Doping in tennis

With recent cycling events, doping in sports has gained some cover page exposure. I would like to get a sense for how much posters here think doping in tennis is a problem. But in order to avoid the infighting that this topic often brings, as well as to stay away from accusations of this player or that one, I ask that you answer one simple question:

As your best guess, how many of the current ATP top 100 do you think use banned substances?

Giving one number is all it takes to answer.

What information/evidence should I base my best guess on?

JuliusHMarx wrote:What information/evidence should I base my best guess on?

Whatever you think is relevant. Just because one may feel that one does not have much information does not mean one cannot make a best guess. Of course, less info we have the less certain we will be about the best guess, but we may still be able to form a best guess estimate. If you feel you have so little information as to make it impossible to guess, then I suppose you would not answer.

I agree with Julius, summer, I really would have no idea of how to come up with a number. If I did it would just be a guess based on no factual evidence one way or the other. The two facts that make me a little worried about this issue is Agassi and Gasquet and how they weaseled their way out of any punishment for substance abuse. Albeit these were for social drugs and not performance enhancing drugs. But the fact that Richie G, who I love by the way could claim that he kissed a girl who used Cocaine and that Andre could claim a contact high from meth and get away with it is a bit odd and doesn't leave you feeling that confident on how the ITF would handle a big name testing positve for performance enhancers.

I think it's smart to give a very wide range. There is insufficient information out there to answer this. It's hard to believe it's zero or all hundred, but you could argue for most of the numbers in the between.

If you want one number I'll say 15. It's a short in the dark though.

15!

Given that probably 90+ percent of cyclists were doping, and the recent spate of positive PED tests in boxing where testing (particularly blood products and out of competition testing) is pretty much non-existent (and yet so many were so blatant and stupid that they got caught), and given how much more lucrative tennis is than either of those two sports, I would hazard at a much, much higher figure.

Let's not forget how doped up the baseballers were (and probably still are) before that story broke, or the huge number of positive tests in athletics.

After all, why would tennis be cleaner? The testing in tennis is a joke. If anyone has read the armstrong dossier you can see how easy it is to evade the testers, to mask substances, to cycle your use accordingly etc, etc. There are so many substances out there that cannot be detected yet. It took the governing bodies something like 15 years to come up with a test for EPO - during which time it was rampantly used. Even then the test is easily masked.

Steffi Graf, John Mac, Evert have all been on record stating that top players in their day were known to be using PEDs. Remember Rusedski's infamous statement after testing positive for nandrolone?, 'If I'm guilty, then so are HALF the players on the tour'. Of course they couldn't name names. Since then the advancement in PED development has gone forward at a rapid rate.

I am not naieve enough to think that the number is as low as 15%. Give me a break, you have to live in a very sheltered world to think that is the case.

If I was to hazard a guess, I would say at least 50% (to take grinning Greg's assessment).

And no-one is above suspicion. From Federer all the way down to the 1000th ranked player. Unfortunately professional sports (and even amateur - just check out how many people are roided up at your local gym) is riddled with PED use.



emancipator

Well I believe that tennis is about talent and mental strength as well as physical. Other sports are more entirely physical like cycling and running. So if you are the 100 player competing against the no 1 player, and you drug up, it won't be enough to beat him because you still have less talent.

Given this, there are probably only say 200 or 500 players that have the possibility to reach the top hundred even if they drug up.

So, if correct, if most players are doping then that means that most players are cheating, if you follow my logic. That's why I am a bit skeptical that 50 or 90 of the top 100 are doping, because I believe more people in the world are good than bad, and there is no reason for tennis to have more than its fair share of bad.

Unlike maybe some years tour de france or 100 metre final where you could believe potentially that all the top 5 or top 10 were doing, because it would be impossible to reach that level without and honest people either take 10th place or 100th place or leave the sport.

I agree Henman bill tennis is a skill and feel game still despite the incredible physical specimens we see. I mean in tennis it is still possible at five foot eight and 155 pounds like David Ferrer to attain the top 5. I mean what exactly is so physically unique about lets say ferrer that we would assume that he is doping? Or about their endurance for that matter? People talk about how physically demanding a top tennis match is, yes that is true but it isn't comparable to a marathon, or triatholon in terms of fitness requirments. I know a great deal of unathletic, middle aged people who have as much cardiovascular fitness as Nadal or Djokovic. I know several people personally who run marathons and a guy who has completed the Iron man in hawaii, it can't be that impossible to get that fit. Thousands of people show up for Iron man competitions where the guy who wins it completes the event in 9 hours of constant toil. No change overs, no constant towel breaks, no mtos and mid match potty breaks. And most of these athletes in these freak endurance contests are just ordinary people with nothing else to do in their lives.

Im sure a significant number are cheating at all levels, I mean at your local gym a large number of people are using steroids just so they can get bigger for no other reason than their aesthetic tastes. So I am sure that all athletics has a certain percentage doing it.

And the PEDs get harder to detect with masking agents, autologous transfusions and 'antedotes' to Erythropoietins. I agree with Emancipator that no-one is above suspicion. Fingers are pointed at oft-mentioned Nadal, the amazing 2011 version of marathon man Djokovic, the insanely developed legs of Tipsarevic or even the much bigger Federer back in 2003/2004 (he was a big guy back then) when he was working out like a demon with Paganini and continues to do so. We know at the highest levels of sport that its small %'s that separate players so the temptation to gain edge must be strong, especially if pros suspect other pros of doing it. If I had to pick a figure I'd say 10% but there is no proof to base the number.

It would be naive to assume the sport is clean and testing is infrequent in tennis. But the issue here is...where is the proof it's actually happening in the mainstream?

I agree that tennis has a strong mental component but so do all the other sports that I mentioned. You have to be extremely mentally strong to even commit to the discipline required to be a top athlete in any profession. Running may be a physical endeavour but the mental discipline required to train, diet, etc day in day out is huge, and then of course the mental challenge of facing up to your competitors, to risk defeat, to stay strong and focused even after victory - the mental component is always there, in every sport.

I do take your point about some of the more sport specific talent required in tennis say compared to distance running, however, there is no doubt that maximising your strength, endurance, power would all contribute to optimising your performance, and this is where PEDs can provide an advantage. PEDs can help you develop all of those areas to an extent that would not be possible naturally.

As for the more universal question of human nature being inherently good as opposed to bad, then I think that's a more philosophical question and beyond the scope of this discussion. Nevertheless, I will say this. Ordinary people are not exposed to the extreme challenges, sacrifices and rewards that stand between athletes and success in their respective fields. Most of us lead lives where the option of illegally enhancing performance is not available or where the risk is too great to manufacture such an option (for example in the case of robbing a bank). Unfortunately, in modern elite level sport, we know that the risk of being caught (due to incompetent testing regimes) and suffering heavy repercussions is actrually quite low (Agassi, Gasquet, Rusedski to use tennis as an example). Hence the temptation to cheat is greater and thus when coupled with the disproportionate reward, the inclination to be 'bad' in this case is probably far greater than it is for the average person leading an average life.



emancipator

To be fair socal competing at tennis for say 5 hrs isn't like an Ironman. The explosive nature of tennis places an almost unique stress on the body...you need strength, skill and fitness all married together. These guys have to be able to execute shots with power and precision after hours of play, it's different from turning pedals around for 2-3hrs on a bike. It's not easier or harder than triathlon, just different.

Yes.. I agree Lydian. The top tennis players are as close to peak physical fitness in their discipline as is currently (limited by scientifice knowledge, training methods, nutrition etc) possible. As are the top triathletes in their discipline. But the two are in no way comparable. Sports specific fitness. Michael Jordan would probably collapse if he was asked to to play tennis with the same intensity as the top pros for five hours, and the same would apply vice versa. (or at least be as stiff as a board and aching from every muscle within a few hours).

I have a larger question here, should we consider legalization of PEDs as well as other drugs? I mean if it is nearly impossible and costly to enforce, and it creates this moral hazard for sports, I mean could we regulate PEDs ban the ones that have really damaging long term effects and just let the players use certain less harmful methods? I know people will think this is a crazy idea, but if my experience as a defense attorney has taught me anything is that prohibition of people's vices rarely works and at the end of the day regulation ends up being the best option. Now I know that at the extremes you can't just accept any type of perfidy of the human species, but aren't a great deal of things in the modern world performance enhancing drugs? If you get sick isn't an antibiotic a performanc enhancing drug? If you are tired isn't coffee a performance enhancing drug? Isn't viagra a performance enhancing drug? Should we take away grandpa's erections?

In short I am asking a larger philosophical question. The PED prohibition has not worked to keep it from happening and costs a great deal of money and damages the credibilty of sports and athletes. Should we just admit that the emperor has no clothes and offer him a towel?

lydian wrote:To be fair socal competing at tennis for say 5 hrs isn't like an Ironman. The explosive nature of tennis places an almost unique stress on the body...you need strength, skill and fitness all married together. These guys have to be able to execute shots with power and precision after hours of play, it's different from turning pedals around for 2-3hrs on a bike. It's not easier or harder than triathlon, just different.

I know but I was making a more limited point as to net calorie and work rate over the course of the day or an event. I agree difference between fast twitch and slow twitch, my point however was a more narrow point and I accept your point as a valid one. There is no cardiovascular barrier to the normal healthy, young person that is unusually high for tennis that would preclude a hardworking young athlete from scaling unless he gave in and used blood doping for example.

Haha Socal.. great question.. areal Pandora's box opener.

I may come back to you on this at another point in time.. because it is way too involved to answer quickly.

It would have to be all or nothing I reckon. If you ban the harmful ones, but they are the more effective ones, then players will take the more effective/banned ones anyway. Because for those that take them, it's all about the advantage they can get, at any cost.

"Should we take away grandpa's erections?"

Now I didn't think I'd ever read that sentence on this forum!

I see where you are coming from socal, but I personally disagree about allowing and regulating PEDs.

My biggest worry about drugs in the sport is how Andre and Richard were able to explain their way out of positive drug tests. Now, I like both players and I think social drugs should be treated very differently to PEDs.... But how did they get away with it? I mean, "I drank the wrong drink" and "I kissed a girl and I liked it" should not allow a player off the hook in my opinion.

If a player gets a positive steroid test tomorrow, and claims they slipped and landed on a needle, are they going to be let off?

Sorry if I've just opened a can of worms and I like both players, but it doesn't give me a lot of confidence of how the authorities deal with these situations. If Andre hadn't written a book we'd never even have known about it. That can't be right.

JuliusHMarx wrote:It would have to be all or nothing I reckon. If you ban the harmful ones, but they are the more effective ones, then players will take the more effective/banned ones anyway. Because for those that take them, it's all about the advantage they can get, at any cost.

That is the problem, but here is what happens. A new more regulated market will be created for designer drugs. Instead of this process taking place in the dark these new drug makers will now have to pay taxes, submit their product for testing, and also accept liability if their drugs have side effects that they did not disclose. We would have informed consent like for other medical procedures. Plus invariably athletes might decide if PED A is safe and tested and gives you 90 percent of the results of PED B that is untested, I think the vast majority of players with an eye to their future health would move more towards to PEDs that have been extensively tested. It would still be better than having these things made by disreputtable chemists with no idea whatsoever what the long term effects will be, and it is still better than constant scandal and ruined lives.

But socal...if you could train to be as fit as an Ironman or even ultra-marathon runner why would players need PEDs? Answer, to still gain an advantage. It's all relative. I reckon the top 4 are about as fit as you can get in tennis with the ability to play powerful strokes too. You cant have ultra fitness when you need strength too. The other tennis guys must see them and wonder how they can compete...that they may need an extra edge...these guys are so competitively driven that we don't know what they may be prepared to do to stay or get amongst the elite.

Danny_1982 wrote:"Should we take away grandpa's erections?"

Now I didn't think I'd ever read that sentence on this forum!

I see where you are coming from socal, but I personally disagree about allowing and regulating PEDs.

My biggest worry about drugs in the sport is how Andre and Richard were able to explain their way out of positive drug tests. Now, I like both players and I think social drugs should be treated very differently to PEDs.... But how did they get away with it? I mean, "I drank the wrong drink" and "I kissed a girl and I liked it" should not allow a player off the hook in my opinion.

If a player gets a positive steroid test tomorrow, and claims they slipped and landed on a needle, are they going to be let off?

Sorry if I've just opened a can of worms and I like both players, but it doesn't give me a lot of confidence of how the authorities deal with these situations. If Andre hadn't written a book we'd never even have known about it. That can't be right.

But Danny you see you are holding these players to standards that regular people aren't held to. I mean a great deal of heart attacks and strokes result from the use of viagra and ciallis. We all use drugs every day to enhance our lives and all of them had negative side effects. Every drug has pluses and minuses, legal or otherwise. People want there to be a hard and fast wall between what are good drugs and what are bad drugs, but in reality that line is very murky. Should a player with asthma be allowed steroids for his inhaler? See at the end of the day it is a cost and benefit analysis, if the benefit of said drug outweighs the risk, maybe the best answer is to just ok, go ahead and get high.

lydian wrote:But socal...if you could train to be as fit as an Ironman or even ultra-marathon runner why would players need PEDs? Answer, to still gain an advantage. It's all relative. I reckon the top 4 are about as fit as you can get in tennis with the ability to play powerful strokes too. You cant have ultra fitness when you need strength too. The other tennis guys must see them and wonder how they can compete...that they may need an extra edge...these guys are so competitively driven that we don't know what they may be prepared to stay or get amongst the elite.

I don't think there is anything precluding an athletic 19 year old from getting every bit as fit as Djoko assuming no doping for either athlete. It won't be easy for sure, and you need athletic ability as well I don't doubt that. But there isn't a barrier that is unassailable by any stretch of the imagination. I agree with you the temptation has to be huge, that is why I suggested a regulation as opposed to prohibition model. I don't know if it would work but it may be naive to assume that we can adequately police the issue.

Asthma glucocorticoid use is controversial.

The BMJ wrote a paper stating that ICS actually are a detriment to performance if taken for medium-long term periods and should be removed from WADA list. But others request WADA keep ICS on their list.
http://www.wtgf.org/core/core_picker/download.asp?id=1069&filetitle=Evidence+on+Ergogenic+Action+of+Glucocorticoids+as+a+Doping+Agent+Risk

But it's an oxymoron anyway, if you were a moderate asthmatic, ie needing ICS, then you wouldn't likely be an elite athlete in the first place given the 30% plus loss of FEV1.

I agree there socal...we shouldn't forget that tennis is a skill-based sport where fitness is important, not vice-versa. To beat the top 4 you have to be one hell of a tennis player first and foremost, then fit of course. I actually think PED use is more likely in the lower echelons of the sport where the skills between players is arguably less distinct...and where fitness edge can actually count more.

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:It would have to be all or nothing I reckon. If you ban the harmful ones, but they are the more effective ones, then players will take the more effective/banned ones anyway. Because for those that take them, it's all about the advantage they can get, at any cost.

That is the problem, but here is what happens. A new more regulated market will be created for designer drugs. Instead of this process taking place in the dark these new drug makers will now have to pay taxes, submit their product for testing, and also accept liability if their drugs have side effects that they did not disclose. We would have informed consent like for other medical procedures. Plus invariably athletes might decide if PED A is safe and tested and gives you 90 percent of the results of PED B that is untested, I think the vast majority of players with an eye to their future health would move more towards to PEDs that have been extensively tested. It would still be better than having these things made by disreputtable chemists with no idea whatsoever what the long term effects will be, and it is still better than constant scandal and ruined lives.

But the athletes that have doped historically have been prepared to take any risk. That will continue - PED B, if more effective, will be the one some of them choose. They might then be the ones that win the slams.
Additionally, would you want your kids to become involved in a sport where taking drugs is the norm?
And would you watch players in admiration, knowing the only way they can perform at that level is through artificial means?

lydian wrote:I agree there socal...we shouldn't forget that tennis is a skill-based sport where fitness is important, not vice-versa. To beat the top 4 you have to be one hell of a tennis player first and foremost, then fit of course. I actually think PED use is more likely in the lower echelons of the sport where the skills between players is arguably less distinct...and where fitness edge can actually count more.

Yes again no amount of peds is going to help your tennis mind and at the end of the day that is where the matches are won at the highest levels. I also agree I think at the lower levels with even less scrutiney the problem is probably worse. However again all of this is a shot in the dark because none of us really know exact numbers for anything. That is another reason that I am starting to move to the idea that regulation and not prohibition might be the answer. But I can't say that I know what is the better model, we know that prohibition has at best had mixed results.

The ethical problem there is the absolution of cheating. If we legalise cheating then surely it's the thin end of the wedge?

There are plently of supplements, vitamins, treatments etc that are currently allowed and many that are not. It's not currently prohibition, it's regulation.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:It would have to be all or nothing I reckon. If you ban the harmful ones, but they are the more effective ones, then players will take the more effective/banned ones anyway. Because for those that take them, it's all about the advantage they can get, at any cost.

That is the problem, but here is what happens. A new more regulated market will be created for designer drugs. Instead of this process taking place in the dark these new drug makers will now have to pay taxes, submit their product for testing, and also accept liability if their drugs have side effects that they did not disclose. We would have informed consent like for other medical procedures. Plus invariably athletes might decide if PED A is safe and tested and gives you 90 percent of the results of PED B that is untested, I think the vast majority of players with an eye to their future health would move more towards to PEDs that have been extensively tested. It would still be better than having these things made by disreputtable chemists with no idea whatsoever what the long term effects will be, and it is still better than constant scandal and ruined lives.

But the athletes that have doped historically have been prepared to take any risk. That will continue - PED B, if more effective, will be the one some of them choose. They might then be the ones that win the slams.
Additionally, would you want your kids to become involved in a sport where taking drugs is the norm?
And would you watch players in admiration, knowing the only way they can perform at that level is through artificial means?

Would you give your kid a beer? I mean it depends on the specific case doesn't Julius. And the reason that you oppose this idea is that you again impute cheating and moral hazard to the use of drugs. If it is more transparent what is the difference really between an athlete using a drug to improve his performance when normal people do it all the time in regular life. The thing I find abhorrent about substance abuse is the cheating aspect and deceit. If it isn't underhanded and isn't against the rules then it would lose a lot of that moral stain aspect as well.

Again I want to be clear I am not advocating this model of regulation and legalization, I just think it bears asking and talking about. Sometimes the best solution to a problem that seems intractable is not to keep doubling down and doing the same thing that hasn't worked. Either we have to punish this stuff with a gestapo like police force out to destroy athletes for cheating or we come to another arraingement. I don't know what is better or worse, but I think the question bears asking.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:It would have to be all or nothing I reckon. If you ban the harmful ones, but they are the more effective ones, then players will take the more effective/banned ones anyway. Because for those that take them, it's all about the advantage they can get, at any cost.

That is the problem, but here is what happens. A new more regulated market will be created for designer drugs. Instead of this process taking place in the dark these new drug makers will now have to pay taxes, submit their product for testing, and also accept liability if their drugs have side effects that they did not disclose. We would have informed consent like for other medical procedures. Plus invariably athletes might decide if PED A is safe and tested and gives you 90 percent of the results of PED B that is untested, I think the vast majority of players with an eye to their future health would move more towards to PEDs that have been extensively tested. It would still be better than having these things made by disreputtable chemists with no idea whatsoever what the long term effects will be, and it is still better than constant scandal and ruined lives.

But the athletes that have doped historically have been prepared to take any risk. That will continue - PED B, if more effective, will be the one some of them choose. They might then be the ones that win the slams.
Additionally, would you want your kids to become involved in a sport where taking drugs is the norm?
And would you watch players in admiration, knowing the only way they can perform at that level is through artificial means?

But it is already a norm in many sports, and many people know that. It would just be legitimized if Social's ideas are implemented. Personally I think it's the best solution for sports. The prohibition-strategy isn't working, and even if it were, there would still be doubts.

I try to get my kids to drink wine, but they don't like it.
You're right though - I prefer it if I'm watching sportsman who don't break the rules.
But if the rules changed to ones that I morally disagree with, with respect to what I believe sport should be about, then I would stop watching the sport - it would have no interest to me.

But if you allow everyone to take EPO then it'll just be a matter of time until another PED/method becomes the new controversy. It is the thin end of the wedge going down that road. Also, is it fair that some people could tolerate higher doses of EPO than others? How would you regulate the advantage people could gain from PEDs? And before you know it you'll have fatal ODs on these drugs in no time....

JuliusHMarx wrote:I try to get my kids to drink wine, but they don't like it.
You're right though - I prefer it if I'm watching sportsman who don't break the rules.
But if the rules changed to ones that I morally disagree with, with respect to what I believe sport should be about, then I would stop watching the sport - it would have no interest to me.

What do you believe sport is about? IMO public sports are about seeing who is the best, and witnessing freak performances.

Chydremion. would you allow the use of drugs that are known to cause long-term harm? If not, then some would argue that you are advocating prohibition.

lydian wrote:But if you allow everyone to take EPO then it'll just be a matter of time until another PED/method becomes the new controversy. It is the thin end of the wedge going down that road. Also, is it fair that some people could tolerate higher doses of EPO than others? How would you regulate the advantage people could gain from PEDs? And before you know it you'll have fatal ODs on these drugs in no time....

The toleration of EPO would just be a genetic thing. Even without EPO genetics play a big role in who is the better sportsman. So there doesn't really change much.

When you tolerate doping it should be 100 % toleration. Everything should be allowed.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Chydremion. would you allow the use of drugs that are known to cause long-term harm? If not, then some would argue that you are advocating prohibition.

Yes, I would allow it. It's up to the sportsmen to decide if they want to take the risk.

I don't agree with the ethics behind that one iota. Genetic ability to play sport should rely on talent for movement, hand-eye coordination, etc, not how much drug your liver can process. The two things are not the same.

lydian wrote:The ethical problem there is the absolution of cheating. If we legalise cheating then surely it's the thin end of the wedge?

Sometimes the best thing to do when your in a costly fight you can't win is to declare victory and cut a deal. We may not have many other options that are less distasteful.

lydian wrote:I don't agree with the ethics behind that one iota. Genetic ability to play sport should rely on talent for movement, hand-eye coordination, etc, not how much drug your liver can process. The two things are not the same.

I was not talking solely about tennis. In other sports you need other skills too, where genetics play a big part.

Every person has different amounts of testosterone (and other hormones) production, so probably the one with higher levels will have an advantage. It's simular too how much drug your liver can process. One will be genetically privileged, drugs or no drugs.

socal1976 wrote:

lydian wrote:The ethical problem there is the absolution of cheating. If we legalise cheating then surely it's the thin end of the wedge?

Sometimes the best thing to do when your in a costly fight you can't win is to declare victory and cut a deal. We may not have many other options that are less distasteful.

When you legitimize cheating it aint cheating anymore.

There are so many variables that decide a player's performance: Genetics, diet, intensity, hard work, training-methods, coaching...
Let's just add doping as another variable.

I can never condone or accept cheating just because current regulations aren't strong enough. We need more testing - every event, not 7 times per year - and more stringent methods of detection ratifying by WADA.

Once we allow all PEDs then the heart of sporting ethics is ripped out. It then just becomes a matter of who has the best biochemist and liver. Plus as I said it will push many athletes annually into fatal OD and any open law would be quickly rescinded.

When you legitimise cheating its just legitimised cheating.
Doping is an unnatural variable.
For me it's like saying we can't control vandalism anymore so let's just legalise it. It's like trying to drink your way out of a hangover.

Chydremion wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

lydian wrote:The ethical problem there is the absolution of cheating. If we legalise cheating then surely it's the thin end of the wedge?

Sometimes the best thing to do when your in a costly fight you can't win is to declare victory and cut a deal. We may not have many other options that are less distasteful.

When you legitimize cheating it aint cheating anymore.

There are so many variables that decide a player's performance: Genetics, diet, intensity, hard work, training-methods, coaching...
Let's just add doping as another variable.

Exactly, Chydremion I mean that is what everyone finds the most distasteful about PEDs is the cheating and deceit. If it is legal it isn't cheating anymore, I know that sounds very morally grey to people but that is how the law works. Alcohol and nicotine kill way more than any other drugs but no one even seriously considers banning these things anymore. With modern medicine and testing a great deal of the health issues resulting can be better addressed and the moral hazard is also addressed by what you alluded to. If it is legal it isn't cheating anymore.

lydian wrote:When you legitimise cheating its just legitimised cheating.
Doping is an unnatural variable.
For me it's like saying we can't control vandalism anymore so let's just legalise it. It's like trying to drink your way out of a hangover.

One beer early the next day works wonderfully.

lydian wrote:When you legitimise cheating its just legitimised cheating.
Doping is an unnatural variable.
For me it's like saying we can't control vandalism anymore so let's just legalise it. It's like trying to drink your way out of a hangover.

Indeed, if we legalised murder, then the murder rate would instantly fall to 0, and it would no longer be a problem we'd need to resolve.

Indeed JHM.
It's genius...for every ill in sport or society we just legalise it!
Brilliant.

lydian wrote:Indeed JHM.
It's genius...for every ill in sport or society we just legalise it!
Brilliant.

Murder is against human rights so you can't legalise it.

Doping isn't. You can legalise it without hurting people.

People are allowed to eat to enhance performance, so why not doping.

Doping is only an ill because we make it one.

Chydremion wrote:

lydian wrote:Indeed JHM.
It's genius...for every ill in sport or society we just legalise it!
Brilliant.

Murder is against human rights so you can't legalise it.

Yes you can, you can change human rights. Easy.

Ok, but can you explain me why you are comparing doping with murder? Murder is against human rights and violates the personal sovereignty of another individual, while doping doesn't. It are too totally different things.

I suppose many people consider murder ethically wrong. Doping is only considered wrong because it is seen as cheating. Make it legal and it aint cheating anymore, taking drugs would be similar to eating a banana then.

Again julius the only way you can attempt to win the argument is by pushing the example to the extreme. At the extremes of human behavior r***, incest, murder, pedophilia society of course establishes norms. But do you really equate lance armstrong morally with a murder? There is difference between what is moral and what is legal, and everything in life is a matter of degree. The debate here is about a very grey and fuzzy area. I mean lets go back to the performing enhancements that regular people use all the time that are not good for them. Are their no costs associated with those drugs that we deem legal?