5 ms·

Relevant: https://xkcd.com/1173/ https://xkcd.com/1173/ You can get better a lot of ways in sport. Why is performance-enhancing drugs the way that is singled

Relevant: https://xkcd.com/1173/ https://xkcd.com/1173/ You can get better a lot of ways in sport. Why is performance-enhancing drugs the way that is singled out as not acceptable?

siphor 11y ago
I don't know a ton about this stuff, but: Isn't it because things like steroids are dangerous and have serious adverse effects, and athletes shouldn't have to endanger themselves in that way, just to stay relevant.
coliveira 11y ago
There are thousands of rules in any sport, anti-doping is just on of them. Anyone trying to get around the rules is just cheating, so why should doping be excused?
- arcanus 11y ago
  > Anyone trying to get around the rules is just cheating, so why should doping be excused? Perhaps a better question is: why are there rules against doping in the first place? As the xkcd notes, 'some performance enhancements are ok, some are bad', and the line is rather arbitrary at this point.
  - coliveira 11y ago
    I see very practical reasons: first of all, uncontrolled use of substances can endanger the life of participants. Why should someone add a sporting rule that can endanger people?
    - arcanus 11y ago
      > Why should someone add a sporting rule that can endanger people? Completely agree. The purpose of sport (in our modern day) is well-being. We should not force anyone to (within reason) be expected to hurt themselves. However, it strikes me that we are failing to use science in a way that could contribute to sport or human advancement in general. The vast majority of modern doping has no negative health outcomes. The steroid era of the 80s are gone. Many of the most pervasive forms of doping, such as blood doping, EPO, etc. naturally occur in your body. It has gotten so bad that the NCAA does not permit excessive coffee drinking, as it is considered a form of doping. Furthermore, if you permitted these forms of doping, then the marginal advantage of other more dangerous drugs would be reduced.
      - coliveira 11y ago
        I even agree that there should be some acknowledgement about this issue. But when it comes to the Armstrong discussion, this is a mute point. Even if doping were allowed from now on, it doesn't change the status of this practice in the past (i.e., cheating).
  - arjie 11y ago
    Sports/games rules are inherently arbitrary. This is like asking why you can move while dribbling but not while just holding the ball in basketball. There is no why. There only is. Can you move while tossing the ball in the air repeatedly (dribbling against the sky)? No. Wait why? It's just like dribbling except upside down. It's just the rule. It's just the rule, man. The rules are what define the game. Why can't I start the bishop where the queen is? It's just the rule. Why can't I have an under inflated ball? Just the rule. Why can't I use a cricket bat in soccer? Just the rule.
    - arcanus 11y ago
      In American Football, can you throw a forward pass? Or in Basketball, can you shoot three point shots? Both were not originally in those respective games, and were added. The rules of all sports are evolving, and will continue to do so. I'm not aware of any sport that restricts your diet, or the amount of exercise or training you can perform. Yet some chemical substances are arbitrarily banned. It is anti-science!
tassl 11y ago
Just to be clear on what is considered doping, the WADA considers any substance (or method) to be on the prohibited list if it meets two of the following 3 criteria[1]: - It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance - It represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete - It violates the spirit of sport So, in theory, the distinction of acceptable and non-acceptable is not drawn (only) in performance-enhancing drugs. Another thing to consider is that (pre-BALCO) you are not always charged on taking performance-enhancing drugs but in either having some synthetic drugs on your organism detected or having some measurements over what is considered "normal" in humans. For example, T/E higher than 4:1 ratio. This means that the ratio Testosterone/Epitestosterone can be 4:1. If an athlete has a 1:1 level (which is normal), doping himself with testosterone won't be considered positive as long as it's kept below 4:1. All assuming that exogenous testosterone cannot be detected. As far as I know, BALCO was the first time than some athletes were sanctioned without testing positive. [1] http://www.usada.org/substances/prohibited-list/ http://www.usada.org/substances/prohibited-list/ [2] http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/steroid-doping-questions-answers http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/steroid-doping-questio...
arjie 11y ago
It's not. Using a motor on your bicycle, a little propeller tied to your back while swimming, and a mechanically telescoping pole to vault with are also disallowed. So using mechanical assistance is also in the list of disallowed things. An unfortunate loss for the inventive sportsman. Other disallowed things: * having spectators strategically fall in the path of your competitors. Unfortunate for the cunning sportsman. * adjusting the physical conditions of your part of the field (no ultra-bouncy start mat for when you are going to make the long jump). A pity, the inventive sportsman misses out again * using a separate biological aid. No horses for the sprinter, or palanquins for the long distance runner, no team of people boosting you over the high jump bar. A tragic loss for the sportsman who can recruit nature's finest.
ScottBurson 11y ago
Because we don't want a world in which athletes have to destroy their bodies in order to be competitive. ETA: And let's be clear, that's exactly where it leads. People will feel compelled to start doping younger and younger, when they can do more and more damage to themselves (like giving themselves testicular cancer) -- young people also have poorer judgment about these things. We've already seen all this happen.

Relevant: https://xkcd.com/1173/ https://xkcd.com/1173/ You can get better a lot of ways in sport. Why is performance-enhancing drugs the way that is singled out as not acceptable?

siphor 11y ago

I don't know a ton about this stuff, but: Isn't it because things like steroids are dangerous and have serious adverse effects, and athletes shouldn't have to endanger themselves in that way, just to stay relevant.

coliveira 11y ago

There are thousands of rules in any sport, anti-doping is just on of them. Anyone trying to get around the rules is just cheating, so why should doping be excused?

arcanus 11y ago
> Anyone trying to get around the rules is just cheating, so why should doping be excused? Perhaps a better question is: why are there rules against doping in the first place? As the xkcd notes, 'some performance enhancements are ok, some are bad', and the line is rather arbitrary at this point.
- coliveira 11y ago
  I see very practical reasons: first of all, uncontrolled use of substances can endanger the life of participants. Why should someone add a sporting rule that can endanger people?
  - arcanus 11y ago
    > Why should someone add a sporting rule that can endanger people? Completely agree. The purpose of sport (in our modern day) is well-being. We should not force anyone to (within reason) be expected to hurt themselves. However, it strikes me that we are failing to use science in a way that could contribute to sport or human advancement in general. The vast majority of modern doping has no negative health outcomes. The steroid era of the 80s are gone. Many of the most pervasive forms of doping, such as blood doping, EPO, etc. naturally occur in your body. It has gotten so bad that the NCAA does not permit excessive coffee drinking, as it is considered a form of doping. Furthermore, if you permitted these forms of doping, then the marginal advantage of other more dangerous drugs would be reduced.
    - coliveira 11y ago
      I even agree that there should be some acknowledgement about this issue. But when it comes to the Armstrong discussion, this is a mute point. Even if doping were allowed from now on, it doesn't change the status of this practice in the past (i.e., cheating).
- arjie 11y ago
  Sports/games rules are inherently arbitrary. This is like asking why you can move while dribbling but not while just holding the ball in basketball. There is no why. There only is. Can you move while tossing the ball in the air repeatedly (dribbling against the sky)? No. Wait why? It's just like dribbling except upside down. It's just the rule. It's just the rule, man. The rules are what define the game. Why can't I start the bishop where the queen is? It's just the rule. Why can't I have an under inflated ball? Just the rule. Why can't I use a cricket bat in soccer? Just the rule.
  - arcanus 11y ago
    In American Football, can you throw a forward pass? Or in Basketball, can you shoot three point shots? Both were not originally in those respective games, and were added. The rules of all sports are evolving, and will continue to do so. I'm not aware of any sport that restricts your diet, or the amount of exercise or training you can perform. Yet some chemical substances are arbitrarily banned. It is anti-science!

tassl 11y ago

Just to be clear on what is considered doping, the WADA considers any substance (or method) to be on the prohibited list if it meets two of the following 3 criteria[1]: - It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance - It represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete - It violates the spirit of sport So, in theory, the distinction of acceptable and non-acceptable is not drawn (only) in performance-enhancing drugs. Another thing to consider is that (pre-BALCO) you are not always charged on taking performance-enhancing drugs but in either having some synthetic drugs on your organism detected or having some measurements over what is considered "normal" in humans. For example, T/E higher than 4:1 ratio. This means that the ratio Testosterone/Epitestosterone can be 4:1. If an athlete has a 1:1 level (which is normal), doping himself with testosterone won't be considered positive as long as it's kept below 4:1. All assuming that exogenous testosterone cannot be detected. As far as I know, BALCO was the first time than some athletes were sanctioned without testing positive. [1] http://www.usada.org/substances/prohibited-list/ http://www.usada.org/substances/prohibited-list/ [2] http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/steroid-doping-questions-answers http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/steroid-doping-questio...

arjie 11y ago

It's not. Using a motor on your bicycle, a little propeller tied to your back while swimming, and a mechanically telescoping pole to vault with are also disallowed. So using mechanical assistance is also in the list of disallowed things. An unfortunate loss for the inventive sportsman. Other disallowed things: * having spectators strategically fall in the path of your competitors. Unfortunate for the cunning sportsman. * adjusting the physical conditions of your part of the field (no ultra-bouncy start mat for when you are going to make the long jump). A pity, the inventive sportsman misses out again * using a separate biological aid. No horses for the sprinter, or palanquins for the long distance runner, no team of people boosting you over the high jump bar. A tragic loss for the sportsman who can recruit nature's finest.

ScottBurson 11y ago

Because we don't want a world in which athletes have to destroy their bodies in order to be competitive. ETA: And let's be clear, that's exactly where it leads. People will feel compelled to start doping younger and younger, when they can do more and more damage to themselves (like giving themselves testicular cancer) -- young people also have poorer judgment about these things. We've already seen all this happen.