Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5

Author Topic: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?  (Read 3792 times)

Flare

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« on: April 11, 2011, 11:10:34 pm »

Off topic, but I feel it's important

Because people shouldn't be required to screw up their bodies and shorten their lifespans to compete at the top level.  If you allowed drugs, EVERYONE competing would have to take the strongest, most dangerous drugs in order to keep up with everyone else.  It would end with noone getting an advantage and everyone endangering their own health, so...

For graduates, you're generally testing knowledge, skills and understanding.  I don't think there's been any serious studies that have shown that "academic enhancing drugs" really work as anything other than a general stimulant.

All projects involve some sort of sacrifice, you might as well argue some people don't want to do all that hard work yet still compete in the top ranks. It is important to separate that they want to compete in the top ranks, and screwing up their bodies in the process. Wherein, screwing up their bodies in the process is a side effect of competing in the top ranks, just as spending all your time running and training is a sacrifice that's needed to compete in the top ranks now.
Look, there are many dangerous sports that we don't object to even when they shorten their participant's lifespans. Combative sports for example, though it doesn't significantly shorten a person's life relative to heavy chemical therapy, the quality of life seriously diminishes after one too many hits to the head. Top rank racing is another one. There's a very real chance that there will be an accident on the track. Killing the drivers is not the real motive behind the sport, but neither is an Olympics where doping is allowed aiming to kill the participants either.
And regarding everyone using the drugs and evening the playing field shortening everyone's lives and generally not changing anything, I argue that it's already a part of Olympics already, extensive training isn't exactly ideal for a person in their lives, socializing and being with family is arguably far more valuable. People are already decreasing their standard of living to be able to compete on the top ranks.
What we should focus on, is probably living standards, I think it's justified for a person to increase the quality of his/her life by doing what they want to do, even at the cost of shortening their life spans.
I think there is merit in the claim that people should have to break themselves to compete with each other, but this point is not consistent with the current levels of how much people allow others to train or practice even when they'd be doing other things instead to compete at the top level.

there, those are my opening arguments. Have at thee!
Logged

alway

  • Bay Watcher
  • 🏳️‍⚧️
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #1 on: April 11, 2011, 11:16:19 pm »

Scientific American did a humorous editorial column on this a while back. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=let-the-games-begin
Logged

Vector

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2011, 12:28:13 am »

I would say "yes, have at it and create druggie sports, who really gives a crap anyway," but then I remembered that there's a lot of really, really young people (especially women in things like gymnastics and figure skating) in the Olympics.  And the thing about teenagers is that most of them really, really want approval.

I don't think this should be sanctioned for young people, who should be protected to a certain extent from hard drugs like steroids.  Especially, again, young women, who can have enormous issues from increased testosterone.  Otherwise, I don't especially care.

That may just be because I'm sick, but those are my two cents right now.
Logged
"The question of the usefulness of poetry arises only in periods of its decline, while in periods of its flowering, no one doubts its total uselessness." - Boris Pasternak

nonbinary/genderfluid/genderqueer renegade mathematician and mafia subforum limpet. please avoid quoting me.

pronouns: prefer neutral ones, others are fine. height: 5'3".

Megaman

  • Bay Watcher
  • What is love?
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #3 on: April 12, 2011, 12:29:53 am »

No, Doping in Sports is not.
Logged
Hello Hunam

FallingWhale

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #4 on: April 12, 2011, 01:54:44 am »

Only for Mao's glory.
Logged
Quote from: Spambot
Becoming a software engineering is not a piece of cake that you can slice it off a plate and gorge on it.

Darvi

  • Bay Watcher
  • <Cript> Darvi is my wifi.
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2011, 02:00:13 am »

We could just skip the sports and give the trophies to whoever makes the most efficient drugs.
Logged

Max White

  • Bay Watcher
  • Still not hollowed!
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2011, 02:01:35 am »

We could just skip the sports and give the trophies to whoever makes the most efficient drugs.

Well I for one welcome our new drug fueled overlords.

Megaman

  • Bay Watcher
  • What is love?
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #7 on: April 12, 2011, 02:03:55 am »

AND LO' COMES THE NEW REALITY TV SHOW: DRUG FUELED OVERLORDS!

I can see it now, 'Tim is angry when Haley 'Fucked with his product beee-och', will their friendship survive the heavy beating inflicted upon Haley? Will the cops find out? See what happens next on: DRUG FUELED OVERLORDS!'
« Last Edit: April 12, 2011, 02:17:58 am by Megaman »
Logged
Hello Hunam

Criptfeind

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #9 on: April 12, 2011, 02:12:42 am »

I guess I feel this is sorta on the same lines as smoking or drinking. Keep children from doing until they can truly understand what it means, but let adults do it if they want. For the sports piece, sports are about skills, not about how many chemicals you can get running though your body. So I would say two separate areas, drugged and non drugged, would be appropriate. Maybe with differing areas in the drugged section for differing amounts of drugs. If one section of it is not entertaining enough, let the market sort it out.
Logged

Enzo

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #10 on: April 12, 2011, 02:19:28 am »

I am against forcing athletes to take dangerous substances to stay competitive at the top level.

On the other hand, sports are more entertaining if they are played by giant superhuman monsters.

Therefore, I agree with Criptfiend. I propose the formation of a separate division of all major sports that encourages excessive doping. Home runs every inning, triple-somersault slam dunks, errant pucks decapitating linesmen, wrestlers being ripped in half... it would be absolutely magical.
Logged

Darvi

  • Bay Watcher
  • <Cript> Darvi is my wifi.
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #11 on: April 12, 2011, 02:20:55 am »

If they know what they get themselves into, and are fully informed of the risks, then I support the notion of people ruining their bodies for our amusement.
Logged

Criptfeind

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #12 on: April 12, 2011, 02:21:50 am »

Therefore, I agree with Criptfiend. I propose the formation of a separate division of all major sports that encourages excessive doping. Home runs every inning, triple-somersault slam dunks, errant pucks decapitating linesmen, wrestlers being ripped in half... it would be absolutely magical.
Humm... But I am anti quick death! (Although I am pro slow death.)
Logged

IronyOwl

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nope~
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #13 on: April 12, 2011, 02:32:07 am »

All projects involve some sort of sacrifice, you might as well argue some people don't want to do all that hard work yet still compete in the top ranks.
I see no problem with competitions that are limited or regulated in some way, like the Special Olympics. Indeed, that's largely the theory behind any competition- you can't just wear a jetpack to a vaulting competition or pull a knife on a fellow hockey player, because the point is not simply "Do anything and everything to achieve Goal X." If nothing else, that sort of reasoning tends to defeat the point- imagine if most sports consisted of teams trying to prevent their rivals from ever making it onto the field.

Look, there are many dangerous sports that we don't object to even when they shorten their participant's lifespans.
That tends to be because it's an unavoidable aspect of the sport, not because we just don't care. Boxing consists of two people punching each other until one can't fight anymore; there's only so pleasant that can get. Racing consists of going really fast, which means that sometimes things go really wrong. We don't let boxers use brass knuckles or allow racecar drivers to use wheel blades on the notion of "Well if you can't handle it stay out of the big leagues," because it's not really necessary or productive.

And regarding everyone using the drugs and evening the playing field shortening everyone's lives and generally not changing anything, I argue that it's already a part of Olympics already, extensive training isn't exactly ideal for a person in their lives, socializing and being with family is arguably far more valuable.
This also tends to be an unavoidable consequence of the sport. There's no practical way to limit how much training someone's allowed to do, because training is a natural part of most activities and frankly the athlete's time is their own. Saying "Well arguably socializing is more important than practicing your vault" is a non-argument. Trying to argue that because there's some negative effects we may as well allow any and all negative effects isn't reasonable; you'd be arguing, among other things, that outright assassination between athletes should be permissible.

What we should focus on, is probably living standards, I think it's justified for a person to increase the quality of his/her life by doing what they want to do, even at the cost of shortening their life spans.
I'm not sure where you're going with this. Performance-enhancing drugs are not symptomless except for decreasing life expectancy.

I think there is merit in the claim that people should have to break themselves to compete with each other, but this point is not consistent with the current levels of how much people allow others to train or practice even when they'd be doing other things instead to compete at the top level.
I'm not certain I follow, but the last part sounds like you're saying "Instead of training all the time, let them take steroids to achieve the same effect, then spend the rest of their time enjoying life instead!" This doesn't make any sense, since people trying to get to the absolute top will spend all of their time training in addition to any chemical enhancements, not instead of them, and if they didn't, it would either mean they didn't want it badly enough, meaning according to you they shouldn't be competing in the first place, or the drugs are completely capping out their potential, in which case it'd literally be a competition between drugs, as Darvi suggested.
Logged
Quote from: Radio Controlled (Discord)
A hand, a hand, my kingdom for a hot hand!
The kitchenette mold free, you move on to the pantry. it's nasty in there. The bacon is grazing on the lettuce. The ham is having an illicit affair with the prime rib, The potatoes see all, know all. A rat in boxer shorts smoking a foul smelling cigar is banging on a cabinet shouting about rent money.

Darvi

  • Bay Watcher
  • <Cript> Darvi is my wifi.
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #14 on: April 12, 2011, 02:36:13 am »

imagine if most sports consisted of teams trying to prevent their rivals from ever making it onto the field.
I don't have to imagine, that's what sports look like on TV :V
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5