Hacker News Reader

Comment by gosub100 | Hacker News Reader

And to me, there's a distinction between taking a drug that increases availability of red blood cells vs taking steroids or meth.

View on HN

Isn't that really sport-dependent?

EPO and other red-cell increasing drugs provide a massive gain for endurance athletes (runners, cyclists, XC skiing). Steroids are a massive gain for strength athletes (sprinters/athletics, contact sports).

Both can be used "safely" or "unsafely" depending on dosage, combinations with other drugs, etc.

My opinion is that roids are much worse. And I included meth for dramatic contrast. It's not so much about the gain it's about the danger and harm. But I'm sure this will invite all sorts of semantic bickering about the meaning of the word "danger". As I said it's my opinion about where the line should be drawn.

My understanding of steroids is that they increase muscle mass all over the body. And that it's a long term health issue for the heart, because having a heart with excess muscle is actually bad long term. A few lifting YouTubers I follow have made videos on the subject. It seems like there's "less unsafe" steroid use, but there will be a life expectancy sacrifice with any level of use.

I don't know what the story is like for EPO and other red-cell increasing drugs. Would be curious to hear yours and a few others' understanding of the cost/benefit.

What's the distinction? What about taking something when you have a cold, or nutritional supplements? It seems weird to draw an arbitrary line between things that make a body perform by stimulating natural production vs directly using synthetics.

Seconded, there is no clear line between banned drugs that help you cheat and drugs that fix medical conditions. There are drugs that are allowed if you have a doctor's note, and there are drugs that you can use only up to a certain amount.

Asthma meds for cycling, some of which are steroids, are one of the more popular examples:

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/the-truth-abo...

WADA rules do not ban a drug just because it is performance enhancing. Otherwise caffeine would be banned.

Two out of three factors have to be present to ban a drug:

- be performance enhancing - present a health risk - violate the spirit of sport

The third one is a bit harder to define but there is a WADA code defining the spirit of sport.

Most banned drugs are banned because of the first two.

> Two out of three factors have to be present to ban a drug:

> - be performance enhancing - present a health risk - violate the spirit of sport

There also are drugs banned that mask the use of performance enhancing drugs. You could call that “violate the spirit of the sport”, but that’s so vague a term it could cover anything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com