Super Human Performance Could Betray Sport Drug Cheats

Super Human Performance Could Betray Sport Drug Cheats

www.newscientist.com

HEROICS will be performed this July. The Tour de France lasts 21 days, covers 3600 kilometres and includes 25 lung-busting climbs in the Alps and Pyrenees. Each extraordinary performance in the race will, however, generate suspicion as well as admiration. Allegations of doping have plagued the Tour for so long that any rider who excels now inevitably attracts talk of drug use.

But what if a superhuman performance itself could be used as evidence of doping? That's the thinking behind a new strategy, which asks: "Is this physiologically possible without the aid of drugs?"

(visit the link for the full news article)

The idea is straightforward: work out the boundaries of human ability, based on what we know about physiology and its maximal capabilities. If an athlete's performance lies outside this limit, they are highlighted as a potential drug-taker and given more frequent and extensive drug screenings.

Generally speaking if an athlete is performing unusually well there must be a reason. Either he/she is on steroid or erythropoetin or they are a bionic miracle.

I personally will believe in the bionic miracle when the other possibilities are eliminated!

In the days of steroid use (before we could detect them) by athletes like Berry Bond the clue was always that the individual was often sidelined due to tendon injuries. Why tendon injuries? Because the muscles were stronger due to hormones than the tendon and musculoskeletal system could support and injuries were common in steroid users.

From a medical standpoint this idea of testing the outperformers makes sense to me!

www.newscientist.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Sometimes I wish they'd just drop the rules altogether.

Let the athlete augment themselves however they wish.

Whats so bad about Super human performance? Why not make them faster, stronger, better. And see how far we can push the limits?

reply to post by belial259

Whats so bad about Super human performance? Why not make them faster, stronger, better. And see how far we can push the limits?

That would be because it is unethical, unfair, unbelievably stupid and of course physically detrimental to the athletes!

Originally posted by belial259
Sometimes I wish they'd just drop the rules altogether.

Let the athlete augment themselves however they wish.

Whats so bad about Super human performance? Why not make them faster, stronger, better. And see how far we can push the limits?

I concur wholeheartedly and without argument. Plumranch, I would have to argue that cycling for hundreds of miles is in itself physically detrimental. Their bodies, their choice...and if they don't feel completely owned by sponsors and are insane enough to push the physically detrimental limits of their chosen sport and break every record around....good for them.
I think those who then elected to refused an "unnatural" boost and still endured the same hell in competition for cash and yellow spandex would then be held in even higher esteem.

Maybe...maybe not.

reply to post by Milleresque


I don't concur...steroids can damage your body beyond repair, and it will with long term use...the reason it's unfair, is because some people don't want to risk damaging their bodies, they want to test what they were naturally capable of and push themselves to the limit without the aid of drugs or anything else. Once you introduce drugs, it then becomes a competition of who is taking more drugs.

But in relation to the opening post, I do not agree at all with putting limits on what we are physically capable of...athletes will tell you the right frame of mind is the number one key to unlocking your potential...you have to know you can succeed, and have the determination to make it a reality...there is no limit on what we are physically capable of, the only limit is in your head...

Maybe...maybe not.

How many accounts do you have?

[edit on 1/7/10 by CHA0S]

reply to post by plumranch


Ethics and fairness are merely human constructs. They don't actually exist in any real sense.

Originally posted by CHA0S
reply to post by Milleresque

 

I don't concur...steroids can damage your body beyond repair, and it will with long term use...the reason it's unfair, is because some people don't want to risk damaging their bodies, they want to test what they were naturally capable of and push themselves to the limit without the aid of drugs or anything else. Once you introduce drugs, it then becomes a competition of who is taking more drugs.

But in relation to the opening post, I do not agree at all with putting limits on what we are physically capable of...athletes will tell you the right frame of mind is the number one key to unlocking your potential...you have to know you can succeed, and have the determination to make it a reality...there is no limit on what we are physically capable of, the only limit is in your head...

Maybe...maybe not.

How many account do you have?


I'd bet you the super-athlete on drugs Always beats the super-athlete who thinks positive thoughts. ; )
[edit on 1/7/10 by CHA0S]

Do you blokes watch NRL by any chance?

Why even talk about "being detrimental to the athletes health" these guys are on their 10th knee construction and recovering from two broken collar bones and brain legions but they still get out there and play anyway.

Boxers can't really fair much better from their sport I'd imagine.

More than a few spots seem to have health risks anyway. And athletes are already doing things that are or could be detrimental to their health.

So if extraordinary performance(s) flag an athlete as a potential (ab)user of drugs and they get subjected to more drugs tests, err - so what? They're either clean or not and I'm sure they'd go into events knowing this.

As for abolishing rules regarding this, I'm not altogether sure - there are big problems with steroids and the effects on the human system, perhaps if they weren't outlawed and with big sports funding, they might become less dangerous?

My gut feeling though is that athletes should be judged on the physical prowess that they've gained unaided by "artificial" means (whatever that is), by the time and effort they put into training and their mental determination.

As for ethics etc being a construct of man, fair point, but then so is competition - and if we're going to have that as a mass organised event, then we have to agree on terms of how to define how the event will be run.

Edit to add:

Not really into sport myself, although I do enjoy Curling. Maybe I'd like to see the introduction of performance-altering drugs, where players get scored for being heavily medicated and still being able to compete.

[edit on 1/7/1010 by jokei]

Originally posted by belial259
Sometimes I wish they'd just drop the rules altogether.

Let the athlete augment themselves however they wish.

I think in many sports like athletics this is accepted already.

I am not sure why the public is naive enough to think those american super atheletes where not using drugs of some form during the cold war.

So like what you say, maybe we should just accept that sports and drugs will happen and let it be. The thing is what drugs do they ban, and what ones do they let to be used.

Like japp stam said in his book that man utd where on drugs in late 90's. What drugs where they taking and why wasn't that drug banned while others are not.

I think we are not told anywhere near the truth in sports, and doping.

Originally posted by jokei
As for ethics etc being a construct of man, fair point, but then so is competition

Are you sure?

I don't think it is. Everything is competition. The strong live the weak die. That is the way of things.

That is the only universal truth there really is.

Other life forms compete. They find ways to adapt and survive and find mates and food sources etc. They have no rules. No ethics. No morals.

"Super human" sounds "unfair" sure. Like it's something above what man should be able to do. But why should mankind rest on it's laurels?

We do have the ability now to make ourselves better than we are. And that ability is advancing incredibly quickly. Evolution goes on while we talk about the merits of "playing god" or "ethics" and the clock is ticking. Life is not something that should be taken for granted.

Homo sapiens will need to change eventually if we are to go further. Why not let these athletes be the pioneers? Break every record, and then go even further?

Originally posted by belial259

I don't think it is. Everything is competition. The strong live the weak die. That is the way of things.

That is the only universal truth there really is.

Other life forms compete. They find ways to adapt and survive and find mates and food sources etc. They have no rules. No ethics. No morals.

Give it a rest.

That is why these are call sporting competitions.

By applying your silly logic it sounds like you wouldn't mind if the competitors started killing and wounding each other.


"The strong live the weak die. That is the way of things. "



I hope you are just trolling.





[edit on 1-7-2010 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
By applying your silly logic it sounds like you wouldn't mind if the competitors started killing and wounding each other.

I've often said the Olympics needed a 5 man special forces live fire death match event.

But maybe I've watched too much Running Man.

ROME — In an effort to clean up its sport, the international governing body of swimming will require its athletes to show more skin. By an overwhelming vote Friday at its general congress, FINA officials decided to ban the high-tech swimsuits that have been likened to doping on a hanger. The ban does not start until 2010, but the polyurethane-based swimsuit era that the swimwear giant Speedo introduced in the lead-up to last year’s Beijing Olympics will effectively be ushered out, presumably with a bang, at the swimming world championships that start here Sunday.

Ny Times

The Swim suit controversy.

I think this is a better example of what I'm really talking about. (rather than killing eachother in the pool, as amusing as that would be)

Or the case of Pistorius "The Blade Runner"

PARIS (AFP) — South African paralympic champion Oscar Pistorius has been told he cannot compete in the Beijing Olympics because the artificial legs he uses give him an unfair advantage. The decision to ban the 21-year-old sprinter from all competitions involving able-bodied athletes was announced by the sport's governing body, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) on Monday. Pistorius, who as an 11-month-old baby had both of his legs amputated below the knee due to a congenital disorder, runs on specially adapted carbon fibre blades that have seen him win paralympic titles and challenge the times set by top-level able-bodied athletes. But a scientific investigation into his springy prosthetics carried out by the Institute of Biomechanics at Cologne University last November found that they gave him a clear competitive edge over such athletes.

AFP

There are other methods athletes use. Different shoes for example. Designed to give them an edge over other competitors.

Where do you draw the limit? And why draw one at all?

Originally posted by belial259

Originally posted by jokei
As for ethics etc being a construct of man, fair point, but then so is competition

Are you sure?

I don't think it is. Everything is competition. The strong live the weak die. That is the way of things.

That is the only universal truth there really is.

Other life forms compete. They find ways to adapt and survive and find mates and food sources etc. They have no rules. No ethics. No morals.

I did consider that as I was posting, but in this context I didn't think that it strictly applied. It's not like Lance Armstrong will be clubbing Sheryl Crow over the head and dragging her back to his cave...
In the context of this thread (and most sport) I'm simply seeing it as entertainment for the masses.

I think human adaptation should be more about mental advancement as opposed to physical prowess. Hopefully it would let fundamentalists die out if we actually started using our brains more.

Originally posted by belial259
I've often said the Olympics needed a 5 man special forces live fire death match event.

But maybe I've watched too much Running Man.

Hell yeah




[edit on 1/7/1010 by jokei]

Originally posted by belial259

I've often said the Olympics needed a 5 man special forces live fire death match event.

But maybe I've watched too much Running Man.

No. That's nuts.

What we need is a "Steroid Olympics" and other contests where the athletes can use any and all drugs to enhance their performance.

Contests like those would showcase the upper limit of human potential and performance.

Originally posted by belial259
Sometimes I wish they'd just drop the rules altogether.

Let the athlete augment themselves however they wish.

Whats so bad about Super human performance? Why not make them faster, stronger, better. And see how far we can push the limits?

You are absolutely correct. Sport on a high level is always unhealthy
for your body. More unhealthy in fact then taking steroids and exercising _on a reasonable level_. It is totally possible to use steroids in amounts that are healthy for your body. Doctors call it treating a disease, athletes call it optimizing their hormonal balance.

reply to post by CHA0S

But in relation to the opening post, I do not agree at all with putting limits on what we are physically capable of...athletes will tell you the right frame of mind is the number one key to unlocking your potential...

No limits are being imposed.

They are simply using the statistics involved/ measured relating to high levels of performance, forming a range for known athletes not doping and using that range to judge who should be tested. Since testing is both expensive and invasive this makes good sense.