4 ms·

This is my understanding (not particularly my own view but can be). People are not especially against the science but drugs. Because drugs being drugs come all

This is my understanding (not particularly my own view but can be). People are not especially against the science but drugs. Because drugs being drugs come all also with side effects. When athletes taking the drugs win then it forces other non taking athletes to take the drugs too making them involuntarily put their health into risk. That is not fair. That is the best reasonable explanation I have been able to come up with. This would be argument against allowing drugs. But this I think is not what the most people are against of. The current situation is that the drugs are not allowed. People who still take them gain an unfair advantage. Well, that is not fair.

JamesBarney 8y ago
There is nothing special about drugs that means they have side effects while other things don't. Take epo for instance. What makes epo risky is not epo, but the increase in red blood cells. Now other things that increase red blood cells like intense training at high altitudes have the same risk. But we always draw the line with drugs. It's definitely cultural. Imagine a ruling body finds out about a performance enhancing drug and a performance enhancing technique. They have the same risks. Which gets banned?