Lance

diablo said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not if the "god gifted" athletes take them as well. then
the improvement

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

standardised.

I disagree. We have the example of fins, which is
metaphorically comparable.

No, it isn't. Fin's alter your mechanical state
temporarily. Drugs alter your physiological state for an
extended period of time (as long as you take them). Thats
nowhere near the same.

I did say metaphorically comparable, not physically.

Quoted message said:

Also, by your rationale, drugs are selective in only
helping bring people to a certain level, after whch, they
have no effect. Thats garbage Martin. All pharmacological
ergogenic aids (if they work) will increase your
improvement by (for example!) 5-10%. They don't
discriminate. They're drugs, not R.S.S. contributors
talking about obesity...

You have used a few terms in ways that don't make sense to
me. Drugs don't discriminate at all. They participate in
chemical reactions. The term discriminate doesn't apply to
this discussion.

Also, what does "increase your improvement" mean. If you are
talking about drugs that increase speed, then we aren't
talking about the same drugs. I'm talking about drugs that
are taken during the training phase. These drugs don't
increase your speed but increase your capacity to train
harder, for longer periods, and more frequently. You still
have to do the training.

It is the training that increases the speed of the swimmer,
not the drugs. If you mean that even the most genetically
gifted swimmer can train harder for longer periods, more
frequently, I disagree, but I will concede that point,
because there are only so many hours in the day and so many
days in the week, and the top swimmers are already using
them all. Once the genetically gifted and non-gifted
swimmers get to the elite level and are training seven days
a week for 4-6 hours a day, then it really does boil down to
who wants it the most.

I don't know where you get this 5% to 10% increase in
improvement. When was Ian thorpe tested? He never has taken
drugs, has he? For your claim to be true, Ian must be in the
set of tested swimmers, or your claim lacks credibility.
Besides that, there are these theoretical maxima to deal
with. If I can get a 10% improvement from drug X, and I can
get a 10% improvement from drug Y, and another 10% from drug
Z, then I can improved by 30%? And if I can get 10%
improvement from one does of drug X, then I can get 30%
improvement from three doeses of drug X?

Furthermore, 10% improvement is bigger in absolute terms for
Joew Schmo than it is for Ian Thorpe.There is a maximum
speed for swimming, and Ian is a lot closer to it than most
swimmers. He simply can not improve as much as lesser gifted
swimmers in absolute terms without violating the theory of
relativity ;-)

Mike Edey said:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 12:40:20 +0200, Martin W. Smith wrote:

<snip>

I'm not going to get too involved here, as it seems clear
that you're simply arguing to have something to argue
about, but....

Quoted message said:

It is the training that increases the speed of the
swimmer, not the drugs. If you mean that even the most
genetically gifted swimmer can train harder for longer
periods, more frequently, I disagree, but I will concede
that point, because there are only so many hours in the
day and so many days in the week, and the top swimmers
are already using them all. Once the genetically gifted
and non-gifted swimmers get to the elite level and are
training seven days a week for 4-6 hours a day, then it
really does boil down to who wants it the most.

There comes a point when training is recovery limited.
Steriods reduce the need for recovery, hence allowing
greater training & adaptation. There are, despite what some
here hav attempted to say in recent months, severe
penalties for choosing this course of action. They're
illegale not so much because they're aids but because
they're effective aids that carry consequences that
shouldn't have to be born simply to be competitive.

Once again, though, we have a case where something (be it a
healthy gene pool or a little androstenedione or what have
you) that simply aids in adjusting a ceiling - they don't
do the work for you.

I agree with you up to there, with the minor quibble that
I disagree with your point about *why* they are illegal.
But then...

Quoted message said:

The difference being the evolutiun has a lot of leeway
before it's properly eugenics while doping is simply
cheating.

Doping is cheating because the rules say it is illegal, not
because it is inherrently cheating. It used to be cheating
if you rolled over in backstroke just before your turn.
then they changed the rules and it wasn't cheating anymore.
Using drugs is cheating because the rules say so and for no
other reason.

Quoted message said:

Doping is cheating because the rules say it is illegal, not
because it is inherrently cheating. It used to be cheating
if you rolled over in backstroke just before your turn.
then they changed the rules and it wasn't cheating anymore.
Using drugs is cheating because the rules say so and for no
other reason.

Doping is the biggest cheat in sport and not because rules
say so. It's followed by results that are unreachable for
gifted, hard-working, healthy, clean athlete.

For me mastery is perfection in every detail. Drugs give you
experience that you do not deserve.

It wouldn't be cheat if everyone takes drugs (what is
groundless and unwise). Everyone can roll over in backstroke
and it doesn't cost anything (doesn't have long-term side
effect as well) Propably it is an idealistic view which can
exist only in amateur sport.

There is always someone better than you -even if you are an
olimpic champion.

Gosia
---------
PL

Malgorzata Szeszo said:

Quoted message said:

Doping is cheating because the rules say it is illegal,
not because it is inherrently cheating. It used to be
cheating if you rolled over in backstroke just before your
turn. then they changed the rules and it wasn't cheating
anymore. Using drugs is cheating because the rules say so
and for no other reason.

Doping is the biggest cheat in sport and not because rules
say so. It's followed by results that are unreachable for
gifted, hard-working, healthy, clean athlete.

I've never seen any evidence of that. I don't even think it
has been tested. I've seen evidence that drugs can help
athletes improve. I've seen evidence that drugs can cause
health problems and even death. I haven't seen any evidence
that results achieved by athletes who use drugs are not
reachable by some other athlete without drugs. Are you
referring to actual experiemts?

Quoted message said:

For me mastery is perfection in every detail. Drugs give
you experience that you do not deserve.

So do genes.

Quoted message said:

It wouldn't be cheat if everyone takes drugs (what is
groundless and unwise). Everyone can roll over in
backstroke and it doesn't cost anything (doesn't have long-
term side effect as well) Propably it is an idealistic view
which can exist only in amateur sport.

There is always someone better than you -even if you are an
olimpic champion.

Gosia
---------
PL

diablo said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, by your rationale, drugs are selective in only
helping bring people

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a certain level, after whch, they have no effect. Thats
garbage Martin.

All

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

pharmacological ergogenic aids (if they work) will
increase your

improvement

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

by (for example!) 5-10%. They don't discriminate.
They're drugs, not

R.S.S.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

contributors talking about obesity...

You have used a few terms in ways that don't make sense
to me. Drugs don't discriminate at all. They participate
in chemical reactions. The term discriminate doesn't
apply to this discussion.

Drugs, in your scenario, do discriminate because you claim
they'll help some but not others.

That's not what I claim. It is probably true, but what I
claim is that drugs don't help everyone equally. As another
metaphorical example, marijuana apparently has very little
effect on me, while on others it has a large effect. If drug
X increases a person's capacity to do work by 10% (and here
I assume we mean 10% of the remaining capacity, not 10% of
the existing capacity), then in absolut terms the lesser
gifted athlete derives more benefit from using drug X than
the gifted athlete.

Quoted message said:

you claim they'll bring the also rans into line with the
champions.

*some* also rans. Drugs would never have made me a champion,
for example. Drugs could have made me a local hero in high
school, and had they been available and legal at the time, I
would have used them.

Quoted message said:

If the top 10 ranks take the drug, you're aying only 5-10
will benefit from it?

No. I suppose it is likely they would all benefit, but,
statistically (and I'm making assumptions here) the lower
ranks would benefit more than the upper ranks. You said so
yourself. You said there would be an improvement of 10-15%.
That value will be bigger for the slower swimmers, right?

Quoted message said:

that would mean discrimination, which is ridiculous,
because as you rightly pointed out, drugs can't
discriminate. to why wouldn't the 1-4 ranks improve as
much as 5-10? thats where you're losing
me.

Because the improvement is expressed in percentage terms.
10% of 3:50 is bigger than 10% 3:40. But we are talking
about the indirect effect of drugs, when we talk about speed
improvements. The direct effect is on the ability to do work
and withstand pain.

Suppose you are right, then, and Ian thorpe gets as much
benefit from drug X as Martin Smith. Suppose that while
taking the drug, I can train seven days a week, 6 hours per
day. Ian Thorpe can probably already do that. He probably
doesn't train that much seven days a week, but he can. So if
he takes drug X, he can't train any more than seven days a
week, and, realistically, he can't train more than six hours
per day. Well, even if he can, there is a limit.There is a
maximum amount of training possible.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, what does "increase your improvement" mean. If you
are talking about drugs that increase speed, then we
aren't talking about the same drugs. I'm talking about
drugs that are taken during the training phase. These
drugs don't increase your speed but increase your
capacity to train harder, for longer periods, and more
frequently. You still have to do the training.

i'm talking about pharmacological ergogenic aids. whether
they increase improvement through accute or chronic dosing
strategies doesn't matter. Also, if your drugs can improve
the training capacity for the swimmer ranked 10th, why
can't the swimmer ranked 1st not also improve his training
capacity, and therefore his performance also? again, this
is where you're losing me.

The swimmer ranked 1st *can* improve his training capacity,
but at some point, increased capacity is useless. It is like
having extra bandwidth on your internet connection. If you
can't use it, it doesn't matter whether it is there or not.

But let's return to drugs that increase performance during a
race. Even those improvements are expressed in percentage
terms, because that is the measure for which the
improvements are equalized for different athletes. But
percentage improvements are different for each athlete in
absolute terms. The slower swimmers improve more, which
suggests there is an absolute maximum speed, which, of
course, there must be.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is the training that increases the speed of the
swimmer, not the drugs. If you mean that even the most
genetically gifted swimmer can train harder for longer
periods, more frequently, I disagree, but I will concede
that point, because there are only so many hours in the
day and so many days in the week, and the top swimmers
are already using them all.

Non-elites, competing well-below the level of the olympics,
train for 5-6 hours a day, 6 days a week. Many of them do,
i'd go so far as to say hundreds of thousands of swimmers
in the world, yet they may not be qualifying for more than
a Speedo Sectional meet, or a regional championship. they
monitor their nutrition, do psychological training and do
dryland workouts...thats a *massive pool*...don't make out
like its only a couple of hundred swimmers in the
world..its more like hundreds of thousands.

I was one of them and hope to be one again, but your point
doesn't change my argument. We aren't just talking about
hours in the day and days in the week. There are physical
changes in the body that increase capacity as well, but
again, these can't go on forever.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't know where you get this 5% to 10% increase in
improvement.

you don't know where i got it from? well, re read my
post...it was a hypothetical example...i even went so far
as to say that in parentheses with an exclamation mark, in
anticipation of you challenging that number.

Quoted message said:

When was Ian thorpe tested? He never has taken drugs, has
he? For your claim to be true, Ian must be in the set of
tested swimmers, or your claim lacks credibility.

what claim? i never made one. if you mean my response to
your thoughts, it was hypothetical, as is *your* entire
argument...where's *your* credible reasoning and cited
examples from the literature? i never claimed to be
making such.

Sorry, I thought the percentage numbers you gave were
actual.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Besides that, there are these theoretical maxima to deal
with. If I can get a 10% improvement from drug X, and I
can get a 10% improvement from drug Y, and another 10%
from drug Z, then I can improved by 30%? And if I can get
10% improvement from one does of drug X, then I can get
30% improvement from three doeses of drug X?

maybe you can seeing as its a hypothetical drug.

Quoted message said:

Furthermore, 10% improvement is bigger in absolute terms
for Joew Schmo than it is for Ian Thorpe.There is a
maximum speed for swimming, and Ian is a lot closer to it
than most swimmers. He simply can not improve as much as
lesser gifted swimmers in absolute terms without
violating the theory of relativity ;-)

There's a maximum speed for swimming now? what's that then?

Well, as a very conservative estimate, C is the limit.
We can probably reduce it a lot, however, by making a
rough estimate of the maximum power output of the human
body, given the chemical reactions that produce the
energy it burns. What do you think for the 1500? 15
minutes is 6 km per hour. Do you really think it is
possible for a human body to generate enough sustained
output to double that speed?

For the 50 free, we could think about designing a machine
that simulates swimming and looks roughly like a human
body. We could then arbitarily increase its arm turnover
rate and its kicking rate, and we could arbitrarily
improve the pulling and kicking efficiency. 20 seconds per
50 is 9 km per hour. 10 seconds per 50 is 18 km per hour.
Do you think a human being will ever break 20 km per hour
for the 50 free?

Quoted message said:

As Mike pointed out, its related to volume and intensity of
work, simply because of recovery. If Thorpe *could* train
at his VO2 MAX without every needing the large amounts of
recovery between sets and reps, well, he'd be much faster
than he is now. So would Joe Schmoe i guess.

I agree, but as they both approach the maximum efficiency,
they become more equal.

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No one desrves a genetic advantage either.

Genetic advantage is not cheating.

Because you say so? Why isn't it cheating?

why *is it* cheating? Because *you* say so?

A person with genetic

Quoted message said:

advantage certainly didn't earn it. So earning an
advantage can't be the difference. Therefore not earning
the advantage given by drugs cannot be the reason drug use
is cheating. I think the only reason left for saying that
drug use is cheating is that it is against the rules.

Yes, that is the difference, its against the rules. The
rules are what makes a sport what it is. You can't just
change the rules [censored] nilly to ensure more people can
acheieve success...all that does is cheapen it, and make it
easier. To quote, "It's supposed to be hard, otherwise
everybody would do it". People do not want to see athletes
riddled with drugs. Athletes do not want to see athletes
riddled with drugs.

Have you ever considered the filter down effect of what
you're proposing? Have you considered the crazed swim
parents and coaches who start feeding drugs to their 9 and
10 year old? Is that the kind of life you want to see for
young swimmers? For them, its all about fun, but suddenly
you have a way to make it all about success at an earlier
age...pump them full of shots and pills! Nice.

Records and rules aren't just there for those at the top,
Martin, they're there for the protection of everyone. No
matter how much research you put into making the drugs
'safe', there will always be other 'unsafe' ones that give
you a little more edge. By approaching it with a zero-
tolerance attitude, it stops this cancer that you purport to
be so very harmless.

Its irresponsible to advocate such measures, especially
based upon the fact you're arguing one of the most obvious,
ignorant, [censored] points of view i've ever heard on this
subject. I've read some tenuous [censored] from yuo before, but
there is no way in hell you would ever get any degree of
support for such an idea, anywhere, and *that* should be
enough to tell you that you're wrong, be it logically,
morally or ethically.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You may have great genetic advantage but don't have
possibility to start training.

I don't see the relevance.

You don't see the relevance because it doesn't suit you to
do so, so allow me to point it out to you: if every child
went into swimming as their sport of choice, instead of only
the tiny %age who do, what do you think our sport would be
like then? Much faster. There are probably a bunch of people
out there who, *if* they had gone into the sport at the same
age as Thorpe, may be just as fast if not faster than he is.
However, no one will ever know.

Now, i'm not going to post on this topic again, because its
so damned stupid, and you just keep finding more outlandish
examples to suport your hole-filled, hypothetically based,
fantastical, arguments. So go on, dig yourself in again once
more. You almost sound as ridiculous as the bloke who argues
its not the fatty's fault they're fat.

Seems like reason and common sense are going to the dogs
around here.

Martin W. Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:
: Malgorzata Szeszo <<NOSPAM>[email hidden]> wrote:
:>>No one desrves a genetic advantage either.
:>Genetic advantage is not cheating.
: Because you say so? Why isn't it cheating? A person with
: genetic advantage certainly didn't earn it. So earning an
: advantage can't be the difference. Therefore not earning
: the advantage given by drugs cannot be the reason drug use
: is cheating. I think the only reason left for saying that
: drug use is cheating is that it is against the rules.

Martin is clearly arguing about atheism here and is taking
the absurd line to try and force others into the
inevitability of its validation. Although I might be wrong,
I don't really think he wants to see kids take performance
enhancing drugs, nor do I feel he'd pump them into his own
children if he has/had any.

Abstracting "genetic advantage" from the concept of the self
(almost like some sort of post-modern dualism) is contrary
to the definition most of us hold for "person".

So yes, the argument is from definition and while that might
prove unsatisfying for some, it is also the reason it is
unassailable.

To summarise, Lance has no God-given gifts as God
doesn't exist.

Matt

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not if the "god gifted" athletes take them as well. then
the improvement

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

standardised.

I disagree. We have the example of fins, which is
metaphorically comparable.

No, it isn't. Fin's alter your mechanical state
temporarily. Drugs alter your physiological state for an
extended period of time (as long as you take them). Thats
nowhere near the same.

Also, by your rationale, drugs are selective in only helping
bring people to a certain level, after whch, they have no
effect. Thats garbage Martin. All pharmacological ergogenic
aids (if they work) will increase your improvement by (for
example!) 5-10%. They don't discriminate. They're drugs, not
R.S.S. contributors talking about obesity...

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, by your rationale, drugs are selective in only
helping bring people

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a certain level, after whch, they have no effect. Thats
garbage Martin.

All

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

pharmacological ergogenic aids (if they work) will
increase your

improvement

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

by (for example!) 5-10%. They don't discriminate. They're
drugs, not

R.S.S.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

contributors talking about obesity...

You have used a few terms in ways that don't make sense to
me. Drugs don't discriminate at all. They participate in
chemical reactions. The term discriminate doesn't apply to
this discussion.

Drugs, in your scenario, do discriminate because you claim
they'll help some but not others. you claim they'll bring
the also rans into line with the champions. If the top 10
ranks take the drug, you're aying only 5-10 will benefit
from it? that would mean discrimination, which is
ridiculous, because as you rightly pointed out, drugs can't
discriminate. to why wouldn't the 1-4 ranks improve as much
as 5-10? thats where you're losing
RT.

Quoted message said:

Also, what does "increase your improvement" mean. If you
are talking about drugs that increase speed, then we
aren't talking about the same drugs. I'm talking about
drugs that are taken during the training phase. These
drugs don't increase your speed but increase your capacity
to train harder, for longer periods, and more frequently.
You still have to do the training.

i'm talking about pharmacological ergogenic aids. whether
they increase improvement through accute or chronic dosing
strategies doesn't matter. Also, if your drugs can improve
the training capacity for the swimmer ranked 10th, why can't
the swimmer ranked 1st not also improve his training
capacity, and therefore his performance also? again, this is
where you're losing me.

Quoted message said:

It is the training that increases the speed of the
swimmer, not the drugs. If you mean that even the most
genetically gifted swimmer can train harder for longer
periods, more frequently, I disagree, but I will concede
that point, because there are only so many hours in the
day and so many days in the week, and the top swimmers are
already using them all.

Non-elites, competing well-below the level of the olympics,
train for 5-6 hours a day, 6 days a week. Many of them do,
i'd go so far as to say hundreds of thousands of swimmers in
the world, yet they may not be qualifying for more than a
Speedo Sectional meet, or a regional championship. they
monitor their nutrition, do psychological training and do
dryland workouts...thats a *massive pool*...don't make out
like its only a couple of hundred swimmers in the world..its
more like hundreds of thousands.

Quoted message said:

I don't know where you get this 5% to 10% increase in
improvement.

you don't know where i got it from? well, re read my
post...it was a hypothetical example...i even went so far as
to say that in parentheses with an exclamation mark, in
anticipation of you challenging that number.

Quoted message said:

When was Ian thorpe tested? He never has taken drugs, has
he? For your claim to be true, Ian must be in the set of
tested swimmers, or your claim lacks credibility.

what claim? i never made one. if you mean my response to
your thoughts, it was hypothetical, as is *your* entire
argument...where's *your* credible reasoning and cited
examples from the literature? i never claimed to be
making such.

Besides that, there are these theoretical

Quoted message said:

maxima to deal with. If I can get a 10% improvement from
drug X, and I can get a 10% improvement from drug Y, and
another 10% from drug Z, then I can improved by 30%? And
if I can get 10% improvement from one does of drug X, then
I can get 30% improvement from three doeses of drug X?

maybe you can seeing as its a hypothetical drug.

Quoted message said:

Furthermore, 10% improvement is bigger in absolute terms
for Joew Schmo than it is for Ian Thorpe.There is a
maximum speed for swimming, and Ian is a lot closer to it
than most swimmers. He simply can not improve as much as
lesser gifted swimmers in absolute terms without violating
the theory of relativity ;-)

There's a maximum speed for swimming now? what's that then?

As Mike pointed out, its related to volume and intensity of
work, simply because of recovery. If Thorpe *could* train at
his VO2 MAX without every needing the large amounts of
recovery between sets and reps, well, he'd be much faster
than he is now. So would Joe Schmoe i guess.

diablo said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>No one desrves a genetic advantage either.

Genetic advantage is not cheating.

Because you say so? Why isn't it cheating?

why *is it* cheating? Because *you* say so?

No. If drug advantage, which is unearned, is cheating but
not just because it is against the rules, then genetic
advantage, which is unearned, is also cheating. I don't mean
it is cheating in the sense that a choice is required by the
person with genetic advantage to use his genetic advantage,
and I don't mean that the person who has the genetic
advantage is the cheater. The choice is being made by FINA
and the swimming power structure. The choice is to allow one
form of unearned advantage (genetic) while disallowing
another form of unearned advantage (chemical), thereby
choosing the small set of kids who will become the elite.
FINA and the swimming power structure are the cheaters.

Quoted message said:

A person with genetic

Quoted message said:

advantage certainly didn't earn it. So earning an
advantage can't be the difference. Therefore not
earning the advantage given by drugs cannot be the
reason drug use is cheating. I think the only reason
left for saying that drug use is cheating is that it is
against the rules.

Yes, that is the difference, its against the rules. The
rules are what makes a sport what it is. You can't just
change the rules [censored] nilly to ensure more people can
acheieve success...all that does is cheapen it, and make it
easier. To quote, "It's supposed to be hard, otherwise
everybody would do it". People do not want to see athletes
riddled with drugs. Athletes do not want to see athletes
riddled with drugs.

You're really stretching there. Where does [censored] nilly
come into it? What is a [censored] nilly rule change? Is it
one you don't like? Or is there an actual measure of
[censored]-nilly-ness?

We spend tens of millions of dollars (perhaps hundreds in
total) each year on drug testing, tribunals, court cases,
etc. That money should be spent on swimming. A simple rule
change could accomplish that. Remove the prohibition of
drugs. Stop trying to control swimming by controlling what
people choose to do with their bodies.

Quoted message said:

Have you ever considered the filter down effect of what
you're proposing?

Yes, if I understand you correctly. It is not the
responsibility of FINA to legislate morality.

Quoted message said:

Have you considered the crazed swim parents and coaches who
start feeding drugs to their 9 and 10 year old?

Yes. That's child abuse. We already have laws against it.

Quoted message said:

Is that the kind of life you want to see for young
swimmers?

No. And we wouldn't see it. Or, we *would* see it to the
extent we see it now. There is no reason to assume the
current life for young swimmers re drugs would change. The
question is a red herring.

Quoted message said:

For them, its all about fun, but suddenly you have a way to
make it all about success at an earlier age...pump them
full of shots and pills! Nice.

Wait a minute. You are confusing children's fun and
competitive swimming. Competitive swimming isn't fun. It is
hard work. Nor is this about children using drugs. Your
point assumes that there are significant numbers of parents
out there who, were it not for the FINA prohibition against
drugs, would be feeding drugs to their children. It's the
same argument the William Bennetts of the world use for
keeping the war on drugs going and funded. If we made
marijuana legal, pretty soon every man woman and child in
America would be a crack addict.

Furthermore, if drugs were made legal in swimming, they
would be made safer. And doctors would be educated on how to
advise athletes on how to use them safely. And most of the
dangers would be eliminated. There is no incentive to do
these things now.

Quoted message said:

Records and rules aren't just there for those at the top,
Martin, they're there for the protection of everyone.

ok, stop the patronizing attitude. Swimming rules are
supposed to be about swimming, not protection of children
from evil parents.

Quoted message said:

No matter how much research you put into making the drugs
'safe', there will always be other 'unsafe' ones that give
you a little more edge.

That's what happens now, so changing the rules wouldn't
change that. Plus, those newer drugs aren't detectable by
the system anyway. The way the system is set up now
athletes are more tempted to use the newer, less safe,
drugs because they know they have a much higher chance of
getting away with it. So the drug testing system promotes
use of unsafe drugs.

Quoted message said:

By approaching it with a zero-tolerance attitude, it stops
this cancer that you purport to be so very harmless.

Really? After all the millions spent on zero-tolerance over
the last two decades, is the problem going away or is it
getting worse?

Quoted message said:

Its irresponsible to advocate such measures, especially
based upon the fact you're arguing one of the most obvious,
ignorant, [censored] points of view i've ever heard on this
subject. I've read some tenuous [censored] from yuo before, but
there is no way in hell you would ever get any degree of
support for such an idea, anywhere, and *that* should be
enough to tell you that you're wrong, be it logically,
morally or ethically.

That's the safe position to take. No one will fire you as
swimming coach as long as you are against the legalization
of drugs to that extents. I assume you are against
legalization of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc for the same
reasons. Except that there is quite a lot of support for
legalizing those drugs. And most of those drugs are far more
dangerous. And alcohol, the most dangerous drug of the lot,
*is* legal. Imagine that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You may have great genetic advantage but don't have
possibility to start training.

I don't see the relevance.

You don't see the relevance because it doesn't suit you to
do so, so allow me to point it out to you: if every child
went into swimming as their sport of choice, instead of
only the tiny %age who do, what do you think our sport
would be like then? Much faster. There are probably a bunch
of people out there who, *if* they had gone into the sport
at the same age as Thorpe, may be just as fast if not
faster than he is. However, no one will ever know.

I see. That went right over my head. But that strengthens my
argument, not yours.

Quoted message said:

Now, i'm not going to post on this topic again, because its
so damned stupid, and you just keep finding more outlandish
examples to suport your hole-filled, hypothetically based,
fantastical, arguments. So go on, dig yourself in again
once more. You almost sound as ridiculous as the bloke who
argues its not the fatty's fault they're fat.

Surely I don't sound that stupid. But I don't have to dig
myself in. I don't see that you have weakened my argument.

Quoted message said:

Seems like reason and common sense are going to the dogs
around here.

That happened long ago.

David HARRISON said:

Martin W. Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:
: Malgorzata Szeszo <<NOSPAM>[email hidden]> wrote:
:>>No one desrves a genetic advantage either.
:>Genetic advantage is not cheating.
: Because you say so? Why isn't it cheating? A person with
: genetic advantage certainly didn't earn it. So earning
: an advantage can't be the difference. Therefore not
: earning the advantage given by drugs cannot be the
: reason drug use is cheating. I think the only reason
: left for saying that drug use is cheating is that it is
: against the rules.

Martin is clearly arguing about atheism here and is taking
the absurd line to try and force others into the
inevitability of its validation. Although I might be wrong,
I don't really think he wants to see kids take performance
enhancing drugs, nor do I feel he'd pump them into his own
children if he has/had any.

Correct, I think, but I don't see the connection to atheism.
I recognize there are god-given talents. I don't think god
is necessary to explain them, but I don't object to using
god as the explanation. It is a tangential point, because it
doesn't matter whether an elite athlete's talent is god-
given or genetic, it is an unearned advantage.

Quoted message said:

Abstracting "genetic advantage" from the concept of the
self (almost like some sort of post-modern dualism) is
contrary to the definition most of us hold for "person".

I agree.

Quoted message said:

So yes, the argument is from definition and while that
might prove unsatisfying for some, it is also the reason it
is unassailable.

To summarise, Lance has no God-given gifts as God
doesn't exist.

Again, I don't object to referring to talent as god-given or
genetic. I object to diminishing achievements of people like
Lance Armstrong by people who say he wins because of his god-
given talent. For the same reason, I object to people saying
Ben Johnson wins because of drugs. What I mean is, the
achievements of both athletes are remarkable, and for the
same reason - they both worked very hard for a long time and
sacrificed a lot to get those performances. So if you
discredit Ben Johnson's performance by saying he had an
unfair drug advantage, then you must also object to Lance
Armstrong's performance because either
(a) God helped him and not the other athletes, or (b) it was
just good genes.

Martin W. Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:
: David HARRISON <[email hidden]> wrote:
:>To summarise, Lance has no God-given gifts as God
:>doesn't exist.
: Again, I don't object to referring to talent as god-given
: or genetic. I object to diminishing achievements of people
: like Lance Armstrong by people who say he wins because of
: his god-given talent. For the same reason, I object to
: people saying Ben Johnson wins because of drugs. What I
: mean is, the achievements of both athletes are remarkable,
: and for the same reason - they both worked very hard for a
: long time and sacrificed a lot to get those performances.
: So if you discredit Ben Johnson's performance by saying he
: had an unfair drug advantage, then you must also object to
: Lance Armstrong's performance because either
: (a) God helped him and not the other athletes, or (b) it
: was just good genes.

Fair enough, I do think you've been consistent so far in
what you've written, although perhaps overly obtuse, which
is why I misguessed your agenda regarding the god thing.

I also agree that it doesn't matter if we use (a) "god-
given", or (b) "genetic". Where I think we differ is that
you apparently view creditting achievements to this aspect a
diminishment of its worth. Lance and his achievements are
special precisely because, not despite, his genetic/god-
given advantages inasmuch as they are indistinguishable from
any meaningful definition of "him", *by definition*.

There is a very real difference between another competitor
saying "I'd also win 5 TDF if I had his thighs" and him
saying, "I'd also win 5 TDF if I took the same course of
drugs as him". One is implying great praise and admiration
by in effect saying you'd have to be Lance in order to be as
good as Lance. The other is simply stating a fact and
requires no assumption of "Lancehood" in order to be valid.

I agree with your claim that if taking drugs was allowed by
the rules then it wouldn't be cheating (obviously). I
propose the *reason* it isn't in the rules now is that noone
has any interest in seeing what people can do on drugs (well
maybe a few people who are curious about physiological
extremes). At its most fundamental I argue the reason we
have competitions is precisely to gauge the difference in
"god-given" ability.

Mike Edey said:

cheat Pronunciation: 'chEt
1 : to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit
or fraud
2 : to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice
3 : to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting <cheat
death> intransitive senses 1a : to practice fraud or
trickery 1b : to violate rules dishonestly (as at cards
or on an examination)

Quoted message said:

elite Pronunciation: A-'lEt, i-, E- 1a a singular or plural
in construction : the choice part : CREAM <the elite of the
entertainment world> 1b singular or plural in construction
: the best of a class <superachievers who dominate the
computer elite -- Marilyn Chase> 1c singular or plural in
construction : the socially superior part of society <how
the elite live -- A P World> <how the F.-speaking elite ...
was changing -- Economist> 1d : a group of persons who by
virtue of position or education exercise much power or
influence <members of the ruling elite> <the intellectual
elites of the country> 1e : a member of such an elite --
usually used in plural <the elites ..., pursuing their
studies in Europe -- Robert Wernick> 2 : a typewriter type
providing 12 characters to the linear inch - elite
adjective

The question of FINA's culpability would make more sense if
we assumed a rather disturbing perversion. I think I'll
stick to 'wetware' myself.

That's the one I'm assuming. It's the standard one.

Quoted message said:

If we are to have competitive sport then some must win and
others will not. A few will win more often and shall be
recognized as the elite within their sport. Should said
sport ever attract the focused attention & competitive
efforts of a statistically significant portion of the
species the scope and nature of the elite characterization
may well be widened.

Any sport is shaped, nay defined, by it's rules. Generally
it is the function of the ruleset to state a non trivial
goal and, to varying degrees, attempt to tie success to the
performance of the players within tightly defined limits.
While it's true that some people will be born with
advantages over the norm it's a logical fallacy to insist
that sport is therefore a game of genealogical chance. If
the ruleset were to specify eligibility, or conditions of
success, that were primarily genetic in nature you might
have a point. This is not the case though. Here the ruleset
describe particular skills, actions and tolerances, and
success goes to those who best perform these. Heredity may
place some small part in the proceedings but as long as the
bulk of the available population do not participate it's
simply not going to be the universal limiting factor.

There will never be two identical combinations of heart,
mind, body & soul
- we are all our own individuals. This does mean that
regardless of how a particular ruleset is shaped &
massaged there will always be some portion of the
population with the choice to reap the rewards of
circumstance. The most we can do is attempt to regulate
the course and equipment. This is not fair or unfair,
this is life. The participants still have to make the
choice to play.

It's difficult to argue fraud without first showing intent.
Noting that the universe doesn't appear to be setup to
favor Martin W Smith over all other bodies & phenomena
isn't necessarily a strong argument for a God who cheats.
At the very least it means you're in pretty good company.

But it isn't the noting of that fact that is the "cheating".
It is the decision not to do anything about it, when
something can be done. It is possible to make the playing
field more level than it is now. Removing the prhibition of
drugs does make the playing field more level.

Quoted message said:

I do get the feeling, though, that arguing this is somewhat
akin to a Quaker and a Catholic debating the merits of
Grace vrs Works - it's possible that there will be no
resolution without a significant change in world view for
at least one participant. That's fine just don't expect
alot of sympathy if no one seems to agree with you - I know
I certainly don't.

I'm still not convinced you see the point. I'm still
convinced you see the playing field more level with drugs
prohibited.

David HARRISON said:

Martin W. Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:
: David HARRISON <[email hidden]> wrote:
:>To summarise, Lance has no God-given gifts as God
:>doesn't exist.
: Again, I don't object to referring to talent as god-given
: or genetic. I object to diminishing achievements of
: people like Lance Armstrong by people who say he wins
: because of his god-given talent. For the same reason, I
: object to people saying Ben Johnson wins because of
: drugs. What I mean is, the achievements of both athletes
: are remarkable, and for the same reason - they both
: worked very hard for a long time and sacrificed a lot to
: get those performances. So if you discredit Ben Johnson's
: performance by saying he had an unfair drug advantage,
: then you must also object to Lance Armstrong's
: performance because either
: (a) God helped him and not the other athletes, or (b) it
: was just good genes.

Fair enough, I do think you've been consistent so far in
what you've written, although perhaps overly obtuse, which
is why I misguessed your agenda regarding the god thing.

I also agree that it doesn't matter if we use (a) "god-
given", or (b) "genetic". Where I think we differ is that
you apparently view creditting achievements to this aspect
a diminishment of its worth. Lance and his achievements are
special precisely because, not despite, his genetic/god-
given advantages inasmuch as they are indistinguishable
from any meaningful definition of "him", *by definition*.

There is a very real difference between another competitor
saying "I'd also win 5 TDF if I had his thighs" and him
saying, "I'd also win 5 TDF if I took the same course of
drugs as him". One is implying great praise and admiration
by in effect saying you'd have to be Lance in order to be
as good as Lance. The other is simply stating a fact and
requires no assumption of "Lancehood" in order to be valid.

I agree with your claim that if taking drugs was allowed by
the rules then it wouldn't be cheating (obviously). I
propose the *reason* it isn't in the rules now is that
noone has any interest in seeing what people can do on
drugs (well maybe a few people who are curious about
physiological extremes). At its most fundamental I argue
the reason we have competitions is precisely to gauge the
difference in "god-given" ability.

I disagree with the first reason. I think drugs are illegal
because there is a persistent belief that drug use is
inherently cheating.

I also think that the second reason is wrong from the
point of view of athletes. I think athletes want to see
the best man win. Religious non-athletes may well want to
see God's best.

Martin W. Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:
: David HARRISON <[email hidden]> wrote:
:>it wouldn't be cheating (obviously). I propose the
:>*reason* it isn't in the rules now is that noone has any
:>interest in seeing what people can do on drugs (well maybe
:>a few people who are curious about physiological
:>extremes). At its most fundamental I argue the reason we
:>have competitions is precisely to gauge the difference in
:>"god-given" ability.
: I disagree with the first reason. I think drugs are
: illegal because there is a persistent belief that drug use
: is inherently cheating.

It is perhaps I that is being too obtuse now. What I am in
saying, is that drugs are effectively viewed as inherently
cheating, with good reason. Not because drugs are inherently
bad, but because they simply are incompatible with what the
competition is all about. At this point it's clear we've
reached our actual difference of opinions. We can be even
more clear on the matter if you give a plausible logic for
the alleged holders of your mentioned "persisten belief",
unless you believe them all to be irrational?

: I also think that the second reason is wrong from the
: point of view of athletes. I think athletes want to see
: the best man win. Religious non-athletes may well want to
: see God's best.

Religion has nothing to do with it. I used "god-given" in
quotes to represent the god-given/genetic component. Your
"best man" sentence I agree with, though clearly we hold a
different opinion as to the definition of best man. My
contention is that "best man" necessarily precludes the use
of drugs, by way of definition. There's nothing inherent
about any definition of man, but that doesn't mean a
definition of man can't be decided upon and then the
application of that definition most assuredly can lead to
inherent conclusions.

David HARRISON said:

Martin W. Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:
: David HARRISON <[email hidden]> wrote:
:>it wouldn't be cheating (obviously). I propose the
:>*reason* it isn't in the rules now is that noone has any
:>interest in seeing what people can do on drugs (well
:>maybe a few people who are curious about physiological
:>extremes). At its most fundamental I argue the reason we
:>have competitions is precisely to gauge the difference in
:>"god-given" ability.
: I disagree with the first reason. I think drugs are
: illegal because there is a persistent belief that drug
: use is inherently cheating.

It is perhaps I that is being too obtuse now. What I am in
saying, is that drugs are effectively viewed as inherently
cheating, with good reason. Not because drugs are
inherently bad, but because they simply are incompatible
with what the competition is all about. At this point it's
clear we've reached our actual difference of opinions. We
can be even more clear on the matter if you give a
plausible logic for the alleged holders of your mentioned
"persisten belief", unless you believe them all to be
irrational?

I don't believe them to be irrational. I believe them to
have not asked the question. Until the latter part of the
last century, we didn't give much importance to genetic
differences in swimming and athletics, because there was so
much room for improvement in most of the events that the
effects of genetic differences were way down in the noise.
Consequently, no one worried about these differences, and
drugs came to be viewed as cheating, because, practically
speaking, the playing field was still level. Genetically
gifted athletes had an advantage but only in the sense that
their achievements were a bit easier to come by than for
less gifted competitors. Duke Kahanamoku won some gold
medals in the Olympics fifty years ago with times that
wouldn't even get him qualified for a high school state
championship today.

Time passed. Today, it is probably that if you don't have
the right genes, you can't get into the olympics in
swimming. This is not dependent on how hard you work. No one
gets into the olympics without a decade or more of daily,
long and hard hours in the pool and weight room.

Although everyone recognizes the importance of genetic
differences now, they don't accept the consequence, which is
that the playing field in competitive swimming is no longer
level in the sense that it was level before. When times were
much slower, it was not just possible that an ungifted
athlete could win a gold medal, it was just as probable, or
very nearly so. Now it no longer is, but people still
believe the playing field is level in the old sense.

The playing level is still level for children, where none
has reached his/her peak, because each swimmer has so much
improvement ahead that an ungifted swimmer can beat a gifted
one by working harder and learning better. There is no need
for drugs here. But when we get to age 18, the genetic wheat
has been separated from the chaff, and atthe elite level,
those with lesser genes might as well stop wasting their
time, if they are there to win. The rules currently reflect
this view.

Quoted message said:

: I also think that the second reason is wrong from the
: point of view of athletes. I think athletes want to see
: the best man win. Religious non-athletes may well want to
: see God's best.

Religion has nothing to do with it. I used "god-given" in
quotes to represent the god-given/genetic component. Your
"best man" sentence I agree with, though clearly we hold a
different opinion as to the definition of best man. My
contention is that "best man" necessarily precludes the use
of drugs, by way of definition. There's nothing inherent
about any definition of man, but that doesn't mean a
definition of man can't be decided upon and then the
application of that definition most assuredly can lead to
inherent conclusions.

Time and again I hear the following from coaches and
fathers: "You can win if you really want it." When we get up
in the area of championships and NCAA division I and the
Olympics and World Championships, that advice is at best an
ignorance, at worst a lie.

I agree with your position, if the world accepts the
consequence, which is that the Olympics are not for the
common man. I'm sure that is not what the world believes.
Rather, the world believes that by prohibiting drugs we are
protecting the Olympics for the common man, exactly the
opposite of what we are actually doing.

Mike Edey said:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:53:59 +0200, Martin W. Smith wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I don't believe them to be irrational. I believe them to
have not asked the question. Until the latter part of the
last century, we didn't give much importance to genetic
differences in swimming and athletics, because there was
so much room for improvement in most of the events that
the effects of genetic differences were way down in the
noise. Consequently, no one worried about these
differences, and drugs came to be viewed as cheating,
because, practically speaking, the playing field was
still level. Genetically gifted athletes had an advantage
but only in the sense that their achievements were a bit
easier to come by than for less gifted competitors. Duke
Kahanamoku won some gold medals in the Olympics fifty
years ago with times that wouldn't even get him qualified
for a high school state championship today.

On the other hand it was, at one time, seriously thought
that no one would ever break the 4:00mile and a year after
Bannister did it first it took Landy 3:59 (and the infamous
look) to come 2nd at the '55 Commonwealth Games. Similar
stories for benching 400lbs, swimming a sub 50 100fr,
running a sub 10 100, jumping more then 29'2.5", completion
of a womens marathon, 70 home runs, climbing everest,
soloing everest, running everest without oxygen...

I don't think that counterpoints anything i said. I haven't
made any predictions that we aren't going to break any more
records. My points are that the curve is not linear, and as
we move along it, the importance of genetics increases.
Coincident with this increase in the importance of genetics
has been the increase in the importance of drugs for people
who want to compete with the genetically gifted.

Quoted message said:

It's always easier to be second regardless of genetic
makeup, preparation or training aids. We, as members of the
human race, are remarkably adept at measuring and limiting
future performances with those of the past. Sure Duke could
probably swim faster if he'd been born half a century later
but so could anyone else of the era. Better facilities,
equipment, physiological theory and the
_significantly_elevated_expectations_ of what is 'normal'.

But that wasn't the point. Duke may or may not have been a
genetically gifted athlete. The point is that it didn't
matter. It does now.

Quoted message said:

As far as genetic advantage I'm not sure that it's clear
that all of our high performers are, by definition,
terribly gifted. Canadian Olympic trials are coming up and
pretty much everyone qualified will be in attendance. This
makes about 400 swimmers roughly in the 13-35 age bracket.
Would it be fair to say this bracket represents some 20% of
the population in general? 400 athletes from a sample
population of 6 million. It's not even like the standards
are that tough to make - virtually any swimmer who is
capable of qualifying for provincials can make nationals -
the bar isn't set very high. Now if we had something like a
million athletes vying for a swimming Olympic berth then
yeah I might grant you that luck & genetics would carry the
day. I just don't see how one might successfully make that
case _now_.

But the opposite is true. If there were a million athletes
vying for an Olympic berth, we wouldn't be having this
conversation. The point I'm making is that there is a reason
there is only a small number of swimmers who actually
compete for an Olympic berth. The reason is not that those
few are the only ones who wanted to do the work. they are
not the only swimmers who wanted to go to the Olympics. They
are the only swimmers who could. It isn't because they
wanted it more. It isn't because they were the only ones
left standing after a long battle among hundreds of equally
competitive athletes. There was a set of hundreds of
swimmers, all of whom did the work and wanted to win. They
all started out as equals. I'm saying the outcome is
increasingly determined by genetics, and that we have
reached a level of development in swimming where the top is
only reachable if you have the right genetics, *or* if you
are on the second or third tier and you use drugs.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Time passed. Today, it is probably

that if you don't have the right

Quoted message said:

genes, you can't get into the Olympics in swimming. This
is not dependent on how hard you work. No one gets into
the Olympic without a decade or more of daily, long and
hard hours in the pool and weight room.

An aside, I've got a quote from Dr. Steve Norris (Professor
of Kinesiology at the University of Calgary doing a lot of
work in presenting athlete development models for national
sports bodies around the world), "We figure it takes 15,000
hours to attain mastery for most skills. There are those
who take less, we call them phenomes.".

At least, in the former USSR, they weeded out the gymnasts
early who couldn't make it and allowed them to avoid wasting
all those years in a losing proposition. Of course, that
cuts both ways, because they also weeded out a lot of kids
who would have done the sport just for the love of the
sport. I ended up being one of those in swimming. But I saw
early on that I had no chance to be a champion, and I made a
decision to swim because I like swimming.

But programs are no longer being set up for kids like me,
because we are spending way, way, too much money trying to
stop a few people from using drugs, who are going to use
drugs anyway. It is stupid.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Although everyone recognizes the importance of genetic
differences now, they don't accept the consequence, which
is that the playing field in competitive swimming is no
longer level in the sense that it was level before. When
times were much slower, it was not just possible that an
ungifted athlete could win a gold medal, it was just as
probable, or very nearly so. Now it no longer is, but
people still believe the playing field is level in the
old sense.

Performances are better there fore they must be closer to
theoretical limits, should they exist. I'm not sure sure
that your conclusion is correct but even if it is I'm
really not sure that you've shown, with any rigor, that the
level of performance at (and what level are we talking
about) any level is close enough to 'theoretical maximums'
that small variations are currently allowing some athletes
performances unavailable to anyone else. In short I think
your argument is valid only as a boundary condition, if
then, and it's your responsibility to show that we've
reached some kind of boundary. Please don't take for
granted that we'll agree we're there - too many times the
sporting world has agreed that 'everyone knows' we just
can't get better only to be shown time and time again that
reality is, well, somewhat different.

Quoted message said:

The playing level is still level for children, where none
has reached his/her peak, because each swimmer has so
much improvement ahead that an ungifted swimmer can beat
a gifted one by working harder and learning better. There
is no need for drugs here. But when we get to age 18, the
genetic wheat has been separated from the chaff, and at
the elite level, those with lesser genes might as well
stop wasting their time, if they are there to win. The
rules currently reflect this view.

The playing field, if anything, is _vastly_ less fair for
children. A difference of a few months (chronological or
physiological) can make for a huge disparity in ability,
strength, coordination & stature. It's generally agreed
that it's unfair to compare the performances of a 10 year
old and a 13 year old but the problem is there's no such
thing as a 10 year old. At least there isn't any way to
satisfactorily define such a thing with any precision and
still have a population large enough to be useful. An adult
is an adult though. Maybe not the same height or weight or
what have you but they're no longer a moving target.

All of that is why the playing field *is* level for
children. There is no way to compare, so kids just get in
and swim and race and hopefully enjoy it all and learn al
lot. It is fair because it is all about growth and
learning and fun.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

: I also think that the second reason is wrong from the
: point of view of athletes. I think athletes want to see
: the best man win. Religious :
non-athletes may well want to see God's best.

Religion has nothing to do with it. I used "god-given" in
quotes to represent the god-given/genetic component. Your
"best man" sentence I agree with, though clearly we hold
a different opinion as to the definition of best man. My
contention is that "best man" necessarily precludes the
use of drugs, by way of definition. There's nothing
inherent about any definition of man, but that doesn't
mean a definition of man can't be decided upon and then
the application of that definition most assuredly can
lead to inherent conclusions.

Time and again I hear the following from coaches and
fathers: "You can win if you really want it." When we get
up in the area of championships and NCAA division I and
the Olympics and World Championships, that advice is at
best an ignorance, at worst a lie.

Winning is a tough one to be sure. To win you have to out
perform athletes external to your sphere of influence, body
guards with tire irons aside. On race day there is some
measure of luck involved. The thing is that race day is
probably the least important. If you haven't prepared you
haven't prepared. We aren't, generally speaking, very good
at preparing. I'd also like to think that even at the world
level we're still some ways from being as fit & strong and
prepared as possible. We're still learning the physiology
and we're still pretty clueless about the technique.
Improvements will be made, expectations will be raised and
in a generation we will have swimmers who make todays 'unfairly-must-be-doping-and-genetically-gifted-certainly-
beyond-the-reach-of-mortal-men' athletes look like rank
amatures.

Quoted message said:

I agree with your position, if the world accepts the
consequence, which is that the Olympics are not for the
common man. I'm sure that is not

They're not. They've never been.

Of course they were. They always were. Anybody could make
it to the Olympics. They were open to anyone. That is no
longer true.

Quoted message said:

The whole idea has been to showcase the best performances
from the best athletes available. Note 'available', not
'possible' - we've got long way to go yet.

...and anybody could make it to the Olympics. "Common man"
doesn't refer to a person's swimming rank.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

what the world believes. Rather, the world believes that
by prohibiting drugs we are protecting the Olympics for
the common man, exactly the opposite of what we are
actually doing.

By prohibiting drugs, which largely fall into two classes
1) the illegal and 2) the unsafe, we make a valiant attempt
to ensure a reasonably level playing field for athletes,
regardless of geopolitical location, who wish to compete
without having to sign their own death warrant to do it.

That is false. I've already refutted those points. The
drugs in your class 1 are illegal because they are
prohibited, ie they are prohibited because they are
prohibited. The drugs in your group 2 *can* be used safely.
There isn't anything valiant about it. It is foolish. Tens
of millions of dollars are being spent on the drug war that
could be spent on the sport.

Quoted message said:

Changing this isn't a sure (or even likely) means to safe
drugs and doping processes. That's what we call a
nonsequitor or, at best, a plan with a starting point a
goal and a whole lot of missing steps in between.

Good grief. You're saying that doing scientific research to
find safe drugs and safe ways to use them isn't a likely way
to develop safe drugs and safe ways to use them. You just
declared the scientific method to be useless.

Quoted message said:

Rather, the world believes that by prohibiting drugs we
are protecting the Olympics for the common man, exactly
the opposite of what we are actually doing.

Martin,

I think you have it wrong.

What we, common man, admire, praise and reward is the gene,
not the hard work.

We admire beauty, intelligence, performance in the same way:
for the gene.

To make competition really fair, we should forbid every non-
genetic advantage:
- drugs
- body suits
- and even hard training

The last one is a bit controversial, but I think this is
where is the biggest un-fairness in the sport. Not everybody
can afford to train 6 hours/day, 6 days/week, which by the
way is really unhealthy - the human body is certainly not
naturally ready to do such a hard thing. Some people have
children, wives, work...

We should limit the training to say 1-2 hours a day, 5
days/week. Something that the common man can do, that
doesn't hurt the body, which doesn't require special drugs
to endure.

And then, let the common man with the best gene win!

-- Olivier