5 ms·

I genuinely have to ask, what's morally wrong with using PEDs? Instead of down voting me, please actually respond with an argument. EDIT: people will say "but

I genuinely have to ask, what's morally wrong with using PEDs? Instead of down voting me, please actually respond with an argument. EDIT: people will say "but it's not fair to those who are "clean". But there are also people who are at a major genetic advantage. For example, Armstrong uses EPO, but there are people with genetically higher amounts of EPO in their body naturally, without synthetic EPO injection, no matter how hard Armstrong trained he never would've beaten them, how is that fair?

hyperbovine 9y ago
Lying about it and competing against people who aren't, duh.
- sintaxi 9y ago
  Also, he sued and attempted to destroy the people who accused him of doping.
- packetslave 9y ago
  While you're not wrong about the lying, back when Lance was riding nearly everybody was doping. Tyler Hamilton's book covered it pretty well: if you didn't dope, you weren't competitive. Period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cyclin...
- deepnotderp 9y ago
  But there are also people who are at a major genetic advantage. For example, Armstrong uses EPO, but there are people with genetically higher amounts of EPO in their body naturally, without synthetic EPO injection, no matter how hard Armstrong trained he never would've beaten them, how is that fair?
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    If your genetics aren't up to snuff you just have to accept that you won't make it to the top.
    - deepnotderp 9y ago
      What then, is morally wrong with being more fair and using PEDs?
      - maxxxxx 9y ago
        If you allow PEDs you get into a vicious cycle where people take more and more until you will see people dying again.
        deepnotderp 9y ago
        Then regulate the effect level, e.g. "no hematocrit above 55" or whatever the safe level is. This is actually far more safe because now a wide swathe of otherwise undetectable molecules with similar effects (such as altitude gene agonist EPO alternatives) that would otherwise have been abused are controlled as well.
        grzm 9y ago
        That's not actually measuring the "effect". If your goal is to level the playing field to some sort of effect, you need to somehow balance that the effect of, say, a given hematocrit level will have a different effect in different people. There's a difference between discussing this from a morality point of view and another from a practical point of view. A game needs to have rules—that's inherent it any game or contest. Those rules can be made for any number of reasons, which can be practicality (this is something we can measure) or safety (we don't want to encourage dangerous behavior), tradition, or whatnot. Morality or ethics come in with respect to abiding by the rules or the spirit of the rules, not generally the rules themselves.
        deepnotderp 9y ago
        Sure, it will have a different effect, but that is due to external factors which can also be regulated in a similar manner. In any case, these are far more pragmatic methods than trying to find every single SARM molecule that pops up.
  - hyperbovine 9y ago
    What about people who cannot still compete despite the injections? Should we allow them to affix a lawnmower engine to their bike and race the Tour de France? The point you came here attempting to prove inevitably leads to absurdities. Some sort of criterion is needed for sport to remain competitive and interesting. "Make do with what you were born with" seems like the most natural one to me.
    - deepnotderp 9y ago
      No because such devices are non-biological mechanical aids. PEDs and genetic engineering are purely biological means. I would say that it's fair to ban synthetic oxygen carriers and things like that.
      - hyperbovine 9y ago
        Which is no more or less arbitrary than saying that PEDs ought to be banned because they are unnatural. So it's a moral issue, not something that can be settled by logic. The question becomes, where do we draw the line? Most people seem to agree that "play the hand you're dealt in life" is acceptable.
        deepnotderp 9y ago
        Not really, because most PEDs have no continuous effect in the body that's synthetic, they all synthetically induce natural effects. For this reason I say that synthetic oxygen carriers should be banned, since you cannot naturally acquire that.
drewmate 9y ago
This gets to the fundamental question of what is moral. Many people have their own definitions, or traditions handed down for what is moral, but most of these codes never even consider PEDs, and yet a lot of people seem to dislike them. For me, morality can almost always be distilled down to trust. If an action makes people in a community more likely to trust others in their community, then it is generally a moral thing. In the case of professional sports, there is an implicit agreement to play fair (or at least on a level playing field.) Obviously, given our understanding of human genetics, this is decidedly an unreal expectation, but our sense of morality hasn't caught up to our understanding of science yet. In this light, Armstrong's major offense is not using PEDs per se, but the fact that he did it secretly while saying something entirely different (very convincingly no less.) How could you ever trust Armstrong's word again? More importantly, the more athletes (and others) are caught getting an advantage we have decided nobody should have, the less we can trust anyone, and sports (to say nothing of business) suffers as a result. That's why Armstrong is a pariah. His actions aren't innately offensive, but they are a threat to the social fabric that lets hundreds of other people ride bicycles and throw balls for a living. It's the same social fabric that lets me trust my mechanic when he says he's fixed my car or trust that my pilot didn't cheat through flight school. Anything that threatens that trust is bound to be viewed as bad by a lot of people even if we can't easily explain why.
- deepnotderp 9y ago
  I'm not sure I agree that morality can be distilled down to trust. I do agree that it's difficult to objectively codify morality, but I don't think that it's fair to say that what the majority consider to be "moral" is necessarily correct, an easy example being slavery.
maxxxxx 9y ago
One problem is that people used to die from doping. The other bigger problem in my view is that if you allow doping on the pro level then younger athletes who will be forced to take drugs too if they want to make it to the top. I don't think that's desirable.
- deepnotderp 9y ago
  Why not? How is it more fair for young athletes to realize dejectedly that they have no chance at beating their lazy friend no matter how hard they work? (I speak from personal experience, so maybe some bias).
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    I am not very athletic myself so it was pretty clear that I would never be a top athlete no matter how much I trained. Sometimes you just have to accept things. I am fairly sure that I will never be a top mathematician either. Another limitation I just need to accept. If everybody dopes the naturally talented will still win.

hyperbovine 9y ago

Lying about it and competing against people who aren't, duh.

sintaxi 9y ago
Also, he sued and attempted to destroy the people who accused him of doping.
packetslave 9y ago
While you're not wrong about the lying, back when Lance was riding nearly everybody was doping. Tyler Hamilton's book covered it pretty well: if you didn't dope, you weren't competitive. Period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cyclin...
deepnotderp 9y ago
But there are also people who are at a major genetic advantage. For example, Armstrong uses EPO, but there are people with genetically higher amounts of EPO in their body naturally, without synthetic EPO injection, no matter how hard Armstrong trained he never would've beaten them, how is that fair?
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  If your genetics aren't up to snuff you just have to accept that you won't make it to the top.
  - deepnotderp 9y ago
    What then, is morally wrong with being more fair and using PEDs?
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      If you allow PEDs you get into a vicious cycle where people take more and more until you will see people dying again.
      - deepnotderp 9y ago
        Then regulate the effect level, e.g. "no hematocrit above 55" or whatever the safe level is. This is actually far more safe because now a wide swathe of otherwise undetectable molecules with similar effects (such as altitude gene agonist EPO alternatives) that would otherwise have been abused are controlled as well.
        grzm 9y ago
        That's not actually measuring the "effect". If your goal is to level the playing field to some sort of effect, you need to somehow balance that the effect of, say, a given hematocrit level will have a different effect in different people. There's a difference between discussing this from a morality point of view and another from a practical point of view. A game needs to have rules—that's inherent it any game or contest. Those rules can be made for any number of reasons, which can be practicality (this is something we can measure) or safety (we don't want to encourage dangerous behavior), tradition, or whatnot. Morality or ethics come in with respect to abiding by the rules or the spirit of the rules, not generally the rules themselves.
        deepnotderp 9y ago
        Sure, it will have a different effect, but that is due to external factors which can also be regulated in a similar manner. In any case, these are far more pragmatic methods than trying to find every single SARM molecule that pops up.
- hyperbovine 9y ago
  What about people who cannot still compete despite the injections? Should we allow them to affix a lawnmower engine to their bike and race the Tour de France? The point you came here attempting to prove inevitably leads to absurdities. Some sort of criterion is needed for sport to remain competitive and interesting. "Make do with what you were born with" seems like the most natural one to me.
  - deepnotderp 9y ago
    No because such devices are non-biological mechanical aids. PEDs and genetic engineering are purely biological means. I would say that it's fair to ban synthetic oxygen carriers and things like that.
    - hyperbovine 9y ago
      Which is no more or less arbitrary than saying that PEDs ought to be banned because they are unnatural. So it's a moral issue, not something that can be settled by logic. The question becomes, where do we draw the line? Most people seem to agree that "play the hand you're dealt in life" is acceptable.
      - deepnotderp 9y ago
        Not really, because most PEDs have no continuous effect in the body that's synthetic, they all synthetically induce natural effects. For this reason I say that synthetic oxygen carriers should be banned, since you cannot naturally acquire that.

drewmate 9y ago

This gets to the fundamental question of what is moral. Many people have their own definitions, or traditions handed down for what is moral, but most of these codes never even consider PEDs, and yet a lot of people seem to dislike them. For me, morality can almost always be distilled down to trust. If an action makes people in a community more likely to trust others in their community, then it is generally a moral thing. In the case of professional sports, there is an implicit agreement to play fair (or at least on a level playing field.) Obviously, given our understanding of human genetics, this is decidedly an unreal expectation, but our sense of morality hasn't caught up to our understanding of science yet. In this light, Armstrong's major offense is not using PEDs per se, but the fact that he did it secretly while saying something entirely different (very convincingly no less.) How could you ever trust Armstrong's word again? More importantly, the more athletes (and others) are caught getting an advantage we have decided nobody should have, the less we can trust anyone, and sports (to say nothing of business) suffers as a result. That's why Armstrong is a pariah. His actions aren't innately offensive, but they are a threat to the social fabric that lets hundreds of other people ride bicycles and throw balls for a living. It's the same social fabric that lets me trust my mechanic when he says he's fixed my car or trust that my pilot didn't cheat through flight school. Anything that threatens that trust is bound to be viewed as bad by a lot of people even if we can't easily explain why.

deepnotderp 9y ago
I'm not sure I agree that morality can be distilled down to trust. I do agree that it's difficult to objectively codify morality, but I don't think that it's fair to say that what the majority consider to be "moral" is necessarily correct, an easy example being slavery.

maxxxxx 9y ago

One problem is that people used to die from doping. The other bigger problem in my view is that if you allow doping on the pro level then younger athletes who will be forced to take drugs too if they want to make it to the top. I don't think that's desirable.

deepnotderp 9y ago
Why not? How is it more fair for young athletes to realize dejectedly that they have no chance at beating their lazy friend no matter how hard they work? (I speak from personal experience, so maybe some bias).
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  I am not very athletic myself so it was pretty clear that I would never be a top athlete no matter how much I trained. Sometimes you just have to accept things. I am fairly sure that I will never be a top mathematician either. Another limitation I just need to accept. If everybody dopes the naturally talented will still win.