If you can't get rid of doping (because it's too hard to catch) but you can't allow it either (because unrestricted doping is too dangerous), perhaps you can regulate in ways similar to how sports equipment is regulated? Explicitly allow doping methods that meet a given standard of safety, and ask all the athletes participating in the league to submit their proposed doping regimen for pre-approval. If - and this is a big if - the allowed doping methods are good enough that athletes *can't* easily do better by using methods that the league won't approve (because they're too dangerous), then you've removed most of the incentive to take especially dangerous risks.
> Explicitly allow doping methods that meet a given standard of safety, and ask all the athletes participating in the league to submit their proposed doping regimen for pre-approval
This is a pretty great idea.
I feel like there's always going to be people pushing for an edge - Armstrong would have certainly been among them - but I think you could really put a damper on it, and we'd ALL be in a better place if things like long-term safety and health impacts were rigorously studied in the doses and combinations athletes routinely take, instead of having this all deliberately hidden and only living in certain doping doctors' heads as tacit knowledge.
It's actually a pretty interesting story overall - one of the main popularizers of androgens was a heavy-lifting / bodybuilding doctor, John Ziegler, who saw that the Russian Olympic teams were abusing androgens early, in the late fifties.
But the FDA exists - so he tests oral dbol on himself and gets some results, but not a super strong one (turns out they were using pretty small doses compared to the Russians). Then he has some other bros in his gym try it, and there's mixed results (dosage again). He gets some insight into what the Russians are doing, and brings it up with various Olympic coaches. They try it with small results (dosage again) on weightlifters, and it starts percolating out to other Olympians and football players. It doesn't really start hitting MLB until just before Canseco.
Eventually, it becomes blatantly obvious what the Russians and East Germans are doing doping wise with the GDR, because they're tanking everyone else, and the "doping gap" starts being talked about by Gerry Ford and Reagan and high level people, with an eye towards us needing a Manhattan-level doping program like the GDR had, leading to the legendarily dirty 1984 Olympics, which the US dominated (and Russia and East Germany boycotted).
And this basically sets up the "we need to minimize doping scandals for popularity / financial reasons" dynamics, because the '84 Olympics was a breakout hit in terms of viewers and engagement, and advertising / sponsorship opportunities.
Just introduce a few new challenges at every Olympics. People don’t watch Olympic sports because they’re good spectator sports (almost none are), they watch because it’s the peak of human performance, looking for things like world records.
The issue with the existing sports is that they’re so well optimized, and stable from year to year, that we’re at the point where the only real improvement (after hitting near perfection in technique, diet, training, etc.) is taking drugs for that little 1% bump.
Add some major ceremony + anticipation for the new announced game at the end of each Olympics. Choose some games whose skills don’t transfer easily from any existing games, and you’ve got new competitions where doping isn’t yet necessary to be a top performer.
I honestly think it’s not the big of a deal anyways, and turning it into “who can last the most hours before their heart explodes” with a free for all policy, would be a worse status quo than what we already have.
> Choose some games whose skills don’t transfer easily from any existing games, and you’ve got new competitions where doping isn’t yet necessary to be a top performer.
Yeah, I'd watch these events.
This is basically the "Australia" strategy for getting medals. They'll get the very best overall athletes, many of whom have literally never even seen snow, and a year or two later they'll be medaling in ski events or skeleton and similar winter events. There is definitely an "athleticism" equivalent to "g."
This is how all those teenagers were able to win at snowboarding and skateboarding too - the sport is so new it hasn't been optimized to the third decimal place by harder-core athletes, so it's still a realm of whimsy and large skill differentials rather than a bunch of superhumans grinding out the reps in optimal diet, training hours, and polarized training.
> I honestly think it’s not the big of a deal anyways, and turning it into “who can last the most hours before their heart explodes” with a free for all policy, would be a worse status quo than what we already have.
Definitely agree, I actually argued against "outlaw leagues" and for keeping similar testing regimes in place for exactly this reason. In a real Red Queen's Race, people will happily burn themselves and their futures on the pyre of winning, and having testing at least caps that impulse so that they can't pitch themselves into the flames headlong.
If you can't get rid of doping (because it's too hard to catch) but you can't allow it either (because unrestricted doping is too dangerous), perhaps you can regulate in ways similar to how sports equipment is regulated? Explicitly allow doping methods that meet a given standard of safety, and ask all the athletes participating in the league to submit their proposed doping regimen for pre-approval. If - and this is a big if - the allowed doping methods are good enough that athletes *can't* easily do better by using methods that the league won't approve (because they're too dangerous), then you've removed most of the incentive to take especially dangerous risks.
> Explicitly allow doping methods that meet a given standard of safety, and ask all the athletes participating in the league to submit their proposed doping regimen for pre-approval
This is a pretty great idea.
I feel like there's always going to be people pushing for an edge - Armstrong would have certainly been among them - but I think you could really put a damper on it, and we'd ALL be in a better place if things like long-term safety and health impacts were rigorously studied in the doses and combinations athletes routinely take, instead of having this all deliberately hidden and only living in certain doping doctors' heads as tacit knowledge.
Steroids got invented in 1958 and it took over 15 years for them to become staples in baseball? Holy crap.
It's actually a pretty interesting story overall - one of the main popularizers of androgens was a heavy-lifting / bodybuilding doctor, John Ziegler, who saw that the Russian Olympic teams were abusing androgens early, in the late fifties.
But the FDA exists - so he tests oral dbol on himself and gets some results, but not a super strong one (turns out they were using pretty small doses compared to the Russians). Then he has some other bros in his gym try it, and there's mixed results (dosage again). He gets some insight into what the Russians are doing, and brings it up with various Olympic coaches. They try it with small results (dosage again) on weightlifters, and it starts percolating out to other Olympians and football players. It doesn't really start hitting MLB until just before Canseco.
Eventually, it becomes blatantly obvious what the Russians and East Germans are doing doping wise with the GDR, because they're tanking everyone else, and the "doping gap" starts being talked about by Gerry Ford and Reagan and high level people, with an eye towards us needing a Manhattan-level doping program like the GDR had, leading to the legendarily dirty 1984 Olympics, which the US dominated (and Russia and East Germany boycotted).
And this basically sets up the "we need to minimize doping scandals for popularity / financial reasons" dynamics, because the '84 Olympics was a breakout hit in terms of viewers and engagement, and advertising / sponsorship opportunities.
It is Gatorade! I will drink it now! Give me the Gatorade!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k43Z0ZJhx6U
Just introduce a few new challenges at every Olympics. People don’t watch Olympic sports because they’re good spectator sports (almost none are), they watch because it’s the peak of human performance, looking for things like world records.
The issue with the existing sports is that they’re so well optimized, and stable from year to year, that we’re at the point where the only real improvement (after hitting near perfection in technique, diet, training, etc.) is taking drugs for that little 1% bump.
Add some major ceremony + anticipation for the new announced game at the end of each Olympics. Choose some games whose skills don’t transfer easily from any existing games, and you’ve got new competitions where doping isn’t yet necessary to be a top performer.
I honestly think it’s not the big of a deal anyways, and turning it into “who can last the most hours before their heart explodes” with a free for all policy, would be a worse status quo than what we already have.
> Choose some games whose skills don’t transfer easily from any existing games, and you’ve got new competitions where doping isn’t yet necessary to be a top performer.
Yeah, I'd watch these events.
This is basically the "Australia" strategy for getting medals. They'll get the very best overall athletes, many of whom have literally never even seen snow, and a year or two later they'll be medaling in ski events or skeleton and similar winter events. There is definitely an "athleticism" equivalent to "g."
This is how all those teenagers were able to win at snowboarding and skateboarding too - the sport is so new it hasn't been optimized to the third decimal place by harder-core athletes, so it's still a realm of whimsy and large skill differentials rather than a bunch of superhumans grinding out the reps in optimal diet, training hours, and polarized training.
> I honestly think it’s not the big of a deal anyways, and turning it into “who can last the most hours before their heart explodes” with a free for all policy, would be a worse status quo than what we already have.
Definitely agree, I actually argued against "outlaw leagues" and for keeping similar testing regimes in place for exactly this reason. In a real Red Queen's Race, people will happily burn themselves and their futures on the pyre of winning, and having testing at least caps that impulse so that they can't pitch themselves into the flames headlong.