In 1988, after Carl Lewis was awarded the gold medal in the 100M dash when Ben Johnson tested positive for steroids, (I believe it was) Lewis stated that he was not really that surprised because he just didn't think that it was humanly possible to run the 100m in 9.79 (Johnson's winning time).
In the past 3 years, 2 american’s have euqaled or surpassed that time.
In today’s Houston Chronicle there is a tiny article (which is a true disappointment considering the magnitude of the accusations) that reads as follows:
According to Terry Madden, the chief executive of the US anti-doping agency: "What we have unconverted appears to be intentional doping of the worst sort (...) this is a conspiracy involving chemists, coaches and certain athletes using what they developed to be undetectable designer steroids to defraud their fellow competitors and the American and world public"
The drug in question is known as THG and though no athletes were named, it appears that several prominent athletes are a party to this.
I also know for a FACT, that some elite swimmers know of the drug, and believe it is undetectable.
*** This is in no way intimating that any specific athlete has or is using the substance.
Parents
Former Member
Craig,
Intuition is a poor justification for a policy that can affect the lives of hundreds or thousands of athletes. What seem intuitively obvious to you, someone steeped in the hippocratic (sp?) oath, is not intuitive, or true, to someone else. There is no proscription against doing harm to oneself, especially if one is not a doctor. Your qualms about providing these drugs may be very ethical, but these qualms may not apply to someone causing harm to him or her self.
As you know, there is quite a lot of work in medical ethics in trying to create an environment removed from 'intuition.' Anyway, doctors seem quite willing to treat conditions that are hardly illnesses, often performing risky operations for no illness whatsoever - cosmetic surgery comes to mind. I suppose someone could argue, perhaps justifiably, that if athletes are going to use steroids, it is better under the supervision of a knowledgeable physician who can prevent some of the more serious side effects. Then it would be unethical for the physician to ignore the situation by pretending that abusers could be talked or legislated out of abuse. This logic is often used to justify providing abortion, or certain treatments for drug addiction. A recognition that some things can't be legislated away is one reason the 18th amendment was repealed.
Is it justified to take a pain killer because I damaged my body by competing too hard, and in order to compete too hard tomorrow? I can imagine extreme cases - a boxer hurts during a fight, so takes some legal pain killer between rounds. This strikes me as blantantly unfair, and extremely dangerous, as some of the pain signals indicating serious damage would be more likely to be ignored. I assume that as a doctor you would not give these drugs in this situation, even though it may be legal, and certainly treats a medical condition.
I'm sure it is obvious by now that I am trying to have a discussion justifying the rules, not accepting them as apriori right. Sure, they are rules now, but are they the right rules? Are they logically based on ethical principles, or intuition? Are they fair? Are they enforceable?
The saddest thing in all this is when people on all sides of the issue resort to legalities, instead of the fundamental issues of right and wrong.
Craig,
Intuition is a poor justification for a policy that can affect the lives of hundreds or thousands of athletes. What seem intuitively obvious to you, someone steeped in the hippocratic (sp?) oath, is not intuitive, or true, to someone else. There is no proscription against doing harm to oneself, especially if one is not a doctor. Your qualms about providing these drugs may be very ethical, but these qualms may not apply to someone causing harm to him or her self.
As you know, there is quite a lot of work in medical ethics in trying to create an environment removed from 'intuition.' Anyway, doctors seem quite willing to treat conditions that are hardly illnesses, often performing risky operations for no illness whatsoever - cosmetic surgery comes to mind. I suppose someone could argue, perhaps justifiably, that if athletes are going to use steroids, it is better under the supervision of a knowledgeable physician who can prevent some of the more serious side effects. Then it would be unethical for the physician to ignore the situation by pretending that abusers could be talked or legislated out of abuse. This logic is often used to justify providing abortion, or certain treatments for drug addiction. A recognition that some things can't be legislated away is one reason the 18th amendment was repealed.
Is it justified to take a pain killer because I damaged my body by competing too hard, and in order to compete too hard tomorrow? I can imagine extreme cases - a boxer hurts during a fight, so takes some legal pain killer between rounds. This strikes me as blantantly unfair, and extremely dangerous, as some of the pain signals indicating serious damage would be more likely to be ignored. I assume that as a doctor you would not give these drugs in this situation, even though it may be legal, and certainly treats a medical condition.
I'm sure it is obvious by now that I am trying to have a discussion justifying the rules, not accepting them as apriori right. Sure, they are rules now, but are they the right rules? Are they logically based on ethical principles, or intuition? Are they fair? Are they enforceable?
The saddest thing in all this is when people on all sides of the issue resort to legalities, instead of the fundamental issues of right and wrong.
