catulle
07-03-2006, 06:44 PM
What is a ‘performance-enhancer?'
Editor:
As this year's Tour is now under way sans most favorites, press abounds regarding what cycling must now do to make itself a "clean" sport.
Unfortunately, this is hardly the first major doping incident in a sport, let alone cycling. Having been a track athlete in the late 1980s I remember with sadness but not much shock the disqualification of Ben Johnson in the Olympic 100 meters for steroids.
One question has haunted me since my early sports days. Why ban something for being performance-enhancing? What even constitutes "performance-enhancing?" (Is spaghetti performance enhancing, because I ride faster after eating it?) Doesn't that simply make the substances more desirable? Why not ban substances due to their health risks for athletes? This shift is more philosophical, and it does open the door to possibly allowing some substances that are currently illegal to be used legally.
As a fan of sport, I am less concerned with level playing fields, new ways to cheat or who is beating the system, and more concerned with which 30-year-old should now be considered in his twilight years because he soon will be dead, thanks to the chemicals he used.
Don't ban performance-enhancers. Ban based upon health risks to the athletes. This will make for a level, safer playing field that the athletes might just welcome.
Jorin Green
Pambrun, Saskatchewan, Canada
Editor:
As this year's Tour is now under way sans most favorites, press abounds regarding what cycling must now do to make itself a "clean" sport.
Unfortunately, this is hardly the first major doping incident in a sport, let alone cycling. Having been a track athlete in the late 1980s I remember with sadness but not much shock the disqualification of Ben Johnson in the Olympic 100 meters for steroids.
One question has haunted me since my early sports days. Why ban something for being performance-enhancing? What even constitutes "performance-enhancing?" (Is spaghetti performance enhancing, because I ride faster after eating it?) Doesn't that simply make the substances more desirable? Why not ban substances due to their health risks for athletes? This shift is more philosophical, and it does open the door to possibly allowing some substances that are currently illegal to be used legally.
As a fan of sport, I am less concerned with level playing fields, new ways to cheat or who is beating the system, and more concerned with which 30-year-old should now be considered in his twilight years because he soon will be dead, thanks to the chemicals he used.
Don't ban performance-enhancers. Ban based upon health risks to the athletes. This will make for a level, safer playing field that the athletes might just welcome.
Jorin Green
Pambrun, Saskatchewan, Canada