-
Who decides what's in, what's out and so on?
WADA. By taking part in any mainstream sport, you are delegating authority to decide on these questions to WADA, whether you agree with them or not. If you disagree profoundly with WADA, put your energy into a sport which isn't governed by their <devil's advocate >arbitrary, poorly-evidenced, capricious, inconsistent</devil's advocate> rules.
-
I think also the fairness argument applies to how using drugs shifts emphasis from hard work and natural talent to risk taking. Taking drugs in a scenario outside of their intended purpose (e.g. a healthy person taking heart medication) introduces a risk of serious health complications. One athlete might be willing to take that risk and another not, so effectively the most reckless participant gains the edge, unless they overdo it and kill themselves of course.
Edit: I just re-read your post and you kind of made that argument already.
You are reading a single comment by @kwdm and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
gbj_tester
jimmy_james
@kwdm
Isn't the origin of the war on doping, the war on drugs?
And if I'm not mistaken, the summary of that debate is in the definition of "drug". Who decides what's in, what's out and so on?
To say something is outlawed because it makes you faster is not true, because a well structured diet can do that.
Then you have to build the base on safety to the actors: anything that is dangerous is on the list. That starts to get a little shaky too - sugar kills a lot more people than EPO every year. The proof required for this would need to be scientific with a clear line: on this side is safe drugs, that line is dangerous. And it all be a-political.
Then it could be about an even playing field: don't allow things that are very expensive or that are hard to get / not evenly distributed (ie. an effective budget restriction) so that everyone can play. This makes a ton of sense. It's kind of like how stock car racing is structured. I feel like this is where the 'fair' argument is coming from.
It's hard to untangle all of this because of the combination of secrecy, sensationalism and emotion surrounding the topic. The irony is, the more people get emotional about it, the less progress will be made and the more it will go underground.