Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => Topic started by: Lorenzo Ciano on 13/07/2008 18:31:59
-
Hi there. This is a physiology question - I recently heard from someone that Dwayne Chambers the 100 metre sprinter should not be allowed to compete in the future. The reason they gave was that he used drugs to bulk himself up which made him physiologically stronger and bigger. This effect cannot be reversed and he will always have this slight advantage even though he has stopped taking these drugs(steroids). I was wondering if there is any truth in this?
Cheers,
Lawrie
-
Dwayne served his time, a punishment that was agreed upon some years back by british athletes. Stop your moaning, let him run, for petes sake.
To answer your question, no idea, sorry.
-
Steroids allow the athlete to recover quicker from exertion, which means they can train longer & harder. Once they have built the muscle bulk, they only need to resort to ordinary training to maintain it.
Allowing an athlete back into sport after being found guilty of taking performance-enhancing drugs would be like allowing criminals to keep the proceeds of their crimes after they served their sentence. If the athlete were banned from all competition & training for a given period (and have to live on a diet of deep fried Mars bars and chips cooked in lard [:D] ), then I would say he should be allowed to re-start his training after that time and, if he gets good enough again, he could compete. However, I wouldn't like to suggest how it could be enforced.
-
Very well put Doctor B.
Chris
-
My point is, if chambers had served his time (ban/suspension) then once that was finished he should be allowed to compete. Rehabilitate, that's the name of the game.
-
Well, the original ban is upheld and he's not going to run at the Olympics anyway.
....in this case though...I agree with the principle.(taking chambers as a person out of the equation).......
....But (introducing him back into the equation now)...I also can see that his being allowed to run would have also have set an example as to how a person can be rehabilitated and despite protestation and controversy come back for the better......and serve to set an example of determination and hard graft with repentance.
-
My point is, if chambers had served his time (ban/suspension) then once that was finished he should be allowed to compete. Rehabilitate, that's the name of the game.
Even though his performances may still be better than if he had not taken drugs? Is that fair on the other athletes? What if his remaining drug-enhanced muscle bulk gives him just enough of an edge to win by a tiny fraction of a second? Do you not think the 2nd place athlete would have a right to feel just a tad miffed?
I'm all in favour of giving people a 2nd chance, but if they are still reaping the benefit of cheating then I think that calls for a different approach.
-
Anyone that has won an event whilst taking drugs should be charged with fraud and put in prison. This might happen to the Tour de France riders that have been found taking drugs this year. I don't say this often but good on yer France. Once the sentance is served then yes they can compete but they should be tested after every event in order to prove they are clean.
-
How about this for an idea. Anyone found guilty of taking performance-enhancing drugs will be banned from normal competition FOR LIFE. Instead, they would be allowed to compete on the "Cheats Circuit".
-
It's not like the good old days...
The 1904 Olympic marathon was the slowest and possibly the worst marathon in Olympic history.
The event was held under adverse conditions with 90° heat and a difficult course where little water was available for the runners.
During the race drugs and alcohol were openly administered to runners; dogs chased runners from the course;
the apparent winner was disqualified for riding part of the way in an automobile
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/NASSH_Proceedings/NP1979/NP1979h.pdf
-
I feel quite strongly that when yesterday's (Friday) ban was uphelf for Dwayne Chambers that it meant that drug cheats do not have a right to compete in the Olympics or Tour de France or any sport unless it's for medical reasons like insulin for diabetes as Steve Redgrave has.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/athletics/7503792.stm
-
Chambers was caught and has to serve his punishment, nobody is disputing that. But there is a need to Rehabilitate. If a prisoner uses his time locked up to better himself and get an education, when he is released do we allow him to use that education and knowledge to better himself and thus reduce the risk of him reoffending, or kick him in the nuts and say tough cookie sunny?
As for redgrave, is his performance enhanced by taking insulin? Would he be the athlete he is / was without it?
-
My point is, if chambers had served his time (ban/suspension) then once that was finished he should be allowed to compete. Rehabilitate, that's the name of the game.
I think you have missed the point. Chambers has used doping to enhance his performance in order to earn him a lot more than he would have without doping. He got caught and got a two year ban. Now "he has served his time" he wants to go back to earning big bucks. I think we all know that doping is always one step ahead of the doping control and every now and again somebody gets caught out.
The Tour De France is a classic example and several riders have been caught this year already. The winner of Mondays stage was caught and is now facing two years in jail. I think Dwain would think twice if he was facing a jail sentence.
Dwain is also robbing a clean athlete of a place on the team. Imagine if Dwain went and the UK picked up a medal in the relay and then Dwain failed a test...how would the rest of the runners feel?
Dwain should have gone to jail for even wasting the courts time. Its strange how he went and won the trials and then was in court a few days later pleading his case.
-
Chambers was caught and has to serve his punishment, nobody is disputing that. But there is a need to Rehabilitate. If a prisoner uses his time locked up to better himself and get an education, when he is released do we allow him to use that education and knowledge to better himself and thus reduce the risk of him reoffending, or kick him in the nuts and say tough cookie sunny?
Paul - that's a bit of a spurious argument, if you don't mind my saying so. "If a prisoner uses his time locked up to better himself and get an education" implies that he is giving himself something he didn't have before. That is not the case with Chambers.
Also, and this was my first point, even if a criminal does better himself and get an education, should he be allowed to keep & enjoy the proceeds of his crime(s)?
I may be somewhat Draconian, but I believe that if you want to stamp out crime (and cheating in sport) then the only way is by punishment that is harsh enough that no-one would take the risk. Threaten drug-using athletes with a life ban and the repayment of all their sport-related earnings & benefits. As for criminals - probation or community service for 1st offenders; 18months - 3 years for 2nd offences; 5-10 years for 3rd & subsequent offences (obviously serious crimes would still be treated much more harshly). Let's see how many petty criminals still want to take their chances.
-
Paul - that's a bit of a spurious argument, if you don't mind my saying so.
I know, it was late...
Anyway. Why was Chambers allowed to take part in the trials, if he was never going to be allowed to compete? And how far are 'we' willing to go with the punishment? The person who does get educated in prison is still benefitting from that education when he gets out. And what definition of performance enhancing drug should 'we' use? Going back to Redgrave, you could argue that insulin does enhance his performance, couldn't you?
-
I think there's a difference with insulin. It allows Redgrave to compete rather than improving his competitiveness. I would not want to see anyone banned for using medically prescribed drugs that do not enhance performance.
As for a prisoner bettering himself inside, I suppose you could argue that he is benefitting from his crime in the respect that he has taken advantage of the opportunities presented to him by his imprisonment. However, that would be a post-crime betterment. He would not directly be benefitting from his criminal activity.
It does, though, raise an interesting dilemma. What if he used the proceeds of crime to finance a degree course but was caught and interned before he finished the course, then finished his degree while in prison? I don't want to think about the moral issues there!
-
Well said, Dr Beaver and we all have insulin in our pancreas' I think but with a Diabetic they are lacking this life-giving part of their body.
So Steve Redgrave was allowed to use Insulin because it keeps the man ALIVE as it does for other diabetics. Not to enhance his sporting successes. Which included getting 5 Gold Medals for rowing in 2000 at Sydney.
Also as far as I remember that the IOC doctors approved the kind of insulin that he uses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Redgrave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes
(From Diabetes UK, charity)
Diabetes mellitus is a condition in which the amount of glucose (sugar) in the blood is too high because the body cannot use it properly. Glucose comes from the digestion of starchy foods such as bread, rice, potatoes, chapatis, yams and plantain, from sugar and other sweet foods, and from the liver which makes glucose.
Insulin is vital for life. It is a hormone produced by the pancreas, that helps the glucose to enter the cells where it is used as fuel by the body.
Turnipsock very well put and Chambers should have got a prison sentence for wasting the court's time as well as wasting the British IOC's time.
-
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah