|
It's funny that there's complaints about the British throwing money at sport in order to compete with the best.
You know, like that's a bad thing? The French had a moan because we're dominating cycling, but really they shouldn't moan at our funding... they should moan at their lack of funding.
The money we're investing in Olympic sports is nothing compared to the money in football. I mean Crystal Palace can afford to spend £30m. Yet our footballers are a failure, even just against our continental neighbours. We throw a few million at Olympics, and suddenly we can beat China. We're getting golds in sports we've never been competetive in, like gymnastics and field hockey.
Without doping, the top competitors are never any other than those who won the genetic lottery
Not in all sports. Sprinting, yeah. Swimming, yeah. But most sports, it's a level playing field in the sense that anyone can be a world class tennis player if they start young enough and maintain peak fitness.
Doping is a weird one. Like, I can't smoke a spliff before a race, but I can drink coffee. I know which one is more likely to enhance my performance. And, if we want to be pedantic, a banana is performace enhancing. I'll perform better in a sprint if I eat a banana five minutes before the race, compared to if I didn't, assuming all other factors are identical.
However, if you just say doping is allowed, sport becomes a competition between those who have the most effective drugs. No normal person is going to be interested in it, except in the cases where you have huge monsters fighting each other. I don't care how fast someone can run if they're ripped to the tits on amphetamines, or how much weight a steroidman can lift. What's the point? Competition then becomes a measure of how effective drugs are, rather than a measure of athletic ability.
So no, fuck that. Doping in sport is bad, and it shouldn't be allowed.
|