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
Phil,
When I said intuitive, I was referring to my perspective as a physician. After several years, some things become intuitive.
You raise a very good point in suggesting that cosmetic surgery may be analogous to the use of performance enhancing substances or techniques. I have my own opinions about cosmetic (not, and I emphasize not, reconstructive) surgery. I'll try not to offend anyone. I am at best ambivalent about this. Our doctrine is to do no harm (Aquageek's comments not withstanding). Elective surgery for the sake of altering one's appearance subjects a healthy individual to the risks of general anesthesia and surgery (much like anabolic steroids subject a healthy athlete to the risks of the drug). The argument goes that one's appearance and self image impact one's psychological well-being, which is true. Does that justify the risk? Society seems to think so. I'm not sure what Hippocrates would say, and I've not researched the history of cosmetic surgery. The day is not far off when we will be able to genetically alter or sculpt an individual. At that point we may need to reassess the meaning of athletic competition. I do know that when we as physicians deviate from our mission, which is to treat the sick, we are venturing onto thin ice.
Phil,
When I said intuitive, I was referring to my perspective as a physician. After several years, some things become intuitive.
You raise a very good point in suggesting that cosmetic surgery may be analogous to the use of performance enhancing substances or techniques. I have my own opinions about cosmetic (not, and I emphasize not, reconstructive) surgery. I'll try not to offend anyone. I am at best ambivalent about this. Our doctrine is to do no harm (Aquageek's comments not withstanding). Elective surgery for the sake of altering one's appearance subjects a healthy individual to the risks of general anesthesia and surgery (much like anabolic steroids subject a healthy athlete to the risks of the drug). The argument goes that one's appearance and self image impact one's psychological well-being, which is true. Does that justify the risk? Society seems to think so. I'm not sure what Hippocrates would say, and I've not researched the history of cosmetic surgery. The day is not far off when we will be able to genetically alter or sculpt an individual. At that point we may need to reassess the meaning of athletic competition. I do know that when we as physicians deviate from our mission, which is to treat the sick, we are venturing onto thin ice.
