Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:46:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Dan Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
- --- Kurt Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's why for decades scientific studies kept being published that said > that steroids didn't work - didn't enhance athletic performance. Because, > being ethical medical professionals, they tested them only at the modest > therapeutic doses.
The flip side of that is the question raised above: If the scientists have only tested at modest levels, then it's hard to make a very compelling argument for what the health risks are of prolonged, heavy usage.
Dan
What you are trying to portray as a "moral" debate here is in fact a debate about relative risk preferences. On your side are those who say "show me there's harm before you ban the drug." On the other side are those who say "there is evidence that there is harm from excessive use, so the drugs should be banned to prevent athletes from having to choose between harm and success." One group has a higher risk preference than the other.
The moral debate is the one we had earlier on whether the use of drugs was an "unfair" advantage. However, my sense of that debate was that we discovered a whole list of various technological advances that have occurred (e.g., fiberglass poles and synthetic tracks) that could be considered "unfair" advantages. I supported the position that drugs cannot be banned based on that argument without taking athletes back to the pre-technology period millions of years ago. But that is not the heart of the debate here.
You're right that more in depth studies should be done on the harmful effects of drugs. But remember that real political support for banning drugs really began with the death of a cyclist in the Tour de France who overexerted on amphetamines in a mountain climb in the 1960s. That was a clear case where the use of drugs did harm an athlete who felt that he had to use them to keep up.
The problem with your proposal is that it does open up the use of drugs which MAY be harmful. Given the litigious nature of our society today, I can already see an athlete suing the IAAF for allowing the use of a harmful substance, which in effect required the athlete to use the substance to be competitive. You only need to look at the actions on electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and electric appliances to realize that this could be a very substantial liability. (And there are many more examples--just look at Superfund litigation.) This situation means that we need to err on the side of caution on this issue.
Richard McCann
