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

More pot-stirring: I think it should be pointed out (again) that Leonard posed the question in the sense that, in this case, it is being used for medical treatment and not strictly a performance enhancer. That it has performance enhancing properties was introduced as a side-effect. Leonard, you really do bring out the devil in me. I like it.

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.

Originally posted by Guvnah What if they found that some naturally-occurring "food" (some common leaf that we don't currently eat, such as tomato plant leaves) boosted strength and recovery far more than any banned drug today? Would they ban tomato leaves? (I'm just thinking out loud here...) For example, isn't it illegal to grow marijuana plants?

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

"For example, isn't it illegal to grow marijuana plants?" That depends on where you live.....

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.

Mr. Commings, Were you siting Amy Van Dyken as a drug free example next to Janet Evans? Dude..... wasn't Amy subpoenaed at the Balco trial due to certain friends she kept? While I would agree that her competition, Ingrid DeBruijn, has certain facial features that look drug related, I don't know that I would use Amy's image as a poster child for a drug free zone. I think a better example of "natural" talent would have been someone like Tracy Caulkins who did battle with the East Germans in the late 1970s. John Smith

Originally posted by Leonard Jansen 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? Drug testing isn't currently done in masters swimming. I certainly can't imagine that your hypothetical scenario would change that. A better question, I think, is whether people who take it for the health benefit should be allowed to compete in meets where drug testing is done. Whether such people would be allowed to compete is, unfortunately, a difficult question to answer. But whether they should be allowed to compete is much easier. The Rationale For Drug Testing First, the rationale for drug testing is not simply that there are drugs that enhance performance (though some people seem to believe this). The rationale is that there are drugs which enhance performance at the expense of impairing, or at least endangering, the athlete's long-term health. If we allow even one athlete to do this, then every one of that athlete's competitors will be forced to choose either to be at a competitive disadvantage or to sacrifice his/her health on the altar of temporary glory. And not only is that a choice which no athlete should ever have to make - it also degrades the entire character of athletics (which, in general, promotes good health). But if it would be wrong to force athletes to make this choice, it would be even worse to force them to choose between impairing their health and not being allowed to compete at all. At this is precisely the choice they would have to make in the hypothetical scenario with which you have presented us. The Precedents Actually, this scenario is not radically different, except in scale, from one which has faced the governing boards of our sport for a long, long time. There have always been athletes who have needed to take certain substances for health reasons. The general policy the boards have adopted is that such use is permitted subject to certain guidelines: 1) An athlete should not be allowed to use a substance that enhances his/her performance above that of his/her healthy counterparts if there is an alternative treatment that would not enhance performance. 2) If there is no alternative that would not enhance performance, the athlete should be permitted to use the substance, but he/she should be tested to insure that the substance is only being used in the quantities that are needed to treat the health problem. 3) The athlete must disclose the use of the substance to the governing boards so that items 1 and 2 can be enforced. The Disease The health problems you have listed - life span, general mental and physical health, heart disease, cancers, Alzheimer's disease - are all closely tied to the aging process. And that raises another troublesome problem: The medical community, in general, does not currently classify the aging process as a disease (unless it occurs very rapidly, as in progeria). But there seems to be no intelligent rationale for this attitude. I have never seen a comprehensive definition of the word "disease" that would not be satisfied by the aging process, and suspect that this attitude exists because the medical community, historically, has had no prophylaxis, no cure, and woefully few treatments for ordinary geria (or, for that matter, for progeria). The attitude may stem, in part, from a purely practical feeling that there is no point in calling something a disease if you can't do anything about it. But it may also be a form of denial. After all, if you were a doctor, would you find it comfortable to admit that, in spite of all your medical wisdom and all the diseases you can treat effectively, there remains one disease that is insidious, debilitating, disfiguring, and always fatal, that afflicts 100% of the population (unless they die first from something else), and that you can do almost nothing about it? Once you recognize that the aging process is a disease, then it makes perfect sense that athletes should be able to take medications to treat it, and that this should not bar them from competition (any more than, e.g., a diabetic who takes insulin or a diabetes drug should be barred from competition). Bob

One of the problems with the current doping practices is that the drugs have some bad side effects. If they allow doping, then to stay competitive it forces those who don't want to face the risks to face them anyway, or fall behind those who don't care about the risks. The proposal in the base note specified no side effects. I wonder if such a substance would be universally allowed across all sports. In essence we already have this sort of situation. (It's a weak connection, but let me give it a try anyway.) It's called food. We know that certain diets improve performance over less nutritious diets. And (as far as we know) there are no harmful side effects. What if they found that some naturally-occurring "food" (some common leaf that we don't currently eat, such as tomato plant leaves) boosted strength and recovery far more than any banned drug today? Would they ban tomato leaves? (I'm just thinking out loud here...)

Originally posted by Conniekat8 For example, isn't it illegal to grow marijuana plants? I'm going to quote Robin Williams here (I can't help it, the situtation is just too perfect): They said marijuana was a performance-enhancing drug. Now, marijuana enhances many things. Colors, tastes...sensations. But you're certainly not f*ing empowered. When you're stoned, you're lucky if you can find your own damn feet!" Connie, you just made my night, girl!