Woods and Brown - Sports Podcast

The podcast discusses performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) in sports and their impact on athletes and fans. PEDs enhance physiological traits in athletes and provide an unfair advantage. WADA has banned most PEDs, but their origins show their use to hinder competitors in horse racing. Some argue that eliminating the ban on PEDs would remove the stigma and increase overall athleticism. However, there are health risks and concerns about unfair advantages. The current testing system is flawed, and there is a debate about what substances should be banned. The use of prescription drugs and substances like caffeine is also discussed. The role of athletes as role models and the impact on young athletes is mentioned. Technological advancements in sports are explored, such as swimwear and wearable technology. The idea of focusing on technique or technology instead of PEDs is raised as a possible solution. Hello, and welcome to our sports podcast. Today we are talking about performance-enhancing drugs in the world of sports. My name is Quinn Woods, and today I'm joined by Matthew Brown. Hello. And so, to kick it off right away, we will start off by defining what performance-enhancing drugs are, or PEDs, and why this is such an important topic for all athletes and fans of sports to understand. And so, performance-enhancing drugs, or also known as doping, basically just enhance normal physiological traits in human beings and make it so that we can find a next level of competition or find that extra little oomph when we're competing against other people. In a wide range of sports, it is found that PEDs, when used in almost every sport, cause an unfair advantage to those who are using it, and that is why WADA, the World Anti-Doping Agency, has banned most performance-enhancing drugs in the sport. But it's pretty interesting, because if we look at its origins, I know you said, like, we're talking about this advantage, but when we look back at the original usage of it, it was actually used to almost, instead of bring yourself above everyone else, it was used to put down others in horse racing. So Richie sort of talked about it, in the fact that because it was a fixed sport with gambling, shockingly enough another topic of sports, but because they wanted their horse that they were betting on to win, they would make sure all the other ones were inhibited with a drug to make them go slower than their winning, betted-on horse. So I think it just goes to show the evolution of this. People have started to find advantages in this, and it leads to this interesting debate of, is it morally right, and do we have too much control over things, or do we need to be more open with it? So Quim, what would you say, do you know the major points for PEDs? Right. So I think it's, before we continue, I think it's important to acknowledge that performance-enhancing drugs, while they do create an advantage for those who use them, they don't, it's not an automatic thing. It has to be understood that a lot of performance-enhancing drugs simply just help with training and recovery. It kind of just allows human beings who are training to recover quicker, and that thus allows them to train harder the next day and keep building and building and building, rather than some magical muscle builder. That's not how performance-enhancing drugs work, or in the case of what we are speaking to today. And so basically, some of the pros for not having a ban on performance-enhancing drugs, they include just, by eliminating this ban, it kind of eliminates the amount of, eliminates the stigma around using it, and so basically if one person was found to be using it, they wouldn't be completely morally questioned, much like Lance Armstrong was back in the early 2000s when he was found to be using blood doping. So that's one of the first examples, is just decreasing that kind of speculation and kind of animosity towards those who might be using it. Additionally, if you eliminate this ban on performance-enhancing drugs, then you will see an overall increase in athleticism and new world records will be set in sports like swimming and track and field, where action is at the margin, and every bit of human activity training and development matters, and drugs can really help us find that next level. So you say it sort of speaks to the entertainment aspect of sports. Definitely. Because as we've learned throughout this unit, sports are a market. They are, it is supposed to be profitable and well-versed to the public. However, I do think there are, I mean, just to outline the cons and the reasons why, going with the status quo of why we currently do ban them, there do seem to be several, as obvious as these may seem, it is important to recap, there are definite health risks involved with some of these major ones. We will get into the fact that there are different kinds of performance-enhancing drugs, but with some of the ones like blood doping and like narcotics, we can see medical problems continue down the line and sort of like work past the idea of sport, like it becomes an issue to one's individual self going forward. Another important thing to look at is the idea of an unfair advantage. And I know we just talked about that recently, but it does bring into play these interesting concepts like, I know we talked about it earlier in the year, but semester, nature versus nurture. There's this whole thing Epstein went on so many tangents about how naturally gifted people are going to be better at the sport, but if we put into play the fact that someone can take these drugs to just immediately enhance themselves and get them past that naturally gifted person, what is the idea of sport and what does it mean to be ahead in the sport? I think that begs the question, if you are really concerned about medical problems that you would face if you were to take performance-enhancing drugs, would potentially creating a new division of sports that is essentially just drug-free and then that allows for another division to be an open division where anyone can choose to do drugs or not. Do you think that that might help with facilitating these health concerns that people have? So seeing that as a solution, I think could be beneficial. However, I do think there are concerns definitely to bring up. I mean, there's always going to be concerns if we're trying to tackle a big issue like this, but I think one big thing to take into consideration is just, yes, we do know that it is a sort of taboo norm that many athletes do it and just try not to get caught, but the idea of going public with it and making it an aspect for viewership to come with this publicity, like, I want to watch the version of athletes where I know they're all doping, is an interesting concept and would you get the same viewership? Would you get many people wanting to join said league or are people going to try and stay in this morally good, I'm ethically correct in this drug-free zone and just continue to go under the radar? Yeah, I mean, in the world of cycling, that's such a big issue and there was a documentary that was released a few years back called Icarus where an amateur cyclist was interested in seeing truly how effective performance-enhancing drugs could be and he actually reached out to Russian drug testers to see how he could kind of get avoid testing positive and that was a whole aspect of the documentary that I won't get into much detail with today, but essentially the cyclist found that even while using performance-enhancing drugs, he still could not find enough benefits to help compete with the professional cyclists that might compete at the Tour de France, for example, who generally are using performance-enhancing drugs and he was able to deduce that because amateurs cannot complete the rigorous 21-hour day tour, which is the Tour de France. So it can be assumed then that all of these professional cyclists are likely using performance-enhancing drugs, but I think that people are kind of in denial that they are. So I think that brings up an interesting point of in our current situation with performance-enhancing drugs, the inaccuracy or the flawed system in the idea of testing, because I think it has gone to show that it sort of made it so that many can just go under, lay low and go underground and not worry about it. I know in the International Association of Athletic Federations, they said they got like 7,000 blood samples and there were 20% that took drugs and tested negative, and that is, okay, it might not be a majority, but it is a large – it's a very significant statistic. And I think that those that are testing positive and getting criminalized for it, I think this is our current system's way of trying to enforce it by making scapegoats and trying to use a fear tactic, but I think it's instead hurting individual athletes where the general public aren't going with it, aren't getting scared off and not doing it anymore. They're continuing with it. I think a perfect example is Shikari Richardson. As Henny said, cannabis is one of the top three drugs that athletes are penalized for, and it doesn't even, as we've seen with several different statistics, is not the most beneficial in many ways to athletic performance. And so just the idea that she took it after a stressful situation outside of the sport, a funeral, and she wasn't able to compete in the Olympics. It just shows that you can hurt – it's hurting individuals and not changing the general pattern. So I think there needs to be a change. Definitely. Yeah, and that reminds me of an article by Kaser who talked about the benefits of developing EPOs in your blood, which basically he talks about how the lack of oxygen from thin air at higher altitudes, that induces low blood oxygen levels. And so I think that after training for a period of time at this higher altitude and you go down to a different location in the world where it's a lower altitude, your body will kind of overproduce red blood cells, which will be extremely beneficial for sports that require a high aerobic capacity, such as cycling, triathlons, running, et cetera. And then later Kaser talks about how this was kind of replicated through the production of an EPO injection, and that is what has been banned by WADA. And so it's just very interesting to talk about what substances are getting banned and which ones aren't. I mean, yeah, an injection of EPOs like that is just an easy way to help with your aerobic capacity. I don't think that marijuana necessarily has a lot of performance-enhancing benefits. But yeah, it's definitely an interesting topic looking at what substances are being banned and which ones aren't. Yeah. Wait, so do EPOs have any negative effects to them? Have we seen studies of anything negative connected to this? Studies are still ongoing. It's not super clear, but there's no such thing as a negative side effect for training at high altitude and then going down to ocean level and competing. And so I don't particularly think so. Yeah. And so I think that sort of shows my stance on this idea, is that I think an interesting point of contention is what we consider a performance-enhancing drug, because yes, the USADA does have their, and the WADA, they have their list of what is and isn't. But what I would define it as is if it is hurting the individual, if there are harms to the benefit. Because I know one huge interesting point we talked about when we were talking about it in this week was the idea of caffeine and the idea of inhalers, and talking about are those considered damage? Should we be putting tough regulations on them? Because I know on our swim team, we've seen several times people just continue to, I mean, I don't see a problem with it, the idea of drinking a bang energy drink before going up on a race. So I mean, what are your thoughts on it? Yeah, I mean, as an asthmatic person, I mean, I use an inhaler every day, a steroid inhaler and an emergency inhaler, especially when I enter a pool that has chlorine filling in the air. It just makes it super hard for myself to have a hundred percent lung capacity, and so for me, it is essential, and a doctor has prescribed me this medicine, and so that allows me to get on an even playing field with everyone else. For the debate about caffeine, I don't think that there is a debate, really. I think that anyone can get their hands on a cup of coffee or a shot of espresso, and that little burst, if you don't have a high tolerance to it, that can make all the difference in a race, and I think it totally makes sense, especially for high explosive sprinting events such as track or swimming. Yeah, definitely. But just going back to your point of talking about prescription, I was just looking at the definition based on nationwidechildrens.org. I mean, there's all going to be a general definition of what a performance-enhancing drug is, but they defined it as any substance taken in non-pharmacologic doses specifically for purposes of improving sports performance. So that talks about the idea of if it's prescription, it shouldn't be counted as a PED, but then that also raises so much concern because what if people are saying, oh, I have asthma, I have asthma, I need an inhaler. I know that's a lower idea of it, but what if we bring it to a higher level, and we're talking about these people that are saying, I have this, I have that, to get their hands on these drugs so that they can use them and not have to worry about even testing for them? Well, I definitely agree. I mean, in the world of swimming, in my experience, I have witnessed several people coming up to me and asking if they could use my inhaler before going into a race, and I'm like, I don't think so. I really need to keep it to myself. That's what I would tell people. But yeah, with a sport such as swimming where you aren't breathing a whole lot, if you're doing a 50-yard sprint, you're breathing maybe once. Hopefully once. It's like 20 to 25 seconds. And so, you know, if we're considering how action is at the margin, like if a person has 100% lung capacity and takes an inhaler that isn't prescribed to them, they might be getting 115% lung capacity and just feeling that extra benefit, which is inherently unfair. Yeah. And I think all of this talk about what we can do to get our hands on the drug and what people are doing to go out of their way to do it, it's very interesting because looking back, love to refer to it, but Borges' article on sport, he describes sport to be skill-based. And bringing it out of what our whole talk about now is not about skill-based. It's not about who's the better this, who's the better that. It's what can I get my hands on to push myself above the rest? And I think that's very interesting. And relating it to caffeine, I think, like he said, anyone can grab a coffee. Anyone can get their hands on pre-workout or something. And it's not going to, you can see results with it, but do we see that as unfair or do we see that as people maximizing their benefits? Right. Yeah. And now, like, I mean, that brings up the issue of PEDs in general being talked about more outside of sport. Borges talks about how there's the inside of sport, which is the players, coaches, and then the outside of sport, which is the fans and people who are indirectly affected by the performance of these sports. Yeah, and like role model. Yeah, yeah. And so a lot of players have become role models for, you know, young kids who are looking, like, for inspiration to, like, what sports should I play? And they're looking up to these, like, high elite athletes, high-performing elite athletes. And, you know, it's very, you know, their position as, like, a role model is, you know, if they choose not to, you know, use performance-enhancing drugs, then they can be seen as, like, moral comp, like, people who have strong moral compasses or whatnot. Yeah. Because, I mean, like, there are so many, like, pressures on, like, high-performing elite athletes to use performance-enhancing drugs. And so by resisting that, like, they're, like, creating, like, a positive atmosphere in sports. Definitely. And it does, I guess it does bring up a big moral issue of do they choose to use it to, like, be better and get that larger viewership or do they, like, not? Do they choose to have that clean slate? And I know DeMott and Duscher talked about the idea of being a role model and the idea of, like, being caught with it and you lose fans' trust and you lose, you lose that, like, knowledgeable, that reliability that you had. And I think it's really interesting because once you take it out of this place and once fans know and younger kids know, it makes it known to them. And I mean, I have an example. I remember in my high school swimming career, I had this big national YMCA national swim meet and there was this kid on my team who was really good. And he came back, he got, like, second. It was crazy. And he came back mad and we were all confused. And he was he was he told us that it was because he found out that the kid in first was doping. Oh, wow. We are high schoolers. We are like 16 going on 17. And they are already knowing of these, like, insane concepts that should be seen in. I know DeHaan said that the prevalence is between 14 and 39 percent. But this is talking about in elite sports, meaning, as he also defined, athletes that compete at an international level. But this is taking it. It's not just in elite sports anymore. This, like, action is at the margin, but it's also so widely outside of it as well. And it just brings up this moral issue that's wild to me to understand, like, and I think that brings me to, like, my sort of view on it again. And the fact that if kids are so openly exposed to this idea and kids know of it and the fact that it's seen so well, I don't know if I fully support the idea of using performance enhancing drugs. So trying to find a way to go around this so that it doesn't feel harmful, it doesn't feel because it can be so harmful to children. The idea of introducing drugs at, like, while your brain is still developing, it's dangerous. So I think I know you talked about the idea of performance enhancing technology. Yep. So do you want to talk about that for a bit? Yeah, for sure. So Murray introduced in his article the idea of throwing spitballs in baseball, which basically involves altering the makeup, like, what, how the ball, the baseball moves through the air after it's being thrown. And that is considered, like, cheating in baseball. And, you know, it's been explored and banned. And there's a lot of controversy around those who, like, try to, you know, still do it today. And in the world of swimming, I mean, there's been a lot of technological advances over the years to try and increase, you know, the overall speed of the competitors. Back in the early 2000s, that involved the super suit or the skin-tight swimsuits that... Almost wearing a women's suit, right, for men? Yeah. It covered the entire leg all the way up the body and even encompassing the arms, which just creates a huge hydrodynamic effect or benefit for swimmers. And eventually that was deemed illegal later in the later 2000s. And now elite swimmer, male swimmers, they simply just wear the short shorts version of that model. And when we're talking about today and, you know, technology making its way into the swimming pool, USA Swimming just allowed for wearable technology to be implemented during competition. They expressly stated that this wearable technology, which can involve, like, a watch or a new form of, like, goggles that has a heads-up display built into the lens, these would be, you know, deemed illegal as they give real-time updates to how a competitor is performing. But this new rule allows for people to wear, you know, a watch that, you know, simply just records data or a wristband that records data. And then you can use that to analyze how your event went later on. Interesting. I think I have actually seen one of these before. It was probably smaller scale. I think a kid on my team had them before and he let me try on these goggles and it felt like I was, like, in the Matrix or something. There's, like, stats up there which are wild. And I think it's sort of, so if I'm hearing you correctly, I think it sounds like we're trying to, if we were to legalize this, would we see a shift in people not realize, not having such a heavy need for the drug and rather relying on this idea of technique or technology? And I think that's sort of, I know when we talked in the Nurture Debate, the idea of using technique or technology, Steph Curry changing the game of basketball by deciding to just switch up and try a new technique, becoming specialized in the three-point shot. Right, because he's not as tall as all the other NBA players. Yeah, and there are ideas that, like, you can change the dynamic of a sport and find benefits from doing that rather than using drugs. So that is definitely an idea for a solution, at least. Right, and I mean, for those who are, you know, seriously concerned about the health risks of taking performance-enhancing drugs, this could be an alternate way of, you know, increasing how a sport, you know, evolves over time and how you could, you know, increase the level, you know, even if it's just by a little bit, but you're increasing the level and therefore, you know, increasing viewership because, you know, fans are always looking for the next world record to be broken. Yes, I was just going to say, the idea of sports evolving over time, it leads to, I think it could be great for entertainment purposes because people are looking for the next best thing. Like you said, like many of the pro arguments for PEDs, people are looking for world records to be broken. They're looking for, they want high-value entertainment. And the idea that we can, we have the power as athletes to change up the sport. We decide, as much as there are rules and regulation, we have the informal social, like, conduct. If we choose to send our sport down a certain path, we can follow it. So this idea of using certain technology or if we were to, taking it back to rules, allowing like spitballs instead of, and then see if that transfers from people using drugs to people going to technology and technique, what that would do for sport as a whole as we move forward. For sure. Yeah, I mean, this topic is definitely, you know, controversial and there's a lot of different opinions. And, you know, I can see both viewpoints. You know, I can see why you would believe in either way. And, you know, I don't think that there's a clear cut solution to this. Not at all. I think that it's going to take some time. You know, WADA, they were established, I think, over 20 years, just over 20 years ago. And so they're still a relatively young organization and they're still figuring out, you know, what works and what doesn't. And there's definitely a lot of controversy that has happened over the past 20 years, especially with like Lance Armstrong as one of the most prevalent people who broke the rules of WADA. But yeah, I think that as long as we're having, you know, these types of conversations and, you know, discussing, you know, how we could deal with this moving forward in the world of sports, I think that... It pushes the narrative forward. For sure. So that concludes our podcast. Thank you so much to our audience for listening. Thank you, Professor Alcorn. Thank you, Professor Alcorn. We will see you soon. Bye. Bye.