Thread: lance armstrong
View Single Post
Old 10-12-2012, 12:12 AM   #69
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 958
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfghanScarface View Post
The affidavit was an interesting read, to say the least.

Taken responsibly, I see no problem with diligent and well-researched steroid use. Like dwass mentioned, people fear what they don't understand and draw conclusions based on opinions that are usually uninformed and complety irrational.

Also, after reading the affidavit I can't help but feel for the guy. I mean here he is watching the overwhelming majority of his competition partaking in PEDs and soaring past him, not to mention that nearly every colleague/teamate on the various teams he rode for either used or encouraged the use of PEDs. Its a bit of a no-win situation for them. They're held to these unbelievable standards (which, arguably, could have been a result of unknown PED use at the time). If they decide to stay out of it and go natural then they suck to their fans (and country) once they start losing to everybody. If they decide to take the drugs then they are parriahs and charlatans once they are caught.
To completely oversimplify the situation, here are the choices:

- Continue to attempt to prevent athletes from using PEDs. We kinda know the upsides and downsides to this because it's what's currently going on.

- Quit trying to keep PEDs out of sports. Obviously the whole "is he cheating" question goes away. But here are the two main problems I anticipate coming out of that immediately: #1 many sports will turn into an arms race between who's got the better pharmacist, and #2 at what age will we allow kids to start taking PEDs and how are we going to manage that transition? For example, if we say you can't take PEDs until you're 18, what's that going to do to the transition from being a high school senior athlete to being a college freshman athlete? It also raises the question that success in sports may be slanted more towards those that can afford to have a "proper" PED program. That would raise issues about low-income athletes putting themselves at risk by "having to" deal with shady PEDs or low-quality programs in order to compete.

- Split sports into "natural" and "anything goes" leagues. The issue here is that a lot of sports simply can't survive as pro leagues if they lose half their fan base/dollars when they split.

There are issues no matter which way it's done. And none of this touches on the moral or ethical dilemma presented by athletes that harm their long term health through the usage of PEDs.

If NFL athletes can sue the league for the long term health affects of concussions, what would the lawsuits for sanctioned PED usage look like 10, 20, 40 years from now?

Honestly, I'd be willing to look at option 2 or 3, but I think there are a lot of problems that would need solutions before a sport could move that direction.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
As a juror, do you think the trial was a publicity stunt?

Yes
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is online now   Reply With Quote