Kenny Croxdale wrote:
One of the most interesting part of the article is, "There's a potentially dangerous drug out there of which you should be made aware. It can cause damage to the gastrointestinal system (gastric mucosal bleeding) and lead to ulcers even when used at very low dosages. This drug was implicated in death by medical examiners 101 times in 1998 and led to 12,815 hospital visits in that same year. In short, this stuff could kill you… and you probably have some in your medicine cabinet right now! The name of this potential killer? Aspirin."
I'm sure that wold be made illegal to if it gave people an 'unfair' advantage.
Nothing in life is fair. If we were all created equal, I'd be making a few million a year playing in the National Football League...doing Nike commercials.
So, it is UNfair that I don't have the right genetics to play pro ball.
It is UNfair that my parents weren't rich.
I'd rather inherit my money than work for it.
I think this is a very good point. This is similar to what stumps me about the 'steroids in sport' debate.
I think I first started thinking about this after reading a TC article on T-nation.
Basically, how do you define 'performance enhancement'?
There are many things that enhance an athletes performance, as TC mentioned (i've not found the article yet), even a cup of coffee can enhance performance.
For example, you have "Athlete A" and "Athlete B". Imagine that Athlete A is established with good sponsors etc and can easily afford every supplement under the sun... But Athlete B is an up-and-comer, scraping by just to compete, and can barely afford any supplements at all. So, athlete A is competing against athlete B with the 'advantage' of lot's of good performance enhancing supplements.
Would athlete A have a fair, or unfair advantage?
An obvious answer is - "fair" simply because athlete A isn't doing anything wrong, or illegal. But everyone on this forum should know that a smart choice of various legal supplements can make a significant difference to performance.
I'm not saying i'm 'pro steroids', just some food for thought....
The extremely genetically disadvantaged people out their have my sympathy, too. They have a disadvantage to most people which can't be overcome because they would be breaking the law. And the law has been 'wrong' before, certainly over here anyway, it's always subject to change. not that i think there's a chance in hell steroids would be legalised but clearly there's people who think that the law is the 'be all and end all'. As it turns out, the law or the goverment don't actually seem to know much about steroids.
But on the other side of the fence, if steroids were legal, these genetically disadvantaged guys are still going to be faced with the same problem? Unless they can take more than the the genetically gifted, or the genetically gifted aren't aloud to take any (or maybe I have naive understanding of how they work).
Which goes back to TC's theory that maybe their should be a certain amount of Test that everyone is aloud. So if you happen to fall short on test levels, then you go off to the docs and even the score. Similarly, if you already have a high level of Test, you wouldn't be able to get any (in a very ideal world), so your on a more level playing field (in theory).
One thing I do agree on 100% is that the debate could actually go on forever, as has already been said.