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're in the right neighborhood to start an interesting argument, but you've put so many conditions on it that the answer is too easy. Our supposed drug is beneficial, has no serious side effects, and we're talking about low stakes USMS competitions. Of course no serious person would come down in favor of starting a USMS drug testing program to keep people who were using it out of USMS competitions.
If you want to start a fight over ethics, expose the sharp edges. Please permit me to ask this question. Let's suppose that USMS gets a little bigger, and people begin to take the results of our competitions more seriously. Not Olympic Games serious, but modest prize money and press attention for USMS or FINA Masters champions, and some small endorsement deals for people who break National and/or World Masters records. (Not really a full time job, but say semi-pro baseball money.) Now let's suppose there is credible reason to believe that some of the contenders are juiced with some of the old, bad substances we have already discovered.
Now what do we do? Is Masters swimming really about participation and personal goals, or is it about championships and the money? Is it something in between? If so, what?
Matt
Leonard,
You're in the right neighborhood to start an interesting argument, but you've put so many conditions on it that the answer is too easy. Our supposed drug is beneficial, has no serious side effects, and we're talking about low stakes USMS competitions. Of course no serious person would come down in favor of starting a USMS drug testing program to keep people who were using it out of USMS competitions.
If you want to start a fight over ethics, expose the sharp edges. Please permit me to ask this question. Let's suppose that USMS gets a little bigger, and people begin to take the results of our competitions more seriously. Not Olympic Games serious, but modest prize money and press attention for USMS or FINA Masters champions, and some small endorsement deals for people who break National and/or World Masters records. (Not really a full time job, but say semi-pro baseball money.) Now let's suppose there is credible reason to believe that some of the contenders are juiced with some of the old, bad substances we have already discovered.
Now what do we do? Is Masters swimming really about participation and personal goals, or is it about championships and the money? Is it something in between? If so, what?
Matt
