Printable View
Because people have cheated in the past doesn't make it right today, surely? But weight training for sports other than weightlifting is still naturally enhancing your own body. Like running ten miles a day or going to the gym so you are more fleet of foot on the tennis court.
But taking medication or drugs designed to enhance your physique or performance is the line I think it is wrong to cross.
My point was that the line of what's "natural" is arbitrary, you ignored the nutrition issue. There are plenty of things athletes put down their mouth because they improve performance that are in no way natural (in so far as coming naturally from food).
It's not a question of people cheating in the past, athletes will cheat in the now and future because they will do anything to be the best. Legalise drugs and its an even playing field, keep them illicit and only a few can win...
I think steroids change the nature of the competition. I would like to see athletes that are human-like, rather than those who have taken synthetic hormones to turn into extra-human freaks.
I disagree that there is that slippery a slope between nutrition and artificial hormones. Sure, blood doping can be done with one's own blood, but you have to extract your own blood and then re-inject it. All rules involve line-drawing. I don't see anything arbitrary about drawing the line at epo, androgens, and blood re-injections.
And the athletes might not be killing themselves in the short-term but high levels of androgens are carcinogenic. I've also heard it's not good for athletes to have high hematrocrit counts, which results from blood doping. Athletes who have used stimulants have gone into cardiac arrest. I don't think performance enhancers would cause a public health emergency, but if I were a professional athlete I would not want to have to use them to compete.
Where do you draw the line with Performance Enhancers?
Like Billy Connelly said of the 10K, I'll have a motorbike, that'll enhance my fukkin performance. My mate wants a gold medal, too, I'll fit it with a sidecar!
Saturday Night Live Weekend Update: All Drug Olympics
http://www.hulu.com/watch/4090
I agree with freedom - what is natural anymore? Are protein powders natural?
How about birth control for women - thats a steroid too. Did you know insulin is one of the most anabolic substances in the world? Steroids. Blah blah blah. Let them juice their fucking brains out. I don't want to see twigs running around playing fucking patty cake with each other.
Dear John Witherspoon: "Steroids" - YouTube
No disrespect to you and freedom. Legitimate viewpoints but here's my rebuttal anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Dong
I don't put much in the natural/unnatural distinction. It's a red herring and has very little explanatory power. Some of the most dangerous substances in the world are natural and some very harmless ones are synthesized. All the substances you mentioned have an on-label use. In the case of insulin, it's something that saves lives. Even testosterone is effective for people with hypogonadism. The issue is whether something is harmful if not used for medical purposes.
I think there's a big difference between someone using insulin because they don't want to end up in a diabetic coma and someone juicing because they want to be a great athlete. You guys are essentially saying that because there are legit uses for hormones and because the distinction between that which is processed and that which isn't doesn't always hold, everyone should get to use whatever substance they want.
I have an elderly friend with kidney failure who takes erythropoeitin to dope his blood. Surely this argues for widespread use of epo in cycling. Why should he get to use it and not Lance Armstrong;)?
steroids do not replace talent..bottom line ..you can suck at sports take steroids be stronger and still suck..people think its a miracle drug ..it isnt..and people who have no experience with them shouldnt speak as if they do..i have used them for years ..so i have a pretty good idea of what they really are and can do ..its a choice
You sound like a winner. How come nobody had come close to breaking the single season homerun record for decades, then both Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa did in the same season?Quote:
Originally Posted by cadillac
Nobody is saying these guys did not have talent. They do. I think what it fairly obvious is that without steroids AND talent Mark McGwire would not have hit 70 home runs in a season. I'm sorry but someone is not disqualified from talking about steroids just because they don't inject them.
Yep. A fly ball to the warning track can be turned into a home run with more strength/bat speed making the ball travel an additional 20 feet or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan