Olympics - swimming

[Highfields Seagull]

Was having a debate last night about how fine the line is between drug taking and other 'enhancements' in sport.

It was prompted by those new costumes that the swimmers are now wearing. As I understand it, these new suits help to reshape the swimmers' bodies to make them more aerodynamic through the water - as a consequence of their use world records have been tumbling.

To me this doesn't seem a very far away from drug taking in sport - the suit is a synthetic technological advance which helps to alter the shape of the swimmers' bodies in the water and enhance performance; drugs are a technological advance to help change the make-up of the athletes bodies and enhance performance.

Where do you draw the line?

 

[strings]

This was in the economist this week.

They were discussing what is the difference between having a gift (some athletes' bodies natrually produce more EPO, which increases red blood cell activity) and synthetically enhancing performance (by increasing your EPO for example).

The fact is that even if somebody is born with a naturally elevated level of EPO it still gives them a massive advantage over others - yet is still allowed. The Olympic commission see it as a 'god-given' gift.

However, if we wanted athletes to be natural, why do we allow modern training machinery, electric shock therepy is not natural, but is allowed (incidentally richer countries such as the US can afford this technology in abunadnce - creating another dimension of inequality).

I'll see if I can dig out the article - it was really interesting.

 

[strings]

Fairly safe
Jul 31st 2008
From The Economist print edition

What athletes may or may not do ought to be decided on grounds of safety, not fairness

ANOTHER Olympics, another doping debate. And this time it is a fervent one, as recent advances in medical science have had the side-effect of providing athletes with new ways of enhancing performance, and thus of putting an even greater strain on people’s ethical sensibilities.

This is especially true of gene therapy. Replacing defective genes holds out great promise for people suffering from diseases such as muscular dystrophy and cancer. But administered to sprightly sportsmen, the treatment may allow them to heave greater weights, swim faster and jump farther (see article). And that would be cheating, wouldn’t it?

Two notions are advanced against doping in sport: safety and fairness. The first makes sense, the second less so—particularly when it comes to gene therapy. For instance, some people have innate genetic mutations which give them exactly the same sort of edge. Eero Mantyranta, a Finn, was a double Olympic champion in cross-country skiing. His body has a mutation that causes it to produce far more of a hormone called EPO than a normal person would. This hormone stimulates the production of red blood cells. A synthetic version of it is the (banned) drug of choice for endurance athletes.

Mr Mantyranta was allowed to compete because his advantage was held to be a “natural” gift. Yet the question of what is natural is no less vexed than that of what is fair. What is natural about electric muscle stimulation? Or nibbling on nutrients that have been cooked up by chemists? Or sprinting in special shoes made of springy carbon fibre? Statistically speaking, today’s athletes are unlikely to be any more naturally gifted than their forebears, but records continue to fall. Nature is clearly getting a boost from somewhere.

Given that so much unnatural tampering takes place, the onus is surely on those who want to ban doping (genetic or otherwise) to prove that it is unusually unfair. Some point out, for instance, that it would help big, rich countries that have better access to the technology. But that already happens: just compare the training facilities available to the minuscule Solomon Islands squad alongside those of mighty Team America. In druggy sports it may narrow the gap. One condition of greater freedom would be to enforce transparency: athletes should disclose all the pills they take, just as they register the other forms of equipment they use, so that others can catch up.

The gene genie is already out of the bottle
From this perspective, the sole concern when it comes to enhancing athletic performance should be: is it safe for the athletes? Safety is easier to measure than fairness: doctors and scientists adjudicate on such matters all the time. If gene doping proves dangerous, it can be banned. But even then, care should be exercised before a judgment is reached.

Many athletes seem perfectly willing to bear the risks of long-term effects on their health as a result of their vocations. Aged Muhammad Ali’s trembling hands, for example, are a direct result of a condition tellingly named dementia pugilistica. Sport has always been about sacrifice and commitment. People do not admire Mr Mantyranta because he had the luck of the genetic draw. They admire him for what he achieved with his luck. Why should others be denied the chance to remedy that deficiency?

 

[London Calling]

the costumes are a joke.


records held by great swimmers are being lost to a generation of speedo nylon costumes, again, it clearly shows the IOC as corrupt useless idiots who fail to see that, these incidents , are seen so negatively by the public.

 

[Superphil]

more aerodynamic through the water -

Shoud that be Hydrodynamic?

 

[strings]

the costumes are a joke.


records held by great swimmers are being lost to a generation of speedo nylon costumes, again, it clearly shows the IOC as corrupt useless idiots who fail to see that, these incidents , are seen so negatively by the public.

I agree, but, what is the difference between a 'technologically advanced swimwear' and these new 'lightweight' football boots, 'advanced' spikes that athletes wear nowadays or the new 'stretchy' rugby shirts.

They all give benefits - where should the line be drawn?

 

[Stat Brother]

My own passion, cycling, scores high in the 2-faced stakes.

Although probably working harder than any other sport to reduce doping, EPO, micro dosage, (Which I doubt the IOC have caught up with, yet) etc.

The high ground taken by journos couple with total roastings of those when break the law, is wiped out when on the next page 'Creatine' is being avertised as the product to help you ride for longer, harder, etc.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

the costumes are a joke.


records held by great swimmers are being lost to a generation of speedo nylon costumes, again, it clearly shows the IOC as corrupt useless idiots who fail to see that, these incidents , are seen so negatively by the public.

Rubbish.

Who are these 'great swimmers' to whom you refer? What did they wear, if not the best suits available to them at the time? They too would have worn costumes much better than the generation before them.....

 

[London Calling]

Rubbish.

Who are these 'great swimmers' to whom you refer? What did they wear, if not the best suits available to them at the time? They too would have worn costumes much better than the generation before them.....

well for a long time it was a pair of trunks Look at the stuff Forster wore 20 years ago when he started?

then in last 10 years or so, men have over to lycra, so its only really in the last decade the costume hasd been used as a "performance enhacing outfit"

this one, explicitely goes further, with weight buoyances the works, might as well stick an engine in it as well.

 

[London Calling]

Rubbish.

Who are these 'great swimmers' to whom you refer? What did they wear, if not the best suits available to them at the time? They too would have worn costumes much better than the generation before them.....

well for a long time it was a pair of trunks Look at the stuff Forster wore 20 years ago when he started?

then in last 10 years or so, men have over to lycra, so its only really in the last decade the costume hasd been used as a "performance enhacing outfit"

this one, explicitely goes further, with weight buoyances the works, might as well stick an engine in it as well.