3 ms·

I don't think that argument really holds up. After all, athletes already push the limits of safe exercise in order to win; all competitive athletes are forced

I don't think that argument really holds up. After all, athletes already push the limits of safe exercise in order to win; all competitive athletes are forced to exercise the maximum amount allowed, and exercise is not purely positive: it has negative as well as positive effects.

bo1024 9y ago
I don't follow you. You seem to be saying that since athletics is about pushing the limits of the human body, it's already unsafe, so there's no problem with making it much less safe. I strongly disagree. For context, I'm thinking mostly of athletics (track and field). Pro athletes generally strive to achieve excellence at some task the human body is adapted for -- running, jumping, throwing. But it's within the limitations imposed by their own human bodies, which are very well-adapted for keeping themselves safe while accomplishing these tasks. They know that going overboard risks burnout and injury, so their incentives are generally aligned with staying healthy. Chemically tricking the body into doing something long-term unsafe in return for short-term performance is a different ballgame. (Of course there are a few outlier sports like American football and sumo wrestling which are just clearly unhealthy. Even for those, I don't see why we should make matters worse by sanctioning unhealthy PEDs.)
- mikekchar 9y ago
  I believe there was an article posted on HN a while about about whether or not humans could improve the speed of a fastball in baseball. If I recall correctly, the suggestion was that one of the ligaments can not stand the stress above a certain speed. There are many sports (especially in track and field!) where we are meeting the limitations of normal humans. Can you be a world class sprinter if your body is not aligned to it at birth? If you are disadvantaged at birth, how reasonable is it that after sacrificing most of your life to training you are going to accept inevitable failure? What if a PED can push you over the top? One of my favourite quotes of all time is from the Simpsons: "Cheating is the gift man gives himself". With billions on the planet and hundreds of millions who are rich enough to pursue sport, the pool of people who have the drive and are willing to dedicate everything to being the best at their sport is HUGE. What is sport at that point? Filtering for genetic freaks? But then, looking at it another way, should we then see it as a technological challenge? Let's look at cycling. Whether or not we accept the premise that doping and PEDs in the pro peloton are a thing of the past, it's hard to argue with the success of Sky's "marginal gains" strategy. The margins of victory in large stage races are so minute that even a 10 watt difference could be meaningful. I kind of look at this as an F1 style of sports. Those with the access to money for research will win (as we see with Sky in cycling). If we include PEDs? Well, then money for research becomes even more important. Now, I actually like F1 racing (even while not really liking cars -- I'm complicated ;-) ). I like pro cycling. I like a lot of things. But, I honestly don't think this is the direction that sports should go. As someone who participated in track and field in his youth, I'm highly disillusioned with current trends -- competition for medals, the need to beat world records, people sitting on their sofa watching 10 minute vignettes of "life drama" with occasional intermissions of some guys running. Sports for me is 50 year olds getting together for a game of soccer; jogging in the morning every day to get ready for the 10 km "marathon"; riding in a "sportive"; softball; hockey; kendo; whatever you enjoy doing. Watching people at the top level is awesome, but we don't need to enhance it. We don't need to embellish it. We certainly don't need to pay someone the GDP of a small country so that we can have bragging rights at the office the next week. Especially if a PED makes the difference between a struggling athlete bagging groceries for a living or living the life of a super star.
- charsifood 9y ago
  PEDs can also greatly improve the safety profile of a sport. For example, anabolic steroids increase strength and improve recovery, which significantly lowers the risk of missing an olympic lift such as the clean and jerk and possibly injuring oneself. Anabolic steroids can also increase bone density, which lowers the risk of general injury across all sports.
  - bo1024 9y ago
    That's an interesting angle.
  - efraim 9y ago
    The risk of missing a lift would still be the same since they would just try to lift heavier weights.
    - charsifood 9y ago
      They would only try to lift heavier than their competition, so there's an artificial limit on how heavy one would go. But the real crux of the situation is this: For a given individual, on every possible lift and every possible weight, it is always safer to use anabolic steroids than not.

bo1024 9y ago

I don't follow you. You seem to be saying that since athletics is about pushing the limits of the human body, it's already unsafe, so there's no problem with making it much less safe. I strongly disagree. For context, I'm thinking mostly of athletics (track and field). Pro athletes generally strive to achieve excellence at some task the human body is adapted for -- running, jumping, throwing. But it's within the limitations imposed by their own human bodies, which are very well-adapted for keeping themselves safe while accomplishing these tasks. They know that going overboard risks burnout and injury, so their incentives are generally aligned with staying healthy. Chemically tricking the body into doing something long-term unsafe in return for short-term performance is a different ballgame. (Of course there are a few outlier sports like American football and sumo wrestling which are just clearly unhealthy. Even for those, I don't see why we should make matters worse by sanctioning unhealthy PEDs.)

mikekchar 9y ago
I believe there was an article posted on HN a while about about whether or not humans could improve the speed of a fastball in baseball. If I recall correctly, the suggestion was that one of the ligaments can not stand the stress above a certain speed. There are many sports (especially in track and field!) where we are meeting the limitations of normal humans. Can you be a world class sprinter if your body is not aligned to it at birth? If you are disadvantaged at birth, how reasonable is it that after sacrificing most of your life to training you are going to accept inevitable failure? What if a PED can push you over the top? One of my favourite quotes of all time is from the Simpsons: "Cheating is the gift man gives himself". With billions on the planet and hundreds of millions who are rich enough to pursue sport, the pool of people who have the drive and are willing to dedicate everything to being the best at their sport is HUGE. What is sport at that point? Filtering for genetic freaks? But then, looking at it another way, should we then see it as a technological challenge? Let's look at cycling. Whether or not we accept the premise that doping and PEDs in the pro peloton are a thing of the past, it's hard to argue with the success of Sky's "marginal gains" strategy. The margins of victory in large stage races are so minute that even a 10 watt difference could be meaningful. I kind of look at this as an F1 style of sports. Those with the access to money for research will win (as we see with Sky in cycling). If we include PEDs? Well, then money for research becomes even more important. Now, I actually like F1 racing (even while not really liking cars -- I'm complicated ;-) ). I like pro cycling. I like a lot of things. But, I honestly don't think this is the direction that sports should go. As someone who participated in track and field in his youth, I'm highly disillusioned with current trends -- competition for medals, the need to beat world records, people sitting on their sofa watching 10 minute vignettes of "life drama" with occasional intermissions of some guys running. Sports for me is 50 year olds getting together for a game of soccer; jogging in the morning every day to get ready for the 10 km "marathon"; riding in a "sportive"; softball; hockey; kendo; whatever you enjoy doing. Watching people at the top level is awesome, but we don't need to enhance it. We don't need to embellish it. We certainly don't need to pay someone the GDP of a small country so that we can have bragging rights at the office the next week. Especially if a PED makes the difference between a struggling athlete bagging groceries for a living or living the life of a super star.
charsifood 9y ago
PEDs can also greatly improve the safety profile of a sport. For example, anabolic steroids increase strength and improve recovery, which significantly lowers the risk of missing an olympic lift such as the clean and jerk and possibly injuring oneself. Anabolic steroids can also increase bone density, which lowers the risk of general injury across all sports.
- bo1024 9y ago
  That's an interesting angle.
- efraim 9y ago
  The risk of missing a lift would still be the same since they would just try to lift heavier weights.
  - charsifood 9y ago
    They would only try to lift heavier than their competition, so there's an artificial limit on how heavy one would go. But the real crux of the situation is this: For a given individual, on every possible lift and every possible weight, it is always safer to use anabolic steroids than not.