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 liked the article in SI a couple of isues back on the Doc who oversees much of the testing in the US. he's trying to create a volunatry "clean team" where athletes agree to all types of testing that allows them to set baselines and look fo new types of drugs quickly.
His premise is that th peer pressure from sponsors, fans, etc. on athletes to e a part of this group would be far more efective then the outdated way we now try and keep tabs on whats happening out there.
I liked the article in SI a couple of isues back on the Doc who oversees much of the testing in the US. he's trying to create a volunatry "clean team" where athletes agree to all types of testing that allows them to set baselines and look fo new types of drugs quickly.
His premise is that th peer pressure from sponsors, fans, etc. on athletes to e a part of this group would be far more efective then the outdated way we now try and keep tabs on whats happening out there.
