Archive for July, 2012

Why Is Doping Bad?

July 26, 2012

Let me just state that I find the Olympic Games to be on the same level of fun as listening to casette-recorded bingo games, and about as exciting as looking at the number plates on cars. I would have more stimulation doing [insert random house chore here]. As I watch Let’s Play, I keep in mind that hating OG on this basis alone is probably quite hypocritical, but the incredibly irritating sponsorships and vomiting-induced commercial jippo surrounding, as well as themes of nationalism and machoness is enough to gain my hatedom. If it weren’t for the millions watching the games it would be akin to making a post about the aesthetics of Bratz, but they do, so let’s get to it. Let’s look at the usual concerns.

I’m going to quote from an old shame of mine:

The sport events known as Olympics has had a long affair with doping. Some substances can signficantly increase the capability of athletes, at least in the short-term. These substances are banned, however. Ignoring the potentially harmful effects of certain drugs, why? If the whole point of Olympics is to be the fastest, jump the highest and so on, why wouldn’t people be able to use these substances to aid them? The answer would be something along the lines of that the athlete should derive his results through committed training and dedication, not “cheating”. In other words, it’s deemed to be too much of an unfair advantage.


Pointing out the possible harms from doping is a quite valid point, yet it seems it is not the overriding concern for the Olympic committee. Nevertheless, the question should perhaps be rephrased as “If Doping Wasn’t Harmful, Why Would Doping Be Bad?” I’ll also point out that being a professional athlete is a harmful profession in the first place, due to the injuries seemingly inevitably befalling them.

Unfair Advantage

In Sweden, there is a network of non-profit clubs and associations, which contribute to churning out an awful amount of top athletes, especially if they have been instructed by an “old legend”. Being a full-time athlete requires money, and is not as available across classes and countries. Public utilities are crucial in the number of top athletes. The list goes on – obtaining performance-enhancing drugs are absurdly insignificant compared to socio-economic conditions. And, obviously, genetics. In fact, looking at the big picture, this concern is more or less absurd.


This is, I’d say, the greatest concern of the Olympic committee. Looking at this concern we might see some of the ideological underpinnings of what is considered “natural”. Consider this (paraphrased) statement from a radio programme:

It is important to have a natural body and train.

What is a natural body, and why is it natural to train? Think about this question. Why I doubt that the “natural body” even exists is due to the plethora of tools that are a part of us. The rake we us to gather leaves, the books we read, our means of transportation, the chemicals we ingest that help form our body. Why the all-natural ingredients of performance-enhancing drugs would cause a body to go from natural to unnatural is beyond me.

Some people are never AFK

BONUS: The Paralympic Games exists, and is supported by the Olympic committee. I wonder why it has more reason to exist than any of the following:

* People with average sport genes-lympic
* People with bad sport genes-lympic
* People of average socio-economic background-lympics
* People of bad socio-economic background-lympics
* Handicapped people not using unnatural implements like wheelchairs-lympics