Quote:
Originally Posted by metaldude26
What I do know is that if you are arguing that surgery to repair a torn ligament being legal because it removes a deficiency then I don't see a difference between someone blood doping a little just so that their testosterone levels can match that of their competitors. And if you disagree then I think you are making the God's body argument to which I would say that if God gave you weak ACLs then you shouldn't be able to get a new one from a cadaver.
|
Majority of ppl who have ACL surgery use their own hamstrings tendon. And fixing your ACL doesn't make you suddenly an All-Star, it allows you to run without blowing out your knee and getting premature arthritis. Furthermore, it's not like people don't tear their ACLs thru contact sports. A person's ACL isn't necessarily weaker than anyone elses because they tear it (except women vs men).
Its like people who tear their achilles tendon. We don't fix it so your performance is enhanced, we fix it so you can walk normally and return to "regular" level of life/performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by metaldude26
A third argument for something like injecting one's own red blood cells into his body would be how is this any different than high altitude training? If the end result is simply to manipulate your body into having above average levels of red blood cells then why does it really matter how you get there? Don't we encourage athletes to push themselves to the limits of what they can be to perform? So if we allow high altitude training why wouldn't we also allow blood doping which can be done in an even more controlled manner that can also be done such that the timing occurs where the athlete can perform at his peak level.
What about using that sort of blood doping to remove home field advantages in high altitude locations like Denver? I don't know what the right answer there is, I'm just putting it out there.
|
There is an inherent difference in training in altitude, and removing your own blood and re-infusing it. Heck, hospitals don't even allow it anymore for blood transfusions prior to surgery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by metaldude26
One thing that concerns me is that because there is a lot less acceptance of performance enhance in the mainstream it becomes a lot more dangerous for people who do want to use it but don't necessarily know how. The dangers with a lot of performance enhancers only come in when there is abuse. So it seems to me the whole anti-steroids movement is really a foolish one, kind of like abstinence only sex education. I'd rather see us move into a world where we discuss performance enhancers as an option but not one that's for everyone but if you do want to do it, here's how to do it safely. Because the fact is, we've reached the point where steroids are out there, and they are never going away. Proper education is going to be a lot better of a deterrent than simply saying steroids are bad/illegal.
Ultimately there are a lot of different methods out there that you can use, which are safe if done properly. So as far as the safety argument goes, if there are safe ways out there then what's there to argue.
|
this may be true about proper education and safety. i am frightened if there are cops/soldiers using horse steroids and going on ragers.
the things is these people use steroids that are different than the corticosteroids a person takes for asthma or rheumatoid arthritis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by metaldude26
As far as fair play goes, I feel like I've touched on that earlier. Either way, the choice to use performance enhancers is really no different than many of the other choices athletes must make on the road to becoming elite and if you aren't willing to do whatever it takes to make it then maybe you just don't have what it takes.
What's really interesting to me is the contrast between performance enhancement between more complex team sports like basketball, hockey etc. and performance enhancement in very specific sports like cycling, track and field, etc. I can definitely see how in specific sports like that you'd have a lot more incentive for performance enhancement because there are only a few certain skills that need to be refined so the performance enhancement can be tailored specifically to your sport's needs, whereas with a game like hockey, you need to have endurance, hand-eye, raw strength, raw power, and any number of other skills. There's no one combination of performance enhancers that will make you better and ultimately hockey is also a sport where refining technique may take precedence over anything else so you can spend hours working on technique and not be over-training. In sports like track and field and cycling there's only so much technique to work on so the only other stuff to train is either raw power/endurance and these are aspects that can be over-trained, leading to injuries.
|
PEDS means whoever has the most money will have advantage - maybe true in reality anyways with Yankees, Lakers, etc.
The thing is people can get hurts in sports (hockey, football, boxing) with concussions, fractures, etc. It's not like its unknown steroids cause roid rage, and players may do a cheapshot they normally wouldn't do.
I personally am amazed at the difference in reaction about steroids in baseball and olympics versus in the NFL.
