M E N T O R

would suggest that if we made sure athletes
were not put at harm, a goal much easier
to achieve by allowing widespread, above
board doping, all we are witnessing is the
next big development in sport.
Why are we so concerned about this
change? Some people cry that it takes away
the enjoyment of watching the competition,
but this is inconsistent with our love of the
performers and artists in every other walk
of life. I reach peak coffee about half an
hour after I neck a cup. It’s like carb loading
but for writing ability and as I type this I
feel warmed up and well stretched. It won’t
last, and when you spot a good paragraph
you can be assured there was an espresso
to thank. That’s performance enhancement
for you. Similarly, athletes gain a significant
benefit shortly after ingesting caffeine, so
much so that you would be a fool to not
take some tablets with you to a competition.
Of course, we cannot ban caffeine because
we would reduce our eligible pool of sportspeople
to a handful of post-menopausal
women with weak bladders who, in anticipation
of their call-up, have been avoiding
caffeine for years. But that is the conclusion
we have to reach if we keep up this Luddite
witch hunt for progressivists. The Olympic
Committee might as well revoke every
world record created after Starbucks was established
because all of them were created
unnaturally, on drugs. We should be fighting
the return to sport’s origins, not actively
seeking it. The only difference between
caffeine and Sharapova’s recent ban due to
meldonium is that we started banning drugs
after caffeine was discovered.
The same argument stretches to so many
walks of life. Would you deny The Beatles
LSD? Because I’m not a big fan of Sergeant
Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band
but I hear they have a few followers out
there. The album wouldn’t be the same,
for sure, and their competitive status as the
greatest band of all time might have been
challenged. It frees my mind, man. Well,
EPO frees me from the crippling pain of
cycling up a 1 in 3 hill, friend. As the public
continuously clamours for the greatest
spectacle since the last time they turned on
the TV, the pressure on athletes and artist
to perfect their form builds. ‘Natural’ development
can only take us so far - if you keep
demanding entertainment then we need to
allow our entertainers to source new means
of improvement.
The competitive element is obviously fundamental
to the argument. Drugs tilt the
field quite significantly but that only matters
if you’re playing for spoils. This is not
so applicable to artists who are just trying
to achieve personal greatness, rather than
outdo each other as sportsmen and women
are. But let’s re-level the playing field: give
everyone on the Tour EPO and the problem
disappears. If you’re still uneasy with
its use, I suppose you must be unhappy with
them outdoing their historical counterparts.
Who else is being cheated? Though, as we
have seen, this is a not a problem of our
generation, nor a problem of illicit and
controlled drugs. Future generations will always
outdo their ancestors.
Purists of sport are frothing at the mouth
in rage, without stopping to consider what
they’re angry about. It’s just easiest, I suppose,
to shout about banning cheats loud
enough to drown out any progressive thinking,
but where do we end up? Like all angry
mobs, they will quieten down when no
longer stoked by reactionary voices and
slowly, but surely, sport will progress to its
natural end: giant, bionic humans on cocaine
battling each other to their simulated
death. I, for one, can’t wait.
___________
Originally published in North Wing Magazine,
available here:
http://northwingmagazine.com/
I look forward to reading your letters.
Fewer than 300 words, received no later than 14th
February 2017.
For submissions and enquiries:
mag@medicmentor.org
74
75