Why don't they just allow drugs in the Olympics?

Surely the whole point is to see what can be achieved naturally? Doesn't' using drugs make any success hollow? Morally at least.

steve 

Maybe drugs for the spectators instead...........now there's a thought? 

Ban National Teams and Uniforms.

Only individuals - with no mention of nationality.

And no sponsorship or advertising.

Or three Olympics in parallel.

"Drug" Olympics

"Clean" Olympics

"Para" Olympics

Yeah Don, you're thinking along the same lines as me!!

(We can combine that with Dave Marshall's suggestion next time London gets the Olympics.)

Don Atkinson posted:

Ban National Teams and Uniforms.

Only individuals - with no mention of nationality.

And no sponsorship or advertising.

 

I like this proposal.  

The "Allow PEDs" argument makes some sense, as long as we are talking about mature adults (or at least adults).  The problem is that adolescents would take this as a green light, the sanctioned path to athletic excellence. As a parent, I would object strenuously.

Don Atkinson posted:

Or three Olympics in parallel.

"Drug" Olympics

"Clean" Olympics

"Para" Olympics

I guess the "Drug" Olympics would be the de facto games for the "Clean" Olympians that failed their drug tests. Russia could dominate

My tongue in cheek comment about Russia aside, I do find the booing of Russian athletes in Rio distasteful.

And bionics.

Lets replace the athletes with robots controlled by a pickled human brain.

Bananahead posted:

Lets replace the athletes with robots controlled by a pickled human brain.

That would certainly kill the allure of women's beach volleyball for me.

Apart from the aesthetic issues of watching a wholly doped Olympics unfettered doping would lead to major health risks. This might be controlled to a degree by elite athletes in highly developed teams (but some would clearly push to excess) but the trickle down to sub-elite, college and amateur athletes would cause very substantial harms. The industry created would make drug use for performance and body shape a major public health disaster. It already happens to a degree with illegal use; I see 2-3 people a year with significant health issues caused by 'sports drugs' and I'm sure a fair few more that are hidden.

The arguments for prohibition are not entirely unlike those for psychoactive drugs. If freely available to all they would be abused and harmful to a far greater degree than current levels with (admittedly imperfect) enforcement. Some might use them safely but the percentage who would not would be too great.

The 'next' big issue for sport might be genetic manipulation. Then it just becomes crazy in terms of ethics (and enforcement).

In specific sports where there is an advantage we are going to see more issues regarding women with intersex characteristics. This is already happening, and will be high profile in the womens' 800m this year where by common knowledge several of the potential finalists are in this category. Not by any means exclusive to that event either. A subtle and complicated debate.

The lines of what makes clean sport are going to be (more) unclear in future.

Bruce

By allowing drugs the federations would implicitly also accept the health risks involved. So besides the ethic aspect the health aspect is an even more important aspect. And I think the long term impact of some doping is even unclear ....

'Accepting a health risk' would mean making an explicit choice between performance vs a very clear and significant risk of short and long term health harms.  We are not talking about the risk of choosing to smoke and 'taking your chances' here. High doses of androgenic steroids for example have dose related effects-you will cause harms the higher you go albeit with different thresholds and risks according to individuals. Some will be reversible, some may not. You are manipulating physiology at a basic level, not just exposing yourself to a toxin.

Do we want to watch damaged athletes performing at an elite level for a brief flowering of glory before dying young? That could be unrestricted doping.

Bruce

"This might be controlled to a degree by elite athletes in highly developed teams (but some would clearly push to excess) but the trickle down to sub-elite, college and amateur athletes would cause very substantial harms. "

This is already happening. And has been for years. And let's not pretend that Russian athletes are the only ones doing it. There will always be those who can stay one step ahead of the testing curve, whether it be through one method or another.

And the most egregious violator is everyone in the USA's favorite sport, the NFL. (Or perhaps elite cycling, as Lance Armstrong so well proved.) In baseball, we have a whole segment of time where the all-time records are completely tainted because of steroids.

I have been around the weightlifting game for many years now, and there are 2 things almost all elite and aspiring elite athletes do; (1) take PEDs, and (2) lie about it. (In those sports where such substances will provide an advantage.)

As the money gets bigger, more are willing to take the risks. I had a friend a while back who was a high school coach who was not infrequently approached by over-zealous fathers wanting to get their kids steroids. Morons willing to hurt their kid's health so they can have the vicarious pleasure of watching them do a little better at sports. "See that, that's MY boy!"

Maybe we should just let drugs be in sport - it will help solve part of our Social Security shortfall, because those people won't be alive to collect.

The other solution would be for it to not be so profitable; but as the NFL proves, people want their sports delivered in such a way that PEDs are irrelevant to their decisions to watch. (Well, that and gambling, which the NFL officially abhors but unofficially endorses in full, since about half of NFL viewership is at least indirectly related to betting...but that's another thread in and of itself.)

As Bruce points out, the next phase will be genetic engineering...and drugs will be for those who just can't afford to go that route. (That may well be the case in medical treatment as well in the not too distant future.)

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

Apart from the aesthetic issues of watching a wholly doped Olympics unfettered doping would lead to major health risks. This might be controlled to a degree by elite athletes in highly developed teams (but some would clearly push to excess) but the trickle down to sub-elite, college and amateur athletes would cause very substantial harms. The industry created would make drug use for performance and body shape a major public health disaster. It already happens to a degree with illegal use; I see 2-3 people a year with significant health issues caused by 'sports drugs' and I'm sure a fair few more that are hidden.

The arguments for prohibition are not entirely unlike those for psychoactive drugs. If freely available to all they would be abused and harmful to a far greater degree than current levels with (admittedly imperfect) enforcement. Some might use them safely but the percentage who would not would be too great.

The 'next' big issue for sport might be genetic manipulation. Then it just becomes crazy in terms of ethics (and enforcement).

In specific sports where there is an advantage we are going to see more issues regarding women with intersex characteristics. This is already happening, and will be high profile in the womens' 800m this year where by common knowledge several of the potential finalists are in this category. Not by any means exclusive to that event either. A subtle and complicated debate.

The lines of what makes clean sport are going to be (more) unclear in future.

Bruce

This had already crossed my mind, but I refrained from posting.

My thoughts were that if all we were after was to explore the limits of human achievement, a view expresses by some above, then why not "breed" genetically manipulated "super athletes" purely for the purposes of the "Olympics".

And if anybody is worried about future contamination of the human race, these specially bred specimens would be "controlled".

I think the discussion on this thread so far has convinced me that unrestrained doping isn't the way forward. But I'm not sure what is the best way forward or how complicated the "rules" need to be. eg, do we limit an athlete's choice of "food". Is it "fair" that some athletes can "afford" to train at high altitude when others can't.

As I say, complicated. And the big advertisers aren't going to let "you" or "me" interfere !

"And the big advertisers aren't going to let "you" or "me" interfere !"

 Amen and amen to that Don.

Don

I think these issues are extremely nuanced. It is not just about drugs/no drugs clean/dirty. It can be about abusive training regimes (China, E Germany), the risks of excessive exercise too young (gymnastics) for example.

Nations are already selecting kids due to certain physical characteristics and putting them in sport specific training schemes. What if we choose to make some of those kids a bit taller by hormonal or genetic manipulation? How fair is it to be able to access high altitude facilities in a lab. We also have the intersex issue I alluded to; entirely natural individuals with characteristics that blur the boundaries of fair competition.

The playing field will never be level but I think we have a duty of care to vulnerable athletes at all levels to do our best to limit harms due to doping in all its forms. It will always be imperfect. Whilst the rewards of sporting success are so  high  we will always have strong drivers to push and break the rules.

Bruce

The older I get, the more I realise there are always consequences. A corolary of this, however, has to be... SO BE IT! The normal distribution curve always has the rare extremes: good, bad, with most in the centre.  Yes the factors that make someone on either end of that curve are tremendous - far beyond just one academic discipline (e.g. Sociology or politics or economics).

Doesn't natural selection per se require this anyway?

Watching elite sportspeople as a spectator would be so much more fun - jesting aside. How many of you have a BOND with an athlete? I guess almost zero. People in arm chairs like to judge Oscar Pistori as they can quite easily detach themselves when someone behaves in standards different to what they expect.

The ones we care most for in the world (our own kids) are the ones we can have the most influence on, and if one feels they've done the best job with THEIR kids, what's wrong in watching others for entertainment?

Consciousmess posted:

The older I get, the more I realise there are always consequences. A corolary of this, however, has to be... SO BE IT! The normal distribution curve always has the rare extremes: good, bad, with most in the centre.  Yes the factors that make someone on either end of that curve are tremendous - far beyond just one academic discipline (e.g. Sociology or politics or economics).

Doesn't natural selection per se require this anyway?

Watching elite sportspeople as a spectator would be so much more fun - jesting aside. How many of you have a BOND with an athlete? I guess almost zero. People in arm chairs like to judge Oscar Pistori as they can quite easily detach themselves when someone behaves in standards different to what they expect.

The ones we care most for in the world (our own kids) are the ones we can have the most influence on, and if one feels they've done the best job with THEIR kids, what's wrong in watching others for entertainment?

You've lost me !

Are you suggesting that we should all start feeding OUR kids "designer" DRUGS to enhance their performance in their chosen field, be it athletics, science, politics, business.....whatever ? Are you suggesting that these enhancements will be passed on through the gene pool so that the next generation of OUR kids will likewise be endowed, and thus the human race will evolve more effectively ?

Not at all, Don! That's a new - and interesting - forum topic. I am simply saying that one loves ones kids more than others, so what others do has LESS emotional significance.  The point is people are voyeuristic.  YouTube illustrates this immensely - look at the number of views of 'accidents' for example and one will see a strong positive correlation, no denying that.

So back to the entertainment of the Olympics... As long as my daughter doesn't abuse harmful drugs... We've taken spectacular sport to a new level!!!

And get everyone to do everything naked ,like they did in the good old ancient days.

TOBYJUG posted:

And get everyone to do everything naked ,like they did in the good old ancient days.

+1. Brazilians for the female participants would be a fitting homage to the host nation.

Can we have a rethink on this guys ???