What is the objection to performance-enhancing drugs?

[Ghost of]

I don't have much time, but I figured I'd ask something that has been on my mind for a bit.

What exactly is the objection to performance-enhanching substances/techniques? And does the line blur between normal living and athletic competition?

I can formulate one pretty solid objection to steroid use and that's the pressure it puts on otherwise good athletes to do long-term damage to themselves to measure up to the 'artificial' level.

People talk about the 'integrity' of the game, but Jim Thorpe didn't have access to the 'legal' supplements, substances and nutritional and physiological science athleted have today. Is it 'unfair' that an athlete at a Division I top program gets better training than a Div 3 athlete(or a Div I in another sport?)

Currently, tests of the Insulin Growth Factor on mice have yielded incredible results. This is potentially something that could reverse aging(not necessarily skin appearance but everything else.) The mice not only became stronger, faster and more agile, but they didn't lose their current levels as they aged. And the best part is, there don't appear to be any harmful side effects.

Maybe someone like Jordan COULD play until they were 50. Would that be a bad thing, necessarily?

Imagine a future where "bad knees" or "career-ending injuries" were a thing of the past?

Would we put asterisks next to the athlete's name in the record books? WOuld there be a different standard for normal people who were taking advantage of such substances? Should athletes refrain from benefitting their long-term health and their career so that some fans can feel the game is more 'pure?'

[ChocolateCitySkin]

All I know is I'm waiting till I can buy a pair of robotic jumping legs... Always has been a dream of mine.

[Thiebear]

I never understood testing in mice: Penicilin(sp) kills mice doesnt it? Tests on monkeys yah.. tests on mice... hmmm...

[portisizzle]

Human competition is in my mind about the ability of the individual. Not the ability of XXY Pharmaceuticals to produce a drug that can make a man/woman something he or she is not.

If drugs are acceptable in sports then is it the human or is it the drug that is performing?

[dfitzo53]

Originally posted by Thiebear

I never understood testing in mice: Penicilin(sp) kills mice doesnt it? Tests on monkeys yah.. tests on mice... hmmm...

By all accounts I've read mice are surprisingly similar to humans in the way chemicals interact with their bodies and that's one reason that we use them for such testing.

Originally posted by portisizzle

If drugs are acceptable in sports then is it the human or is it the drug that is performing?

Human competition is in my mind about the ability of the individual. Not the ability of XXY Pharmaceuticals to produce a drug that can make a man/woman something he or she is not.

I agree completely. Division I schools may have better training for their athletes, but in general the athletes were better at their respective sports to begin with. That's how they got there. I don't count training as an unfair performance enhancer anyway. If you put more work in you deserve to win, or at least to have that advantage working for you.

Substances become unfair when they become shortcuts. When you can do the same thing because you're taking some drug as the other guy can because he spent two hours at the batting cages, the gym or the pool, you're cheating.

That means I also have to rule against this insulin thing. There are limits on the human body. Our wide world of sports puts every test on those limits we can think of, and it can be amazing to watch. At some point however, your body just says no more. I'd also point out that athletes don't just wear down as a result of normal aging, especially football players. Sure, it's a big part of it, but slamming into other 250 lb. men at 15 mph every Sunday can't be good for you.

[Darth Tater]

Ghost,

One of the main things that goes on in auto racing is developing and testing new systems that may eventually get out to the public, so I guess we start letting athletes test things like steriods to find out if they are 'safe and effective'.

[jenmdixon]

One argument that was going around my office is how the steriods/PEDs affect the health of the user and how that translates into health care costs that end up being passed along to everyone else...whether through higher insurance premiums, higher fees/costs or both.

[China]

Originally posted by Thiebear

I never understood testing in mice: Penicilin(sp) kills mice doesnt it? Tests on monkeys yah.. tests on mice... hmmm...

Actually, I think Penicillin kills Guinea Pigs, not mice; but your point is well taken. Some animal species show good correlation with humans for certain tests, such as neuropharm testing being done in mice and rats, immunogenicity in guinea pigs and rabbits. In most instances, especially in relation to the immune system, monkeys would be the closest approxmation to humans. However, testing in monkeys is outrageously expensive. So, I think it comes down to money. , Companies do some basic toxicology testing in smaller species such as mice, rats and rabbits. For vaccines and certain other drugs the FDA will require testing in monkeys. If we wanted to eliminate most of the requirements for some of the animal testing, the FDA could do that, however they would want an adequate in vitro substitute. More and more of these are becoming available, but there aren't enough to eliminate most or all of the animal testing. The FDA's primary concern is the safety of people on whom new drugs are tested, so the thought is to sacrifice some animals to get increased assurance that the first time you put an investigational drug into humans, it doesn't kill a bunch of people.

As they say in the industry, human data trumps animal data because as you noted animal results are not always predictive of results in humans.

[kameuh]

Chocolate, tracked down this link i'd read a few days ago just for you. If you can hold out 20 more years perhaps you can own some crazy legs..

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18624945.800&feedId=online-news_rss20

BTW Starship Troopers the book (not that crappy movie rip off) had exoskeleton legs for super human abilities

[jbooma]

Originally posted by jenmdixon

One argument that was going around my office is how the steriods/PEDs affect the health of the user and how that translates into health care costs that end up being passed along to everyone else...whether through higher insurance premiums, higher fees/costs or both.

Everyone takes steroids, it is in many medications. What is causing healthcare costs to rise is designer pills you see on TV all the time, people not taking care of themselves, and having to use medications to help them.

Healthcare is changing, and a lot of people might not be happy in the future. You might see more of a flex plan or plans built around the person having to take better care of themselves, or the plans that will pay so much at first, then the user will have to pay more out of pocket for specific procedures.

One of the best plans Bush has created is the one no one talks about his healthcare plan is going to change what we know of it with integrating technology and creating one e-medical record, we are in some exciting times in the healthcare industry.

[Ghost of]

So if this IGF turned out to be a miracle treatment for people IN GENERAL, then athletes would be held to sub-standard lives as a result of a wish for 'even ground' or 'integrity'?

Interesting.

[DjTj]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

So if this IGF turned out to be a miracle treatment for people IN GENERAL, then athletes would be held to sub-standard lives as a result of a wish for 'even ground' or 'integrity'?

Interesting.

If it were a miracle treatment, we'd put it in our water or our cereal. Everyone gets flouride nowadays as well as our recommended daily allowance of iron in cereal and vitamin C in orange juice. Something that good with no side effects would be added to our food, and I doubt we would have a problem with athletes taking it.

I think the only justification for outlawing drugs is the long-term negative effects that they have. Maybe the "cheating" argument is easier to make and it sounds good politically, but the line is real blurry between legal supplements and illegal drugs - it's just a matter of semantics. Supplements can give you results that other people would have to work hard for - it's cheating just like steroids.

The difference is the side effects. We don't want people killing themselves just to win. It's like why we have rules about chop-blocking. Sure, it's an effective way to block and it helps you win, but there's a serious risk of someone getting hurt - and not just hurt on the field but for the rest of their lives. We call it "cheating" when somebody does it, but the only reason it's cheating is because we've put the rule in place. The reason the rules are there is to prevent serious injury and steroids is just another one of those rules.

We play to win the game, but we don't want to hurt people and we don't want people hurting themselves. That's where we draw the lines.

[Ghost of]

DjTj

That's a solid argument. I guess I have a problem if there are techniques or substances coming down the pike that will have minimal side effects(no more than taking too much of a supplement or the like.)

[chomerics]

Originally posted by DjTj

If it were a miracle treatment, we'd put it in our water or our cereal. Everyone gets flouride nowadays as well as our recommended daily allowance of iron in cereal and vitamin C in orange juice. Something that good with no side effects would be added to our food, and I doubt we would have a problem with athletes taking it.

I think the only justification for outlawing drugs is the long-term negative effects that they have. Maybe the "cheating" argument is easier to make and it sounds good politically, but the line is real blurry between legal supplements and illegal drugs - it's just a matter of semantics. Supplements can give you results that other people would have to work hard for - it's cheating just like steroids.

The difference is the side effects. We don't want people killing themselves just to win. It's like why we have rules about chop-blocking. Sure, it's an effective way to block and it helps you win, but there's a serious risk of someone getting hurt - and not just hurt on the field but for the rest of their lives. We call it "cheating" when somebody does it, but the only reason it's cheating is because we've put the rule in place. The reason the rules are there is to prevent serious injury and steroids is just another one of those rules.

We play to win the game, but we don't want to hurt people and we don't want people hurting themselves. That's where we draw the lines.

Great points Dj

[FBChick]

I think DJ hit the nail on the head for the sake of the here and now. Just to take it a step further, by allowing these types of supplements, it almost like making it a requirement.

If steriods were allowed, how could one who chose not to take the enhancement even begin to think they could compete on a field where the majority were taking them? What would stop teams from litterally forcing the enhancments on the players?

Once a drug appears that can enhance the performance without the ill side effects, then yes, I can see were the line will disappear, as DJ stated, it would become the norm.

But I don't personally see any enhancement drug being able to greatly extend the playing life of a football player. All it would do is increase the intensity levels of the collisions, and then you have to start figuring out how to protect the rest of the body from the stress. Bones, organs, the brain. If you think about it, athletes today are already bigger, faster, stronger and healthier then they were 20-30 years, but the injuries haven't really gone away, or even lessen because of it.