While insiders (and outsiders) are prone to quibble about specifics, I think most people understand and basically agree with arguments for anti enhancement rule

While insiders (and outsiders) are prone to quibble about specifics, I think most people understand and basically agree with arguments for anti enhancement rules. Things start to get very fuzzy when/if previously banned enhancements start becoming common among non athletes. Hormone treatments to slow or reverse aging, aid recovery, improve body fat levels and such. If a drug can improve stamina in athletes, a milder dose will probably be a nice enhancement for ordinary people. If everyone is taking a drug that makes you more alert and patient, it's weird that athletes aren't allowed to take it. If everyone is doing anti aging hormone treatments to look 40 at 60, it seems ridiculous when a tennis players retires at 31 for want of those hormones. Competing athletes will "abuse" these enhancements in the sense that they will go well beyond what doctors will recommend. But, you could say that doctors' recommendations take into account the median cost benefit considerations and athletes are at the extreme. In any case, athletes abuse their bodies in other ways. They train well past the optimal (in terms of health) levels. It's obviously not good for your head to get punched 500 times per week, but boxers do it. Anyway, when your mother can toss a judo player into a second story window, watching the olympics will seem pretty quaint.