Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Moral Argument for Doping in Sports

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: The Moral Argument for Doping in Sports

#41

Post by basseq »

Julian Savulescu has two arguments here:

1. Cheaters are going to cheat, and you can't catch everyone, so just allow cheating. ("So what the current system does is enable that, because it places constraints that are impossible to enforce.")

This is a bullshit argument. If something's not completely enforceable (which nothing is), then just forget it. Some people don't pay taxes: dissolve the IRS. Some people commit murder: murder should be legal. You have to draw the line somewhere. People will push or cross the line, you will catch some, and life goes on.

2. Doping in sports should be a test case for human enhancement.

This is a more reasonable argument. I'm not sure it's right, but reasonable people can discuss whether the intent of sport is "measuring personal accomplishment" and "test-bed for medical intervention".

Note that a parallel argument is happening in Formula One: should teams be given more leeway to build cars so innovation occurs as a result of competition.

Re: The Moral Argument for Doping in Sports

#42

Post by kmnc »

cromulent wrote: post #33
MaxScheiber wrote: post #5

I don't necessarily have a problem with professional athletes doping in a black box, i.e. free of influencing others. Professionals should be fully aware of the health effects of "riding the bicycle," and it's hard for me to argue against telling people what they can do to their own bodies. I always thought, however, that the big issue with steroids was the role that athletes play in the lives of children and teenage…

I tried to find the original reasoning for banning doping and couldn't do so. According to Wikipedia the IOC banned doping in the 1960s after some sports federations began to do so. It was widespread at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Olympic_Games#Re... Could it be simply part of a conservative response to drug-taking in the 1960's? Reefer madness? I don't know. Please comment if you can find a…

I imagine the original reasoning was mostly due to the notion that "it is against the competitive spirit and destroys the integrity of the game". Honestly that is still the best reasoning for banning doping in my opinion. Maybe it is just personal opinion but doping in baseball almost destroyed the sport because of a tarnished reputation. If I knew doping was allowed in say gymnastics for example I wouldn't watch it at all, it would become boring. Sure, I am likely overvaluing the effects of doping in gaining an advantage but I think the biggest problem is that of attribution.

How do I correctly attribute skill to a player I know is doping, or a sport that is full of doping? If we ever get to the point where sports radio is filled with discussions about "Well, this guy is really good but Jordan didn't have XZ-87 injected into his body so you know how can we compare them?" then I think the integrity of sports is simply dead. Maybe sports become something else and we are all fine with it but in my opinion doping destroys the integrity and spirit of sports and that is still the best argument against it.

Re: The Moral Argument for Doping in Sports

#43

Post by 6stringmerc »

0xdeadbeefbabe wrote: post #6

Why are musicians allowed (and maybe expected) to use performance enhancing drugs, while athletes may not?

Going along with your postulation outright, I'd note that most of the drugs consumed by musicians wouldn't be called "performance enhancing" in the context of general terminology - alcohol, grass, hallucinogens, downers, stimulants - pretty much mess with mental capacity and function, not really "enhance" them. A couple cases can be made for certain uppers, but I kind of look at the relationship of drugs and musicians as one rooted in self-medication moreso than performance related. I have heard of orchestra/symphony types using beta blockers.

Re: The Moral Argument for Doping in Sports

#44

Post by kmnc »

johnward wrote: post #25
brayton wrote: post #13

The main issue I see is how do we allow adults to dope while keeping children/teens away from it? Or would doping even increase with children/teens if it were more widely acceptable amongst adults? When I was in high school there were plenty of athletes using steroids - so already happening. Although I do believe that number would increase especially within high schools.

"Think of the children" is always the worst argument possible. This is about education as with all drugs and not that stupid "roid rage" video they made me watch with Ben Affleck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FvlIwuQBO8 There was an assumption that legal weed in Colorado would lead to more children using but data suggest the opposite happened. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/08/07/pot-use-among...

Yeah, but honestly if doping was allowed in pro sports its a much strong assumption that college and high school kids would dope more then if kids would smoke more legal weed.

You cannot escape the reality that if doping is allowed then doping is required.

Re: The Moral Argument for Doping in Sports

#45

Post by joe_the_user »

MaxScheiber wrote: post #5

I don't necessarily have a problem with professional athletes doping in a black box, i.e. free of influencing others. Professionals should be fully aware of the health effects of "riding the bicycle," and it's hard for me to argue against telling people what they can do to their own bodies. I always thought, however, that the big issue with steroids was the role that athletes play in the lives of children and teenage…

It's not just the children but anyone outside the realm of a "pure competitor" who winds-up harmed unfairly by doping.

The average professional cycling or the average professional American football player is not wealthy and is not competing purely for the love of the sport. Rather, they are only moderately well-paid, not terribly likely to reach the true big time and working extremely hard just to stay in the game. Often they come from impoverished backgrounds and view sports as their way out (and often it isn't). Essentially, competition is their work. It's fairly morally repugnant to create a work-environment that impels someone to use dangerous drugs just to literally stay in the game. It's not as bad as the factory owner that dopes his workers with speed to improve production but it's headed in a similar exploitative direction.

Re: The Moral Argument for Doping in Sports

#46

Post by 0xdeadbeefbabe »

deegles wrote: post #40
0xdeadbeefbabe wrote: post #6

Why are musicians allowed (and maybe expected) to use performance enhancing drugs, while athletes may not?

Do musicians actually use PEDs? How would they help?

They could help with stage fright or the stresses of touring.

Re: The Moral Argument for Doping in Sports

#47

Post by johnward »

kmnc wrote: post #44
johnward wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Think of the children" is always the worst argument possible. This is about education as with all drugs and not that stupid "roid rage" video they made me watch with Ben Affleck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FvlIwuQBO8 There was an assumption that legal weed in Colorado would lead to more children using but data suggest the opposite happened. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/08/07/pot-use-among...

Yeah, but honestly if doping was allowed in pro sports its a much strong assumption that college and high school kids would dope more then if kids would smoke more legal weed. You cannot escape the reality that if doping is allowed then doping is required.

> but honestly if doping was allowed in pro sports its a much strong assumption that college and high school kids would dope more then if kids would smoke more legal weed.

No it's not.

Re: The Moral Argument for Doping in Sports

#48

Post by nosideeffects »

kmnc wrote: post #42
cromulent wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried to find the original reasoning for banning doping and couldn't do so. According to Wikipedia the IOC banned doping in the 1960s after some sports federations began to do so. It was widespread at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Olympic_Games#Re... Could it be simply part of a conservative response to drug-taking in the 1960's? Reefer madness? I don't know. Please comment if you can find a…

I imagine the original reasoning was mostly due to the notion that "it is against the competitive spirit and destroys the integrity of the game". Honestly that is still the best reasoning for banning doping in my opinion. Maybe it is just personal opinion but doping in baseball almost destroyed the sport because of a tarnished reputation. If I knew doping was allowed in say gymnastics for example I wouldn't watch it…

Drugs don't increase "skill," though. And on the contrary, if everyone was doping I think the event might actually be more interesting to watch since the average fitness of the players would be increased.

Re: The Moral Argument for Doping in Sports

#49

Post by z3t4 »

Floegipoky wrote: post #22
MaxScheiber wrote: post #5

I don't necessarily have a problem with professional athletes doping in a black box, i.e. free of influencing others. Professionals should be fully aware of the health effects of "riding the bicycle," and it's hard for me to argue against telling people what they can do to their own bodies. I always thought, however, that the big issue with steroids was the role that athletes play in the lives of children and teenage…

I don't buy the 'think of the children!' argument for a second. If a person wants to use, they're going to use, regardless of what drug or their age. What really causes problems is all the lies, misinformation, and unrealistic expectations about what they can achieve with or without drugs. People think that the drugs are magic and will close the gaps in their training. It really is all about training- as the article…

Low dosage will have a placebo effect, at best. Good nutrition and sleep is far more effective.

Ask anyone with a lot of experience (20 years of usage) and he/she will tell you that it's not worth it! (unless there's a monetary incentive).

Elite athletics (15+ training sessions/week) is not healthy, and we do not want to make it even more unhealthy by allowing athletes to train even harder.

Re: The Moral Argument for Doping in Sports

#50

Post by jacques_chester »

moron4hire wrote: post #32
jacques_chester wrote: post #8

I am not aware of any system of morality in which "but everyone else did it" is considered to be a watertight argument. I feel strongly about matter, having competed in weightlifting, because of the recent influx of steroid apologists into the weightlifting community. The question of whether PEDs should be allowed is distinct from whether they are allowed. A sport is an arbitrary collection of objectively determinabl…

This is how I've felt for a long time, but I think how a lot of PED apologists argue is that they believe they have a right to interpret the rules as they see fit, to find corner cases that the established rules do not cover and exploit them to their advantage. They are letter-of-lawyers versus spirit-of-lawyers. Is "Moneyball" cheating? Is playing for overall points rather than wins cheating (for series competitions…

In the case of PEDs, there's no grey line. The WADA rules and lists are very comprehensive, and include numerous catch-all clauses. You can determine what you are forbidden to use, under which circumstances.
Post reply on HN