|
I think something that is a major consideration is the actual effects of the drugs being tested for.
Steroid use and other drugs used in physical sports tend to have negative effects that are fairly pronounced and in many cases quite rapid.
Adderall can certainly have negative side effects, like many drugs, but if it's being monitored at all and isn't being abused, it isn't really a major health risk.
Things aren't supposed to be banned just because they improve performance, they are generally banned due to improving performance in exchange for negative impacts on health. If that isn't actually the case with a drug like Adderall, (and some in physical sports argue is also true with HGH) then it's not as big of an issue.
|
On August 23 2015 21:20 EnderSword wrote:
Adderall can certainly have negative side effects, like many drugs, but if it's being monitored at all and isn't being abused, it isn't really a major health risk.
this applys to every substance on earth.
On August 23 2015 21:20 EnderSword wrote:
Things aren't supposed to be banned just because they improve performance, they are generally banned due to improving performance in exchange for negative impacts on health. If that isn't actually the case with a drug like Adderall, (and some in physical sports argue is also true with HGH) then it's not as big of an issue.
and this is just plain wrong.
in sports drugs are banned because of improving performance, and certainly not cause it impacts health.
|
On August 23 2015 22:02 phil.ipp wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2015 21:20 EnderSword wrote:
Adderall can certainly have negative side effects, like many drugs, but if it's being monitored at all and isn't being abused, it isn't really a major health risk.
this applys to every substance on earth. Show nested quote +On August 23 2015 21:20 EnderSword wrote:
Things aren't supposed to be banned just because they improve performance, they are generally banned due to improving performance in exchange for negative impacts on health. If that isn't actually the case with a drug like Adderall, (and some in physical sports argue is also true with HGH) then it's not as big of an issue. and this is just plain wrong. in sports drugs are banned because of improving performance, and certainly not cause it impacts health.
If substances are banned solely because they enhance performance, why isn't caffeine banned?
|
On August 23 2015 22:14 Quineotio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2015 22:02 phil.ipp wrote:On August 23 2015 21:20 EnderSword wrote:
Adderall can certainly have negative side effects, like many drugs, but if it's being monitored at all and isn't being abused, it isn't really a major health risk.
this applys to every substance on earth. On August 23 2015 21:20 EnderSword wrote:
Things aren't supposed to be banned just because they improve performance, they are generally banned due to improving performance in exchange for negative impacts on health. If that isn't actually the case with a drug like Adderall, (and some in physical sports argue is also true with HGH) then it's not as big of an issue. and this is just plain wrong. in sports drugs are banned because of improving performance, and certainly not cause it impacts health. If substances are banned solely because they enhance performance, why isn't caffeine banned?
a) caffeine above certain levels was banned for many years (those levels were easily reached by drinking 2 coffees)
b) saying that amphetamines pose no health risk is just showing how well informed you are
|
On August 23 2015 22:21 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2015 22:14 Quineotio wrote:On August 23 2015 22:02 phil.ipp wrote:On August 23 2015 21:20 EnderSword wrote:
Adderall can certainly have negative side effects, like many drugs, but if it's being monitored at all and isn't being abused, it isn't really a major health risk.
this applys to every substance on earth. On August 23 2015 21:20 EnderSword wrote:
Things aren't supposed to be banned just because they improve performance, they are generally banned due to improving performance in exchange for negative impacts on health. If that isn't actually the case with a drug like Adderall, (and some in physical sports argue is also true with HGH) then it's not as big of an issue. and this is just plain wrong. in sports drugs are banned because of improving performance, and certainly not cause it impacts health. If substances are banned solely because they enhance performance, why isn't caffeine banned? a) caffeine above certain levels was banned for many years (those levels were easily reached by drinking 2 coffees)
The point I was making above was that substances are not banned for the sole reason that they enhance performance. Caffeine is certainly not banned, and indeed energy drink companies are major sponsors of various E-Sport teams and events (e.g. Monster, Redbull, Hotsix).
b) saying that amphetamines pose no health risk is just showing how well informed you are
Where has anyone said that amphetamines pose no health risk?
|
8751 Posts
|
of course its for the sole reason of improved performance.
i dont get why you think a sports organization would start to evaluate if certain substances are good or bad for health, thats what the government already does. its not the question if adderall is healthy or not. the single question that matters in this specific context of a sports tournament is: does it give an unfair advantage.
and why some other drug is not prohibited, i dont know, maybe cause they think its doesnt give an unfair advantage 
|
On August 23 2015 22:57 phil.ipp wrote:of course its for the sole reason of improved performance. i dont get why you think a sports organization would start to evaluate if certain substances are good or bad for health, thats what the government already does. its not the question if adderall is healthy or not. the single question that matters in this specific context of a sports tournament is: does it give an unfair advantage. and why some other drug is not prohibited, i dont know, maybe cause they think its doesnt give an unfair advantage
Then my question stands - why aren't all performance enhancing substances banned? Caffeine clearly boosts performance and is widely used.
What is the problem with taking something that enhances performance if it's legal and not harmful?
If the goal is to get rid of drugs that enhance performance, why are they testing for non performance enhancing substances such as heroin?
Regardless, this is a digression from the topic at hand. As stated in the first post, introducing a drug testing policy will not stop players from using Adderall, and will therefore not change the competitive landscape, and is therefore a waste of time and money. I think this is a knee jerk PR stunt in reaction to the "revelations" that some players are using drugs. The ESL want to appear to be trying to clean up E-Sports, but in reality this action is unlikely to advance that cause.
I think that players should be protesting this more than they are, but have their hands tied somewhat because they have no representation in the matter. For an individual player or team to come out against drug testing is very risky, because they will be seen as pro drugs. This is why I'm suggesting the players need to form a union so that they can present a unified voice and actually have a say in what is happening.
I also think that if the players had a union they would be able to bargain for better conditions during competitions, and perhaps reduce the incentive to use stimulants to keep their performance high.
|
e-sports is in its kindershoes, what do expect a full fledged anti doping policy? lets talk again in 10 years.
in every other sport of course caffein is forbidden ...
but it seems there is a deeper problem at hand in your understanding why this is done.
What is the problem with taking something that enhances performance if it's legal and not harmful?
because its an unfair advantage and most players want a fair competition. its a bit akward to even have to speak that out. it seems obvious.
|
On August 23 2015 22:57 phil.ipp wrote:of course its for the sole reason of improved performance. i dont get why you think a sports organization would start to evaluate if certain substances are good or bad for health, thats what the government already does. its not the question if adderall is healthy or not. the single question that matters in this specific context of a sports tournament is: does it give an unfair advantage. and why some other drug is not prohibited, i dont know, maybe cause they think its doesnt give an unfair advantage
With this logic, you should probably ban players from eating vegetables.
|
Honestly if someone wanted to microdose LSD it would be undetectable/likely a great focus and preformance enhancer.
My point being that if someone does enough research and is willing they can circumvent bans.
|
On August 23 2015 23:42 opisska wrote:
With this logic, you should probably ban players from eating vegetables.
what ?! Oo
|
On August 23 2015 23:42 Vasoline73 wrote:
Honestly if someone wanted to microdose LSD it would be undetectable/likely a great focus and preformance enhancer.
My point being that if someone does enough research and is willing they can circumvent bans.
what are you trying to say.
only things that are not circumvent able should be banned?
please tell me a single thing of that kind?
|
On August 23 2015 23:43 phil.ipp wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2015 23:42 opisska wrote:
With this logic, you should probably ban players from eating vegetables. what ?! Oo
People who eat vegetables are likely to be healthier and thus perform better, aren't they?
The point is that your definition on "unfair" is purely ad-hoc. Why are some substances fair and some not? If something is benefitial for your performance, why not to take it? The only good reason is health impact - if something is truly bad for you, you should not take - and then it should be banned if it improves performance, because otherwise people willing to risk their health would be in advantange and that is undesirable. Whether the think has a label of "being a drug" is completely irrelevant to anything practical.
|
On August 23 2015 23:41 phil.ipp wrote:
e-sports is in its kindershoes, what do expect a full fledged anti doping policy? lets talk again in 10 years.
What I expect is a functional doping policy.
Show nested quote +
What is the problem with taking something that enhances performance if it's legal and not harmful?
because its an unfair advantage and most players want a fair competition. its a bit akward to even have to speak that out. it seems obvious.
Lol, do you realize what you're saying?
|
Bisutopia19299 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
