What is wrong with performance enhancement?

[progressiveman1]

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.

But if we're talking about just performance-enhancers, then judging them on their potency and negative risks should be the standard of disallowment.

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.

I think that's what the issue comes down: preference. Some prefer better talent combined with performance-enhancers, some prefer less talent because of no performance-enhancing. That's the whole point of a free market though, that a business can be run how the owner wants.

[Inspector]

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?

Er, that should read: include cooked food.

[Moebius]

But if we're talking about just performance-enhancers, then judging them on their potency and negative risks should be the standard of disallowment.

So I guess the question is, why? What principle distinguishes the negative risks of performance-enhancers from the negative risks of training regiments?

I think that's what the issue comes down: preference. Some prefer better talent combined with performance-enhancers, some prefer less talent because of no performance-enhancing. That's the whole point of a free market though, that a business can be run how the owner wants.

What does performance-enhancer have to do with talent? Barry Bonds has the same (tremendous) talent as a power hitter with or without steroids. But yes you're right, it IS a preference issue, which is why in my first post in this thread I said you can very well have a normal league and a steroid league. And the point of a free market isn't so a business can be run how the owner wants. In a free market, it is the consumer who does the demanding. In this case, free market just means that if enough people wants to watch something (say, sports played without steroids), someone is going to provide them with that product. Considering the climate right now, it would appear that most consumer of sports prefer -as I do- to watch sports without steroids.

[Inspector]

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.

Ah, but then what about concentrated whey protein supplements? Or just eating a protein-heavy diet of chicken and steak? The body doesn't need that either.

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.

Now you're getting closer to it. You're correct that to draw a line for "natural" is arbitrary. And some sports do draw arbitrary lines for their rules. In my opinion, however, those are bad rules which are based on rationalism.

That is, rules in sports are generally placed there for reasons, which unfortunately in many sports people eventually forget.

For instance in racing, the ostensive purpose is to race cars - i.e. those things we use to drive to work. In racing, there are often rules meant to keep things at least somewhat resembling cars. Of course, sometimes not - but I don't like that kind of racing.

In sport, I submit that the ostensive purpose is health and excellence in the human body. In the course of competition, it is quite possible to lose sight of this purpose and I think proper rules are the ones that steer things back toward that purpose. Note that this argument does not rely on the anti-concept of "natural," or drawing arbitrary lines - things that are lined with all kinds of problems.

[Inspector]

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.

Everybody would take that pill, though, so you wouldn't lose anything in terms of competition. If you banned it from the sport, it would probably look pretty weird when most of the audience was bigger than the athletes.

The fact is, if you use my formulation, any technologies invented for the sport would improve life for everyone. There's a saying in auto racing: "Racing improves the breed." And this has proven true for many sports.

If you stick to this "natural" business, however, you remove that whole competition for new technology. It becomes a frozen and arbitrary game - no longer a sport, really.

[Moebius]

Ah, but then what about concentrated whey protein supplements? Or just eating a protein-heavy diet of chicken and steak? The body doesn't need that either.

I don't understand what you mean. Your body does naturally need protein, to repair torn muscle fibers and what not. How you get the protein is irrelevant.

On the other hand, your body has no natural need for bovine hormones or synthetic testosterones.

Now you're getting closer to it. You're correct that to draw a line for "natural" is arbitrary. And some sports do draw arbitrary lines for their rules. In my opinion, however, those are bad rules which are based on rationalism.

That is, rules in sports are generally placed there for reasons, which unfortunately in many sports people eventually forget.

For instance in racing, the ostensive purpose is to race cars - i.e. those things we use to drive to work. In racing, there are often rules meant to keep things at least somewhat resembling cars. Of course, sometimes not - but I don't like that kind of racing.

How do you mean? Restricting what can be put into a race car is an instance of a bad rule based on rationalism? Could you explain that?

As far as I can tell, sports rules basically fall into three categories: Fun, Fairness, and Safety. Those are the underlying factors of virtually all rules. The point of having those restrictions is to have a uniform standard for all participants -- a "fairness" issue. It's as arbitrary as the size of a basketball, the length of a gridiron, or the minutes in a period, but they all have the same purpose. There is nothing as far as I can tell that is "bad" about these rules. They're just rules.

In sport, I submit that the ostensive purpose is health and excellence in the human body. In the course of competition, it is quite possible to lose sight of this purpose and I think proper rules are the ones that steer things back toward that purpose. Note that this argument does not rely on the anti-concept of "natural," or drawing arbitrary lines - things that are lined with all kinds of problems.

Your argument is based on an arbitrary "ostensive purpose" for sports. You're basically just trading one arbitrary line for another.

A similar -and one that is probably closer to the truth- argument would be that the purpose of playing sports is to have fun, and the purpose of watching Pro Sports is entertainment. In that case, any rule that makes the sport more fun or entertaining should be proper. Steroids makes the game unfair, unfair games aren't entertaining, therefore it should be banned.

[Moebius]

The fact is, if you use my formulation, any technologies invented for the sport would improve life for everyone. There's a saying in auto racing: "Racing improves the breed." And this has proven true for many sports.

What are these technologies you are referring to? And what exactly is your formulation again?

If you stick to this "natural" business, however, you remove that whole competition for new technology. It becomes a frozen and arbitrary game - no longer a sport, really.

Sports are arbitrary, whether you like it or not. Take a pig skin from point A to point B, shoot a leather ball into a hoop, so on and so forth. Of course, the rules can and does get tweaked if the participants thinks it would make the game better. Technologies can be improved in terms of diet and training technique. The only thing we're talking about here is technology that chemically (and maybe in the future, mechanically a la the Bionic Man?) altering the very physiological nature of man -- in the context of a fair and competitive sport.

[themadkat]

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

It doesn't beg the question. You asked why the government is involved. A factual answer, based on the here and now and the laws as they are currently written, is that because steroids are illegal to use or possess the government has to intervene if an institution, ie a baseball league, is shown to be condoning illegal practices.

Should they be illegal? No, I don't think so. People, athletes or no, should be able to put pretty much whatever they want into themselves, or else they can't really be said to own their own bodies.

I think the issue really comes down to this. I'm an athlete myself, and I appreciate what kind of work and training goes into a performance like that. For me personally, drugs of any kind would spoil that. So I would choose not to watch or otherwise patronize a league where I knew that the rules permitted use of performance-enhancing drugs. I would prefer to watch and buy the merchandise from a league where those drugs are forbidden. It's like in bodybuilding where they have "natural" leagues. It may or may not be a good term to describe the league but basically it just means no steroids. I don't really care whether there would be leagues where steroids and other drugs were allowed or not. I wouldn't be buying.

[Inspector]

On the other hand, your body has no natural need for bovine hormones or synthetic testosterones.

Your body has no "natural" need for all kinds of things that we do to make our lives better and to make us better at doing things. It has no need for protein in the quantities consumed by many athletes.

How do you mean? Restricting what can be put into a race car is an instance of a bad rule based on rationalism? Could you explain that?

Sure. First off, you misread me: I did not say all rules were bad or rationalistic. I said that some rules were - the ones that lost sight of the end purpose of the competition.

What I mean is that sometimes people forget why the rules were placed there and just blindly consider them to be "part of the sport." NASCAR, for example, was originally supposed to be about racing stock cars. I.e. cars which could be bought at car dealerships. Right now, the cars in NASCAR are a total joke in those terms - they aren't even remotely like the Fords, Chevies, or whatever they are supposed to represent.

As far as I can tell, sports rules basically fall into three categories: Fun, Fairness, and Safety.

Safety I can see. "Fun" is really undefinable and a mixed bag. "Fairness" is just something that the less capable use to hobble the achievers and stay in the game.

The point of having those restrictions is to have a uniform standard for all participants -- a "fairness" issue.

But that always assumes that there is at least one factor that is not kept "fair:" the factor that the athletes are competing on. A lot of "fairness" rules are actually not at all about fairness, but rather about defining which qualities are to be a source of competition and which are to be factored out of the competition. Taking my example of NASCAR above, they have really restricted the technology so much that it's no longer a technological competition at all. Some folks like that - you give everyone the exact same car and see who drives the best. Me, I'm not so much interested in that - I liked it when it was as much about building as it was about driving. That's a matter of taste, but what isn't a matter of taste is that they are named the "National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing," so I can legitimately disparage them on that count.

It's as arbitrary as the size of a basketball, the length of a gridiron, or the minutes in a period, but they all have the same purpose.

No, those things are not at all arbitrary. Each of them steers the competition in a particular direction, by selecting for certain athletic talents over others. What you're missing is that it is those athletic talents which are the underlying point of the thing. And the underlying point of that is excellence of the human body.

I know people call it "fun," but that's a superficial analysis. Have you ever asked yourself why fun is fun?

Your argument is based on an arbitrary "ostensive purpose" for sports. You're basically just trading one arbitrary line for another.

No, that's not arbitrary. How is what I said arbitrary? What definition are you using for that word? I said that the purpose of sport is physical excellence - do you dispute that that is the purpose of sport? On what grounds?

A similar -and one that is probably closer to the truth- argument would be that the purpose of playing sports is to have fun, and the purpose of watching Pro Sports is entertainment.

Fun and entertainment are not primaries or ends in themselves, unless we are hedonists here. Objectivists seek to know why something is fun or entertaining. That doesn't make it any less fun, by the way - if anything it makes it moreso.

[Inspector]

What are these technologies you are referring to?

Seatbelts, crumple zones, disc brakes, and many many others. You'd be surprised how many automotive inventions started in racing.

And what exactly is your formulation again?

This:

In sport, I submit that the ostensive purpose is health and excellence in the human body. In the course of competition, it is quite possible to lose sight of this purpose and I think proper rules are the ones that steer things back toward that purpose.

Technologies can be improved in terms of diet and training technique. The only thing we're talking about here is technology that chemically (and maybe in the future, mechanically a la the Bionic Man?) altering the very physiological nature of man -- in the context of a fair and competitive sport.

You're just arguing over which particular technology you want to be variable and which you want to be fixed. There is nothing any more or less "natural" in diet and training over biochemistry. In fact, if you know enough about diet and training, you realize that they are in fact forms of biochemistry! The fact that biochem more visibly involves people in lab coats doesn't make it any more or less "natural." (The best in training and diet also has just as many people in lab coats - like I said, they are the same thing.)

The issue with steroids is that they are harmful - thus completely undermining and acting counter to the purpose of physical Excellence. This "natural" business is an anti-concept.

[JMeganSnow]

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.

This would be the end of sports forever, but it wouldn't bother me much, because I'd be too busy enjoying what I could do with my new super-body.

Personally, I don't give two figs about sports. I like watching people perform spectacular feats (and I think it would be cool to be able to do them myself . . . granted, not as cool as things I actually work on, but still cool), but I don't care whether they're the best of the best of the best or whatever. Hearing that someone broke a record in the Olympics, to me, is just a way of saying, objectively, wow, that was a really really impressive feat, because I don't have much other means of telling the difference in some cases.

It doesn't matter how they achieve their feats as long as they abide by the rules set down in the competition. It doesn't make sense to me to race horses against sprinters or compare the long jumps of a guy that's propelled only by his own legs and another guy that used a device constructed of bungee cords. You can hold this competition if you want, but there's no *purpose* to it. It's the old saw about comparing apples and oranges.

I always thought that people played sports because they loved the sports, not because they loved being adored by screaming fans.

[Robert J. Kolker]

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.

Ah ha! There is the key: "I would still rather watch...". Most people -watch- sports to be entertained (think of the mob at the Arena come to see the Gladiators kill or maim each other). People go to football games to see heavy men catch passes and 250 lbs of beef collide with 250 lbs of beef. Tell me, if professional football were restricted to tag or flag football, how many people would bother watching? Hmmm???? (Very few. It would be a participation sport). And why do seats at boxing matches within blood and sweat splatter range of the ring cost more than those farther away?

I almost never watch a sporting event, either live or on t.v. unless it is a sport in which I participate. Since I don't play tennis, I don't watch tennis matches and I very rarely watch baseball or football games. And I never, never, ever watch boxing matches. And the sports I do watch, I watch in order to pick up some pointers that I can use myself. So I occasionally watch a croquet* game or a bike race (though I never race. I like doing 20-50 miles at 12-15 mph. by myself). Professional bike riders, whether they use HGH or dope their blood or not usually have wonderful form. Which is to say they ride efficiently.

Here is my conclusion: Spectator sports where winning is the main thing will be "plagued" with the "problem" of chemical enhancement of performance. Participation sports, where you don't have to be a superstar to play will be less troubled and those sports which are barely watched at all (like croquet, shuffle-board, bocci** and curling) will not be bothered in the least with the issue of enhancement (other than practice and honing of skill).

Bob Kolker

* I am talking about -real- croquet, not that trivial backyard pass the time with the silly little hoops. Croquet is a thinking person's game that requires foresight, control (as much as golf) and is a marvelous combination of muscle, eye and chess like skill. By the way, croquet is one sport where there is no advantage whatsoever to using drugs or hormones. It is a "pure" sport, like shuffle-board, but more complicated. It is also one of the few kinds of athletic competitive sport where women can play on a par with men. Not even golf has that property since driving requires muscle mass.

** I recently tried to join the bocci club at the community where I live, but I was turned down. My last name does not end in a vowel (this is a joke, so laugh!).

[adrock3215]

The government should not be regulating the matter, but, like it has been said earlier, since it is illegal, the government is involved.

Even if performance enhancing drugs were legal (I believe they should be), it is up to the owners and executives of the individual sports leagues to allow their use or not. My personal opinion is that they should not allow their players to use enhancement drugs, but not because they are harmful. Rather, they should be disallowed by individual leagues because it is in the league's interest to make sure the records have some veracity to them. For example, Babe Ruth's home run record. The league has an interest in making sure the field is level so that his record actually means something. Otherwise, fans would take no interest in the numbers of the game, such as batting averages, home runs, RBI's, etc.

Extend this to Golf, which happens to be my favorite sport. Scoring a birdige or eagle today should be as difficult as scoring a birdie or eagle 100 years ago, should it not? The PGA and USGA need to regulate the current technology it allows its players to use in order to make sure that when Tiger shoots a 59, his achievement is equally as credible as when Bobby Jones shot a 59. Without this regulation, fans will say "So what?" whenever a record is broken and an interest in record-keeping will wane. Without record-keeping, there is no way to compare current players to past players.

Of course, there could be competing leagues who keep their own records that would allow the use of these drugs and that would be fine and proper.

[KendallJ]

This would be the end of sports forever, but it wouldn't bother me much, because I'd be too busy enjoying what I could do with my new super-body.

Huh? How would this be the end of sports forever? Have you ever seen a pro football player up close? or a pro basketball player. These people are already enhanced to the nth degree, and I don't see football or basketball ending any time soon.

I think what many people are missing here is the idea that the basis of competition is what is different among competitors. To the extent that someone can enhance their performance by methods which anyone can practice, then those differences will not be the basis of competition. However, those things, assuming everyone can do them, must then be adopted by everyone as part of the "training regimen". they become in essence, an "ante" to play at that level.

This idea in business is known as "competitive advantage". i.e. yes you have to do what everyone else is doing to keep up, but you should also focus on the things which you have which are unique.

So if this pill existed, then everyone would take it, and the outcome of the game wouldn't depend on it. Competition would still exist and flourish.

[KendallJ]

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.

David,

I had a whole post typed out, and it disappeared into the ether.

I agreed with everything you said up until the bolded. This is the same arbitrary idea that the idea of "natural"-ness raises.

My short answer is that there is no reason NOT to change the rules. The fact that they are agreed on makes them binding, and relevant, but not necessary as such.

In fact, there are several good reason to change the rules, so if you have some reasons to not change them I'd be up for that discussion.

[DavidOdden]

My short answer is that there is no reason NOT to change the rules. The fact that they are agreed on makes them binding, and relevant, but not necessary as such.

The ether sucks. Sorry about your loss.

My argument for the rules is based on the investment interest of management, outlined in post 8. The argument is that use of the drugs does not work in favor of the rational interest of management, and that they pose a threat by way of added cost and risk. This gives reason to have the rules.

Of course one could imagine an all-steroids league where the medical condition of players is intensely monitored to protect the investment, so the argument is not that there is only one rational set of rules. Rather, these rules reflect a particular set of values, but if you see sports as being an area for biomedical eningerrs to duke it out by proxy, then other rules would be called for.

[Robert J. Kolker]

So I guess the question is, why? What principle distinguishes the negative risks of performance-enhancers from the negative risks of training regiments?

What does performance-enhancer have to do with talent? Barry Bonds has the same (tremendous) talent as a power hitter with

Simple. There has to be something to enhance in the first place. All that enhancers do is make excellent athletes even more so.

Bob Kolker

[LiberTodd]

Why are steroids illegal?

End Thread.

[Moebius]

Simple. There has to be something to enhance in the first place. All that enhancers do is make excellent athletes even more so.

Yeah alright. But that means in order to be competitive and to keep a level playing field, basically EVERYONE, regardless of talent, will have to juice in order to be competitive. You're basically just adding steroids to both sides of the equation, which theoretically makes no difference as far as the competition goes. Like I said, the only thing you'd be doing is FORCING every athlete to juice if they wish to remain competitive.

On top of that you're basically erasing all the previous sporting achievements by creating a pre-steroid era and a post-steroid era, making objective comparison pretty much impossible. What happens is, even if someone who is juiced to the max somehow pulled off a 8.5 second hundred meter dash, the achievement is meaningless except when compared to the juicers that come after him. I'm not saying that that would be inherently wrong in a moral sense, but it just seems entirely pointless since you're just shaving seconds for the sake of shaving seconds. Suppose that you were able to put bionic limbs on all athletes that allow them to run the hundred meter dash in 3 seconds, what would you have achieved? All you have done is shift the achievement from a humanistic one into a technological one.

Bottom line is that this is not really a moral issue. in the end it comes down to preferences. Since professional sports is essentially a product, it simply comes down to what the customers would prefer to consume. And I think it's fairly obvious that most people would prefer athletes who achieve because of their genes and training than because of the chemicals they consume.

[KendallJ]

but if you see sports as being an area for biomedical eningerrs to duke it out by proxy, then other rules would be called for.

Odd way to put it (because it's not the primary value), but essentially this is exactly what I see.

The need is to enhance physical performance while decreasing or not incurring long term health risk. This is what a rational team owner would be interested in and this is why trainers, psychologists, physical therapists, doctors, etc. are now on sports teams staff. Most of what we know about advances in physical therapy has come from sports medicine, its the one place where the need drives immediate investment. If these professionals are essentially duking it out by proxy, why not the performance enhancing drug guys?

[KendallJ]

Bottom line is that this is not really a moral issue. in the end it comes down to preferences. Since professional sports is essentially a product, it simply comes down to what the customers would prefer to consume. And I think it's fairly obvious that most people would prefer athletes who achieve because of their genes and training than because of the chemicals they consume.

This is the same issue I brought up to Jen. You're right, if these drugs are legal they will lose their competitive advantage, but then wont that mean that the winner is still determined by genes and training. The idea that use of these drugs eliminates the reasons we want to see competition is bogus.

As to your comment about FORCING someone to juice. Tossing in your ante is not being forced. Today players MUST weight train, they MUST eat right, they must do a lot of things if they want to be competitive, and that only gets them in the game. They are hardly being forced.

There is no force here. You still have a choice, the choice of any ante: "Are you in or are you out?"

Edited December 18, 2007 by KendallJ

[DavidOdden]

Odd way to put it (because it's not the primary value), but essentially this is exactly what I see.

That's fine: I'm not arguing that there's no universe in which athletes with drug-enhancement can't be a kind of business, just that given the values traditionally embodied in sports and the medical facts that there's no reason to abandon the existing rule (and there is a reason to retain it). If you don't accept those values, that describes a different kind of sports business. Strength-amplifying gadgetry (the likes of which only exists in finer sci-fi at present) would also be a reasonable part of such a league.

[KendallJ]

just that given the values traditionally embodied in sports and the medical facts

The medical facts are temporal so I'm not worried about these, but could articulate this first, "values traditionally embodied in sports"? This is the issue I want to understand. What value set prescribes the rules be what they are?

It can't be the "what's natural" idea because then we might as well start thowing out supplements, weight training, etc. I don't think it can be the loss of skill, determination, and other such factors because those don't go away in either case.

I'm just trying to see if there is something there.

[~Sophia~]

In 2000 60% of US Olympic athletes claimed to have exercise-induced asthma and were legally prescribed clenbuterol for this condition - an otherwise illegal drug with performance enhancing properties but not a steroid, tolerated solely for this reason. And this while the Romanian gymnast Andrea Raducan was stripped of her gold medal for the 25 µg of norephedrine in her cold medicine she was taking...

I think the rule should go because it creates an illusion of something which simply is not the case.

Edited December 18, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[DavidOdden]

What value set prescribes the rules be what they are?

That the "primary virtue" of an athlete is to reach new performance plateaus by his integration of his mind and his body.