Why Exactly Is Doping And Steroids Considered Cheating In Sports?
- Thread starter BikeBikeBikeBike
- Start date
Because they're not doing it in their own natural strength and actually authentically working toward their goals. They're cheating by using a shortcut to get stronger.
What is sport?
Sport used to be regarded as an oasis of honest pursuit. Call it the Corinthian Spirit, where sporting activity was pursued for
"the love of the game".
In other words, people participated in sport because of their interest in the game. Of course when participation becomes linked to money/wealth and that relationship becomes further cemented through "success in sport", then the temptation to seek an added advantage may become greater.
Right now sports like Tennis and Athletics are under microscope for different kinds of corruption.
Doping is one form of corruption.
Bribery is another form of corruption.
Deliberately manipulating results so that bets taken can be won is another form of corruption.
Participation in sport "for the love of the game" would remove the money factor.
It seems to me that "money being the root of all evil" is the premise for doping, bribery and manipulation.
Sport used to be regarded as an oasis of honest pursuit. Call it the Corinthian Spirit, where sporting activity was pursued for
"the love of the game".
In other words, people participated in sport because of their interest in the game. Of course when participation becomes linked to money/wealth and that relationship becomes further cemented through "success in sport", then the temptation to seek an added advantage may become greater.
Right now sports like Tennis and Athletics are under microscope for different kinds of corruption.
Doping is one form of corruption.
Bribery is another form of corruption.
Deliberately manipulating results so that bets taken can be won is another form of corruption.
Participation in sport "for the love of the game" would remove the money factor.
It seems to me that "money being the root of all evil" is the premise for doping, bribery and manipulation.
As because in the end, especially at grand tour level, continental championship velodrome racing or the Japanese Keirin League level. Cycling competitions are meant to be a celebration of human endurance and sport. Not human endurance, sport and science.
Yes that is the crux of the matter I guess. What is more important, the money or the sport?
I think everyone in this community would agree it's the sport, F the money.
Also don't forget the quote is " The LOVE of money is the root of all evil" money itself is not inherently evil or good. It's simply a store of value and a medium of exchange, an economic tool if you will. It's the greed and avarice that's really the evil.
When you ruin a good sport to make a quick buck, that's what's evil my friend.
Personally I don't think doping is cheating because you have to dope to be able to get at the tippy top of cycling, and since all of the other pros are doing it, I think that makes it a rerequisite, not an advantage.
as for the part about it being dangerous, that's true but the sport itself is dangerous, you got something like to 10 cyclist all spinning shoulder to shoulder.
The thing about cycling too is that, unlike something like lawn bowls, archery or martial arts, which is skill based, cycling is mainly about fitness, yes you have to have great form and everything but that won't matter if you can't push 100 watts.
So doping in cycling is much more of concern than other sports.
What is really interesting though is mechanical doping, and where people draw the line, like that female athlete that got pinged for having a hidden motor, I reminds me of this lecture I saw talking about whether or not we should enhance our bodies with prosthetic arms and stuff, it's intersting to ask where you draw the line.
as for the part about it being dangerous, that's true but the sport itself is dangerous, you got something like to 10 cyclist all spinning shoulder to shoulder.
The thing about cycling too is that, unlike something like lawn bowls, archery or martial arts, which is skill based, cycling is mainly about fitness, yes you have to have great form and everything but that won't matter if you can't push 100 watts.
So doping in cycling is much more of concern than other sports.
What is really interesting though is mechanical doping, and where people draw the line, like that female athlete that got pinged for having a hidden motor, I reminds me of this lecture I saw talking about whether or not we should enhance our bodies with prosthetic arms and stuff, it's intersting to ask where you draw the line.
That's a very pragmatic and interesting take on the subject.
Here is an interesting though experiment. Let's say your a vet who loses both legs in combat. You are fitted with the newest and latest prosthetic legs straight from DARPA. These babies are BETTER then conventional legs.
A year later you get good with them and can run very fast for a long time. So you want to start competing.
Do you run in the regular Olympics or the special Olympics? Will they even let you run or would it be considered cheating?
Doping is something which shouldn't happen in any sports but sadly, as people do, we try to get away with it. My school tutor was devastated when he found out about Lance Armstrongs doping scandal as he looked up to him for many years. That is a terrible thing to find out the person you looked up to was artificially enhanced and not performing naturally.
It's using performance enhancing drugs. It's basically using cheat codes to win at video games on god mode. Cheating to win a trophy or a medal is rather sad, don't you agree? It is not fair to have a superhuman endurance when competing with everyone else who actually worked hard for a long time to hone their bodies into surviving the rigorous challenge ahead. I'm sure you get it what I'm saying.
Anabolic steroids and things like blood doping, which is common in cycling is really harmful to your health. There will be a huge dilemma when they figure out a pill that enhances your performance dramatically without being harmful to your health. I would guess the argument will be how athleticism should be judged on "natural" talent.
The video game cheat code comparison is perfect. It's just an unfair advantage over other athletes. That really is a great comparison.
That is not the same as voluntarily using a drug to gain an advantage when you have all your limbs and don't have a medical need for said drug. It isn't a fair comparison.
According to theconversation: The moral outrage points to a simpler reason for the wrongness of doping. Doping is cheating because it’s against the rules. But why is it against the rules? Because it’s cheating, of course!
This argument moves in an embarrassingly small circle. And it doesn’t help to expand the circle: doping is cheating, and cheating is wrong, so doping is wrong. But why is doping cheating? Because it is banned.
And so we arrive at the nub of the problem: what justifies the rule banning doping in the first place?
The most obvious answer is that doping confers an unfair advantage. But the advantage is only unfairly gained because doping is banned: by contravening the rules the doping athlete gets an advantage that her more rule-abiding competitors don’t get.
There are lots of ways in which athletes seek to gain advantage over their rivals: by using the best coaches, training techniques, dietary regimes, and so on. But we view these methods of gaining advantage as fair because they are within the rules.
The unfairness of the advantage secured by doping seems to be conferred simply by the fact that it is against the rules, and therefore cheating.
This argument moves in an embarrassingly small circle. And it doesn’t help to expand the circle: doping is cheating, and cheating is wrong, so doping is wrong. But why is doping cheating? Because it is banned.
And so we arrive at the nub of the problem: what justifies the rule banning doping in the first place?
The most obvious answer is that doping confers an unfair advantage. But the advantage is only unfairly gained because doping is banned: by contravening the rules the doping athlete gets an advantage that her more rule-abiding competitors don’t get.
There are lots of ways in which athletes seek to gain advantage over their rivals: by using the best coaches, training techniques, dietary regimes, and so on. But we view these methods of gaining advantage as fair because they are within the rules.
The unfairness of the advantage secured by doping seems to be conferred simply by the fact that it is against the rules, and therefore cheating.
Don’t forget the health and safety aspects.
One good reason to ban doping is that we want sports, not gladiator games.
Doping is banned similar to the vehicle restrictions in motor sports. Today ”we” don’t want competitors to die on the race track.
Sure, it’s possible to use ”safe” doses.
But if a little makes an athlete a bit stronger/faster, then more can bring greater performance gain.
And very soon you’re in the realm of doing real damage, real quick.
The competitors are just about always willing to accept greater risks than the organizers are willing to let them.
In theory, we could allow ”safe” levels of doping, to kill off the ”everybody is doing it” and ”leveling the playing field" conversation.
But monitoring who’s exceeding the allowed dosage would be worse than monitoring use or not. And you’d get plenty of people trying to top up their intake.
One good reason to ban doping is that we want sports, not gladiator games.
Doping is banned similar to the vehicle restrictions in motor sports. Today ”we” don’t want competitors to die on the race track.
Sure, it’s possible to use ”safe” doses.
But if a little makes an athlete a bit stronger/faster, then more can bring greater performance gain.
And very soon you’re in the realm of doing real damage, real quick.
The competitors are just about always willing to accept greater risks than the organizers are willing to let them.
In theory, we could allow ”safe” levels of doping, to kill off the ”everybody is doing it” and ”leveling the playing field" conversation.
But monitoring who’s exceeding the allowed dosage would be worse than monitoring use or not. And you’d get plenty of people trying to top up their intake.
Similar threads
