Doping: Better Sporting Through Chemistry?
Click to Listen to the Show (24 MB MP3)
Does Bonds deserve an asterisk? [Johny Pape / Flickr]
The world was introduced to sports doping in 1998, when Ben “the fastest man on earth” Johnson set world records in the 100-meter race, only to have the records and medals rescinded after he tested positive for steroids. Nearly twenty years later, Barry Bonds (big-headed in every sense of the word) is fast approaching the most illustrious record in all of sports, and cyclist Floyd Landis is embroiled in a desperate fight with the USADA to save his reputation. Moral indignation and federal investigations abound.
At ROS we want to come down from our high horse for a moment and examine the reality on the ground. At what point does enhancing your performance with drugs become cheating and when is it just another step in the age-old quest for competitive advantage and lifestyle improvement?
Many of the vitriolic jeers from the stands come from Red Bull drinking, Viagra popping, Protein shake mixing guys — the same guys who demand the longest home runs, the hardest hits, and the fastest times.
Is there a “reefer madness” element to this outrage, or are concerns about health and fairness legitimate? Is it all a moot point when you consider that the drug testers can’t win the race against the drug-maskers? Where do you draw the line with your own personal enhancement? Does the will to win trump all?
Frank Deford
- Senior contributing writer, Sports Illustrated
John Hoberman
-
Professor of Germanic Studies, University of Texas at Austin
Author, Testosterone Dreams: Rejuvenation, Aphrodisia, Doping and Mortal Engines: The Science of Performance and Dehumanization of Sport
Greg Lemond
- Three-time winner, Tour de France
Will Leitch
- Founding editor, Deadspin
- Extra Credit Reading
-
Andy Miah, Doping in Torino, Bioethics and Sport, Feb 12, 2006: “In the end, we appear to live within a culture of enhancement and, in this environment, the relevance of prohibiting genetically modified athletes is weakened. All that remains is the medical interest to protect its integrity and the safety of athletes.”
Eric Olsen, When Doping Allegations Go Too Far, Olson’s Observations, May 10, 2007: “…the aggressive anti-doping procedures in cycling are very progressive (and good overall) but they are outing a lot of people and hurting the sport. Other sports who probably have similar doping issues are not being as strict so their sports are still thriving while cycling is taking a nose dive.”
Stephen Colbert, Bridge Over Troubled Water, The Daily Show: “What do you say to that little girl out there who dreams of some day being a bridge champion?”
free viagra
buy viagra online
generic viagra
how does viagra work
cheap viagra
buy viagra
buy viagra online inurl
viagra 6 free samples
viagra online
viagra for women
viagra side effects
female viagra
natural viagra
online viagra
cheapest viagra prices
herbal viagra
alternative to viagra
buy generic viagra
purchase viagra online
free viagra without prescription
viagra attorneys
free viagra samples before buying
buy generic viagra cheap
viagra uk
generic viagra online
try viagra for free
generic viagra from india
fda approves viagra
free viagra sample
what is better viagra or levitra
discount generic viagra online
viagra cialis levitra
viagra dosage
viagra cheap
viagra on line
best price for viagra
free sample pack of viagra
viagra generic
viagra without prescription
discount viagra
gay viagra
mail order viagra
viagra inurl
generic viagra online paypal
generic viagra overnight
generic viagra online pharmacy
generic viagra uk
buy cheap viagra online uk
suppliers of viagra
how long does viagra last
viagra sex
generic viagra soft tabs
generic viagra 100mg
buy viagra onli
generic viagra online without prescription
viagra energy drink
cheapest uk supplier viagra
viagra cialis
generic viagra safe
viagra professional
viagra sales
viagra free trial pack
viagra lawyers
over the counter viagra
best price for generic viagra
viagra jokes
buying viagra
viagra samples
viagra sample
cialis
generic cialis
cheapest cialis
buy cialis online
buying generic cialis
cialis for order
what are the side effects of cialis
buy generic cialis
what is the generic name for cialis
cheap cialis
cialis online
buy cialis
cialis side effects
how long does cialis last
cialis forum
cialis lawyer ohio
cialis attorneys
cialis attorney columbus
cialis injury lawyer ohio
cialis injury attorney ohio
cialis injury lawyer columbus
prices cialis
cialis lawyers
viagra cialis levitra
cialis lawyer columbus
online generic cialis
daily cialis
cialis injury attorney columbus
cialis attorney ohio
cialis cost
cialis professional
cialis super active
how does cialis work
what does cialis look like
cialis drug
viagra cialis
cialis to buy new zealand
cialis without prescription
free cialis
cialis soft tabs
discount cialis
cialis generic
generic cialis from india
cheap cialis sale online
cialis daily
cialis reviews
cialis generico
how can i take cialis
cheap cialis si
cialis vs viagra
levitra
generic levitra
levitra attorneys
what is better viagra or levitra
viagra cialis levitra
levitra side effects
buy levitra
levitra online
levitra dangers
how does levitra work
levitra lawyers
what is the difference between levitra and viagra
levitra versus viagra
which works better viagra or levitra
buy levitra and overnight shipping
levitra vs viagra
canidan pharmacies levitra
how long does levitra last
viagra cialis levitra
levitra acheter
comprare levitra
levitra ohne rezept
levitra 20mg
levitra senza ricetta
cheapest generic levitra
levitra compra
cheap levitra
levitra overnight
levitra generika
levitra kaufen
June 19th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Hey, nother, good job with this post. Keep us posted as you pursue guests and lay out the arc of the show: you more than most can appreciate what it means to the ‘community’ to be in the loop during production.
June 19th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Thanks Henry, I’ll get more information on here tomorrow.
What about you Henry, will you cheer or jeer when Bonds hits the big one? And if you found out someone you were attracted to had plastic surgery done in the past - would it effect how you felt about them?
June 19th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
The devices atheletes use keep on developing through technology, and I can’t see why productivity enhancements of the biological machines producing the results (aka atheletes) can’t be developed via biochemical technology, too. None of us will ever/can ever acheive the results of top atheletes, so it’s really an academic issue. In an era where computers are matched against chessplayers (and win) why not have biologically enhanced athletes (bionic people?) compete. The natural argument simply doesn’t wash, IMHO. The chemicals some atheletes ingest are just as natural as protein drinks, vitamins, Gatorade, etc. They are simply different chemicals. If folks choose to ingest chemicals that will temporarily boost their productivity, but degrade/destroy their bodies over the long pull, it simply proves either that they are idiots, or that they are willing to trade long term health for money. Isn’t that the same bargain that hockey players or football players already make? Let the race for the ultimate bionic men and women begin…. but count me out. I’ll just watch.
June 19th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
And coal miners.
June 20th, 2007 at 5:34 am
Hmmm. Well, I think we should start by saying that we’re casting a very wide net if we lump Lance Armstrong and Barry Bonds in with people who have had plastic surgery or who utilize modern exercise science. I mean, it is no mystery and no problem that today’s baseball players are far more athletic than players in the 30s or even in the 60s. Sure, it has changed the game, but the numbers and the scale of achievement wouldn’t be altered to the extent that it has without steriods and other methods that drastically alter what is physically possible– previously impossible or improbable strength, rebounding, and therefore longevity.
In baseball– as, I presume, in cycling– there is a huge distinction between people who are exercise and conditioning freaks and people who use drugs to alter their physical capabilities. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Nomar Garciaparra hasn’t used illegal or questionable methods: he is part of a generation of shortstops that far out-hit most previous cohorts at that position. He posed on the cover of Sports Illustrated shirtless to show off his ripped torso, and then promptly ruptured or tore his Achilles, which in the minds of many people showed that he puffed his muscles to the point that he lost his conditioning. That is a tradeoff that athletes today seem to face; it is one of the costs of the kind of regimen that they pursue. A smart baseball player will work as much on his resiliency and conditioning as on his strength, not to mention the mental and practical skills needed to play the game. In the minds of many fans, this is an acceptable if difficult part of the game today.
On the other hand, there are players who have become hulking, swinging-for-the-fences versions of their former selves, and they have been tied over and over again to really shady dealings with people who tell them that they can game the system and get away with it for two reasons: first, because they can use even more drugs to clear their system; and second, because it isn’t illegal anyway. I mean, this is pretty obviously deceitful. Sure, these two examples are part of the same culture of extra-performance, but covering ones tracks and claiming ignorance in this way is way over the line. I won’t cheer Bonds when he breaks the record for that reason, but I will cheer Alex Rodriguez (even though I hate his guts) or Albert Pujols because I believe those guys have managed to excel without cutting corners. Yes, that’s all based on public image and superficial understanding of steriods, but is deeply engrained in the mystique of the game, and not without some reason.
You asked, “And if you found out someone you were attracted to had plastic surgery done in the past - would it effect how you felt about them?” There is so much to deal with there. Let’s assume that we’re talking about plastic surgery that someone received in order to feel better about themselves and how they appear. On one hand, I find it upsetting that people choose this route to boosting their confidence. On the other hand, I realize that this is a choice that is made on the basis of a lot of often burdensome social information. It is definitely not an occasion to moralize or denigrate a person. I have, in fact, been attracted to someone who I later found out had had some surgery, and learning that lead me to think about their self-image, not to judge them. All of that said, I find that I am not generally attracted to noticeable physical attributes that people sometimes create using surgery, and if I were, the basic allure would soon be lost to me if I were to find out that it was an intentional effect. I guess what I’m saying is that I hope for a society in which those steps become less necessary. I have large ears that stick out pretty seriously, and despite friends and family encouraging me to consider surgery during my childhood, I have resisted the idea at every turn. I’m not saying that to claim a moral high ground, but merely as proof that while this is a part of our culture today, it is not inescapable; on the contrary, talking about surgery has been a way for me to realize my comfort with myself.
June 20th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Let’s do what they do in car racing — have exotic cars (Indy racing) and stock cars (NASCAR). Let athletes choose whether to declare themselves “enhanced” or “stock” (drug-free). Then let the fans decide which they’d rather see.
June 20th, 2007 at 11:35 am
the world was introduced to doping in 1998? that seems far too late.
for some (or most) fans, isn’t the chemical scandal an unofficial portion of today’s entertainment-first games-second leagues? part of NASCAR’s appeal to gearheads is the inventive ways to bend the rules in tricking out cars? the scandal gives everyone one more thing to be fired up about, which is always good for ratings and makes for better tail gating bs sessions. perhaps they should just work chemicals into a player’s stats calculations as a handycap until leagues straighten out their own version of a FDA. This seems less an issue in pro sports than in international competition like the Olympics which is rooted in “pure” talent.
June 20th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
The idea seems interesting, Avecfrites. Being able to watch games in which the players compete have a moral or ethical objection to steroid use, and therefore compete under their ’stock’ abilities might actually get me watching the game.
The problem lies in the fact that doping is so incredibly wide spread. While we’ve only really covered baseball and football in depth as these are the most prominent sports in America, it’s hard to think of any sport that hasn’t had some sort of scandal regarding performance enhancing drugs. Setting up competing leagues for every sport would be prohibitively expensive.
Atop that, there haven’t been any really successful league launches in recent memory (Remember the XFL?). Perhaps if MLB, or the NFL were to create this “Indy” league, it might have the funding/legs/support to sustain, but with the already existing leagues culled of the superhuman, would our attention follow, or stay with the newly purified “stock” leagues?
June 20th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
First we must make the distinction that it is illegal to be in the possesion of anabolic steroids. This is far different than protein drinks or supplements like red bull. Also we have not touched on the one drug that is being used by most high level athletes. HGH.
There is no real fullproof test for this as of now. Although we are close.
Most talk of steroid testing is just lip service because top level athletes have moved on to this product and other undetectable drugs.
Scientific American came out with an article a few years ago that concluded with the advent of genetic cloning we will see in the not to distant future the advent of genetically enhanced athletes. Then the sh-t will really hit the fan.
June 20th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
As of now the only sport that makes a serious attempt at detecting steroid users is track and field. All the other major sports are doing nothing and they know it. Foot ball is especially lax in their feeble testing policy, but they have fooled the public into thinking they do a good job.
June 20th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
rc21, I’m new to this. How do they test in track and field? Why is it better than how they do it in baseball and football? What about cycling?
rahbuhbuh, I like your idea about factoring chemicals into handicaps — I’m not sure how you’d figure that in when you wanted to break a home run record (or any record, for that matter).
June 20th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
if peak athleticism becomes reliant upon chemical enhancements (or genetic, cybernetic, psychic, or name your poison), then it eventually transitions into a competition of funding and personality over innate talent. whomever can afford the drugs/implants/hypnotists will create rather than draft the best players.
June 20th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Greta. Track and field actually tests year round,not just in season. They also test a far greater spectrum of the steroid and performance enhancing world. They also use an independent body to conduct and interpet the test.
Also the penalties a far greater in track and field. Penalties can range fron 2 years to as much as a life time ban. Life time bans occur fairly frequently and are not just lip service. Medals and money are also stripped from athletes who have been detected using steroids. Another thing trackand field does is this, If you miss a test or a tester shows up at your door and you are not there to take a test it is considered a failed test. Failed test result in automatic suspensions.
You must remember that the drug cheats and the scientists who create the drugs are usually one step ahead of those who would try and catch them. So even at this moment scientists are devising new drugs and more sophisticated ways to beat the system, as I said HGH is one of the current drugs that is in use.
None of the other major sports even come close to setup that track and field has installed to catch cheaters,and that is because they don’t really want to catch their stars.
As to cycling i’m not to sure how stringent they are with regards to their testing. Anabolic steroids would take a back seat to other performance enhancers in cycling as it is a more endurance based sport. They will be testing for some different enhancers as well as steroids.
June 20th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
An example of the stict testing and strong consequences of a failed drug test in track and field. I know of an elite sprinter who recieved a 2 year ban for testing positive to one of tracks many banned substances. The substance? Marijuana.
If this type of testing and penalties existed in the NBA, There would be no basketball for 2 years.
June 20th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Some interesting words and phrases getting tossed around here: cheat, beat the system, game the system, scandal, and illegal… If everyone really does ‘do it’, and if ‘everyone knows it’, then who is being cheated? If the system (de facto) is that most players use performance enhancing drugs, then how is the system being beat? As for ‘gaming the system’, isn’t the system itself a game, just as the assorted sports are? And if it’s common knowledge that performance enhancing drugs are pervasive, where are innocents who are ’scandalized!’? As for the word illegal, a simple majority vote can change that: before prohibition booze was legal, with a magic wand it became illegal, and with another wave of the majic wand, it again became legal. What not the same for current performance enhancing drugs? If they build stadiums filled with steroid enhanced athletes, will they come? (The public…). Well, it seems they do… or at least they keep watching and buying the products touted by ‘the sponsors’. If the public did not, the grand experiment would cull out the ‘performance enhanced’ athletes. And we shall see if — amid all the clamor — folks stop watching and following teams simply because athletes use drugs. Frankly, I doubt it…but then again…
June 21st, 2007 at 1:18 am
I think your right tbrucia, the paying people will have the final verdict.
June 21st, 2007 at 5:38 am
rc21 says: As of now the only sport that makes a serious attempt at detecting steroid users is track and field.
You’re probably right, but the ATP has handed down some pretty stiff sentences on the Argentinians, who apparently have a rotten lockeroom reputation in this regard: Mariano Puerta (French Open finalist) was banned from the game; Guillermo Canas was given a two-year suspension; and Guillermo Coria (another French Open finalist) is presently in legal limbo stemming from steroid allegations. Nadal — who I think someone here wonderfully described having the arms of a stevedore and the movement of a jungle cat — has also aroused suspicion, due mainly to that preposterous bicep of his. (I remember Pauline Kael mocking her otherwise adored John Travolta for his pumped-up physique in the sequel to…what’s the name of that film again…wondering how many two-ton ballerinas he was likely goiing to have to lift.) That said, modern tennis players are a pretty modest looking bunch of athletes in comparison with their colleagues on the diamond, and I think the game is pretty clean.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:24 am
tbrucia. I tend to agree with you.
Some have suggested legalize everything and may the best chemist win.
Hurley intersesting story about tennis. I don’t follow it that closely and had no idea about the Argentinians.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:29 am
rc21: Have a look at Federer if you have a chance. You have only to be a fan of graceful movement to appreciate the spectacle.
By the way, Nadal Spanish, not Argentinian.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:44 am
I enjoy watching tennis when I get the chance. Do you think Federer has been using performance enhancing drugs? Has his phisical make up changed much over the last few years? has he added mph to his serve? These could be sighns.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:06 am
Federer is special. Here is an article where he talks about the issue some.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2004-11-17-atp-supplements_x.htm
Some of these issues extend to the tennis racket. At what point (if any) does advancemet in technology begin to devalue the game? Todays regulations allow for a 29 inch racket with a head size of 135 square inches. This head size is more than twice that of the original wooden racket.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:12 am
I know we’re supposed to be ‘getting down off our high horse’ for this discussion, but at some point I think it’s necessary to discuss the moral implications of putting people who use these performance enhancing drugs on such a high pedestal. When the star athletes in pretty much every sport are constantly under suspicion of doping, and the practice has approached what appears to be epidemic proportions, at least by media accounts, what’s the cost?
When Home Run records are set by the likes of Barry Bonds, a name almost synonymous with steroid use, rather than the almost universally lauded figures of Hank Aaron’s ilk, what does this say about us, the fans? How do we simultaneously punish our kids for cheating and, if not ignore then at least allow cheating in the major leagues?
Tbrucia’s post troubles me especially because it seems to suggest a purely market based way of dealing with the problem, but ignore the social implications of sanctioning drug use in our social icons.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Romo Lampkin: “what does this say about us, the fans?”
We the viewers are just as medicated, but with personality or mood altering doses rather than physical enhancements. anyone taking Xanax to professionally even out in a stressful work environment should not chastise a ball palyer who dopes for his. it is less an issue of whether they do, but what the fans know. transparency through testing and not necessarily punishment will lead audiences to decide whether it’s right and worth the money.
the pros’ use does not shock me. i was shocked when i learned my highschool’s football team was mandated to take creatine supplements. i draw the line at high school. there should be no parent waivers to sign. wait till they’re independent adults.
June 21st, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Here are a few thoughts, not necesarily in response to any comments so far:
What is the difference between now with someone like Jason Giambi coming forward and the 1970s when it was someone like Jim Bouton and “greenies.” Up until “Ball Four,” amphetamine use in MLB was unknown (or at least not discussed), but Bouton was a journeyman pitcher and was easily ostracized. Giambi is a former MVP, was sort of dynamics does that have on the situation.
A good guest would be Derek Zumsteg, blogger and author of “Cheaters Guide to Baseball.” Here is the steroid section of his blog.
Lastly, an interesting episode of the post juice era of baseball, Gwynn and Ripken don’t get unanimous entries into the hall of fame.
June 21st, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I’d like to know where the chips fall on athletes like Bjarne Riis who give back their medals after winning them through enhancement, in signs of solidarity with a sort of ‘pure sport’. What does this sort of behavior show about the players, but also the sport itself and the spectators? Are they redeemed?
June 21st, 2007 at 4:11 pm
rahbuhbuh, We are mixing apples and oranges a bit. Greenies or caffine pills are not illegal anabolic steroids are.
As to creatine there really is no issue it is a safe supplement that is perfectly legal and can be purchased at almost any store. You ingest creatine from any umber of foods. All you get in the stores is a concentrated amount. Taking a scoop of creatine would be the same as eating 5 or 6 steaks.
As to it being mandated by your high school football team. That is another issue.I agree with you there.
As to the fans, most would rather not know what their stars take.
June 21st, 2007 at 4:33 pm
rc21: Greenies (Amphetamine) may not be illegal, but they must be prescribed by a doctor.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:08 pm
As I was listening to your intro, I almost switched channels, until you asked whether the rules should be changed to allow the use of drugs to achieve greater performance.
Well, how about allowing someone with a leg blown off by an landmine in Iraq to compete with a prosthesis (and I have an interest in robotics with such things being one of the best real markets)?
And if a person with legs blown off by landmines can achieve mind blowing performance, why should an athlete be prohibited from having his legs cut off so that he can install the state of the art prosthesis?
June 21st, 2007 at 10:21 pm
They have special olympics for the people you are talking about.
Actually a man from South Africa has run some great times with 2 leg attachments. The IOOC has ruled him ineligable for the participation against those who of normal body type.
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Oscar Pistorious has run 46.87 for 400 meters this currently ranks him 7th in S. Africa. Not quite world class but not to far away. He runs with 2 special prosthesis for his legs. IAAF has banned him from competing with non disabled athletes.
They feel this could open a pandoras box. One official said he could see the day when some one would want to compete with an apparatus that would allow him to fly.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:34 pm
As someone who knows almost nothing about this subject, as a person who grew up with five brothers who were wonderful, but shut me out of sports, along with my father — I used to buy baseball books for my brothers during the summers when I was taken to the Jersey shore by relatives (the disadvantaged child taken along with their children). I would receive a few dollars to spend during the week, and I used it to buy mass market biographies of baseball players. I was always horribly homesick, and I took care of myself by reading these biographies. So, even though I’ve never been to a baseball game, I have intense feeling about the men, because when you’ve been crying on the rented porch at night, hoping to get home, and wanting to understand why your brothers love this game, all of it comes together in your psyche, to become an intensely wonderful experience of life in this world. I loved this show. My favorite moment was when Chris said that he didn’t know Barry Bonds well enough to make a judgment against him. I’m always on the lookout for racism in this country and I count on Chris to make a comment against it. I wouldn’t presume to say what policy should be decreed. I liked Greg Lemond a lot. I wish the powers that be would create policy that would allow men to play the game, sans drugs. I feel like my generation opened a door to drugs in all of life that isn’t going to be shut for a long time. It’s a shame.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Katemcshane.
A few points I’m not sure what racism has to do with this topic other than the fact that Bonds is a racist.
As to Chris saying he did not know Bonds well enough to make a judgement against him. That has to be one of the most disingenuous comments I have ever heard. First Bonds has admitted taking steroids so Chris does not have to know Bonds. second if he researched the topic he would know that there is overwhelming evidence that points to the fact that Bonds was a heavy user of steroids.
Does Chris feel he should not make judgements on any person he does not know. I suppose he really can’t comment as to wheather Charles Manson is a good guy or not because he doesn’t know him.
Give me a break.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Great show. Very thought provoking and informative. Did one of the guests mentioned an athlete who had prosthetic legs but wanted to compete against runners without them? It made me think of an article I read in the NY Times about an athlete (I think he was a vet) who had these high tech prosthetic feet. Anyway, I think the article raised the question of what will happen if this guy is able to break a speed record.
While I have respect for the other point of view, I don’t think it’s inherently wrong for athletes to want to explore the boundaries of human potential using steroids. I do think, however, that it’s wrong for them to hide their use and lie about it. At the same time, I believe that we need to get over the idea of athletes being walking PSAs telling the kids to stay in school and off drugs. Athletes are not by definition role models for a particular political point of view (unless they choose to be).
I remember when Gary Kasparov lost his chess match to Deep Blue about ten years ago, he said that he believed that in the future chess players would work with computers to push the game of chess forward. So future matches would be against human-computer teams. I took that to mean that he thought it was not “cheating” to use a computer. I see that attitude as far more optimistic and forward thinking than trying to keep people from experimenting with technology to achieve greater heights.
December 13th, 2007 at 5:00 am
[...]
Wed 20 Jun 2007
Doping: Better Sporting Through Chemistry?
Organic put an intriguing blog post on Doping: Better Sporting [...]
June 5th, 2008 at 7:26 am
[...] riction For Anti Aging for people who want to Look Younger, Feel Fit and Enjoy Good Health.Open Source » Blog Archive » Doping: Better Spor [...]
June 24th, 2008 at 11:06 am
[...] Well - A Guide To Rejuvenation And Longevity. 7Wins.eu Says: June 5th, 2008 at 7:26 am …http://www.radioopensource.org/doping-better-sporting-throug [...]