This has been on my mind for a long time.

I feel that the drugs-in-sports issue has become a slippery slope.
First people trying to shape a "debate" have an easy target to get
people to agree with their point of view. Then they start adding other
things once their belief is accepted and it ends up going way to far.
In the case of sports, first it was anabolic steroids. Okay, we know
the bad side effects of steroids, fine. But over the years the athletic
drug ban had morphed into "performance enhancing drugs" and now into
"banned substances". With a term that vague, is anything off limits as
far as punishing athletics.

I focus on the Olympics in this post since they are about to commence,
we have heard several scandals recently, and because they seem to have
the most comprehensive (or is that extreme) policy on so-called banned
substances. I am no expert on all that constitutes the list of this
substances, and certainly do not know of all their side effects, but I
think the IOC and sports organizations like them have gotten far far
away from the original intent when they started banning steroids. What
I wonder when I hear of an athlete being punished is "is this
performance enhancing drug he/she was taking actually harmful to the
body"? If it is not harmful, and just gives the athlete some type of
advantage, should it always be banned and the athlete crucified they way
they are being treated now? Some players complain of an "unfair
advantage". Well if someone chooses not to take something unharmful
that would improve their performance, why should everyone else be forced
to do that? It kind of reminds me of that old sci-fi short story about
the society where everyone was forced to be ugly and weighted down so
the few ugly people would not feel bad about themselves. No one was
allowed to do anything to demonstrate their own greatness anymore.

Ban harmful things like steroids yes, but can the IOC show that every
single "banned substance" is harmful, and if not, then what is the
underlying motivation? Technology advances in health, medicine,
nutrition etc. just like it does in any other field. They allow
advancements in the speed and power of the machines, equipment, and
outfits. Why not in supplements, as long as they are not dangerous?

Tim Howard wrote:
> This has been on my mind for a long time.
>
> I feel that the drugs-in-sports issue has become a slippery slope.
> First people trying to shape a "debate" have an easy target to get
> people to agree with their point of view. Then they start adding
> other things once their belief is accepted and it ends up going way
> to far. In the case of sports, first it was anabolic steroids. Okay,
> we know the bad side effects of steroids, fine. But over the years
> the athletic drug ban had morphed into "performance enhancing drugs"
> and now into "banned substances". With a term that vague, is
> anything off limits as far as punishing athletics.
>
> I focus on the Olympics in this post since they are about to commence,
> we have heard several scandals recently, and because they seem to have
> the most comprehensive (or is that extreme) policy on so-called banned
> substances. I am no expert on all that constitutes the list of this
> substances, and certainly do not know of all their side effects, but I
> think the IOC and sports organizations like them have gotten far far
> away from the original intent when they started banning steroids. What I
> wonder when I hear of an athlete being punished is "is this
> performance enhancing drug he/she was taking actually harmful to the
> body"? If it is not harmful, and just gives the athlete some type of
> advantage, should it always be banned and the athlete crucified they
> way they are being treated now?

It is difficult to prove that a given substance is not harmful in any way.
Athletes should not be put in a position where they have to experiment on
themselves in order to compete.

> Some players complain of an "unfair
> advantage". Well if someone chooses not to take something unharmful
> that would improve their performance, why should everyone else be
> forced to do that? It kind of reminds me of that old sci-fi short
> story about the society where everyone was forced to be ugly and
> weighted down so the few ugly people would not feel bad about
> themselves. No one was allowed to do anything to demonstrate their
> own greatness anymore.
> Ban harmful things like steroids yes, but can the IOC show that every
> single "banned substance" is harmful,

They shouldn't have to. Anything could be harmful unless proven otherwise. But
first, what is the definition of "harmful"? Saturated fats provide energy and
therefore improve performance in athletic sports, but doctors will tell you they
cause long-term harm.

> and if not, then what is the
> underlying motivation?

It might be difficult to define precisely, but I would say there's a perception
that foods containing substances regarded as healthy (energy, vitamins,
minerals, protein, fibre etc.) are okay, or "clean", and anything that is not a
recognized food that improve performance is an unfair advantage. Basically,
athletes should not have to ingest something other than normal healthy foods to
be able to compete.

> Technology advances in health, medicine,
> nutrition etc. just like it does in any other field. They allow
> advancements in the speed and power of the machines, equipment, and
> outfits. Why not in supplements, as long as they are not dangerous?

Without examples I can't tell what kinds of substances you are referring to.

DavidW wrote:
> Tim Howard wrote:
>
>>I feel that the drugs-in-sports issue has become a slippery slope.
>>First people trying to shape a "debate" have an easy target to get
>>people to agree with their point of view. Then they start adding
>>other things once their belief is accepted and it ends up going way
>>to far. In the case of sports, first it was anabolic steroids. Okay,
>>we know the bad side effects of steroids, fine. But over the years
>>the athletic drug ban had morphed into "performance enhancing drugs"
>>and now into "banned substances". With a term that vague, is
>>anything off limits as far as punishing athletics.
>>
>>I focus on the Olympics in this post since they are about to commence,
>>we have heard several scandals recently, and because they seem to have
>>the most comprehensive (or is that extreme) policy on so-called banned
>>substances. I am no expert on all that constitutes the list of this
>>substances, and certainly do not know of all their side effects, but I
>>think the IOC and sports organizations like them have gotten far far
>>away from the original intent when they started banning steroids. What I
>>wonder when I hear of an athlete being punished is "is this
>>performance enhancing drug he/she was taking actually harmful to the
>>body"? If it is not harmful, and just gives the athlete some type of
>>advantage, should it always be banned and the athlete crucified they
>>way they are being treated now?
>
>
> It is difficult to prove that a given substance is not harmful in any way.
> Athletes should not be put in a position where they have to experiment on
> themselves in order to compete.

Experimentation can occur in more ways than one. We have entered a new
era in medicine in which the emphasis is shifting to prevention rather
than treatment. Gone is the paradigm in which people go to doctors only
when they are "sick" and receive treatment only until they are "healthy"
again. Nowadays, doctors are trained to recognize risk factors which,
while they are technically not illnesses, increase the risk that a
patient will later contract an illness.

While it is true that athletes should not have to "experiment on
themselves" by taking substances to enhance their performance just to
remain competitive, it is also true that they should not have to
"experiment on themselves" by refraining from taking substances that
ordinary people are taking to combat risk factors for illness.


Bob

On Aug 4, 2:11 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:

> It is difficult to prove that a given substance is not harmful in any way.
> Athletes should not be put in a position where they have to experiment on
> themselves in order to compete.

But athletes should not be prevented from competing by not being
allowed to experiment on themselves.

Your statement is based on the implicit assumption that without drugs,
everyone who wants to compete can compete. But that's false at the
elite level. Ultimately, you can't compete at that level unless you
have the right genes - unless you have the right drugs.

So the real effect of the ban on performance enhancing drugs is to
prevent a lot of athletes from competing.

"MW Smith" <clipper.smith@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:acd7588d-bc27-4903-86b4-2836d6b80fc8@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 4, 2:11 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>> It is difficult to prove that a given substance is not harmful in any
>> way.
>> Athletes should not be put in a position where they have to experiment on
>> themselves in order to compete.
>
> But athletes should not be prevented from competing by not being
> allowed to experiment on themselves.
>
> Your statement is based on the implicit assumption that without drugs,
> everyone who wants to compete can compete. But that's false at the
> elite level. Ultimately, you can't compete at that level unless you
> have the right genes - unless you have the right drugs.
>
> So the real effect of the ban on performance enhancing drugs is to
> prevent a lot of athletes from competing.

Isn't that the point of competitive sport though? To allow those who can to
win, and those who can't to lose? Not to make everyone win by turning them
in to Frankenstein's monster.
--
Duncan Heenan

On Aug 4, 8:39 pm, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:acd7588d-bc27-4903-86b4-2836d6b80fc8@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 4, 2:11 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> >> It is difficult to prove that a given substance is not harmful in any
> >> way.
> >> Athletes should not be put in a position where they have to experiment on
> >> themselves in order to compete.
>
> > But athletes should not be prevented from competing by not being
> > allowed to experiment on themselves.
>
> > Your statement is based on the implicit assumption that without drugs,
> > everyone who wants to compete can compete. But that's false at the
> > elite level. Ultimately, you can't compete at that level unless you
> > have the right genes - unless you have the right drugs.
>
> > So the real effect of the ban on performance enhancing drugs is to
> > prevent a lot of athletes from competing.
>
> Isn't that the point of competitive sport though? To allow those who can to
> win, and those who can't to lose?

No. The point of competitive sport is to compete at the sport on a
level playing field.

> Not to make everyone win by turning them
> in to Frankenstein's monster.

There is still only one winner, and I haven;t seen any Frankenstein
monsters in the pool.

MW Smith wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2:11 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>> It is difficult to prove that a given substance is not harmful in
>> any way. Athletes should not be put in a position where they have to
>> experiment on themselves in order to compete.

By 'compete' here I mean not be at an ingested-substance disadvantage. I don't
mean making up for physiological disadvantages. If you get beaten by a better
athlete, tough.

> But athletes should not be prevented from competing by not being
> allowed to experiment on themselves.
>
> Your statement is based on the implicit assumption that without drugs,
> everyone who wants to compete can compete.

And the way I meant it, they can. You can compete, and you will lose if you
aren't good enough.

On Aug 4, 11:54 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> MW Smith wrote:
> > On Aug 4, 2:11 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> >> It is difficult to prove that a given substance is not harmful in
> >> any way. Athletes should not be put in a position where they have to
> >> experiment on themselves in order to compete.
>
> By 'compete' here I mean not be at an ingested-substance disadvantage. I don't
> mean making up for physiological disadvantages. If you get beaten by a better
> athlete, tough.

I understand, but your position is opposed to the concept of the level
playing field. What you mean by "better athlete" is, effectively, the
athlete with the better breeding. You mean that the athlete with the
physiological advantage is the better athlete, which is not what most
people mean when they use that term. The better athlete should be the
one who puts in the most work to achieve the victory, the one who
works hardest.

> > But athletes should not be prevented from competing by not being
> > allowed to experiment on themselves.
>
> > Your statement is based on the implicit assumption that without drugs,
> > everyone who wants to compete can compete.
>
> And the way I meant it, they can. You can compete, and you will lose if you
> aren't good enough.

Then by compete you simply mean "take part in the contest," which,
again isn't what most people mean by compete. It's the kind of
competing educators of the 70s and 80s meant children should do.

There is a kind of sailboat racing in which the two crews race in two
identical boats. then they trade boats and race again. That's real
sporting competition. The closest we can come to it in competitive
swimming, since we can't trade bodies, is to allow everyone to use
drugs that aid in achieving maximum physical potential.

It is a matter of rules. People don't want the use drugs, so drugs are
forbidden. Simple like that. Complicated element is enforcing the drug
ban. Sportive events will always have artificial limits.

Athletes compete at the limits (plural). Limit of strength, limit of
speed, limit of safety, limit of ethical*rules*. In the drug rule, you
ask what if some drugs are not harmfull? what is a drug? What is
allowed? What is not

There will always be a rule limit, and there will always be someone
trying/tempted to cheat beyond that limit.

MW Smith wrote:
> On Aug 4, 11:54 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> MW Smith wrote:
>>> On Aug 4, 2:11 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>>>> It is difficult to prove that a given substance is not harmful in
>>>> any way. Athletes should not be put in a position where they have
>>>> to experiment on themselves in order to compete.
>>
>> By 'compete' here I mean not be at an ingested-substance
>> disadvantage. I don't mean making up for physiological
>> disadvantages. If you get beaten by a better athlete, tough.
>
> I understand, but your position is opposed to the concept of the level
> playing field.

No, quite the opposite. I've never heard of "level playing field" being extended
to making up for natural physiological disadvantages.

> What you mean by "better athlete" is, effectively, the
> athlete with the better breeding. You mean that the athlete with the
> physiological advantage is the better athlete, which is not what most
> people mean when they use that term. The better athlete should be the
> one who puts in the most work to achieve the victory, the one who
> works hardest.

No, I mean the combination. If you have natural athletic gifts you still need to
train. But, typically, dedicated athletes will do what they and their coaches
consider to be the best training possible, so it's going to come back to
breeding, determination and, for some events, tactics.

>>> But athletes should not be prevented from competing by not being
>>> allowed to experiment on themselves.
>>
>>> Your statement is based on the implicit assumption that without
>>> drugs, everyone who wants to compete can compete.
>>
>> And the way I meant it, they can. You can compete, and you will lose
>> if you aren't good enough.
>
> Then by compete you simply mean "take part in the contest,"

No, I mean take part in the contest _fairly_.

> which,
> again isn't what most people mean by compete. It's the kind of
> competing educators of the 70s and 80s meant children should do.
>
> There is a kind of sailboat racing in which the two crews race in two
> identical boats. then they trade boats and race again. That's real
> sporting competition. The closest we can come to it in competitive
> swimming, since we can't trade bodies, is to allow everyone to use
> drugs that aid in achieving maximum physical potential.

And what drugs do you propose that they use? Steroids? EPO? HGH?

Also, why do you think that if _all_ of them take drugs the athlete with the
best genes and training won't win by just as far as before?

"MW Smith" <clipper.smith@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4c88eb3f-7306-4cc6-9f82-dbc092de702e@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> snip <
> There is a kind of sailboat racing in which the two crews race in two
> identical boats. then they trade boats and race again. That's real
> sporting competition. The closest we can come to it in competitive
> swimming, since we can't trade bodies, is to allow everyone to use
> drugs that aid in achieving maximum physical potential.
>

Rather than allow everyone to use drugs, I'd prefer to keep the playing
field level by allowing no one to use drugs. That's better in every way.
--
Duncan Heenan

"DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
news:uh4mk.5652$Hx3.5189@fe119.usenetserver.com...
> MW Smith wrote:
>> On Aug 4, 11:54 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>> MW Smith wrote:
>>>> On Aug 4, 2:11 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It is difficult to prove that a given substance is not harmful in
>>>>> any way. Athletes should not be put in a position where they have
>>>>> to experiment on themselves in order to compete.
>>>
>>> By 'compete' here I mean not be at an ingested-substance
>>> disadvantage. I don't mean making up for physiological
>>> disadvantages. If you get beaten by a better athlete, tough.
>>
>> I understand, but your position is opposed to the concept of the level
>> playing field.
>
> No, quite the opposite. I've never heard of "level playing field" being
> extended to making up for natural physiological disadvantages.
>
>> What you mean by "better athlete" is, effectively, the
>> athlete with the better breeding. You mean that the athlete with the
>> physiological advantage is the better athlete, which is not what most
>> people mean when they use that term. The better athlete should be the
>> one who puts in the most work to achieve the victory, the one who
>> works hardest.
>
> No, I mean the combination. If you have natural athletic gifts you still
> need to train. But, typically, dedicated athletes will do what they and
> their coaches consider to be the best training possible, so it's going to
> come back to breeding, determination and, for some events, tactics.
>
>>>> But athletes should not be prevented from competing by not being
>>>> allowed to experiment on themselves.
>>>
>>>> Your statement is based on the implicit assumption that without
>>>> drugs, everyone who wants to compete can compete.
>>>
>>> And the way I meant it, they can. You can compete, and you will lose
>>> if you aren't good enough.
>>
>> Then by compete you simply mean "take part in the contest,"
>
> No, I mean take part in the contest _fairly_.
>
>> which,
>> again isn't what most people mean by compete. It's the kind of
>> competing educators of the 70s and 80s meant children should do.
>>
>> There is a kind of sailboat racing in which the two crews race in two
>> identical boats. then they trade boats and race again. That's real
>> sporting competition. The closest we can come to it in competitive
>> swimming, since we can't trade bodies, is to allow everyone to use
>> drugs that aid in achieving maximum physical potential.
>
> And what drugs do you propose that they use? Steroids? EPO? HGH?
>
> Also, why do you think that if _all_ of them take drugs the athlete with
> the best genes and training won't win by just as far as before?
>
Allowing drug taking is simply to allow cheating. So the competition becomes
one of who can cheat most effectively- so why bother with rules at all? If
you don't bother with rules, why bother with the competition at all? Why
bother with anything......which is the ultimate philosophy of the junkie.
I've seen enough drug abusers to know it is not a path I want to encourage
others down, or to go down myself.
--
Duncan Heenan

On Aug 5, 11:39 pm, Nelson <ns_gar...@uol.com.br> wrote:
> It is a matter of rules. People don't want the use drugs, so drugs are
> forbidden. Simple like that. Complicated element is enforcing the drug
> ban. Sportive events will always have artificial limits.

I'm not so sure that "People don't want the use drugs." Certainly,
those who have the advantage without them don't want them allowed. And
parents who can't raise sensible children don't want their bad
parenting exposed. But people do want to see Barry Bonds hit homeruns.
People do want to see new world records. And I expect most people are
not so judgmental about whether an athlete uses drugs to improve his
training.

> Athletes compete at the limits (plural). Limit of strength, limit of
> speed, limit of safety, limit of ethical*rules*. In the drug rule, you
> ask what if some drugs are not harmfull? what is a drug? What is
> allowed? What is not
>
> There will always be a rule limit, and there will always be someone
> trying/tempted to cheat beyond that limit.

Then it makes sense to set the limits to minimize cheating. It makes
sense to set the limits so that there is little need to break them to
be the best.

On Aug 6, 12:14 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> MW Smith wrote:
> > On Aug 4, 11:54 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> MW Smith wrote:
> > I understand, but your position is opposed to the concept of the level
> > playing field.
>
> No, quite the opposite. I've never heard of "level playing field" being extended
> to making up for natural physiological disadvantages.

Yes you have, if you are in the US. Title IX. But you missed the
point. Allowing drugs doesn't _extend_ the level playing field,
because the playing field is not level. Allowing drugs _levels_ the
playing field.

> > What you mean by "better athlete" is, effectively, the
> > athlete with the better breeding. You mean that the athlete with the
> > physiological advantage is the better athlete, which is not what most
> > people mean when they use that term. The better athlete should be the
> > one who puts in the most work to achieve the victory, the one who
> > works hardest.
>
> No, I mean the combination. If you have natural athletic gifts you still need to
> train. But, typically, dedicated athletes will do what they and their coaches
> consider to be the best training possible, so it's going to come back to
> breeding, determination and, for some events, tactics.

I agree, but the breeding component makes the playing field unlevel.
Drugs nullify some of the breeding component and thereby have a
leveling effect.

> > Then by compete you simply mean "take part in the contest,"
>
> No, I mean take part in the contest _fairly_.

But _fairly_ means according to _fair_ rules, and fair rules don't
give an advantage to a subset of competitors.

> > which,
> > again isn't what most people mean by compete. It's the kind of
> > competing educators of the 70s and 80s meant children should do.
>
> > There is a kind of sailboat racing in which the two crews race in two
> > identical boats. then they trade boats and race again. That's real
> > sporting competition. The closest we can come to it in competitive
> > swimming, since we can't trade bodies, is to allow everyone to use
> > drugs that aid in achieving maximum physical potential.
>
> And what drugs do you propose that they use? Steroids? EPO? HGH?

That's a separate question, but I don't see a need to specify the set
of drugs. On the other hand, it would certainly solve most of the
problem at this point to simply allow EPO.

> Also, why do you think that if _all_ of them take drugs the athlete with the
> best genes and training won't win by just as far as before?

Ultimately he might, but his advantage due to breeding would be
minimized, and the other components, training, attitude, effort, etc,
would be maximized.

On Aug 6, 7:58 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4c88eb3f-7306-4cc6-9f82-dbc092de702e@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
> > snip <
> > There is a kind of sailboat racing in which the two crews race in two
> > identical boats. then they trade boats and race again. That's real
> > sporting competition. The closest we can come to it in competitive
> > swimming, since we can't trade bodies, is to allow everyone to use
> > drugs that aid in achieving maximum physical potential.
>
> Rather than allow everyone to use drugs, I'd prefer to keep the playing
> field level by allowing no one to use drugs. That's better in every way.

But that playing field isn't level, which has already been explained.

On Aug 6, 8:03 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>
> news:uh4mk.5652$Hx3.5189@fe119.usenetserver.com...
>
> > MW Smith wrote:
> >> On Aug 4, 11:54 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >>> MW Smith wrote:
> >>>> On Aug 4, 2:11 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> >>>>> It is difficult to prove that a given substance is not harmful in
> >>>>> any way. Athletes should not be put in a position where they have
> >>>>> to experiment on themselves in order to compete.
>
> >>> By 'compete' here I mean not be at an ingested-substance
> >>> disadvantage. I don't mean making up for physiological
> >>> disadvantages. If you get beaten by a better athlete, tough.
>
> >> I understand, but your position is opposed to the concept of the level
> >> playing field.
>
> > No, quite the opposite. I've never heard of "level playing field" being
> > extended to making up for natural physiological disadvantages.
>
> >> What you mean by "better athlete" is, effectively, the
> >> athlete with the better breeding. You mean that the athlete with the
> >> physiological advantage is the better athlete, which is not what most
> >> people mean when they use that term. The better athlete should be the
> >> one who puts in the most work to achieve the victory, the one who
> >> works hardest.
>
> > No, I mean the combination. If you have natural athletic gifts you still
> > need to train. But, typically, dedicated athletes will do what they and
> > their coaches consider to be the best training possible, so it's going to
> > come back to breeding, determination and, for some events, tactics.
>
> >>>> But athletes should not be prevented from competing by not being
> >>>> allowed to experiment on themselves.
>
> >>>> Your statement is based on the implicit assumption that without
> >>>> drugs, everyone who wants to compete can compete.
>
> >>> And the way I meant it, they can. You can compete, and you will lose
> >>> if you aren't good enough.
>
> >> Then by compete you simply mean "take part in the contest,"
>
> > No, I mean take part in the contest _fairly_.
>
> >> which,
> >> again isn't what most people mean by compete. It's the kind of
> >> competing educators of the 70s and 80s meant children should do.
>
> >> There is a kind of sailboat racing in which the two crews race in two
> >> identical boats. then they trade boats and race again. That's real
> >> sporting competition. The closest we can come to it in competitive
> >> swimming, since we can't trade bodies, is to allow everyone to use
> >> drugs that aid in achieving maximum physical potential.
>
> > And what drugs do you propose that they use? Steroids? EPO? HGH?
>
> > Also, why do you think that if _all_ of them take drugs the athlete with
> > the best genes and training won't win by just as far as before?
>
> Allowing drug taking is simply to allow cheating.

That's true because the rules are written the way they are. If the
rules were written to allow only one breath per 50 meters, then
everyone would be cheating in the 1500.

> So the competition becomes
> one of who can cheat most effectively- so why bother with rules at all? If
> you don't bother with rules, why bother with the competition at all? Why
> bother with anything......which is the ultimate philosophy of the junkie.
> I've seen enough drug abusers to know it is not a path I want to encourage
> others down, or to go down myself.

So you can see why your argument is absurd. You are arguing for
abandoning all competition if the rules contain a single bad rule.

"MW Smith" <clipper.smith@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa8e3662-aa20-4e77-b4cd-a69f6d2dd6fb@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 6, 8:03 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>>
>> news:uh4mk.5652$Hx3.5189@fe119.usenetserver.com...
>>
>> > MW Smith wrote:
>> >> On Aug 4, 11:54 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> >>> MW Smith wrote:
>> >>>> On Aug 4, 2:11 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> It is difficult to prove that a given substance is not harmful in
>> >>>>> any way. Athletes should not be put in a position where they have
>> >>>>> to experiment on themselves in order to compete.
>>
>> >>> By 'compete' here I mean not be at an ingested-substance
>> >>> disadvantage. I don't mean making up for physiological
>> >>> disadvantages. If you get beaten by a better athlete, tough.
>>
>> >> I understand, but your position is opposed to the concept of the level
>> >> playing field.
>>
>> > No, quite the opposite. I've never heard of "level playing field" being
>> > extended to making up for natural physiological disadvantages.
>>
>> >> What you mean by "better athlete" is, effectively, the
>> >> athlete with the better breeding. You mean that the athlete with the
>> >> physiological advantage is the better athlete, which is not what most
>> >> people mean when they use that term. The better athlete should be the
>> >> one who puts in the most work to achieve the victory, the one who
>> >> works hardest.
>>
>> > No, I mean the combination. If you have natural athletic gifts you
>> > still
>> > need to train. But, typically, dedicated athletes will do what they and
>> > their coaches consider to be the best training possible, so it's going
>> > to
>> > come back to breeding, determination and, for some events, tactics.
>>
>> >>>> But athletes should not be prevented from competing by not being
>> >>>> allowed to experiment on themselves.
>>
>> >>>> Your statement is based on the implicit assumption that without
>> >>>> drugs, everyone who wants to compete can compete.
>>
>> >>> And the way I meant it, they can. You can compete, and you will lose
>> >>> if you aren't good enough.
>>
>> >> Then by compete you simply mean "take part in the contest,"
>>
>> > No, I mean take part in the contest _fairly_.
>>
>> >> which,
>> >> again isn't what most people mean by compete. It's the kind of
>> >> competing educators of the 70s and 80s meant children should do.
>>
>> >> There is a kind of sailboat racing in which the two crews race in two
>> >> identical boats. then they trade boats and race again. That's real
>> >> sporting competition. The closest we can come to it in competitive
>> >> swimming, since we can't trade bodies, is to allow everyone to use
>> >> drugs that aid in achieving maximum physical potential.
>>
>> > And what drugs do you propose that they use? Steroids? EPO? HGH?
>>
>> > Also, why do you think that if _all_ of them take drugs the athlete
>> > with
>> > the best genes and training won't win by just as far as before?
>>
>> Allowing drug taking is simply to allow cheating.
>
> That's true because the rules are written the way they are. If the
> rules were written to allow only one breath per 50 meters, then
> everyone would be cheating in the 1500.
>
>> So the competition becomes
>> one of who can cheat most effectively- so why bother with rules at all?
>> If
>> you don't bother with rules, why bother with the competition at all? Why
>> bother with anything......which is the ultimate philosophy of the junkie.
>> I've seen enough drug abusers to know it is not a path I want to
>> encourage
>> others down, or to go down myself.
>
> So you can see why your argument is absurd. You are arguing for
> abandoning all competition if the rules contain a single bad rule.

No I am saying that rules are needed to regulate sport and make it
worthwhile. You seem to be saying rules are pointless because they impinge
on people without the necessary natural ability and application to win. It
is your argument which is absurd, which could be why society does have rules
for all sorts of things. Your way lies anarchy.

"MW Smith" <clipper.smith@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b215a0d-6c00-4a5d-857f-6ee4fab5b1ab@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 6, 7:58 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4c88eb3f-7306-4cc6-9f82-dbc092de702e@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > snip <
>> > There is a kind of sailboat racing in which the two crews race in two
>> > identical boats. then they trade boats and race again. That's real
>> > sporting competition. The closest we can come to it in competitive
>> > swimming, since we can't trade bodies, is to allow everyone to use
>> > drugs that aid in achieving maximum physical potential.
>>
>> Rather than allow everyone to use drugs, I'd prefer to keep the playing
>> field level by allowing no one to use drugs. That's better in every way.
>
> But that playing field isn't level, which has already been explained.
>

The playing field is level, your argument applies to the players. Of course
not everyone is equal. Finding the best, under a particular set of rules is
one of the points of sport. making it in to a competition to see who can
tolerate the most steroids is hardly something worth proving.

On Aug 5, 5:14 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> No, quite the opposite. I've never heard of "level playing field" being extended
> to making up for natural physiological disadvantages.

Not in swimming, but it happens all the time in handicapped horse
racing. The faster horses are made to carry extra weight, in an
attempt to slow them down. The purpose is not to make a better race,
nor even a fairer race (whatever that means), but to encourage more
gambling.

It also happens in children's playground races. Smaller or slower
children are often given a head start. The purpose is again not to
make a fairer race (even though it's often discussed with such terms)
but to encourage more participation.

Neither of these cases seem to apply to Olympic swimming, though.


Ross

DavidW wrote:
> MW Smith wrote:
>
>>On Aug 4, 11:54 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>>>MW Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Aug 4, 2:11 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>It is difficult to prove that a given substance is not harmful in
>>>>>any way. Athletes should not be put in a position where they have
>>>>>to experiment on themselves in order to compete.
>>>>
>>>By 'compete' here I mean not be at an ingested-substance
>>>disadvantage. I don't mean making up for physiological
>>>disadvantages. If you get beaten by a better athlete, tough.
>>
>>I understand, but your position is opposed to the concept of the level
>>playing field.
>
>
> No, quite the opposite. I've never heard of "level playing field" being extended
> to making up for natural physiological disadvantages.

Well, let me give you an example:

In the late 1990s, Gary Hall, Jr. was diagnosed with Type I diabetes
mellitus. This was certainly natural, and was also a disadvantage,
since it's hard to win an Olympic medal when you're in a diabetic coma.
But he was allowed, in the 2000 and 2004 Olympics and in the 2008
Olympic trials, to compensate for his disadvantage by taking insulin
injections.



Bob

"Robert W. McAdams" <rwm@fambright.com> wrote in message
news:4899F24F.1030903@fambright.com...
> DavidW wrote:
>> MW Smith wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 4, 11:54 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>
>>>>MW Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Aug 4, 2:11 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>It is difficult to prove that a given substance is not harmful in
>>>>>>any way. Athletes should not be put in a position where they have
>>>>>>to experiment on themselves in order to compete.
>>>>>
>>>>By 'compete' here I mean not be at an ingested-substance
>>>>disadvantage. I don't mean making up for physiological
>>>>disadvantages. If you get beaten by a better athlete, tough.
>>>
>>>I understand, but your position is opposed to the concept of the level
>>>playing field.
>>
>>
>> No, quite the opposite. I've never heard of "level playing field" being
>> extended to making up for natural physiological disadvantages.
>
> Well, let me give you an example:
>
> In the late 1990s, Gary Hall, Jr. was diagnosed with Type I diabetes
> mellitus. This was certainly natural, and was also a disadvantage, since
> it's hard to win an Olympic medal when you're in a diabetic coma. But he
> was allowed, in the 2000 and 2004 Olympics and in the 2008 Olympic trials,
> to compensate for his disadvantage by taking insulin injections.
> Bob
>
Bad example. A type one diabetic is not 'enhancing their performance' with
insulin, they are staying alive. Without insulin they would die, it is as
simple as that. Taking insulin does not make them swim any better than
someone with a normal pancreas who does not need insulin. it is not a
performance enhancer.
--
Duncan Heenan

<rbogue@phy.ilstu.edu> wrote in message
news:48769306-c8e3-42ec-b7fc-81c56d2bfa60@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 5, 5:14 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> No, quite the opposite. I've never heard of "level playing field" being
> extended
> to making up for natural physiological disadvantages.

Not in swimming, but it happens all the time in handicapped horse
racing. The faster horses are made to carry extra weight, in an
attempt to slow them down. The purpose is not to make a better race,
nor even a fairer race (whatever that means), but to encourage more
gambling.

It also happens in children's playground races. Smaller or slower
children are often given a head start. The purpose is again not to
make a fairer race (even though it's often discussed with such terms)
but to encourage more participation.

Neither of these cases seem to apply to Olympic swimming, though.


Ross

In the UK at least, weights are only added to horses saddle pockets to even
up the weights of the jockeys in handicapped races.
--
Duncan Heenan

MW Smith wrote:
> On Aug 6, 12:14 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> MW Smith wrote:
>>> On Aug 4, 11:54 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>> MW Smith wrote:
>>> I understand, but your position is opposed to the concept of the
>>> level playing field.
>>
>> No, quite the opposite. I've never heard of "level playing field"
>> being extended to making up for natural physiological disadvantages.
>
> Yes you have, if you are in the US. Title IX. But you missed the
> point. Allowing drugs doesn't _extend_ the level playing field,
> because the playing field is not level. Allowing drugs _levels_ the
> playing field.

What I had in mind was, for example, a swimming race or a foot race for
able-bodied athletes. The whole point of such competitions is to find the best
natural swimmer or runner. Most spectators don't want a Michael Phelps or an Ian
Thorpe to be brought back to the field by artificial means. They don't consider
the varying abilities of athletes in such events as being within the realm of
"level playing field".

>>> What you mean by "better athlete" is, effectively, the
>>> athlete with the better breeding. You mean that the athlete with the
>>> physiological advantage is the better athlete, which is not what
>>> most people mean when they use that term. The better athlete should
>>> be the one who puts in the most work to achieve the victory, the
>>> one who works hardest.
>>
>> No, I mean the combination. If you have natural athletic gifts you
>> still need to train. But, typically, dedicated athletes will do what
>> they and their coaches consider to be the best training possible, so
>> it's going to come back to breeding, determination and, for some
>> events, tactics.
>
> I agree, but the breeding component makes the playing field unlevel.
> Drugs nullify some of the breeding component and thereby have a
> leveling effect.
>
>>> Then by compete you simply mean "take part in the contest,"
>>
>> No, I mean take part in the contest _fairly_.
>
> But _fairly_ means according to _fair_ rules, and fair rules don't
> give an advantage to a subset of competitors.

Okay, suppose we do this. In your perfect world all competitors in a race have
had their abilities perfectly evened up by drugs. So a swimming race becomes
either an 8-way dead heat or a complete lottery as far as predicting the result
is concerned. What would be the point? What exactly is the race intended to
test? As a spectator, I want to see if a Thorpe can break another WR, or a
Phelps can win eight Olympic gold medals. I don't want races in which the
results are essentially a throw of the dice.

>>> which,
>>> again isn't what most people mean by compete. It's the kind of
>>> competing educators of the 70s and 80s meant children should do.
>>
>>> There is a kind of sailboat racing in which the two crews race in
>>> two identical boats. then they trade boats and race again. That's
>>> real sporting competition. The closest we can come to it in
>>> competitive swimming, since we can't trade bodies, is to allow
>>> everyone to use drugs that aid in achieving maximum physical
>>> potential.
>>
>> And what drugs do you propose that they use? Steroids? EPO? HGH?
>
> That's a separate question, but I don't see a need to specify the set
> of drugs. On the other hand, it would certainly solve most of the
> problem at this point to simply allow EPO.

Which is dangerous. You want athletes to be forced to risk their lives to have a
chance of winning?

>> Also, why do you think that if _all_ of them take drugs the athlete
>> with the best genes and training won't win by just as far as before?
>
> Ultimately he might, but his advantage due to breeding would be
> minimized, and the other components, training, attitude, effort, etc,
> would be maximized.

Evidence?

Duncan Heenan wrote:
>
>
> "Robert W. McAdams" <rwm@fambright.com> wrote in message
> news:4899F24F.1030903@fambright.com...
>
>> DavidW wrote:
>>
>>> MW Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 4, 11:54 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I understand, but your position is opposed to the concept of the level
>>>> playing field.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, quite the opposite. I've never heard of "level playing field"
>>> being extended to making up for natural physiological disadvantages.
>>
>>
>> Well, let me give you an example:
>>
>> In the late 1990s, Gary Hall, Jr. was diagnosed with Type I diabetes
>> mellitus. This was certainly natural, and was also a disadvantage,
>> since it's hard to win an Olympic medal when you're in a diabetic
>> coma. But he was allowed, in the 2000 and 2004 Olympics and in the
>> 2008 Olympic trials, to compensate for his disadvantage by taking
>> insulin injections.
>> Bob
>>
> Bad example. A type one diabetic is not 'enhancing their performance'
> with insulin, they are staying alive. Without insulin they would die, it
> is as simple as that. Taking insulin does not make them swim any better
> than someone with a normal pancreas who does not need insulin. it is not
> a performance enhancer.

If insulin is not a performance enhancing substance, then why is it on
the banned list? If it is a performance enhancing subtance, then how
can you be sure a Type I diabetic is not enhancing their performance by
using it?

But if your objection is that a Type I diabetic will die without it,
then what about a Type II diabetic who requires insulin to keep their
blood sugar at normal levels. If their blood sugar, without insulin, is
only somewhat high, they will probably not die without it (at least not
right away, though perhaps in the long run due to cardiovascular
problems). Should they be permitted to use it?

And what about an athlete with stage I hypertension who treats it with a
diuretic or beta blocker? They will probably not die anytime soon
without the drug if their hypertension is only stage I, but their
prognosis will be impaired. Should that be allowed? (Beta blockers,
btw, are only banned for certain sports, but assume for the sake of
argument that they are participating in one of those sports.) Again,
don't try to argue that the drug won't enhance performance, because if
that were true, why would it be on the banned list?

Of what if an athlete has low serum levels of DHEA (which is the case
for virtually everyone over the age of 40). Should they be allowed to
take DHEA supplements to bring their levels back up to normal? They
aren't likely to die anytime soon if they don't, but there are studies
suggesting that their health could be impaired in the long term if they
don't.


Bob

On Aug 2, 5:50 pm, Tim Howard <tim.how...@suddenlink.net> wrote:

> Some players complain of an "unfair
> advantage".  Well if someone chooses not to take something unharmful
> that would improve their performance, why should everyone else be forced
> to do that?  It kind of reminds me of that old sci-fi short story about
> the society where everyone was forced to be ugly and weighted down so
> the few ugly people would not feel bad about themselves.  No one was
> allowed to do anything to demonstrate their own greatness anymore.

Whose greatness, though - the athlete's or his pharmacist's?
Sure, genetics plays a role, as it does in everything, but only
partially.
Performance enhancing drugs effectively allow one to buy greatness.

Personally, I'd like to see performance enhancing drugs banned in all
competitive situations, not just athletic ones. How would you like to
lose out on a scholarship or admission to med school because someone
who's not as smart as you dosed up on Ritalin or Adderol for laser-
like focus on the PSAT's or MCAT's? In that case, society might
actually suffer in a way that counts.

"Robert W. McAdams" <rwm@fambright.com> wrote in message
news:489A4BB2.509@fambright.com...
> Duncan Heenan wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Robert W. McAdams" <rwm@fambright.com> wrote in message
>> news:4899F24F.1030903@fambright.com...
>>
>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>
>>>> MW Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 4, 11:54 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand, but your position is opposed to the concept of the level
>>>>> playing field.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, quite the opposite. I've never heard of "level playing field" being
>>>> extended to making up for natural physiological disadvantages.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, let me give you an example:
>>>
>>> In the late 1990s, Gary Hall, Jr. was diagnosed with Type I diabetes
>>> mellitus. This was certainly natural, and was also a disadvantage,
>>> since it's hard to win an Olympic medal when you're in a diabetic coma.
>>> But he was allowed, in the 2000 and 2004 Olympics and in the 2008
>>> Olympic trials, to compensate for his disadvantage by taking insulin
>>> injections.
>>> Bob
>>>
>> Bad example. A type one diabetic is not 'enhancing their performance'
>> with insulin, they are staying alive. Without insulin they would die, it
>> is as simple as that. Taking insulin does not make them swim any better
>> than someone with a normal pancreas who does not need insulin. it is not
>> a performance enhancer.
>
> If insulin is not a performance enhancing substance, then why is it on the
> banned list? If it is a performance enhancing subtance, then how can you
> be sure a Type I diabetic is not enhancing their performance by using it?
>
> But if your objection is that a Type I diabetic will die without it, then
> what about a Type II diabetic who requires insulin to keep their blood
> sugar at normal levels. If their blood sugar, without insulin, is only
> somewhat high, they will probably not die without it (at least not right
> away, though perhaps in the long run due to cardiovascular problems).
> Should they be permitted to use it?
>
> And what about an athlete with stage I hypertension who treats it with a
> diuretic or beta blocker? They will probably not die anytime soon without
> the drug if their hypertension is only stage I, but their prognosis will
> be impaired. Should that be allowed? (Beta blockers, btw, are only
> banned for certain sports, but assume for the sake of argument that they
> are participating in one of those sports.) Again, don't try to argue that
> the drug won't enhance performance, because if that were true, why would
> it be on the banned list?
>
> Of what if an athlete has low serum levels of DHEA (which is the case for
> virtually everyone over the age of 40). Should they be allowed to take
> DHEA supplements to bring their levels back up to normal? They aren't
> likely to die anytime soon if they don't, but there are studies suggesting
> that their health could be impaired in the long term if they don't.
>
>
> Bob

Drugs go on the banned list if their ABUSE can affect performance. Correct
use of medically necessary drugs is intended to return patients to the
normal range, not make them supernormal. Caffeine is also on the banned
list, if in sufficient quantities, as are all sorts of naturally occurring
body chemicals. Only an idiot would say that athletes should not be allowed
a normal intake of coffee, but doping up on it abnormally is what is wrong.
Where to draw the line of normality is a tricky issue and one only impartial
medical professionals should decide.
If you want to level the playing field with drugs, how about doping those
with good natural ability so they don't excel? It's a daft idea, but the
logical corollary of allowing under-performers to use enhancing drugs in the
name of a level playing field.
It's no good trying to justify cheating. It is still cheating, and that's
not what sport is for.
--
Duncan Heenan

On Aug 6, 3:15 pm, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> > So you can see why your argument is absurd. You are arguing for
> > abandoning all competition if the rules contain a single bad rule.
>
> No I am saying that rules are needed to regulate sport and make it
> worthwhile. You seem to be saying rules are pointless because they impinge
> on people without the necessary natural ability and application to win.

That's the second time you have deliberately misrepresented my
argument. Nothing in my argument implies rules are not needed. Nothing
in my argument implies rules are pointless. I have argued that the
rule prohibiting performance enhancing drugs is unsportsmanlike,
because sport is conducted on a "level playing field." A competition
where one subset of competitors has a built-in biological advantage is
not sport, because the playing field is not level. Or do you think we
really should do away with separate 100m races for men and women?

And now you are equating genetic superiority with necessary natural
ability. The last people to do that were executed at Nuremburg.

> It is your argument which is absurd, which could be why society does have rules
> for all sorts of things. Your way lies anarchy.

Anarchy is the absence of rules. Nowhere have I argued for the absence
of rules.

On Aug 6, 3:17 pm, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> The playing field is level, your argument applies to the players. Of course
> not everyone is equal. Finding the best, under a particular set of rules is
> one of the points of sport. making it in to a competition to see who can
> tolerate the most steroids is hardly something worth proving.

Well then let's prohibit performance enhancing food. It is the fact
that not everyone is genetically equal that is the problem now. It
wasn't a problem in sport 100 years ago, because everyone was
performing so far from their own, individual biological limits. Every
athlete could improve beyond the best of the day. That is no longer
true in swimming and athletics. The top swimmers are no longer the
top swimmers because they won their way to the top. They are the top
swimmers because of their breeding.

On Aug 6, 4:15 pm, rbo...@phy.ilstu.edu wrote:
> On Aug 5, 5:14 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>
>
> > No, quite the opposite. I've never heard of "level playing field" being extended
> > to making up for natural physiological disadvantages.
>
> Not in swimming, but it happens all the time in handicapped horse
> racing. The faster horses are made to carry extra weight, in an
> attempt to slow them down. The purpose is not to make a better race,
> nor even a fairer race (whatever that means), but to encourage more
> gambling.

Handicapped open water races are common in Australia. Or they were
when I lived there anyway.

On Aug 6, 8:57 pm, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> "Robert W. McAdams" <r...@fambright.com> wrote in messagenews:4899F24F.1030903@fambright.com...
>
> > DavidW wrote:
> >> MW Smith wrote:
>
> >>>On Aug 4, 11:54 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> >>>>MW Smith wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Aug 4, 2:11 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>It is difficult to prove that a given substance is not harmful in
> >>>>>>any way. Athletes should not be put in a position where they have
> >>>>>>to experiment on themselves in order to compete.
>
> >>>>By 'compete' here I mean not be at an ingested-substance
> >>>>disadvantage. I don't mean making up for physiological
> >>>>disadvantages. If you get beaten by a better athlete, tough.
>
> >>>I understand, but your position is opposed to the concept of the level
> >>>playing field.
>
> >> No, quite the opposite. I've never heard of "level playing field" being
> >> extended to making up for natural physiological disadvantages.
>
> > Well, let me give you an example:
>
> > In the late 1990s, Gary Hall, Jr. was diagnosed with Type I diabetes
> > mellitus. This was certainly natural, and was also a disadvantage, since
> > it's hard to win an Olympic medal when you're in a diabetic coma. But he
> > was allowed, in the 2000 and 2004 Olympics and in the 2008 Olympic trials,
> > to compensate for his disadvantage by taking insulin injections.
> > Bob
>
> Bad example. A type one diabetic is not 'enhancing their performance' with
> insulin, they are staying alive. Without insulin they would die, it is as
> simple as that. Taking insulin does not make them swim any better than
> someone with a normal pancreas who does not need insulin. it is not a
> performance enhancer.

How do you know it doesn't enhance performance? It certainly allows
him to train longer and harder, which is what most performance
enhancing drugs are used for. When I was competing, I drank a cup of
coffee shortly before a race. I don't have objective proof that it
enhanced my performance, but I certainly felt that it did. I also
always drank a glass of wine at bedtime the night before a big race,
so i would sleep better. That was definitely a performance enhancing
drug.

On Aug 7, 12:19 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> MW Smith wrote:
> > On Aug 6, 12:14 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> MW Smith wrote:
> >>> On Aug 4, 11:54 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >>>> MW Smith wrote:
> >>> I understand, but your position is opposed to the concept of the
> >>> level playing field.
>
> >> No, quite the opposite. I've never heard of "level playing field"
> >> being extended to making up for natural physiological disadvantages.
>
> > Yes you have, if you are in the US. Title IX. But you missed the
> > point. Allowing drugs doesn't _extend_ the level playing field,
> > because the playing field is not level. Allowing drugs _levels_ the
> > playing field.
>
> What I had in mind was, for example, a swimming race or a foot race for
> able-bodied athletes. The whole point of such competitions is to find the best
> natural swimmer or runner. Most spectators don't want a Michael Phelps or an Ian
> Thorpe to be brought back to the field by artificial means. They don't consider
> the varying abilities of athletes in such events as being within the realm of
> "level playing field".

Go to Adelaide, South Australia. There the masters open water races
are often handicap races.


> > But _fairly_ means according to _fair_ rules, and fair rules don't
> > give an advantage to a subset of competitors.
>
> Okay, suppose we do this. In your perfect world all competitors in a race have
> had their abilities perfectly evened up by drugs.

No, that's not my perfect world. In my perfect world, we would go back
to pure amateur competition. No swimmer would receive any money for
swimming, directly or indirectly, through product endorsements or
direct payments. Sponsorships by corporations would not be allowed.
The olympics would not sell advertising rights. The IOC would pay a
swimmer's coaching fees and pool fees if the swimmer couldn't afford
them. Any athlete who accepted money would be banned from amateur
competition.

> So a swimming race becomes
> either an 8-way dead heat or a complete lottery as far as predicting the result
> is concerned. What would be the point? What exactly is the race intended to
> test? As a spectator, I want to see if a Thorpe can break another WR, or a
> Phelps can win eight Olympic gold medals. I don't want races in which the
> results are essentially a throw of the dice.

Nor do I, but there are telling points here. You want to see Thorpe
break a world record. That has nothing to do with determining the
winner of a competition. And you want to see Phelps win all his races.
Winning one race really doesn't impress you. And nowhere do you
mention that these achievements will not impress you if the swimmer
used some performance enhancing substance somewhere along the way.
Because they _would_ impress you, just as much, but you have been
indoctrinated to say they would be meaningless if the swimmer used EPO
to be able to swim 70,000 meters a week.

> > That's a separate question, but I don't see a need to specify the set
> > of drugs. On the other hand, it would certainly solve most of the
> > problem at this point to simply allow EPO.
>
> Which is dangerous. You want athletes to be forced to risk their lives to have a
> chance of winning?

No, if it were dangerous, we would see athletes dropping dead all over
the world. We don't see that. So even using EPO without the advice of
a doctor is apparently safe. If it were made legal, it would become
even safer because doctors would manage it and drug companies would
test it for that purpose.

> >> Also, why do you think that if _all_ of them take drugs the athlete
> >> with the best genes and training won't win by just as far as before?
>
> > Ultimately he might, but his advantage due to breeding would be
> > minimized, and the other components, training, attitude, effort, etc,
> > would be maximized.
>
> Evidence?

Improvements in swimming world record are not linear.

If a drug is not harmfull, than we call it vitamin supplement and we
buy it at the groceries.

If there are such harmless enhancing drugs, what their names? Who are
using them so as to prove the harmless status?

On Aug 6, 6:27 am, MW Smith <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 11:39 pm, Nelson <ns_gar...@uol.com.br> wrote:
>
>
> I'm not so sure that "People don't want the use drugs." Certainly,
> those who have the advantage without them don't want them allowed. And
> parents who can't raise sensible children don't want their bad
> parenting exposed.

Well, that should be established with a poll. If most parents are as
bad as you are labeling them to strengthen your position, than we
still have people who don't want drugs.


> Then it makes sense to set the limits to minimize cheating. It makes
> sense to set the limits so that there is little need to break them to
> be the best.

The same economic/political pressures we see today in sports would
push athletes into unsafe dosages of "harmfull" known effective
enhancing drugs. With more drugs allowed, it is easier to cheat into
unsafe limits, not harder. If you say it is the athlete choice, it is
also the established choice to ban drug usage.

If we have two sport events, a drug free one versus a drug allowed
one, I bet most athletes will still go for the drug free one. Drug
usage makes sense when it gives the user an edge over everybody else.
Drug usage only make sense as cheating.

Nelson

On Aug 7, 4:13 pm, Nelson <ns_gar...@uol.com.br> wrote:

> The same economic/political pressures we see today in sports would
> push athletes into unsafe dosages of "harmfull" known effective
> enhancing drugs.

But there are no "economic/political pressures" in sport. Right? That
wouldn't be sport, right? Economic/political pressures would arise on
an uneven playing field. Right?

> With more drugs allowed, it is easier to cheat into
> unsafe limits, not harder. If you say it is the athlete choice, it is
> also the established choice to ban drug usage.

Well, yes, it is the established choice of some people. But then let's
go back to the established choices for the rules of swimming as of 100
years ago. Because they were the established choices. Think of all the
rule changes we will have to throw out.

> If we have two sport events, a drug free one versus a drug allowed
> one, I bet most athletes will still go for the drug free one. Drug
> usage makes sense when it gives the user an edge over everybody else.
> Drug usage only make sense as cheating.

Fine with me.
> Nelson

"MW Smith" <clipper.smith@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d8c7092-c65c-4d03-b70a-8ca3da173a26@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 6, 3:17 pm, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The playing field is level, your argument applies to the players. Of
>> course
>> not everyone is equal. Finding the best, under a particular set of rules
>> is
>> one of the points of sport. making it in to a competition to see who can
>> tolerate the most steroids is hardly something worth proving.
>
> Well then let's prohibit performance enhancing food. It is the fact
> that not everyone is genetically equal that is the problem now. It
> wasn't a problem in sport 100 years ago, because everyone was
> performing so far from their own, individual biological limits. Every
> athlete could improve beyond the best of the day. That is no longer
> true in swimming and athletics. The top swimmers are no longer the
> top swimmers because they won their way to the top. They are the top
> swimmers because of their breeding.
>
What rot! Name some Champion swimmers whose parents were also Champion
swimmers, and show a statistical correlation.
--
Duncan Heenan

On Aug 7, 6:43 pm, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6d8c7092-c65c-4d03-b70a-8ca3da173a26@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Aug 6, 3:17 pm, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> The playing field is level, your argument applies to the players. Of
> >> course
> >> not everyone is equal. Finding the best, under a particular set of rules
> >> is
> >> one of the points of sport. making it in to a competition to see who can
> >> tolerate the most steroids is hardly something worth proving.
>
> > Well then let's prohibit performance enhancing food. It is the fact
> > that not everyone is genetically equal that is the problem now. It
> > wasn't a problem in sport 100 years ago, because everyone was
> > performing so far from their own, individual biological limits. Every
> > athlete could improve beyond the best of the day. That is no longer
> > true in swimming and athletics. The top swimmers are no longer the
> > top swimmers because they won their way to the top. They are the top
> > swimmers because of their breeding.
>
> What rot! Name some Champion swimmers whose parents were also Champion
> swimmers, and show a statistical correlation.
> --
> Duncan Heenan

First, your demand for names of swimmers whose parents were champion
swimmers is a red herring, because I didn't claim it was a
requirement. Nevertheless, if I had the names and parental histories
of all elite swimmers for the last 50 years, I'm sure there would be a
positive correlation with the athletic ability of their parents. Or do
you really want to claim that dog, horse, and cattle breeding doesn't
work?

Nelson wrote:
> If a drug is not harmfull, than we call it vitamin supplement and we
> buy it at the groceries.

I hope you don't believe that there are no banned substances sold at
your local grocery store!


Bob

On Aug 7, 10:44 am, MW Smith <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But there are no "economic/political pressures" in sport. Right? That
> wouldn't be sport, right?

Good point. The NBA has been shown to be fixed in order to maximize
revenue. Most major professional sports are no longer sports, but
actually show business, The only difference between the NFL and the
WWE is that the WWE is honest about its role.
When sports become big entertainment, bread and circuses, then it's
no longer really about who's best, but about creating pathos for the
audience, to put butts in the seats and sell tickets and
advertising. Steroids in MLB are no more scandalous than the use of
silicone implants on Baywatch, or CGI in The Matrix. The question then
becomes, is the activity in question a sporting competition or a dog
and pony show for the gawkers? Look at triathlon becoming draftathlon
in order to make more compelling TV for the Olympics - performance
enhancing drugs are just another facet of the whoredom a sport
undertakes to gain an audience and recognition. A real sportsman
doesn't care if anyone is watching.

"MW Smith" <clipper.smith@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:57cca061-060a-42ec-9439-62d4d69eaeb6@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 7, 6:43 pm, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:6d8c7092-c65c-4d03-b70a-8ca3da173a26@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Aug 6, 3:17 pm, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> The playing field is level, your argument applies to the players. Of
>> >> course
>> >> not everyone is equal. Finding the best, under a particular set of
>> >> rules
>> >> is
>> >> one of the points of sport. making it in to a competition to see who
>> >> can
>> >> tolerate the most steroids is hardly something worth proving.
>>
>> > Well then let's prohibit performance enhancing food. It is the fact
>> > that not everyone is genetically equal that is the problem now. It
>> > wasn't a problem in sport 100 years ago, because everyone was
>> > performing so far from their own, individual biological limits. Every
>> > athlete could improve beyond the best of the day. That is no longer
>> > true in swimming and athletics. The top swimmers are no longer the
>> > top swimmers because they won their way to the top. They are the top
>> > swimmers because of their breeding.
>>
>> What rot! Name some Champion swimmers whose parents were also Champion
>> swimmers, and show a statistical correlation.
>> --
>> Duncan Heenan
>
> First, your demand for names of swimmers whose parents were champion
> swimmers is a red herring, because I didn't claim it was a
> requirement. Nevertheless, if I had the names and parental histories
> of all elite swimmers for the last 50 years, I'm sure there would be a
> positive correlation with the athletic ability of their parents. Or do
> you really want to claim that dog, horse, and cattle breeding doesn't
> work?

In other words you have absolutely no evidence to back up your ourlandish
claim. Face it MW, you're making it up.
Selective breeding may work, but you claimed it IS the reason why people are
chmpions, I quote you..... " The top swimmers are no longer the
>> > top swimmers because they won their way to the top. They are the top
>> > swimmers because of their breeding."

That statement is plainly crap. And now you've admitted it.

On Aug 8, 11:34 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:
> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:57cca061-060a-42ec-9439-62d4d69eaeb6@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 6:43 pm, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:6d8c7092-c65c-4d03-b70a-8ca3da173a26@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Aug 6, 3:17 pm, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >> The playing field is level, your argument applies to the players. Of
> >> >> course
> >> >> not everyone is equal. Finding the best, under a particular set of
> >> >> rules
> >> >> is
> >> >> one of the points of sport. making it in to a competition to see who
> >> >> can
> >> >> tolerate the most steroids is hardly something worth proving.
>
> >> > Well then let's prohibit performance enhancing food. It is the fact
> >> > that not everyone is genetically equal that is the problem now. It
> >> > wasn't a problem in sport 100 years ago, because everyone was
> >> > performing so far from their own, individual biological limits. Every
> >> > athlete could improve beyond the best of the day. That is no longer
> >> > true in swimming and athletics. The top swimmers are no longer the
> >> > top swimmers because they won their way to the top. They are the top
> >> > swimmers because of their breeding.
>
> >> What rot! Name some Champion swimmers whose parents were also Champion
> >> swimmers, and show a statistical correlation.
> >> --
> >> Duncan Heenan
>
> > First, your demand for names of swimmers whose parents were champion
> > swimmers is a red herring, because I didn't claim it was a
> > requirement. Nevertheless, if I had the names and parental histories
> > of all elite swimmers for the last 50 years, I'm sure there would be a
> > positive correlation with the athletic ability of their parents. Or do
> > you really want to claim that dog, horse, and cattle breeding doesn't
> > work?
>
> In other words you have absolutely no evidence to back up your ourlandish
> claim. Face it MW, you're making it up.
> Selective breeding may work, but you claimed it IS the reason why people are
> chmpions, I quote you..... " The top swimmers are no longer the

I'm sorry I confused you. I thought it was obvious I didn't mean
swimmers are being intentionally bred by swimming couples. Let me
clear it up for you. The swimmers who compete at the World
Championships and the Olympics have the genes for swimming.
I used the term "breeding." It has more than one meaning, and, of
course, you chose the wrong one.

breeding:

1. the mating and production of offspring by animals
2. the activity of controlling the mating and production of offspring
of animals

Every human being is the product of breeding, Duncan, by definition 1,
the definition I meant. And, in a population of 300 million people, a
few of the offspring of all those breeding couples, i.e., a few of the
offspring of that breeding, will have the best genes for swimming.

You can deny that all you want. Just know that your denial requires
that definition 2 doesn't produce champion race horses.

> >> > top swimmers because they won their way to the top. They are the top
> >> > swimmers because of their breeding."
>
> That statement is plainly crap. And now you've admitted it.

You should have kept your mouth shut.

MW Smith wrote:
> On Aug 7, 12:19 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> MW Smith wrote:
>>> On Aug 6, 12:14 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>> MW Smith wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 4, 11:54 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>> MW Smith wrote:
>>>>> I understand, but your position is opposed to the concept of the
>>>>> level playing field.
>>
>>>> No, quite the opposite. I've never heard of "level playing field"
>>>> being extended to making up for natural physiological
>>>> disadvantages.
>>
>>> Yes you have, if you are in the US. Title IX. But you missed the
>>> point. Allowing drugs doesn't _extend_ the level playing field,
>>> because the playing field is not level. Allowing drugs _levels_ the
>>> playing field.
>>
>> What I had in mind was, for example, a swimming race or a foot race
>> for able-bodied athletes. The whole point of such competitions is to
>> find the best natural swimmer or runner. Most spectators don't want
>> a Michael Phelps or an Ian Thorpe to be brought back to the field by
>> artificial means. They don't consider the varying abilities of
>> athletes in such events as being within the realm of "level playing
>> field".
>
> Go to Adelaide, South Australia. There the masters open water races
> are often handicap races.

Then they are of no interest to me.

>>> But _fairly_ means according to _fair_ rules, and fair rules don't
>>> give an advantage to a subset of competitors.
>>
>> So a swimming race becomes
>> either an 8-way dead heat or a complete lottery as far as predicting
>> the result is concerned. What would be the point? What exactly is
>> the race intended to test? As a spectator, I want to see if a Thorpe
>> can break another WR, or a Phelps can win eight Olympic gold medals.
>> I don't want races in which the results are essentially a throw of
>> the dice.
>
> Nor do I, but there are telling points here. You want to see Thorpe
> break a world record. That has nothing to do with determining the
> winner of a competition. And you want to see Phelps win all his races.
> Winning one race really doesn't impress you.

Yes it does. You've missed the point, which is that I appreciate outstanding
natural talent and athletic ability where it exists, but it's not a
requirement. If there isn't a Phelps or Thorpe towering over the rest of the
field in a particular race and it's close, that's great too.

> And nowhere do you
> mention that these achievements will not impress you if the swimmer
> used some performance enhancing substance somewhere along the way.

Then I'll mention it now.

> Because they _would_ impress you, just as much,

No, they wouldn't. The race would no longer be a contest of natural athleticism
and technique and would therefore be pointless.

> but you have been
> indoctrinated to say they would be meaningless if the swimmer used EPO
> to be able to swim 70,000 meters a week.

No, I haven't been indoctrinated to say anything. I've considered the issue and
given my own view. A race is a test of natural abilities. That's why I watch.

>>> That's a separate question, but I don't see a need to specify the
>>> set of drugs. On the other hand, it would certainly solve most of
>>> the problem at this point to simply allow EPO.
>>
>> Which is dangerous. You want athletes to be forced to risk their
>> lives to have a chance of winning?
>
> No, if it were dangerous, we would see athletes dropping dead all over
> the world.

A stupid statement. There's a continuum between no risk by not taking any and
"athletes dropping dead all over the world". EPO thickens the blood and
increases the risk of a heart attack, so it's likely that _some_ athletes would
die early.

> We don't see that. So even using EPO without the advice of
> a doctor is apparently safe. If it were made legal, it would become
> even safer because doctors would manage it and drug companies would
> test it for that purpose.
>
>>>> Also, why do you think that if _all_ of them take drugs the athlete
>>>> with the best genes and training won't win by just as far as
>>>> before?
>>
>>> Ultimately he might, but his advantage due to breeding would be
>>> minimized, and the other components, training, attitude, effort,
>>> etc, would be maximized.
>>
>> Evidence?
>
> Improvements in swimming world record are not linear.

That just means that comparisons of times should not be done linearly.
Obviously, taking one second off a 1-minute WR is more impressive than taking
one second off a 2-minute WR. The shorter the race time, the smaller the margin
by which it can be improved. You haven't demonstrated that, as a proportion of
race time, the best natural swimmer would not win by as far with EPO as without
it.

"MW Smith" <clipper.smith@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b33c633c-d530-4a42-b50b-45e6b596493c@v57g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 8, 11:34 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:57cca061-060a-42ec-9439-62d4d69eaeb6@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 7, 6:43 pm, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:6d8c7092-c65c-4d03-b70a-8ca3da173a26@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Aug 6, 3:17 pm, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> The playing field is level, your argument applies to the players.
>> >> >> Of
>> >> >> course
>> >> >> not everyone is equal. Finding the best, under a particular set of
>> >> >> rules
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> one of the points of sport. making it in to a competition to see
>> >> >> who
>> >> >> can
>> >> >> tolerate the most steroids is hardly something worth proving.
>>
>> >> > Well then let's prohibit performance enhancing food. It is the fact
>> >> > that not everyone is genetically equal that is the problem now. It
>> >> > wasn't a problem in sport 100 years ago, because everyone was
>> >> > performing so far from their own, individual biological limits.
>> >> > Every
>> >> > athlete could improve beyond the best of the day. That is no longer
>> >> > true in swimming and athletics. The top swimmers are no longer the
>> >> > top swimmers because they won their way to the top. They are the top
>> >> > swimmers because of their breeding.
>>
>> >> What rot! Name some Champion swimmers whose parents were also Champion
>> >> swimmers, and show a statistical correlation.
>> >> --
>> >> Duncan Heenan
>>
>> > First, your demand for names of swimmers whose parents were champion
>> > swimmers is a red herring, because I didn't claim it was a
>> > requirement. Nevertheless, if I had the names and parental histories
>> > of all elite swimmers for the last 50 years, I'm sure there would be a
>> > positive correlation with the athletic ability of their parents. Or do
>> > you really want to claim that dog, horse, and cattle breeding doesn't
>> > work?
>>
>> In other words you have absolutely no evidence to back up your ourlandish
>> claim. Face it MW, you're making it up.
>> Selective breeding may work, but you claimed it IS the reason why people
>> are
>> chmpions, I quote you..... " The top swimmers are no longer the
>
> I'm sorry I confused you. I thought it was obvious I didn't mean
> swimmers are being intentionally bred by swimming couples. Let me
> clear it up for you. The swimmers who compete at the World
> Championships and the Olympics have the genes for swimming.
> I used the term "breeding." It has more than one meaning, and, of
> course, you chose the wrong one.
>
> breeding:
>
> 1. the mating and production of offspring by animals
> 2. the activity of controlling the mating and production of offspring
> of animals
>
> Every human being is the product of breeding, Duncan, by definition 1,
> the definition I meant. And, in a population of 300 million people, a
> few of the offspring of all those breeding couples, i.e., a few of the
> offspring of that breeding, will have the best genes for swimming.
>
> You can deny that all you want. Just know that your denial requires
> that definition 2 doesn't produce champion race horses.
>
>> >> > top swimmers because they won their way to the top. They are the top
>> >> > swimmers because of their breeding."
>>
>> That statement is plainly crap. And now you've admitted it.
>
> You should have kept your mouth shut.

No, MW it is you who should think before going in to print. You didn't say
'breeding', you said 'selective breeding', which is very different. Anyway,
thanks for the admission that you are wrong. You are often full of crap, but
it's rare that you admit it.
--
Duncan Heenan

On Aug 9, 2:24 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> MW Smith wrote:
> > Go to Adelaide, South Australia. There the masters open water races
> > are often handicap races.
>
> Then they are of no interest to me.

Ok, but that's just your personal taste, which happens to be in a very
small minority.

Nor have I missed your point. My rebuttal has been based on your
point. BTW "natural talent" is redundant. Talent _is_ natural. I
understand that you appreciate talent. What you are talking about is
genetics. Talent here refers to breeding, and nothing more.
Effectively, you want the advantage to go to the swimmers who have to
do the least work to win. Effectively, you want the victory to go to
the swimmer who doesn't have to work as hard as the other swimmers,
because he was born that way.

> Yes it does. You've missed the point, which is that I appreciate outstanding
> natural talent and athletic ability where it exists, but it's not a
> requirement. If there isn't a Phelps or Thorpe towering over the rest of the
> field in a particular race and it's close, that's great too.

I'm sorry, but wanting to see Thorpe break a world record is not about
Thorpe competing with other swimmers.

> No, they wouldn't. The race would no longer be a contest of natural athleticism
> and technique and would therefore be pointless.

That's false. First, you can't put technique in there in any case.
Technique plays the same role whether a swimmer has used EPO or not.
Second, you have now switched from talent to athleticism. They aren't
the same. Talent is natural. Athleticism is developed by training.
There is no natural athleticism at the Olympics. All the athletes
there have trained for years, with or without the help of drugs. For a
swimmer to compete on natural athleticism, he would have to compete
without having trained at all.

> No, I haven't been indoctrinated to say anything. I've considered the issue and
> given my own view. A race is a test of natural abilities. That's why I watch.

You can't change the definition of a race to suit your argument.
Again, for a race to be a test of natural abilities, it would have to
be a race between competitors who have not trained for it at all,
since athleticism developed through training is not natural. Natural
means: existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by
humankind.

The strength, endurance, and skill developed in training is made and
caused by humankind, so it can't be natural.

> > No, if it were dangerous, we would see athletes dropping dead all over
> > the world.
>
> A stupid statement. There's a continuum between no risk by not taking any and
> "athletes dropping dead all over the world". EPO thickens the blood and
> increases the risk of a heart attack, so it's likely that _some_ athletes would
> die early.

No, because the thickening disappears after discontinuing use. And the
risk continuum you raised does not support your case, since the
continuum exists for virtually every aspect of our lives. Even
drinking water can cause death. Eating fat can cause death. EPO is
certainly less dangerous than driving in a car. Again, perhaps
thousands of athletes are using or have used EPO, without advice of a
physician, without any kind of monitoring, and yet we rarely hear of
deaths due to EPO use. We do hear of deaths due to drowning, so by
your risk continuum argument, we should ban swimming competitions
because they are dangerous.

> > Improvements in swimming world record are not linear.
>
> That just means that comparisons of times should not be done linearly.

It means that there is a fastest speed in the water for the human
species. Therefore, if all athletes are free to approach that limit,
with or without drugs, then races will become more even with respect
to the talent component, which will mean that the swimmer who trains
best and hardest and who develops the best technique by training will
win, which is true sporting competition.

> Obviously, taking one second off a 1-minute WR is more impressive than taking
> one second off a 2-minute WR. The shorter the race time, the smaller the margin
> by which it can be improved. You haven't demonstrated that, as a proportion of
> race time, the best natural swimmer would not win by as far with EPO as without
> it.

Yes, I have.

On Aug 9, 10:22 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:
> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> No, MW it is you who should think before going in to print. You didn't say
> 'breeding', you said 'selective breeding', which is very different. Anyway,
> thanks for the admission that you are wrong. You are often full of crap, but
> it's rare that you admit it.

The selective refers to natural selection, Duncan. You'll have to stop
feigning ignorance, or we will really have to assume you are ignorant.
If you can refute my argument, please do. Otherwise you just look like
the silly ass you got thrown out of the Channel Swimming Association.

"MW Smith" <clipper.smith@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4d17f4cd-ceb4-4188-a676-a2f21186aec8@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 9, 10:22 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> No, MW it is you who should think before going in to print. You didn't
>> say
>> 'breeding', you said 'selective breeding', which is very different.
>> Anyway,
>> thanks for the admission that you are wrong. You are often full of crap,
>> but
>> it's rare that you admit it.
>
> The selective refers to natural selection, Duncan. You'll have to stop
> feigning ignorance, or we will really have to assume you are ignorant.
> If you can refute my argument, please do. Otherwise you just look like
> the silly ass you got thrown out of the Channel Swimming Association.

You referred to selective breeding, giving the example of getting race
horses, not natural selection. They are not bred by natural selection. Admit
it Mr Smith you're just a rather inaccurate pedant who likes to move the
goalposts when he misses his shot.
As for what you know about Channel Swimming, I doubt it would fill a postage
stamp. When did you ever swim the Channel? As for the discredited CSA and
its dishonest President (Former Chairman), and its dishonest former
Secretary, I am well rid of them. By the way, swimming the Channel takes
more than breeding, selective or otherwise - it takes a lot of hard work,
and anyone found supplementing those factors with drugs is not recognised.
You see, in the real world there are losers as well as winners, and you
appear to be of the former. You just can't stand that there are people
better than you, can you Smiffy? Life is not a level playing field, that's
why all success needs hard work - not cheating. It was my aversion to
cheating which led to the fall-out with the commercially oriented CSA, who
wanted money at any cost to credibility.
--
Duncan Heenan

On Aug 9, 10:24 pm, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:
> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4d17f4cd-ceb4-4188-a676-a2f21186aec8@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 9, 10:22 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> No, MW it is you who should think before going in to print. You didn't
> >> say
> >> 'breeding', you said 'selective breeding', which is very different.
> >> Anyway,
> >> thanks for the admission that you are wrong. You are often full of crap,
> >> but
> >> it's rare that you admit it.
>
> > The selective refers to natural selection, Duncan. You'll have to stop
> > feigning ignorance, or we will really have to assume you are ignorant.
> > If you can refute my argument, please do. Otherwise you just look like
> > the silly ass you got thrown out of the Channel Swimming Association.
>
> You referred to selective breeding, giving the example of getting race
> horses, not natural selection. They are not bred by natural selection. Admit
> it Mr Smith you're just a rather inaccurate pedant who likes to move the
> goalposts when he misses his shot.

No, Duncan, I was referring to the _fact_ that genetics works, not
that some evil genius is forcing swimmers to mate. And it was obvious
to you that's what I was talking about. You saw my argument was valid,
and you couldn't refute it, so now you are attacking me instead of my
argument, like you always do.

> As for what you know about Channel Swimming, I doubt it would fill a postage
> stamp. When did you ever swim the Channel? As for the discredited CSA

Sorry, the CSA was _not_ discredited. _You_ were discredited.

"MW Smith" <clipper.smith@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:84e1fa87-2f1d-4bdd-95bd-3b7d6dcff83e@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 9, 10:24 pm, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4d17f4cd-ceb4-4188-a676-a2f21186aec8@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 9, 10:22 am, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk>
>> > wrote:
>> >> "MW Smith" <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> No, MW it is you who should think before going in to print. You didn't
>> >> say
>> >> 'breeding', you said 'selective breeding', which is very different.
>> >> Anyway,
>> >> thanks for the admission that you are wrong. You are often full of
>> >> crap,
>> >> but
>> >> it's rare that you admit it.
>>
>> > The selective refers to natural selection, Duncan. You'll have to stop
>> > feigning ignorance, or we will really have to assume you are ignorant.
>> > If you can refute my argument, please do. Otherwise you just look like
>> > the silly ass you got thrown out of the Channel Swimming Association.
>>
>> You referred to selective breeding, giving the example of getting race
>> horses, not natural selection. They are not bred by natural selection.
>> Admit
>> it Mr Smith you're just a rather inaccurate pedant who likes to move the
>> goalposts when he misses his shot.
>
> No, Duncan, I was referring to the _fact_ that genetics works, not
> that some evil genius is forcing swimmers to mate.

It was not what you said.

> And it was obvious
> to you that's what I was talking about. You saw my argument was valid,
> and you couldn't refute it, so now you are attacking me instead of my
> argument, like you always do.

It was not obvious that you meant something quite different from what you
said. my powers on find reading are not that good.

>> As for what you know about Channel Swimming, I doubt it would fill a
>> postage
>> stamp. When did you ever swim the Channel? As for the discredited CSA
>
> Sorry, the CSA was _not_ discredited. _You_ were discredited.

I was discredited? How, pray? Explain, or are we all to read you mind again,
Smiffy?
A with you, I would not accept rubbish without pointing out it is rubbish.
The CSA had no taste for the truth. I was only one of many who parted with
the CSA at the time - including the King and Queen of the Channel.
--
Duncan Heenan

MW Smith wrote:
> On Aug 9, 2:24 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> MW Smith wrote:
>>> Go to Adelaide, South Australia. There the masters open water races
>>> are often handicap races.
>>
>> Then they are of no interest to me.
>
> Ok, but that's just your personal taste, which happens to be in a very
> small minority.

Really? I had no idea that handicap swimming races were insanely popular.

> Nor have I missed your point. My rebuttal has been based on your
> point. BTW "natural talent" is redundant. Talent _is_ natural. I
> understand that you appreciate talent. What you are talking about is
> genetics. Talent here refers to breeding, and nothing more.
> Effectively, you want the advantage to go to the swimmers who have to
> do the least work to win. Effectively, you want the victory to go to
> the swimmer who doesn't have to work as hard as the other swimmers,
> because he was born that way.

Are you suggesting that Michael Phelps doesn't work as hard as other swimmers?
In any case, I wasn't aware that an appreciation of talent was so unusual. I
thought that throughout recorded human history those with exceptional talent
have been lauded by the people, whether they were athletes, military leaders,
chess players or anything else. Pardon me for being normal in this respect.

>> Yes it does. You've missed the point, which is that I appreciate
>> outstanding natural talent and athletic ability where it exists, but
>> it's not a requirement. If there isn't a Phelps or Thorpe towering
>> over the rest of the field in a particular race and it's close,
>> that's great too.
>
> I'm sorry, but wanting to see Thorpe break a world record is not about
> Thorpe competing with other swimmers.

Yes, it is, since if you use drugs to even up the field a Thorpe-like talent
will not dominate as he did in his career.

>> No, they wouldn't. The race would no longer be a contest of natural
>> athleticism and technique and would therefore be pointless.
>
> That's false. First, you can't put technique in there in any case.
> Technique plays the same role whether a swimmer has used EPO or not.

The point is that technique is natural to a large extent. EPO is not.

> Second, you have now switched from talent to athleticism. They aren't
> the same. Talent is natural. Athleticism is developed by training.
> There is no natural athleticism at the Olympics. All the athletes
> there have trained for years, with or without the help of drugs. For a
> swimmer to compete on natural athleticism, he would have to compete
> without having trained at all.

Uh, that's a lot of nonsense. Some people's bodies are built better for
athletic activities than others. It makes a difference.

>> No, I haven't been indoctrinated to say anything. I've considered
>> the issue and given my own view. A race is a test of natural
>> abilities. That's why I watch.
>
> You can't change the definition of a race to suit your argument.

I haven't.

> Again, for a race to be a test of natural abilities, it would have to
> be a race between competitors who have not trained for it at all,
> since athleticism developed through training is not natural. Natural
> means: existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by
> humankind.
>
> The strength, endurance, and skill developed in training is made and
> caused by humankind, so it can't be natural.

Wow. And I thought that running was a natural movement for human beings. How
incredible that we each developed that ability and nature has nothing to do
with it.

You do a lot of quibbling. That's what happens when you have a poor argument.

>>> No, if it were dangerous, we would see athletes dropping dead all
>>> over the world.
>>
>> A stupid statement. There's a continuum between no risk by not
>> taking any and "athletes dropping dead all over the world". EPO
>> thickens the blood and increases the risk of a heart attack, so it's
>> likely that _some_ athletes would die early.
>
> No, because the thickening disappears after discontinuing use.

And so does the advantage of using it. The blood is thicker because there are
more red blood cells to carry oxygen. If you don't have the extra thickness you
don't have the extra oxygen.

> And the
> risk continuum you raised does not support your case, since the
> continuum exists for virtually every aspect of our lives. Even
> drinking water can cause death. Eating fat can cause death.

Then don't eat it. That's the difference. You have a choice about what you eat,
but if you allow drugs you don't have a choice about taking them if you want to
compete.

> EPO is
> certainly less dangerous than driving in a car. Again, perhaps
> thousands of athletes are using or have used EPO, without advice of a
> physician, without any kind of monitoring, and yet we rarely hear of
> deaths due to EPO use. We do hear of deaths due to drowning, so by
> your risk continuum argument, we should ban swimming competitions
> because they are dangerous.

Okay, so it's open slather then. Would 50% deaths by EPO be okay with you? How
about 80%? What do you regard as an acceptable death rate?

>>> Improvements in swimming world record are not linear.
>>
>> That just means that comparisons of times should not be done
>> linearly.
>
> It means that there is a fastest speed in the water for the human
> species.

No, there is a fastest speed that any individual can reach under the best
conditions, and that speed varies widely from one individual to another.