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
Parents
Former Member
Leonard, you pot-stirrer!
First, to stir it a little more - I don't think I like Fritz's "devil-may-care" attitude. Where's your sense of spirit and (sound this one out) argumentativeness?
OKay, now that my stirring is out of the way, I'll take the bait and answer the question; it appears from my view (And from your response) that you are presenting the situation that the people taking this super drug combo are taking it for the medical benefits, and not to enhance an athletic career.
I guess my side is that, athletic-boosting properties or not, I wouldn't ban those taking them. If an 80 year old woman can kick my ass because she's taking medicine to cure/prevent her family history of Alzheimers, so be it! You can only take the sports world so far before it becomes kind of silly to say, "I know you don't want to die from cancer, but come on, we obviously can't let you live AND participate in a recreational (sort-of) sport you love......sorry."
And, not to bring other sports into this, but I thought I read somewhere that during his cancer treatments, Lance Armstrong took steriods (as prescribed to many cancer patients) that his oncologist prescribed him. They certainly didn't tell him he couldn't race anymore.
Then again, he also wasn't continually taking them when he started racing again, so I don't know if that situation applies.
Leonard, you pot-stirrer!
First, to stir it a little more - I don't think I like Fritz's "devil-may-care" attitude. Where's your sense of spirit and (sound this one out) argumentativeness?
OKay, now that my stirring is out of the way, I'll take the bait and answer the question; it appears from my view (And from your response) that you are presenting the situation that the people taking this super drug combo are taking it for the medical benefits, and not to enhance an athletic career.
I guess my side is that, athletic-boosting properties or not, I wouldn't ban those taking them. If an 80 year old woman can kick my ass because she's taking medicine to cure/prevent her family history of Alzheimers, so be it! You can only take the sports world so far before it becomes kind of silly to say, "I know you don't want to die from cancer, but come on, we obviously can't let you live AND participate in a recreational (sort-of) sport you love......sorry."
And, not to bring other sports into this, but I thought I read somewhere that during his cancer treatments, Lance Armstrong took steriods (as prescribed to many cancer patients) that his oncologist prescribed him. They certainly didn't tell him he couldn't race anymore.
Then again, he also wasn't continually taking them when he started racing again, so I don't know if that situation applies.
