Welcome to Thunderdome

TPRJones wrote:So what is the fundamental ethical difference between doping and having ultra-aerodynamic headgear or high-tech body suits? Aren't both just using artificial means to boost an athlete's performance? Why is one cheating and the other is legit?

There are rules as to what you can do, the end. Even with the equipment, there are limits. Those super fast swimsuits from years ago are banned now.

You have to wear a swimsuit to swim. You don't need drugs to swim.

TPRJones wrote:So? That has nothing to do with fairness or the integrity of the games. It's just the cost of using, and athletes should be allowed to make that sort of decision for themselves, shouldn't they? Regardless that's about practicality and doesn't deal with the ethics involved so it doesn't address my question: ethically what is the difference?

Steroid use makes you more likely to be violent and prone to injure others. I don't give a fuck if someone gets a blood clot later in life and dies because of it, but sending people into competition in a hyperbelligerent state seems like a bad idea.

Like auto racing, you're allowed certain alternations to your body and suit (the car), but only to a set limit.

The suits being designed differently is fair because it's within set standards.

People train their bodies in different ways, but in the end it's all legal so long as shortcuts weren't taken. That's what steroids are, shortcuts.

Leisher wrote:Like auto racing, you're allowed certain alternations to your body and suit (the car), but only to a set limit.

The suits being designed differently is fair because it's within set standards.

People train their bodies in different ways, but in the end it's all legal so long as shortcuts weren't taken. That's what steroids are, shortcuts.

So ... all the substances that the IOC hasn't gotten around to banning yet, those are cool? Isn't training harder a shortcut? How about training at higher altitudes in lower oxygen environments? I get what TPR is saying, and for the most part, I agree. What's the difference between someone:

1) using or not using steroids

versus

2) training hard or going out and pulling a Manziel every night?

The only legit reason I can think is the safety of others, and that's barely grasping at straws in sports where safety takes a back seat to gameplay (hockey, football).

So what I'm seeing is it's basically arbitrary or grounded in an aspect of practicality, rather than based on some ethical principle. There are rules and because they are rules they must rule, the end.

I was just curious. Seems like it's getting harder and harder to catch cheaters, so I was wondering why those rules are even there in the first place. If there was a reason for the particular place that the line has been drawn. Because if not maybe moving that line could lead to more fairness in the long run.

TPRJones wrote:So what I'm seeing is it's basically arbitrary or grounded in an aspect of practicality, rather than based on some ethical principle. There are rules and because they are rules they must rule, the end.

I was just curious. Seems like it's getting harder and harder to catch cheaters, so I was wondering why those rules are even there in the first place. If there was a reason for the particular place that the line has been drawn. Because if not maybe moving that line could lead to more fairness in the long run.

Steroids has always been considered "cheating" while extra or creative training regimens are "hard work." In that, it's a bit arbitrary.

Transmission of Zika in the US without normal vectors.

“This case is unusual. The individual does not have any of the known risk factors we’ve seen thus far with Zika virus,” said Gary Edwards, health officer at the Salt Lake County Health Department, during a press conference.
...
A Utah resident who died after contracting Zika from travel abroad may have spread the virus to a family contact who did not leave the country, raising troubling questions about a possible new route of transmission of the mosquito-borne virus, state and federal officials said Monday.

Faster - Higher - Stronger - Sicker

TPRJones wrote:So what I'm seeing is it's basically arbitrary or grounded in an aspect of practicality, rather than based on some ethical principle. There are rules and because they are rules they must rule, the end.

I was just curious. Seems like it's getting harder and harder to catch cheaters, so I was wondering why those rules are even there in the first place. If there was a reason for the particular place that the line has been drawn. Because if not maybe moving that line could lead to more fairness in the long run.

Most of the basic tech (swimsuits, track suits, etc) are accessible to anyone. For a few hundred $ you can get the best swimsuit on the planet, more or less. Yah, the Americans can spend thousands to cut custom tailored ones (or Speedo donate them, whatever), but they are basically the same.

For blood doping, drugs, etc. That stuff can get crazy expensive, and would put richer countries at a much greater advantage.

That's also true about training, isn't it? Not to mention paying people who are better athletes to move to your country and represent you at the Olympics. The money playing field is already seems pretty tilted.

There's certainly an argument for advanced training, with computers, advanced imagery, etc. But I think plenty of people can train to elite levels without that stuff.

Ultimately, it's arbitrary. But the idea is that you have to make your body go, not drugs. Even with the training, yeah, people are providing advice based on technological stuff, but you still have to do the actual training.

Speaking of Zika...a co-worker just got back from a trip to the Caribbean where, in her words, "I was bitten by a thousand mosquitoes."

She was out sick Friday, feels like dog shit still but had to come in, and has pink eye, which is apparently a symptom of zika.

I was telling her that she needs to go to a doctor, not call and ask for some drugs. Then she started telling me that her young daughter drinks out of her cup all the time, and was chuckling. I sent her Malcolm's link about the Utah person possibly transmitting it and said, "Go see a doctor!"

Odds of her having it are low, but fuck, why take the chance?

Russia is now facing a complete ban from the 2016 games.

If you have to miss an Olympics, this is the one...

If I was a Russian athlete, it'd be easy to see the silver lining.

Will not associate itself with any international competition held in Russia, including the 2019 Euro Games.
Will ask sports federations not to hold major events in Russia.
Will not accredit anyone implicated by the report or anyone from the Russian Ministry of Sport.
Will investigate all Russian athletes who participated in the 2014 Games in Sochi, Russia, for possible disciplinary action.

Except the part where all the medals from the last set of games in your home country are now going to be rescinded.

Decision on the 2016 Russian Olympic ban is supposed to drop on Sunday.

I'm betting the IOC is getting a big check for many rubles on Saturday.

GORDON wrote:I'm betting the IOC is getting a big check for many rubles on Saturday.

Uh ... the current case for someone to go to Rio next month is already looking less attractive than a last call bar whore after you sober up. If anyone from Russia is allowed to compete, everyone except the other juicers might get pushed over the edge and say, "Fuck it, boycott."

I don't see what that has to do with the IOC being corrupt.

GORDON wrote:I don't see what that has to do with the IOC being corrupt.

They open up the doors to lawsuits and boycotts. I don't believe they're that suicidal.

You think athletes are going to boycott the Olympics? Right now most of them are going in spite of disease, unreadiness, a harbor full of toilet water, and a pretty good chance they will be crimed to death.

And under whose jurisdiction do they fall under for lawsuits? Honestly don't know.

They're gonna get paid. If they get sued, they just retire rich.

The IOC can get sued in an international court.

You think athletes are going to boycott the Olympics? Right now most of them are going in spite of disease, unreadiness, a harbor full of toilet water, and a pretty good chance they will be crimed to death.

Yeah, because they think they've a chance to bring home a medal or at least be competitive. Given equal training, juicers have a huge edge and Russia would be dickish enough to send multiple athletes to a single event ... and that's not counting everyone else who's cheating that hasn't been caught (obviously Russia didn't bribe enough of the right officials).