SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the amateurs-doping-like-the-pros dept.
After disclosures of an extensive, state-run doping program in Russia, sports officials have been retesting urine samples from the 2008 and 2012 Summer Olympics, in Beijing and London. Their findings have resulted in a top-to-bottom rewriting of Olympics history.
More than 75 athletes from those two Olympics have been found, upon further scrutiny, to be guilty of doping violations. A majority are from Russia and other Eastern European countries. At least 40 of them won medals. Disciplinary proceedings are continuing against other athletes, and the numbers are expected to climb.[...]
The drugs were not detected by the Olympic committee's drug-testing lab years ago, during the Games, because the science at the time was not sensitive enough to detect such small residual concentrations,[...]
"This completely rewrote my Olympics story," said Chaunté Lowe, an American high jumper who participated in four Summer Games but had never won a medal.[...]
Accompanying the joy of her belated recognition, she said, was an awareness of the opportunity costs she suffered. In 2008, her husband was laid off. The couple's house in Georgia was foreclosed on that year, something Ms. Lowe said would not have happened had she distinguished herself in Beijing. I was really young and promising at that point, and sponsors were interested in me," said Ms. Lowe, now 32. "A lot of interest goes away when you don't get on that podium."
Should the Olympics require countries to post a bond if their athletes win a medal, so that if they are discovered to have cheated the people most affected can receive compensation?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday November 25 2016, @10:21PM
Stop testing. Stop expanding the list of banned substances and forcing an arms race. Just stop pretending that you can stop doping in professional sports, which is what the Olympics are now. When there are millions of dollars riding on who wins, it is professional.
Why is it legit to spend millions on computer modeling to create the perfect training program, hire experts to work out the perfect nutrition, expect athletes to work full time on training (while pretending they aren't 'professional') and even spend sick amounts of mony on the best science can deliver for the frickin' uniform but a part per trillion of the wrong chemical is 'cheating'. Really.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 25 2016, @10:29PM
But, jmorris, without an ever-expanding list of proscribed drugs, the American people won't get their ration of Russia-hating. We want our children to grow up strong and healthy, don't we? They've got to get in some Russia-hating!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by vux984 on Friday November 25 2016, @11:10PM
Why is it legit to spend millions on computer modeling to create the perfect training program, hire experts to work out the perfect nutrition, expect athletes to work full time on training (while pretending they aren't 'professional') and even spend sick amounts of mony on the best science can deliver for the frickin' uniform but a part per trillion of the wrong chemical is 'cheating'. Really.
You've got a point. But on the other hand... games have rules, and game rules are almost by definition arbitrary, and the point of the game is to win within the rules.
The real solution is even more obvious, abolish the olympics. Replace it with ad supported mutant cyborg fights. Or better still... don't replace it at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @11:42PM
Yes.
Gladitorial blood sports are entertaining even when it's not fair. See the slaughter of animals or Emperor Commodus grandstanding at the Colosseum.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by RamiK on Saturday November 26 2016, @01:30AM
games have rules, and game rules are almost by definition arbitrary, and the point of the game is to win within the rules.
Rules that have referee decisions the audience audits with their own eyes are legitimate.
Secret laboratory blood tests by third parties "authorized laboratories" racing against state funded R&D and bribes are theatrics.
compiling...
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @11:57PM
How about an obvious solution that *is* possible. All doping testing will be completed within one month after the event. If the athletes are "clean" with the tests available at the time of the event, then finalize the record book.
Re-testing several years after the event with more sensitive equipment is kind of like double jeopardy in criminal cases, which is not allowed in many legal systems -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Francis on Saturday November 26 2016, @01:42AM
The issue with that is that some performance enhancing substances can be out of an athletes system even after giving an advantage. Creatine is a good example. It boosts performance and if you're mindful about how you come off it, you can retain the muscles without a positive test.
The point of the rules on performance enhancing chemicals is to try and lessen the risk to the athletes. The Olympics are supposed to be about bringing countries together, not determining who has the best shit. Same goes for prosthetics. It was a huge mistake to let Pistorious into the Olympics as there isn't a clear answer to whether or not his prosthetics gave him an advantage. This is about human performance, not laboratory performance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @03:20AM
The point of the rules on performance enhancing chemicals is to try and lessen the risk to the athletes. The Olympics are supposed to be about bringing countries together, not determining who has the best shit.
Oh! It is so cute you think this, Francis! Risk to athletes, eh? What about risk to advertisers? Bringing countries together? How pre-LA Games of you! No, I think that everything you have said here is wrong. False. Incorrect. Not true. Francis.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Saturday November 26 2016, @02:40AM
Part of the deterrence is that you could be busted at any time. You don't just have to fool the drug tests available today, you have to fool the unknown drug tests of tomorrow as well.
As for a criminal justice analogy, jeopardy only attaches once you are indicted. The cops can look at you as often as they like until that happens.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @12:07AM
> Why?
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Whatever you gain on the front end, you lose even more on the back-end. Given a drug that guarantees the user a gold medal levels of performance but at a cost of, say, 50% chance of organ failure before the age of 40 there are lots of people who will take that bargain. Which means that for anybody who wants to compete if they don't take that risk of organ failure, they might as well just go home.
So it becomes a competition of risk tolerance not skill.
Not to mention it being deeply unethical to incentivize people to ruin their lives. And spare us the robotic "its their choice" - its also our choice to make them that offer. Exploiting people's desperation, especially for nothing more than entertainment is the kind of thing shitty people do. Its just another version of bumfights.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @12:15AM
Isn't it ironic that the most vociferous critics of the Olympics who post to this web site would jump at the chance to be one of the ones to take a one-way trip to Mars, knowing with high probability that they will either die en route, or when they get there. The motivation is the same: attention and personal glory.
(Score: 3, Informative) by requerdanos on Saturday November 26 2016, @12:30AM
I'd cheerfully move to Mars knowing that I would be forever anonymous. I suspect that many others would as well.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Saturday November 26 2016, @01:30AM
Indeed. For many it's not the glory, but the adventure. As for me, well, I'm too comfortable and have too much to want to leave behind these days, but fresh out of school I'd probably have signed up, for the adventure and the challenge.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @12:36AM
A lot of them just want to die on Mars because it's cool. Mars visitor #394 is not going to get much glory. Nobody cares about Michael Collins.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Saturday November 26 2016, @07:42AM
What about Eamon DeValerra? ;)
(Score: 2) by driverless on Saturday November 26 2016, @03:42AM
Given a drug that guarantees the user a gold medal levels of performance but at a cost of, say, 50% chance of organ failure before the age of 40 there are lots of people who will take that bargain.
This isn't just hypothetical. There was a survey done some time in the 1990s (after the doping scandals of the 1980s) in which athletes were asked if they'd take a drug that was undetectable, practically guaranteed gold, and would kill them after a certain number of years, something like 5. About a third of them said yes.
Sorry about the vagueness, I read about this years ago and can't remember all the details.
(Score: 2) by aiwarrior on Saturday November 26 2016, @09:54AM
I hardly believe that the day has come that I agree with jmorris. Maybe Trump has soothed your soul.
(Score: 1) by RS3 on Saturday November 26 2016, @05:42PM
Money spent on some athletes' training certainly does not make for a level playing field. However, training does not directly guarantee increased human performance the way doping does.