VERY few average people consume enough caffeine to reach the banned level on a regular basis. And certainly people who do consume that much have potential health effects.
And doctors using steriods are aware of the potential side effects - it's a question of whether the risks of taking outweigh the benefits of taking. Nearly all steroids have negative side effects. Steroid protocols certainly wouldn't make healthier athletes unless the athletes were suffering from one of the indications for which they would have been prescribed steriods. I know several people who's doctors have them taking steroids because while the steroids will likely kill them, the deficiency being addressed by the steriods would kill them more quickly. If you don't believe that we should be regulating athletes' decisions on what kind of health they are willing to give up for performance, that's a valid position, albeit one I disagree with. If you believe that there are banned substances that don't have health risks, there is some evidence to support you, although personally I tend to suspect that much of the over-the counter stuff - banned or otherwise - is still detrimental. But don't start minimizing the health risks - there absolutely are substantial health risks to prolonged use of most banned substances. Life is not black and white and neither is this issue. I look at the big picture and see the combination of health risks and fair play and conclude that we should continue to ban drugs. It's not using one to justify the other, it's taking both into consideration. That is my opinion, but I'm probably not going to convince someone who really believes otherwise. "Moral objections" are inherently subjective, regardless of what a dogmatic minority would have us believe. Yes, the decisions about whether and what to ban are arbitrary - as are many other things related to human endeavors. As are rules about the weight of the javelin, the height of the hurdles, false starts, etc. It's a matter of what the majority of rulesmakers agree on, and while some of it is based on concrete stuff, it certainly isn't all based on that. - Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 6:20 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I'm sorry - is there a question over whether this is a health issue? > > Yes, most definitely. There is a health component to it, of course, but > that seems to be more of a justification for some underlying moral > objection. Take caffeine, for example. Who's health is being protected > by limiting stimulants to below the levels many average people consume on > a daily basis? Steroids are used throughout the medical profession. They > obviously aren't all bad, so if health were the only reason behind drug > rules, why not regulate steroid protocols that could make healthier > athletes? > > Dan > > > ===== > http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming > http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy T&F > ------------------------------------------------------------ > @ o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <|\/ <^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) > _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax > / / > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com >
