I think i see where the problem is here. You need to keep in mind that there is no such thing as a harmless drug. All drugs are biologically active and there is no such thing as a drug that causes no problems in anyone unless its a placebo ( and even those cause side effects). Most drugs cause side effects in only a small number of people. When you are treating or trying to prevent a potentially harmful condition you can do a risk benefit analysis to determine if a drug is worthwhile using or not. in the case of performance enhancement you are not treating an illness. From a medical standpoint there is no benefit so the risk benefit analysis will always say the drug should not be used even if the risk is small. Its also difficult to get a god risk assessment because the lack of a disease makes it somewhat unethical to do controlled trials on these drugs since the only possible outcomes are either harm or no benefit.That's a good point. Then, it's impossible to make sports 'perfectly' safe. Concussions, broken bones, etc. happen. Even water can be extremely dangerous if used wrongly - I'm not talking about just drowning, but the extreme over-hydration which messes up electrolyte balances. But we don't consider water to be a threatening performance-enhancing drug despite the small degree of danger in using it improperly. It's just a matter of choosing where to draw the 'acceptable danger' line. Ironically, many of the performance-enhancing drugs are legal and beneficial when used as prescribed by doctors outside the confines of specific sports. Some steroids, for example.
Me too. The story is just another celebrity-centered diversion. Almost as bad as when the George w. Bush administration when the House Government Reform Committee took on a detailed investigation of.... steroids in baseball.Has anyone been following this?I might if I was inclined to confuse professional athletes for people of importance. I'm not so inclined. With the economy the as shaky as it is and the morons in Congress playing games of brinksmanship with the budget, there are vastly more important matters to be concerned with.
It's just a matter of choosing where to draw the 'acceptable danger' line. Ironically, many of the performance-enhancing drugs are legal and beneficial when used as prescribed by doctors outside the confines of specific sports. Some steroids, for example.You're missing the point again. The difference is that we are using these drugs in medicine to treat an actual disease, injury , or illness. We are therefor treating someone who is already not in perfect health and therefor it is possible to justify some level of risk to return them to good health. Athletes are already in good health and the drug is being used simply to improve performance. Under those circumstances there is no justifiable reason to accept any level of risk especially if doing so eventually pressure others to take that risk who otherwise would prefer not to. Incidentally, the term "Steroids" covers several different classes of drugs. Corticosteroids which are potent anti-inflammatories are often used in medicine to treat any number of medical conditions. They can have significant side effects and have to be used judiciously. This class of drugs is often used in sports to reduce inflammation in an inured tendon or ligament, but here you are treating someone who has an injury so its use is justified Anabolic steroids are the sort of drugs more often used as PDE's for their presumed muscle building qualities. These drugs are rarely ever used in medicine unless we are treating someone who has a documented deficiency. If not used properly they can lead to a host of side effects, so again, using these drugs when there is no documented illness is irresponsible. Other PDE's are designer drugs developed to circumvent laws and regulations and have no legitimate use in medicine at all.
Thanks for the feedback, BTW. I need to re-think some thoughts on this matter. 
I like city cycling myself. I watch the bicycle races sometimes. Armstrong has been called sophisticated. Obviously, the steroids did help him, they work. :lol: he goes to O to be interviewed, that’s a funny one. Is it humanly-possible to win the Tour seven times in a row, she asked? He said no!
LeMond is the first American who won the Tour, Americans have not been racing in the one-hundred year old Tour before him, IIUC. Afterwords, Armstrong survived testicular cancer, then started winning the tour more than anyone in its hundred-year history. Either an amazing story, or a lie. The French didn’t like him at all, because they were suspicious of his doping, they’re mad at the Americans because of him. He sued people who said he was doping, and he passed every test for it, making it hard to accuse him. When the Tour banned doping the times of the race did slow down, proving that many racers were doping, and also maybe they did give the doping up, but not Armstrong.
The Tour is a difficult one, circulating around France almost one full circle, climbing up and down the French Alps, racing for over twenty days.
Every single rule in every single game is made-up and cherry-picked. None of them have a good reason behind them, so just play by the rules. The rules are the game, the game is the rules, all of it is contrived, just play by the rules.
You need to keep in mind that there is no such thing as a harmless drug. All drugs are biologically active and there is no such thing as a drug that causes no problems in anyone unless its a placebo ( and even those cause side effects).Water! It can kill you if it's the size of a tidal wave. ;)
Every single rule in every single game is made-up and cherry-picked. None of them have a good reason behind them, so just play by the rules. The rules are the game, the game is the rules, all of it is contrived, just play by the rules.I really don't follow your reasoning here Jump. Do you mean every competitive sport or every game? I disagree with the idea that rules were cherry picked and weren't carefully though out to prevent cheating ( IMO PEDs are cheating) and chaos when gaming. Ever make up a game as a kid and slant the rules to insure you or your side wins? Carefully thought out rules and regulations help to level the field for competitors, making the game more enjoyable for the players and spectators. Rules weren't cherry picked, they evolved with the sport or game, e.g. chess. It's the oldest continuously played board game (invented in 650CE) and the rules evolved along with the game. FIDE rules now govern all pro matches and even amateur competitions. We all play by the same internationally standardized rules The same with football. Passing and running rules evolved from the original game played in the 1880's. Basketball too. The rules enhance the game; they aren't the game. Doping is outside of the rules and is therefore cheating. When we are watching human competition we aren't watching a horse race, which is not to infer it's ok to use drugs on animals, but human competition where the athletes have trained their brains and bodies to peak performance, without outside assistance. Besides, we have enough internal enhancements to help our performance, like endorphins. Doping tips the balance in favor of the cheater; and nobody likes a cheater, even in nature. Cap't Jack