Should performance enhancing substances be allowed in professional sports?

Great Debates
41

[quote=“villa, post:35, topic:540294”]

But blood doping is banned. And cortizone isn’t.[.QUOTE]
And if I were attempting to defend blood doping, that objection might have some merit. I did not, though.

As for cortizone, I’ve already explained that you need a prescription for that stuff.

As I’ve already explained more than once, not all drugs are equal. You can’t simply say, “Well, these two drugs can both be dangerous; therefore, they should be treated in exactly the same way.” That kind of logic doesn’t wash.

Why shouldn’t steroid use be treated the same way as cortizone use? Well, first of all, cortizone is a steroid, so that’s not an accurate dichotomy. If you want though, we can distinguish cortizone from the typical anabolic steroids that athletes might use.

Why treat them differently? For one thing, cortizone haslegitimate medical applications for the treatment of injuries. In a manner of speaking, this is “performance-enhancing,” but only in the sense that it allows you to recover from an injury more quickly. Obviously, that is vastly different from the use of performance-enhancing anabolic steroids, in which the objective is to gain strength more quickly and using less effort.

If you want to argue that anabolic steroids should be allowed, then make your case – but don’t point to cortizone as a precedent. Cortizone requires a medical prescription and should only be used as part of a therapeutic regime. The reasons behind its usage are entirely different from those of anabolic steroids.

42

How many non-over the counter mental improvement drugs are there? Can I still buy Dexedrine in the chemist’s?

How much R+D has been dedicated to mental enhancement drugs by the big pharmacists?

43

PEDS are artificial ways to enhance performance but we already have artificial things that do that.

Sports medicine is so advanced, athletes now (at least some of them) have access to many things that athletes of a different era did not have. Whether that involves suppliments or prescription medication that enhances the efficiency of workouts or helps hand-eye coordination, dexterity and stamina, blood platelet therapy that turns around healing at an exponentially faster rate, and surgeries which heal and prolong careers that once would have ended. Those are advantages based on technology.

All of these are advantages that a modern athlete might have - but even they are restricted somewhat. Someone who is at a smaller college playing a second-tier sport will not have the same advantages as a professional athlete playing a major sport. Those are advantages based on economics and accessibility.

HGH or steroids are probably easier for more athletes to get compared to other things which assist an athlete in training or performing.

One major difference is they have risks associated with them however athletes already do things which involve risks to their long-term health. Some players such as Tiki Barber of the Giants walk away from the game because they see other players who now have trouble walking at all after too many years of abuse on the body. Even athletes who participated in non-contact sports have health problems later in life brought about by intense training and a carry-over affect from years of injuries adding up.

PEDs are not cigarettes in the '50s with the health risks marginalized or unknown and unpublicized. Just as someone lighting up a Marboro today does so with full knowledge of the health risks, an athlete knows the risks. These risks are actually exaserbated since a lot of times, the steroids and those dispensing them do so in an “underground” fashion which history shows makes things more likely to be less optimal.

Plus we already have athletes who make the choice to take a shot which will allow them to play in pain. There have been cases athletes who allowed for fingers to be amputated in order to finish a game or season, even in college. Athletes sacrificing their bodies in such a way might be found nuts to many, but to a large group, it shows amazing commitment to a cause and goal and is actually respected and revered.

As for “thinking of the children,” well, adults do a lot of things that kids shouldn’t emulate. I don’t think that a professional athlete should be concerned about how a victory champagne shower and cigar will look to a kid; why should we care about something that goes on without cameras rolling between a doctor, trainer and athlete?

I actually agree with the premise of the OP - after all why is one scientific advance good while another is bad? Why is microfracture surgery a good alternative to a athlete who can afford it or who playes in a high-profile sport in a high-profile arena?

I am not against PEDs in sports.

44

Dexedrine is an amphetamine; if it’s banned, it’s because amphetamines are banned, not because there’s a move to delegitimize “mental improvement drugs.”

And what have they found?

Based on your earlier quote you think there’s a conspiracy to ban mental improvement drugs; hence my challenge: name one.

45

No disrespect to one of the greatest of all time, but Nog won the interim title by choking Tim Sylvia after getting beat up by him for 3 rounds, and he never defended it.

Shogun I’ll give you-- he’s back. But he took a couple embarassing detours on the way back after coming to the US.

A. Silva, like I said, became great in the US. He was good in other leagues but his career took off here. I don’t even think it’s fair to call him a Pride fighter.

Penn, St. Pierre, and Franklin are from that era and still world class. Arlovski has had a shit year but I wouldn’t put it past him to make a comeback. He’s only about 30 or 31. It’s a pretty big longshot, but Liddell could make one more run at it. They say power is the last thing to go.

46

After winning the interim title, Nog then beat Couture, his closest UFC competitor in terms of age/experience. And don’t forget that Fedor, a Pride HW, is still the consensus world’s best HW (and some think P4P champ).

You say Franklin is from that era and good. Didn’t he fight W. Silva recently? I forget who won, but it was close either way; if you think Franklin is still good, then you’ve also got to give credit to W. Silva.

Pride only had LHW/HW titles, and the holders of those titles (and the runners-up) are: 1) the consensus best in the world (Fedor), 2) a UFC interim HW champ (Nog), 3) the UFC LHW champ (Shogun), and 4) #4 LHW in the world (Rampage). That’s a good showing.

I’ll give you Penn and GSP, but my point stands; Pride fighters are still competitive today.

47

Personally, I don’t think so. I’m not wow’d when Superman flies around on wires against a green screen, I’m far more impressed when a martial artist performs a triple kick in midair without assistance.

If PED’s were allowed, what’s the point of watching it? I could see far greater feats on Saturday morning cartoons.

48

Blood doping is counted as a performance enhancing substance. The fact it is banned seems to run against the ieda this is based on protection of the athlete. Unless there is something damaging about it which I don’t know (and I am willing to be educated here).

Isn’t that saying cortizone is OK because cortizone is OK? Don’t you also need a prescription for anabolic steroids?

I know you have explained it twice. But it doesn’t answer what I am saying. The difference I am trying to look at is between cortizone as part of a medical regimen, supervised by a doctor, to enable swifter recovery from injury and less missed training and anabolic steroids as part of a medical regimen, supervised by a doctor, to enable swifter recovery from injury and less missed training (which is the use that MLB pitchers claimed for them). I don’t see why one is permitted and the other isn’t.

Now, will doctors be found to prescribe/supervise things they shouldn’t - absolutely. But I am sure that happens now with permitted, dangerous, performance enhancing drugs.

49

Shoulda had a drink of something with caffeine. It might have enhanced your performance.

:smiley:

50

Again, if I were attempting to defend blood doping, your objection would have some merit. As I have already emphasized though, I was not.

I think you’re deliberately missing the point. Cortizone is NOT okay per se. It’s use for strictly medicinal purposes, with a physician’s prescription and supervision, is justifiable. That makes it completely different from the practice of juicing up with anabolic steroids.

If somebody has a prescription for anabolic steroids and uses it for strictly medicinal purposes, then I would not have a problem with that. Once again though, that is completely different from using anabolic steroids for their “performance enhancing” effects. You insist on equating the two situations, even though they are not comparable.

I already explained why. Our exchange was as follows:

So I repeat: I don’t object to athletes using medical means in order to help them recover from injuries. This is entirely different from using illicit pharmaceuticals for their performance-enhancing qualities. I think you know that already.

51

This is from Wiki, so take it for what it is worth -

I doubt the prohibition on blood doping is based on this, however. As mentioned, cortical steroids are thought of as medical treatment - if they are given to healthy athletes to improve performance, I am not aware of it. But blood doping is not used to treat any other medical condition, as far as I am aware.

FWIW, I don’t see why blood doping is prohibited. The side effects don’t seem to be as severe as they can be with anabolic steroids, and there is not the same temptation to increase the dose (absent blood building drug administration).

Regards,
Shodan

52

Thanks - I assumed there must be some problem with it but had no idea what. it doesn’t seem like the downside is that severe.