|
On April 19 2011 03:37 Horuku wrote:
It's a slippery slope if you ban it.
What's next, going to ban people from listening to trance music while playing because it helps them focus? Or banning people that take multivitamins which give them a boost of energy? Hell, might as well ban people from working out too because that increases their SC2 concentration o,0...
EXACTLY..well said.. not to mention caffeine and nicotine..they'd have to start banning literally all sorts of things to adhere to this type of logic..
|
I feel it has a genuine need to be restricted if it does in fact provide players with a unfair advantage and to my dismay everyone continues to talk about the drugs listed rather then the bigger picture. If theres a need for the player to use it such as ADHD and etc. then the drug can be considered fine as their gameplay is not exactly being effected as its assumed they're always in that state, whereas players who have no need for it use stimulants and steroids it destroys the field of sportsmanship and balance by using it for the purpose of getting ahead.
This may also be sidestepped by proposing the logical way of things and restricting certain drugs that are obviously unfair or dangerous to the players involved.
|
the GSL or MLG or any starcraft 2 league has zero right to know your medical history and what medication you take or anything you ingested, so making a policy about it would be pointless. You can't even ask if the GSL(for example) should allow certain drugs as they have no right or authority to make those decisions
|
Why wouldn't you ban abuse of amphetamine?
You can either play the game with or without drugs. And i really can't see many upsides in more kids on drugs.
And I'm pretty sure that caffeine and nicotine just makes you more anxious so they are not helping much.
|
We also have to keep in mind that we are talking about pro gamers. Most of them probably barely even know how to order a beer, I think they'll do even worse when it comes to getting a steady supply of illegal prescription drugs. That was a joke by the way, best point that out.
Anyways, you have to keep in mind that players have to travel internationally for most tournaments. Good luck relying on an illegal drug to keep your game in check when you have to travel at least a couple of times a year. Also, there's no such thing as clear cut as 'mental steroids', the human brain is slightly more complex than that. It's not a coincidence that amphetamines are a drug that's mainly used for its so called "practical purposes" by desperate students and truckers.
The illegality of the drug unless prescribed sort of ends the discussion for me, pure and simple. The rest is about the integrity of the game.
|
On April 19 2011 05:09 Vaelestrasz wrote:
YES, Adderall should be allowed.. there is no need for any type of drug testing in e-sports...if Adderall were to be banned for boosting a person's ability to concentration than so should Caffeine, because caffeine is undeniably a drug.
As far as Adderall goes, it would be unfair to to ban the use of that drug because the people who have ADD do legitimately need it to concentrate. Now I do realize how easy it is to get a script of Adderall even if you don't need it.. but think about it...if it's banned than people who do need it for their ADD are at a disadvantage.
Eyeglasses make a person's vision better right? Should glasses be banned based on that fact? No. Because glasses are only necessary to help a person whose vision is impaired, much like Adderall is really only necessary to help people who have ADD and whose ability to concentrate it impaired. And Adderall isn't necessarily going to help any Starcraft player who takes it. Sure it enhances concentration but so does caffeine. I think being calm and relaxed before a match would be more advantageous for a player than being all tweaked out and finicky from Adderall. But it'd be a matter of personal preference considering Adderall can affect different people in different ways.
But here's the punchline...
Caffeine IS A DRUG(FACT) that is proven to enhance concentration(FACT). That being said, shouldn't caffeine be banned based on the fact that when a person uses it they can have an advantage over someone who doesn't use it?
What about tobacco? Nicotine IS A DRUG that is proven to calm nerves and enhance concentration. If a player were to smoke a cigarette before a match to calm his nerves, wouldn't that drug give him an advantage over a person who doesn't smoke because the person who doesn't smoke would have to manage his nerves naturally without assistance from a drug?
When it comes down to it there's simply too many holes in the logic behind banning Adderall. For this to be logically sound, every single drug in existence (including weed, adderall, caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, etc, etc..) would have to be included in the screening because one could claim that any type of drug could somehow give someone an "unfair advantage."
Typing "FACT" after everything you say doesn't make it more logical. The real FACT is that Adderall is a controlled substance and if people are abusing it illegally to try to gain a competitive advantage, they should be banned from tournaments. Why? Because people should not have to make a "lesser of two evils" choice between losing and breaking the law. Just like athletes should not have to choose between taking illegal performance enhancers and being an also-ran. Nobody is trying to say that people with a legitimate diagnosis and prescription should not be allowed to participate. But I have yet to see a logical explanation that shows adderall use in gaming as anything more than an underhanded attempt to gain an edge over legit players.
You can try to rationalize it all you want, but cheating is cheating.
|
On April 06 2011 12:55 Truffy wrote:
In traditional professional sports, even if you were ADD there is no way you would ever be allowed to take amphetamines before you play. You actually can't take it at all, you would be immediately fired if they drug tested you and found out you were taking it.
This is completely untrue.
"MLB in December of 2010 began to focus more of it's attention on Adderall due to findings that more and more players were getting exemption forms from doctors. From NY Daily News, "105 players had an exemption form from this past season, 108 in 2009, and 106 in 2008." That is a little over 10% of baseball players in the MLB are just taking Adderall."
Source: http://sorrybrosports.blogspot.com/2011/03/adderall-era.html
|
I drank 17 bottles of Mountain Dew just now. I guess I should be banned from playing because it's an unfair advantage over the opponent. Saying Adderall is a chemical means nothing because everything you do stimulates chemical activity in some way >.<
By the way, people aren't necessarily abusing it illegally. If you're trying to throw around the question of legality around, then you haven't really paid attention to the US' policy on giving out prescriptions.
|
I see a lot of things wrong with this thread.
The poll itself is so incredibly biased that it's no wonder how the voting went... The introduction only gives one side of the story, and the wording of the poll is far more likely to result in a "No" vote. If it were worded as "Should pharmaceutical medications (like Adderall) be banned?", then you would probably see the opposite result.
The next problem I see is that it is assumed that Adderall (and similar drugs) does, in fact, enhance your performance. Show me a scientifically rigorous test for this. If it DOES have an effect, how much? Enough to even bother worrying about?
Then, you have to show that, even if it were banned, it can be enforced practically. Who's paying for this? Is there even a test for these drugs? It isn't exactly a long-term drug; How soon before the match are you going to test? Some of these drugs act really damn fast; what's to stop me from taking one right after you test me? Test after the match? Okay, I just ruined your bracket and your live broadcast. I'm guessing it will only apply to LAN events? I don't see how you can enforce this for an online tournament.
|
Only skimmed through the thread and my bet is that probably no one has even tried Adderall. If you had tried it you'd know that it isn't really "performance enhancing", I've tried alot of shit when just fooling around with friends.. nothing has made me a better player, only the contrary.
If I was in a tournament and they asked me if it was okay if my opponent used this type of "enhancer" I'd just give them a "glhf", since it'll only enhance their confidence if they believe it is an enhancer. There's a chance they will sweat more and/or get a bit shakier hands.
And them being on drugs would enhance my confidence. (:
|
On April 19 2011 05:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 04:27 ziggurat wrote:There are a lot of issues surrounding the use of drugs that enhance cognitive skills. There is a serious debate going on in the medical community about it. However in my opinion the genie is out of the bottle and too many people are already using these drugs for anyone to ban them at this point. Here is a news story from a few years ago: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1092826/Cambridge-professor-calls-healthy-adults-use-Ritalin-boost-brain-power.htmlHere is a link to the full article: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7223/full/456702a.htmlAnd here is the conclusion of the article, which seems like a sensible assessment to me: Like all new technologies, cognitive enhancement can be used well or poorly. We should welcome new methods of improving our brain function. In a world in which human workspans and lifespans are increasing, cognitive enhancement tools — including the pharmacological — will be increasingly useful for improved quality of life and extended work productivity, as well as to stave off normal and pathological age-related cognitive declines23. Safe and effective cognitive enhancers will benefit both the individual and society. But it would also be foolish to ignore problems that such use of drugs could create or exacerbate. With this, as with other technologies, we need to think and work hard to maximize its benefits and minimize its harms. The scientific (and especially the pharmaceutical!) community regularly bandwagons on things like this. Amphetamines were prescribed like candy back in the 80s for virtually anything because they were the hot new drug on the block. The truth is natural is almost invariably better in the long term; anyone with a fairly good understanding of human physiology should be able to see why.
Nice argument.
|
On April 19 2011 05:48 thebigdonkey wrote:
Typing "FACT" after everything you say doesn't make it more logical. The real FACT is that Adderall is a controlled substance and if people are abusing it illegally to try to gain a competitive advantage, they should be banned from tournaments. Why? Because people should not have to make a "lesser of two evils" choice between losing and breaking the law. Just like athletes should not have to choose between taking illegal performance enhancers and being an also-ran. Nobody is trying to say that people with a legitimate diagnosis and prescription should not be allowed to participate. But I have yet to see a logical explanation that shows adderall use in gaming as anything more than an underhanded attempt to gain an edge over legit players.
You can try to rationalize it all you want, but cheating is cheating.
LOL, so typing "(FACT)" two times in my entire post is somehow the same as "after everything that i said?".... ok...well I understand the points you are trying to make.. but how can one determine if "people are abusing it illegally to try to gain a competitive advantage" when virtually anyone can get it prescribed? (which is the legal way of acquiring it).. If they were to ban it altogether based on the fact that only some people abuse it then the people who do actually need it are gonna be getting screwed. The problem is that literally anyone can get an Adderall prescription. The only way to weed out and punish the people who got their prescription just to assist their gaming would be to hook up every pro gamer who has an Adderall prescription to a polygraph machine and ask them if they actually have ADHD or if they got it to "cheat." and i dont see that happening... think about it..I don't have ADHD, but i could easily meet with a doctor and easily acquire a script..that's not illegal...How would anyone be able to determine if i got it to cheat or if i actually needed it? I understand that if it were banned that it would stop people from "cheating" with it...but at the same time it would prohibit the people who do need it from using it....which would be like prohibiting someone who cant see and who needs glasses from using their glasses...
Unfortunately ADHD cannot be diagnosed by concrete evidence like a blood test..its diagnosed based on symptoms that pretty much anyone can claim they experience..there's no real way to prove that any of the people who have Adderall scripts don't actually need Adderall...
And lastly, the FACT of the matter is, that there is no actual proof that Adderall enhances gaming performance. its only speculation..
|
On April 19 2011 05:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The scientific (and especially the pharmaceutical!) community regularly bandwagons on things like this. Amphetamines were prescribed like candy back in the 80s for virtually anything because they were the hot new drug on the block. The truth is natural is almost invariably better in the long term; anyone with a fairly good understanding of human physiology should be able to see why.
Ummmm.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootropics
Natural is not almost always better. In fact, most "natural" performance enhancers and remedies are subject to much larger lists of side effects and are nowhere near as potent as their man-made counterparts.
|
On April 19 2011 07:15 TreDawg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 05:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The scientific (and especially the pharmaceutical!) community regularly bandwagons on things like this. Amphetamines were prescribed like candy back in the 80s for virtually anything because they were the hot new drug on the block. The truth is natural is almost invariably better in the long term; anyone with a fairly good understanding of human physiology should be able to see why. Ummmm.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NootropicsNatural is not almost always better. In fact, most "natural" performance enhancers and remedies are subject to much larger lists of side effects and are nowhere near as potent as their man-made counterparts.
<3 Piracetam.
|
well i say yes, i don't believe it really does "enhance performance" like people think it does. way i see it it just elevates the concentration of someone who really needs the medication to the levels of a normal person. and for the "normal" people it just makes them much more likely to focus on one thing and forget to multitask.
honestly in a multitasking game like starcraft i can only see it hurting your performance
|
First off, to all you people who are using the 'slippery slope' argument (which is a logical fallacy...), you can't possibly say that they could then ban caffeine, etc. The difference is that caffeine is legal over the counter. By your logic, professional sports shouldn't be banning any drugs because there are legal drugs that help performance. Hell, even in cycling, the athletes take expressos and such during rides. Please stop spouting slippery slope bullshit like it holds any logical ground.
Although, I do think these drugs shouldn't be banned (referring to gaming now), simply because it is completely impractical to do so. It will add unnecessary costs, and the question of how you would handle people who can legally obtain the drugs would be a tough one to answer.
|
i think a pretty simple solution is to just say that if you are taking the drug illegally then it should be against the rules. if you have a prescription for it, then that is fine and it should be allowed in those circumstances. it should be a doctor decision to let the person take the drug, not some league official's decision
|
If it is banned, then no one should be allowed to use it during competition, prescription or not.
Still, there's no point to banning it unless you can test for it.
From a game theoretic point of view, as long as it's not being tested for, the best strategy would be to use it.
|
This post is really asking 2 questions:
1. Would taking the so-called 'psycho enhancing' drugs really make the players play better?
This is really deeper than a simple yes/no question.
Speaking from my background in Sports psychology, there is the optimum psychological tension level that enables players to perform at their optimum level. The optimum psychological tension varies from person to person, and if done correctly, chemicals such as amphetamine could be used to place the person in that range. But there are other techniques other than drugs such as progressive muscle relaxation techniques, etc to put the person into the optimum mind set.
Also another technique sports psychologists often use is to have the athlete practice in the same mind set that the person will be in/will experience at their game. The take home message from that is that simply taking amphetamine or caffeine prior to the big game may hinder their performance as they are not used to performing under such psychological state.
2. Is it unethical to take performance enhancing drugs? (in sports, esports, etc)
Now this is just opening a big pandora's box that will not have a conclusive answer - I can promise you that.
My personal stance is that you it's not really possible to draw the line. Taking the analogy to sports, how can can u really draw a line between protein/vitamin supplements (considered legal) vs. erythropoietin/steroid supplement (considered illegal). They are all safe so long as they are taken in proper amount with proper monitoring. They can all be very dangerous if taken in ginormous quantities. There's no real definitive answer here.
|
On April 19 2011 08:13 Mainland wrote:
If it is banned, then no one should be allowed to use it during competition, prescription or not.
Still, there's no point to banning it unless you can test for it.
From a game theoretic point of view, as long as it's not being tested for, the best strategy would be to use it.
Both Ritalin and Adderall (and all the knock offs) can be tested for.
If they decided to ban it, tournament participants would basically have to agree to a urine / blood test to screen for drugs (and not just the aforementioned two). I don't know how hard that would be to setup outside the US, but it probably wouldn't be hard to get a contract going. Naturally, it will increase the operating cost of the tournament, and it'll bug the shit out of the players, two things you want to prevent if possible.
Having been Rx'd Vyvanse, which is the newest ADHD cash cow drug, there were sometimes trade-offs for performance, but it's going to vary a bit for each person. It could be that taking psychostims improves all your SC2-related skills, while something like social skills (pfft, who needs those) suffer. You might be a better single tasker, but multitasking falls. Stuff like that.
Also, it's ridiculously easy to get these meds from a doctor that you have a history with (most won't Rx you on first or second visit because of drug seekers). Most of us have family doctors, and the test to get them isn't rocket surgery by any means. I'm sure most of us could look at it and guess what we'd have to answer to get the drug.
With that in mind, a policy that forbids non-prescribed drug use will be about as useful as a wet noodle in a sword fight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
