PEDs


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

PEDs

Postby fieldguy » Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:14 am

Bioethics/law prof at Case western reserve urges Olympics, proleagues to legalie performance-enhancing drugs. http://tinyurl.com/kuxer5g
fieldguy
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: PEDs

Postby gh » Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:25 am

wow, first time I ever heard this:

<<"Why is marijuana banned?" he asked. "That's one of my favorites. Marijuana is prohibited, but why is that? It has no physical performance-enhancing effects.

"Dick Pound (the head of the World Anti-Doping Agency,or WADA) and I were debating that. He said the reason is that 'The White House wants us to put it on the prohibited list, in order to fund USADA (the United States Anti-Doping Agency).' It's a political thing.">>
gh
 
Posts: 46322
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: PEDs

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:40 am

Which White House is this? When was it first on the list - Reagan? :lol: Does this mean it is continually being listed because of each White House making the request?

As with most writers that hit upon this idea, I think that he is naive and does not understand continued rounds of response from athletes. A drug test is Yes/No, but PED use is not, and the scale matters in multiple ways.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16320
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: PEDs

Postby beebee » Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:56 am

The battle of the chemists...

Yeah right, I'm going to support a sport where "athletes" are taking dangerous concoctions, regularly trouncing athletes who won't or can't use certain drugs...

Fuck that.
beebee
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:30 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: PEDs

Postby Blues » Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:28 am

fieldguy wrote:Bioethics/law prof at Case western reserve urges Olympics, proleagues to legalie performance-enhancing drugs. http://tinyurl.com/kuxer5g


"Why is marijuana banned?" he asked. "That's one of my favorites. Marijuana is prohibited, but why is that? It has no physical performance-enhancing effects."

"And Mehlman said: "Caffeine (a stimulant) is on the list. Do you realize if you drank a 16-ounce cup of Starbucks coffee and had two Mountain Dews, you would be over the line on the prohibited list?"


I initially thought this guy meant that the issue of marijuana being banned was "one of his favorites", but after reading the article I think he was referring to the drug itself!... I wonder if all the other athletes would be completely comfortable if the athlete in the next lane of a final of a short hurdles race, or any race, was obviously high? Could it affect the accuracy of a javelin thrower? The drug is only banned IN-COMPETITION, not out of competition, and, like the more potent narcotics, its ban is due to safety concerns, not performance enhancing concerns.

Secondly, the bit about caffeine is total baloney, at least as far as WADA is concerned. Caffeine is on the WADA monitoring program, but it's not a prohibited substance at this time. So his point about Starbucks and Mountain Dew is inaccurate as far as track and field goes.
Last edited by Blues on Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Blues
 
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: PEDs

Postby marknhj » Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:38 am

beebee wrote:The battle of the chemists...

Yeah right, I'm going to support a sport where "athletes" are taking dangerous concoctions, regularly trouncing athletes who won't or can't use certain drugs...

Fuck that.


Agreed.

Anyone who says, "There is nothing fundamentally wrong or ethically objectionable to PEDs," has zero credibility.
marknhj
 
Posts: 5070
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: PEDs

Postby batonless relay » Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:59 am

marknhj wrote:
beebee wrote:The battle of the chemists...

Yeah right, I'm going to support a sport where "athletes" are taking dangerous concoctions, regularly trouncing athletes who won't or can't use certain drugs...

Fuck that.


Agreed.

Anyone who says, "There is nothing fundamentally wrong or ethically objectionable to PEDs," has zero credibility.

Agreed as well.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: PEDs

Postby Mighty Favog » Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:26 am

From the article:
Max Mehlman, 64, bases his arguments about legalizing PEDs on two provisions: A doctor would be supervising the drug regimen and athletes must be informed about them and choose to use them.
I sincerely doubt that this guy has actually thought through the issue very deeply. Because this is hogwash.

1) Exactly how is "a doctor ... supervising the drug regimen" easier to police than the system we have now? Doctors are no less susceptible to corruption than anyone else. Doctors supervised the crap the East Germans did.

2) If anyone is allowed to "choose to use [PEDs]" then everyone is forced to do so or they cannot remain in their profession, and "choice" is no longer part of the equation. It is very much like minimum wage law, where allowing individual workers to opt out of the law eventually forces others to do so whether they want to or not.

It may also be useful for readers to do some research on Dr. Mehlman. From a press release dated April 2006:

A Case Western Reserve University law professor has been awarded a $773,000 grant from the National Institutes of Health to develop guidelines for the use of human subjects in what could be the next frontier in medical technology – genetic enhancement.

Maxwell Mehlman, Arthur E. Petersilge Professor of Law, director of the Law-Medicine Center at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, and professor of bioethics in the Case School of Medicine, will lead a team of law professors, physicians, and bioethicists in a two-year project to develop standards for tests on human subjects in research that involves the use of genetic technologies to enhance "normal" individuals – to make them smarter, stronger, or better-looking.


USADA and WADA probably aren't his best friends.
Mighty Favog
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: PEDs

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:39 am

He does not understand the 'arms race'. Having a doctor 'monitor' stuff is silly beyond belief. Then, throw in the comment on caffeine and tell me how much you think this guy really knows. The problem is that he is seeing on part of the issue and that is the side he knows and cares about, and with that as his hammer, everything is a nail...
26mi235
 
Posts: 16320
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: PEDs

Postby kuha » Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:49 am

Mighty Favog wrote:Maxwell Mehlman, Arthur E. Petersilge Professor of Law, director of the Law-Medicine Center at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, and professor of bioethics in the Case School of Medicine, will lead a team of law professors, physicians, and bioethicists in a two-year project to develop standards for tests on human subjects in research that involves the use of genetic technologies to enhance "normal" individuals – to make them smarter, stronger, or better-looking. [/i]

USADA and WADA probably aren't his best friends.


And here is the basic problem. In the Real World, a very high percentage of folks are trying to be smarter, stronger, and better-looking every single day. And, WITHIN REASON, we applaud those efforts as a basic expression of ambition, progress, and so forth. If there was (and there may already be) a pill so that pilots, say, were even more attentive and quick-reacting than they already are, would we honestly say that we'd only fly on planes flown by "clean" pilots? Ditto for your doctor, tax preparer...or, hell, for the the typical help at the Motor Vehicles Dept. or McDonalds...etc.? I'd guess the answer here is largely NO.

Then we have sport, which we assume (for reasons I totally get) must be unaided chemically--despite the great existing physiological differences that already exist--while we accept the extraordinary "aid" provided by training, technology, nutritional supplements (my favorite!), and all the rest.

I totally understand the moral vehemence of this argument--and actually (or largely) sign on to it. But in the long run, it is a losing argument. Human nature, desires, and cleverness will win out.
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: PEDs

Postby Marlow » Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:56 am

kuha wrote:I totally understand the moral vehemence of this argument--and actually (or largely) sign on to it. But in the long run, it is a losing argument. Human nature, desires, and cleverness will win out.

Which is why we have to live in a world with rules against this sort of thing, to keep people from being bad to themselves and others.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: PEDs

Postby AFTERBURNER » Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:59 am

Doping is a moral sin :cry:
AFTERBURNER
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:10 pm

Re: PEDs

Postby Marlow » Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:16 am

AFTERBURNER wrote:Doping is a moral sin :cry:

In so much as it cheats those follow the rules and get beat, yes it is.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: PEDs

Postby kuha » Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:26 am

Marlow wrote:Which is why we have to live in a world with rules against this sort of thing, to keep people from being bad to themselves and others.


Of course, silly me. That really has worked out exceptionally well. The fact that everyone agrees that murder, adultery, and lying are bad means that these ancient evils have disappeared from the earth. And good riddance!
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: PEDs

Postby batonless relay » Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:44 am

kuha wrote:
Marlow wrote:Which is why we have to live in a world with rules against this sort of thing, to keep people from being bad to themselves and others.


Of course, silly me. That really has worked out exceptionally well. The fact that everyone agrees that murder, adultery, and lying are bad means that these ancient evils have disappeared from the earth. And good riddance!

And, since murder "won out" and isn't eradicated it should be accepted?

kuha wrote:...But in the long run, it is a losing argument. Human nature, desires, and cleverness will win out.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: PEDs

Postby Marlow » Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:47 am

kuha wrote:Of course, silly me. That really has worked out exceptionally well. The fact that everyone agrees that murder, adultery, and lying are bad means that these ancient evils have disappeared from the earth. And good riddance!

?!
I said there were rules . . . human nature is what it is . . .
Marlow
 
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: PEDs

Postby Pego » Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:58 am

Mehlman article wrote:will lead a team of law professors, physicians, and bioethicists in a two-year project to develop standards for tests on human subjects in research that involves the use of genetic technologies to enhance "normal" individuals – to make them smarter, stronger, or better-looking


This is not medicine or science, this is Alice in the Wonderland. People have been chasing all sorts of mirage and keep doing so. A few examples from recent decades,

Somebody dreams of being abducted by aliens, or just wants to perpetrate a hoax - millions are thrown out of the window to investigate it.

Cold war "research" into paranormal. East and west trying to outperform each other in "clairvoyance," ESP and similar nonsense. Ghostbusters, anybody?

Finally, my favorite. Alternative medicine. You want to reduce the deficit. Here is a few hundred millions you could save without least sacrifice.

If you tell me you want to investigate genetic ways of eliminating Down's syndrome, I'll send you money. If you tell me you want to "create smarter, faster, stronger people", I will send a few guys with straight jackets to greet you.
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: PEDs

Postby KDFINE » Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:19 pm

So this so-called ethicist believes it would be O.K. to legalize PEDs, and therefore place pressure on those athletes who would rather not partake. "Its legal, so now I have to accept putting this shit into my body if I wish to compete."
KDFINE
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: PEDs

Postby kuha » Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:53 pm

Marlow wrote:human nature is what it is . . .


Precisely.
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: PEDs

Postby jeremyp » Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:00 pm

If you open this door then what next? Bionic legs? Muscle transplants? Nature is what nature is, and the only sane way to mess with it for performance purposes is to "work out." Obviously athletes bring different genetics to the game, so be it.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4542
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: PEDs

Postby lonewolf » Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:11 pm

I strongly disagree with the professor.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: PEDs

Postby TN1965 » Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:40 am

When you come to the same conclusion as this guy, that looks pretty bad...

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-l ... 44161.html
TN1965
 
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 pm


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests