Although the phrase performance-enhancing drugs is popularly used in reference to anabolic steroids or their precursors, world anti-doping organizations apply the term broadly. The phrase has been used to refer to several distinct classes of drugs:
Lean mass builders are used to drive or amplify the growth of muscle and lean body mass, and sometimes to reduce body fat. This class of drugs includes anabolic steroids, xenoandrogens, beta-2 agonists, selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs), and various human hormones, most notably human growth hormone, as well as some of their precursors. Performance Enhancing Drugs are also found in Animals as synthetic growth hormone.
Stimulants are used to stimulate their body and mind to perform at optimal level by increasing focus, energy and aggression. Examples include caffeine, amphetamine, and methamphetamine.
Painkillers mask athletes' pain so they can continue to compete and perform beyond their usual pain thresholds. Blood pressure is increased causing the cells in the muscles to be better supplied with vital oxygen. Painkillers used by athletes range from common over-the-counter medicines such as NSAIDs (such as ibuprofen) to powerful prescription narcotics.
Sedatives are sometimes used by athletes in sports like archery which require steady hands and accurate aim, and also by athletes attempting to overcome excessive nervousness or discomfort. Alcohol, valium, propranolol, and marijuana are examples.
Diuretics expel water from athletes' bodies. They are often used by athletes such as wrestlers, who need to meet weight restrictions. Many stimulants also have secondary diuretic effect. (Also used as a masking drug)
Blood boosters increase the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood beyond the individual's natural capacity. Their misuse is centred on endurance sports like cycling and nordic skiing. EPO is the most publicly known drug in this class.
Masking drugs are used to prevent the detection of other classes of drugs. These evolve as quickly as do testing methods – which is very quick indeed – although a time-tested classic example is the use of epitestosterone, a drug with no performance-enhancing effects, to restore the testosterone/epitestosterone ratio (a common criterion in steroid testing) to normal levels after anabolic steroid supplementation.
Although the phrase performance-enhancing drugs is popularly used in reference to anabolic steroids or their precursors, world anti-doping organizations apply the term broadly. The phrase has been used to refer to several distinct classes of drugs.
Why can't an individual utilize all facets available to him/her when competing? It is their choice!
If a legal exercise regime provided the same performance-enhancing benefits as an illegal compound, then should the exercise regime be made illegal?
Female Gymnasts: does their training reduce growth rates, delay maturation and increase the risk of long-term skeletal injury?
Traumatic Brain Injury in Professional Football: An Evidence-Base Perspective
Like the other forms of blood doping, transfusions have serious medical consequences. Another person’s blood may contain a virus, which is unwittingly passed on during the transfusion. An athlete uses his or her own blood, can put themselves at significant health risks if the procedure is not done properly or if the blood is not handled or stored in a proper manner. In addition, unnaturally high red blood cell levels increase the risk of heart attack, stroke, and pulmonary or cerebral embolism.
In the "Performance enhancing drugs in sports" debate, I will examine the arguments by round.
For his opening, beezzer offers a lot of text from Wikipedia regarding these drugs, and then argues that there are everyday substances that mimic some of these effects, to a degree, which are not banned. Fair enough, but not a very strong opening statement, in my opinion. Daaskapital responds with a great opening that rips apart his opponent's point of view cleanly. He does, however, provide an opening for beezzer by citing legalism. But opening round goes to Daaskapital.
In the middle round, beezzer jumps on that legalism opening, but in a strange way, stating that if a country was to legalize, say, steroids, suddenly all of their athletes could use steroids. At least I think that's what he was saying, but it's the world sports regulators who say what is legal to use in a sport or not, so I don't know why he said that. He does shift gears, though, and suggests that exercise methods could also be made illegal, because they are "performance enhancing." Daaskapital responds to that very well, I think, noting that the point of these bans are to prevent both damage to the athletes and to prevent an unfair advantage -- if doing more pushups is an advantage, there's nothing to prevent everyone from doing more pushups. Middle round also goes to Daaskapital.
beezzer's closing statement was his strongest, I think, presenting an essentially Libertarian argument that the athletes in question are largely adults, so they should be able to judge the risks of these drugs and choose what is right for them. There are some big problems with that, such as the influence on children or on other athletes, who might feel forced to take substances that they don't want to, just to be able to compete with others who do, but that is for Daaskapital to address, not me. In his closing statement, he doesn't really address that core weakness of beezzer's post, but does make a number of good points. It is close, but I think that beezzer has a stronger closing round.
However, overall, I think that Daaskapital has a stronger basis throughout the match, and, on points, I give him the victory.
Beezer wins this one, his arguments for what has long been considered a taboo subject were absolutely calm, rational and on target. He puts the whole practice in a new light, and while Dass had some valid points, he couldn't get past the entire why not argument that Beezer put forward. Very interesting to read, and very hard to judge when your whole life has been spent hearing how bad this is
beezzer does well to provide a distinction between legal and illegal "agents", covering different aspects of "enhancements".
daaskapital counters nicely by providing a list of illegal substances controlled by the WADA, and sets the stage by questioning "why" athletes would use such substances.
beezzer's logic in round two edges him ahead a bit, countering opinion against actual fact. Indeed, why not make all things illegal or legal, and is successful in pointing out a particularly striking bias.
daaskapital goes on the defensive and counters each of his opponent's quite well, adding health risks to athletes as another point in his favor.
beezzer finishes out his position by pointing out that in professional sports the participants are adults, and therefore should be free to choose.
daaskapital once again counters, staying focused and on topic, that the rules are in place for the safety of the athlete, the WADA decides what is safe, and sports are intended to be fair and equal.
While both debaters had solid arguments, and each presented very valid positions, daaskapital was able to stay focused, and even though he spent the majority of the debate on the defensive, his overall position is what convinces me that he earns the debate win.