Ironhide wrote: Moggy wrote: Ironhide wrote:
Snowcannon wrote:No, because then who reacts best to performance enhancing drugs is a key factor in who wins, it all becomes a bit fake. Not to mention the health effects.
This, the whole idea of athletics/sport is supposed to be about natural skill, fitness and training and not who can get the most roided up.
But do people not get advantages over the others if they have the best dietitian, trainer, sports equipment etc. A cyclist would have an advantage over others for instance if he had a better bike, a runner might have a better trainer than others or a footballer might have benefited from expensive coaching from a very young age.
Why not allow people to catch up with the others by use of a little chemical enhancement?
Using the best equipment and training regimes is always going to help to some degree but at the top levels of most sports almost everyone does have access to these things anyway, besides that there's only so much having the best equipment can do, you still need to have the talent and passion for the sport to compete at the highest level.
Of course. The best equipment isn't going to let an "average" person win an Olympic gold. But at the same time all the drugs in the world are not going to make an "average" person a gold medal winner. All the best equipment, training and diet does is allow an athlete to perform at their best and possibly shave a little bit of time off of the records.
The use of drugs (and other banned performance enhancers) are not going to lead to superhumans running the 100m in 1 second. It would just enhance an already good athlete and allow them to perform even better, no huge time differences it would just shave off a little bit of time from the records.