Do "Performance Enhancing Drugs" Really Matter?
In the discussion about D'Nesh DiSousa's cheating on campaign finances, mia767ca 11 asked the fundamental question: "if you were in nazi germany and the law was that you had to turn in jews, would you follow the law???
The essential standard supporting that question is that your own self-interest supersedes any law, any compact or any contract. But is that the case? If you understand the rules, and agree to participate, are you not committed to those rules?
On a deeper level, what is a "performance-enhancing" drug that a good night's sleep and sound nutrition is not?
Should we limit athletes to some 19th century standard when in fact the 21st century paves the road to super-human performance?
Recent story here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/bus...
The essential standard supporting that question is that your own self-interest supersedes any law, any compact or any contract. But is that the case? If you understand the rules, and agree to participate, are you not committed to those rules?
On a deeper level, what is a "performance-enhancing" drug that a good night's sleep and sound nutrition is not?
Should we limit athletes to some 19th century standard when in fact the 21st century paves the road to super-human performance?
Recent story here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/bus...
There are natural genetic qualities that exist today that are desirable as enhancements. My family has a history of healthy longevity, with some of my ancestors healthy centenarians as far back as the 16th century, when the normal lifespan was around 40. None of my predecessors have died of cancer or serious heart disorders, and dementia is absent. I haven't had any significant illness for about the last 30 years, and take no medications at over 70 years old.
I've offered to submit to genetic studies, as I would like to think I could help improve the chance of others for a long, productive life. What mystified me for a while was that I was being turned away, but then I realized most of the longevity and health improvement research is funded by pharmaceutical companies. Creating a reliable method of gene modification that would eliminate the need for most drugs would bankrupt them.
I'd appreciate any suggestions about how I might find a more welcome research team. Anyway, there are others like me, with unusual physical and mental abilities that should be transferable to others who might wish to have their genetic talents.
See my comment below: “On April 19, 1897, John J. McDermott of New York, emerged from a 15-member starting field and captured the first B.A.A. Marathon in 2:55:10. ... In 2006, that mark would place him 5th among the women age 40-49 (Gina M. McGee, 2:55:03). However, the modern race is longer. Therefore, today, McDermott would beat all of the women 50-59, but none of the women 40-49. His time calculated for the longer course would be the same as John Smallwood, in the Men‟s Age 60-69 who clocked 3:10:44."
It is obvious that we have been "enhancing performance" many ways in the past 100 years. I submit that diet and training alone have changed athletic competition.
As I noted below:
"Ayn Rand attempted to get around the problem of rampant subjectivism with "man qua man" as the standard. In other words a virtuous person acts with reason and rationality to achieve purpose and productiveness with self-esteem and pride as the consequential rewards."
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Another way of thinking about the matter is this: does the end justify the means? The rules are there as means to an end. If you disagree with them, you are effectively arguing that you disagree with the ends as well, do you not? If one argues that there should be no bans on performance enhancing drugs in athletics, is not one actually arguing that the contest is not actually between athletes, but between pharmaceutical manufacturers?
I do not have an answer. If we allow laissez faire with performance enhancers, soon that will include genetic remodifications, and bionic implants such as super muscles or two-stage lungs with superchargers or 6-chambered hearts.
But we already have such selection by privileged birth. Long ago, I read a story from a city girl who was accepted to an exclusive prep school. The first day on the field, she thought to herself, "I am going to run these puppies into the ground." Then, she found out that she could not. Her social disadvantage was deeper than she knew.
But is she the standard? Were the kids with healthy parents and healthy childhoods unfairly competing?
Again, I don't know... I tend to laissez faire, but as above, that can radically change the nature of competitive sports in dimensions not originally expected. But competitive sports are only a microcosm of competition in general.
Is it unfair for insurance sales people to drink Red Bull?
"But we already have such selection by privileged birth."
Really? How so? I'm not aware of any human beings born with the features you cited. I'm not being facetious, I'm just noting that you are presenting a case as if it already is while it is nothing more than science fiction.
Second question: Government authority must be respected only only within its one morally proper function: acting as the monopoly agency for the use of retaliatory force. And this retaliatory force can be used only in the protection of individual rights, which means that the only proper subject of legislation is the protection of individual rights.
Outside this morally proper sphere the law has no moral authority. And, since every government action is essentially an instance of the use of force, and every instance of force is either offensive or defensive (there is no third alternative), if a government action is not retaliatory in function, then it is, in effect, criminal.
Of course, you have to rationally evaluate in any particular case whether the risk of discovery and punishment by the government is worth taking, and avoid it if it is not. But in many cases obeying the law, as in the example presented, may be self-destructive, i.e. immoral.
In those cases, government intervention at the request of an injured party would be appropriate.
"On Thursday afternoon [March 3, 2016], in a majestic courtroom on the 17th floor of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse in downtown Manhattan, three distinguished judges who hold degrees from Ivy League universities will listen to some of the nation's highest-priced lawyers argue about air pressure in footballs.
The judges of the nation's second-highest court will determine whether U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman was right or wrong in overturning Tom Brady's four-game suspension at the start of the 2015 season. Brady was suspended by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell for his role in a scheme to lower the pressure in footballs used in a game, for obstructing an investigation into the incident and for destroying important evidence." -- http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/i...
Jan
Obviously, I agree with you that eliminating genetic liabilities and adding genetic advantages are both desirable.
I am intrigued by your statement that the parathletes do better in marathons. I did a quick look to see if I could find info on this, but all I got was hoopla. Can you tell me more?
Jan
Below that, the best foot time is 2:02:57 for men and 2:15:25 for women.
And that's just the winners. My brother runs marathons and told me that the wheelchairs ("rims") as a pack are sent off ahead of the foot racers because most of them will finish before most of the others.
Quite interesting. Thank you.
Jan
http://www.hulu.com/watch/4090
Well we can start with caffeine as it, when use correctly, is indeed a drug which enhances various performance aspects (physical or mental). It is also something not a part of sleep or nutrition and will have an enhancing effect regardless of a good diet or poor sleep.
To me the question isn't whether a substance enhances performance or not. It is the fundamental assumption that some substances, or even methods in the case of blood doping, are somehow "ok" but others are not. Let us take blood doping for example. For those who haven't bothered to look into the details, blood doping is where you (simplification warning!), commonly, extract some of your blood and before an event put it back in. Why would you do this? To increase your red blood cell count.
This provides more oxygen carrying capacity and thus can tremendously boost your aerobic performance. Notice there is no drug used here, and nothing being added to your body that it didn't already produce. Yet this is banned. However, you can get the very same effect by training at high altitudes. We have an olympic training center in the U.S. sited specifically for this reason. So, training at high altitudes to increase RBC is ok, but removal and replacement is not.
On what grounds? That it is somehow "unfair". But which is more unfair, and unfair to whom? The implication is that it is unfair to those who can't afford the procedure. Yet the procedure is far cheaper than going to a high altitude location and training. Much more convenient as well. So perhaps it is the other way around: perhaps the intent behind it is to prevent those of lower financial means from achieving the same level of performance.
The aforementioned caffeine is not regulated but I happen to know of Olympic teams which utilize it. Why is it no banned? Over the next several years as more word leaks out to the mainstream the public will learn how much eating a high fat, moderate protein, and low to moderate carb diet is a performance enhancing one compared to the standard high-carb/low-fat one most athletes not in the know already consume.
And don't even get me started on the stupidity that is anti-steroid. Steroids can't transform you from a little guy to a big guy on their own. It takes punishing workouts in the gym to accomplish that with steroids. All they let you do is if you are at the "natural" limit of your musculature they can get you to push beyond that. Even then you can do the same thing through very strict, and monstrous, nutritional assistance along with living very, very heavy. When it comes to competitiveness, steroids can only be used for recovery or taking an already extreme athlete just a bit further.
I've known guys who, despite not being in competition, tried using steroids to enhance their physique. They gave up because it still required far more effort than they were willing to put in. This notion that you can "just take some 'roids" and become the Hulk is untenable from a biophysical science standpoint. We're talking taking them and STILL spending pretty much all day in the gym - not a few hours but all day - and consuming incredible amounts of protein and calories. It is much like the misguided advice to women to not "lift heavy" to avoid becoming a she-hulk. That, too, takes an insane amount of dedicated effort. Nobody just accidentally lifts heavy and falls into this kinds of bodies.
I don't recall the formula off the top of my head but we have a scientifically determined formula which given certain physical measures of a person we know what the upper bounds of the musculature development for any given person is without the extremes I just mentioned. If so desired one can use that to create two classifications for such competitions. "Problem" solved.
I say pull the governor off the engine and let us see how far we can push the human body.
My guess is that it was almost immediately removed due to complaints.
It starts with a bunch of kids pedaling along on bicycles who sing~
"Here we go to school today,
to school today,
to school today!
Here we go to school today with medicines from Bayer!"
Then you get a video camera shot of all sorts of pushed together diversely shaped pills being floated over while a narrator carries on about all the wonderful medication products that Bayer has to offer.
I never have been ever to find that on Youtube.
I didn't try to do that again today.
Got things to do. Bye!
http://www.topps.com/circa-1989-barry...
http://www.mymccrearyhomesucks.com/ne...
I say that as someone that for a 4 year period, was very focused on being in the best shape I can be, and quite honestly, you do hit a wall. I'm a big guy, I'm around 6' and 250 lbs. I had slimmed to around 230 (slim for me actually) and was regularly lifting 400+ with my legs and could basically lift at least my weight with any of the major muscle groups, and we Norwegians are a fairly stout genetic stock. I'm not a bodybuilder, I was just very focused on it for about 2 hours every day.
When you hit that mark, no matter what I ate, how much sleep I got, how much effort I was putting in, I couldn't go any 'larger' than I was, or stronger necessarily. I continued to improve my cardio & such, but I came to that realization that there really are limits to development. Then looking at some of the other guys in the gym, it was very obvious they were not doing that on their own.
At the professional level, competition is extremely fierce. You might have a foot or so separate NASCAR finishers for the cup at the Daytona 500 (after 500 miles), 1/100ths of a second separate swimmers at the Olympic level, and you might see less than 1 kg difference in power lifting. You can see a bike tire thickness of separation here at the Amgen Tour of California every year. Carrying an extra gallon of water in the radiator of that NASCAR finisher beyond the bare minimum needed adds 8 lbs to the car and over 500 miles you just lost that 8 inches you won by. Something as seemingly insignificant as a blood transfusion at the low points of a multi-day / multi-stage race like the Amgen or the Tour de France gave Lance Armstrong the ability to consistently win. Why? Everyone else was having more difficulty metabolizing the oxygen to nourish their muscles and fatigue inevitably results.
On the issue, I'm torn. I know from first hand that to fully develop into the best you can be, you may need PEDs.
I think if I had my preference, the athletes should be able to train with them during the offseason to grow faster/stronger, recover from injuries more quickly, and to 'protect' themselves by being stronger. HOWEVER, there shouldn't be any trace of the chemicals at competition.
Steroids are the most effective treatment to rebuild muscles for example, many of these people deal with torn ACL's, knee injuries, etc. Most doctors are going to prescribe a steroid as part of the therapy. Likewise, steroids are also commonly used as part of the treatment for respiratory infections. These are things that have a legitimate medically-prescribed purpose for anyone, not only athletes.
Of course, I also see the other side, they can certainly be abused, and being 550 lbs is not 'normal' for a human.
At the same time, this is what people pay to see. I think the desire of professional sports though is to not look like the World Wrestling Foundation, and maintain some kind of legitimacy of competition.
When you hit that mark, no matter what I ate, how much sleep I got, how much effort I was putting in, I couldn't go any 'larger' than I was, or stronger necessarily. I continued to improve my cardio & such,"
Based on what you've said there you were in a state of perpetual overtraining. To push the weight you can lift beyond that level means not lifting every day but rather no more than once every 4 days - and doing no cardio work in the meantime. A better regimen would have easily seen you push beyond 400lb squats without drugs of any kind - or even extreme protein intake. But to do so is also a regimen you rarely see because so many are focused on size as opposed to strength.
Sadly, even with the drugs the poor form so many athletes have would still leave them injury prone. Too much reliance on "isolation" and machines as opposed to free weight multi-group routines. Anyway, congrats on finding your and pushing your personal limits - if only more people pushed theirs we'd see fewer problems in society at large, IMO.
i was on national debate in high school and majored in philosophy/psychology in college and listened and talked with Ayn Rand, Nat Bradent, Dave Kelley, etc...
one cannot blindly follow a country"s laws (Nazi Germany or the current Patriot Act)..
athletically, i have completed over 77 marathons and numerous tris...without any enchancers...just determination...what they are finding out now is that such performance is resulting in heart electrical problems as my generation ages...i cannot reverse what i have done...i live with it as best i can...i ran 13 Boston marathons...one would have been enough had i known...but it is always my choice, not the govt...
The deeper question is what do you do when the rules you did not agree to are put in place?
The broader theme is common in science fiction. SLAN by A. E. Van Vogt is probably the paradigm. I do not know of an earlier story, but they must exist. Collectibles capitalist, Jim Halperin of Heritage Auctions, wrote two novels on this theme, The Truth Machine and The First Immortal.
It is a fundamental question in egoism: when are you bound by any rules not your own -- or even your own? If your own happiness is the goal, why let anything stop you?
Ayn Rand attempted to get around the problem of rampant subjectivism with "man qua man" as the standard. In other words a virtuous person acts with reason and rationality to achieve purpose and productiveness with self-esteem and pride as the consequential rewards.
If achieving a difficult task is good, then the reductio ad absurdum is Harrison Bergeron: instead of using performance enhancers, we would all be burdened with preventions.
I'm not so sure about performance enhancing drugs -- at least those which are demonstrated to be harmful. The reality is that with the high degree of competitiveness in modern sports, anything that gives an athlete an actual edge pretty much becomes mandatory to be in the game.
Although it may be in the best interest of an individual athlete -- at least according to his own judgement -- to take a substance like steroids, it is not in his interest for everyone to have to take them just to be on a level playing field.
Depends on whether it is a completely free contract, or something so heavily regulated by unjustified government that nothing in it is morally binding.
In the case of organized sports as they are today, I take the latter position, especially about PEDs.
Pro athletes, football players in particular, so abuse their bodies with too much exercise that many of them die of strokes in their 40s or 50s. If you're willing to do that, the added risk from taking steroids disappears in the noise. So in effect, the only people who care about athletes doping (and are against it) are the same people who assume that all non-doctor-approved drug use is harmful and should be banned. To the athlete it makes good sense for practical, rational reasons. Let him do it.
(Aside: I believe that some sports, including football and boxing, pose dangers that are NOT adequately addressed by present rules, and I would like to see the players form unions to write and insist on new rules. Government regulation of any sport is unlikely to help.)
Political contributions, to me, are a completely different question. But I hold as Spooner did that the Constitution and laws are morally binding only on officials who've sworn to follow them. And even they should put individual moral rights first and anything the law says as a distant second.
I am sure that you do not intend this, but you know, you could take your statement and make it about railroads: "Sure, competition is fine, but what about too much competition? We should have three rail systems, one for steam engines, one for diesel-electric, and one for maglev."
See my comments about the Boston Marathon. The winner in 1897 could not beat a woman 40-49 or a man 60-69 today.
Enhancement has been with us for 100 years...
When you look at the size of football players today without any drugs they are massive men.
If you do not have the talent to begin with the drugs will not give it to you.
Seth Curry started shooting long jump shots as a kid and as such became proficient at making them. That is what is know as practice makes perfect. The same held true for Bill Russel, Bob Cousy, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Mike Jordan, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and oh so many more. These players worked very hard to develop the skills to be as good as they were or are for those still playing. No amount of drugs would have done anything for them.
You have to work at it, of course, same as anything, but small differences matter in intense competition.
As far making athletes faster and stronger being a safety concern, it is clearly the case in football. The harder the athletes hit each the more likely injuries occur. Of course, it's a balancing act. You want the sport to be competitive as well.
Of course, safety concerns would be around the drugs themselves. The drugs could harm the athletes themselves. Which why I would say sport organization should ban the drugs to promote safety. Of course, an organization could allow performance enhancing drugs if it is allow to do so by law.
However, I argue for what an sport organization should do.
As for American football, my opinion is that it is the armor that led to the unintended consequence of greater injuries (more often, more severe). You don't get that in rugby. Or so I believe.
As for organizations making rules for athletes - or anyone else - it does depend on who can get hurt by whom. NASCAR is "rules of the road" to the Nth power: cars are dangerous to other people. On the other hand, Olympic archery is a sport with real weapons, but the contestants do not shoot at each other. So, rules about what you can eat or drink or inject would seem to be irrelevant there.
It also has to do with the relationship between the players and organization(s). Does the organization enjoy a position of special knowledge that the individual lacks? As I have said above, I do not have a good answer for all cases.