Olympic athletes (legally) use banned drugs
cbc.ca
cbc.ca
I'm not sure I'm on board with this. Presumably, by "level the playing field" they mean "make the person better/more competitive." So why not let anyone take drugs to make it easier for them to compete as well? It isn't just hard work and dedication that makes a top athlete.
There's two robust reasons I know of for banning a performance-enhancing substance: health risks, and equality of opportunity (e.g. if a substance is expensive to get hold of or has been developed privately).
I'm guessing that in the case of therapeutic uses, the pros are considered to outweigh the cons.
Some of it can be training induced asthma, though. At least it was quite common when I grew up that the cross country skiers all had breathing problems from training hard in cold weather. (There is better knowledge and guidelines and regulations around this now, at least, avoiding exposing kids to this too much).
I just did a bit of Googling and found this study of athletes from the 2008 Beijing Olympics: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Allergy&ti...
Incredibly, nearly 60% of endurance athletes are recorded as being asthmatic. Compared to 5-10% of the general population.
The introduction does corroborate your point:
> It has been proposed that asthma among endurance athletes could arise from prolonged mechanical stress of the airway surface and increased ventilation causing airway remodeling. This could indicate that a specific underlying pathomechanism exits, most likely related to endurance sport.
Is this auto-edit rule really worth it?
Seems like removing the "how" simply exposes the presuppositions a bit more without changing the meaning.
Generally speaking though the rule may well be worth it. "How" and "why" are often overused in headlines to draw readers in by promising revelatory details about "how something works".
Every professional athlete uses PEDs already and they do so discretely. Let's dispell with the nonsense that they don't.
Take the 23 Chinese swimmers who all got caught and WADA hand waived it by saying it was doped meat. Are you kidding me?
Common complaints about PED use range from inaccurate to outright lies. Steroids can be used at appreciable levels 200-500mg when blood tests are done regularly. Damage to the cardio system only occurs when you don't do cardio and let your hematocrit get too high.
Pro athletes who do PEDs will have access to the best doctors and medical care money can buy. They are prized stallions and will be well taken care of.
So that leaves us with the final one which is, "it will encourage normies to do PEDs for the gainz!"
Trust me, every fitness magazine does that already.
The sooner the WADA, USADA , and IOC get a kick to the face when the attention to them disappears is when this pearl clutching finally ends.
Sports are entertainment, people want to be entertained, and advertisers want eyeballs. If it falls outside of that scope then it's a waste of time.
Subsequent leaks show US/Australia/France account for something like 60% of ~1000 global TUEs. TUEs is just west being good at lawfare to stack games in their favour, from having shitload of medals in swimming (or cutting medals in weightlifting) etc etc.
My hot take as someone who enjoys strength sports, especially the untested drama is TUEs is more pernicious to fairness than banned PEDs. Banned PEDs actually have to be cycled off prior to competition, most of their value is increasing recovery, enabling more training etc. Meanwhile TUEs affect actual competition. Stuff like Adderall ADHD TUEs particularly "mental" performance enhancing, like everyone who trains seriously knows mental game is what makes a huge difference at top after physicality is filtered by genetics. If athlete mentally not capable of training protocol, they might as well as be genetically cursed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/20/world/asia/chinese-swimme...
Besides, the information they are reporting on is private and was wrongfully leaked. Broadcasting it and even framing it in a bad light is simply wrong.
If anything, the athletes who truly are abusing these TUE rules probably do so out of superstition, to gain any advantage possible, real or otherwise. But I do not believe that they gain an actual advantage over other competitors who aren't taking these drugs.
> Stimulants don't have the same effect on a brain that is not dopamine deficient
Well yeah you're right, it tends to produce euphoria, stimulation, and improved mood, which is why it's such a massively abused drug.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the article but saying that therapeutic drugs have zero or only negative effect on people without their targeted pathologies is just plain wrong. I know a lot of athletes do things for "superstition" but when competing at the highest levels, I would wager that pharmaceuticals are probably pretty carefully evaluated for risk/reward.