Lol... - The Olympics would be better if athletes were allowed to take drugs

Poor old Lance Armstrong. The seven-time Tour de France winner is likely to have all those famous victories taken away from him, after accusations by the United States Anti-Doping Agency that he used illicit performance enhancing drugs. He never tested positive for anything, but his decision not to fight his corner has been taken as tantamount to a confession. And why shouldn't he be punished? Doping is, after all, the ultimate sin of the professional athlete.

Dwain Chambers, the UK's fastest sprinter in the 100m race, was banned from competing in the Olympic Games after testing positive for the anabolic steroid tetrahydrogestrinone -- and even if his ban was overturned, he claimed in his autobiography that at least half of the US racing team at Beijing 2008 were using illegal substances. The battle to control drug use never, ever seems to end. So, why don't we accept doping will always happen, and legalise it? It may seem a crazy idea, but a switch to a pro-doping culture might be the inevitable future of sport.

It gets to the heart of what it is we want when we compete and watch sport, and also what we consider to be "normal" humanity. An athlete who takes a performance enhancing drug is relying on something that they don't themselves have to improve their performance -- whether that drug is naturally occurring or designed by scientists, whether that extra help skews their genetics to alter their humanity.

[link to www.wired.co.uk]