Why are performance enhancing drugs illegal, but performance enhancing equipment and surgery is endorsed?

Expect this to become more of an issue once we really get into human enhancement such as cyberpunk-style bioware, cyberware, and gene-tweaking. You may have intended this merely as a sports question, but it touches on the entire issue of transhumanism. Subconsciously, we fear enhancing humans directly for fear of making us non-human, yet since our biggest strength as a species is tool use, we see no problems with enhancing humans with equipment like special shoes.

I have often wondered myself, why they draw the line where it is drawn. There is not an athlete in any sport, who is not shot up with pain killers before they play. Why is that not considered performance enhancing because they certainly play better if the pain is numbed. And Lance Armstrong’s disgrace was just that, but really, they were going to have to go down to about the 27th finisher before they had someone clean, what a laugh. The whole situation is a giant dilemma and if @jerv‘s predictions are true, it is going to continue to get even more clouded.

Excellent question. My initial reaction on reading the question was it’s a measure of which industries have the more effective lobbyists working on their behalf. But considering @jerv‘s answer, I think he’s closer to the mark.

Also, there are strong rational arguments to be made against the use of large doses of steroids (roid rage, etc.) and human growth hormone (stimulates rapid cancerous tumor growth as well as muscle mass growth). That puts the use of such performance enhancers in a whole different category of risk from quality athletic shoes.

As long as a performance enhancer is equally available to everyone in a competition, the playing field remains level. Where we get problems is when certain performance enhancement techniques are banned but difficult to detect. Then we get cheaters who establish new world records because they refused to play on a level playing field.

I think it’s another case of technology outpacing the law/regulation.

A better practice might be to allow performance enhancing drugs that an athlete has declared a specified amount of time before the competition. That might also include a verifiable method of detection. If the intent to use was kept secret, then it wouldn’t ruin an athlete’s chance of winning, all competitors could be tested for use and the results would be a voluntary trial of the drug. Known illegal and dangerous drugs would be banned out of hand, and all drug use would be public after the competition. By the next competition, the playing field would be fairly level again.

Well the answer is actually really simple. You can’t use those “performance enhancing drugs” like steroids, mushrooms, for the same reason you can’t use them in your daily life, they are illegal. And if your nephew were to use anything on the banned from sports list he would have an unfair advantage over the other players who are following the rules. Until they make it legal the only legal enhancement you can have are things like shoes, or corrective eye surgery. So support WADA :)

Dude, I would love for performance enhancing drugs to be legal… Then ordering my medicine at a pharmacy would not be such a pain in the ass. I wouldn’t have to wonder every single time I move whether I can find a doctor who will prescribe it for me. I wouldn’t be anxious every time I am about to run out, because there might be a shortage. In my opinion, if people want to abuse steroids, that’s their own damn problem. I need this stuff to stay sane and functional and want to keep living.

@nofurbelowsbatgirl
1) Laws vary. By your logic, no female should ever be in the front seat of a car (let alone drive) because there are places where that is illegal. Until there is universal agreement that such drugs are illegal in every jurisdiction, it’s really more of a ruling by the governing body of the sports league than anything else.

2) Not all performance-enhancing drugs are illegal. Show me the laws prohibiting Vitamin B12.

3) WADA used to ban caffeine. Things like that make me question whether they are doing what they do out of fairness or merely on quasi-religious grounds. If the latter, they should build a church and stay out of any governing body ruling over any group where there isn’t 100% agreement with their “faith”.

Now, “unfair” implies that availability is an issue; if everyone can get a certain thing, it isn’t unfair. Nor is it really an advantage since the competition is doing it too. Of course, there are times where overly restrictive morality can be a disadvantage….

@jerv I have to politely disagree with probably all of what you said.

1)We are not going by my logic. People in sports are going by the laws that are governed in the state the choose to practice their sport, I didn’t make up those rules. For example if I was a female driving in a place where it was illegal for females to drive, no matter how hard I try to explain my logic, it is illegal. But if I come from that country to a place where it is ok for women to drive then I can drive like all the other women.

2)Unless you have pernicious anemia, I’m not sure why you’d be taking a vitamin B12 supplement to improve you’re overall sports performance?
This is from Wikipedia:
The total amount of vitamin B12 stored in body is about 2–5 mg in adults. Around 50% of this is stored in the liver.[18]

Approximately 0.1% of this is lost per day by secretions into the gut, as not all these secretions are reabsorbed.

Bile is the main form of B12 excretion; however, most of the B12 secreted in the bile is recycled via enterohepatic circulation. Excess B12 beyond the blood’s binding capacity is typically excreted in urine.[18]
 
Due to the extremely efficient enterohepatic circulation of B12, the liver can store several years’ worth of vitamin B12; therefore, nutritional deficiency of this vitamin is rare.

Considering B12 is pretty sufficient for us, you have actually stumped me on how someone would benefit from taking extra B12, unless I am misunderstanding something, which also happens lol.

3)WADA afaik doesn’t ban anything…EDIT: I am not actually sure who completely makes up WADA so I shouldnt make that statement, because if the next statemt is true and those people indeed are WADA then they do make the decisions. sorry for the confusion :/
But I do know they are the place to go if you want to know, since they know the info on all the drugs and what is banned and what is not. I don’t think it is not a “religious” attempt.

There is Government representation, Olympic representation, Atheletic committee, Health and Medical research and the list goes on. Just so you know who makes the decisions this decision is not just made by a group of people who believe caffiene gives you a high. It is quite obvious to me that they have all their bases covered (pun intended lol) with scientific data to back up their claims that support their decision making process.

4)It is unfair for others if someone doesn’t follow the rules. Unfortunatley being an athelete that is the path one chooses. One is subject to follow the rules if they choose this path, they want raw talent & not doped up unnatural talent.

When I read the answers to these questions, I really do believe they are trying to help athletes raw talent shine instead of covering it up and enhancing it on the inside.

So, should an athlete, with a prescription for medical marijuana, be allowed to compete against others who don’t have a prescription?

Say, another athlete takes part in a controlled clinical government supported LCD research program… all on the up and up… should they be allowed to compete?

The “legal” or not argument is fairly shallow. Legal today, is illegal tomorrow.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies
“So, should an athlete, with a prescription for medical marijuana, be allowed to compete against others who don’t have a prescription?”

Doesn’t really matter. According to WADA marijuana is prohibited while being an athlete.

All the athlete can do is apply for a Theraputic Use Exemption or [TUE]. And since marijuana is still technically illegal, but also prohibited for athletes by WADA “Natural (e.g. cannabis, hashish, marijuana) or synthetic delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabimimetics (e.g. “Spice”, JWH018, JWH073, HU-210) are prohibited” who I now think obviously makes the rules, then I would assume the application would be denied.

@nofurbelowsbatgirl And if there were a sports league that did not abide by WADA rules, then what? Auto racing has separate classes, why can’t other sports?

@jerv Auto racing is different, they have rules to abide by also though like they cannot enhance their car which ironically is similar to not enhancing an athletes body. Say for example all Nascars have 4 gears plus reverse and #20 decides to roll his into the next race with 5 gears 5th being the overdrive gear..he’d be retarded to even think about it or try to attempt it because it’s against the rules as are certan modifications to any Nascar. So by “seperate” classes I am not sure what you mean. If you mean, Indy has different rules than Nascar, well of course they do, if the body mechanics of those race cars were similar they wouldn’t have other races so your scenario woud be like enhancing Indy and Nascar and putting them on the same track racing for the same trophy and calling them similar. Because athletes are similar, as in we are all human, and if you enhance them which part is the talent? If that’s what you meant. Do you want to hear the “real singer” or do you want “Milli Vanilli.” I prefer the real thing thanks. :)

@nofurbelowsbatgirl You missed the point in order to shout from your pulpit again.

To continue the simile NASCAR is not FIA, which is not NHRA, which is not V8 Supercars, which is not DTM. When was the last time you saw a Holden at the Daytona 500? How about Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson running hot laps around Nürburgring in a CLK? Sure, Tommi Mäkinen never won a Winston Cup series, but so what?

If, like me, you are not a fan of NASCAR-style racing, don’t follow it; watch WRC instead. Not all of us share your objections, just as not everybody shares my objection to calling a bunch of rednecks who can’t turn right driving nearly identical cars “racing”.

@jerv I have no clue if auto racing follows WADA, do you? I think we are on different wavelengths here. I was just talking about common athletes like track and field I was not actually branching out into motorsports. Sorry if you thought I was trying to drive my point (yet again another pun) and shouting from my pulpit. But I don’t see how there is any wiggle room. If a substance is in the WADA list as prohibited then whichever sports class follows the WADA rules then in that racing class the athletes must either unfortunately or fortunately have to adhere to those rules, no if’s ands or buts, because it does make them subject to screening and if they fail that screening then they may be out for sure.
I am still not sure what your point is. This is either a question/debated answer about the rules of racing which athletes have to follow or a debate about which athletic abilities actually makes up said athlete.

@nofurbelowsbatgirl And I was making a simile. A parallel. Example. Illustration.

Lets get back to the question that caused me to do so; what if there were a sports league that did not abide by WADA rules? Why can’t we have “stock” and “modified” classes?

@jerv “Why can’t we have “stock” and “modified” classes?” I don’t know. I don’t make the rules. And come to think of it, actually it does happen, but typically they are not advertised considering they break almost every rule and instead of organized Greyhound racing (of which these dogs are also now becoming subjected to doping laws) one can choose not to adhere to that class and pick the less preffered sport style consisting of 5 long years less or more of Michael Vicks illegal “style” interstate dog fighting ring.
With doping things can go from bad to worse, if they allow the athletes to dope then essentially they are also setting an attitude that they do not care about the athletes health, so.if they have different, classes, people are going to complain…my son was in the class that allowed cocaine, he overdosed and died or along those lines. I don’t see how it would work. There are rules for a reason and those are WADA’S rules, I don’t understaund people complain about it.

I think w/out WADA’s rules things can go from bad to worse.

Sorry about the spelling mistakes I’m not at home, and I am using the dreaded droid. lol.

@nofurbelowsbatgirl So basically your entire argument boils down to, “The rules are good because they follow the rules”? Or is it that you do not trust yourself to be able to live without a very short leash and therefore feel the need to restrain others similarly?

Face it, people will be people; the only difference is whether they break arbitrary rules doing what they will do anyways. And banning something basically deregulates it to where it can be worse. Notice how far fewer people have died from bad “bathtub gin” (methanol poising) since Prohibition ended and made alcohol legal again? All you are doing is driving people underground to where they fall prey to snake oil salesmen with dirty needles.

@jerv No. That is not my argument. The rules are there for a reason..that is my argument. People who “fall prey to snake oil salesmen with dirty needles.” How does that argument even apply? I’ll tell you how.. You are comparing a drunkard to an athlete, although I’d like to see the olympic race that applies when the drunks are racing in the “dope IS finally approved” WADA track and field race!
“And in this lane we have all the dopers, lane 1 maryj those guys will be walking and snacking their way to their finish line, lane 2 is the alcoholics, they have buckets in hand, and are allowed frequent vomit pit stops without disqualification, spinning is an automatic disqualification! In the 3rd lane we have the roids, they will be raging all the way!

So put a regular athlete against doped up Lance Armstrong who would win and how is that fair? We have seen that play out 7 times.

Your excuse is just that, an excuse. Even if the salesman doesn’t exist someone will fall desperate enough and inject household cleaner. Because now you are talking about addiction which is an entirely seperate problem. If someone is addicted you don’t enable their behavior which is what a snake oil saleman does, and which is something else that WADA is trying to prevent. So you just answered the question yourself.

@nofurbelowsbatgirl You are a zealot whose fanaticism clouds their logic and (based on how many times you didn’t get my point) understanding of the English language, therefore further conversation is pointless. Good day!

@jerv Call me a fanatic, that’s fine. I asked you twice what point you were trying to get at! So ok I don’t understand the english language, how will I ever communicate again?

It is ok. You can mock and belittle me so you feel like the bigger person.

I answered your questions, you just don’t like the answers I guess.

What a waste of my time thanks for that.

To recap, so far we have;

- Fears of Transhumanism,
– “I wonder that too”,
– “So long as it’s equally available, it isn’t unfair.”,
– Technology outpacing regulation, and…
– “It’s against the rules, and the rules are there for reasons I approve of, and any league that lacks those rules will be unfair because they discriminate against people who follow rules that don’t exist in that league, and that league should not ever exist in the first place because it enables those with addictions.”

Anybody else have anything to add to continue this discussion?

@nofurbelowsbatgirl “So put a regular athlete against doped up Lance Armstrong who would win and how is that fair?”

It is the most fair that humanity could allow.

Please just consider, I understand your argument, and understand why you think the way you think. Please try to understand another view, and consider the long term benefits to humanity over the short term rewards and punishment philosophy.

Allowing doping, would literally redefine what the words “winner” and “champion” mean. As long as it was all out in the open, and athletes had to submit to the same testing.

I present exhibit A: Charlie Sheen. His short term “winning” campaign peaked for a minute then fell off the earth. It was comedy, as one so convinced of his superiority single handedly changed the meaning of the word “winning” to the definition of “loosing”. Do you get that?... “That” being the fact that the public is more intelligent than we typically give them credit for. No one believed Charlie Sheen was truly “winning” in anything but “loosing”.

So the race begins, and from the beginning, EVERYONE KNOWS who is doping, and who is clean. The doper crosses the finish line first… probably… but not guaranteed. Do you think for a moment, that any right minded individual would believe the doper was the true winner?

I believe in a unique biological model for human cultural progress. Basically, Intelligent Mutation combined with Natural Selection. Let the public decide which decisions to reward.

Intelligent Mutation… the athlete makes an intelligent, informed decision, to either dope, or not to dope. Allow free will to be expressed.

Natural Selection… the public, and corporate sponsorship, will SELECT the winners… NOT the finish line. I propose to you the public will award non dopers with praise, speaking engagements, crowd funding programs, etc. The corporate sponsorships will also award the non dopers with endorsement contracts, spokesperson roles, money money money. The winners will be declared not only by their short term performance, but their decisions of discipline and integrity too. And isn’t that the ultimate goal that all the regulatory boards are trying to force upon athletes anyway?

If doping is so bad, and harmful, as they say… then it won’t take long for it to become apparent to all. Just let them do it. Let all of society witness that lab study. Let the public see how poor decisions affect individuals who cannot cope with mere reality. Succeed or fail, the results of such decisions shall be rewarded by the public selection accordingly. I propose it won’t be more than a single generation before doping becomes extinct forever. And not because some arbitrary board of morality/fairness police have mandated certain behaviors. But because the public has spoken with finality, allowing undeniable obvious truths to arise without the need for dogmatic supervision.

I propose the same for gambling. Seriously, does anyone believe Pete Rose was any less of an athlete because he liked to gamble? How is that any different than Babe Ruth drinking? Or Tiger Woods womanizing? What difference does it make so much that we need ethics police to monitor our humanity?

It’s an insult to the reasoning skills of human evolutionary progress. The dumbing down of society is specifically the result of this types of overlord control, telling people what’s right and wrong… rather than letting truth speak for itself, so the public can make an informed decisions sans adhoc..

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies
Have you ever lost someone to doping? I have. I do not make this fight because I do not trust myself “to be able to live without a very short leash and therefore feel the need to restrain others similarly?” I make the argument because unlike you I do not see the need for useless time spent, and lives wasted for what we already know. Dope is bad. Ad hoc? The argument in and of itself is illogical, how many brains do we have to give to dope until one actually understands “this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs.” If someone needs doping to cope with life, something is seriously wrong. Watching a “public lab study” is nothing more than sitting back and watching the monkeys in the lab get tortured. I watched my 31yr old cousin die of a heart attack from doping. Are you willing to let blood be shed on your hands so you can watch this play out so you will be satisfied that everyone is treated equally? Besides athletes are being tested so they are making a conscious decision already, if they want to be dopers than unfortunatley they should not become “famous” or “olympic” or “spotlight” athletes who are tested regulary until they are fully over their “problem”.

Besides, I am the public, & I am not the first public citizen to contest this, many of these reasons I have given are also fought by many more members of the public. And it is why anti anything against drugs exists.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies There are those that consider dying for a cause to be “winning”. For instance, there are many who would refuse to undergo life-saving medical procedures and thus die from easily preventable causes in order to score a moral victory. Would that actually be winning, or losing? I mean, they lost their lives for reasons that many may consider rather stupid, but they did remain true to themselves.

Similarly, is an team that wins a title based on bad calls by refs/umpires really championship team? Or is the title “champion” reserved for those that play the highest caliber game and follow the rules?

@nofurbelowsbatgirl That actually explains much, and would have been good to know earlier. But you need to understand a few things if you want others to take you seriously.

I am the public too. So are those who disagree with you. You have reasons to feel the way you do, but so do I, and so do they. You have opinions, but so do we. To feel that your opinion is the only one that is possibly correct and that anybody who disagrees with you is utterly wrong is how wars are started.

If I had your same intolerant attitude then I would seek to ban obesity; if you are more than 130% of the medically acceptable weight for your height, you will be prosecuted, and stripped of every professional accomplishment you ever achieved. Same thing for having any sort of adverse reaction to any prescription medication taken as directed. Got cancer but lack the insurance and/or wealth to afford treatment (or just don’t trust doctors)? Same deal; prosecute and discredit them. I have lost family members to all of those things, therefore they must be evil, bad, and in need of rules prohibiting those actions and punishing those who engage in those activities, right?

And before you say, “That’s different because I am against something that is illegal!”, think about that statement; it’s basically saying that all laws are right and the justification for their existence is that they exist. Circular reasoning is circular. We know that eating processed food is bad and leads to potentially fatal health issues; when will you protest those as energetically as you are protesting here?

I ask for is some sort of logic and consistency here. So far, all I have seen from you is a personal crusade, confirmation bias, and a bit of ad hominem, all of which get tiring quickly. And you never really answered why there could not be a league with different rules, other than with illogical vitriol. Please, I ask you to politely tell me why such a league could never exist without resorting to circular reasoning or demonizing those of dissenting views.

I’m not trying to be difficult here. I’m just trying to make sense of things.

It has to do with complexity. Eye surgery changes a lens. Psychoactive drugs potentially influence trillions of synaptic connections.

@jerv Last I heard you were done with me! I am actually going to be finished with this question after this. I am not affliated to anything or anyone. I am a concerned citizen who stands on the opposite side that you and RealLies does.

Next, you don’t know me from a hole in the ground. I support many causes. I am not in the US I am in Canada so “Got cancer but lack the insurance and/or wealth to afford treatment” doesn’t even apply to me personally or in my family.

I don’t weigh more than 130% of medically accepted body weight, but what I can tell you is that ironically due to adverse affects of my medication I have gained weight. The medication also caused me to commit suicide which I almost died from, so if I did take that stand, I’d have every right to. But I have actually decided to dedicate some of my time to myself in a good way for a change and I have lost most of that weight.

I am proactiv in many ways and I protest many things usually this to me is an unselfish act and this time I needed saving. Sitting idly back doesn’t help anyone stuck in those positions, otherwise treatment facilities would not do well. I have lost way to many people. My story is not one of illogical fallacies. My story is filled with stories of people who are gone but not forgotten. Their stories drive me to become a better me and to fight for what they can no longer fight for.

So you ask me, Why such a league could never exist?”

Again, I’m not even sure that it is even deserving of an answer here. You are asking for some sort of logic where no logic even on your side exists. And I was never coming from logic. Save logic for the courtroom. LOL!

One thing is for sure, I can admit that my argument may be full of fallacies, but you fail to see fallacies in any of your very own arguments.

“Notice how far fewer people have died from bad “bathtub gin” (methanol poising) since Prohibition ended and made alcohol legal again?”

Consider your very own statement an appeal to common practice.

I am done here. But then again I thought the illogical argument between you and I was done a long time ago.

@mattbrowne The act of traditional training potentially affects trillions of cells in your muscles and joints, so I can’t quite follow your argument. Could you please clarify?