zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. 0-_-0+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-05-26 16:24:57
> With respect, I don't see where you're seeing an accusation of bigotry; I certainly didn't intend one. You agreed hormone levels are the issue; how is "if hormone levels are the issue" a veiled accusation of bigotry?

It suggests that the issue is something else, not what was raised. It reads as an accusation that the hormone issue is just an excuse for an other agenda. If that wasn't your intention I belive you, but it can be easily misread.

> If the goal is to see "natural" talent apart from doping, how does forcing athletes to take hormone suppressants satisfy that goal?

I think the goal is both finding what humans are capable of, but also rewarding human achievement. If a world record can only be broken or a race can only be won by someone in the top 0.1% of testosterone levels then 99% of people have no reason to even try to compete.

Training at a high altitude is still within the reach of natural human ability, while taking hormones isn't. Although I would support the idea that everyone can take as much testosterone as you need to get to 1200 ng/ml (or some other reasonable threshold) but not more.

replies(1): >>vander+wY1
2. vander+wY1[view] [source] 2020-05-27 08:18:49
>>0-_-0+(OP)
This discussion reminds me of a scene in The Twelve Tasks of Asterix where he is about to race the best Olympic runner in the world, and he jokes that they also have races in their village but it's not that exciting because everyone drinks the magic potion, so they all finish at the same time and have the winner be decided by lottery. Guess that's another (slightly unsatisfying) hypothetical solution to the problem ;). Useful as a thought experiment though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHCPot1j0ug&t=14m30s

[go to top]