Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...

This is an editorial in Nature magazine:

A sporting chance p512

Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier
prohibitions on women and remuneration.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/448512a.html

Editorial
Nature 448, 512 (2 August 2007) | doi:10.1038/448512a; Published
online 1 August 2007


A sporting chance

Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier
prohibitions on women and remuneration.

Whether you have been following the just-finished Tour de France or
waiting for Barry Bonds to break the all-time record for major-league
home runs in baseball, the topic of drugs in sport has been hard to
avoid of late.

To cheat in a sporting event is a loathsome thing. For as long as the
rules of the Tour de France or any sporting event ban the use of
performance-enhancing drugs, those who break the rules must be
punished whenever possible. But this does not preclude the idea that
it may, in time, be necessary to readdress the rules themselves.

As more is learned about how our bodies work, more options become
available for altering those workings. To date, most of this
alteration has sought to restore function to some sort of baseline.
But it is also possible to enhance various functions into the
supernormal realm, and the options for this are set to grow ever
greater.

The fact that such endeavours will carry risks should not be
trivialized. But adults should be allowed to take risks, and
experience suggests that they will do so when the benefits on offer
are enticing enough. By the end of this century the unenhanced body or
mind may well be vanishingly rare.

As this change takes place, we will have to re-examine what we expect
of athletes. If spectators are seeking to reset their body mass index
through pharmacology, or taking pills that enhance their memory, is it
really reasonable that athletes should make do with bodies that have
not seen such benefits? The more the public comes to live with the
mixed and risk-related benefits of enhancement, the more it will
appreciate that allowing such changes need not rob sport of its drama,
nor athletes of their need for skill, training, character and
dedication.

Is it really reasonable that athletes should make do with bodies that
have not been enhanced?
To change the rules on pharmacological enhancement would not be
without precedent. It was once thought that a woman could not
epitomize the athletic ideal as a man could, and so should be stopped
from trying. Similarly, it was thought proper to keep all payments
from some athletes, thus privileging the already wealthy. These
prejudices have been left behind, and the rules have changed. As
pharmacological enhancement becomes everyday, views of bodily
enhancement may evolve sufficiently for sporting rules to change on
that, too.

This transition will not be painless. Some people will undoubtedly
harm themselves through the use of enhancements, and there would need
to be special protection for children. That said, athletes harm
themselves in other forms of training, too. They may harm themselves
less with drugs when doctors can be openly involved and masking agents
dispensed with.

There is also the problem of who goes first. The first sport to change
its rules to allow players to use performance-enhancing drugs will be
attacked as a freak show or worse. The same may be true of the second.
This may well have the effect - may already be having the effect - of
delaying the inevitable.

Perhaps the Tour de France could show the way ahead here. In terms of
public respect, endurance cycling has the least to lose and perhaps
the most to gain. To be sure, a change in the rules would lead to the
claim that 'the cheats have won'. But as no one can convincingly claim
that cheats are not winning now, or have not been winning in the past,
that claim is not quite the showstopper it might seem to be.

A leadership ready to ride out the outrage might be better for the
sport in the long run. If some viewers and advertisers were lost along
the way, the Tour could console itself with the thought that it got by
with far less commercial interest in days gone by - and that it is
more likely to re-establish itself through excellence and honesty than
in the penumbra of doubt and cynicism that surrounds it now.

On Aug 1, 10:15 pm, wrote:
This is an editorial in Nature magazine:

A sporting chance p512

Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier
prohibitions on women and remuneration.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/448512a.html

Editorial
Nature 448, 512 (2 August 2007) | doi:10.1038/448512a; Published
online 1 August 2007

A sporting chance

Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier
prohibitions on women and remuneration.

Whether you have been following the just-finished Tour de France or
waiting for Barry Bonds to break the all-time record for major-league
home runs in baseball, the topic of drugs in sport has been hard to
avoid of late.

To cheat in a sporting event is a loathsome thing. For as long as the
rules of the Tour de France or any sporting event ban the use of
performance-enhancing drugs, those who break the rules must be
punished whenever possible. But this does not preclude the idea that
it may, in time, be necessary to readdress the rules themselves.

As more is learned about how our bodies work, more options become
available for altering those workings. To date, most of this
alteration has sought to restore function to some sort of baseline.
But it is also possible to enhance various functions into the
supernormal realm, and the options for this are set to grow ever
greater.

The fact that such endeavours will carry risks should not be
trivialized. But adults should be allowed to take risks, and
experience suggests that they will do so when the benefits on offer
are enticing enough. By the end of this century the unenhanced body or
mind may well be vanishingly rare.

As this change takes place, we will have to re-examine what we expect
of athletes. If spectators are seeking to reset their body mass index
through pharmacology, or taking pills that enhance their memory, is it
really reasonable that athletes should make do with bodies that have
not seen such benefits? The more the public comes to live with the
mixed and risk-related benefits of enhancement, the more it will
appreciate that allowing such changes need not rob sport of its drama,
nor athletes of their need for skill, training, character and
dedication.

Is it really reasonable that athletes should make do with bodies that
have not been enhanced?
To change the rules on pharmacological enhancement would not be
without precedent. It was once thought that a woman could not
epitomize the athletic ideal as a man could, and so should be stopped
from trying. Similarly, it was thought proper to keep all payments
from some athletes, thus privileging the already wealthy. These
prejudices have been left behind, and the rules have changed. As
pharmacological enhancement becomes everyday, views of bodily
enhancement may evolve sufficiently for sporting rules to change on
that, too.

This transition will not be painless. Some people will undoubtedly
harm themselves through the use of enhancements, and there would need
to be special protection for children. That said, athletes harm
themselves in other forms of training, too. They may harm themselves
less with drugs when doctors can be openly involved and masking agents
dispensed with.

There is also the problem of who goes first. The first sport to change
its rules to allow players to use performance-enhancing drugs will be
attacked as a freak show or worse. The same may be true of the second.
This may well have the effect - may already be having the effect - of
delaying the inevitable.

Perhaps the Tour de France could show the way ahead here. In terms of
public respect, endurance cycling has the least to lose and perhaps
the most to gain. To be sure, a change in the rules would lead to the
claim that 'the cheats have won'. But as no one can convincingly claim
that cheats are not winning now, or have not been winning in the past,
that claim is not quite the showstopper it might seem to be.

A leadership ready to ride out the outrage might be better for the
sport in the long run. If some viewers and advertisers were lost along
the way, the Tour could console itself with the thought that it got by
with far less commercial interest in days gone by - and that it is
more likely to re-establish itself through excellence and honesty than
in the penumbra of doubt and cynicism that surrounds it now.

So, if this were to happen, at what age or stage of development do
juniors/amateurs get introduced to the juice that they will need to
work their way into the elite ranks?

DR

On Aug 2, 12:44 am, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Aug 1, 10:15 pm, wrote:



This is an editorial in Nature magazine:

A sporting chance p512

Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier
prohibitions on women and remuneration.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/448512a.html

Editorial
Nature 448, 512 (2 August 2007) | doi:10.1038/448512a; Published
online 1 August 2007

A sporting chance

Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier
prohibitions on women and remuneration.

Whether you have been following the just-finished Tour de France or
waiting for Barry Bonds to break the all-time record for major-league
home runs in baseball, the topic of drugs in sport has been hard to
avoid of late.

To cheat in a sporting event is a loathsome thing. For as long as the
rules of the Tour de France or any sporting event ban the use of
performance-enhancing drugs, those who break the rules must be
punished whenever possible. But this does not preclude the idea that
it may, in time, be necessary to readdress the rules themselves.

As more is learned about how our bodies work, more options become
available for altering those workings. To date, most of this
alteration has sought to restore function to some sort of baseline.
But it is also possible to enhance various functions into the
supernormal realm, and the options for this are set to grow ever
greater.

The fact that such endeavours will carry risks should not be
trivialized. But adults should be allowed to take risks, and
experience suggests that they will do so when the benefits on offer
are enticing enough. By the end of this century the unenhanced body or
mind may well be vanishingly rare.

As this change takes place, we will have to re-examine what we expect
of athletes. If spectators are seeking to reset their body mass index
through pharmacology, or taking pills that enhance their memory, is it
really reasonable that athletes should make do with bodies that have
not seen such benefits? The more the public comes to live with the
mixed and risk-related benefits of enhancement, the more it will
appreciate that allowing such changes need not rob sport of its drama,
nor athletes of their need for skill, training, character and
dedication.

Is it really reasonable that athletes should make do with bodies that
have not been enhanced?
To change the rules on pharmacological enhancement would not be
without precedent. It was once thought that a woman could not
epitomize the athletic ideal as a man could, and so should be stopped
from trying. Similarly, it was thought proper to keep all payments
from some athletes, thus privileging the already wealthy. These
prejudices have been left behind, and the rules have changed. As
pharmacological enhancement becomes everyday, views of bodily
enhancement may evolve sufficiently for sporting rules to change on
that, too.

This transition will not be painless. Some people will undoubtedly
harm themselves through the use of enhancements, and there would need
to be special protection for children. That said, athletes harm
themselves in other forms of training, too. They may harm themselves
less with drugs when doctors can be openly involved and masking agents
dispensed with.

There is also the problem of who goes first. The first sport to change
its rules to allow players to use performance-enhancing drugs will be
attacked as a freak show or worse. The same may be true of the second.
This may well have the effect - may already be having the effect - of
delaying the inevitable.

Perhaps the Tour de France could show the way ahead here. In terms of
public respect, endurance cycling has the least to lose and perhaps
the most to gain. To be sure, a change in the rules would lead to the
claim that 'the cheats have won'. But as no one can convincingly claim
that cheats are not winning now, or have not been winning in the past,
that claim is not quite the showstopper it might seem to be.

A leadership ready to ride out the outrage might be better for the
sport in the long run. If some viewers and advertisers were lost along
the way, the Tour could console itself with the thought that it got by
with far less commercial interest in days gone by - and that it is
more likely to re-establish itself through excellence and honesty than
in the penumbra of doubt and cynicism that surrounds it now.

So, if this were to happen, at what age or stage of development do
juniors/amateurs get introduced to the juice that they will need to
work their way into the elite ranks?

DR

Good question. I assume the authors would have the team medical
professionals decide.

On Aug 1, 11:44 pm, DirtRoadie wrote:

So, if this were to happen, at what age or stage of development do
juniors/amateurs get introduced to the juice that they will need to
work their way into the elite ranks?

Innovations come from the young. --D-y

On Aug 2, 10:39 am, " wrote:
On Aug 1, 11:44 pm, DirtRoadie wrote:

So, if this were to happen, at what age or stage of development do
juniors/amateurs get introduced to the juice that they will need to
work their way into the elite ranks?

Innovations come from the young. --D-y

I wonder, if a medical protocol were to be permitted, what drugs
would, or should, be permitted? Which ones should be totally outlawed
as injurious to the riders' health?

On Aug 2, 9:53 am, wrote:
On Aug 2, 10:39 am, " wrote:

On Aug 1, 11:44 pm, DirtRoadie wrote:

So, if this were to happen, at what age or stage of development do
juniors/amateurs get introduced to the juice that they will need to
work their way into the elite ranks?

Innovations come from the young. --D-y

I wonder, if a medical protocol were to be permitted, what drugs
would, or should, be permitted? Which ones should be totally outlawed
as injurious to the riders' health?

Well, maybe not steroids:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...30835755001242

Son of a gun, the AMA (they who would take vitamins off store shelves)
opposed the restriction of steroid use.

How about that?

Like orange juice if used with care-- IOW, under the supervision of a
real doctor with expertise in the field?

--D-y

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 09:36:35 -0700, "
wrote:

On Aug 2, 9:53 am, wrote:
On Aug 2, 10:39 am, " wrote:

On Aug 1, 11:44 pm, DirtRoadie wrote:

So, if this were to happen, at what age or stage of development do
juniors/amateurs get introduced to the juice that they will need to
work their way into the elite ranks?

Innovations come from the young. --D-y

I wonder, if a medical protocol were to be permitted, what drugs
would, or should, be permitted? Which ones should be totally outlawed
as injurious to the riders' health?

Well, maybe not steroids:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...30835755001242

Son of a gun, the AMA (they who would take vitamins off store shelves)
opposed the restriction of steroid use.

How about that?

It's more about power for their profession rather than anything else. Why don't
we look at the AMA as we do any other industry trade group.
Ron

On Aug 2, 10:53 am, wrote:
On Aug 2, 10:39 am, " wrote:

On Aug 1, 11:44 pm, DirtRoadie wrote:

So, if this were to happen, at what age or stage of development do
juniors/amateurs get introduced to the juice that they will need to
work their way into the elite ranks?

Innovations come from the young. --D-y

I wonder, if a medical protocol were to be permitted, what drugs
would, or should, be permitted? Which ones should be totally outlawed
as injurious to the riders' health?

I think that's the place to start. A massively reduced banned list and
some common sense. Vaughters wasp sting at the Tour was a perfect
example of the stupidity of the system.
Bill C

wrote:
This is an editorial in Nature magazine:

A sporting chance p512

Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier
prohibitions on women and remuneration.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/448512a.html

Editorial
Nature 448, 512 (2 August 2007) | doi:10.1038/448512a; Published
online 1 August 2007


A sporting chance

Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier
prohibitions on women and remuneration.

Whether you have been following the just-finished Tour de France or
waiting for Barry Bonds to break the all-time record for major-league
home runs in baseball, the topic of drugs in sport has been hard to
avoid of late.

To cheat in a sporting event is a loathsome thing. For as long as the
rules of the Tour de France or any sporting event ban the use of
performance-enhancing drugs, those who break the rules must be
punished whenever possible. But this does not preclude the idea that
it may, in time, be necessary to readdress the rules themselves.

As more is learned about how our bodies work, more options become
available for altering those workings. To date, most of this
alteration has sought to restore function to some sort of baseline.
But it is also possible to enhance various functions into the
supernormal realm, and the options for this are set to grow ever
greater.

The fact that such endeavours will carry risks should not be
trivialized. But adults should be allowed to take risks, and
experience suggests that they will do so when the benefits on offer
are enticing enough. By the end of this century the unenhanced body or
mind may well be vanishingly rare.

As this change takes place, we will have to re-examine what we expect
of athletes. If spectators are seeking to reset their body mass index
through pharmacology, or taking pills that enhance their memory, is it
really reasonable that athletes should make do with bodies that have
not seen such benefits? The more the public comes to live with the
mixed and risk-related benefits of enhancement, the more it will
appreciate that allowing such changes need not rob sport of its drama,
nor athletes of their need for skill, training, character and
dedication.

Is it really reasonable that athletes should make do with bodies that
have not been enhanced?
To change the rules on pharmacological enhancement would not be
without precedent. It was once thought that a woman could not
epitomize the athletic ideal as a man could, and so should be stopped
from trying. Similarly, it was thought proper to keep all payments
from some athletes, thus privileging the already wealthy. These
prejudices have been left behind, and the rules have changed. As
pharmacological enhancement becomes everyday, views of bodily
enhancement may evolve sufficiently for sporting rules to change on
that, too.

This transition will not be painless. Some people will undoubtedly
harm themselves through the use of enhancements, and there would need
to be special protection for children. That said, athletes harm
themselves in other forms of training, too. They may harm themselves
less with drugs when doctors can be openly involved and masking agents
dispensed with.

There is also the problem of who goes first. The first sport to change
its rules to allow players to use performance-enhancing drugs will be
attacked as a freak show or worse. The same may be true of the second.
This may well have the effect - may already be having the effect - of
delaying the inevitable.

Perhaps the Tour de France could show the way ahead here. In terms of
public respect, endurance cycling has the least to lose and perhaps
the most to gain. To be sure, a change in the rules would lead to the
claim that 'the cheats have won'. But as no one can convincingly claim
that cheats are not winning now, or have not been winning in the past,
that claim is not quite the showstopper it might seem to be.

A leadership ready to ride out the outrage might be better for the
sport in the long run. If some viewers and advertisers were lost along
the way, the Tour could console itself with the thought that it got by
with far less commercial interest in days gone by - and that it is
more likely to re-establish itself through excellence and honesty than
in the penumbra of doubt and cynicism that surrounds it now.



Sounds like a shill for the pharmceutical association. I think to
compare systematic exclusion of women and certain ethnic groups from
competition to restricting performance enhancement is a really, really
egregious rationalization.
Some of these issues were brought up in the days of Prozac Nation, and
I'm not an absolutist about this. There is a difference between
treating pathoses and performance enhancement of the normal, but the
line isn't always sharp. Usually though, to paraphrase Potter Stewart,
it's tough to define what is unfair, but I know it when I see it.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Sounds like a shill for the pharmceutical association. I think to
compare systematic exclusion of women and certain ethnic groups from
competition to restricting performance enhancement is a really, really
egregious rationalization.
Some of these issues were brought up in the days of Prozac Nation,
and I'm not an absolutist about this. There is a difference between
treating pathoses and performance enhancement of the normal, but the
line isn't always sharp. Usually though, to paraphrase Potter Stewart,
it's tough to define what is unfair, but I know it when I see it.

Steve

"Sounds like a shill for the pharmceutical association."

I don't think so. Look, the point of the article is this. Eventually,
the average joe viewer will be more enhanced and drugged up than the
professional athlete. How reasonable is that? The fact is I can go to my
doctor any time and request a testosterone patch top supplement my
system. It doesn't take much to get it. But the pro cannot ever do that.

Also, I guess I am curious what the obsession is with 100% natural and
"clean", when really these guys (and girls) are so much different than
the average person, naturally and/or due to excessive training, diet and
supplements. I admit I have mixed feelings about drugs no drugs, but
it isn't cut and dry to me.