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.
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.
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.
Author
Topic: Doping in Sports: Justifiable? (Read 3724 times)