What is wrong with PEDs?

I've been on Coumadin since my heart surgery twelve years ago.  If I took any EPO I'd likely have a stroke.  I'll probably pass...

Mark

Because it becomes an arms race with athletes taking increasingly large risks with their health in the pursuit of a better performance.  As a rule, it appears the more effective the PED, the greater the potential health risks that come along with it.

Maybe do a little search about PEDs like EPO, testosterone, blood doping, etc. before posting something like this?

Or are you really just trolling? -J

I think that this Rogillo presents a fair question.  HGH, testosterone, steroids and red blood cells all have theraputic uses.  There is a theory that (some) these could be used to increase HEALTH and LONGEVITY for everyone under the direction of a physician.

There are people using RED BULL and MONSTER in races.  I'm not sure of the theraputic, life enhancing qualities of these products.  But they did help me PR in my 5k!

Mike's not a troll.  He's a long time member of BT who, IMO, just isn't afraid to ask questions that challenge the status quo.  The end result is often an excellent discussion that gets people thinking outside the box.

I think the idea is that PEDs in sports poses an increased risk. Especially as people often have the "if some is good, more is better" philosophy, and this can lead to serious health problems.

As someone else mentioned, it can also be a problem for developing athletes, as it can harm their normal development.

That being said, there are legitimate uses for many drugs classified as PEDs and you can get an exemption in order to compete and be using them at the same time.

It can be a tough call for masters AG'ers as there is a large and growing 'Anti-Aging" market that promotes the use of things like HGH and testosterone boosters, which would be illegal in and out of competition in triathlon.

Because the user potentially steals something from other racers (qualifying spots) and cheats himself/herself -- If I used PEDs, I would forever be wondering what I really could have done -- how much of my performance was the drugs and how much was my athletic ability?

And as a previous poster said, I would never use them because the potential adverse health effects just aren't worth any performance advantage.

Look up the stories of former East German female athletes who were pushed into state-sponsored doping programs in the 70s and 80s, and whose lives were screwed as a result. Was it their choice to make freely? 

Take Andreas Krieger as an example. Better known as Heidi Krieger when she was a champion thrower, but the testosterone she took put her on a path that made her eventually feel that she had to get a sex change.

A few things on this:

PEDs provide a clear and unfair advantage in competition.  Suppose they the governing bodies in sports decided to allow HGH, Testosterone, and EPO.  Many athletes, for many reasons, would choose not to partake, and they would be at a distinct disadvantage. The line has to be drawn somewhere.  To me, saying don't use testosterone , is like saying dont wear fins during the swim. But you can use a wetsuit, and use caffeine if you wanted.  They are just rules for competition.

The truth is, many PEDs are no more dangerous than drugs that are readily available.  I know its easy to use alcohol as an example, or even tobacco products, but these readily available drugs have been proven to kill, and not just yourself, others as well!!!  So it is not reasonable to make the argument that they cannot be allowed because they are potentially dangerous.  It is all about setting rules to level the playing field.   

There is a nascent philosophical literature on this topic.  If you are interested, it isn't hard to find via Google.  The existing literature is not very sophisticated, IMO, in a number of ways, but it does raise and discuss some of the issues mentioned here.

My personal view is that doping is very clearly wrong for a number of reasons. The easiest to convey concerns a point already made by others -- allowing doping creates an environment in which seriously pursuing success pretty much requires that one 'choose' to dope (or not compete), and even dismissing other considerations (which I think are actually more important), forcing young athletes into a choice between doping or not competing is immoral and unethical.

Coffee is a PED.  The ones that are banned have shown a negative health risk.  Same reason illicit drugs are banned.  Someone made a list of substances they thought "too dangerous" and doesn't pay attention to the ones that aren't.  Heck, even gels are drugs.

Per Merriam-Webster, one definition of drug is

 (3) : a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body

Gatorade, HEED, Perpetuem, gels, shot blocks, all falls into that category.

So there's nothing inherently wrong with ALL PEDs.  SOME of them have an adverse health effect.  And of those, a subset will cause a ban if you take it and participate in triathlons.

My pesonal opinion:  Why taking banned PEDs is wrong - because not everyone will take them because not everyone will risk their health for a podium, and so it creates an uneven playing field.  Even taking testosterone supplements as you age, while not inherently wrong because you are filling in the gap of something missing and may not be detrimental to your health, causes a gap between you and someone else who is also aging but chooses not to engage in the practice because it's banned because not everyone uses it appropriately.

How did you make that leap?

I don't call laboratory-engineered drinks "food" and I don't call gels "food."  Hence they're drugs.  I.e. gels re-energize you, keep you going.  So they affect the function of the body, i.e. make you go longer or faster or both.  Hence they are drugs.

People confuse too much drugs and illicit drugs.  Most of what you put in your body and didn't somehow come from the Earth is pretty much a drug if it has a beneficial effect on the functions of the body.

I have the answer to the problem - have one more set of divisions for every race:  all the current ones but in either PED or non-PED flavors.  Those who want to dope - knock each other out.  Those who don't, ditto.  Easy peasy.

If nary the twain meet, what could possibly be the harm? 

Just remember to send all the PED waves off first, though!

Non-sarcastic response - for the dopers in AG that might win, it's breaking a rule.  No different than lying - might as well just fib and tell people you won the race.  Can't imagine how I'd explain doing this to my kids.

As for whether the rules themselves should be changed to allow doping for all (reasonable question to ask), then one has the problem of uneven playing fields, as many would likely choose not to use PEDs.  In essence, anyone not willing to use PEDs to the point that the MOST competitive person in the race is (up to and including physical harm - enough dopers have peed blood and all...), will be at a disadvantage.  So, to compete in this healthy endeavor, one would have to endanger one's health or accept not being in the same race as the people around you - and never knowing who is using.

Also, it's facile to just say that those who want to do this for health should just do it and race with the PED folks.  Just because I (or others) choose NOT to use PEDs does most certainly NOT mean that I am (or others are) uninterested in competition.  It's about health AND competing to a large portion of the tri community, I think.

Just my tuppence...

I've had a love affair with science and health since I was born   (mentally, not physically, physically since 3.5 years ago).

What about beer?  Every ingredient came "from the earth".

You are muddying the water needlessly. Food is food, period. Gel is a carbohydrate. It isn't some chemically engineered substance. It's sugar no matter how much the company want to market how special it is to justify the price and advantage.

Call them what you like, but it does not make it true.