11–20 of 55 posts
Makes sense. That said, will they not admit anyone who has a legitimate reason for prescription stimulants?
[1] Therapeutic Use Exemptions[2]
[2] https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/science-medical/thera...
I don't like the concept of word 'doping'. It is just the word which represents a chemical substance to stimulate body for a better performance. There is however such a hate in using this word. In the past even caffeine in the coffee was considered to be a doping. It is not nowadays Everybody should be allowed to use any chemical substance for himself as he wish. He should be responsible for his own action. If he des…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a problem in regular sports too
> "It would be fair to have two Tours de France - one for the asthmatics and one for non-asthmatics," he said. "The funny result would be that the asthmatics would be much faster." From http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/2007-07-20-369...
I don't like the concept of word 'doping'. It is just the word which represents a chemical substance to stimulate body for a better performance. There is however such a hate in using this word. In the past even caffeine in the coffee was considered to be a doping. It is not nowadays Everybody should be allowed to use any chemical substance for himself as he wish. He should be responsible for his own action. If he des…
I wouldn't want to compete against people who are prepared to destroy their health to win.
Waldorf: if you ask me, they're all dopes! Oh ho ho ho ho!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't want to compete against people who are prepared to destroy their health to win.
Then you're not going to be able to compete. Basically all professional sports require someone to push themselves beyond regular human limits, and give up future health to get there even without drugs.
I don't think non-contact sports require someone to sacrifice health, except for wearing out their body...
And I'm not convinced they wear out their body more than manual laborers.
And there is definitely a qualitative difference between a 16 year old working hard as a teenager to make it as a professional athlete, and perhaps wearing out their body by the end of their career as a professional athlete (say, 30 years old on average), compared to a 16 year old using substances that would count as "doping" to most people.
To put it plainly:
A 16 year old boy who shows promise as a professional athlete can work hard, realize that they're not cut out for the big leagues after college (22 years old), and go on with their life with basically no ill effects aside from the chance of a major injury sustained during their sport.
Whereas a 16 year old boy who shows promise as a professional athlete, works hard, and also dopes for 6 years until he's 22, and then realizes he's not cut out for the big leagues, has probably irreparably damaged his health.
I don't like the concept of word 'doping'. It is just the word which represents a chemical substance to stimulate body for a better performance. There is however such a hate in using this word. In the past even caffeine in the coffee was considered to be a doping. It is not nowadays Everybody should be allowed to use any chemical substance for himself as he wish. He should be responsible for his own action. If he des…
I don't want to see such a future, where young athletes have no choice but to put their health at severe risk in order to be competitive.
And of course should doping be allowed as you suggest, and naturally everyone would have to use it in order to be competitive, we would see continued escalation in the amount/strength of doping used, since else you would not get a competitive advantage.
In short I can't understand your reasoning.