There have been quite a few athletes caught using ergogenic drugs in this Olympic. These have been athletes from countries whose doctors apparently don’t have the sophistication of other countries, like us. I wonder how many of the athletes take performance enhancing drugs. My guess is over 95%.
Now, what’s the difference between taking a performance enhancing drug and a swimmer wearing a bodysuit? In both cases, the athlete is getting an extra edge over those who don’t. Should the new bodysuits be banned?
OK you say. They all could wear bodysuits. Well, likewise they all could take drugs.
Then, what’s the difference between an athlete doping with erythropoietin (EPO) which stimulates the production of red blood cells and one training at altitudes for weeks, which also stimulates the production of red blood cells? For that matter, should we ban the Kenyans and Ethopians who live and train at 10,000 feet because they have an unfair advantage – living at heights which increases their RBCs?
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Five months, one week, four days, 12 hours, 39 minutes and 47 seconds.
6581 cigarettes not smoked, saving $822.64.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 1 day, 20 hours, 25 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!) **
In my mind , there’s very little difference between going to altitude and doping with EPO. So far as I know, the hazards of EPO use lie in the effect, just as with altitude training - the hazards being those associated with true polycythemia.
Still, I think its use ought to be banned. It’s far easier to ban performance-enhancing drugs in toto than to pick and choose. I’m firmly on the fence, however, when it comes to “blood doping”.
The suits are also a tricky issue. If you ban the suits, shouldn’t all runners in a race then wear the same shoe, to prevent any advantage conferred by the equipment? What about bikes, or poles?
I guess as long as you aren’t going to require they swim naked, let them wear whatever they want. Sure, it’s an advantage, but so is having better training equipment, not having to work and train, having better coaches…There is only so much one can do to “level the playing field”.
Satan’s right on the money. If you allow drugs, the winner will be the individual with greatest disregard for his own long-term health. That’s just not good policy.
The bodysuit (which I think is really cool, incidentally) is just a piece of equipment, rather like developing a better material for pole-vaulting poles. I don’t see anything wrong with advancing equipment technology.
Competitive edges come in many forms. The competition doesn’t take place soley on the field, or in the pool, etc.
You are trying to draw a line, and whenever you do that, endless debate will ensue. However, don’t question the validity of things near the line by comparing them to things CLEARLY over the line.
Drugs: Drugs (peformance enhancing) are clearly over the line. You can ban X,Y,and Z drugs and test for them. The good/bad effects have been documented and the medical community has deemed the long term effects such that they should be banned.
Training: Training conditions, such as at high altitudes, are issues near the line, but are probably things you can’t control with rules. Skip it.
Equipment: Forget it. Some equipment will give improved performance, but now you have to consider all the equipment in all the games. To many socio-economic factors. Skip it.
Level Playing Field: Someone once said to me, “Whoever told you that life is fair has terribly misinformed you. Life is NOT fair. Get over it” I believe this was one of the great wisdoms I learned in Catholic school.
Olympics bring socio-economic issues to the forefront: Before the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of borders and trade, Soviet Hockey players had every piece of equipment that any Canadien or American could buy. No other Soviet could buy anything like they had, but they knew what they had to do to win. In a way, it’s sort of symbolic. They won the medals, but wearing our equipment was a sign of the problems within their country. I believe they would have traded all their medals for the chance to be free.
( Anthem plays in background…)
One more issue regarding the bodysuits. Having swum competitively for many years, if you think wearing a heavy parka and wool mittens makes you swim faster, you will try it. A few years ago a woman swam butterfly events in a bikini. She got her lifetime best, but the fad quickly died. At the Olympic level the psychological effect may be the difference between second and eighth. If you think you are faster, you are faster.
And unless you live in the Netherlands odds are you can find a training location at some elevation higher than the performance arena (the exception being the Mexico City games). But as has already been said, it’s a whole lot easier to ban everything than pick and choose.
The results are the same. An athlete has an unfair advantage without earning it. I think body suits should be banned.
That seems rather silly. An athlete who takes the time to train at a higher altitude is earning the extra cells. One who simply takes the drug isn’t earning anything. Granted maybe in this case the athlete from a higher altitude has an advantage. I guess sometimes that’s how things work.
Actually, that’s not quite true. Merely going to altitude (and staying there for a few weeks) will boost your red cell count. In general, people who live in Boulder have a higher hematocrit than people who live in Tampa. It requires no further effort or commitment than sitting on a couch. Hence, why I’m on the fence regarding blood doping.
As I understand it, a bodysuit is very light weight. It is worn because it’s aerodynamic, the same reason that men used to shave all the hairs off their body.
I agree that equipment is a separate matter. But I agree with the last post, that one who trains at high altitudes does not earn his extra rbc’s any more than one who doesn’t. EPO does not have serious adverse effects, other than that noted by a prior poster: possible polycythemia, and I assume that would dissipate once it is no longer taken. So I rule out the side effects from performance enhancing drugs as a reason for banning all such drugs. Sure, there are some, like the testosterone-like drugs, such as androstenedione, that have serious side effects, but many don’t. There’s even talk about banning caffeine over a certain amount (maybe that’s already been done; I don’t recall). Caffeine gives an added advantage in that it frees fatty acids for energy purposes. So what do you do? Ban coffee?
I agree that dangerous drugs, like androstenedione, must be prohibited. But what about those that don’t have serious adverse effects?
Wasn’t there a story going around a few years ago about Chinese swimmers putting helium up their asses to make them more buoyant? It may be a UL, but it shows the lenghts people will go to in order to win.
Yes, caffine is banned, above 12 mics/ml. I heard tales (upcoming pun intended) of caffine suppositories being used in cycling. A list of banned substances, and lots more on doping policy, can be found here.
I’m with you in theory on the EPO issue. Using it ia akin to going to altitude (an involves the same amount of effort to achieve the effect - none). But if you’re going to ban performance-enhancing drugs…you should ban all performance-enhancing drugs. So I agree with banning it in practice. Not because of potential side effects, or because of the specific advantage this gives (same as sitting on a couch in Boulder), but because it’s a drug.
I’d be interested to hear what folk’s thoughts are on blood doping. If going to altitude when one normally lives at sea level (say a Dutch athlete) for the specific benefit that altitude-induced polycyhemia confers is ok, why not blood doping? I just don’t see the difference, except that one is putting something into one’s body.
Oops, meant to mention that the link is from the IPC - Int’l Paralympic Committee (first site I found with the IOC list), so policies there may not jibe with IOC (IPC apparently does not ban MJ, I believe IOC does - thinking Canadian snowboarder).
I think they should create a new Olympics with none of these restrictions, maybe held on odd-numbered years. It would be highly interesting to see what kinds of records would be set if these restrictions were removed.
I think I recall reading that a hypothetical question was posed to a group of Olympic athletes-it went sort like this: if there was a drug that (if you took it) would guarantee you a GOLD medal (but shorten your life by 20 years)would you take it?
I believe the majority of those polled would choose the medal over 20 years of life! It si off topic, but having an olympic medal-what does it do for you in later life?
Uh, no…we don’t have the right altitude - which is why we use EPO.
Ba-Dum-Bum
Marc
Yeah, they run around more than the average Joe, but the vast majority of the increase in RBSs is merely due to being at altitude - maybe all the increase. Say I’ve trained hard at sea level, and in my “wind down” cycle prior to competition I go to altitude and just “keep my edge”. I’ll get much the same benefits as training at altitude would give me. That’s why blood doping was popular among distance runners.