7351
Nutrition & Supplementation / Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
« on: October 18, 2012, 10:21:03 am »
here's another thoughtful, even-handed piece on doping in sport and why people seem so gleeful about lance armstrong's fall from grace, from a psych professor in england.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/10/sponsors-overboard-guest-post-on.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FcJKs+%28The+Science+of+Sport%29&utm_content=FaceBook
excerpt:
and another excerpt:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/10/sponsors-overboard-guest-post-on.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FcJKs+%28The+Science+of+Sport%29&utm_content=FaceBook
excerpt:
Quote
As with fairness, it may be rather simplistic to insist that doping-free sport eliminates risks. Elite sport in particular can reward all sorts of risk-taking, but opening the door to more drug use again seems to potentially worsen the problem. For this author at least it’s this issue of safety that finally leads to a parting of ways with Savulescu and Foddy. I’m not sure I can get comfortable with a sport where a legitimate route to winning is for young athletes to push the limits of pharmaceutical assistance. Should I be comfortable with sport that encourage pushing the limits in other ways? Perhaps not. But that doesn’t mean I want to open another avenue of risk. There is the possibility of improving safety with medical supervision, but a glance at the motley collection of doping medics who populate recent sport memoirs leaves me a little low on confidence that this would help.
The involvement of those dubious doctors, though, highlights a counter-argument and brings us back to the issue of illegality itself compromising safety. As with recreational drugs, if a substance is permitted there may be a greater incentive to improve its safety (rather than at present where the emphasis is on undetectability), and for people of greater integrity to become involved in its supervision. In the end the issue pivots on whether you can argue convincingly enough that, as in the case of something like heroin, prohibition actively contributes to the risks via dodgy suppliers, unsafe drugs or badly controlled administration. If someone could make this case might it change things?
and another excerpt:
Quote
Another way to look at it though is to consider the possibility that Armstrong is not quite as reprehensible as all that. It could be that we are seeing (as Tyler Hamilton and others have suggested) someone trapped inside a lie that’s too big for easy escape and driven by fear. Fear of failing, of discovery, of loss of the esteem which some still have. How would most people deal with that? How would you? Armstrong’s public stance of studied (or pretend) indifference is quite agonising to watch. It may be that that he is simply an ordinary person, albeit in extraordinary circumstances, with weaknesses and flaws like the rest of us. And this is the heart of his problem: if you’re Lance Armstrong, the journey to just being an ordinary guy is a long, long way down.