Olympics Thread

There must be more to life than football?
User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14807
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Olympics Thread

Post by mrblackbat » Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:58 pm

Once again you haven't read what i've said, only what you want to take from it.

I think the clue is in "special dispensation". If everyone can take that particular performance enhancer, then you wouldn't need to have something special applied to you.

Without taking it, they wouldn't have the same performance, ergo: it's a performance enhancer. Regardless of the cause of that lack of performance, be it illness, economic, just not being as physically gifted as someone else; whatever.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27196
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Olympics Thread

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:40 pm

mrblackbat wrote:Once again you haven't read what i've said, only what you want to take from it.
Why, because I disagree on your idea of what constitutes "fairness"? :lol: You said you wanted the same rules for everyone, yet that is already the case.

Although it's actually difficult to know what you're trying to say, because in one post you included the following:
The rules say this pile of drugs are fine, yet this pile aren't, the difference, for the most part, being fairly ambiguous. They're all performance enhancing. If you want truly fair sport, you shouldn't be allowed to take any, period. If that means you can't compete because of illness or a condition, tough. Same rules applied to all.
Then in the next post, you said:
But you seem to be thinking that I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to; which I'm not.
:shrug:

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17968
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: Olympics Thread

Post by Gibbon » Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:54 pm

Did you spend your childhoods honing your arguing skills on each other? :yeahright:

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27196
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Olympics Thread

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:13 pm

mrblackbat wrote: I think the clue is in "special dispensation". If everyone can take that particular performance enhancer, then you wouldn't need to have something special applied to you.

Without taking it, they wouldn't have the same performance, ergo: it's a performance enhancer. Regardless of the cause of that lack of performance, be it illness, economic, just not being as physically gifted as someone else; whatever.
Oh you added more.

The point is made very clear when considering the Paralympics. Many of the competitors have these special dispensations. It would make no sense to set up events specifically aimed at people with certain conditions and then ban them for taking the drugs for that condition. And there's no reason to allow other athletes to abuse those drugs just to allow the paralympians to compete. The sensible solution is to issue "special dispensations" when applicable.

Again, you're talking about "performance enhancer" as though the reaction to taking a drug is identical whether you need it or not... :shrug:

User avatar
Ethiaa
Site Admin
Posts: 13622
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Preston
Contact:

Re: Olympics Thread

Post by Ethiaa » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:15 pm

Gibbon wrote:Did you spend your childhoods honing your arguing skills on each other? :yeahright:
Both got their Scouts badge for "instigation and cultivation of a disagreeable atmosphere". And knots.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14807
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Olympics Thread

Post by mrblackbat » Thu Sep 22, 2016 5:31 pm

Rover the Top wrote:
mrblackbat wrote: I think the clue is in "special dispensation". If everyone can take that particular performance enhancer, then you wouldn't need to have something special applied to you.

Without taking it, they wouldn't have the same performance, ergo: it's a performance enhancer. Regardless of the cause of that lack of performance, be it illness, economic, just not being as physically gifted as someone else; whatever.
Oh you added more.

The point is made very clear when considering the Paralympics. Many of the competitors have these special dispensations. It would make no sense to set up events specifically aimed at people with certain conditions and then ban them for taking the drugs for that condition. And there's no reason to allow other athletes to abuse those drugs just to allow the paralympians to compete. The sensible solution is to issue "special dispensations" when applicable.

Again, you're talking about "performance enhancer" as though the reaction to taking a drug is identical whether you need it or not... :shrug:
Not at all; try cycling with saddle sores and no access to paracetemol and ibuprofen. Or, take a banned substance, banned because it increases the amount of oxygen blood cells can hold, because you have asthma, and tell me you don't benefit from the increased oxygen in your blood: of course you do. So any athlete should be able to take the same medicine.

Sport isn't fair; one of the many things that makes it unfair is that some people have illnesses. However, allowing them to take medicine that also has other affects whilst barring other athletes from taking the same medicine is obviously also unfair.

The common argument against doping in sport is that it gives an athlete an unnatural boost. Which I'd argue that so does taking part in sport when you have a condition but you have medication to counter it; you wouldn't compete without the medicine, therefore I see no difference between it and doping.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14807
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Olympics Thread

Post by mrblackbat » Sat Sep 24, 2016 11:09 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37456623

So, the pattern of use isn't for everyday; just when they're approaching races in this case.

As I say, if one person is allowed to take something, so should all; either that or it should be fully banned for everyone, regardless.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14807
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Olympics Thread

Post by mrblackbat » Sat Sep 24, 2016 11:19 am

Rover the Top wrote:
mrblackbat wrote:Once again you haven't read what i've said, only what you want to take from it.
Why, because I disagree on your idea of what constitutes "fairness"? :lol: You said you wanted the same rules for everyone, yet that is already the case.

Although it's actually difficult to know what you're trying to say, because in one post you included the following:
The rules say this pile of drugs are fine, yet this pile aren't, the difference, for the most part, being fairly ambiguous. They're all performance enhancing. If you want truly fair sport, you shouldn't be allowed to take any, period. If that means you can't compete because of illness or a condition, tough. Same rules applied to all.
Then in the next post, you said:
But you seem to be thinking that I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to; which I'm not.
:shrug:
Yes well you've never been very good at reading into what people say.....

I actually think that all substances should be available as a personal choice, just they should be declared so it's out in the open and other athletes can respond if necessary. If someone wants to take a potentially ultimately life threatening substance to win, that's their choice. Their competitors just should know what they're up against.

It's one of the interesting things about the Armstrong case; yes he wouldn't have won without doping, but the second, third, fourth and so on guys wouldn't have been there either, they were all giving themselves they same advantage so it came down to who was the better at that point afterall.

Likewise with Ben Johnson and Carl Lewis; there's enough dubious evidence to suggest that Lewis was simply better at not getting caught than Johnson and had help doing so, he failed enough drug tests to have been stripped of most of his medals.

Does it make for less fair sport? Possibly. Does ot make for more entertaining sport? Potentially.

As I said and you haven't cared to read, there's enough natural unfairness in sport, that it could be argued that doping actually makes it fairer by removing some of those other differences, such as economic situation natural physique and so on. The future of gene therapy where you can order up "natural" physiques is going yo make it even more interesting.

Post Reply