What is wrong with performance enhancement?

[KendallJ]

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

Yeah, you want to be a little less cryptic here?

How is use of the knowledge of such sugstances different than the knowledge about the right thing to eat or the proper muscle buidling exercises to do. Why is this not a particular example of the intergration of mind?

[Moebius]

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?"

When I wrote the word "force" in my post, I actually thought about adding a disclaimer but decided that it was obvious waht I meant and it wouldn't have been necessary. I guess it was.

I didn't mean "force" in a "gun to head" sense, but rather in a vernacular sense. It just means that it is something you would have to do -- as in, you would have to juice IF you want to be competitive.

[Moebius]

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 is an illusion.

So what you're saying is that because so many people violate the rule so often, we should get rid of the rule?

Seems like an awful reason.

[D'kian]

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.

Well, Football would consist entirely of passing, kicking and punting (especially punting), as no runner could have a prayer against such a defense, no matter what behemoths were pushing on his side. Baseball would still be boring, though. Soccer, now, may be improved. Perhaps the magic pill will let players shoot straight, allowing fomr something other than microscopic scores and ties without end.

[~Sophia~]

So what you're saying is that because so many people violate the rule so often, we should get rid of the rule?

Seems like an awful reason.

I am saying that the rule is just in theory and we should stop pretending.

[Moebius]

Well, Football would consist entirely of passing, kicking and punting (especially punting), as no runner could have a prayer against such a defense, no matter what behemoths were pushing on his side. Baseball would still be boring, though. Soccer, now, may be improved. Perhaps the magic pill will let players shoot straight, allowing fomr something other than microscopic scores and ties without end.

In football the runner and the offensive line would also be 8 feet or whatever. Don't think it'd make much of a difference. Baseball on the other hand would have a lot more home runs. Players like Ichiro who has a high batting average would suddenly become home run kings since it doesn't matter how far you hit it out of the park as long as it is out of the park. In fact, soccer seems like the sport that would be least effected, although I guess you'd be able to kick the ball a lot harder.

[DavidOdden]

How is use of the knowledge of such sugstances different than the knowledge about the right thing to eat or the proper muscle buidling exercises to do. Why is this not a particular example of the intergration of mind?

I don't see that this is relevant. Maybe your mistake is in assuming that I want to reduce the whole issue to this particular value, which I do not. The medical issues are dispositive. Maybe hiring teams of doctors to tell robo-athletes what to eat, when and how to exercise to get the perfect body moves away from the internally-discovered athlete-centered goal and towards the externally-managed score-centered goal, but it also doesn't threaten management's investment in the athlete.

[Moebius]

I am saying that the rule is just in theory and we should stop pretending.

A rule is not a theory. A rule just says "do not do this or you will be punished". I don't understand what you think we are pretending. That some people cheat? That a lot of people cheat? What?

And I still don't understand your reasoning for why we should get rid of these rules in your original post. We should get rid of these rules because it creates an illusion? An illusion of what? To whom? And why does that constitute a reason for throwing out a rule? If we have a rule that says "do not cheat on tests" and found out that 60% of kids cheat anyway, we should just throw out the rules and allow them to cheat?

[KendallJ]

When I wrote the word "force" in my post, I actually thought about adding a disclaimer but decided that it was obvious waht I meant and it wouldn't have been necessary. I guess it was.

I didn't mean "force" in a "gun to head" sense, but rather in a vernacular sense. It just means that it is something you would have to do -- as in, you would have to juice IF you want to be competitive.

If that's the connotation, then the obvioius answer is "so what". So what if that's what you have to do to compete. YOu said this as if it was relevant, but your new connotation makes it irrellevant. THere's all sorts of stuff you have to do if you want to be a pro athlete. If you want to be a pro gymnast you better make up your mind about it before you're 9. Who cares?

I don't see that this is relevant. Maybe your mistake is in assuming that I want to reduce the whole issue to this particular value, which I do not. The medical issues are dispositive. Maybe hiring teams of doctors to tell robo-athletes what to eat, when and how to exercise to get the perfect body moves away from the internally-discovered athlete-centered goal and towards the externally-managed score-centered goal, but it also doesn't threaten management's investment in the athlete.

No, I'm trying to understand what the value supposedly is. "Integrating mind and body" is a bit abstract for me, as is "the internally-discovered athlete-centered goal vs. whatever it was." Integration is relevant in every situation possible. Would you mind just making it more concrete. How is drug use NOT the integration of mind and body?

I'm unconvinced that "today's value" is a value as such, but I'm just trying to see if you'll state it for me more than just obliquely.

[Inspector]

How is drug use NOT the integration of mind and body?

And, to add to that, if everyone is doing that then how does it not once again come down to athletic skill?

-----

The way I see this, factoring out the fact that steroids are currently medically debilitating, I don't see anything about them as such that is different from nutrition or training. There is nothing inherently unsporting about them. It's just one more thing for people to compete on - just like in auto racing.

I understand the desire to eliminate such factors so that the competition can be more about other factors that an individual may prefer or be more interested in. Like having racing car bodies be made the same so that the competition can be more about engine design rather than aerodynamics (or vice versa). Or eliminating them both so that it's just about the drivers. But the way I see it, this is purely a matter of personal taste. That's how I see the steroid issue (if you eliminate the medical factor for the sake of argument.

As I said, however, I do agree that anything which harms the body like that should be against the rules on the grounds that it contradicts the whole point of sport. So as they stand today I do agree that steroids should be against the rules. I'm also not a fan of nitrous oxide in drag racing, for similar reasons.

But all that said, I am still left with the fact that this "natural" business is an anti-concept.

Edited December 18, 2007 by Inspector

[DavidOdden]

"Integrating mind and body" is a bit abstract for me, as is "the internally-discovered athlete-centered goal vs. whatever it was." Integration is relevant in every situation possible. Would you mind just making it more concrete. How is drug use NOT the integration of mind and body?

By whom? Yeah, you can say that a guy with a headache who takes an aspirin to get rid of the headache has performed an act of mind-body integration. It's a trivial act. A guy who has disciplined his mind so as to eliminate the pain of his muscles when he runs the mile in 3.75 minutes has accomplished a significant act of mind-body integration. Same with Dick Fosbury's jump. A guy who simply follows orders from someone else and shoots himself with steroids (or has himself shot) has done something that anybody can do. Now one could imagine that in the drug-enhanced league, players might actually need to take a couple of courses in pharmacology and medicine, so that they would actually make a significant mental contribution to this supposed mind-body integration involved in taking drugs. What I'm looking for is the significant contributions of the athlete.

[D'kian]

In football the runner and the offensive line would also be 8 feet or whatever. Don't think it'd make much of a difference.

It would. In Football, as in many areas, the defense has the advantage. Today's stronger and faster linemen have made running more difficult than it used to be. You won't see a repeat of the 70s Steelers with two 1,000 yard runners, or power runners who can amass much in the way of yardage.

In fact, soccer seems like the sport that would be least effected, although I guess you'd be able to kick the ball a lot harder.

Soccer is a bit of a mystery. After all, it is the one sport without a readily apparent objective (Oh, I have heard the objective is to put the ball inside the net, but it happens so seldom I just don't belive it; near as I can make out, it's a hystrionics competition for people way not ready for prime time).

About the only sport where you won't see any steroid use ever is women's gymnastics. in fact, if you could come up with a drug that would decrease size and muscle mass, that would be the sport to market it to.

[Robert J. Kolker]

About the only sport where you won't see any steroid use ever is women's gymnastics. in fact, if you could come up with a drug that would decrease size and muscle mass, that would be the sport to market it to.

There are no medical enhancements used by people who do curling.

Bob Kolker

[Inspector]

There are no medical enhancements used by people who do curling.

Bob Kolker

If it were popular enough to have money involved, you can bet there would be.

[KendallJ]

By whom? Yeah, you can say that a guy with a headache who takes an aspirin to get rid of the headache has performed an act of mind-body integration. It's a trivial act. A guy who has disciplined his mind so as to eliminate the pain of his muscles when he runs the mile in 3.75 minutes has accomplished a significant act of mind-body integration. Same with Dick Fosbury's jump. A guy who simply follows orders from someone else and shoots himself with steroids (or has himself shot) has done something that anybody can do. Now one could imagine that in the drug-enhanced league, players might actually need to take a couple of courses in pharmacology and medicine, so that they would actually make a significant mental contribution to this supposed mind-body integration involved in taking drugs. What I'm looking for is the significant contributions of the athlete.

Yeah, see this is the point. If this is the reason for saying that there is no reason to change the rules, then by golly its pretty darn arbitrary. That is because steroid use (meaning when everyone does it) neither lessens nor increases the significant mind body integration required that you point out. Neither do all of the things that have now become common place in professional sport, diet, weight training, reconstructive surgery, protein supllements, and on....

This is neither a reason for or against its use, and the values of "today" should have no particular view on any aspect of the sport that does not add to or take away from competitive advantage, because of the fact that is does not add to nor take away from competitive advantage.

I'm trying really hard to undrestand why that value would in any way necessitate keeping the rules as they are.

[Robert J. Kolker]

If it were popular enough to have money involved, you can bet there would be.

I agree. Which is what I have been saying. The major spectator sports and their fans reward people who win. As long as winning is the thing, there will be incentive to use performance enhancing substances.

I am happy that curling is a mini-niche sport. Think of it as shuffle board with ice and brooms.

My eldest son is a curler. I have watched his team play and they seem to enjoy themselves a lot. Curling has an innocence and a simplicity about it. It is never likely to become either a gambler's sport or a major spectator sport. Watching a curling match is like watching paint dry.

Bob Kolker

[D'kian]

There are no medical enhancements used by people who do curling.

Are you sure? You'd think there wouldn't be any in target shooting, but there are; drugs to steady the heart-rate and such.

Besides, are there athletes in curling?

[Thales]

I have nothing against enhancing performance by the use of drugs or technology, because it's all part of improving ones life. It's not the same as using destructive drugs, because the purpose is self-improvement, not self destruction. It's a very positive thing. If there are risks involved, then you have to be smart about the risks you take, but, on principle, improving performance is a good thing, whether natural or non-natural. The more improvement the better.

The fact is, performance has been enhanced in sports over time as drugs and medical technology have improved. Athletes today have great advantages over athletes of 50 years ago. But, this applies to more than just sports. It applies to our lives generally.

Would I regard an athlete who uses some thing to enhance his performance to be a cheater? Only if it went against some explicit rules, but, otherwise, athletes have always looked for edges in any way they could find them, diet, exercise, supplements, technique, etc. Athletes who win are the ones who are willing to push the envelope more than the rest.

I don't accrue any special status to the natural over the man made, in fact, I really love it when man can alter nature for the better.

[Thales]

I don't accrue any special status to the natural over the man made, in fact, I really love it when man can alter nature for the better.

That should be "attribute", not "accrue".

[Robert J. Kolker]

I have nothing against enhancing performance by the use of drugs or technology, because it's all part of improving ones life. It's not the same as using destructive drugs, because the purpose is self-improvement, not self destruction. It's a very positive thing. If there are risks involved, then you have to be smart about the risks you take, but, on principle, improving performance is a good thing, whether natural or non-natural. The more improvement the better.

Agree! I do not think there is anyone on this forum who would object to using a drug or treatment that would double one's mental efficiency without producing any destructive side effects. It would be glorious indeed if the dullest among us could be given intelligence such as was possessed by Einstein (say), or the mathematician Euler.

So mental enhancement is clearly not objectionable. Man is supposed to be the Rational Animal. If so, why not make Man the Even More Rational Animal?

Bob Kolker

[Thales]

Agree! I do not think there is anyone on this forum who would object to using a drug or treatment that would double one's mental efficiency without producing any destructive side effects. It would be glorious indeed if the dullest among us could be given intelligence such as was possessed by Einstein (say), or the mathematician Euler.

Precisely, or the smartest to even higher levels! Imagine a drug that would enhance your mental acuity for the space of a few hours, and with it you are more able to solve some difficult problem. Let’s say it has some negative side effects, you should still be free to decide whether or not to use it. It could provide lasting benefits.

So mental enhancement is clearly not objectionable. Man is supposed to be the Rational Animal. If so, why not make Man the Even More Rational Animal?

I have another thought about the use of enhancement drugs in sports. Why make them against the rules at all? Why not trust people to be rational? If people want to ruin their health in the short run, it's their own foolishness. Reality will punish them. They should be dissuaded from doing anything to the point of real harm, but let them decide and let them take their own risks. Seems to me the concept of responsible adult has to enter in the equation somewhere.

[Robert J. Kolker]

I have another thought about the use of enhancement drugs in sports. Why make them against the rules at all? Why not trust people to be rational? If people want to ruin their health in the short run, it's their own foolishness. Reality will punish them. They should be dissuaded from doing anything to the point of real harm, but let them decide and let them take their own risks. Seems to me the concept of responsible adult has to enter in the equation somewhere.

Reality (i.e. nature) is not a sentient being, so it can neither punish nor reward. It is what it is and it does what it does. Nature, with the minor exception of living sentient beings, is a dumb as a bag full of rocks. Overall it has neither sentience nor purpose.

Bob Kolker

[Thales]

Reality (i.e. nature) is not a sentient being, so it can neither punish nor reward. It is what it is and it does what it does. Nature, with the minor exception of living sentient beings, is a dumb as a bag full of rocks. Overall it has neither sentience nor purpose.

Bob Kolker

I don't mean consciously punish. It's more of a metaphor, reality will harm you if you attempt to contradict it. I don't slam doors on my hands for a reason. I don’t stand in front of speeding Mac trucks for a reason. Reality is right there to "punish" me.

When you can snatch the pebbles from my hand you may leave.