Peter Thiel backs 'Olympics on steroids' event that allows athletes to dope | Hacker News Reader

Peter Thiel backs 'Olympics on steroids' event that allows athletes to dope

nypost.com

17 pointsbeefman42 comments

Open articleView on HN

Requisite link to SNL's 1988 skit "All Drug Olympics"

https://youtu.be/jAdG-iTilWU

Given the dangers inherent in going all out in this it seems like a rather irresponsible thing to support actively

Responsibility and the PayPal mafia are not exactly best friends.

so pretty much this guys cuppa

No worries. Rich will have their roided gladiators, while state (society) will take care of their worn out bodies when their carrier is over.

If you ask me, the last thing we need is for people like Peter Thiel to live longer than absolutely necessary.

I like the idea. Current professional sports are a game of cat and mouse between team doctors and the doping agencies anyways so this should eliminate some of that shadow play.

Aren't steroids (criminally) illegal in many countries?

What is the point of this?

Belief that steroid and other drugs would push human endurance and strength to new records.

Oh, and money. It's always money.

Of Thiel's idea, or posting an article about him?

On the former, some people just want to see how far people can take it with PEDs. The Economist has advocated for this for years.

The former, and in general any public competition that encourages too much self-destruction. I mean, a dyed in the wool libertarian might be for it, but even they might have qualms.

Maybe it's a deliberate reductio ad absurdum of the Olympics?

Not only is Thiel a dyed in the wool libertarian, but he also owns the dye factory and patents.

I think it's probably just his version of yanking the chain, but if anybody wants to submit to the experiment I'm sure he'll be happy to sit back and watch.

I presume it's about seeing what the body (and mind) are capable of if you super-charged it?

Is that like seeing what colors someone can make if you set them on fire?

Nope.

If you wanted to make a semi sensible comparison it's similar to the Nazis, as they subjected their prisioners to a vast array of physical extremes.

Mind you the Olympics on Steroids would be voluntary so it's not quite to same, sans the absurdity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation

It would be kinda fun to watch.

I would not find it fun to watch a biological demolition derby.

> would not find it fun to watch a biological demolition derby

I guess I'm having trouble differentiating this from e.g. the NFL.

The difference is that the nfl is somewhat regulated. So this would be significantly worse for the humans involved.

I doubt that swimming competitions with PEDs would be worse than the NFL.

Swimming is not often a contact sport, so it's not really an apples to apples comparison.

Nor does one find American football in the Olympics, hence the comparison.

I don't watch football (or boxing) either, for the same reason. It's not fun watching men gradually destroying their brains.

I'm sure the athletes will be handsomely compensated for any damage occurring. Because that works so well in wrestling and elsewhere. /s

Wrestling? You mean the show bizz variant?

Yes. I was referring to stories like these https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8164026 (not the actual one I read, but can't find it right now).

It's about powerful owners exerting pressure on performers at the expense of their health.

When you put it like that, honestly, it sounds pretty epic....

My guess the "sport" aspect is just a front. The people are testsubjects for their greed.

Level playing field.

How many times have we heard athletes deny they were using PEDs, only for them to eventually be caught.

Longevity research is the primary driver.

>> The venture — aimed at aiding research into nutritional supplements and biohacks that push the boundaries of human performance

>> He said that the events are open to any athletes — current and former professionals and amateurs — and that allowing them to enhance their performance with substances will enable researchers to get a better idea of what technologies are out there that can boost longevity and “healthy aging.”

>> He said that the data would be “very useful to determining compounds and therapies to extending human life.”

If improving longevity is the goal, then all prizes should be cash paid 30 years after winning the competition (but only if you are alive).

Or a tontine--last person standing gets the loot--except for how those sometimes figure in murder mysteries.

It seems fairly well established at this point that many performance-enhancing drugs are not conducive to longevity. Quite the opposite, really.

Same as the point of disallowing it? They're both arbitrary, because the competition is pointless.

the point of disallowing it is to level the playing field so the athletic competition becomes a test of human effort and will.

Allowing it has the exact opposite effect, the athlete herself is worthless and it becomes a competition of who has the better drug cocktail or is more willing to sacrifice their health. There's nothing arbitrary about this, it destroys the very essence of what athleticism is about. It's as if we allowed chess engines at chess tournaments.

The actual point of this has of course nothing to do with sports:

"He said that the data would be “very useful to determining compounds and therapies to extending human life.”"

It's yet another typical Thiel supervillain-esque attempt to turn himself into Leto II.

Why not create a subcategory in Olympics for doped sportsman. They compete against eachother and not against the 'natural' athletes.

Scores of doped up athletes should not compare to regular athletes.

Physical aspects still very much play a role in the competition regardless of any drugs that help them. You can make a race Honda and a race Lamborghini and the Honda will still have a lot of catching up to do even if you put better parts on it. The starting point matters, when building race cars and when two people compete. All the steroids in the world won’t help someone who’s already at a disadvantage against a more fit and/or skilled opponent, who’s also on steroids.

I'm sure that's the desired intention, but the reality is that many elite level athletes are probably illegally doping (we don't test enough), most assuredly taking all legal enhancements (drugs or not), and the line between illegal and legal enhancements is arbitrary and dynamic.

> the athlete herself is worthless and it becomes a competition of who has the better drug cocktail or is more willing to sacrifice their health.

Everyone would be bigger, faster, stronger and the best athletes would come out on top. There’s an argument to be made that it’s a more level playing field than what you have now where most winners are using PED’s and you’re at a disadvantage and unlikely to win if you don’t.

It's not human effort and will. Some people have genetics that give them an advantage. The idea that the only difference between the 1st and 2nd place is effort is so naive it's childish.

Or do you think that in swimming, it's all the 6'5 guys with broad shoulders that have all the effort and will, but in the marathon it's all the 70kg guys that have the effort and will?

Techbro machismo

Reply on news.ycombinator.com