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
Former Member
Originally posted by thisgirl13
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!
Tee Hee ;)
Robin Williams is great!
Originally posted by mattson
We already have an example: marriage. A married male has (something like) 5 more years than a single male.
I'm off-topic with this, but I wonder if this stat is for life expectancy at birth? If it is that's a pretty major flaw since anyone who dies as a child is necessarily unmarried.
This might be a good example of "lies, damn lies and statistics" :)
