Ah. I’m wondering if there won’t be more of a societal change where, instead of policing performance enhancers in sport to the point that over the counter decongestants are worrisome because they might cause a positive test, and there is debate about whether or not using a device that simulated training at high altitudes is alright when actually going somewhere with a high altitude is fine, enhancement will spread through the society in general so there is less of a blanket ban on anything that seems somehow “unnatural.”

College students have been using caffeine as an aid to focus for generations – now they are going to the pharmacy for medications that will help them study more effectively, and this isn’t really seen as cheating. How is it bad for a student not to take advantage of all means available to improve their performance, whether it is using different books, or finding especially good websites with video tutorials, or eating well, or getting plenty of sleep, or using the right medications? In the same way, I think it will be seen that perfomance enhancers, when taken properly, will fall under the same category in the opinion of society as eating the proper diet, using the appropriate training methods, having eye surgery to improve eyesight and eliminate the need for contacts, or taking a shot for pain so an athlete can concentrate on playing. It will all fall under a broad umbrella of “methods, techniques, and substances to make a person better at their chosen profession.”

If the same performance enhancing “things” are equally available to all, then I don’t think of it as cheating.

I think that there is a general movement in society toward acceptance of performance enhancers – this is bad in that it leads to the prevalence of the quick fix in a pill for every problem, a resorting to a drug for depression instead of therapy (which might be more effective even though it takes longer), and instead of trying to interact with an energetic child you give them a pill to “help them focus,” but it is good in that there are options other than just enduring something like depression or pain or high blood pressure or whatever. What worries me more is the long-term effects of using any drug, and the adverse side effects that sometimes only appear years later.

It’s hard for me to really get upset with an athlete for using a drug that will make them better at their job when if I were offered such a substance, I’d probably take it. I try to gain experience and get extra training to make me better, both for the benefit of my current employer and to increase my skillset for when I change jobs, and if I were offered a substance that would work with what I was already doing and make me more effective (assuming no known side effects of course), I’d probably take it without a qualm and not think of it as cheating at all.

I understand that there are a few different issues with competitive sports, but wonder if those make any real sense. To me an athlete is no different than anyone else who is trying to do the best job at his profession that he can, and keep his job for as long as possible. I have a hard time blaming someone for using any means he can find that makes him better. Yes, using performance enhancing drugs is against the rules – but maybe it shouldn’t be.

It’s a pretty gray and fuzzy – therefore interesting – concept to think about.

Phil Collins sucks rather substantial quantities of ass.

Peter Gabriel, on the other hand, possesses one of the finest voices of his generation. I have all the time in the world for him.

Perhaps a parallel with the feeling of many in the US regarding basketball? It was a game that “we” invented, and then in international competitions “our” stars wound up getting trounced by players from Argentina and such. I mean, how DARE they?!? Don’t they know who plays the best basketball in the world?!?

I actually think it is wonderful that a sport such as basketball has been accepted and enjoyed by so many to the point that it is played, and played well, all over the world and some of the best NBA players come from other nations. Same with the wide range of nationalities of players in baseball, and same way in hockey.

I understand the fear of losing something that one thinks of as uniquely theirs, but the bright side is that if hockey was a horrible sport, no one else would be interested in watching it or playing it – the only way to truly keep control of hockey and keep it exclusively Canadian would have it be a boring, crappy game that no one else is attractive enough to want, and there isn’t much point in keeping something to yourself if the only reason is no one else wants it.

Maybe Canadians are more protective of hockey not just because they see it as their sport, but also because they are a smaller country (in population) and feel as though they are somehow being swamped by other people?