Bloody Interesting Article - Genetics and Drugs in Sport

Bicycle related chatter & discussion
GregPankhurst
Posts: 298
Joined: 29 Apr 2012, 17:57

Postby GregPankhurst » 03 Sep 2013, 21:50

I found this article bloody interesting:

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/a ... um=twitter

Have a read, but the short version is many athletes who reach elite professional are freaks of genetics, who naturally have massively elevated haematocrits (or some other suitably relevant natural advantage, like eyesight in baseball). But for some reason we are happy to tun a blind eye to the genetic element to people's performance and pretend the playing field is somehow level.

The article also touches on the fact we are entirely happy for a entirely non-natural surgical intervention to improve performance, but not an endocrine intervention.

Does make me rethink my drugs in sport stance

User avatar
marc2131
Posts: 1120
Joined: 03 Jul 2011, 13:14
Location: Ashbury
Contact:

Postby marc2131 » 04 Sep 2013, 07:37

Yes, but the article still does not answer my burning question:

Why does Peter Bownes and Lizanne Wilmott like riding in the rain?

User avatar
humanbeing
Posts: 709
Joined: 26 Feb 2013, 12:16

Postby humanbeing » 04 Sep 2013, 08:21

It's only water Marc :-)
Have a great ride,
Peter

User avatar
Dougie
Posts: 755
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:39
Location: Dulwich Hill

Postby Dougie » 04 Sep 2013, 09:33

They also like Pina coladas

User avatar
JoTheBuilder
Posts: 1500
Joined: 19 Feb 2011, 15:32

Postby JoTheBuilder » 04 Sep 2013, 10:14

Good article Greg. But I disagree that it should rethink your stance on drugs in sport.

Because the 'dumb luck' of genetics can be applied to everything in life and ultimately it comes down to whether or not your find your niche that your genetics respond to. For example, our CEO is an incredibly astute businesswoman. But what if she had decided to do a trade after school? She could be an incredibly bad hairdresser and be spending her days slogging it out for minimum wage instead of the $3M she is currently earning. Similarly, Ian Thorpe may have spent his days at Little Athletics instead of at the pool. Have you ever seen him run?!

And this does not either touch on the advantages of education, parenting, wealth etc.

So I do think it is a 'level playing field' in that we are all born with certain genes, it's just a matter of finding out what they are, if you even have that opportunity. And this is not to say that everyone is going to be world class at something. I'm pretty sure I was not born with any gifts to be good at triathlon, but I just do it because it's fun.

But those like Lance Armstrong, already blessed with these genetic advantages, have chosen to take advantage of them by injecting themselves with unnatural substances.

I will acknowledge things like laser surgery and the tendon replacement could easily be regarded as 'illicit actions' akin to drug taking but that is a very grey area.

User avatar
JoTheBuilder
Posts: 1500
Joined: 19 Feb 2011, 15:32

Postby JoTheBuilder » 04 Sep 2013, 10:15

And I don't like riding in the rain.

User avatar
humanbeing
Posts: 709
Joined: 26 Feb 2013, 12:16

Postby humanbeing » 04 Sep 2013, 10:22

... and I'm into yoga

GregPankhurst
Posts: 298
Joined: 29 Apr 2012, 17:57

Postby GregPankhurst » 04 Sep 2013, 20:20

Yes, genetics are random or "lucky", but for me that's not really the end of it. Why would we celebrate the accomplishments of rider x when rider x has simply been dealt a massive and measurable advantage over their peers. Accomplishments must lose some lustre if they turn out to be merely a massive genetic advantage playing itself out.

We know so much about how various hormones and compounds impact on performance. The whole idea of keeping drugs out of sport is about levelling the playing field. Turns out the field isn't close to level.

Agree the surgery factor is another interesting angle

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 04 Sep 2013, 20:36

Whilst we have little choice in the genes we were given by our parents, that's but one aspect of superior performance. To get to the top, it also takes opportunities and hard work. Without hard work, no amount of genes and mutation can take a rider to the very top. At the very elite level, it also take the intelligence genes to out smart all the other gifted opponents.

Doping is just plain wrong.

GregPankhurst
Posts: 298
Joined: 29 Apr 2012, 17:57

Postby GregPankhurst » 04 Sep 2013, 20:49

Look at the high jumper who went from complete beginner to world class jumper in literally three jumps. Not sure that fits the hard graft model....

User avatar
JoTheBuilder
Posts: 1500
Joined: 19 Feb 2011, 15:32

Postby JoTheBuilder » 04 Sep 2013, 21:35

I think elite athletes also have a 'drive' as Weiyun mentions. Won't miss a single training session, can push themselves to pain and will train through sickness and yes! Even rain.

I have a mate who played junior league with Wayne Pearce and was chosen ahead of him for rep teams. But my mate then found alcohol and women! Whereas Wayne Pearce trained. And trained and trained. A fairly basic example but even if you have the genes I think you have to put the effort in (or inject).

GregPankhurst
Posts: 298
Joined: 29 Apr 2012, 17:57

Postby GregPankhurst » 04 Sep 2013, 22:14

But I don't think the fact someone has worked hard levels the playing field. That's kinda the problem. We like to think it's all about years of training, graft and discipline to reach the top. And this takes people a long way, but perhaps we pay too much homage to the training and graft and overlook the natural advantages they've been dealt

User avatar
Philip
Posts: 531
Joined: 12 Feb 2012, 17:48
Location: Earlwood
Contact:

Postby Philip » 04 Sep 2013, 22:26

Admiring and celebrating 'the outstanding', is hard wired in us, it's a perfect demonstration of Darwinism. We celebrate the strong, the intelligent, the beautiful it's how we as a species have evolved. Knowing greatness is to a large part just genetic good luck doesn't make it any the less attractive.

Strawburger
Posts: 595
Joined: 04 Mar 2009, 08:27

Postby Strawburger » 05 Sep 2013, 07:12

. We celebrate the strong, the intelligent, the beautiful it's how we as a species have evolved.
Going by the reality TV ads I've seen recently, I'd say we are regressing! :lol:

In certain sports though, doing the hard graft or being talented will only get you so far. Sporting politics (or "it's who you know not what you know/do") gets you into the top tier. Artificial enhancement could get that sportsperson that golden ticket to the big time. Money dealings and racial bias also gets people that ticket (which I have seen in a pervious life).

PatW
Posts: 12
Joined: 25 Jul 2011, 13:16

Postby PatW » 05 Sep 2013, 09:10

According to Peter McAllister we are definitely regressing - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 02501.html

User avatar
Colin Campbell
Posts: 186
Joined: 10 Nov 2012, 08:37
Location: Newtown

Postby Colin Campbell » 05 Sep 2013, 09:22

Admiring and celebrating 'the outstanding', is hard wired in us, it's a perfect demonstration of Darwinism. We celebrate the strong, the intelligent, the beautiful it's how we as a species have evolved. Knowing greatness is to a large part just genetic good luck doesn't make it any the less attractive.
I agree. The tragic downside to greatness is those others who actually find the strong intelligent beautiful obsessive endeavour that can give real meaning, not just financial success, to their life only to find that (due to nature/nurture) they are not very good at it! Their challenge is to find satisfaction in mediocrity. I had a few (childless) friends who couldn't and committed suicide; another natural selection process.

User avatar
jimmy
Posts: 988
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 10:15
Contact:

Postby jimmy » 05 Sep 2013, 15:21

According to Peter McAllister we are definitely regressing - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 02501.html
Evolution doesn't go backwards, it only goes forwards. It doesn't make sense to say that we're regressing.

There are 3 types of selection, natural selection, artificial selection, and everyone's favourite, sexual selection. The first is where there are outside influences that put pressures on population so that certain traits are favourable or undesirable. There is a species of birds living under bridges on US Highways, they now have shorter wings compared to 30 years ago, the reason? short wings make them more manoeuvrable, which means that they can dodge cars better.

Artificial Selection is where (as an example) we breed desirable traits into a species, all dogs are a member of the canis familias family, the reason for the variation is because of artificial selection, we decide what traits we want to keep and then breed for those traits.

Sexual Selection is where we choose our mates based upon certain traits, women are getting narrower hips because of sexual selection, men (generally) find narrow hips more attractive and so women with that feature are more likely to be selected as a partner. Women do the same, there are features that are generally seen as more desirable, so men with those features are seen as more desirable partners.

What's interesting is when these selection criteria get into conflict, and I suspect this is where Peter McAllister is trying to make a point. Women with narrower hips are less able to deliver naturally, normally, that would be a natural selection limitation, as women's hips get narrower, they would (normally) be more likely to die in child birth, in today's world though, we have modern medicine to help out, so if a woman can't deliver naturally then caesarean is an option.

User avatar
jimmy
Posts: 988
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 10:15
Contact:

Postby jimmy » 05 Sep 2013, 15:25

I found this article bloody interesting:

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/a ... um=twitter

Have a read, but the short version is many athletes who reach elite professional are freaks of genetics, who naturally have massively elevated haematocrits (or some other suitably relevant natural advantage, like eyesight in baseball). But for some reason we are happy to tun a blind eye to the genetic element to people's performance and pretend the playing field is somehow level.

The article also touches on the fact we are entirely happy for a entirely non-natural surgical intervention to improve performance, but not an endocrine intervention.

Does make me rethink my drugs in sport stance
OK, I'm going to post this response in pieces, I've tried submitting it several times and there is something that the forum doesn't like in my post.

Your summary is pretty accurate, but there is a difference, the first is that there is that genetic lottery factor, it's something that we don't have control over, and as Jo pointed out, it also requires that the genetic advantage is identified and then exploited in the relevant sport.

The idea of using surgery to augment abilities is an interesting one, and is a grey area. Currently, my understanding is that surgery is used to extend the life of an existing player, rather than trying to create a player within the sport. I don't think that the article represents this particularly well.

The comparison of supplementing diet with iodine to increase IQ's was a strawman. The reason I say this is because iodine was introduced into salt because people were deficient in it. If you have normal iodine levels, then taking more iodine will not increase your intellegence. On the same token, I believe that Lance requested and was granted permission to use testosterone patches because his body wasn't producing any or much. So we do allow doping as long as it is for reason to bring people to normal levels.

So why don't we then allow people to use supplements to bring themselves to the same level as the genetic freak? Because it can easily kill them. Michelle Ferrari was often misquoted on this, but I must admit that I agree with him, he is misquoted as saying that EPO was no more dangerous than orange juice, but he stated that it was the abuse of EPO that was dangerous. EPO has a medical use, your kidneys produce it. So if you suffer kidney failure, you will get EPO injections to again, bring you to a normal level.

Within the Genetic Lottery, we often look at people who have these fantastic advantages, but don't forget, mutations occur all the time within the human genome and produce people at both end of the scale, I have an extra vertabrae in my back, it's a mutation, this is an example of neutral mutation that doesn't instill any benefit, but it also doesn't cause any issues. Mutations drive evolution, and Natural Selection then causes the beneficial ones to benefit the species, and the problematic ones to get weeded out. If a child is born with a mutation, it will either benefit them, do nothing, or sometimes kill them. Sometimes, it's possible for a mutation to instill a beneficial feature in them, but will also have a problem. Look at that South African female runner, she doesn't have overies, but instead has testes in place of them. As a result, she produces more testosterone than normal and it gives her a benefit. But, she's sterile, that's a genetic mutation that cannot be passed onto her children.

The reason for the ban on drugs in sport is because of the safety of the players, I would suspect that if a particular surgery could be performed on players, but carried a substantial risk associated with it (either in the surgery itself, or complications afterward) then the governing body would ban the practice. The article points out that Baseball Players have had corrective eye surgery to increase their eyesight, this does carry risks, but they are generally not that great, and in most cases do not occur.

GregPankhurst
Posts: 298
Joined: 29 Apr 2012, 17:57

Postby GregPankhurst » 05 Sep 2013, 17:17

So we do allow doping as long as it is for reason to bring people to normal levels.
Define normal in the context of this discussion?

I quote from the article "shouldn’t we have to come up with a good reason that one man is allowed to have lots of red blood cells and another man is not"
So why don't we then allow people to use supplements to bring themselves to the same level as the genetic freak? Because it can easily kill them. Michelle Ferrari was often misquoted on this, but I must admit that I agree with him, he is misquoted as saying that EPO was no more dangerous than orange juice, but he stated that it was the abuse of EPO that was dangerous. EPO has a medical use, your kidneys produce it. So if you suffer kidney failure, you will get EPO injections to again, bring you to a normal level.
EPO actually seems quite safe. The problems arise when the use is driven underground, and is no longer medically supervised and controlled
Within the Genetic Lottery, we often look at people who have these fantastic advantages, but don't forget, mutations occur all the time within the human genome and produce people at both end of the scale, I have an extra vertabrae in my back, it's a mutation, this is an example of neutral mutation that doesn't instill any benefit, but it also doesn't cause any issues. Mutations drive evolution, and Natural Selection then causes the beneficial ones to benefit the species, and the problematic ones to get weeded out. If a child is born with a mutation, it will either benefit them, do nothing, or sometimes kill them. Sometimes, it's possible for a mutation to instill a beneficial feature in them, but will also have a problem. Look at that South African female runner, she doesn't have overies, but instead has testes in place of them. As a result, she produces more testosterone than normal and it gives her a benefit. But, she's sterile, that's a genetic mutation that cannot be passed onto her children.
Caster is an interesting example. For mine, her accomplishments will always have an asterix against them, and I doubt she has fan base her raw accomplishments warrant. I wouldn't be happy running against her either

User avatar
jimmy
Posts: 988
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 10:15
Contact:

Postby jimmy » 05 Sep 2013, 20:23

Define normal in the context of this discussion?

I quote from the article "shouldn’t we have to come up with a good reason that one man is allowed to have lots of red blood cells and another man is not"
My point was in relation to iodine levels, as per the article, if you don't get sufficient iodine, then it can retard intelligence. I don't know what is considered a normal iodine intake, but the equally important question is what, if any, problems occur with your iodine levels being too high? Off the top of my head, I'm not aware of any, they were giving out iodine tablets after Fukishima to reduce the amount of radiation that people who were exposed would store.

In response to your question which is a quote from the article, no. Life isn't fair, some people will always be better at certain things, if they are better because of a genetic advantage then good luck to them, if they're better because they work harder, then well done to them.
EPO actually seems quite safe. The problems arise when the use is driven underground, and is no longer medically supervised and controlled
Yes, if it's medically supervised then it's safe, but even if they allow EPO to be in sport, athletes will still die. Why? Because of the desire to win, it doesn't have to come from the athletes themselves, sport in today's world is business, and what drives business? The desire to make money, so how do you make money in sport? You win so you can attract sponsors, in a game where doping is allowed the orders will come from above to push their players to the limit, if the current team doctor won't do it, they'll find someone who can. A player won't dope? Well, get someone who will.

I refer you to this article about a mother talking about her son in the Essendon AFL Team
Calling herself Sarah, the caller this morning described the last seven months as a parent's worst nightmare.

Her son, a few days shy of his 21st birthday, still didn't know what he had been injected with and what the future health effects might be.

She said her son was now disinterested in playing and was thinking about giving up the game. The stress on him and his family had been intolerable.

"My son, who plays for Essendon, and who I entrusted to be taken care of, has basically been used as a guinea pig," she told Triple M Radio.
[ Caster is an interesting example. For mine, her accomplishments will always have an asterix against them, and I doubt she has fan base her raw accomplishments warrant. I wouldn't be happy running against her either
Do you accept the results of Miguel Indurain results? He was a genetic anomoly, you can't have it both ways, you need to accept that there are all sorts of genetic advantages that people can get.

GregPankhurst
Posts: 298
Joined: 29 Apr 2012, 17:57

Postby GregPankhurst » 05 Sep 2013, 22:05


Yes, if it's medically supervised then it's safe, but even if they allow EPO to be in sport, athletes will still die. Why? Because of the desire to win, it doesn't have to come from the athletes themselves, sport in today's world is business, and what drives business? The desire to make money, so how do you make money in sport? You win so you can attract sponsors, in a game where doping is allowed the orders will come from above to push their players to the limit, if the current team doctor won't do it, they'll find someone who can. A player won't dope? Well, get someone who will.
My point was EPO doesn't have a number of horrible side effects, it is a rather neat drug and thus comparatively safe when used properly.
Do you accept the results of Miguel Indurain results? He was a genetic anomoly, you can't have it both ways, you need to accept that there are all sorts of genetic advantages that people can get.
I'm not not trying to have it both ways. I'm actually not au fait with Indurain's physiology and natural advantages, though I will say if someone has a genetic anomaly that gives them exactly the same effects as a banned P.E.D. (so for example an elevated haemocrit), I have trouble recognising and celebrating their achievements. That's kind of the crux of the article.

User avatar
JoTheBuilder
Posts: 1500
Joined: 19 Feb 2011, 15:32

Postby JoTheBuilder » 06 Sep 2013, 05:45

But Greg, if you have trouble recognizing and celebrating their achievements then that would apply to all sports and all elements of life. How can you enjoy a Swans won tonight knowing that the only reason they won is that they are all taller, fitter and better at AFL simply because they won the genetic lottery?

Similarly, can you celebrate Anna Meares win when she clearly chose the right sport for her build? Or can you appreciate the mind of Brian Cox when, again, it was simply good genes he was born a genius?

GregPankhurst
Posts: 298
Joined: 29 Apr 2012, 17:57

Postby GregPankhurst » 06 Sep 2013, 08:03

I agree it's an incredibly slippery slope. But I'd been labouring under the thinking that the playing field was a lot more level. It was far simpler when I was able to believe the winning athlete had just trained harder or had been coached better or dug deeper. It bothers me that they may have beaten their peers solely because of a higher haemocrit...

p.s I don't get the feeling I'll need to wonder about the Swans winning tonite...

User avatar
JoTheBuilder
Posts: 1500
Joined: 19 Feb 2011, 15:32

Postby JoTheBuilder » 06 Sep 2013, 08:38

But that suggests that you think we were all born equal. That would be boring!

Anthony K
Posts: 316
Joined: 30 May 2011, 23:17

Postby Anthony K » 06 Sep 2013, 10:30

A simple view of the topic from a simple mind, mine.

Imagine two fields of the worlds best athletes in their particular event.

Field A, clean, no performance enhancing substances

Field B, ALL competitors juiced up to the max with whatever substances give the maximum performance.

At the end of the event for Field A, the competitor with the best combination of genetics, training, psychology and tactics will most likely win the event.

At the end of the event for Field B, the competitor with the best combination of genetics, training, psychology and tactics will most likely win the event.

Field B will have gone longer/higher/faster than Field A but in the end the result ends up the same.

The only difference is that a significant proportion of Field B will either be joining Flo-Jo on the sports field in the sky or growing hair in strange places or locked up for GBH.

The problems come when we get Field A trying to compete with Field B.

Yes it is difficult to ensure that Field A stay clean but in my mind it is the only real solution.

GregPankhurst
Posts: 298
Joined: 29 Apr 2012, 17:57

Postby GregPankhurst » 06 Sep 2013, 12:56

But that suggests that you think we were all born equal. That would be boring!
I'm not keen on seeing fields of clones, but I do like the idea that we all start from roughly the same place and have roughly the same potential

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 06 Sep 2013, 13:01

I'm not keen on seeing fields of clones, but I do like the idea that we all start from roughly the same place and have roughly the same potential
You should also remember that even with open doping and genetic interventions, we all still won't be equals. People's biology respond differently to the same agent and even genetic mods can have differing responses. As such, it just makes no sense to introduce agents with potential health risks in the mix.

Don't take the line "we are all equal too literally". In life, we are all different with different strengths. The equaliser is in how we choose to apply ourselves and how we work on our chosen pursuit. That's all.


Return to “Conversation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests