You are reading a single comment by @hippy and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
- and?
- and?
- "If a cyclist dopes, nobody dies". Google "EPO deaths"
taking of EPO was perfectly acceptable
No, I was talking of your hypothetical drug and how the WADA rules ban such things already.
- and?
hippy-
You are completely missing/avoiding my points.
1 - Let's assume the new substance was a natural plant extract - or crisps.
2 - Not all Religions have the same view, so why is one view any more valid than the next?
3 - See my reply to uber-gruber. The ethics of reciprocity is all that really counts, so if you're not forcing harm on others....
The_Kindness_of_Trees
1 - My hypothetical mystery substance that Sky may or may not choose to use was just that - a hypothetical substance.
2 - If your upbringing was anything like mine, then it was instructed by Christianity, regardless of whether you consciously subscribe to the religion's doctrines' (I don't, by the way). If you were born in, say, a Buddhist country your view could be entirely different.
3 - Sport is, by definition, a game. The fact that a business is built around it it does not elevate it beyond that. If a cyclist dopes, nobody dies. They are not faced with ethical dilemmas the way a healthcare professional might be, or a soldier.
"If it's not banned, is it still doping?"
This suggests that prior to it being banned you believe the taking of EPO was perfectly acceptable. Yet if nobody else had access to it, it would still have give a sizeable advantage to those who did, thus depriving those who didn't out of their income?