In this video, the Irish vegan weightlifer Clarence Kennedy explains why he is against anti-doping.
The YT;DW is anti-doping:
Creates an unlevel playing field (some countries have much more rigourous testing than others - who is testing North Koreans in the same way as Americans, for example?)
Facilitates corruption (Although as we are talking about the IOC, I doubt corruption can be seriously be considered)
Demonizes PEDs (I can't remember what he argued about this)
Forces athletes to use dangerous compounds (in this case, the ones that fly under the radar as opposed to the easily detectable ones):
[yt]HQLweuRSD9M[/yt]
I follow this guy's videos and I like his content. He has a brilliant video about his lifting achievements over the years...
[yt]DBLWbAeyELU[/yt]
However, I disagree with him.
Some arguments in favour of anti-anti-doping:
The perfect is not the enemy of the good.
Well, like, the USA wins loads of medals, and obviously they aren't doping (well, yes, they are or have done, but maybe not everyone....maybe...)
Given that kids are often trained from an early age in many countries do we put them on drugs from that age?
He himself would have won Olympic medals judging by the lifts he has managed, but he is on PEDs. Does this mean he is simply the best, or does it mean that only clean weightlifters as good or better than him get to compete?
Kennedy counters some of this in a later video. I suppose that one of his points regarding children is that if it was known and accepted that PEDs are a fact of life in most competitive sports instead of a dirty secret, there wouldn't be as many kids being fooled into thinking that pursuing their dream of Olympic gold was a wholesome endeavour.
I haven't made up my mind. Please have a lively and friendly debate.
The YT;DW is anti-doping:
Creates an unlevel playing field (some countries have much more rigourous testing than others - who is testing North Koreans in the same way as Americans, for example?)
Facilitates corruption (Although as we are talking about the IOC, I doubt corruption can be seriously be considered)
Demonizes PEDs (I can't remember what he argued about this)
Forces athletes to use dangerous compounds (in this case, the ones that fly under the radar as opposed to the easily detectable ones):
[yt]HQLweuRSD9M[/yt]
I follow this guy's videos and I like his content. He has a brilliant video about his lifting achievements over the years...
[yt]DBLWbAeyELU[/yt]
However, I disagree with him.
Some arguments in favour of anti-anti-doping:
The perfect is not the enemy of the good.
Well, like, the USA wins loads of medals, and obviously they aren't doping (well, yes, they are or have done, but maybe not everyone....maybe...)
Given that kids are often trained from an early age in many countries do we put them on drugs from that age?
He himself would have won Olympic medals judging by the lifts he has managed, but he is on PEDs. Does this mean he is simply the best, or does it mean that only clean weightlifters as good or better than him get to compete?
Kennedy counters some of this in a later video. I suppose that one of his points regarding children is that if it was known and accepted that PEDs are a fact of life in most competitive sports instead of a dirty secret, there wouldn't be as many kids being fooled into thinking that pursuing their dream of Olympic gold was a wholesome endeavour.
I haven't made up my mind. Please have a lively and friendly debate.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3fl8K0j
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire