What is wrong with performance enhancement?

[Robert J. Kolker]

The newspapers and other media are chock full of scandal concerning the use of "performance enhancement drugs" such as steroids, human growth hormone and the like. Even "doping" the blood with a transfusion containing abundant red blood cells is a disqualifying no no in the bicycle riding world.

But ask yourself: why should the use of various substances to improve athletic performance be considered wrong? When I was a kid, I was encouraged to eat my Wheaties ™ so I could be a slugger like Hank Greenberg (wow! I am dating myself). Isn't eating high energy food performance enhancing? We go to sports events to see athletes perform to near perfection. Wouldn't the use of such substances increase the value of the performance. Why settle for a three minute 45 second mile? Why not a three minute mile close to the absolute limit of human muscle performance?

And, one might ask, why is the government involved? I can see where a condition of employment by a sports team or organization might be to forgo the use of performance enhancement substances. But that is a -private- matter. It would be a detail in the employment contract. It is no business of the government's unless the use of performance enhancers constituted a fraud, in which case it would be a tort. Why has the use of performance enhancers become a criminal matter?

If you have any ideas on how to answer these question, please reply. I am all eyes, I am all ears.

Bob Kolker

Edited December 17, 2007 by Robert J. Kolker

[themadkat]

I know this is probably not where you wanted to go with this, but one short answer is that at present most of these drugs, especially steroids and HGH, are illegal to use or even possess. That fact by itself is enough justification for government involvement.

[Robert J. Kolker]

I know this is probably not where you wanted to go with this, but one short answer is that at present most of these drugs, especially steroids and HGH, are illegal to use or even possess. That fact by itself is enough justification for government involvement.

That begs the question. Why are these drugs illegal? Do they cause bad behavior? Why can't adults who are aware of the downside of these drugs use them?

Bob Kolker

[Mimpy]

I agree with themadkat. If these drugs are illegal, then obviously the government will meddle. Whether these drugs should be illegal is another issue, of course.

I agree that the government should not get involved with private sports teams. I do think that performance-enhancement drugs do give an unfair advantage, however, and so teams should screen for them. If they choose to give everyone these drugs, then that is fine. But if only a few people are taking them, it gives those players an advantage that they did not work for. This is a personal issue, of course. It has nothing to do with the government.

[Moebius]

I really don't have a problem with the private use of steroids. In sports though, it is an issue of fair competition -- which as you said, should be a private matter. Personally I don't think athletes -who sport for a living- should not be coerced to ingest or inject potentially harmful substances in order to compete. If you're going to allow steroids in sports, you might as well create an all-steroids league where massive athletes can juice 'till their heart's content. Heck, I might even watch it.

Another point is sports as a way to show the potentials of human capabilities -- not pharmaceutical potency. Sure, it would be great to see someone run a three minute forty-five mile, but the number itself isn't an end onto itself. What would the Olympics mean for instance if some extremely gifted kid from Africa was able to shatter the world record thanks to his natural gifts and hard work, only to have a another guy dosed on a dozen different drug concoction beat him to the metal? Does it mean the winner was a better runner? Or does it mean he have a better chemist? To me that would ruin the whole point of the competition -- that of celebrating the possibilities of the human body.

[progressiveman1]

why should the use of various substances to improve athletic performance be considered wrong?

Aside from legalities and rules, using potentially dangerous substances can be right or wrong, depending on the individual. To improve athletic ability the most, athletes have to give up long term health to achieve short term/medium term performance. They may reach their goals of becoming a great athlete for the time being, but they may end up with beat up joints and muscles, heart problems from the high food intake and physical stress, and if they choose to use dangerous drugs then they may reasonably accept those associated risks as well in order to be a great athlete. The use of these drugs is dependent on how important these goals are to the individual.

Why has the use of performance enhancers become a criminal matter?

The gov't doesn't understand that individual's have a right to choose to live or die, and that each individual can take certain risks if they want to. There is no reasonable principle that it can be based on.

[KendallJ]

I know this is probably not where you wanted to go with this, but one short answer is that at present most of these drugs, especially steroids and HGH, are illegal to use or even possess. That fact by itself is enough justification for government involvement.

um, this is inherently circular. "legal/illegal" means that the govt got involved in the first place. The fact they got involved at some point may explain today's involvement, but it is not a justification.

[DavidOdden]

Given the context, the immediate answer is "because there is a rule against using such stuff". I am not referring to a law which is improper, I'm referring to a contractual rule. The underlying rationale is that use of steroids or blood transfusions can be physically harmful if done in a medically uninformed fashion. So management can follow two consistent paths: they can prohibit certain dangerous actions, or they can take a hands-off, it's your life, kill yourself if you wanna manner.

The absolute level of athletic accomplishment is unimportant: what matters is the merit of an accomplishment in a certain context. For example, in ice skating, quads used to be extremely rare and very special, and now they are virtually obligatory. There would be no particular merit to running the 3.5 minute mile if anyone could do it after a hit of Buzzoids. Hence there is no benefit to management in allowing their athletes to use drugs, and significant risk to their investment.

[D'kian]

Given the context, the immediate answer is "because there is a rule against using such stuff". I am not referring to a law which is improper, I'm referring to a contractual rule. The underlying rationale is that use of steroids or blood transfusions can be physically harmful if done in a medically uninformed fashion. So management can follow two consistent paths: they can prohibit certain dangerous actions, or they can take a hands-off, it's your life, kill yourself if you wanna manner.

Along these lines we should consider that most pro leagues have medical and pension plans for current and former players. Steroid use can increase their costs down the line.

The absolute level of athletic accomplishment is unimportant: what matters is the merit of an accomplishment in a certain context.

That reminds me of Jude Law's character in GATTACA. He was genetically selcted to perfection, the same as nearly everyone else. Thus his silver medal in the olympics is worthelss to him. If everyone has the same advantage, be it steroids, growth hormone, blood doping and so on, then it makes no difference. And we are back to what talents, skills and dedication each athlete has or can develop.

But fundamentally pro leagues (and mateur leagues too) have a right to set whatever rules they want, for any reason that serves their interests. For example, the NFL tweaks its rules every year mostly to keep some balance between offense and defense. Formula 1 constantly forbids the more advantageous innovations (like turbo-charged engines, active suspensions, even slick tires), in order to keep a given team from dominating the sport (which gets boring, which drives fans away, which is bad for the FIA).

[Inspector]

But ask yourself: why should the use of various substances to improve athletic performance be considered wrong?

The short answer, which has been given by others, is that the particular substances in question are deleterious to one's health, at least when used in the performance-enhancing fashion.

And, one might ask, why is the government involved?

I would say, because the government was already involved in the forbidding-drugs-which-"hurt"-us racket. When it's done for narcotics and such, it's not a huge leap to bring it in for other "harmful substances." It's only a matter of time before the axe falls on fatty foods. In fact, I hear tell that salt is on the regulatory horizon. Yeah, salt - that thing we need to live.

[Senator]

Be-cause in sports you supposedly go to see humans competing with their natural abilities, showing the best they can do.

Personally I would prefer it if sports split into two kinds:

An "au naturale" version, where drugs would be extremely illegal

And a version where someone is free to get the best performance any way he can, including tons of life threatening even (by willing consent of cource) drugs, implants, nanotech and whatever else they wish.

[Inspector]

Be-cause in sports you supposedly go to see humans competing with their natural abilities, showing the best they can do.

A common view, but I believe it does not hold up to scrutiny. How do you define "natural" so as to exclude steroids and exclude, well, cooked food?

Fact is, a "natural" human is one who is dead in a ditch by the age of 20. We survive by altering nature and ourselves to our benefit.

[Senator]

A common view, but I believe it does not hold up to scrutiny. How do you define "natural" so as to exclude steroids and exclude, well, cooked food?

Fact is, a "natural" human is one who is dead in a ditch by the age of 20. We survive by altering nature and ourselves to our benefit.

I don't. Frankly, other days I define as natural even skyscrapers, since humans are parts of nature, therefore everything we do is "natural".

My use of natural there is a completely subjective decision concerning sports only, based on a certain aesthetic standard of my own.

In that one that there is a certain beauty when someone competes with a body made of his own DNA and secreted hormones, and has eaten only food little modified from its natural state. And someone who has injected himself with a ton of synthesized hormones. The same way I wouldn't like in a game of chess between two humans someone to be using a hidden computer even if "the computer is a creation of the mind, therefore an extension of its natural ability etc etc"

Failing to have this opinion shared, I'd say that at least I don't like the dishonesty that in a sport with the regulation to not use a number of substances (even if one of them was orange juice), some do.

Edited December 18, 2007 by Senator

[BryanG]

Just to throw another question in to the mix on the "fairness" of using steroids etc.

If I have a genetic advantage over other athletes (better lung efficiency, muscle/leverage advantage), is that "fair" to the other athletes?

I did nothing to "earn" this advantage. Does my participation in a sport that I have a genetic advantage for create an un-level playing field?

I have my own answer on this, but I find it a nice monkey wrench

[Senator]

We already have a huge genetic limitation, and that is in separating between "men" and "women" categories because men have genetic muscle mass advantages etc.

Sports don't have any divine reason they "should" be happening, other than adhering to their limitations (eg, when the ball is out, it's out). And those limitations, be it their rules, or the shape of those that play them can be, anything.

[Moebius]

A common view, but I believe it does not hold up to scrutiny. How do you define "natural" so as to exclude steroids and exclude, well, cooked food?

I was actually thinking on this, and wondering where you would draw the line. And I think the bottom line is any food stuff is "natural" because that is what your body biologically require for nourishment given activity. You lift weights, your body needs protein, you run, your body needs carbohydrates, so on and so forth. The difference between steroids and food is that your body would not ever NEED large doses of synthetic testosterone by itself, let alone growth hormones extracted from a bull and what not.

Note that this is not an argument about "natural good, man-made bad". The issue here is fair competition. There may be other ways of drawing an objective -albeit arbitrary- line between what is "natural" and what isn't. The term "nature" in this case is simply a arbitrary and idealistic state-of-being approximated by the rules. This type of restrictions is obviously done consistently in virtually all sports from the material of your baseball bat to the engine of your race car.

[D'kian]

I did nothing to "earn" this advantage. Does my participation in a sport that I have a genetic advantage for create an un-level playing field?

A level playing field means everyone plays by the same rules. Not that everyone has the same skills, talents or abilities. So, yes, any natural advantage, such as height, is fair.

[progressiveman1]

Just to throw another question in to the mix on the "fairness" of using steroids etc.

If I have a genetic advantage over other athletes (better lung efficiency, muscle/leverage advantage), is that "fair" to the other athletes?

I did nothing to "earn" this advantage. Does my participation in a sport that I have a genetic advantage for create an un-level playing field?

The obvious distinction is altering vs. being born with it. The "unfair" argument is based on the willingness of some to use potent and potentially dangerous substances, not on if the athlete earned it. The argument wouldn't make sense if it was based on if it was earned because of reasons like you mention.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Be-cause in sports you supposedly go to see humans competing with their natural abilities, showing the best they can do.

Personally I would prefer it if sports split into two kinds:

An "au naturale" version, where drugs would be extremely illegal

And a version where someone is free to get the best performance any way he can, including tons of life threatening even (by willing consent of cource) drugs, implants, nanotech and whatever else they wish.

In professional sports the major motive is to win. The fans love a winner. There are exceptions to this of course. For example the Boston Red Sox fans prior to 2004. They came to Fenway Park with hope and love in their hearts.

In professional sports the reward is comenserate with victory. By the way, that was the attitude in Ancient Greece, particularly the Olympics. Only Victory (Nike) mattered. Playing beautifully did not count. The notion of playing well and producing a beautiful performance was an affectation that grew up in the fancy universities of Britain. The Cult of the Excellent Amateur. This is not the historical Olympic spirit at all.

Professional sport is like a boxing match. What counts is pounding your opponent into a stupor and winning. Above all winning.

Bob Kolker

[Moebius]

Just to throw another question in to the mix on the "fairness" of using steroids etc.

If I have a genetic advantage over other athletes (better lung efficiency, muscle/leverage advantage), is that "fair" to the other athletes?

I did nothing to "earn" this advantage. Does my participation in a sport that I have a genetic advantage for create an un-level playing field?

I have my own answer on this, but I find it a nice monkey wrench

Sure it's fair. Take track and fields as an example, because it's probably the purest form of body performance competition. The whole idea is that -all else being equal- who can run the fastest, jump the highest, or throw the furthest. The whole idea is that you are comparing individuals in terms of their genetics, skill, and mental toughness. It is only "unfair" when you introduce factors beyond those three things -- in this case how good your chemist is.

[progressiveman1]

I was actually thinking on this, and wondering where you would draw the line.

There is no line to be drawn on being "natural." Grounds on disallowment should be based on potency and negative risks. If something is safe and/or useless, then there is no need to restrict it.

[Mimpy]

I think more than the issue of what is natural or not, the reason people are so opposed to steroid use is because it does not truly reflect an athlete's effort. We like to think that a star athlete has gotten to where he is by hard work, discipline, and perseverance. That is why people value sports players so much: they truly reflect the results of determination and talent. Nobody argues that it is unfair that Shaq is a giant and Iverson is only 6'. The point is, they both work very hard to succeed. They both have different strategies but without practicing, they would not be able to achieve anything.

When someone uses steroids, their performance does not reflect their physical effort. It does not reflect how hard they have worked to get to where they are.

Edited December 18, 2007 by Mimpy

[Moebius]

In professional sports the major motive is to win. The fans love a winner. There are exceptions to this of course. For example the Boston Red Sox fans prior to 2004. They came to Fenway Park with hope and love in their hearts.

Sports is about a lot of things. Winning is only one of them. Do you think the fan reception of Barry Bonds would have been any different if he had won a World Series? Do you think that fans would NOT feel differently if it turned out that Michael Jordan jumped as high as he did because of steroids? Yeah it's true that fans love winners. But they love winners who won because of their skill, abilities, and heart. For many the use of performance enhancing drugs is akin to cheating. Winning isn't an end onto itself, and if someone is perceived as having won because he cheated, he gets no love.

In professional sports the reward is comenserate with victory. By the way, that was the attitude in Ancient Greece, particularly the Olympics. Only Victory (Nike) mattered. Playing beautifully did not count. The notion of playing well and producing a beautiful performance was an affectation that grew up in the fancy universities of Britain. The Cult of the Excellent Amateur. This is not the historical Olympic spirit at all.

I don't know what playing beautifully have to do with this topic. But it certainly counts for a lot -- just not as much as winning. Winning is great, but winning with style is just better.

In any case, the reason I watch sports is for the drama. From the point of view of the spectator, winning is not in and of itself entertaining. I would not enjoy watching for instance a completely stacked team blowing away the competition away game after game after game with the conclusion always being a foregone conclusion. And certainly I would prefer to watch a team or an individual that plays beautifully -provided that they are COMPETITIVE- than one that dominates with brute force in an tactless, minimally skilled fashion. An example would be my preference for Kobe Bryant's recent 81 point in a game performance compared to Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point performance. In absolute terms Wilt may have scored more points. But he did it by having his teammates force feed him in the post play after play after play in an era where he is the only 7 footer on the court. Kobe Bryant on the other hand scored in the natural flow of the game with a deadly array of offensive moves, both inside and outside, and from a guard position no less. In sports, beauty counts.

[Moebius]

There is no line to be drawn on being "natural." Grounds on disallowment should be based on potency and negative risks. If something is safe and/or useless, then there is no need to restrict it.

I don't think you should draw the line based on safety. I recall a Sports Illustrated article that talked about how NFL linemen have a average life expectancy of just under 60 years -- over a decade below the average. The amount of training, stress, and pressure, not to mention excess weight, probably isn't safe.

In any case, let's say that there is a pill that is completely safe that can transform anyone who took it into a heavily muscled 7 footer that benches 800 lbs, runs the 100 meters in 8.9 seconds, and with a 60 inch vertical, I would still rather watch games played without them.

[DavidOdden]

Just to throw another question in to the mix on the "fairness" of using steroids etc.

If I have a genetic advantage over other athletes (better lung efficiency, muscle/leverage advantage), is that "fair" to the other athletes?

Fairness is a complete red herring. The issue is honesty. If there is a rule that says that players may not use steroids, players may not use steroids. Players then play according to that reality. Advantage is irrelevant. Using steroids in professional sports is a simple violation of the rules, and there is no reason to change the rules.