Schneier on Security

Clive Robinson • October 31, 2012 2:14 AM

@ Bruce,

American professional sports are far more lenient, often trying to give the appearance of vigilance while still allowing athletes to use performance-enhancing drugs. They know that fans want to see beefy linebackers, powerful sluggers, and lightning-fast sprinters. So, with a wink and a nod, American enforcers only test for the easy stuff.

This is perhaps the interesting point of what sport is to those that watch it (rather than actualy participate). Is it a “performance art” or a “natural art”. If it is a “performance art” then dopping is no more unacceptable that the touched up images of super models in the varios fashion and other magazines, or those who undergo cosmetic surgery from botox injection through to having bones restructured to lengthen legs etc.

We already distinguish between amateur and professional sports persons (although the bounderies are nolonger as clear cut as they once were). Why not extend the proffessional category to Prof-unenhanced and Prof-enhanced.

Perhaps sports fans would have no objection perhaps they would.

But at the end of the day perhaps society should be asking questions of it’s self and the “cult of image”.

Because beyond a certain point talent is not something you can aquire with just practice and determination it is the luck of your genetics and thus who your ancestors chose to mate with.

Australia had a political will some years ago to become a better nation at sport, children from a very early age were tested and directed towards certain sports it was not realy their choice but a political one. We currently see China doing similar things but to the point the athletes are issolated from the outside world and they are not informed when close family members die. Prior to these events Eastern Block nations likewise for political reasons pushed doping science forwards and now it’s continued not so much for National Gain but Personal or Team Gain.

But even the sport organisers are not beyond dishonest behaviour. Think back to the Olympics in South Korea, the host nation had no medals until a boxing medal was given, ask any person who is a serious boxing fan to look at the fight and say who was realy the winner?

I think it is a case of societal delusion, otherwise how do you explain that for some reason because the gain is “politicaly” inspired it’s acceptable, but when it’s “personal” choice it’s not?

It’s a question that has long troubled me, I used to participate in a number of sports when I was younger some of them rather more cerebral than physical and thus requiring more mental than physical skill. I was in some cases moderatly successful, but when I stoped participating I did not carry on as a spectator. One of the reasons I stopped participating was that people were starting to talk about “mental doping” where by you would use natural upers and downers to control when you were at mental peek performance.

I was reminded of this the other day when a news item mentioned that the lack luster performance of a football (soccer) team was due to the fact that the match had been postponed by 24hours. And that the team had insufficient sleep because they had all been taking a stimulant (ProPluss) prior to the original match time.

Thus you have to ask yourself a couple of questions. The first being the after match behaviour which we see happen which occasional gets quite bad press, is this due to natural exuberance or the coming down from the use of stimulants? The second and perhaps more important is we now have drugs that increase oxygen uptake in the brain etc and are said to enhance mental ability should we ban their use in some or all sports?

Clive Robinson • November 1, 2012 11:52 AM

@ suferick,

It certainly made me jumpy, but don;t know if it qualified as ‘mental doping’

I guess it depends on your viewpoint and if it improved your performance or not.

It’s a bit like asking if a regular smoker is a drug addict or not…

What concernd me however is that even back then a third of a century ago it was looked on as a way to use chemicals to get a competative edge, which is what anti-doping is supposed to stop.

Arguably caffeine in strong coffee is a natural part of a beverage, in the same way as it is (to a much lesser extent) in tea which also contains natural antibiotics and some antivirals.

At one point the WADA baned the use of caffeine pseudoephedrine and ephedrine, even though all three are readily available in drink for from the brewing of leaves or berries of plants in hot water.

However the WADA later relented on both caffeine and pseudoephedrine (it was rumourd that the first was due to major “sponsorhip preasure” from certain well known soft drink manufactures and fast food companies that the IOC is reliant on for income).

It is also fairly well known that both ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are sufficiently similar to well known “party drugs” and many students believe that they help them study much more effectivly than caffeine.

The simple fact is however that all three can and will kill people sometimes in surprisingly small doses. It is known for instance that ephedrines effect on people is very dependent on other factors such as hydration and environmental temprature, so what has been a (semi) safe does for an individual one day at home in the temperate north could at the same level kill them just a few days later whilst partying on holiday in the sun…

Any way I saw the use of the non natural forms of these stimulants as the thin edge of the wedge, and mental doping is hear to stay with other entirely non natural manufactured drugs designed to be used for the likes of altzihmers sufferes.