Monday, October 17, 2016

Performance Enhancing

The claim that Hillary Clinton was on ‘performance-enhancing drugs’ during her debate appearance is rather silly. Not only because it is unlikely but because it would not be a bad thing if she were. I would want my president working at maximum efficiency and if a not-particularly-dangerous drug helped in that, I am all for it.

Most of us take a PED every morning — caffeine. It is effective and pretty safe but does, of course, have its drawbacks. We know the side effects, the mild withdrawal symptoms. Should it be banned?

Note that large quantities of caffeine ARE banned by the organizations that control amateur sports. These people, in my opinion, are far more stringent than necessary and the reason for this is the idea that the use of drugs is somehow ‘cheating.’ There should be only one reason to prohibit a substance and that is because it is dangerous.

Otherwise, it is no more than a form of ‘effective nutrition,’ as we used to refer to such things in the gym (yes, I was a very serious bodybuilder at one point). It is no different than taking vitamins or, for that matter, eating better and training harder than the next competitor.

If Ms. Clinton did take something to help her in the debate (and, again, I doubt it), it would not be cheating. It would be using what was available in an effective and sensible manner.

No comments: