| Joined: | Wed Apr 11th, 2012 |
| Location: | Melbourne, Australia |
| Posts: | 525 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
I think on the doping issue there are two sides to the argument.
Same as the mind bending drugs.
If we didnt have the current system where it was illegal to use mind bending drugs then they would have little or no street value so organised crime wouldnt be interested. Those 'fools' who wanted to use would use and there would be a very small and short term increase in deaths due to addict problems (over-doses and withdrawals).
The above statement is not one of my own but a paraphrase of advice that was given to me when I was at school (40 years ago) as we had a UN drugs advisor as one of our school master. He was an expert in the cannabis, marijuana and other opiates field and in his school holidays did work for UN in this area. He advocated that the drugs should be legalised as this would then remove the drug trafficing and street problems in first world countries.
Same in sports with drugs. If you allowed use yes you would have a two tier sport but then you could have 'enhanced' and 'un-enhanced' records. Those who used would be very obvious and wouldnt need testing. Those that claimed to be un-enhanced would need to be tested to prove this state. There would be a lot of athletes from the enhanced group who died young (30-50) dues to side effects and toxicity problems. (The candle only burns so bright for a limited time).
My father who worked most of his life in a law enforcement roll would agree with the above.
For me with the social problem simple economic principles apply - you can't control this problem by attacking the supply, the more effective you are at this, the more the price goes up, therefore the more tempting it is to take the risks to supply. For the kingpins the risk vs reward factor is always going to be attractive (assuming they don't have a moral issue with what they do).
If you want to control the problem you need to attack the demand and yet all the heavy penalties world wide are targeted at the suppliers not users (demand), and the risk of using is considered very low. No first timers believe this will ruin their lives or they will become addicted. Whilst morally understandable (users = disease = victim) this approach is fundamentally flawed as the rules of supply and demand will always kick in. If conversely (and making an extreme argument I don't believe in) you made selling legal, but made drugs tests mandatory for any form of work, insurance, social security and business license and were prepared to put all the vagrants this would produce into jail then the problem would disappear pretty quickly.
In sport I think it gets very confusing, many of the food supplements that all athletes take verge very close to drugs, and drugs that have been discovered that enhance performance but not yet made illegal are widely used (this effects the social problem as well). The old full time professional vs the amateur debate is also similar these folk are on such different playing fields it's probably a bigger difference than drugs vs clean. I think the whole thing is way too confusing in the modern Olympics.
Once upon a time I had hopes of going to the Olympics to represent the UK in Judo, never quite made it. I must admit one of the best things about giving up is being able to take cold and flu drugs if I get ill. By the way I know for sure that one of the guys that did go to the Commonwealth Games and beat me in one of the deciding competitions (I came second) took a year out to use steroids. He built up his strength and then came off them early enough to flush them out of his system before coming back and winning a spot on the team. He was tested every time he fought and never got caught. Another close friend of mine risked a cortisone shot to his shoulder (which he genuinely needed and was prescribed by his doctor, but was still illegal) if he had got caught he'd of been given a two year ban.