I wanted to write this because I really don't see what the big deal is about athletes taking performance-enhancing drugs in general. If I have to be completely honest, I do not understand what all the controversy and hoopla is about. It’s just much ado about nothing.
"But b-b but but performance-enhancing drugs enhances their performance unfairly..."
Wait a minute. ANY training of any sort is extracurricular and counter-complementary to any human being's natural athletic ability. People that train for the Olympics, or indeed, people that train for any major sporting event, by necessity are going to go far outside the bell curve of exercising requirement. In fact, they would HAVE to train far more extensively than a person that merely dabbles in jai alai on weekends for fun. That is a requirement!
Recently I read a book that delved into the history of the Olympics events, including rules and regulations. There were strict rules for qualifications, outlining exactly who was allowed to compete. There was detailed explanation of the protocol surrounding prospective competitors. It talked about the indignity in which-- if a person had received some sort of un-allowed formal training, this was automatically grounds for disqualification. For example if a person was briefly employed in a job that had one of its job duties as swimming, then they were disqualified from Olympics- Swimming.
But what designated a training regimen as being “un-allowable” vs. one that was “allowed?” Did the formal training prepare them too well? Was it overly intense or something? Basically they were saying that someone that has had professional training was “overqualified.”
This was silly. If it is competition we are talking about -- and it is -- then there is no such thing as over-qualification. And look, it’s not like they were talking about professional football players joining a peewee football game. They were talking about a person that was maybe employed as a delivery person in town for six weeks and being denied the chance to be in Olympics- Track and Field.
"Oh but some athletes would have an unfair advantage..." they start to say.
Laos vs. United States spending-- Laos on developing its national athletic program for potential Olympic contenders.
There was an article in Newsweek magazine about Laos vs. United States advertising of the Olympics events. The country of Laos has for every dollar spent on just its athletic program, the US spent five dollars on mere advertising. On advertising. They spent that much money just to get people to watch the damn thing.
I am assuming that means the US apparently has unlimited resources for developing optimal guidelines for creating training programs for the athletes. Training, weightlifting, running... okay, I’m not sure exactly what else they do. But I bet it’s punishing.
That is an unfair advantage, is it not? How exactly is that any more fair than the notorious performance-enhancing drugs?
Come on, people. We all have at least a vague idea of the merciless training routines to which Olympic athletes have to subject themselves. Time and Newsweek and People magazines regale us with tales of the ruthless, grueling regimens and strict diets they have to follow.
I remember reading an article in People magazine back around the 1996 Olympics, I believe. For some of them, the dietary regimens are an austere lower-than-low calorie sprock. For others, their daily diets are actually much higher in calories than the average USDA food pyramid. But those athletes do have to follow a very detailed, controlled diet. They cannot waiver for a second, lest they gain a half-ounce that might negatively impact their aerodynamics.
They try to use the excuse that, "a performance-enhancing drug has nothing to do with the athlete's own ability."
Depressions in golf balls. Golf balls have been altered so they fly farther. Those little dips on the surface of a golf ball are not randomly placed. Golf balls have had those little depressions carved into them in very meticulously calculated locations on the ball.
What I'm saying is, what the hell is the damn difference between improving equipment and utilities for the express purpose of acquiring better sports scores and runtimes -- and improving the human body for the express purpose of acquiring better sports scores and runtimes? Really, can someone explain this to me? I do not understand why the line is drawn at performance-enhancing drugs.
Some people might say, "oh well that's unfair because some athletes might have access to performance-enhancing drugs more easily and readily than other athletes."
Alright, fair enough. So as a remedy to this quandary, why don't we just give ALL the athletes performance-enhancing drugs? To hell with it. Give drugs to everybody then. Don’t we already give drugs to the military to make them more focused and alert?
I will reference Mark McGuire, the baseball player from back a few short years ago who was caught “doping.” Even when Mark McGuire was caught taking steroids or something, I was probably the only person I know who was perfectly fine with it.
I will inform you that I have been taught debate team tactics and argumentative writing. I’ve been trained to anticipate what the opposing side’s possible arguments might be. Affirmative vs. Rebuttal, all that good stuff. Let us cover some of them now.
A predictable response might follow thusly, "Well that is still unfair because some people might respond to performance-enhancing drugs better than other people."
Oh my, whatever do you mean?
"We mean some people might display more increased, better, faster, more efficient performance than other people even on the same drugs."
Some people might naturally respond more strongly and more positively to the drugs than other people. As a biochemical, metabolic response, the drugs would give them an unfair advantage. So even if Olympic tribunals and council distributed an even dosage of performance-enhancing drugs to all athletes. Some people might naturally have a more increased performance directly as a result of the drugs, than other people."
Even if they controlled it for age, sex, height, weight category, temperament, same as is done for all medications. You know how medical physicians must calculate dosage of anesthetic medicines, prescriptions, all pharmacology to give each individual patient, with the intention that the final outcome will be equivalent. Similarly with Olympics and other athletics. Even if they tried their best to control all possible factors in efforts to make it as fair as possible, it still would not be fair. Some people might have an intrinsic trait in their anatomy and physiology by which they respond better to drugs than other people."
Oh, I see. You mean, TALENT?
News fuh-lash, folks. Talent is what the Olympics events are testing for. It is what *ALL* athletic events are testing for. Talent is what the participants are competing to find out about. Talent is the number one, first and foremost, old school original "unfair advantage." That is the theme and point of the whole thing.
"But b-b but but performance-enhancing drugs enhances their performance unfairly..."
Wait a minute. ANY training of any sort is extracurricular and counter-complementary to any human being's natural athletic ability. People that train for the Olympics, or indeed, people that train for any major sporting event, by necessity are going to go far outside the bell curve of exercising requirement. In fact, they would HAVE to train far more extensively than a person that merely dabbles in jai alai on weekends for fun. That is a requirement!
Recently I read a book that delved into the history of the Olympics events, including rules and regulations. There were strict rules for qualifications, outlining exactly who was allowed to compete. There was detailed explanation of the protocol surrounding prospective competitors. It talked about the indignity in which-- if a person had received some sort of un-allowed formal training, this was automatically grounds for disqualification. For example if a person was briefly employed in a job that had one of its job duties as swimming, then they were disqualified from Olympics- Swimming.
But what designated a training regimen as being “un-allowable” vs. one that was “allowed?” Did the formal training prepare them too well? Was it overly intense or something? Basically they were saying that someone that has had professional training was “overqualified.”
This was silly. If it is competition we are talking about -- and it is -- then there is no such thing as over-qualification. And look, it’s not like they were talking about professional football players joining a peewee football game. They were talking about a person that was maybe employed as a delivery person in town for six weeks and being denied the chance to be in Olympics- Track and Field.
"Oh but some athletes would have an unfair advantage..." they start to say.
Laos vs. United States spending-- Laos on developing its national athletic program for potential Olympic contenders.
There was an article in Newsweek magazine about Laos vs. United States advertising of the Olympics events. The country of Laos has for every dollar spent on just its athletic program, the US spent five dollars on mere advertising. On advertising. They spent that much money just to get people to watch the damn thing.
I am assuming that means the US apparently has unlimited resources for developing optimal guidelines for creating training programs for the athletes. Training, weightlifting, running... okay, I’m not sure exactly what else they do. But I bet it’s punishing.
That is an unfair advantage, is it not? How exactly is that any more fair than the notorious performance-enhancing drugs?
Come on, people. We all have at least a vague idea of the merciless training routines to which Olympic athletes have to subject themselves. Time and Newsweek and People magazines regale us with tales of the ruthless, grueling regimens and strict diets they have to follow.
I remember reading an article in People magazine back around the 1996 Olympics, I believe. For some of them, the dietary regimens are an austere lower-than-low calorie sprock. For others, their daily diets are actually much higher in calories than the average USDA food pyramid. But those athletes do have to follow a very detailed, controlled diet. They cannot waiver for a second, lest they gain a half-ounce that might negatively impact their aerodynamics.
They try to use the excuse that, "a performance-enhancing drug has nothing to do with the athlete's own ability."
Depressions in golf balls. Golf balls have been altered so they fly farther. Those little dips on the surface of a golf ball are not randomly placed. Golf balls have had those little depressions carved into them in very meticulously calculated locations on the ball.
What I'm saying is, what the hell is the damn difference between improving equipment and utilities for the express purpose of acquiring better sports scores and runtimes -- and improving the human body for the express purpose of acquiring better sports scores and runtimes? Really, can someone explain this to me? I do not understand why the line is drawn at performance-enhancing drugs.
Some people might say, "oh well that's unfair because some athletes might have access to performance-enhancing drugs more easily and readily than other athletes."
Alright, fair enough. So as a remedy to this quandary, why don't we just give ALL the athletes performance-enhancing drugs? To hell with it. Give drugs to everybody then. Don’t we already give drugs to the military to make them more focused and alert?
I will reference Mark McGuire, the baseball player from back a few short years ago who was caught “doping.” Even when Mark McGuire was caught taking steroids or something, I was probably the only person I know who was perfectly fine with it.
I will inform you that I have been taught debate team tactics and argumentative writing. I’ve been trained to anticipate what the opposing side’s possible arguments might be. Affirmative vs. Rebuttal, all that good stuff. Let us cover some of them now.
A predictable response might follow thusly, "Well that is still unfair because some people might respond to performance-enhancing drugs better than other people."
Oh my, whatever do you mean?
"We mean some people might display more increased, better, faster, more efficient performance than other people even on the same drugs."
Some people might naturally respond more strongly and more positively to the drugs than other people. As a biochemical, metabolic response, the drugs would give them an unfair advantage. So even if Olympic tribunals and council distributed an even dosage of performance-enhancing drugs to all athletes. Some people might naturally have a more increased performance directly as a result of the drugs, than other people."
Even if they controlled it for age, sex, height, weight category, temperament, same as is done for all medications. You know how medical physicians must calculate dosage of anesthetic medicines, prescriptions, all pharmacology to give each individual patient, with the intention that the final outcome will be equivalent. Similarly with Olympics and other athletics. Even if they tried their best to control all possible factors in efforts to make it as fair as possible, it still would not be fair. Some people might have an intrinsic trait in their anatomy and physiology by which they respond better to drugs than other people."
Oh, I see. You mean, TALENT?
News fuh-lash, folks. Talent is what the Olympics events are testing for. It is what *ALL* athletic events are testing for. Talent is what the participants are competing to find out about. Talent is the number one, first and foremost, old school original "unfair advantage." That is the theme and point of the whole thing.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment