?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

So, the latest Tour de France winner is under scrutiny. And baseball players are threatened with indictments. And football players are suspended.

I don't understand.

When a technological advantage is discovered in equipment, player A may have the spiffy new graphite molecular whatever (raquete, club, bat), and player B doesn't. Or new "swim skin." Or new gearing on her bike. Or...well, you get the idea. It's considered fair. "Advances in the sport." Whatever.

But advances that exploit biochemistry are cheating, because it gives an "unfair advantage." Huh? Why is the one illegal/violation of rules and the other not? Not even open to discussion (unlike trying to decide if the new swim skin should be authorized).

Science advances. I don't get what the problem is. Sure, if we can show that the drug is dangerous to the person taking it, then, yeah, it should be controlled. But, then, some of those high tech bats are legal, and they've been shown to be very dangerous to others, not the person using them. And they're still legal. They seem to be employing totally different standards to what is in effect the same thing in kind.

I. Don't. Get. It.

Tags: