Sports Enhancing Drugs- What's the Big Deal? (1335 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0 on 8 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by freebie (View user info) at 2004-08-31 10:37:49 EDT
Now that we've had the mandatory performance enhancing drug scandels at this years Olympics,
I'm left wondering what is the big deal? These athletes choose to devote their lives to be
the best at what they do. All other forms of training enhancement are used, why not drugs?
I say if these athletes go to every other extreme in training, hormone and stimulant use
should be available. Line of coke pre 100 yard dash equals new world record, a blast of
testosterone one week before that wrestling match, new world champion. It's a personal choice
these professional athletes should make for themselves.
Now, bring on the bearded womens synchronized swimming team.
User Reviews
Submitted by FuckTheArmy (user info) at 2006-11-06 22:14:18 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by JustAnotherHunter (user info) at 2004-08-31 11:12:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Look, the olympics are for athletes to show off their natural abilities, and those they have strived to gain. Winning the 400 meter dash on steroids would not be nearly as much of a high for me as winning bronze without drugs.
And Lago, the olympics were reinstated in 1896, fagbeans.
Submitted by mr.awesome (user info) at 2004-08-31 11:01:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Boo fucking hoo, I ruined my life with the steroids. It was forced upon me.
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-08-31 10:58:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
then i still say that i don't want to use enhancers because of the negative side affects. I know many people would. It wouldn't have been fair for me to compete against those who did. I want my hard work and skills to go against their hard work and talent. Not aginst their drugs.
This situation is like the prisoner's dilemma. If neither cheat we get fair and decent results. If one cheats he wins and the other loses. If we both cheat, we are worse off than if neither did, but in this case we could get the same results.
If everyone cheated, then it would be level again, but with all the negative side affects.
Submitted by freebie (user info) at 2004-08-31 10:53:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
But performance enhanciners do lead to the highest level of performance. And this stuff is
available to all athletes, regardless of sport or country. The choice to use should be
regulated by the athletes themselves.
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-08-31 10:49:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Athletes start somewhere. Think about teenagers. There are many good athletes that don't want to use drugs. It would be unfair for them to compete against those that do. Take college athletes. You have a football player who is also a track star. He can't use steroids b/c of football. It is unfair that his opponents can.
Submitted by Iago (user info) at 2004-08-31 10:46:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
The greeks used to use as many performance enhancing drugs as they could get the sodomitic fingers on, it was all considered fair play, in the BC times. Its only since the olympics were revivied (less than 100 years ago) that perfomance-enhancing drugs were forbidden.
Submitted by JMG114 (user info) at 2004-08-31 10:42:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I disagree. The whole point of sports, and especially the Olympics, is to exhibit the highest of human physical potential. By adding artificial performance-enhancers, the motivation to work as hard as you can and push yourself to the physical limits is no longer as powerful.
The human body's own natural strength is what the Olympics and sports in general should be all about. Performance enhancers as a "quick fix" or "easy ride" to physical prowess send a bad message to anyone who aspires to be more than they are.