What is wrong with PEDs? (Page 2)

Mostly cellulose. THC, that is a drug.

Get outta my way dammit!!!  

O........................kay.

Sorry, weed still has a squirrel like effect on me.

Last season I wrote "you know you want one" with a sharpie on my transition bucket......next season I'm writing, "don't test me bro".  

Read the labels of 99% of what you buy in the supermarket and tell me whether any of that is "food" by your definition.  If you only eat organic meats and produce, and drink "pure" drinks, then perhaps you are clean.  

I guess most of us are dopers.

Based on your prior post, you really need to re-use your definition of PEDs.

Gels are NOT drugs. Gatorade is NOT a drug.

You can use the FDA's guidelines of what a drug and what isn't. There is a grazy zone yes, but not really for the things that are used as true PEDs.

Your misconception of what "PED" means will lead folks to think you're making some pretty crazy statements about the sport, like the one above about "nothing inherently wrong with PEDs" in triathlon. 

GatorDeb: are you confusing Ped's Performance enhancing DRUGS with performance enhancing substances ?

Gels, gatorade fall more in the category of ergogenic aid.....technically steroids are also an ergogenic aids and a PED but Gatorade/gels etc are not PED's 

I agree with the one poster that it becomes an arms race.  However, there's a gray area.  Because to an extent, I don't see the harm.  Steroids and testosterone and part of many healthy, doctor prescribed drug regimens.  I had an eye infection last year that I needed a prescribed steroid solution to fix.

Yes, it's the nature of sports to push our boundaries.  It's a matter of artifical vs natural pushing though.  When it comes to getting healthy after an accident or injury, those steriods and testosterone supplements are understandable due to the nature of the situation.  But when it comes to a situation where there's nothing 'wrong' with you, it becomes more of an almost idealist mindset that makes doping cheating.

That being said, when you get older and the body naturally starts to get weaker, I see nothing wrong with someone taking PEDs in order to do things like Ironman.  Though, if that person then competed against someone in a race and in a field where everyone else was not doping, the doper should not be eligible for any awards or, say, Kona slots.

My opinions on doping change from situation to situation.  I don't have a black-and-white view on the topic.

You all are missing the point of the OP.

According to my pal Benji Durden, when he ran competitively in the 70's, marathons rules prohibited aid to runners before mile 10.  So if someone handed you a water or a banana before then, YOU had an unfair competitive advantage.  Now that rule is changed.  So if you take a gel at mile 3, and someone else does NOT, you may have an advantage, but everyone had the same opportunity.

So, to return to his question:

What would be wrong with all PED being used if they were distributed by screened, ethical (not East German) doctors to athletes and folks that wanted them?

There are a shipload of PED that are legal.  Caffeine, taurine, protein, creatine.  

Why do we race without using the full advantage of medical technology.  If we applied the same thinking to our EQUIPMENT as we do PED, we'd  still be biking on 20 lb steel road bikes and running in canvas Converse high-tops.

It does seems like we (the triathlon community) are in a constant search for an 'advantage' over the competition.  It has driven us to pay ridiculous amounts of money for a bicycle so we capture every weight reduction advanatage and every aerodynamic adcantage.  If wet suits are legal, everyone (except me) will wear one to capture the buoyancy advantage! We study race day nutrion and make special mixtures to have the best nutritional advantage.  Some people train in the mountains to increase their VO2 max to gain an advantage. 

So why draw the line with drugs giving us an advantage?  IF (big if) drugs can be monitored by a medical doctor then why not?  Money?  That can't be it becuase everyone can't afford a $10k bike or afford to tain in the mountains or even buy a wetsuit.   

I did my first IM with a herniated disc.  I was given a steriod pack the week before the race.  Had we been tested for drugs, presumably I'd of been disqualified.  This has nothing to do with the thread, I just threw it in as lagniappe for no additional cost.

Most glucose you eat is processed, which means it's a drug? That's your energy source from lettuce or a cow.

That goes even beyond the vegan/paleo leap...

I think we'll see almost everyone on HGH as it gets cheaper. Improves eyesight, reverses a lot of signs of aging, minimal known cons. I don't mind the idea of allowing some PED in pro sports, but as mentioned it would run down to the kids. I don't want a 11 year old gymnast having to take drugs to compete.

It would be a Dr. race instead of a athlete's race.

What do u think Ferrari was so popular? He was working with the same drugs as the other docs/athletes but he got the protocol down to science!

I don't disagree with a lot that you've said/questioned.  But, the fact is, there are lines drawn--some for somewhat arbitrary reasons (eg, De Soto's Water Rover wetsuit being declared illegal, no disc wheels at Kona, etc. and many sports have very specific equipment rules).  For PEDs, I don't think many sporting bodies wants to actively encourage people to take unknown medical/health risks in order to compete.  Some segment of participants/sponsors would be actively turned away--something else they don't generally want to occur.  So they set up rules that allow for some of them in select circumstances (eg, caffiene or TUEs) and some of them, not at all.  There may be some form of 'ethics' at the root of the decision but, when it comes down to it, it's a business decision.  Allowing the use of PEDs is bad business.  Unless/until that changes, they will continue to not be allowed.  Which makes using them 'cheating'.  Thus, 'wrong'.

That's an abridged version of my $0.02 on the topic.

One could make the same case for bikes and claim it's a Bike Manufacturer race.  ;-) 

But seriously, you make a valid point....it would be doctors 'experimenting' with clients trying to come up with the optimal drug coctail.

It is a great question raised by Rogillio.

I posted this somewhere else, but hopefully it'll add something to the thread:

I wouldn't want athletes to become a laboratory experiment as the essence of sports would be lost (I'm naïve like that).

Now, in terms of deciding which substances are banned and which ones aren't, that is a grey area for sure and it is constantly changing and it might be a little bit arbitrary and outdated.

See how the first Olympic doping case was for alcohol in Mexico '68 (yes, for drinking two beers before the pentathlon). The guy had to return his medal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Gunnar_Liljenwall

Now, in terms of doping at the Tour de France, apparently it was allowed back in the day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France

I know, it's wikipedia, but still...

And... some perfectly allowed substances that are normally used and might not be very safe and healthy:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fda-5-reported-deaths-monster-drink-194623537--finance.html

That being said. I'm all for banning some substances, but COI, WADA and the likes have to revisit their banned substances list (Marijuana is a PED?), and have to be able to keep up their testing (and detection) procuedures with the doping industry, because they are losing that race.

As others have pointed out it becomes an "arms race" that tends to accelerate out of any definition of reasonable control. The same is true of racing equipment. If there weren't rigid rules for equipment the Tour de France would be contested in supine recumbents at 60 M.P.H. for flat stages.

A key issue with performance enhancing drugs is junior development. Adults can make a (supposedly) reasoned decision about using drugs and therapies like blood boosting. Riders under 18, minors, may not have the judgement to make those decisions responsibly or may be influenced by adults with potentially short sighted agendas.

It's "slash and burn" development.

There is an ominous aspect to this thread- and please don't take this personally. It shows textbook signs of the "Cult of Personality" phenomenon; the phenomenon where a person's definition of what is acceptable is shifted by some "maven", some "cult of personality" leader, in this case, Lance Armstrong. It is as though there is a toe in the water of the thought process that is, "Heck, what is wrong with this anyway?"

That is truly disturbing. I won't resort to messy, offensive and inflammatory historical comparisons but I will profer the university studies that have studied this phenomenon, such as the Milgram Study and the one at Berkley in the '60's that had to be suspended when when participants shifted their paradigm of what was acceptable to a potentially dangerous level.

The lesson: A big sports, cultural or media figure can "sell" us on any behavior being acceptable. They can shift our cultural paradigm of what is "right", what is acceptable. You may choose to buy into that shift. But choose carefully...

At the end of the day, the line has to be drawn somewhere. We trust the governing bodies (in all areas) to have the interests of the population they serve at heart. Sometimes the populations disagree. Then we have regime change, or at least rule changes.

Without some structure, how do you have a competition? Should everyone just follow their own rules? 

As to what is allowed and not allowed, as has been posted, there are gray areas. 

I mostly just want to race, usually with friends. The training and fitness keep me healthy, since I have a desk job. If the competition was too fierce and drug driven, it might take some of the fun out of it, both as a spectator and a participation.

Gels are a not a drug in any way, shape or form- they are just sugar of some kind with some other stuff in them. Do you think that gels have more "lab-engineered" stuff in them than gummy bears? Than Lunchables? They are all food (I actually think lunchables are mostly poison for our kids, but that is another matter). Sorry, but your argument is so flawed in so many ways that it makes almost no sense. You realize that food affects a function of your body, right? And that it enhances your performance? And that sugar is a food? And that gels are mostly sugar?

Certainly the 'sport' of body-building bought into the acceptability of juicing.

As far as shifts in what is acceptable in society, I agree that celebrities do tend to shift societal norms....be that using PEDs or wearing Nike shoes or riding a Cervelo bike.  Maybe I'm missing your point because I don't think a college study is needed to study this '?phenominon'.  Jimmy Dean and Frank Sinatra led millions of youths to smoking.....and Cheech and Chong....well, never mind.