Is "doping" cheating and how much cheating is cheating anyway...

[CvilleFencer]

I figure I am going to get some grief over this, but I have tried to understand the other viewpoints before and have never quite gotten it. Maybe others on the board can help me make sense of it.

Okay, there is a huge list of banned substance's that could potentially enhance your performance by some degree or another. The list seems to get bigger every month. However the list has so much on it that many of the items are very common in going about most of our everyday lives that it is very easy to run afoul of these regs should you be tested. You almost need a full time team to make sure you and your teammates are in compliance. Oh wait, most colleges governing sports bodies (not including High Schools and some teams) already have those.

Okay, so illegal substances I can get. I agree with that. What I don't get are the drugs/therapies/processes that are legal that are "banned" substances for most sports. Sure we have all heard the stories about a top athlete that takes an over the counter pill because they have a cold or some such and gets booted, fined, stripped of medals whatever. I don't even want to touch on that cause I think most people feel that is bull****. I want to take the question a bit further and break it into two parts.

The first question is what should be an "unfair" advantage? Legal steroids administered/monitored by a doctor, certain pain killers, blood doping, all these are considered horrible things that give someone an unfair advantage. If you are aware of the risks and you chose to take these advantages that are legal and available to all competitors, why are they so bad? Also I am unclear where the line is drawn.

Lets take a non-fencing sport and talk about target shooting. Is wearing glasses to correct your vision and unfair advantage? Most people would say no. How about some of the laser and other surgeries out there that can actually improve your vision well beyond 20/20? Is there a difference? Lets say you have three shooters. Bob is born with excellent, much better than average long range vision. Tom was born close to legally blind, but can see and shoot with glasses. After surgery he no longer needs glasses and now has perfect 20/20 vision, but still not as good as Bob. Sam was born with 20/20 vision and had a surgery to increase his long range vision to equal or surpass that of Bob.

Is Sam a cheater? If so why? Tom had a similar surgery. Is he also a cheater? And what about Bob. Bob was born with an advantage that most competitors do not have. Why would he not have to have corrective lens to bring his level of play down to the common denominator? Does Bob not have an unfair advantage?

My second question is about the use of performance enhancing drugs/treatments/etc. Lets get back to fencing. Here we have James, Tom and Scott. All three train hard and are decent fencers. Lets say they even train the same amount of time and at the same club. Tom trains in the normal way, lessons, footwork, open fencing etc. Scott trains the same but in addition he diets heavily to keep his weight down, takes tons of vitamins and is rarely without some type of power bar or sports drink. In addition to all this he trains heavily in both yoga and polymetrics to increase his speed and flexibility. James likes his chemicals. He is on a doctor approved (but banned) diet drug to control his weight, uses doctor supplied and administered steroids to build muscle mass and power and increases the amount of blood in his system by a transfusion before every big tourney. In addition to all that he also does the same footwork/drills/training as Scott and Tom.

Most people would say that James is the cheater here, but I still don't understand why. All three fencers are looking to gain an advantage. Tom by traditional means, Scott by light chemical and advanced sports science and James by straight science. All the options mentioned are available to all three fencers, all are legal (I think...), and all or more or less safe or at least they are aware of the risks (I hesitate to say any training regime, doctor proscribed medicine, food or sport is totally safe). Help me out here guys. Explain it to me.

[keith]

The line is of course arbitrary but James is breaching the rules blatantly, Scott probably is depending on what is actually in the supplements and how much he takes (yes Mr Christie it was just a gingseng extract).

[kalivor]

It's a game. In games, there are rules. Some of these rules tell you what drugs you can and cannot have in your system to improve your performance.

If you take one of these drugs, you are breaking the rules, hence cheating.

[Elemental]

Quick tangent question:

Do people actually get blood transfusions before performance events? I've never heard of such a thing but it sounds so bizzar that it just might be true.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Elemental

Quick tangent question:

Do people actually get blood transfusions before performance events? I've never heard of such a thing but it sounds so bizzar that it just might be true.

It is true, boosts the Oxygen carrying capacity buy uping red blood cells - drugs like Erythropoietin do the same thing.

The test is very low tech; draw a blood sample and spin it in a hematocrit (little capilary tube), and you get a measure of red blood cell content. Above a certain amount and you are deemed to have cheated.

Note that altitude training will also help boost red blood cell count - but that is legal.

[Elemental]

Originally Posted by keith

It is true, boosts the Oxygen carrying capacity buy uping red blood cells - drugs like Erythropoietin do the same thing.

The test is very low tech; draw a blood sample and spin it in a hematocrit (little capilary tube), and you get a measure of red blood cell content. Above a certain amount and you are deemed to have cheated.

Note that altitude training will also help boost red blood cell count - but that is legal.

Due they have a way of telling if the increased blood red blood cell count is from a transfusion or from altitude training?

[keith]

Originally Posted by Elemental

Due they have a way of telling if the increased blood red blood cell count is from a transfusion or from altitude training?

nope, the thing about blood doping is that its your own blood they put back in you - they take a pint or two out and store it. So your body naturally recovers its normal blood content and you can then just top off immediately prior to the event with the stored material.

Which is why the red blood cell mass test is the only one that is reliable. Especially since Erythropoietin doesn't hang around very long in the system.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

the NCAA supports the use of Ritalin for "student-athletes" with ADD or ADHD. the USFA, however, does not.

I assume (which may or may not be true- oiuyt??) that all collegiate conferences that are made up of club and varsity schools just officially follow all usfa procedures, and the usfa officially uses the doping policies of the olympics, and thus... most of the collegiate competitions i engage in, i OFFICIALLY can't have used Ritalin for the past two weeks beforehand, even in a non-fencing context....

interesting dilemma, no?

i can fence legally, and fail out of college. i can fence having taken ritalin for school but not fencing. i can fence having taken ritalin................


of course, most of the time i intend to take ritalin, i forget anyway..............

[bjacobs]

As far as the immorality of doping...steroids, dr. supervised or not, can have negative side effects or be outright dangerous. If steroids have an impact in performance, allowing people to use them essentially punishes people who aren't willing to sacrifice their health in this way, as they may not be able to be competitive with the juicers.

But there are a lot of fine lines and tricky questions raised by CvlleFencer that I have no good way to answer at all.

[CvilleFencer]

Originally Posted by keith

The line is of course arbitrary but James is breaching the rules blatantly, Scott probably is depending on what is actually in the supplements and how much he takes (yes Mr Christie it was just a gingseng extract).

I guess my point is not which of the examples is against the letter of the current rule. The is easy enough. My point however has more to do with the "why" is this a rule and why do so many people feel so passionately about it. I have asked the question many times before and I get canned answers that are essentially soundbites such as "it is an unfair advantage" or "but doing that has health risks". I am more interested in hearing the reason, the moral justification if you will, that colleges, high schools, pro and amateur sports, governments, etc spend such a huge amount of money on this issue and even more importantly why it is so universally considered wrong or bad.

[CvilleFencer]

Originally Posted by kalivor

It's a game. In games, there are rules. Some of these rules tell you what drugs you can and cannot have in your system to improve your performance.

If you take one of these drugs, you are breaking the rules, hence cheating.

Sorry, don't by that. The FIE could pass a rule that says for a fencer to compete he must worship Rene Roach as his one true god above all others and pay homage to his effigy at every event. It would be a rule, and you would be a cheater if you did not comply. Regardless of rather or not the rule is right, fair, just, correct or even makes any sense. (I think that one is coming up before the FIE congress this term by the way...)

For years blacks could not play sports, or at least with whites. Women could not play many sports at all. Hell a lot of sports still don't allow women to play with the men. Way to many players back in the day used the copout of "that's just the rules" or "that’s how the game is played". People asking and demanding hard answers to questions are how things got changed and how the unjustness and lack of moral foundation for the rules got exposed, talked about and eventually changed.

Now I am not comparing this issue to those in terms of severity or unjustness but I use that example as to why I don't by the "if the rules say the whole team gets to bang your sister in the dugout and you don't like the whole team banging your sister, don't play the game" sort of answer. I think it is a bit to toleration for my tastes. I want to know "Why" something is wrong. Not because it is written on a piece of paper but the Walt Whitman sort of "Why". Hell I would settle for the Tom Sawyer sort of "Why"!

[mrbiggs]

I think it'd be interesting to have athletes allowed to use whatever drugs they want. It's still an even playing field, it's just that instead of no drugs, they'd all have alot of drugs.

But then they'd all kill themselves, and that wouldn't be good.

So screw James.

[CvilleFencer]

Originally Posted by bjacobs

As far as the immorality of doping...steroids, dr. supervised or not, can have negative side effects or be outright dangerous. If steroids have an impact in performance, allowing people to use them essentially punishes people who aren't willing to sacrifice their health in this way, as they may not be able to be competitive with the juicers.

Have you seen the mortality and injury rates for jogging (for fun compare them to fatality and injury rates for legal supervised steroid use. Not the old days and not with the High School jocks shooting up horse steroids but legal, modern supervised sports medicine steroid used. It may surprise you, even adjusted for per capita participants…)? Jogging can have very negative side effects to your health, exacerbate many medical conditions and be outright dangerous. Moreover I have an internal prosthetic. I can't run (well I can but it hurts like hell and tends to bleed and lay me up for a day or so...), hence I can't compete with the joggers. Why isn't jogging on the list of things banned. It is legal of course (generally speaking). It is safe enough if done with professional instruction/supervision and joggers know the risk. It gives a marked improvement in certain levels of performance over people who do not jog. Why isn't jogging banned?

I don't really get the "doing X can be dangerous and if I don't do X it should be banned" argument. Take for example this. A few very high level coaches in the US do not use masks or full kit when they give lessons or require them for students. This is potentially very dangerous. If I am not willing to risk some old guy poking my eye out I can't train under his system. Should no one be allowed to train with him? What if it can be scientifically proven that training with him gives a performance bonus for most athletes? Not the best example but it is very late. I feel if you are willing to take the risks for pretty much any training regime or technique that can harm no one other than yourself you should be allowed to do so. I could quite my job, ditch my life and wife and go train five days a week in NYC or some other big center of fencing. Just because I am not willing to and it is not a very good idea from certain points of view does not mean you should be banned from fencing if you chose to do so. I just don't get it.

[CvilleFencer]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I think it'd be interesting to have athletes allowed to use whatever drugs they want. It's still an even playing field, it's just that instead of no drugs, they'd all have alot of drugs.

Not a bad idea... Make some common sense rules that exclude the obviously stupid dangerous things like arsenic and mainlining potassium. I think that might be the best way. Better than having athletes with conditions that can be treated by very simple medication, often even OTC meds, pushing themselves to compete without those needed meds and then risking injury because that drug made it onto a banned list.

But then they'd all kill themselves, and that wouldn't be good.

Now there we go with the sound bite knee jerk reaction crap. Justify this statement please. I think, and while I don't have any numbers in front of me to back it up I still feel it to be true, that the vast majority of injuries/deaths like you are speaking of come from athletes trying to "self medicate" because of the social stigma they would face from family/friends and the official reaction they would get from coaches/teammates etc. The way to keep it safe is to have it done by professionals. Just ask the Italian bike and running teams or MLB. They manage to be fairly safe and not get caught for a long time! And look at what even the little bit that could be squeaked by the existing rules gave us. Great players improving themselves even more by embracing new science and technology to improve themselves.

[Araznal]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

But then they'd all kill themselves, and that wouldn't be good.

Killing yourself by steroids is much harder than you think. It takes a complete idiot who has no knowledge of his body chemistry to overdose on it. I mean look at anabolic steroids; it's a synthetic for testoterone. Yes it's dangerous, and I disagree with its use in sports, but this overreaction is a major problem.

What's next? Ban sudafed because it dilates the blood vessels? Then you can say the same for ALL sympathetic drugs...

"Gary Sheffield was accused today of taking and Aspirin. The baseball player denied the charges, but after being questioned in the Supreme Court, admitted that he had a stroke and was given Aspirin without his permission."

[Fencergrl]

Okay… it’s late and I’m tired too… but I’ll take a shot…

We are talking about competition here... not banned substances in sports. No one cares if somebody wants to enhance their performance if they are not competing. If we open it up and allow athletes to use whatever science can create to enhance their performance, in the end, who’s really competing here the athletes or the scientists?

I admit, some banned substances are odd… Ross Regliatti (sp?) from Whistler and all the controversy because some small amount of marijuana was found… I can’t imagine that would be a benefit! Same with alcohol… or even cold meds, or Ritalin (mentioned above).

That’s the problem with creating rules. It’s hard to determine where the line should be drawn. There’s a lot of gray areas.

I don’t think it’s a bad idea to try and prevent doping. The trouble is, it still comes down to a battle of science. Instead of “How do we improve performance” they ask “how do we improve performance and not get caught”.

Okay your next question is “What’s wrong with improving performance?”. Working hard, eating well is about the athlete working to improve their performance. Having a scientist come up with some magic juice doesn’t sit right with me. It’s hard to articulate as I am really tired… I think most people understand it’s cheating.

You’ve asked an interesting question Cvl… I’m not doing much better than anyone else in answering WHY is it wrong??? I would like sport competitions to be about athletic performance, not chemical performance.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by CvilleFencer

Now there we go with the sound bite knee jerk reaction crap. Justify this statement please. I think, and while I don't have any numbers in front of me to back it up I still feel it to be true, that the vast majority of injuries/deaths like you are speaking of come from athletes trying to "self medicate" because of the social stigma they would face from family/friends and the official reaction they would get from coaches/teammates etc. The way to keep it safe is to have it done by professionals. Just ask the Italian bike and running teams or MLB. They manage to be fairly safe and not get caught for a long time! And look at what even the little bit that could be squeaked by the existing rules gave us. Great players improving themselves even more by embracing new science and technology to improve themselves.

I can't say that I'm an expert on steroids, but from what I've heard, they are in general bad for you. By "kill themselves," I didn't mean immediately, but in the long run. I don't think it would be good if atheltes consistantly lived for a shorter period of time than non-athletes.

But as I said, I'm not an expert on steroids, and I'm only commenting based on third-person information. To be honest, I don't think steroids should be illegal if they're safe.

[HDG]

What's the rule about breathing pure oxygen before competing, or even between bouts or b/w periods in a DE?