My point is that this happens even without performance enhancing drugs.
I understand that. The difference lies in tools that you can bring to bear. Screwing yourself up via biochemistry is MUCH easier than screwing yourself up via hard training.
I don’t really see your point
The point is that the safeguard of “there is a doctor involved” is not much of a safeguard.
lack of informed consent, secrecy, and short-term thinking
These are going to be present regardless. The issue, again, is tools which you can use.
Imagine a competition (winning which leads to money and fame) which is based on how contorted a pose can you get into. Under normal conditions you’ll certainly get overtraining side-effects: winners will have overstretched ligaments and muscles, will suffer from habitual dislocation, etc. But now imagine that you allow breaking and resetting bones in new configurations, transplantation of organs to new places in your body and other things like that. It’s the same competition, but the tools are different.
Appreciate your reply. I think it has helped me refine my thinking.
Screwing yourself up via biochemistry is MUCH easier than screwing yourself up via hard training.
My immediate thought was to agree, but upon reflection, I’m not sure I do agree. The availability heuristic could play a role here. I’ll try to make your claim more precise. One interpretation is that you are more likely to injure yourself sooner by taking drugs than by training. I’m not sure that’s actually true. I definitely can think of examples where someone taking a drug died shortly afterward. “Hard training” seems to imply things which take time to develop, like stress fractures. However, I’d include training related accidents under training, and I don’t think those are unlikely early on. I’d also include things like heat exhaustion and heart attacks there.
I’d give a higher probability to drugs being easier to cause severe damage in the short term, especially if they are illegal (impure) drugs (which are not relevant to the question of legalization), but I’d like to see more clear data on the precise risks.
The point is that the safeguard of “there is a doctor involved” is not much of a safeguard.
If I understand your argument, it’s that some athletes will have less of a safeguard, not that doctors are not much of a safeguard in general. I also want to highlight again that the same is true for training.
These are going to be present regardless. The issue, again, is tools which you can use.
I’m interested in whether we are assigning blame appropriately. Do you think if the other issues I mentioned had been addressed, the athletes would still be taking on unacceptable risk from performance enhancing drugs specifically?
Imagine a competition (winning which leads to money and fame) which is based on how contorted a pose can you get into. Under normal conditions you’ll certainly get overtraining side-effects: winners will have overstretched ligaments and muscles, will suffer from habitual dislocation, etc. But now imagine that you allow breaking and resetting bones in new configurations, transplantation of organs to new places in your body and other things like that. It’s the same competition, but the tools are different.
I think I can understand the parallels you are making between taking performance enhancing drugs and body modification. I suppose this argument fails to convince me because I don’t think body modification should be off the table either!
Training already produces substantial changes in the human body, and I see no relevant difference between changes induced surgically or through natural biology, provided that the level of risk is equivalent for both. Perhaps one relevant fact is that training induced changes will generally revert themselves if you stop training, and surgical changes won’t.
I can think of a variety of ways in which drugs are more dangerous than training (some of which you mentioned):
Drugs are easier in the sense that taking pills takes much less effort than hard training
There are many more drugs (and they are more diverse) than there are forms of training
Drug interaction is more complex and difficult to manage than mixing up types of training
The variety of things in your body that you can break by drugs is much greater than the variety of things you can break by training
Because of the point above, drugs are more likely to cause hidden damage which you are not aware of until it’s too late
Drugs are generally (but not always) faster acting giving you less time to detect a problem and correct it
I can probably produce more if I work at it :-)
If I understand your argument, it’s that some athletes will have less of a safeguard, not that doctors are not much of a safeguard in general.
My point is that “someone with a medical degree is around” doesn’t actually provide much safety by itself—it all depends on the context. A wealthy US doctor (who can be sued, stripped of a license, kicked out of his country club, etc.) has a very different set of incentives than some guy with an M.D. in a poor country whose only chance of success in life is to extract superhuman performance out of a sports team he’s advising.
the athletes would still be taking on unacceptable risk
Again, it’s up to the athlete to decide which risk is acceptable and which is not. My concern is with a system of incentives, not with whether an individual athlete will make a “right” or “wrong” decision.
provided that the level of risk is equivalent for both
I think I’m more suspicious of long-term costs for short-term gains, rather than risk levels...
You make fair points, though ultimately I’m not convinced that legalizing at least certain performance enhancing drugs will lead to problems worse than that which can be found via bad training.
I’ll be thinking about this and might change my mind.
I understand that. The difference lies in tools that you can bring to bear. Screwing yourself up via biochemistry is MUCH easier than screwing yourself up via hard training.
The point is that the safeguard of “there is a doctor involved” is not much of a safeguard.
These are going to be present regardless. The issue, again, is tools which you can use.
Imagine a competition (winning which leads to money and fame) which is based on how contorted a pose can you get into. Under normal conditions you’ll certainly get overtraining side-effects: winners will have overstretched ligaments and muscles, will suffer from habitual dislocation, etc. But now imagine that you allow breaking and resetting bones in new configurations, transplantation of organs to new places in your body and other things like that. It’s the same competition, but the tools are different.
Appreciate your reply. I think it has helped me refine my thinking.
My immediate thought was to agree, but upon reflection, I’m not sure I do agree. The availability heuristic could play a role here. I’ll try to make your claim more precise. One interpretation is that you are more likely to injure yourself sooner by taking drugs than by training. I’m not sure that’s actually true. I definitely can think of examples where someone taking a drug died shortly afterward. “Hard training” seems to imply things which take time to develop, like stress fractures. However, I’d include training related accidents under training, and I don’t think those are unlikely early on. I’d also include things like heat exhaustion and heart attacks there.
I’d give a higher probability to drugs being easier to cause severe damage in the short term, especially if they are illegal (impure) drugs (which are not relevant to the question of legalization), but I’d like to see more clear data on the precise risks.
If I understand your argument, it’s that some athletes will have less of a safeguard, not that doctors are not much of a safeguard in general. I also want to highlight again that the same is true for training.
I’m interested in whether we are assigning blame appropriately. Do you think if the other issues I mentioned had been addressed, the athletes would still be taking on unacceptable risk from performance enhancing drugs specifically?
I think I can understand the parallels you are making between taking performance enhancing drugs and body modification. I suppose this argument fails to convince me because I don’t think body modification should be off the table either!
Training already produces substantial changes in the human body, and I see no relevant difference between changes induced surgically or through natural biology, provided that the level of risk is equivalent for both. Perhaps one relevant fact is that training induced changes will generally revert themselves if you stop training, and surgical changes won’t.
I can think of a variety of ways in which drugs are more dangerous than training (some of which you mentioned):
Drugs are easier in the sense that taking pills takes much less effort than hard training
There are many more drugs (and they are more diverse) than there are forms of training
Drug interaction is more complex and difficult to manage than mixing up types of training
The variety of things in your body that you can break by drugs is much greater than the variety of things you can break by training
Because of the point above, drugs are more likely to cause hidden damage which you are not aware of until it’s too late
Drugs are generally (but not always) faster acting giving you less time to detect a problem and correct it
I can probably produce more if I work at it :-)
My point is that “someone with a medical degree is around” doesn’t actually provide much safety by itself—it all depends on the context. A wealthy US doctor (who can be sued, stripped of a license, kicked out of his country club, etc.) has a very different set of incentives than some guy with an M.D. in a poor country whose only chance of success in life is to extract superhuman performance out of a sports team he’s advising.
Again, it’s up to the athlete to decide which risk is acceptable and which is not. My concern is with a system of incentives, not with whether an individual athlete will make a “right” or “wrong” decision.
I think I’m more suspicious of long-term costs for short-term gains, rather than risk levels...
You make fair points, though ultimately I’m not convinced that legalizing at least certain performance enhancing drugs will lead to problems worse than that which can be found via bad training.
I’ll be thinking about this and might change my mind.