Sports have tons of rules that seem pretty arbitrary except that they establish a consistent set of rules that everyone who wants to play that particular game agree to abide by. Why not change any of them because a few players can gain an advantage? Seems to me if you want to play a game by a different set of rules you go start a new game with other who want to play by those rules as well.
Most or all sports have a no-doping rule, it is as simple as that. If a number of players want to play with a different set of rules then they should start their own league, look for backers, sell advertising, whatever. Compete only against members of the same league. I’m fine with that - put it on the label and let the athletes, advertisers and viewers decide what version of the sport they want to follow. Sucks for the guys who decide to do it and die young, but this way athletes are not forced to dope in order to play.
What problem are you trying to solve by making PEDs legal? It would seem part of your argument is that it would level the playing field. But the playing field can never be level. PEDs will benefit some more than others. You haven’t leveled the playing field by making PEDs legal. All you’ve done is tilted it in a different way.
Do you think the USPGA should have rules on the clubs the players get to use? Square grooves were made illegal. Did you agree with that? Do you think Casey Martin should be allowed to use a cart? Should I be allowed fake hitting my partner with a club just as he is swinging so I can distract him? There are rules in all sports to “level the playing field.” They may make it easier for some to win than others, but regardless of what you do someone will benefit from the new rules.
Your second argument seems to be that even if PEDs are causing long term health issues, there are already long term health issues so what is the big deal if we do more. This boils down to saying that unless all risks can be prevented, don’t bother trying to prevent any of them. If players get bigger, faster and stronger it will only make present injuries even worse. Whether or not PEDs cause long term health issues is, at best, unclear. But it cannot be argued that NOT taking them is less risky. Therefore, the prudent thing to do at this time is disallow them. The present lawsuits about concussions in the NFL shows that owners very likely will be held responsible for the future health of the players. Therefore, they need to err on the side of caution.
Finally, where would your argument in favor of PEDs end? Eventually we might get to a point where artificial limbs will outperform natural ones. Should athletes then be allowed artificial limbs? It really wouldn’t be too inconceivable that a leg amputee ends up with motorized legs. Now put them on a bike and guess what? They can not outperform Lance Armstrong in his best days. Should that be legal?
Professional sports should be allowed to create any arbitrary rules they want to, including outlawing doping. I just don’t find any arguments against it persuasive. It’s my personal opinion that the gray zones around doping are so gray that it becomes a farce to decide what is doping and what is not, and what is enforceable…
It can, in fact, be argued that many banned substances–anabolic steroids for example–might make sports safer by promoting healing. But I understand the general point. As I mentioned above, I think doping is a relatively trivial danger compared with many sports themselves, and so the fact that it is “dangerous” does not seem to me to be a powerful argument against it.
Casey Martin should not be allowed to use a golf cart unless all players are allowed to use a golf cart. If motorized limbs are alllowed, they should be allowed for all, so that if some guy wants to whack off his leg and get a better, motorized one, he can.
There are lots of things that can be argued, some have more merit than others. Do you really believe that the taking of anabolic steroids for years and years would promote a better, healthier athlete in the long run?
I don’t think you’ll find many people who will agree with you that steroids and PEDs in general represent a “trivial” danger to athletes. This isn’t a relative risk we are talking about. There are far worse injuries that can result from sports, and possibly do as a result of extended playing, but that doesn’t mean that every other less dangerous risk should be tolerated. Players in the NFL will be required to wear thigh pads. According to you, that shouldn’t be a rule the NFL should make since thigh and knee injuries are relatively trivial compared with the brain injuries they suffer now.
The argument about enforceability is an old one. There is no doubt the dopers will stay ahead of the testing for a long time to come. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be outlawed. I won’t rehash that here. There have been lots of threads on that topic already.
There is definitely a gray area around what is and isn’t allowed. But then it is up to the individual sports and governing bodies to navigate. It doesn’t mean that just because we can’t draw a line and say that everything on this side is fine and everything on that side is not that things WAY on the other side of the line should be allowed.
I still haven’t seen what you are trying to fix by allowing PED use. To eliminate gray areas? It won’t. People will continue to find ways to push the limits of the rules because the stakes are so high. Someone once joked that in baseball they should move all the bases back 3 feet to eliminate all the close plays. Eliminating PEDs would be equivalent.
You said Casey Martin should be allowed a cart if everyone else is and that people should be allowed motorized limbs if everyone else is. So what do you see as inherently unfair with the rules with regards to PEDs? The same rules are being applied to everyone. Just like a cart for a disabled golfer or motorize legs for a biker aren’t allowed because those are the rules, PEDs aren’t allowed for everyone. There just is no compelling reason to make them legal.
While today’s PEDs may not be dangerous enough for you, just think what risks athletes would be willing to take if ANYTHING was allowed. We would have people dying in droves for a chance at glory. Are you really willing to let athletes take anything and everything?
Professional athletes? Absolutely. I am not their mommy.
Sports in general are injuring people in droves (see the NEISS link above) and killing more than a handful.
While I don’t think they’d be dying in droves, it should be their choice to do so.
As mentioned above, I’m OK with allowing base jumping too, even though I think it’s a bit stupid.
Here’s one: it turns sports from “who is the better athlete” to “who has the better drugs.”
If everybody had equal access to all performance-enhancing methods, I have a feeling drugs in sports wouldn’t be nearly as big of a problem as people are making it now (well, except at youth levels, where the health of the athletes should be the primary concern).
Yeah, you keep coming back to the notion that since there are already dangers more dangers aren’t an issue. I’ve addressed it twice already. You’re ignoring the fact that owners of leagues are responsible for the safety of the participants. But I suspect I know how you’d answer that.
You never answered the question about steroids and long term health, either.
You mentioned upthread that recreational drugs should be legalized. Should there be any limit to what any adult should be allowed take? I agree with you that the war on drugs is idiotic, but there is a middle ground here.
Do you think college athletes should be allowed to do whatever they want? They are adults, after all.
If anyone were allowed to take anything, do you not see where this would lead to adult athletes being essentially forced to take whatever the owners thought might be beneficial in the short term without regard for long term effects?
Your justification for allowing this is still not clear to me. Elimination of gray areas is clearly not going to happen. When asked about artificial limbs you said that as long as the rule is consistent it was fine. The PEDs rule is consistent.
There would be precious few rules in any sport if the same criteria were applied to all the rules that you are applying to PEDs. Why aren’t you allowed to punch your opponent in a golf match? Why aren’t you allowed to use brass knuckles (or whatever I want, really) in a boxing match? Why aren’t pitchers allowed to throw at batters in baseball? Removing all of these rules would eliminate gray areas. Do you think these rules should be abolished, too?
Well, I think part of my point is that sports is already inherently unfair. It is not always the contest of the “better athlete” since not every athlete has access to the same opportunity, the same coaching, the same facilities, the same equipment, the same nurturing spouses…the same genes. Perhaps one guy gets to train at altitude; the next guy doesn’t have the same access to that.
Part of the reason for the maldistribution of PEDs is that they are illegal. It would be easier to get (voluntary) access for all if they were legalized and legitimized.
I am not opposed to rules, even arbitrary rules. I think this particular rule should be changed. I’m not quite clear why you are having trouble grasping that. That I think any given rule should be consistently applied does not mean I automatically think every rule, consistently applied, is a good one.
I addressed college age athletes in the OP.
No athlete in (Western, anyway) professional sports is “forced” by their uncaring owners to do anything. As with any job, they can seek another if they don’t like their current conditions. And as I’ve pointed out ad nauseum, many sports are quite horrible for you physically. The athletes choose (or not) to voluntarily participate and to trade physical health for glory and money. I would not personally make that same choice, but I’m not their mommy.
If you want this rule changed but you have no compelling reason for wanting it changed, then you are right, no rational argument will change your mind about a position you didn’t rationally reach. It is just something you want.
Why do college athletes (adults) not get the same choice as other adults? You aren’t their mommy, either.
An owner, who cares nothing for the long term well being of an employee, will not hire athletes not willing to take anything and everything to win. It would quickly become a forced choice.
Do you think employers have a duty to protect the safety of their employees?
I do not find it “irrational” to suggest that PEDs be legitimized. It is simply my personal opinion and I find no compelling argument against it.
I answered the college athlete question in my OP, and given that you are apparently to lazy to even read the OP, this will be my last reply to your various questions. It’s consider kind of poor form to enter into a debate without the courtesy of reading the OP, and I’ve already told you where you could find the answer to your question.
From my OP:
“4. If adults dope, kids will dope.
This is the strongest argument, but on the other hand we let adults do many things we don’t extend to children. I think a general rule that an underage or college athlete (I include college because it spans that transition from underage to adult) caught doping will not be allowed to compete professionally will fix this problem.”
To clarify: because college spans a transitional period from adolescence to adulthood, I do not support allowing PEDs for kids not yet adult enough to make a considered decision. Beyond that, many college kids are not yet of the age (21) that I would propose requiring for the use of PEDs, and so it makes it difficult to mix teams with some PED users and some who are not allowed to do so. Finally, in theory at least, kids are in college for an education with sports as secondary thing (sometimes to pay for it). I do not think it would be appropriate to have a kid feel like he has to choose PEDs to be competitive as a way to fund his college education.
At a professional career level, it should be a choice for adults, and considered with the same deliberation that the rest of the risks and benefits of a job include.
No one is forced into professional sports. It is not the owner’s choice, but the player’s choice. If a given player needs to use PEDs to be competitive, that player can decide for himself if the glamor and money are worth it. It has nothing to do with the owner, whose job it is to protect employees from risks they do not choose to take. The owner’s job is not to protect employees from choices they make themselves. That’s Mom’s job.
See the part where I said I read your part about recreational drugs? I read the entire thread, including your OP. You can claim I didn’t, but your arguments are inconsistent which is why I’m trying to understand your stance on these things. You are defining things in a way that is convenient for you and not how they are typically defined. On the one hand you claim you aren’t anyone’s mommy, but on the other you are acting like it when you say you want to be every college players’ mommy. You don’t get to define who is an adult and who isn’t. If having 18 year olds classified as adults makes your arguments inconvenient such that you feel you need to redefine who is and isn’t an adult, a reasonable person might start to realize their argument is kind of baseless. You start to hedge your bets about even 21 year olds by now saying they shouldn’t mix in with underage kids. You keep putting more and more restrictions on what you consider adults and what they are allowed and not allowed to do.
You’ve claimed many times that injuries from sports way exceed those from PEDs. Why does that change for college sports?
No one is forced into ANY career. Can you really not see what would happen if no employers were responsible for employee safety? Look at the labor history in the US and you’ll see just how little employers tend to regard the safety of employees when the only force is “the market”.
I can’t believe you really believe:
PEDs (including anabolic steroids) do little to no harm
Employers are not responsible for the safety of employees
Encouraging reckless behavior is something employers can do without risk
It matters not how injurious an action is as long as there is something worse
You are sometimes a mom and sometimes not
All of these things need to be true for you to believe PED control is unnecessary.
If any one of these are not true, you have your answer on why there needs to be rules about PEDs.
You’ve conveniently dodged all the other questions, so I don’t really expect you to answer any of this. You just keep coming back to the argument, “Because I think there are worse things than PEDs, PEDs should be legalized” without actually addressing any of the actual consequences of such an action.
I’d be really curious to know how you’d respond to this, but you did say you’re bowing out. I’m sorry if you feel I’ve not been listening to you. I have tried to understand your arguments. You’ve twisted definitions, made up your own set of arguments that you argued against, then ignored any others which point out the fallacy of your original claims and instead point back to your OP and say these are the only arguments that exist. They aren’t. But you refuse to acknowledge that or address any questions which point out that others do in fact exist.