if you need me to. I was hoping you could see what I was getting at without having to go list every scientific improvement in every sport.
[/quote] tedro wrote:
Science is not used to advance all aspects of sports.
You are putting the emphasis on the wrong word. Science is obviously used to advance some aspects of sports, but not [b]all[/b] of them. Also, you cannot credit science for all the changes we have seen in sports over the years, that would be absurd.
Science has also been used to hold back advancement in many sports. Golf is the easiest example. Extensive testing is done on all new equipment to make sure it does not surpass certain weight and velocity requirements that are set arbitrarily by the USGA.
That would be a strawman right there. I never said that, nor did I attempt to make that point.
So we can cut off our legs for wrestling or equestrian? Can we use mechanical legs? What about that bionic eye? If you have no line, then in time sports as we know it will truly turn into a science competition. This is where I claim a slippery slope.
Except the subjectiveness is minimal. I laid out a pretty clear line, and it is easy to determine which side a given enhancement falls on that line, it is you that seems to be having trouble applying the term hypocrisy.
There are many other arguments against steroids in sports, I chose to argue this one as it is the most subjective.
Say a random athlete who isn’t on steriods is physically capable of producing a force of 100 (arbitrary number with no units). Due to the inefficiency of his equipment, some of the force is lost, and only 80 force is actually applied.
So, the athlete goes out and gets better equipment. The better equipment transfers the force better, and 90 force gets applied.
A different athlete has the same problem, he can exert 100 force, but 20 is lost by his equipment. Instead of getting better equipment he uses steriods, enabling to physically exert 110 force. His equipment loses 20, and 90 force gets applied.
Both athletes can naturally exert the same force, and each one used an enhancment to get better. The end result is the same.
Granted, it oversimplifies the effects of equipment and AAS, but the principle is sound. Improvements in technology and improvements in ‘supplementation’ both make athletes better.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
Yes, equipment can be improved.
Yes, there are limitations set on equipment.
Yes, the human body can be improved.
Yes, there are limitations on the human body.
Where’s the argument here? I really don’t see how RJ you’re saying there is one.
There are lines established with equipment.
There are line established with the human body.
The only lines established with the human body are based on what is seen in majority in most people. Until records are broken, those speeds are UNnatural since they do not occur in nature beforehand. That alone makes this desire for all “natural” athletes ridiculous and some self serving attempt at enforcing “morals”.
[/quote]
Sorry, I meant lines as far as what you can supplement with. Not lines as in what the body is capable of.
It brings better officiating through artificial means. Just like this conversation is about – improving sports through artificial means. It fits right in.
No the conversation was about improving the body to be able to compete in sports. It got twisted into imporoving sports through artificial means by steroid heads(rainjack), in order to back an argument.[/quote]
What the hell are you saying? Rainjack didn’t bring up steroids. The article in the original post did. Did you even read it?
[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.
On what way is this? Are you saying if steroids were legal it would be level? That if EVERYBODY is using steroids, someone won’t go looking for another chemical edge? [/quote]
Again, I think you’re confused. The only way to make a truly level playing field is to allow anything. You’re free to pursue whatever edge you wish.[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.
The line has been drawn for you, and others. Don’t use steroids. If you do it’s cheating. The IOC’s job isn’t to study steriods, tell you if it’s bad for you, or determine your life expectancy of it.
It’s an attempt to try and have guide lines, and people just want to break the rules because they want to win so bad. If you want to participate in the Olympics follow the rules, if you don’t go have a steroid olympics. They already have the paralympics.[/quote]
And by having these rules, the IOC is failing at fielding the greatest athletes. That’s my point. Just like the Olympics is no longer about amatuers, I think it should no longer be about “natural.”
[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. Until they felt betrayed by roids.[/quote]
I don’t think that many people “felt betrayed.” Most people have no opinion. The media says it’s bad, so the sheeple think it’s bad. To anyone with a brain, it wasn’t a mystery that chemical was probably involved.
It’s not about changing the rules because people break them. It’s about creating a competition of the best athletes.
I really don’t see what people’s argument is here. So the Olympics have rules – great. And I agree, if you get caught breaking the rules, you should bu penalized. That’s not my argument.
Times have changed. People and science have evolved. Why do people fight this? Let’s see the best athletes out there.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Well crap, I thought I was really going to get an argument with that one. No one wants to touch that one huh? Me equating synthol and implants in BBing to the performance enhancement argument�?� no takers huh? Professor X�?�…[/quote]
Personally, I think Bodybuilding is about aesthetics. If you can find a way of making synthol look good, then go for it.
EDIT: Although, that said the sport is called “bodybuilding”. Synthol isn’t building a body, and neither is implants.
[quote]lit-tle-bear wrote:
The problem with the “force production stance”
Here’s my take on why it doesn’t make sense.
Say a random athlete who isn’t on steriods is physically capable of producing a force of 100 (arbitrary number with no units). Due to the inefficiency of his equipment, some of the force is lost, and only 80 force is actually applied.
So, the athlete goes out and gets better equipment. The better equipment transfers the force better, and 90 force gets applied.
A different athlete has the same problem, he can exert 100 force, but 20 is lost by his equipment. Instead of getting better equipment he uses steriods, enabling to physically exert 110 force. His equipment loses 20, and 90 force gets applied.
Both athletes can naturally exert the same force, and each one used an enhancment to get better. The end result is the same.
Granted, it oversimplifies the effects of equipment and AAS, but the principle is sound. Improvements in technology and improvements in ‘supplementation’ both make athletes better.[/quote]
Finally. Somebody actually addressed the argument.
You slipped up a bit in your reasoning though. Both athletes are not naturally exerting the same force anymore. You said yourself athlete B is exerting 110 force, while A is still at 100.
B is still exerting the force naturally, he just used artificial means to get there, and he is now exerting more force than his body would normally be physically capable of. The end result may be the same, but the methodology of getting there is radically different.