I'm probably somewhere in the lower left hand corner, maybe close to the end of the individual axis and then about 1/2 or 2/3 below the center on the harm axis. When I ran in college (Illinois) and for a few years after I would have been in the lower right extreme.
I think the axes are a nice way to look at the debate. I would love to see where athletes and IAAF/IOC/USATF/etc officials would place themselves. My guess is that the clustering would not form distinct cleavages along a diagonal moral axis but would cluster around the center. This is probably why we have and will continue to have the system we do have. Lots of holes, but it creates a net that will catch or prevent the most extreme abuse and anyone who screws up. Athletes certainly do have the right to start up their own league that doesn't test. but this would not happen given that the money and glory/prestige are all with IOC/IAAF events. The idea of multiple federations with different drug rules is not completely far-fetched however as this is precisely what happened in power lifting (and PLing has not exactly become a fan favorite). Paul -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: The Grid (was RE: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport) Paul Talbot wrote: >Another aspect of the "moral" debate is whether the individual or the >collect group should decide what the individual may or may nor consume. I'm not sure what the point here, is. But I'll get to that later. Maybe we need to start with a declaration - do you believe that high doses of certain ergogenic aids (drugs, for short) can be harmful to an athlete's health, or don't you? Because we're ending up with something that's not a single spectra here - it's more something like a grid: No Harm ! ! Individual_____________!_____________Sports Responsibility ! Responsibility ! ! Harmful Rate yourself somewhere along each axis, and graph the point. I'm going to end up in the lower right hand corner, assuming this is graphically coherent once it goes through e-mail. If you're closer to the upper left hand corner, you're more likely to favor eliminating testing. I've already, in my first post, given my reasons for believing athletes will take drugs in harmful quantities if there is no regulatory deterrent. Others have provided useful elaboration of this point. In my first post, I also stated why I believe it is the responsibility of the sport to do what it can to prevent this. Allowing any athlete to take drugs in harmful quantities means that to be competitive potentially all athletes need to use in harmful quantities. I consider it totally within the rights of the IAAF or IOC or whoever to say "we will not intentionally operate our sport in a way that tacitly requires athletes to take drugs in harmful quantities to be competitive". Getting back to Paul's point above - the individual still has rights under this system. He can choose to take drugs, and to compete outside of the IAAF/IOC framework. There is no moral imperative for the IAAF/IOC to change their rules in order to allow an individual, or group of individuals, the freedom to do something which the IAAF/IOC believes will potentially increase the health risk to all athletes competing under their umbrella. I guess under this scenario, the only thing I would change about current IAAF/IOC rules (if I understand them correctly) would be to allow their tested athletes to compete against non-tested, or banned athletes, if they desired without threat of sanction. Now, if you believe the health risk to be non-existant then we really don't have a basis for discussion. If you believe that drugs can harm or kill athletes, but that's a choice best left to the athletes, we can probably have a discussion, but we'll probably still end up in different places at the end of the day. Phil
