19 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderBeing 7ft tall is an accident of birth. We are talking about whether it is ethical to artificially introduce a substance into a human body at unnatural levels.
I'll write my own sentences, thank you. I've pointed out several times that professional athletes are not "normal" as regards their physical attributes. Being 7 foot tall is not "normal" and requires no effort, but is certainly an advantage in a basketball player. Should people who are 7 foot tall be banned from basketball because it's "not fair"?
...[text shortened]... can be used to increase muscle mass. That's the point; have someone explain it to ya.
The whole ethos of sport is about making the best of what you are; taking what physical talents you have and, through hard work, improving. That is what makes it valuable. That is the very thing you don't seem to understand.
The human body has natural limits. It is the striving to push ourselves to and beyond those limits that is valuable. Trying to get a free ride goes against the whole ethos of sport played at every level.
The natural limits of the human body are also the best means we have of ensuring a level playing field and ensuring sport is a fair contest between two individuals or teams, wherever they are from, rather than a question of who has the best doctors.
Since you are clearly so well up on biomechanics, please do tell me how much steak I would have to eat to get the same effect as a six-month course of steroids.
19 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou know the answer. I'm sure I'll find it if I search through your many, many posts when you were going to quit this site because of the high levels of cheating.
Why should I be asking a question when I don't care about the answer? I know my own reasons and I know that this site bans engine use. The only thing I then need to concern myself with is whether that ban is effectively enforced so that I'm able to accomplish what I'm paying for at RHP. Go ahead and take a poll if you're so curious.
The answer is analogous to the answer to the question: Why do most people want to keep steroids out of sport?
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by dottewellEthical questions are best resolved by the individual if their ethical decisions do no direct harm to others. So my answer to your ethical question is: I don't care. What this is really about is a legal question: should someone be punished for making an ethical decision contrary to what dottewell this is right? My answer to that is: No.
Being 7ft tall is an accident of birth. We are talking about whether it is ethical to artificially introduce a substance into a human body at unnatural levels.
The whole ethos of sport is about making the best of what you are; taking what physical talents you have and, through hard work, improving. That is what makes it valuable. That is the very thing ...[text shortened]... me how much steak I would have to eat to get the same effect as a six-month course of steroids.
Having really good doctors is an advantage for professional sports teams now. Having access to medical technology that was unavailable in the past enhances performance in may ways. Having better cold or allegry medicines now makes a player with a cold or an allergy better able to perform. Is this "unfair" to the player who doesn't want to take them that others do?
I don't know and neither do you. But more importantly you've been arguing from some vague, pure "fairness" position. If the difference is merely one of degree than your ethical objection doesn't hold water; trying to do something by the same means (i.e. introducing a substance into the body) is no more or less objectionable based on the effectiveness of the substance introduced. Try this thought experiment: if it was determined by scientific studies that a weekly shot of a steroid had the same effect in building muscle mass with eating one steak a day, should either, both or one be banned?
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by dottewellYou can keep pretending that you have some Gnostic knowledge of the inner workings of my mind if you choose to. My posts on this have been very clear. If you can't or won't understand them, then you're either very stupid or very stubborn. I have no need to search through my prior posts to discover what I think.
You know the answer. I'm sure I'll find it if I search through your many, many posts when you were going to quit this site because of the high levels of cheating.
The answer is analogous to the answer to the question: Why do most people want to keep steroids out of sport?
There's actually no analogy at all; you'd have to determine that most athletes (not "people"😉 want to ban steroids and punish other athletes for using them to bring it into an analogous position with RHP. I suspect you'd fail with Step 1; according to most reports steroid use is widespread in sports and would probably be even more widespread if the athletes had their way.
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderEthical questions are best resolved by the individual if their ethical decisions do no direct harm to others.
Ethical questions are best resolved by the individual if their ethical decisions do no direct harm to others. So my answer to your ethical question is: I don't care. What this is really about is a legal question: should someone be punished for making an ethical decision contrary to what dottewell this is right? My answer to that is: No.
Having r ...[text shortened]... building muscle mass with eating one steak a day, should either, both or one be banned?
That's not the same as saying people should do what they want unless it does direct harm to others. Each individual who thinks about the matter will hopefully come to the same conclusion, because it is correct.
We need rules. People who break the rules are punished. And we form rules based on a consensual view of what is right. The consensus - in my opinion the correct one - is that steroid use in sport is wrong.
Having really good doctors is an advantage for professional sports teams now. Having access to medical technology that was unavailable in the past enhances performance in may ways. Having better cold or allegry medicines now makes a player with a cold or an allergy better able to perform. Is this "unfair" to the player who doesn't want to take them that others do?
The first point is obviously true. But the point about medicine is that it's primary purpose is to restore the body to its natural state. The point is better made with technology, training techniques, etc. These will obviously make it more likely that (e.g.) the US track and field team will do better with the raw talent they have than (e.g.) the Angolan track and field team. But give biotechnology carte blanche and you will exaggerate these differences and lessen the role of natural talent. You lessen the value of sport.
You may think the concept of fairness is therefore "vague", and to some extent it is necessarily so. But that doesn't make it meaningless, and it doesn't mean it cannot be obviously transgressed.
What you can do is say: this much testosterone is natural. Anyone above that amount has been taking it artificially and therefore not only giving themselves an unfair advantage but cheaping the whole endeavour. Is that limit arbitrary? In one sense, clearly. Is it meaningless? Certainly not.
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYour posts on this crucial issue have not been very clear, other than some clearly disingenuous stuff about wanting to practice for OTB.
You can keep pretending that you have some Gnostic knowledge of the inner workings of my mind if you choose to. My posts on this have been very clear. If you can't or won't understand them, then you're either very stupid or very stubborn. I have no need to search through my prior posts to discover what I think.
There's actually no analogy at al ...[text shortened]... read in sports and would probably be even more widespread if the athletes had their way.
Calling me "stupid and stubborn" doesn't disguise the very obvious fact that you don't want to answer a simple question.
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderMLB's steroid ban is also a consumer choice issue. There's a sizeable portion of baseball fans that despise steroid use; if MLB makes no move to stop it, they risk losing $$ in ticket sales.
In case you can't figure it out, engines aren't banned at RHP and virtually all CC sites because they're not "fair". They're banned because people don't want to play them, at least without knowing they're playing an engine. It's simply a consumer choice issue. I don't want to play engines because I tune up at RHP to play OTB and engines don't play like h ...[text shortened]... ns so it would be counterproductive. Allowing engine use would be perfectly "fair".
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by dottewellListen you SOB if you keep calling me a liar, I'm tempted to hop a flight to England and put my foot in your ass. I told you what I use RHP for; why is it disingenuous to say you use a CC site to improve your OTB game?? What are you a retard?? I have an OTB rating, a tournament this weekend and the New York state Open next week. So shut your ignorant mouth.
Your posts on this crucial issue have not been very clear, other than some clearly disingenuous stuff about wanting to practice for OTB.
Calling me "stupid and stubborn" doesn't disguise the very obvious fact that you don't want to answer a simple question.
How can I answer a question about what other people think, nitwit???? I can't read minds like you can.