Wednesday, November 30, 2011

This house would allow doping in sport - rebuttal speeches

Second proposing speech
Dear ladies and gentlemen, before introducing and developing my case concerning performance enhancing substances in sports, I would like to rebut an argument of the first opposer.

In fact, he assumes that thanks to the partnerships between pharmaceutical companies (such as Roche) and the WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency), we are now capable of detecting new kind of EPO whereas we were not able to detect it before. However, athletes who dope themselves are always aware of new substances which are not detected by the WADA, and therefore, they take it and never get caught. For instance, Lance Armstrong who has won the “Tour de France” 7 times (consecutively from 1999 to 2005) had never been caught by the WADA although it was proven in 2005 by the newspapers “L’Equipe” and “Le Monde” that he took EPO in 1999 during the Tour de France. Thus, we could suspect him of having taken drugs enhancing substances after 1999; the only one reason for which we do not know it is that the WADA is not capable of detecting it. Perhaps he was already aware of the existence of gene transfer and was using it? We will never know. [...]

by NA

Second opposing speech
It is indeed true that sports today have become a huge money-making industry. This money comes from the fact that there is an enormous public interest in sports. However, to say that people only wish to experience superhuman spectacles, like in an action movie, takes away a whole dimension of sports where the audience wants to see a struggle between not only individuals but also teams and nations, as well as admire the athlete’s accomplishments. One good example of this is the development of high-tech suits in swimming, leading to almost every record being broken. According to the simplistic view that all interested in sports want to see some sort of circus like event (see American Wrestling), people should have been thrilled. In fact, these suits were banned quite quickly since they took focus away from the athlete’s work ethic and talent, and they were generally detested by all parties. Thus, allowing doping would simply lead to a diminishing interest in sports. […]

by RJ

Second proposing speech
Dear ladies and gentlemen, before introducing and developing my case concerning performance enhancing substances in sports, I would like to rebut an argument of the first opposer.

In fact, he assumes that thanks to the partnerships between pharmaceutical companies (such as Roche) and the WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency), we are now capable of detecting new kind of EPO whereas we were not able to detect it before. However, athletes who dope themselves are always aware of new substances which are not detected by the WADA, and therefore, they take it and never get caught. For instance, Lance Armstrong who has won the “Tour de France” 7 times (consecutively from 1999 to 2005) had never been caught by the WADA although it was proven in 2005 by the newspapers “L’Equipe” and “Le Monde” that he took EPO in 1999 during the Tour de France. Thus, we could suspect him of having taken drugs enhancing substances after 1999; the only one reason for which we do not know it is that the WADA is not capable of detecting it. Perhaps he was already aware of the existence of gene transfer and was using it? We will never know.

Besides, we can assume that a very large part of athletes take EPO or other drugs to improve his/her performances. In fact, it has been proven by several studies that the performances of sportsmen incredibly increased during the last decades. For example, in 1950, Ferdi Kübler won the “Tour de France” in 145 hours whereas Alberto Contador won it in 2010 in less than 92 hours, and Sandy Casar, who was ranked at the 25th position, finished the race in less than 93 hours. It means that the 25th ranked sportsman in 2010 was 56% faster than the winner in 1950! Thus, considering this statistic and the fact that C. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was scaled on geologic times and not decades, we can reasonably assume that humans can’t increase their performances to such a high level as quickly (even if the cycles were improved) and therefore that most of the sportsmen are nowadays doped.

It leads me to my case: to promote equality between athletes, why not allowing them to take performance enhancing substances? We all know that they already are taking it and that the ones who get caught are the ones who are not aware of the newest undetectable substance. Then, instead of promoting competition, forbidding doping increases unfairness and inequalities between sportsmen as it provides the following message “take performance enhancing substances if you have a good dealer, but don’t if you haven’t”. Therefore, some athletes - such as Lance Armstrong a couple of years ago - will be much stronger than the others who won’t have the access to these substances and therefore, who won’t be able to improve their physical skills. The result will be an unfair and annoying competition between people who cheat and people who don’t.

Moreover, considering the fact that even the ones who get caught - such as Alberto Contador in 2010 - are frequently not condemned thanks to procedural irregularities, we can conclude that the WADA policy of repression is a failure; it is a fact, we can’t deny it: it doesn’t work.

So again, instead of promoting inequalities, we should allow the doping substances as it won’t change anything for the strongest sportsmen and will create a more competitive climate between the favourites and the outsiders and therefore a more entertaining show.

In conclusion, the WADA policy is totally inefficient as it failed to prevent sportsmen from doping and as it promoted inequalities between sportsmen. Besides, although it seems to be irresponsible to support doping at first glance, the world is changing, and it is no longer possible to pretend that we are stopping the phenomena of doped athletes with the current testing methods. Just think about the prohibition during the 20th century: it did not work. Then how the WADA policy will?

Thank you for having read, and vote for us!

NA

Second opposing speech 
It is indeed true that sports today have become a huge money-making industry. This money comes from the fact that there is an enormous public interest in sports. However, to say that people only wish to experience superhuman spectacles, like in an action movie, takes away a whole dimension of sports where the audience wants to see a struggle between not only individuals but also teams and nations, as well as admire the athlete’s accomplishments. One good example of this is the development of high-tech suits in swimming, leading to almost every record being broken. According to the simplistic view that all interested in sports want to see some sort of circus like event (see American Wrestling), people should have been thrilled. In fact, these suits were banned quite quickly since they took focus away from the athlete’s work ethic and talent, and they were generally detested by all parties. Thus, allowing doping would simply lead to a diminishing interest in sports.

Furthermore, imagine what else would happen if doping was allowed. Ultimately, all athletes would have to take doping in order to be good, which means that an increasing amount of people would be exposed to the inherent risks of taking these substances. This would be devastating to public health and to the image and values that sports represent in our society. Which loving parent would encourage their child to take up sport knowing what lay ahead? It is therefore of great public interest to try to stop the use of doping for moral and health reasons.

Today most countries in the world have ratified the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport. This means that athletes from different countries are without a doubt treated in the exact same manor regardless of nationality, because they have to follow the same set of regulations. It should be in every nation’s best interest to do all to prevent the occurrence of doping amongst its athletes, since when athletes go abroad they are tested by independent organizations, and any evidence of doping would badly hurt not only the reputation of the individual athlete but also the whole nation. Given that there is no proof of systematic Spanish doping, the athletes are for instance tested regularly, it is a slanderous claim that the Spanish are getting away easier than others.

If the proposing team would have done their homework a bit better they would have known that in 2010 a group of scientists published an article in Nature where they described how gene doping can be detected by means of conventional testing, i.e. through blood, saliva or urine tests. This shows the spirit that should be guiding us in this question. Instead of surrendering to those who want to use performance enhancing drugs, since there is no “stopping” them, we should carry on our stepwise development of testing methods to continually restore justice for those refusing to take doping.

Ethically, it is of course up to all athletes to decide about what they want to do with their bodies. However, if they wish to compete in sports they have to abide to a framework of rules, as in all of society, regardless of whether doping is allowed or not. Is it not on the other hand a bigger dilemma, ethically speaking, that by allowing doping many would feel the need to take some of these substances against their beliefs, against their wishes of a healthy life, in order to remain competitive and continue doing what they love to do?
Lastly, one has to admit that there are some unnatural elements allowed in sports, but they are not HARMFUL. Knowingly, no one has ever died from drinking a protein shake.
RJ

9 comments:

  1. it is interesting to imagine, as RJ did, what happen if doping is allowed, but I think RJ forgets the worst consequence: if doping is allowed, every sportman who wants to become professional would be OBLIGED to take dope. This strange situation already exists: a friend of me had decided to stop bike when he was 15 because in order to follow the level of his friends, he was obliged to do like them: take dope!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here are some references to the new testing methods to detect gene doping:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100902121221.htm

    http://www.nature.com/gt/journal/v18/n3/abs/gt2010122a.html

    RJ

    ReplyDelete
  3. @ RV

    I think your example undermines your assertion: you say that allowing doping will make it obligatory for success, then say that the situation ALREADY exists: so allowing doping won't in fact change anything... except it may perhaps get rid of all the hypocrisy and cynicism that exist today, precisely because, as you say, this situation already exists and everyone pretends it doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Reading this debate, which is really interesting, I am astonished by one thing: let’s look at how often the example of cycling has been used by debaters (and above all by proposers). In fact, it seems it is the only relevant example second proposer can find and highlight in order to persuade us that doping is already in all sportsmen morals. However, it is quite well known and well broadcast that cycling is one of the worst (maybe the worst) sports regarding doping issue. I feel quite uncomfortable about putting all sports and cycling in the same category in order to address the doping case.

    I sincerely look forward to reading what you will think about this comment.

    BL

    ReplyDelete
  5. @ NA,

    You said that allowing doping would be more equal for all athletes. So, can we suppose that 100% of athletes are doped? If not, and if we legalize doping, will it be still more fair for athletes who practice their sport honestly? During the olympic game, will we respect the poor nation that wouldn't be able to afford to doping?

    Moreover, do you think that legalize doping will change nothing for the already doped athletes? You said that nothing may stop this phenomena, so doped athletes would take doping even more. Don't you think that competition of sports will lead to a competition of pharmaceutic innovation?

    HT

    ReplyDelete
  6. First of all, I want to denounce the false argument given by NA. In fact, in 1950 they took 145 hours to make 4773 km. And 92 hours in 2010 to make 3642 km. If you want to compare something, you can at least present the average speed: 32.7 and 39.8 In my point of view, the main explanation of that is the cycles and the fact that competitors always bike in group now. The race is consequently faster.

    The question is, why is cycling so different?
    In other games, like football or basket ball, people just want to see spectaculars moves, great goal... So, the federations (who are the one which have to control their own athletes, stupid isn't it?) won't blame the competitors because it would be bad for the spectacle and for what people want to see. They also have no reason to do so.
    On the contrary, in cyclism, people want to see bikers suffers and give their best. So doping is clearly against this goal and that's why doping is really denounced and crucial in this particular sport. For the athlete it is the best way o differentiate and for the public it is totally inaceptable.

    The conclusion of my point of information is that people are already doped in all sports but cyclism is the only one fair enought to admit it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am quite confused by what you've just said. Your conclusion is "The people are already doped in all sports but cyclism is the only one fair enough to admit it. " (which is by the way amazingly pessimistic). If I am right, the premise of your argument is that, “on the contrary, in cyclism, people want to see bikers suffers and give their best ». This argument does not seem completely sound: I just don’t get it.
    Are you an extremist cyclism fan who thinks people are not likely to expect ALL sportsmen (not just BIKERS) to suffer and give their best? Have you never seen a rugby play where rugbymen never give up until real exhaustion, where fans shout each time there is a fight between players? (let me remind you the last Biarritz-Bayonne …). You gave the examples of football and basketball where people might only want to see great moves. Please consider the example of rugby.

    BL

    ReplyDelete
  8. @ RV and MP

    I think RV makes a point here even though MP points out a contradiction. Clean athletes obviously face peer pressure regarding the use of substance but the legislation reinforces the negative image of doping and this in turn, could help (if not stop!) them refuse it. On the contrary, legalising doping would lead to the elimination of this negative image over time and athletes would be more and more willing to dope and put their health and lives at risk ! So I think in a way, removing restrictive legislation would yes, push all athletes into doping. MP points out that RV has said that this is already the case. It might be so to a certain extent, but one cannot assert that ALL athletes use substances or one would need solid proof. I believe that for all reasons the opposers cite as well as in order to protect the clean athletes out there, it is necessary to keep and even reinforce restrictive legislation.

    Legislation should account for individual protection and interest, but even the more so for the community in general . My point is that when discussing substance use legalisation, one should take into account not only the athlete’s decision to dope and the responsibility that comes with it, but also the consequences of such measures on the athletic community in general. This is where RV’s comment assumes all its meaning.

    VB

    ReplyDelete
  9. @BL

    It is true we read a lot about cycling, but there were also "a few" scandals in atheltics : Tim Montgomery, Marion Jones, Dwain Chambers or Ben Johnson, or the Balco case. They they remain among the most famous doping affairs and have been given a wide media coverage in the past.

    We have also been hearing about doping in soccer, at the Juventus FC for instance. Gymnastics and swimming have had their share of scandals too. So let's not ostracize cycling...

    ReplyDelete