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
It wouldn't be the Vo2Max Dopa supplement, would it?
If it was legal, and accessible to everyone, it would be like coffee, everyone would be using it.
When something is used by the masses, and it doesn't have serious side effects, the morality and ethics of it become a mute point.
Ethically, as I understand ethics, it's only a problem when it gives an unfair advantage by using something that is exclusively or almost exclusively availabe to you.
If it was readily available to everyone, it wouldn't be the question of an unfair advantage, it would be a question of a personal choice whether someone is using it or not. Just like using a fastskin or eating healthy food becomes a matter of a personal choice. Just on the larger order of performance enhancing magnitude.
Morally, it's a lot like using fins is the workout to keep up with the faster group, you know you're not doing it on your own. If you claim you made a certain time, you'll get a good razzing for waring fins inorder to get it, and you're likely to be told it doesn't count. The only difference, this enhancer you ingest as opposed to wearing it. Ingesting it puts the issue at a little more abstract level to visualize it as an extrernal assistance. I
In principle, it's still an external assistance, whether you wear it or eat it.
Morals in our society have developed to limit the instances of one individual taking advantage of another, and to protect us from negative consequences that we may not think of at the time of taking certain actions.
If a small percentage of atletes used this enhancer, I could definately see negative social consequences. It would be very likely they would be seen as cheaters and similar. People could get mad at you, lash out, harm you, dislike you etc... Most kids learn that pretty early in life, if most of your friends think you're cheating in a game, you'll get a good ribbing.
Realistically though, I think there would be sufficient upheaval about such supplement in sports, that it might result in a doped-up, and non-doped-up level of competition, or the supplement may get banned all together from competetive sports. Depends on whether the sport purists would prevail or not.
From a spectator point of view, seing the doped up category compete amongst themselves might be interesting, although, once people get used to seeing it, the novelty would wear off. Much like a 7 foot player was a novelty in basketball at one time.
..............................
Now, let's look the case if this enhancer was available just to select few due to ilness, or because only very few can afford it.
It would be unethical to use the enhancer with the sole purpose of enhancing performance, as it would be pretty easy to prove it is creating an unfair advantage.
Due to ilness is a tough one... let's see...
If someone is taking it due to illness, I would think that they may not be at the elite level, even with the enhancer.
The enhancer may just get the ill back to health and recover from the setback of the ilness.
I think it would be very unlikely that the medical community would continue to prescribe it once the illness is gone, and therefore the individual wouldn't necessarily have the benefit of getting to the super performance level.
I just can't see insurance companies approving it's cost any longer then absolutely needed. Once insurance support is out, you're back to only very few of those who can afford it having access to it, and my logic tells me this would be unethical.
It wouldn't be the Vo2Max Dopa supplement, would it?
If it was legal, and accessible to everyone, it would be like coffee, everyone would be using it.
When something is used by the masses, and it doesn't have serious side effects, the morality and ethics of it become a mute point.
Ethically, as I understand ethics, it's only a problem when it gives an unfair advantage by using something that is exclusively or almost exclusively availabe to you.
If it was readily available to everyone, it wouldn't be the question of an unfair advantage, it would be a question of a personal choice whether someone is using it or not. Just like using a fastskin or eating healthy food becomes a matter of a personal choice. Just on the larger order of performance enhancing magnitude.
Morally, it's a lot like using fins is the workout to keep up with the faster group, you know you're not doing it on your own. If you claim you made a certain time, you'll get a good razzing for waring fins inorder to get it, and you're likely to be told it doesn't count. The only difference, this enhancer you ingest as opposed to wearing it. Ingesting it puts the issue at a little more abstract level to visualize it as an extrernal assistance. I
In principle, it's still an external assistance, whether you wear it or eat it.
Morals in our society have developed to limit the instances of one individual taking advantage of another, and to protect us from negative consequences that we may not think of at the time of taking certain actions.
If a small percentage of atletes used this enhancer, I could definately see negative social consequences. It would be very likely they would be seen as cheaters and similar. People could get mad at you, lash out, harm you, dislike you etc... Most kids learn that pretty early in life, if most of your friends think you're cheating in a game, you'll get a good ribbing.
Realistically though, I think there would be sufficient upheaval about such supplement in sports, that it might result in a doped-up, and non-doped-up level of competition, or the supplement may get banned all together from competetive sports. Depends on whether the sport purists would prevail or not.
From a spectator point of view, seing the doped up category compete amongst themselves might be interesting, although, once people get used to seeing it, the novelty would wear off. Much like a 7 foot player was a novelty in basketball at one time.
..............................
Now, let's look the case if this enhancer was available just to select few due to ilness, or because only very few can afford it.
It would be unethical to use the enhancer with the sole purpose of enhancing performance, as it would be pretty easy to prove it is creating an unfair advantage.
Due to ilness is a tough one... let's see...
If someone is taking it due to illness, I would think that they may not be at the elite level, even with the enhancer.
The enhancer may just get the ill back to health and recover from the setback of the ilness.
I think it would be very unlikely that the medical community would continue to prescribe it once the illness is gone, and therefore the individual wouldn't necessarily have the benefit of getting to the super performance level.
I just can't see insurance companies approving it's cost any longer then absolutely needed. Once insurance support is out, you're back to only very few of those who can afford it having access to it, and my logic tells me this would be unethical.
