Since there hasn't been any controversy in the the forums lately, perhaps we should smack the hornet's nest a bit...
What are your thoughts regarding the following hypothetical situation as it relates to competition:
Suppose that tomorrow morning we wake up to find that medical researchers have discovered that a mixture of various substances (e.g. human growth hormone, testosterone, etc) can be taken with little or no bad side effects. Furthermore, it offers the following benefits on average:
1) A longer life span.
2) Improved general health, both mental and physical.
3) Greater resistance to some of the more common severe health problems such as heart disease, cancers, alzheimer's, etc.
Suppose that it also has a strong positive affect on one's swimming performance.
Suppose further that this treatment is expensive and not covered by most health insurers.
Question: Are the people who take it for the health benefits welcome to compete in master's swimming? Would your answer be different if the treatment were available inexpensively/free to everyone?
-LBJ
I don't believe masters has the budget or desire to do random drug testing on elite individuals, plus people still have to put in the work.
Ande
Originally posted by Leonard Jansen
Since there hasn't been any controversy in the the forums lately, perhaps we should smack the hornet's nest a bit...
What are your thoughts regarding the following hypothetical situation as it relates to competition:
Suppose that tomorrow morning we wake up to find that medical researchers have discovered that a mixture of various substances (e.g. human growth hormone, testosterone, etc) can be taken with little or no bad side effects. Furthermore, it offers the following benefits on average:
1) A longer life span.
2) Improved general health, both mental and physical.
3) Greater resistance to some of the more common severe health problems such as heart disease, cancers, alzheimer's, etc.
Suppose that it also has a strong positive affect on one's swimming performance.
Suppose further that this treatment is expensive and not covered by most health insurers.
Question: Are the people who take it for the health benefits welcome to compete in master's swimming? Would your answer be different if the treatment were available inexpensively/free to everyone?
-LBJ
Originally posted by Leonard Jansen
Question: Are the people who take it for the health benefits welcome to compete in master's swimming? Would your answer be different if the treatment were available inexpensively/free to everyone?
-LBJ
personally, at the end of the race, the clock is the only measure of success I look at, not how many people came in before or after me. thats not to say I don't take pleasure in winning, I do, but getting first with a lousy time isnt really satisfying, whereas getting fifth, or whatever, with a PB, is.
Originally posted by Leonard Jansen
1) A longer life span.
2) Improved general health, both mental and physical.
3) Greater resistance to some of the more common severe health problems such as heart disease, cancers, alzheimer's, etc.
Something that does this already exists and has for 2000 years.
Originally posted by Conniekat8
Sick? heh!
As for boobs, bigger boobs=more drag... of course, now they have the kind where you can change the size with a little pump...
We could be an "A" at the 5AM workout, and a "C" by the cocktail party :p
I had know idea such a thing existed......................................................
Yeah, but how would you know they cheated? Would you ask them to check a box on the entry form? Humph. I doubt anyone would outright admit it for fear of backlash.
I know there have been a few accusations of drugs used in masters, but I agree with Ande. At our advanced ages, we have to still put in the work. Our bodies won't just do whatever we ask them to do.
I guess we can't stop them from using if it becomes affordable and effective. If the 1976 women's 400 free relay team, Janet Evans and Amy van Dyken can triumph over doping, then so can we.
But that's not the situation that I posted. Track & cycling are using medicines (which have legal uses) for illegal purposes, specifically to achieve better performance. Furthermore, most of what they are taking can be argued to have possible severe negative consequences. I'm talking about a medicine legally obtained, with little side effect, specifically targeted at improving one's quality of life/longevity that just happens to have performance benefits. AS posed, some of the following questions might need to be answered:
1) Suppose that only certain people can afford it, should they be excluded from competition?
2) If I can afford it and it's illegal for master's competition, do I take it for my health and not compete? Or do I try to sneak it in a la what goes on in cycling, etc.
3) If it is affordable to those with health insurance, but not to lower income classes, what then?
...and so on...
-LBJ
My two cents.
This is masters swimming so who cares? Whether it's legal or illegal, people are going to do what they are going to do. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. They pay their money and they get to swim.
That's like asking would I be pissed at the wimminz spending 25K on a snazzy boob job cause I felt left out, vs. would I have one too if it was free?
Wouldn't you take a no-risk free enlargement?
