My opinion of "performance enhancing drugs" has always been that use should be allowed for all professional athletes. I use the rationale that if I have attention deficit disorder that makes me a less effective at my job as an accountant, then going to a doctor and getting a prescription for adderall is 100% ethical.<p>The same does not transition into athletics where in many cases these athletes (not limiting argument to cycling at all) are using the drugs for recovery and optimal performance. I don't think that any drug can replace hardwork, talent or develop muscle memory faster which are all key traits of successful athletes.<p>As a recent college graduate, it was common to see adderall and similar drugs rampantly abused and sold throughout campuses everywhere. To me they are just as much as a performance enhancing drug as steroids.<p>Just wondering everyone else's thoughts.
If you're working in a field which is positive-sum and produces a lot of good, performance enhancements of any kind make sense. The idea behind athletic competition is that it's just an arbitrary competition, so having all competitors agree to some restrictive rules (like no drugs, no motorcycles in the race, etc.) is worthwhile within the competition.<p>I'm fine with Elon Musk cheating as much as he wants to get a mission to Mars accomplished -- sending multiple rockets, using robots to make fuel, etc. If someone needs/wants Adderall to do good and is willing to take the health consequences, go for it.
As far as I know there are two main reasons for banning performance enhancing drugs in sport:<p>1. The health of the athletes. High level athletes will absolutely fuck themselves up for a shot at winning. Pro cyclists have used EPO to increase their hematocrit levels so that their blood is too thick for their heart to pump; they die in their sleep when their heart rate drops. I'm sure there are other examples of people doing stupid stuff with steroids. The counter argument here is that people should be allowed to make their own decisions or that some drugs aren't that harmful.<p>2. To promote fairness in competition. Poor countries cannot afford the advanced drug development programs that rich countries can. By banning PEDs they can compete fairly. I find this argument quite bogus in that so much of a nations sports performance is to do with money anyway; the latest equipment, altitude training camps, quality medical teams etc. don't come cheap.<p>Both of these could also apply to college students I guess.
Not strictly on topic, but I'd be semi-interested in having a distinction between "Raw" and "Natural" athletics, cycling etc (as in bodybuilding), just to see what the difference in performance would be.