"This one is multi-faceted: choose one, two or all three:
1. Pick an element of the sport you'd rather not write about, and write about it (political, cultural, long-term effects on the athletes' health, positive effects of doping, etc).
2. Write a T/F op-ed that is convincing but antithetical to your own beliefs.
3. Explain the relative lack of interest in T/F (and in other more European sports, like soccer and rugby) in the U.S.
Must be a long weekend. I'm feeling a bit contrarian today."
Okay, you rascal, I'm going to something that goes against my better judgement. I'm going to try writing that fictional op-ed you suggested.
[DISCLAIMER] THIS IS A WORK OF FICTION. THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS POST MOST DEFINITELY DO NOT EXPRESS THE OPINIONS OF FINISH LINE PUNDIT.[/DISCLAIMER]
Doping in Track and Field Should Be Legal. There, I said it. Either that, or a long list of current devices and aids that artificially improve a track and field athlete's performance should also be banned: starting blocks, synthetic track surfaces, fiberglass poles, pits, heart-rate monitors, electrolyte replacements drinks, running tights, Goretex, orthotics, legs, the list goes on and on.
Wait a minute. Did you say legs?
The IAAF's Competition Rules 2006-2007 repeatedly mention the concept of "unfair advantage to the athlete."
Doping is the use by or distribution to an athlete of certain substances which could have the effect of improving artificially the athlete's physical and/or mental condition and so augmenting his athletic performance.
In short, doping is normally aimed at (at least) six aspects that a competitor needs to surpass the limits of human capability. They are improvement in speed, strength, endurance, mental attitude, coordination and the relief of pain.
A "dope" or 'doping substance" thus is any drug or drug preparation which is used with the intention of modifying advantageously such human capability to perform.
