(08-12-2013, 12:21 PM)eppie Wrote: If you can reasonably expect a substance to be banned once it is known (or is known to have a great effect on stamina, muscle growth or whatever) it is cheating even though it is not against the rules of the moment.
Maybe not legally but for sure when keeping the unwritten rules of the sport in mind.
Possibly, and unwritten rules make determining whether something is cheating or not (ex ante) very difficult. On the other hand, your criteria don't work, at least not in absolute terms. Protein and carbohydrates have absolutely critical effects on muscle growth and stamina. No sport is insane enough to ban them. Testosterone (and other hormones) aren't banned per se - your body produces them naturally - but taking extra is doping.
For instance, I was given a testosterone shot as a baby, for heath-related reasons. I'm sure it had a positive effect on my later development. Would I be cheating if I played competitive sports? What about if someone takes medicines for an illness? Or uses high-energy sports drinks, to improve their performance? Or just gets high on pot because it's awesome and what snowboarders do, man?
It's not so simple as that.
Quote:Take the shark suits used by some swimmers a few years ago. When the first swimmers raced with those they had an unfair advantage over the ones who didn't. Indeed some time later they were banned.
Swimmers regularly shave, because it gives them an advantage. And wear speedos rather than baggy trunks. And goggles. Are those advantages unfair? Why not just allow them all, rather than ban them all? How are we supposed to know beforehand what's going to be banned, and what not?
Quote:And even though you can't fine or punish the guys that started with the shark suits, it is still an unfair race. Probably you can't call it cheating because contrary to doping you can see it.
Correct. It's not cheating until they ban it.
Quote:But we are of course discussing two different things. You talk about cheating only based upon a rulebook, and me cheating when keeping the spirit of the game in mind.
The spirit of a game is (largely) competitive. You do what you have to to perform as well as you can. You train harder. You eat and exercise smarter. You adopt better tactics. You get the best equipment. You play within the rules. Don't like the rules? Get them changed, or play a different sport.
Different sports, different rules. What is "in the spirit" of hockey would be grounds for immediate elimination in figure skating. Wearing thick protective armour is normal in american football, and illegal in taekwondo.
To frame this in terms of the original discussion: If the IOC said that shark suits were perfectly legal, would it still be against the "spirit" of competitive swimming to wear one? Would you be a hypocrite for wearing one, assuming you also thought they made the wrong decision? I don't think so.
Quote:I for example find F1 racing something that should not be called a sport. Spend more money, make a faster car, win more races. But of course it IS according to the rules.
This is going to be another one of those "respecting musicians" conversations, isn't it? Why on earth would they pay star drivers lots of money, if teams could just put anybody with a driver's licence behind the wheel of their car, and have the same chance of winning?
-Jester