Hacker News Reader

> A truly "fair" sport would pit competitors against each other who had near-identical genetic and physical traits.

That's what the Olympics is. The men's 100m final pits against each other the fastest 8 men who are in their physical prime, full of fast twitch muscles, with West African descent. With some minor noise.

If you want to watch people from other genotype buckets run 10-50% slower, you can watch the women's event or the Paralympics or, like, the All-Vietnam U-16 event. It seems churlish to complain that not every bucket is on TV at a convenient time for you.

> preventing athletes from modifying their biochemistry turns most sports into a genetic lottery showcase.

Genetics are necessary to a point, and are not at all sufficient.

Any follower of a sport knows of athletes with incredible genetic blessings who accomplish little or nothing because they lack the hard work, discipline, focus, skill, emotional management, teamwork, etc. to succeed. And that sample omits far more athletes whose non-genetic limitations caused them to drop out or fail out before making it to the level where public is aware of them.

At the same time, the GOATs (greatest of all time) in many sports were not particularly blessed genetically, relative to other top atheletes:

* Football / soccer: Lionel Messi: 5'7", ~160 lbs., and had growth hormone deficiency [0], and is small, and not particularly fast or strong. "Messi’s “software” is what often gives him a head-start on those who physically should have the better of him." If you're interested, this article describes it in some detail: [1]

* American football: Tom Brady was notoriously unathletic, setting records for poor performance in the NFL's scouting 'combine' where draft prospects are compared in standardized tests. Also didn't have a strong throwing arm.

* Basketball is an exception: Michael Jordan was supremely athletic.

* Baseball: Babe Ruth was overweight, not known to be particularly fast or athletic, and played a position for relatively poor athletes who could hit: right field (gets the fewest plays, usually doesn't require more than running to a spot and throwing).

* Hockey: Wayne Gretzky was relatively small, not very fast, didn't have a hard shot.

* Tennis? Boxing? Cricket? Rugby?

These people are far more athletic than ordinary people, of course; I'm comparing them to other professionals in their sports.

[0] Wikipedia

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/4008225/2022/12/16/lionel-m...

Olympics are literally a showcase of the genetic lottery. We can have Testtube Olympics alongside Special Olympics if there is sufficient interest.

1988 All-Drug Olympics (SNL Weekend Update sketch)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAdG-iTilWU

No, the olympics are a doping competition, and a meta-competition of “who is better at not getting detected.”

In general, the statement “if they got a medal, they cheated” is true so much of the time that it becomes a sensible default assumption. And it sucks for the few that didn’t cheat.

It’s best of competition, not everybody at the same time on finish line equity gathering.

So the olympic games do pit near-identical competitors against each other.

> The Olympics is just watching the people who won genetic lotteries.

So? The olympic games should be the pinnacle of human performance (fed by their nation's interests). Of course it is lotteries all the way from the genetics, to what country you're born in, right to the national lottery putting money in to sports.

Your alternatives are either a proliferation of categories or random people assembling every four years to roll dice to determine the winner. Neither is exciting.

There's no inherent reason that the second man couldn't make it to the Olympics in the air pistol event.

Most sports are a genetic lottery showcase regardless of how many drugs you take.

Yeah so athletes with more money and better access to doping products win instead.

Hard pass.

Also will encourage athletes to give themselves long term health issues for short term performance gains.

I'm of the "your body, your choice" mind

To me the decision to take PED's doesn't feel different than being an alcoholic or having an abortion.

I wouldn't recommend anyone become an alcoholic, but it's their life and people ought to have the freedom of choice.

Would you think it a poor dynamic if a company offered to pay people a good salary simply to be heavy sustained drinkers, but only for some limited amount of time? I'd say the problem is that the Moloch attractor tends to undermine this lofty ideal of "freedom of choice".

I’m not sure kids in competitive sports will be able to make an informed decision without any pressure.

Sure, adults should be able to take PEDs if they want to. But there's no reason to allow doping cheaters to enter sanctioned competitive events. It's no different from forcing all competitors to follow equipment rules. Like for the discus throw everyone has to use the same weight. Or for bike racing you can't install a motor.

At least that produces tangible value for the rest of us this way.

Current idea of sports is that athletes wreck themselves for mere performance value (and money to the people who set it up, with a bit trickling down to athletes for enabling it all). As far as I understand, nothing they directly do is otherwise reusable to anyone else.

I’d rather watch a live commercial for human enhancement industries. At least that’s something that eventually becomes available to everyone.

What's the point of this post? You're missing the forest for the trees. It's like saying racing is driver against driver, not driver and car against driver and car. Motivation has NEVER made up for physical fitness, never will, and never should. The olympics are about the human body first.

  > What's the point of this post?

I don't see the Olympics as a particularly "fair" sport in the first place, in the sense of "fair" meaning "without favoritism" because physical capability is a vast spectrum.