Drugs in sport

Fed up talking videogames? Why?

Should sport allow the use of performance enhancing drugs (and other methods)?

Yes
5
19%
No
21
78%
Not sure
1
4%
 
Total votes: 27
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Drugs in sport
by Moggy » Wed Aug 26, 2015 7:32 am

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?
User avatar
Gently-Parted Ringpiece
Member ♥
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Drugs in sport
by Gently-Parted Ringpiece » Wed Aug 26, 2015 9:50 am

Because a tool is nothing without an adept hand to wield it, and a trainer does not turn some shitheel into a god.
User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Drugs in sport
by Rocsteady » Wed Aug 26, 2015 9:55 am

Neither do roids to be fair, no matter if we all start juicing on here none of us will be turning pro in any discipline.

Not that I'm saying moggy's post makes sense.

It's actually a very unappealing plan, beyond a certain level the of genetic predisposition and hard work the champion would come down to who has the best medical team and funding to drug them up to just the right level. It happens to a slight extent already with equipment and the like but normalising drug use would absolutely explode the problem.
Image
User avatar
Gently-Parted Ringpiece
Member ♥
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Drugs in sport
by Gently-Parted Ringpiece » Wed Aug 26, 2015 9:58 am

Training with a trainer or using a really good bike is going to have benefits for you, but you get out what you put in. If you are juicing at the same time you are going to be able to put in so much more in so much less time with a higher peak that its a very different proposition.
User avatar
Ironhide
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Autobot City

PostRe: Drugs in sport
by Ironhide » Wed Aug 26, 2015 2:08 pm

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.
Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Drugs in sport
by Moggy » Wed Aug 26, 2015 4:20 pm

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.
User avatar
Karl
Consider The Following
Consider The Following
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Drugs in sport
by Karl » Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:09 pm

Using a really nice bike won't destroy your health like using steroids might, though.
User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Drugs in sport
by Rocsteady » Wed Aug 26, 2015 7:34 pm

People should be free to get roided up to high heaven if they so desire. But as others have said it would be pretty irresponsible to have a pro-PED Olympics, or similar, as it would massively promote the use of such drugs.
Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Drugs in sport
by Moggy » Wed Aug 26, 2015 7:36 pm

Karl wrote:Using a really nice bike won't destroy your health like using steroids might, though.


So the only concern is the athletes health?
User avatar
Karl
Consider The Following
Consider The Following
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Drugs in sport
by Karl » Wed Aug 26, 2015 7:59 pm

Not the only concern, but it should form a fair part of the decision-making process in any governing body of a sport or entertainment industry.
User avatar
Snowcannon
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Drugs in sport
by Snowcannon » Wed Aug 26, 2015 11:43 pm

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?


It won't let people catch up, in fact it will do the opposite in adding another factor in terms of which athlete can afford the better drugs.
User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Drugs in sport
by Rocsteady » Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:32 am

Not just afford, but also the athlete who reacts best to various HGH and roids. Which comes down to luck more than commitment.

Plus the use of steroids even takes away from the mental toil as when you're on roids you're never satisfied with the amount of work you've put in so don't need the same level of mental fortitude to push your body to extreme levels. Meaning even more so it would boil down to who could tolerate the greatest amount of drugs without serious side effects rather than who has the mental as well as physical endurance capabilites.

It's a terrible idea in practice.
Image

Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: <]:^D, Benzin, blackoutHERO, Brerlappin, BTB, Errkal, gamerforever, Google [Bot], Monkey Man, Poser, Preezy, Rightey, Skippy, Tafdolphin, Tineash and 56 guests