Richard Posner and Gary Becker talk about Intelligence Doping, with reference to Doping in sport.
I have always been very against doping in Sport, and I was especially bleak during last years Tour De France which descended into the farce of choosing which person to support and be disappointed by next.
The post I linked to (click on Richard Posner's name) takes a different look at it though. Here they talk about Intelligence Doping. Taking substances to improve memory, keep you alert, or simply to stay awake to study. Coffee is a mild version of exactly what they are talking about.
When does doping become a problem. Children taking drugs when they have A.D.D. is no problem, right? Well, I have never had a problem with it.
So when should performance enhancing drugs be allowed in Sport? When is something natural (e.g. training at altitude or in pressurised rooms) and when is it unfair? Is it fair that the wealthiest sportsmen can employ vast resources to make themselves better?
One thing reading these blogposts made me think about more is whether `banning' makes sense anyway?
If fans don't want doping, will it be worth the while of the competitors to risk having their fans turn their backs on them? If sponsors remove sponsorships, and fans stop supporting their former heros, is that enough?
Should it be illegal? The major argument I have always had against doping is that it puts the health of the athletes at risk, and while some may choose to accept that risk, those that don't aren't able to compete... and that seems unfair.
But, what if it didn't put their health at risk?
More questions here than opinions, but I found the post very interesting.
11 comments:
Why allow people to put their health at risk in so many other ways, but not this. With most doping though, the helth effects are far less than moderate drinking or smoking.
please can you explain a bit how unregulated prostitution differs from the regulated variety.
With Sport... The question is whether it affects others. Why should I have to put my health at risk to be able to compete against you if I could beat you on healthy grounds?
As for prosititution, which I don't think can be considered intelligence doping, what I mean by regulation is rather broad...
Do you believe it should be as unregulated as anyone, anywhere can charge for sex... or should it be treated like other businesses where you need a license?
It is a broad question since there are all sorts of possible regulations. Forced Health Check-ups, HIV status disclosure, Red Light Districts...
I don't know, but you get the point.
My opinion: it should be unregulated, as should all other businesses and professions except some very special cases. Generally, of course, professions are just cynical trade unions, and deserve no special legal sanction.
All drug taking (by adults) should be legal. Not sure about sport doping. I suppose all sports revolve around made-up rules, so not allowing drug taking could just be one of the rules.
We should not be able to prevent adult sportsmen from harming their own health if they want to, so that's the worst reason for banning it.
I agree, I don't think self-harm is a problem if they make that call.
BUT it is a problem if it gives them an unfair advantage since it essentially forces those who want to compete to have to take drugs.
In other words, I don't think it is right to incentivize self harm.
For many sportsmen and women, Sports is their only `way out'.
Their is no "right" to be a top sportsman. The NBA has no duty to talented people not wanting to take drugs, it should be their call.
I don't even think doctors should need licences to practice, so I definitely don't think prostitutes should.
I think one of the very, very best things one do is develop better ways to intelligence dope. I don't know how much work is being done on this, but I don't think I'd be overly impressed.
1) I would rather watch Athletes who are not likely to die because of my enjoying watching them. I agree with you on the fact that maybe making it illegal is not the solution. I am strongly opposed to incentivising harm. If this means social censure of supporters... great. Yes, there is no `right' but that doesn't make it `right'.
2)The are massive problems with Information Assymmetries... How do you propose getting around the problem that we have no clue how Doctors do what they do, we have to have some sort of reason to trust them. If Doctors independently of government get together and as a professional body accredit or `license' each other, that would create trust too. But somehow I think there needs to be some form of endorsement from people who know with a larger scale penalty for breaking that trust.
3) So you would have no problem with a little curtained room in the corner cafe, or perhaps even no curtain where prostitutes can do their thing? I assume its the old social rules story, parents can stop buying house close to stores they don't like. Clients can stop buying there. I just worry that a world like that would force a lot of people into `security complex cities' where everyone has to create little bubbles to live in.
2. I know my position is extreme, but I don't really think much of GP's or much of modern medicine in general (other than standard procedures and pharmacuticles).
I don't understand how just about anything is done or made, but I don't need licensing in order to choose where I go to eat or what laptop to buy. We're interested in whether things actually work.
I think the current system is pretty destructive and harmful, it gets me a little emotional.
3. you noticed how few stores even sell playboy?
and a comment on point 1?
3) Yes, I did notice
I don't really have much of a position on drugs in sport. I'd guess that different sports have different optimal policies.
The very nature of many sports is that they already incentivise harm, it's always been like this but we still like them.
i think they should probably give up on trying to stop doping in cycling.
FYI NIH and the EU are cracking down on brain doping. See http://wabda.org
Post a Comment