Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

Author Topic: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?  (Read 3786 times)

alway

  • Bay Watcher
  • 🏳️‍⚧️
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #30 on: April 12, 2011, 11:41:42 am »

you can't just wear a jetpack to a vaulting competition
Now there's a sport worth watching. Jetpack vaulting competitions would be incredibly epic after the first record was set. "Okay, all you need to do is jump over the pole vault located in the upper atmosphere and fall back down before freezing, suffocating, or running out of fuel. Good luck."
Logged

Eagleon

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • Soundcloud
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #31 on: April 12, 2011, 11:49:11 am »

Couldn't the snip be snip the entertainment industry?  Orsnip?
I don't see how snip are somehow superior tosnipFOOTBAWLsnip resources

1. Yes. And no. Someone that idly plays football on weekends with their local team is hardly the same as an athlete that spends nine hours a day for years refining their body and physical skills ad absurdium.

2. They're not really superior. More, it irritates me that promising research goes unexplored while at the same time people spend so much money and time in the advertising/production system surrounding professional sports and athletics. Admittedly, they'd probably find some other silly place to spend it rather than where I'd like it, but meh :P I'm allowed to be a little grouchy about some things aren't I?
« Last Edit: April 12, 2011, 11:51:50 am by Eagleon »
Logged
Agora: open-source, next-gen online discussions with formal outcomes!
Music, Ballpoint
Support 100% Emigration, Everyone Walking Around Confused Forever 2044

IronyOwl

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nope~
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #32 on: April 12, 2011, 01:36:03 pm »

Couldn't the snip be snip the entertainment industry?  Orsnip?
I don't see how snip are somehow superior tosnipFOOTBAWLsnip resources

1. Yes. And no. Someone that idly plays football on weekends with their local team is hardly the same as an athlete that spends nine hours a day for years refining their body and physical skills ad absurdium.
I think he was referring to the vast amounts of time and money put into movies, video games, and the like. Sports is in no way unique in terms of being profitable, investment-heavy entertainment.
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.

Flare

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #33 on: April 12, 2011, 02:35:16 pm »

Sorry, wrote a lot on Owl's first response, but evidently the browser timed out on me, be back later.
Logged

IronyOwl

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nope~
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #34 on: April 12, 2011, 03:22:29 pm »

Ouch.
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.

Flare

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #35 on: April 12, 2011, 07:39:26 pm »

Okay, I'm back. First off, I'd like to make my position just a bit clearer since it seems I've failed miserably in that aspect.

Here is what I am saying about doping in sports, its ban from all sports is inconsistent given the other aspects of sports and physical competition we have now. I am not saying that we should deregulate entirely all sports or do away with all regulation, the basis of the argument concerning that portion is that there should be justifications that are unique to doping that isn't to the rest of the rules. Namely, there is something inherently bad about it that no other aspect of sports have, and I will aim to argue the case that there isn't.

As that may be, I won't be addressing all of your points, since, I think you'll agree, some of them are based off misconceptions from my poor writing. If you think I've glossed over points that aren't based off misconceptions, feel free to point them out again.

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.

I imagine that most competition likely won't be the same, in fact, I think there might be a fair bit of them that might become redundant because they could not be made to accommodate the increase of physical output. If all the sports were to stay the same, I agree it probably would be redundant as the difference between the competitors would likely be infinitesimal even taking into account individual skill and the different types of chemical and augmentation enhancement each has.
However, since the beginning of the inception of the Olympics, and as with many major sports, the rules changes, in particular to the Olympics some sports were dropped and other added. Due to the increasing of physical performance of the competitors since the early 1900s many physical competitions have changed to meet this, and I believe they will likely meet it again once if the rules on chemical and physical augmentation were allowed.

Quote
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.

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 you're ignoring a very important aspect here. Many of the situations you bring up are wrong, but I think it can be completely mitigated by the consent these people give to participate in these sports full knowing the consequences. If boxers consent to use brass knuckles and drivers to consent to a more dangerous race track, there shouldn't be a problem unless they somehow volunteer other people without their knowing.
As for physically enhancing drugs having negative side effects, these too are contingent on the person's preferences. Someone may have a desire to compete with the top ranking competitors even at the expense of the negative symptoms and shortened life span. I don't think we have grounds to tell this person what the person should or shouldn't like if it is a morally neutral act, or perhaps more pertinent, an act a person takes upon themselves that is consistent with the training and equipment done and used for competition.
As for it being productive, I have no idea what you mean.

Quote
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.

I think there's a slight confusion here. Again of the limits of what I am arguing. I'm not arguing for the full deregulation of sports, but just the chemical and physical augmentation side of it. In the above case I am trying to argue the sacrifices, like the aforementioned negative side effects of chemical enhancement is not much different from the negative consequences an athlete undertakes when they embark on rigorous, unforgiving, Olympic level training.
As for training being a natural thing to do, I will argue that there is very little that is natural about competition already. Simply take into consideration the food that each athlete eats. 300 hundred years ago, half of the athletic demographic wouldn't be eating the fruits, meats, or vegetables that grew on the other side of the world that they are eating now that gives them the advantages it provides. Take for example, the usage of sophisticated and specialized equipment for the purposes at hand. An endurance skater has many choices about the type of blade he/she uses on her feet, they also have many choices about the type of clothing they choose to wear that gives them advantages they otherwise wouldn't poses.
Logged

Max White

  • Bay Watcher
  • Still not hollowed!
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #36 on: April 12, 2011, 07:41:31 pm »

I like how your pastimes are superior to others', so much so that they should be the only pastimes.

I'm not saying we should make a effort to destroy others past times, such as sporting events, but if they are willing to destroy themselves, I won't stand in their way.

Flare

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #37 on: April 12, 2011, 08:10:01 pm »

There is a major line of philosophical and legal thought about not letting people do what they do, even if they are totally consenting and understand all the risks. Alan Wertheimer for instance argues that we just shouldn't enforce certain contracts, even if these contract are advantageous and both parties understand the risks involved.
Logged

Earthquake Damage

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #38 on: April 12, 2011, 08:24:20 pm »

I'm not saying we should make a effort to destroy others past times, such as sporting events, but if they are willing to destroy themselves, I won't stand in their way.

Fair enough.  Also not the first time I've mistaken someone's intent.

There is a major line of philosophical and legal thought about not letting people do what they do, even if they are totally consenting and understand all the risks. Alan Wertheimer for instance argues that we just shouldn't enforce certain contracts, even if these contract are advantageous and both parties understand the risks involved.

That can of worms is clearly marked "Do Not Open!"  :P
Logged

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #39 on: April 12, 2011, 10:10:29 pm »

This isn't anything to do with personal freedoms at all.  I'm fine with people screwing up their bodies in any way they like.  If people wants to lower their life expactancy and experience side effects in order to become stronger, that's fine.

However, these people should not be allowed to enter competitions and force others to do the same in order to stay competitive with them.  Especially if the others do not want to take drugs and want to keep the drug users out of their sports.
Logged

Flare

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #40 on: April 13, 2011, 02:07:42 am »

This is exactly what I'm trying to argue against. The argument that it would force other people who don't want to take drugs to stay as competitive doesn't really help when you consider the fact that people already sacrifice a lot to compete at the level they compete at. Suppose that we time warped in the lead marathon runner from the 1908 and gave him a chance to run in today's marathon, knowing full well that one of the leading marathon runners of today, Haile Gebrselassie, can run the distance the leading marathon runner of 1908 ran in three hours, almost in two hours.
We wouldn't say Mr. 1908 is put at a disadvantage, he is allowed to use the same training techniques, same knowledge of nutrition and dietary prodcuts, as well as modern day marathon trainers. Not only that, lets imagine that Mr. 1908 really has a chance of beating Mr. Gebrselassie with all these things open to him.
But then suppose Mr. 1908 doesn't want to spend as much time as today's marathon runners training, suppose he like spending time with his family just as important (I warped them in too :P), and that it just isn't worth it if he were to spend all his time training for marathon runs even if he enjoys competing at that level. He would then claim, that it is unfair that the top runners who spend all their time training make the rest of them train as much as them. They shouldn't train so much so Mr. 1908 can enjoy spending time with his family while competing in the top ranks.

I think most of us would say he is crazy, and that it is an unjustified claim to make he is making. Runners like Mr. Gebrselassie made sacrifices spending so much time training which he could have spent with his own family. Why should the whole leading rank of athletes slow down and limit themselves just for this individual? Though of course this last claim assumes there such a thing as athletic excellence and we should be aiming for it (thus is why we would want Mr. Gebrselassie to perform his best), though just what this constitutes is a very tricky business from my experience. If this isn't true, Haile Gebrselassie and Mr. 1908 would likely be better off spending time with their family rather than pandering to the masses, but then we'd have no sport to speak of.

I believe this is the same thing for doping. The people who complain have no grounds to suppose they have any weight to limit the action other take, moreover they don't have the reasons necessary to curtail a sports organization to limit what other people can do in respect to themselves. If the path of athletic excellence is embarked upon here, there might be many things we disagree about what this should be, but I think what we all can agree on, is that athletic excellence is nothing without sacrifice. Not only this, I suggest this is precisely what we do reason when we congratulate those that don't even come close to competing professionally. We recognize there is sacrifice regardless of the result in striving for this notion of athletic excellence. So then we can conclude that this is a good thing, and if there is more sacrifice for this particular notion the better. Chemical enhancement will make sure there is more sacrifice.

Though of course you could argue that it is a certain type of sacrifice, otherwise we'd be chanting BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD, in every stadium I guess. I'll need some sleep to think up an argument against that.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 02:11:22 am by Flare »
Logged

Earthquake Damage

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #41 on: April 13, 2011, 02:20:51 am »

I believe this is the same thing for doping. The people who complain have no grounds to suppose they have any weight to limit the action other take, moreover they don't have the reasons necessary to curtail a sports organization to limit what other people can do in respect to themselves. If the path of athletic excellence is embarked upon here, there might be many things we disagree about what this should be, but I think what we all can agree on, is that athletic excellence is nothing without sacrifice. Not only this, I suggest this is precisely what we do reason when we congratulate those that don't even come close to competing professionally. We recognize there is sacrifice regardless of the result in striving for this notion of athletic excellence. So then we can conclude that this is a good thing, and if there is more sacrifice for this particular notion the better. Chemical enhancement will make sure there is more sacrifice.

Could the same be said of genetic modification and cybernetics once those are available?  When does the dedication and sacrifice no longer impress us?

Also, relevant?
Quote from: Anonymous member of the Northwest Secessionist Forces
They'd've replaced his whole body if it would've improved performance. If that's how you judge a man -- by performance -- then eventually it's not about people but upgrades, versions, functionality...
Logged

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #42 on: April 13, 2011, 02:28:57 am »

Ahhh doping, we are so close to perfect, but obscenely expencive, athletic enhancement I can smell it.

Though personally "sports" is really the least of my concerns in terms of what "vial evils" it brings forth.

(specifically the reasons the development for safe doping is basically the holy grail of drugs is because it is essentially a over the counter, or easy to get perscription, drug fit for common use and that isn't a cure for a disease)

Quote
Why should the whole leading rank of athletes slow down and limit themselves just for this individual?


Huh sorry, I couldn't hear you over the money I am spending for my athlete to win. What was that? You don't have enough money to pay for the modifications? well I guess you can just be destitute or something.

Quote
Could the same be said of genetic modification

Actually some forms of "doping" IS genetic modification.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 02:30:52 am by Neonivek »
Logged

Eagleon

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • Soundcloud
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #43 on: April 13, 2011, 02:34:27 am »

Could the same be said of genetic modification and cybernetics once those are available?  When does the dedication and sacrifice no longer impress us?

Also, relevant?
Quote from: Anonymous member of the Northwest Secessionist Forces
They'd've replaced his whole body if it would've improved performance. If that's how you judge a man -- by performance -- then eventually it's not about people but upgrades, versions, functionality...
What I like about this whole mess is it forces people to dance on the edge of seeing the rest of what they do in the same way. Athletes practically sculpt themselves, mind and body, to perform a physical task with only subtle cultural impact. What are people in the end, their bodies or their minds? Some combination of the two? Eventually it's going to be common sense (not even common knowledge) that we're impressed by fast moving objects because of our lizard brains, and we'll have to decide whether we want to continue being so fascinated by phantom strength. Not that that's bad either way. It's just a little absurd when you look at it from the right angle.
Logged
Agora: open-source, next-gen online discussions with formal outcomes!
Music, Ballpoint
Support 100% Emigration, Everyone Walking Around Confused Forever 2044

Earthquake Damage

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doping in Sports: Justifiable?
« Reply #44 on: April 13, 2011, 02:36:08 am »

"vial evils"

I approve this pun and/or double entendre.  That is all.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5