4 posts / 0 new
Last post

Is this a fair argument?

We all know that taking steroids bulk up muscles and enhance the users performance likewise, according to the IOC, drugs like antihistamines also do the same. So how different are those from swimmers and runners using neoprene like suits to make them go faster? Doesn't wearing those suits in essance or technically enhance the wearer/user's performance? Was it not at the last or previous summer games that they said Ian Thorpe broke the world record in swimming but he was wearing the suit.

The difference is that with drugs or other substances, you're putting yourself at physical risk and/or physically changing yourself. So if that's acceptable, those who don't want to change their bodies or put themselves at risk "just to remain competitive" are at a distinct advantage, and the physical change/damage stays with you much longer than just the event/training... if you're a swimer in a neoprene suit, you can change out of it as soon as you get out of the water and you're not impacted at all. THAT's the difference.

The "performance enhancing" aspect of steroids isn't the only reason they are banned. The problem is, besides men with grape nuts and large breasts, there are significant risks to joints, the heart, associated with steroids. The rule is in place, presumably, to protect athletes from themselves - so they don't drop dead at 35 as a consequence of going for gold at 25.

The suit (probably) doesn't present long-term health-risks, and that is one major reason that the anology between steroids and a swimsuit or an aerodynamic bobsled doesn't stand.

... or cleats for that matter.