And Sometimes Counter-Intuitive Is Just . . . Really Stupid? | DayRiffer
So this fellow, a professor of culture, media and sport at Staffordshire University in the UK, is going a different route (though he’s not the first one to do so), and suggesting that we deal with the issue of performance-enhancing drugs in sport by…making them legal. Ellis Cashmore then lays out his argument in a way that he must feel is all very logical and cold-eyed and mature, but in fact so skates over at least two of the most important objections to PEDs in sports, you wonder how long or deeply he really thought about this – or was it just too provocative an idea not to scribble down before the excitement of being provocative wore off?
Here’s his repudiation of the “predictable” arguments:
“This is cheating. In a technical sense, perhaps; but that could be fixed by changing the rules. In a moral sense, it is unfair on those competitors who do not wish to use drugs. The evidence of the Armstrong investigation suggests that many other cyclists were habitual dopers, anyway. We can’t say the same for other sports, though we can remind competitors that among the array of performance enhancing aids which are available to them, such as acupuncture, hypnotism, hypoxic tents (that simulate high altitude) and the countless other perfectly legal performance enhancements are some that are probably more dangerous than drugs.