4 ms·
>"It's kind of disgusting to encourage people to fuck up their bodies to win an athletic competition." You know what else is disgusting? The fact that we have
by tatsuke95 14y ago
>"It's kind of disgusting to encourage people to fuck up their bodies to win an athletic competition."
You know what else is disgusting? The fact that we have medicine out there that, because it's seen as "performance-enhancing" in sport, maintains a stigma of being disgusting and harmful.
The same people who tell you that taking steroids and other enhancers will instantly shrink your balls and kill your liver are the same folk who told you that smoking a joint would make you jump off the roof of your building. It's nonsense.
I can't wait for the day when humans are taking performance enhancing substances of all sorts, fully accepted by all, because they can enhance performance. Who doesn't want that?
- ta12121 14y agoIf I want to make a living as a professional athlete and I don't want the side effect of these treatments, then I certainly don't want other people to take them, because I will be outclassed and won't be able to make living without screwing up my body.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- freehunter 14y agoThe problem is, once an athlete begins taking performance enhancers, every other athlete in the sport has to as well, to stay competitive. Then suddenly those in the minor leagues/college are not competitive to move to the majors, so they start taking performance enhancers. But then high schoolers aren't competitive to move up, so high schoolers have to take performance enhancers. This wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if we had performance enhancing drugs that had no side effects. Unfortunately we don't. You seem sure that performance enhancers are harmless, but they most certainly are not.
- yummyfajitas 14y agoThe same is true of any training method which has harmful side effects or risks. How do you distinguish morally between the (completely natural) risk of death by heatstroke during summer training and the risks of performance enhancing drugs?
- riffraff 14y agoI guess there is no moral difference, but a practical one of being able to _check it_. Autoemotransfusion (or however you say in english "inject your own blood") is not the same as taking artifical drugs, but can be checked and it's not allowed.
- freehunter 14y agoUsually it's called blood doping (although blood doping also covers EPO injections).
- freehunter 14y agoThe difference between training harder and taking drugs to be able to train harder is that your body is naturally only capable of so much. Eventually you will give out, and that is your limit. The point where you start feeling pain is the point where you know to stop. Taking drugs to increase this limit is where the risks lie; your body isn't capable of sustaining that level of performance. For example, caffeine might wake you up, but it puts you in a crash not long after. Your body isn't capable of sustaining that high of an adrenaline level. Training regimes allow your body to tell you its limits, drugs bypass that to get you a new, unsustainable level where doing long term damage isn't just possible.. it's likely.
- yummyfajitas 14y agoEventually you will give out, and that is your limit. Many natural athletes don't know where that point is (precisely) and harm themselves by pushing past it. A serious athlete sustaining long term damage from training isn't just possible.. it's likely.
- Xcelerate 14y agoI can't comment on whether these drugs affect someone or not, but it is interesting to note that Feynman tried LSD once and then dropped it because he was worried about the potential effects it would have on his brain. In fact, a lot of the smartest people I know say that they don't do drugs not for any moral reason, but because they are worried they will damage their mind in some unforeseen way.