Prof. Julian Savulescu - Public Lecture at Fed Square

Remove this Banner Ad

SBYM

SBYM

Fish, chips, cup o' tea, Mary @#? Poppins. London!
Coney Island Warriors - Sweet F.A. Carlton Board Tipping Champion Carlton Board Tipping Champion
Oct 9, 2009
15,331
29,241
CR0
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Liverpool
Centre for Human Bioethics – Why the Ban on Performance Enhancing Drugs is Ruining Sports in Australia

Date/Time: Thursday 18 September, 6-7:30pm

Venue: The Edge, Federation Square

http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/events/events/drugs-in-sport/

Would be very worthwhile for those who wish to discuss this saga equipped with an informed view.
 
SBYM said:
Centre for Human Bioethics – Why the Ban on Performance Enhancing Drugs is Ruining Sports in Australia

Date/Time: Thursday 18 September, 6-7:30pm

Venue: The Edge, Federation Square

http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/events/events/drugs-in-sport/

Would be very worthwhile for those who wish to discuss this saga equipped with an informed view.
Click to expand...

people are too busy expressing moral outrage to listen to informed views
 
I'm sure in many cases their moral objections are based on informed views...

But that's by the by, I didn't post this to start a debate, merely to let people know.

Check it out. After a follow-up viewing of Stop at Nothing on the weekend, I will be a keen audience member.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

SBYM said:
Would be very worthwhile for those who wish to discuss this saga equipped with an informed view.
Click to expand...

Sadly not likely. When the title of the presentation presupposes the correctness of one extreme point of view it does not bode well. Big Sav's views are no secret. They may be summed up by the following in his own words:

Drugs are against the rules. But we define the rules of sport. If we made drugs legal and freely available, there would be no cheating.

So why not this way: Punching biting and eye gouging are against the rules. But we define the rules. If we allow these things then there will be no suspensions for punching biting and eye gouging.

Or even better. Killing people is against the law. But we make the laws. If we allow killing of people there will never be another murder.

He goes on to argue that legalising PEDs would NOT disadvantage athletes with less money to buy (and research) the best drugs, and that if PEDs were legal then the East Germans would not have destroyed the lives of a generation of athletes with abuse of crude steroids. Somehow the Germans would have just decided not to bother.

What the Sav seems to be unable to comprehend is that his proposal is merely to shift the line. Allow anything so long as it's "safe", a word that he makes no attempt to define in a workable way. Probably a wise ommission. Wouldn't we just have fun with the meaning of "safe" in the Federal Court - and in the end it's just a differently located line between permitted and prohibited. The cheats of the world will still cross it.
 
Laphroaig said:
Sadly not likely. When the title of the presentation presupposes the correctness of one extreme point of view it does not bode well. Big Sav's views are no secret. They may be summed up by the following in his own words:

Drugs are against the rules. But we define the rules of sport. If we made drugs legal and freely available, there would be no cheating.

So why not this way: Punching biting and eye gouging are against the rules. But we define the rules. If we allow these things then there will be no suspensions for punching biting and eye gouging.

Or even better. Killing people is against the law. But we make the laws. If we allow killing of people there will never be another murder.

He goes on to argue that legalising PEDs would NOT disadvantage athletes with less money to buy (and research) the best drugs, and that if PEDs were legal then the East Germans would not have destroyed the lives of a generation of athletes with abuse of crude steroids. Somehow the Germans would have just decided not to bother.

What the Sav seems to be unable to comprehend is that his proposal is merely to shift the line. Allow anything so long as it's "safe", a word that he makes no attempt to define in a workable way. Probably a wise ommission. Wouldn't we just have fun with the meaning of "safe" in the Federal Court - and in the end it's just a differently located line between permitted and prohibited. The cheats of the world will still cross it.
Click to expand...

Good points, and truth be told, if I had to come down on one side or the other, I feel at the moment I would be less inclined towards Savulescu's viewpoint than the alternative.

However, I have always found these sorts of lectures to be stimulating experiences - I particularly want to hear why he thinks sports in Australia are being 'ruined' - hence I will be there.
 
SBYM said:
Good points, and truth be told, if I had to come down on one side or the other, I feel at the moment I would be less inclined towards Savulescu's viewpoint than the alternative.

However, I have always found these sorts of lectures to be stimulating experiences - I particularly want to hear why he thinks sports in Australia are being 'ruined' - hence I will be there.
Click to expand...



Because this drums up interest in the lecture and gets more people to attend, point in case.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

"...in addition to considerable confusion about what does and does not constitute doping. In this lecture, Professor Savulescu will argue that not only are attempts to stop this cheating doomed to failure but some types of doping, ‘physiological doping’, are compatible with the spirit of sport, and, in moderation, may not pose an unacceptable risk in the context of elite sport. Only by allowing safe levels of physiological doping in sport and focussing resources against doping methods which are unsafe or contravene the spirit of sport can we both reduce cheating and preserve the spirit of sport, whilst protecting the elite athletes who are prepared to risk everything to win."

this is my pet hate about the whole framework
I'm glad there are those wanting to put a spotlight on a rubbish framework
 
Someone has seen an opportunity for their 15 minutes of fame.

Must've missed out on big brother this year.
 
An interesting interview with Professor Savulescu published in Der Spiegel in 2012:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Professor Savulescu, you would like to see the ban on doping lifted, arguing that would make sports fairer and would promote athlete health. Are you serious?

Savulescu: Absolutely. The war on doping must inevitably fail, because the incentive for the athletes is just too high. The potential profit is huge, the chance of getting caught is rather small and largely a question of money. Rich teams can buy the latest, almost undetectable substances and evade detection, others cannot. The biggest loser is the honest athlete who does not dope and as a consequence cannot compete anymore.

here's someone who is talking my language
 
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Relaxing the ban would very likely lead to even more doping because athletes would have no choice if they wanted to remain competitive. How is such a situation conducive to athlete health?

Savulescu: Because everything would take place under the supervision of physicians and only the use of substances that are considered safe would be allowed.
 
The GG said:
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Relaxing the ban would very likely lead to even more doping because athletes would have no choice if they wanted to remain competitive. How is such a situation conducive to athlete health?

Savulescu: Because everything would take place under the supervision of physicians and only the use of substances that are considered safe would be allowed.
Click to expand...
Is Savulescu for real?

So players taking it to the new legal limits wouldn't seek to go into illegal areas????
 
The GG said:
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Relaxing the ban would very likely lead to even more doping because athletes would have no choice if they wanted to remain competitive. How is such a situation conducive to athlete health?

Savulescu: Because everything would take place under the supervision of physicians and only the use of substances that are considered safe would be allowed.
Click to expand...

Hi GG,
In terms of Savulescu's response here - isn't this how the AFL's anti-doping code supposed to work?

A list of specifically prohibited substances/dosage/method plus a clause that promotes safety by a general provision that any combination of substance/method/dosage that is not approved by any nation's relevant regulatory agency is also prohibited?

In addition to these substance/dosage/method prohibtions you have requirements regarding who can administer the treatments, who should oversee all of this and what records should be kept.

And yet we still have football clubs in different fottballing codes pushing the boundaries and not adhering to the prohibitions and administration/record keeping.

If the incentive to cheat is there now, it won't go away by allowing everyone to have access to a subset of currently prohibited substances. To apply Savulescu's own logic all we would see is a group of athletes using substances that become allowed and another group who will move to the next level which presumably will be those substances that remain prohibited.

This is the LZR swimsuit argument all over again. An athlete's arms race.

Regards
S. Pete
 
The GG said:
there is never a perfect solution
but I always favour medical supervision to punitive measures
Click to expand...
So, you're quite happy to extend boundaries.

At what point do you say the boundary has reached it's limit?

There will always be a nutcase sports scientist that will want to take it further.

And in 20 years time, once untold damage has come to light, how do you suggest we remedy the health of those players that felt compelled to go along with ever expanding boundaries?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CASEYS9420
Moved Thread James Hird - is it time to give him a second chance at coaching an AFL club? Gil says yes! - The PEDs Forum Version
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
6K
Caligo
Caligo

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top