Engineering does not supplant skill, or the athlete. Think for a second about what would actually happen if NASCAR permitted any sort of engine conceivable. The upper limit of performance would still be determined by driver. Why? Because winning is still about reaction time and focus. If you allow increasingly faster engines, you still have to rely on the ability of the driver to maneuver the vehicle. Thus, no matter how fast the car is goes, the end result will still be directly linked to the man behind the wheel. The competition would be different, but the determining factor (the factor that is being measured) - the skill of the driver - would remain unchanged.
You can take it one step further and imagine that NASCAR allowed drivers to snort lines of ritalin before the race. Could we then say that "it was the ritalin" and not the person that won the race? Of course not. Taking ritalin does not substitute for practice and natural talent. All it does is prolong the length of time that you can efficiently execute certain mental skills acquired beforehand. In short, increasing endurance (which is really what all PEDs do) does not magically increase skill (look at the other side of the coin: if you deprived a chess champion of sleep for three days and then asked him to compete, no one would claim that he was exhibiting the full range of his talents).
The argument against PEDs really only applies to a very narrow subset of sports: those that rely totally on endurance or strength. In reality these "sports" are few and far between - the only ones I can think of are weightlifting and some track sports, mostly running. In a way these sports are are barely sports at all, since they are almost totally determined by the chance physical characteristics of the competitors. For example, Michael Phelps has feet that are about 3 inches wider than mine, so if even if we both took as many steroids as we wanted (and all else being even), he would still beat me.
Sports have rules in order to identify the competitor which best exhibits some arbitrary ability. The consistent introduction of PEDs to this sort of framework does little to change this. think of it as adding a fixed constant to a wide range of different functions.
A few points. First, a lot of you seem to be assuming that more steroids = better performance. Like all drugs, there is a point where the dosage inhibits your ability more than it helps. And to further complicate things, this optimum point varies from person to person. So instead of turning into an ever escalating "hulk on hulk" roid fest, sports would quickly reach another 'equilibrium' in which individual athletes seek out the right balance of supplements and training that optimize their performance. Thus the final result of endurance-type sports (sports where physical conditioning trumps skill, i.e. track not basketball) would be determined both by an athlete's innate physical makeup, and their metabolic compatibility with the range of available drugs. So where these sports were once largely determined by one set of innate factors, they would now be determined by all those PLUS the added dimension of individual chemistry. I don't see that as all that big of a difference.
Second, lets consider the advantages of training facilities. I don't think anyone would argue with the following: (1) the USA's training facilities and programs are big contributers to their olympic success (2) a big component to the failure of poorer nations is exactly their lack of such facilities/programs. Yet few see this as a "problem" to be forcibly remedied by organizations like the IOC. This seems to suggest that the issue with most people isn't fairness, but a knee-jerk revulsion to 'screwing with the body' (however vague and incoherent that is).
Third, in response to concerns about "big pharma": modern sports as we know and love them today are already firmly 'corporatized'; in fact if they weren't theres no way we would be able to enjoy the same level of competition. I think even those of you that lament any sort of profit seeking activity whatsoever would admit that the financial incentives to potential athletes are considerable.
Finally, (while I personally don't see the need for it) I think the two-class solution would be, pragmatically speaking, the best. If people want to cling to some illusory idea of 'purity' then let them - just not at the sake of an individual's right to their own body and the inevitable, fascinating march of technological innovation.
Your average consumer doesn't care about sampling rates etc, and doesn't have the ear to distinguish between good and very good sound. But since 'owning' a 'physical' copy of a recording has moved from necessity to novelty, increased vinyl demand makes sense from the point of view of fashion... many view vinyl as more glamorous than cds, etc (new radiohead case in point). Vinyl for dance music isn't going anywhere either (even though we have serato now) in fact many dance/electronic label don't even release CDs, just vinyl and mp3/beatport.
Slashdot Mirror
Engineering does not supplant skill, or the athlete. Think for a second about what would actually happen if NASCAR permitted any sort of engine conceivable. The upper limit of performance would still be determined by driver. Why? Because winning is still about reaction time and focus. If you allow increasingly faster engines, you still have to rely on the ability of the driver to maneuver the vehicle. Thus, no matter how fast the car is goes, the end result will still be directly linked to the man behind the wheel. The competition would be different, but the determining factor (the factor that is being measured) - the skill of the driver - would remain unchanged.
You can take it one step further and imagine that NASCAR allowed drivers to snort lines of ritalin before the race. Could we then say that "it was the ritalin" and not the person that won the race? Of course not. Taking ritalin does not substitute for practice and natural talent. All it does is prolong the length of time that you can efficiently execute certain mental skills acquired beforehand. In short, increasing endurance (which is really what all PEDs do) does not magically increase skill (look at the other side of the coin: if you deprived a chess champion of sleep for three days and then asked him to compete, no one would claim that he was exhibiting the full range of his talents).
The argument against PEDs really only applies to a very narrow subset of sports: those that rely totally on endurance or strength. In reality these "sports" are few and far between - the only ones I can think of are weightlifting and some track sports, mostly running. In a way these sports are are barely sports at all, since they are almost totally determined by the chance physical characteristics of the competitors. For example, Michael Phelps has feet that are about 3 inches wider than mine, so if even if we both took as many steroids as we wanted (and all else being even), he would still beat me.
Sports have rules in order to identify the competitor which best exhibits some arbitrary ability. The consistent introduction of PEDs to this sort of framework does little to change this. think of it as adding a fixed constant to a wide range of different functions.
A few points. First, a lot of you seem to be assuming that more steroids = better performance. Like all drugs, there is a point where the dosage inhibits your ability more than it helps. And to further complicate things, this optimum point varies from person to person. So instead of turning into an ever escalating "hulk on hulk" roid fest, sports would quickly reach another 'equilibrium' in which individual athletes seek out the right balance of supplements and training that optimize their performance. Thus the final result of endurance-type sports (sports where physical conditioning trumps skill, i.e. track not basketball) would be determined both by an athlete's innate physical makeup, and their metabolic compatibility with the range of available drugs. So where these sports were once largely determined by one set of innate factors, they would now be determined by all those PLUS the added dimension of individual chemistry. I don't see that as all that big of a difference.
Second, lets consider the advantages of training facilities. I don't think anyone would argue with the following: (1) the USA's training facilities and programs are big contributers to their olympic success (2) a big component to the failure of poorer nations is exactly their lack of such facilities/programs. Yet few see this as a "problem" to be forcibly remedied by organizations like the IOC. This seems to suggest that the issue with most people isn't fairness, but a knee-jerk revulsion to 'screwing with the body' (however vague and incoherent that is).
Third, in response to concerns about "big pharma": modern sports as we know and love them today are already firmly 'corporatized'; in fact if they weren't theres no way we would be able to enjoy the same level of competition. I think even those of you that lament any sort of profit seeking activity whatsoever would admit that the financial incentives to potential athletes are considerable.
Finally, (while I personally don't see the need for it) I think the two-class solution would be, pragmatically speaking, the best. If people want to cling to some illusory idea of 'purity' then let them - just not at the sake of an individual's right to their own body and the inevitable, fascinating march of technological innovation.
Your average consumer doesn't care about sampling rates etc, and doesn't have the ear to distinguish between good and very good sound. But since 'owning' a 'physical' copy of a recording has moved from necessity to novelty, increased vinyl demand makes sense from the point of view of fashion... many view vinyl as more glamorous than cds, etc (new radiohead case in point). Vinyl for dance music isn't going anywhere either (even though we have serato now) in fact many dance/electronic label don't even release CDs, just vinyl and mp3/beatport.