It's too quiet lately: A moral/ethics question

Connie...I don't need a boob job, but if someone offered me a foot enlargement (and even a hand enlargement), I'd take it. Isn't that sick though??! :) Maybe I should post this under "You know you're a swimmer when...." discussion!!

Originally posted by Fishgrrl Connie...I don't need a boob job, but if someone offered me a foot enlargement (and even a hand enlargement), I'd take it. Isn't that sick though??! :) Maybe I should post this under "You know you're a swimmer when...." discussion!! Sick? heh! I've been thinking this junk lately, especially as I stand next to a car as someone is driving off... "Would running over my foot it 'flatten' my toes and ankles more? or, maybe they can snip off couple of the tighter ligaments, Lot of people when they twist their foot tear a few ligaments, and it makes their feet flop around more. I was never enough of a klutz to tear any ankle ligaments, I'm thinking, I have some to spare. I mentioned this in the workout last night when we had to do 12x50 sprint kick with no fins, the girl I've been going ahead of, I let her go first... She's like, oh, you're faster, you go first... I go, not when kicking without fins, I have size-7-feet trying to push around the size-12-bum, I'm not going to be going anywhere fast! (moral of the story: It's not good to laugh really hard before sprint sets ) I'm lucky to have pretty big and wide hands. 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

Originally posted by Leonard Jansen ... 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. Given no bad side effects: I would use it. I would pay for it. I would willingly step aside from Masters meets if that were the consequence.

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, Nice post...... I wish I had thought of it first. Answer: Let'em take their drugs. Legalize it. It's too hard to catch them red handed anyway. Just make sure you put an asterisk next to their name in the record books so we know they cheated. John Smith

Originally posted by Leonard Jansen Furthermore, it offers the following benefits on average: 1) A longer life span. ... Suppose further that this treatment is expensive and not covered by most health insurers. We already have an example: marriage. A married male has (something like) 5 more years than a single male.

Originally posted by TheGoodSmith Leonard, Nice post...... I wish I had thought of it first. Answer: Let'em take their drugs. Legalize it. It's too hard to catch them red handed anyway. Just make sure you put an asterisk next to their name in the record books so we know they cheated. John Smith Any form of record- keep a sample (blood) test later as masking agents are known and DQ or place and asterisk next to the person that has a banne dsubstance. Testing costs are coming down as testing has become more mainstream.

Question: Are the people who take it for the health benefits welcome to compete in master's swimming? Answer: Yes. Question: Would your answer be different if the treatment were available inexpensively/free to everyone? Answer: No.

Something that does this already exists and has for 2000 years. Amen Geek, most intelligent thing I have heard from you in a while...

Unfortunately the proposition is nonsense. Guvnah said it right that if "it" existed, and we knew it, then I and everyone would buy it and use it (there is no ethical dilema). On the other hand, if you can afford Suzanne Sommer's doctor and you are willing to take the risk, you are already able to benefit by taking hormones. What would be more likely to happen is that if virtually everyone was doping (real cheating and lying) like in procycling and you had to decide if you were in the right field or had the right hobby.