Apropos of all the doping allegations flying around in sports, got me thinking - just how much difference do/would these banned substances make?
Say, if in an alternate universe the Olympics had no banned substances, drugs or techniques at all, it was just about the results. Would the difference be immediately obvious and if so to what extent?
Originally I was wondering how much banned substances would affect times in the running, but might as well throw it open to other events too.
Banning doping doesn’t necessarily change winners and losers, but it should make participating in the sport healthier. It’s bad for all of us if people have to damage themselves to have a real chance in a profession.
As a first approximation to the question “how much difference” look at those athletes that have been banned for drug use, especially those that won. The difficulty being that there is a significant suspicion in many fields that some of those they beat were probably not clean either.
The trouble with opening up competition to all substances is that it becomes economically viable to start commercial level research into a new generation of drugs specifically useful for sports. Right now enhancing drugs are redirections of drugs developed for other purposes. (I can such a situation becoming quite messy - a drug could add significant performance margin - but with major long term damage to the body. Would such a drug be licensed in many countries? What happens when it is available legally in some but not other?)
But, if drugs were allowed, it is hard to place bounds on the effect. Runners that shave a couple of seconds from the 100m, and then collapse, living their remaining (short) life as cripples with irreparable damage to all their muscle cells. You would want to look at the theoretical limits to performance in many sports.
I think this is better suited to the Game Room.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I think the main problem with opening up the playing field to all drugs is, it turns each event into less of a test of athletic skill and more into a test of which country can produce the most effective drugs.
Why, yes, that is more or less what you just said.
What about surgical enhancements? For example if ones eyesight is not so good they can get lasik. What if when they are repairing say a damaged muscle or tendon they alter it to perform even better than the original?
One difficulty with the posts so far is that they answer what would happen if drugs were allowed, whereas the OP asked what would be the result(s) sans drugs.
Isn’t that what the OP asked? What would be the result(s) avec drugs.
Oh I see now you are reading “had no banned substances, drugs or techniques at all” as meaning none were used. I think he means they were used but not banned.
Sorry guys, my bad wording there, I meant it as in there were no bans on any substances, that anything goes in other words.
I’d bring a motorcycle and win all the running events.
In 1979 Tom Sullivan wrote a fine science fiction story along these lines, “The Mickey Mouse Olympics”. It’s probably been thirty years since I read it, and it still jumped to mind when I read the OP.
Saturday Night Live also addressed this question back in 1988.
[spoiler]The All-Drug Olympics
Spoilered for cartoonish gore.[/spoiler]