[ExI] the myth of the US "liberal media"

[Stefano Vaj]

On 20 July 2011 19:09, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:

> Wouldn't the fact that the East Germans kept their use of drugs
> secret, even from their athletes, be just a little clue that they knew
> they were breaking the rules?
>

Mmhhh. What about a clue that they did not want their procedures to be
copied and/or forbidden? Are nowadays training - *and* chemical - recipes
made public by western coaches?

Standard GDR protocol required that doping be curtailed two weeks
> prior to competition—enough time for the athletes’ bodies to eliminate
> all traces of the drugs. But driven by the need to churn out winners,
> coaches had been handing out pills until the very last minute.
>

Looks like some DDR athletes and coaches were infringing local protocols and
end up being unlucky. More or less as today?

"Failed a drug test" would indicate that they were trying to test for
> just these drugs AND that using them was against the rules. They just
> didn't have a test good enough to find the cheaters if they stopped
> two weeks ahead of time.
>

Perhaps because of my lawyer mentality, I see in a different fashion. If you
ever took a forbidden drug, it certainly does not mean that you are
prevented to compete for the rest of your life, even though nobody can strip
you of the possible continuing edge you may have obtained through its use
(say, higher stamina during training routines, bigger muscular masses,
etc.). Hence, what the "law" actually said is that "you must be clean at the
time when you are tested, or else". Disqualificationd are for those who try
and fail the tests.

If an improvement is within the rules, then great. If you are trying
> to get away with breaking the rules in a way that can't be detected, I
> call that cheating.
>

If you cheat, you may be lucky, or you may be detected. If a breach cannot
be detected by definition, is not a breach unless to the "spirit" of things.
In fact, tax or sport regulations are always running after human ingenuity
in working within the rules, but to effects which are deemed indesirable for
whatever reason.

The evolution of car racing formulas is an exemple in point. Most changes
take place because the losers get listened when they scream that one or
another new (legal) trick is "disloyal" or "dangerous". More or less the
same as with human performance improvement measures.

There were other opportunities for these kids, not good ones of
> course... but if they had known it would kill or maim them, then
> perhaps some of them would have made a different choice.
>
> My point is that because they were living under a form of government
> that supported and officially encouraged this behavior to its own
> benefit, that this particular form of government has some pretty
> significant down sides. That is pretty much the whole point I was
> making.
>

I see, the difference is that in our societies identical behaviours are
socially encouraged by similar promises of status, recognition and economic
rewards, but at the same time hypocritical prohibition policies adds the
thrill of a possible criminal prosecution... :-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110721/f3f02f69/attachment.html>