Are footballers doping?

Strumms

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

All sports are unfair for a variety of reasons.

It's unfair that the big clubs in Europe have way more money to spend than the teams they compete with but nobody gives a toss about that.

Where should you draw the line between what is considered doping and what is considered to be something to aid your performance but not be considered doping.

If X club through transfer dealings, brand popularity, support base, advertising, gate receipts or anything else legal gains them a greater foothold financially then another club then so be it. Manchester United will always have greater financial resources then PSV Eindhoven for example, Arsenal vs Doncaster Rovers the same. The fact that they can attract and buy more players and of superior quality of said opposition is just how it is. Its competition. Ok should FIFA or UEFA decide to regulate spending as in the joke that is FFP or capping wages or transfer fees which is actually illegal btw....

So your point is moot... We are talking about doping. which is illegal and immoral and **** all to do with what club is richer or otherwise... If I had a choice Id cap agent fees, wages etc.. but that's illegal.

Maximus Alexander

Pro. F wrote: »

I'd say there's a big difference between regulating normal behaviour - eating food - and prohibiting unusual and inherently dangerous behaviour - taking drugs.

There's nothing 'unusual' about taking drugs, they're fairly commonplace, I'm sure you have some in the house. In terms of their use for performance enhancement in sport, there's nothing 'unusual' there either, since doping is as old as sport itself. It's not necessarily 'inherently dangerous' to use drugs as directed by an appropriately qualified physician either.

Anyway, the primary reason that doping is banned in professional sports isn't down to health concerns - though that is often used as an extra arrow in the quiver - it's banned because of wishy-washy notions of 'equal opportunity' and 'spirit of sport'. Both sound like nice, high minded ideals, but I don't buy it at all.

There's no equality in the upper echelons of football, certainly none that would be diminished by doping. Teams with more money have the advantage, the playing field is not and will never be level. Legal PEDs would be available to all, insofar as top level coaches, modern training facilities, high wage budgets, etc. are available now.

RedemptionZ

There is a Dutch winger, who despite A LOT of prior injuries and just being injury prone in general, managed to maintain his speed and peaked at about aged 29, being probably the best right winger in the world at the time. If that were the Olympics, there'd be eyebrows raised to say the least. In fact, anyone who comes out of nowhere and is over the age of 20(by out of nowhere I mean he wasn't being talked as a big talent in his country) and looks very good is probably getting a bit of help.

Football is most definitely full of dopers. I do however believe from what I've read and heard that the English league is one of the best at screening so it's probably not as big a problem there. Still rife though I'd say.

Pro. F

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

There's nothing 'unusual' about taking drugs, they're fairly commonplace, I'm sure you have some in the house. In terms of their use for performance enhancement in sport, there's nothing 'unusual' there either, since doping is as old as sport itself. It's not necessarily 'inherently dangerous' to use drugs as directed by an appropriately qualified physician either.

Taking drugs is unusual and dangerous compared to eating food. You're equating a bodily function with a medical/chemical intervention, but they really are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Anyway, the primary reason that doping is banned in professional sports isn't down to health concerns - though that is often used as an extra arrow in the quiver - it's banned because of wishy-washy notions of 'equal opportunity' and 'spirit of sport'. Both sound like nice, high minded ideals, but I don't buy it at all.

Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I thought the deciding factor in whether or not a particular drug is banned most often comes down to the legality of that drug and the medical knowledge and restrictions on it, with an understandable tendency by the authorities to err on the side of caution. So for example, taking Paracetamol (which thins the blood and so lessons muscle fatigue) is allowed because it is well established as a relatively safe substance and available off the supermarket shelf; while taking nandrolone is not allowed, because it is extremely dangerous and so only medically prescribed in more extreme circumstances.

But tbh, I don't really care why they are banned. I think that it's a good thing that players aren't allowed to use steroids (which compromise natural testosterone production and put strain on the heart and liver (iirc)); EPO (which thickens the blood, straining the heart) and the stronger amphetamines and pain killers (again, risk to the heart). Because if they were allowed then there would be no question that players would have to use them in order to progress in the sport and that would mean that their long term health would be severely compromised.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

There's no equality in the upper echelons of football, certainly none that would be diminished by doping. Teams with more money have the advantage, the playing field is not and will never be level. Legal PEDs would be available to all, insofar as top level coaches, modern training facilities, high wage budgets, etc. are available now.

I agree.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Strumms wrote: »

If X club through transfer dealings, brand popularity, support base, advertising, gate receipts or anything else legal gains them a greater foothold financially then another club then so be it. Manchester United will always have greater financial resources then PSV Eindhoven for example, Arsenal vs Doncaster Rovers the same. The fact that they can attract and buy more players and of superior quality of said opposition is just how it is. Its competition. Ok should FIFA or UEFA decide to regulate spending as in the joke that is FFP or capping wages or transfer fees which is actually illegal btw....

So your point is moot... We are talking about doping. which is illegal and immoral and **** all to do with what club is richer or otherwise... If I had a choice Id cap agent fees, wages etc.. but that's illegal.

It's not illegal to cap wages.The Rugby Premiership in England has a wage cap.

People in other industries take drugs to help their performance and no-one has an issue with it.

Sport is not fair to begin with so I don't see why taking drugs is considered to be more unfair than having a bigger budget than your rivals etc. It just happens to be against the rules but the majority of people have a moral objection to drugs in sport whereas as long as the participants know what they are taking and the potential risks involved I don't see the big issue with it.

LuckyLloyd

Most people struggle to accept that elite sport has nothing to do with "health". Health is a secondary concern to winning, and athletes across the entire elite sporting spectrum are willing to compromise health and quality of life in later years to stay competitive now.

Amateur sport has nothing to do with the elite version really. I think once you step through that looking glass you can have a real discussion on doping, but not before.

SM01

In the most basic of circumstances the relationship or association of steroids and hormones and the effects food has on the hormonal system is such that saying that they're at the polar end of the spectrum - well I can't agree with that.

Maximus Alexander

Pro. F wrote: »

Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I thought the deciding factor in whether or not a particular drug is banned most often comes down to the legality of that drug and the medical knowledge and restrictions on it, with an understandable tendency by the authorities to err on the side of caution. So for example, taking Paracetamol (which thins the blood and so lessons muscle fatigue) is allowed because it is well established as a relatively safe substance and available off the supermarket shelf; while taking nandrolone is not allowed, because it is extremely dangerous and so only medically prescribed in more extreme circumstances.

But tbh, I don't really care why they are banned. I think that it's a good thing that players aren't allowed to use steroids (which compromise natural testosterone production and put strain on the heart and liver (iirc)); EPO (which thickens the blood, straining the heart) and the stronger amphetamines and pain killers (again, risk to the heart). Because if they were allowed then there would be no question that players would have to use them in order to progress in the sport and that would mean that their long term health would be severely compromised.

That's a perfectly reasonable perspective, I'm not going to tell you you're wrong, I just don't see it the same way at all. I'd agree with what LuckyLloyd says above.

Lovely Bloke

The one I don't understand is Pseudoephedrine. It's amazing stuff (found in the likes of "Max Strength" Lemsip and other similar cold medicine), apart from being a cold remedy I find it heightens concentration levels a very noticable amount, and I'll sometimes dose myself with a sachet of Lemsip, even when I don't have a cold, if I need to get through a particularly laborious piece of work.

Pro. F

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Most people struggle to accept that elite sport has nothing to do with "health". Health is a secondary concern to winning, and athletes across the entire elite sporting spectrum are willing to compromise health and quality of life in later years to stay competitive now.

Amateur sport has nothing to do with the elite version really. I think once you step through that looking glass you can have a real discussion on doping, but not before.

Athletes are certainly willing to compromise their health, but it's wrong to say that any type of sport has nothing to do with health. In fact I'd say that it is a defining characteristic of sport. Not in the doing-sport-makes-you-healthy sort of way, but rather in the fact that the process of creating rules for a sport is always significantly influenced by the aim of keeping its competitors safe enough to keep competing at the least.

Every sport (or at least the vast majority of them) has lots of rules and regulations aimed purely at protecting the health of the participants. Sports that don't pay due care to that consideration tend to either address that issue or die out, either because of government prohibition or because the level of competition is compromised because of the turnover of competitors.

LuckyLloyd

Pro. F wrote: »

Athletes are certainly willing to compromise their health, but it's wrong to say that any type of sport has nothing to do with health. In fact I'd say that it is a defining characteristic of sport. Not in the doing-sport-makes-you-healthy sort of way, but rather in the fact that the process of creating rules for a sport is always significantly influenced by the aim of keeping its competitors safe enough to keep competing at the least.

Every sport (or at least the vast majority of them) has lots of rules and regulations aimed purely at protecting the health of the participants. Sports that don't pay due care to that consideration tend to either address that issue or die out, either because of government prohibition or because the level of competition is compromised because of the turnover of competitors.

That's a worthy point, but I'd ask whether it's about a fundamental concern for health or a concern about optics. The NFL (and American football generally) is reacting very slowly regarding concussions and brain health largely due to an ever winding class action nipping at their heels. Boxing has medical signoff, etc but it still sanctioned the most famous boxer ever taking some unmerciful batterings at the end of his career which directly contributed to his parkinsons. The NFL players are happy to keep taking hits to make that money; Ali was happy to keep taking punches when he could no longer dodge them.

Rugby has some huge challenges of perception heading its way when we start seeing the first casualties of the professional era.

jpboard1

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

That's a worthy point, but I'd ask whether it's about a fundamental concern for health or a concern about optics. The NFL (and American football generally) is reacting very slowly regarding concussions and brain health largely due to an ever winding class action nipping at their heels. Boxing has medical signoff, etc but it still sanctioned the most famous boxer ever taking some unmerciful batterings at the end of his career which directly contributed to his parkinsons. The NFL players are happy to keep taking hits to make that money; Ali was happy to keep taking punches when he could no longer dodge them.

Rugby has some huge challenges of perception heading its way when we start seeing the first casualties of the professional era.

There definitely is a perception out there that Rugby may be worse for doping than football.

People are questioning on here whether doping is that big an issue anyway. But when people dope, they push the body way beyond what it is really capable of. This is really dangerous. Athletes should not have to take these risks to compete.

Pro. F

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

That's a worthy point, but I'd ask whether it's about a fundamental concern for health or a concern about optics. The NFL (and American football generally) is reacting very slowly regarding concussions and brain health largely due to an ever winding class action nipping at their heels. Boxing has medical signoff, etc but it still sanctioned the most famous boxer ever taking some unmerciful batterings at the end of his career which directly contributed to his parkinsons. The NFL players are happy to keep taking hits to make that money; Ali was happy to keep taking punches when he could no longer dodge them.

Rugby has some huge challenges of perception heading its way when we start seeing the first casualties of the professional era.

I think the concerns over long term health are more likely to be about perceptions of the sport than anything else as you say. The sport's interest (as expressed by the governing body, the promoter, or whoever) can be in conflict with concerns for the competitors' long term health without directly compromising the competition.

Concerns about keeping the competitors healthy during their careers though I would say more often comes down to an honest need to keep them healthy so that they can keep competing. It really messes up a sport when you have too high a burnout rate, because it becomes impossible to establish useful levels of competition and achievement.

The other thing hanging over all this is the presence of government sanctioning. This might fall under the description of "health concerns purely being optics", but I still think it's a fundamental aspect of how sports come to be established. It seems to me that governments have always been keen to have a strong influence over sports on the grounds of (legitimate or illegitimate) public health concerns and sports have always had to regulate themselves accordingly just so they can survive.

On a side note, of the three sports you mention in your post, American Football seems completely screwed to me. It's the one popular sport where I find it hard imagine any form the sport could take that would be safe enough for it to keep being sanctioned long term.

jpboard1

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

There's nothing 'unusual' about taking drugs, they're fairly commonplace, I'm sure you have some in the house. In terms of their use for performance enhancement in sport, there's nothing 'unusual' there either, since doping is as old as sport itself. It's not necessarily 'inherently dangerous' to use drugs as directed by an appropriately qualified physician either.

Anyway, the primary reason that doping is banned in professional sports isn't down to health concerns - though that is often used as an extra arrow in the quiver - it's banned because of wishy-washy notions of 'equal opportunity' and 'spirit of sport'. Both sound like nice, high minded ideals, but I don't buy it at all.

There's no equality in the upper echelons of football, certainly none that would be diminished by doping. Teams with more money have the advantage, the playing field is not and will never be level. Legal PEDs would be available to all, insofar as top level coaches, modern training facilities, high wage budgets, etc. are available now.

But doping goes completely against the spirit of sport and competition:

A true sporting contest is a struggle between two or more opponents abiding by the same standardized rules with the aim of establishing the true differences in sporting skills.

Fairness in the contest requires that the outcome of the competition will be settled exclusively on grounds of athletic ability. Use of illicit drugs to enhance performance is against the rules, which is why a contest between a doper and a non-doper is unequal from the very beginning and therefore not a true sporting contest. From playthegame.org

The_Kew_Tour

No ifs, buts or maybes

If you dope you are cheating. It's really that simple.

No loophole changes that.

jpboard1

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

No ifs, buts or maybes

If you dope you are cheating. It's really that simple.

No loophole changes that.

With all the bad publicity FIFA has had lately, if this breaks it will do alot of damages.

Pro. F

jpboard1 wrote: »

But doping goes completely against the spirit of sport and competition:

A true sporting contest is a struggle between two or more opponents abiding by the same standardized rules with the aim of establishing the true differences in sporting skills.

Fairness in the contest requires that the outcome of the competition will be settled exclusively on grounds of athletic ability. Use of illicit drugs to enhance performance is against the rules, which is why a contest between a doper and a non-doper is unequal from the very beginning and therefore not a true sporting contest. From playthegame.org

The drugs wouldn't be illicit if they were allowed like Maximus is suggesting.

jpboard1

Pro. F wrote: »

The drugs wouldn't be illicit if they were allowed like Maximus is suggesting.

Illicit or not they give an unfair advantage and go against the true spirit of sport.

Pro. F

jpboard1 wrote: »

Illicit or not they give an unfair advantage and go against the true spirit of sport.

Then you think all the drugs that footballers are allowed to use currently within the rules should be banned too?

jpboard1

Pro. F wrote: »

Then you think all the drugs that footballers are allowed to use currently within the rules should be banned too?

You would probably have to look at them on a case by case basis. The problem is, if these drugs are allowed who knows where it will end. Its bad enough the likes of football have become a business more than a sport. If we allow science to take over as well it will no longer be even related to what the sport was.

Maximus Alexander

jpboard1 wrote: »

Illicit or not they give an unfair advantage and go against the true spirit of sport.

It's only unfair if one person has it and the other doesn't. You could apply the same reasoning to football boots, genetics, or having Sir Alex Ferguson as a coach.

jpboard1

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

It's only unfair if one person has it and the other doesn't. You could apply the same reasoning to football boots, genetics, or having Sir Alex Ferguson as a coach.

It is not the same.

Lets take it a step further. A drug is developed that makes you grow 2 more legs so you can run faster. Should that be allowed?

Maximus Alexander

jpboard1 wrote: »

It is not the same.

Lets take it a step further. A drug is developed that makes you grow 2 more legs so you can run faster. Should that be allowed?

Do we need to resort to reductio ad absurdum? Whether you agree with me or not I think I've made a cogent point so I don't see the need for that.

Personally I think extra legs would slow me down more than anything.

symbolic

jpboard1 wrote: »

It is not the same.

Lets take it a step further. A drug is developed that makes you grow 2 more legs so you can run faster. Should that be allowed?

Why not if everyone can take it? It's still a level playing ground.

And I also think four legged soccer players would be great to watch.

jpboard1

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Do we need to resort to reductio ad absurdum? Whether you agree with me or not I think I've made a cogent point so I don't see the need for that.

Personally I think extra legs would slow me down more than anything.

These kind of things may not be too far away. Going by your reasoning there should be no problem with it as long as everyone has access to the drug?

Pro. F

jpboard1 wrote: »

You would probably have to look at them on a case by case basis. The problem is, if these drugs are allowed who knows where it will end. Its bad enough the likes of football have become a business more than a sport. If we allow science to take over as well it will no longer be even related to what the sport was.

Science is always going to be a huge part of any sport. If it's not performance enhancing drugs then it's performance enhancing diets and exercises, performance enhancing boots and - eventually - performance enhancing socks. In fact, iirc (from reading, not from being there) the Victorians used to think that fitness training could be unsporting behaviour as it gave an unfair advantage.

Looking back and comparing older matches to the modern ones I think the sport has held up fine to the ever increasing fitness levels. Tbh I can't imagine how players would ever be so fit or strong that it would ruin a match.

Maximus Alexander

jpboard1 wrote: »

These kind of things may not be too far away. Going by your reasoning there should be no problem with it as long as everyone has access to the drug?

If you want to get into transhunanism then I'd say we should probably cross that bridge when we come to it. Yeah, in the distant future what it means to be human might change, and naturally that will have an effect on the sports we play. I think it's outside be scope of the discussion.

jpboard1

Pro. F wrote: »

Science is always going to be a huge part of any sport. If it's not performance enhancing drugs then it's performance enhancing diets and exercises, performance enhancing boots and - eventually - performance enhancing socks. In fact, iirc (from reading, not from being there) the Victorians used to think that fitness training could be unsporting behaviour as it gave an unfair advantage.

Looking back and comparing older matches to the modern ones I think the sport has held up fine to the every increasing fitness levels. Tbh I can't imagine how players would ever be so fit or strong that it would ruin a match.

Ruining a match is not really the major issue.

And if you look at tennis this is the case. The game has become less and less attractive over the years. This is partly due to the equipment but also due to the conditioning of the players. Being able to continuously hit the ball that hard has taken much of the skill out of the game.

jpboard1

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

If you want to get into transhunanism then I'd say we should probably cross that bridge when we come to it. Yeah, in the distant future what it means to be human might change, and naturally that will have an effect on the sports we play. I think it's outside be scope of the discussion.

So you think all drugs should be allowed?

Pro. F

jpboard1 wrote: »

Ruining a match is not really the major issue.

And if you look at tennis this is the case. The game has become less and less attractive over the years. This is partly due to the equipment but also due to the conditioning of the players. Being able to continuously hit the ball that hard has taken much of the skill out of the game.

That's an issue for tennis not football. The fitness levels of players have gone to unprecedented levels in football and the attractiveness of the game is none the worse for it.

SM01

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

The one I don't understand is Pseudoephedrine. It's amazing stuff (found in the likes of "Max Strength" Lemsip and other similar cold medicine), apart from being a cold remedy I find it heightens concentration levels a very noticable amount, and I'll sometimes dose myself with a sachet of Lemsip, even when I don't have a cold, if I need to get through a particularly laborious piece of work.

I may just have to give that one a go. I've worked on long, laborious projects and tore through them on modafinil which i believe is a common prescription for sprinters.

jpboard1

Pro. F wrote: »

That's an issue for tennis not football. The fitness levels of players have gone to unprecedented levels in football and the attractiveness of the game is none the worse for it.

I think you may be wrong here. Due to the speed now associated with football it has taken much of the skill out of the game and made it less attractive to watch.

Pro. F

jpboard1 wrote: »

I think you may be wrong here. Due to the speed now associated with football it has taken much of the skill out of the game and made it less attractive to watch.

I watch old games from all sorts of eras on youtube and I strongly disagree with both of your statements there.

Maximus Alexander

jpboard1 wrote: »

So you think all drugs should be allowed?

In theory, yes, though I'm sure I could be persuaded that there are valid reasons to make some exceptions.

Insect Overlord

jpboard1 wrote: »

If we allow science to take over as well it will no longer be even related to what the sport was.

Think about the pass-back rule, the ever-changing guidelines for calling off-side, the demonisation of the art of slide-tackling, yellow cards for removing one's shirt or for hugging the fans, players smoking at games, replacing leather balls with polyurethane, etc. This sport has changed a hell of a lot in the last 152 years.

RedemptionZ

jpboard1 wrote: »

I think you may be wrong here. Due to the speed now associated with football it has taken much of the skill out of the game and made it less attractive to watch.

Seriously? Skillful players are given much more protection nowadays than ever before.

However I do see your point, that athletic ability could take a higher precedence over skill, but in a sport like football I simply don't think that's the case, as it's largely skill based, and with everyone having the same access to PEDs it shouldn't affect the balance.

Now in a sport like rugby, where there is less skill involved(before rugby fans jump at me, it's my favourite sport but physicality is the most important aspect of the game) it's a completely different story, and is already happening with simply better diets and fitness regimes(plus their fair share of dopers too). Positions like scrumhalf used to be for the small nippy lads, now we're seeing more and more guys who are over 6ft playing the position, because a guy who is 5'7 getting let smashed every match by guys who are 6'4 and 100 kg odd just isn't feasible injury wise. This won't happen in football because it's just nowhere near as physical and requires much more foot to eye co ordination, which tends to favour the smaller players.

jpboard1

Pro. F wrote: »

I watch old games from all sorts of eras on youtube and I strongly disagree with both of your statements there.

As do I. Also, unfortunately for me I am at an age where I have had experience of a number of eras in football. The game is now alot more about speed & power and alot less about skill. Take for example the amount of players that can go past a player. These are far more scarce now than they used to be.

Pro. F

jpboard1 wrote: »

As do I. Also, unfortunately for me I am at an age where I have had experience of a number of eras in football. The game is now alot more about speed & power and alot less about skill. Take for example the amount of players that can go past a player. These are far more scarce now than they used to be.

They really really aren't.

jpboard1

An File wrote: »

Think about the pass-back rule, the ever-changing guidelines for calling off-side, the demonisation of the art of slide-tackling, yellow cards for removing one's shirt or for hugging the fans, players smoking at games, replacing leather balls with polyurethane, etc. This sport has changed a hell of a lot in the last 152 years.

It has. And a lot of the changes have been good. But some have not.

jpboard1

Pro. F wrote: »

They really really aren't.

We'll have to agree to differ.

I saw an interesting article dating back a few years that would look to handle doping in a different manner. A bioethics professor, Julian Savulescu, suggested that we should no longer attempt to detect if someone was using drugs or not. He proposed that instead the focus should be on measuring if an athlete is risking their health.
An example of this would be a red blood cell count. It is well known that EPO elevates the red blood cell count. This may be to a dangerous level. Savulescu claims that with his method a dangerous level of red blood cells would result in an individual not being allowed to compete. The issue would be the red blood cell count and not the means by which they elevated it.

Clearlier

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

It's only unfair if one person has it and the other doesn't. You could apply the same reasoning to football boots, genetics, or having Sir Alex Ferguson as a coach.

That's debatable. Doping doesn't give a consistent boost in performance, some people benefit far more than others.

The reason that doping is singled out as a special case compared to the other factors that you mention is because of potential impact on health. There are drugs where the gap between performance enhancing and fatal is pretty small - witness the number of cyclists who died when large volumes of epo were used rampantly.

You can argue that it's the athletes choice, they can do what they want and take the risks that they want. That's not really true though, once a threshold of athletes who dope is reached you're pretty much forced to dope in order to keep up.

You won't find too many parents who'll be steering their kids in the direction of a sport where athletes die because of a relatively minor medical screw up.

NIMAN

jpboard1 wrote: »

We'll have to agree to differ.

I saw an interesting article dating back a few years that would look to handle doping in a different manner. A bioethics professor, Julian Savulescu, suggested that we should no longer attempt to detect if someone was using drugs or not. He proposed that instead the focus should be on measuring if an athlete is risking their health.
An example of this would be a red blood cell count. It is well known that EPO elevates the red blood cell count. This may be to a dangerous level. Savulescu claims that with his method a dangerous level of red blood cells would result in an individual not being allowed to compete. The issue would be the red blood cell count and not the means by which they elevated it.

What you describe is basically testing for drugs, how is that different to what is happening now?

GLaDOS

jpboard1 wrote: »

We'll have to agree to differ.

I saw an interesting article dating back a few years that would look to handle doping in a different manner. A bioethics professor, Julian Savulescu, suggested that we should no longer attempt to detect if someone was using drugs or not. He proposed that instead the focus should be on measuring if an athlete is risking their health.
An example of this would be a red blood cell count. It is well known that EPO elevates the red blood cell count. This may be to a dangerous level. Savulescu claims that with his method a dangerous level of red blood cells would result in an individual not being allowed to compete. The issue would be the red blood cell count and not the means by which they elevated it.

Could possibly affect players with a naturally higher level of RBC though.

Anyway, it's not the method of testing that's the problem, it's the lack of a will to implement stringent testing.

jpboard1

Clearlier wrote: »

That's debatable. Doping doesn't give a consistent boost in performance, some people benefit far more than others.

The reason that doping is singled out as a special case compared to the other factors that you mention is because of potential impact on health. There are drugs where the gap between performance enhancing and fatal is pretty small - witness the number of cyclists who died when large volumes of epo were used rampantly.

You can argue that it's the athletes choice, they can do what they want and take the risks that they want. That's not really true though, once a threshold of athletes who dope is reached you're pretty much forced to dope in order to keep up.

You won't find too many parents who'll be steering their kids in the direction of a sport where athletes die because of a relatively minor medical screw up.

I would have to agree. Everyone does not have a choice if some have already chosen to dope.

jpboard1

NIMAN wrote: »

What you describe is basically testing for drugs, how is that different to what is happening now?

I wouldn't see it as testing for drugs. It is testing for unsafe conditions e.g. a dangerously high red blood cell count.

jpboard1

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Could possibly affect players with a naturally higher level of RBC though.

Anyway, it's not the method of testing that's the problem, it's the lack of a will to implement stringent testing.

If its natural it shouldn't be dangerous.

ScottStorm

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

The one I don't understand is Pseudoephedrine. It's amazing stuff (found in the likes of "Max Strength" Lemsip and other similar cold medicine), apart from being a cold remedy I find it heightens concentration levels a very noticable amount, and I'll sometimes dose myself with a sachet of Lemsip, even when I don't have a cold, if I need to get through a particularly laborious piece of work.

Ha, you would have loved the weight loss tablets when ephedrine was available over the counter.

NIMAN

jpboard1 wrote: »

I wouldn't see it as testing for drugs. It is testing for unsafe conditions e.g. a dangerously high red blood cell count.

You're testing for symptoms of doping are you not?

jpboard1

NIMAN wrote: »

You're testing for symptoms of doping are you not?

No. Its testing for unsafe conditions.

death1234567

jpboard1 wrote: »

A bioethics professor, Julian Savulescu, suggested that we should no longer attempt to detect if someone was using drugs or not. He proposed that instead the focus should be on measuring if an athlete is risking their health.

So let every athlete dope right up to the point where they are risking their health? This would inevitably lead to athlete's misjudging the edge and ending up endangering their health. Terrible idea. Give an inch, they'll take a mile.