Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Allen Vs. PEDs - Part 2

I last left off with my opinions addressing what actually constitutes a PED. Sain commented regarding marathons. He wrote:
What about marathons, where you basically need to eat something or risk hitting the wall? I suppose you could argue you could eat regular foods, like banana, but then that's enhancing as well, no?

Great question and more relevant than you can imagine. In fact, I do believe that eating any "regular" foods are a form of "enhancing" as well. Marathons are the most popular "endurance" race and should be judged based solely on a body's abilities to endure the rigors of 26.2 miles. There is nothing that make marathons any different from another endurance race. Why allow people to draw a shroud over their true performance and spread the lies of a finish time aided by supplements? Sain writes about the risk of hitting "the wall". Well, if you hit "the wall", then fuckin' deal with it. This is what should separate the best from the great from the good from the mediocre.

Now that I've addressed "what constitutes a PED?", I'd like to address the question of "how much do PEDs really matter for you and I?".

How much impact does a PED have on a person like you or me?
This more or less stems from a big pet peeve of mine. What annoys me more than anything is the statement(or what I'd like to call an excuse) some people make regarding their running, swimming, cycling, etc. Have you ever heard this?

Sorry, I can't run X miles without some Gu.

Oh man, I forgot to bring my Gatorade. I should probably just run for a little while.

Crap, forgot my cycling gloves. I NEED those to cycle.

Let's get something straight. You don't NEED anything. It's not the end of the world to do any of these things without your precious special equipment, apparel, or drinks/foods. Can you run those X miles without Gu. I guarantee it. Sure, it won't be as cozy, but maybe your worthless spoon-fed Nicole Richie mindset can use a good kick in the ass. There's an excellent anecdote in the December 2009 issue of Runners' World that tells the story of a guy who forgot his running shoes and ended up running a marathon in his dress shoes. Now that's what I'm talking about. All this fancy pants gear or apparel made of special NASA expedition fabrics are completely over the top. Running is purely just that. Get outside and run. Cycling is just that. Get on your bike and start pedaling.

So back to OTC PEDs. I say, to hell with all the supplements out there. I should be able to perform just as well with or without them. They certainly aren't helping our friend, Big Papi. Unless VitaminWater has changed their beverage direction to "helping you play baseball like crap".


I contend that the average person can achieve exactly the same results with and without these so-called PEDs. It may take the average person more work and time to do so. But, there's satisfaction in it. Accomplishing a goal or feat without succumbing to the world-wide hoodwink driven by both the consumers and producers of these PEDs.

So far, this has all been a lot of hearsay and conjecture. I should put my money where my mouth is. Challenge accepted!

My dear friend, Melvin, is a newly avid runner. He has just completed his first marathon (The Seattle Marathon) and is a strong lobbyist for all manufactured energy/sports ingestible substances. Before the Seattle Marathon, he went as far as to say something to the effect of "One should bring his/her own Gu in case they're giving away different kinds at the race stations". Are you fuckin' kidding me?! Read that again! If this isn't a PED, then I don't get it. It's gotten to a point where there are preferences.

Anyway, I've agreed to a slapbet. Within one year's time, I need to run a marathon(my first). If my time is faster than Melvin's, then I win. Otherwise, Melvin wins.
  1. Slapbet commisioner is Rob Blankenship.
  2. The marathon I choose should be comparable to the Seattle Marathon. In all likelihood, I'll just run the Seattle Marathon next year to put to rest any balking at the marathon that I choose.
  3. I have to beat a chip time of 3:53:12.
  4. During the race, I cannot ingest anything other than water.
Let it be known that this slapbet was a done deal before Melvin's marathon, so it's not like he loafed it at all. This will essentially pit a well-oiled machine with PEDs against another well-oiled machine. In the end, we'll know if my claims are true. I fully intend to exploit that this is all nonsense.

Of course, I already see a number of fallacies in this experiment:
  1. It should be me versus me with PEDs. But, that's gonna take too long, so we'll just go with this. On the bright side, it brings a competitive nature between Melvin and I.
  2. I'm kind of in a catch-22 with my own arguments. If I win, I essentially deem PEDs worthless, but also denounce that they indeed are performance enhancing drugs. If I lose, I prove that they are performance enhancing drugs. Well...yes and no...I'd still consider them performance enhancing drugs regardless of the outcome, because we don't know how I would have finished using them.
  3. It's not a totally controlled experiment because of weather, age, and physical structure. We're doing the best we can! Give us an A for effort....at least a participation award.
So this basically concludes my small diatribe against PEDs and a year's worth of marathon training to look forward to. I've started to run again as of last week. Watch out, Melvin!

3 comments:

Melvin said...

Another "plausible" argument against your misguided diatribe would be to take issue with your definition of PEDs. I would argue that what separates PEDs from the regular ol' supplements that you're railing against is the notion/myth/fact that PEDs (read: steroids and such) are actually BAD for your health longterm. It makes sense (to me, anyway) that governing bodies for sports would not want to be in the position of encouraging the untimely deaths of their players and so they'll ban steroids and tell people with concussions to sit out a little (or pretend that repeated concussions don't result in lasting damage)

Anyway, why are you drawing the line before water? If you want to take this argument to its logical conclusion it seems you should also do the marathon sans water. Why would you want to "draw a shroud over (your) true performance and spread the lies of a finish time aided by" water?

sainueng said...

The water line is also something I wonder about.

I'm going to stick to discussing your more controversial views of over-the-counter PED for average folks, since I don't know what to say w/ regards to pro sports. I think that is a large blurry line, and in the end, it's just a matter of enough people in the position of power agreeing upon some line.

I guess my stance would be based primarily on the questions of "what are you trying to achieve" and "what are you willing to sacrifice for it".

If you are trying to get some exercise and you want to minimize the odds of hurting yourself, then why shouldn't you use equipment and supplements to aid you? Granted, there is a blurry line where use of such things may actually hinder your original exercise goal (see the current barefoot running revolution), but that is up to the individual to determine. Their goal may not be worth wrecking their body. I personally agree w/ you that wussing out completely because you don't have your customary gear is generally speaking weak. But it could also be a matter of risk vs. reward.

How much these supplements actually aid you is debatable, I agree. But on the other hand, if having them makes the exercise more comfortable, or if it's even a placebo or security blanket that gets you out and exercising, then maybe that alone is worth it. Your arguments, to me, are when these supplements become so engrained that they have become barriers to exercise. Which is plausible.

The more ambiguous and controversial point I'm perhaps avoiding is what about the person trying to achieve a personal record. Or what constitutes a personal record. I'm not sure I have an answer, so my answer is that is up to the individual. ^_^

sainueng said...

I've been giving this some thought, and I suddenly remembered my own marathon experience.

I took PED during my marathon. But I also refused certain PED during my marathon.

During my marathon, one of my calves and hamstring was starting to tighten up. So I stopped at one of the medical tents that offered Biofreeze, the new Bengay. However, I turned down Tylenol.

So why allow Biofreeze but turn down Tylenol? To be honest, it was an emotional, gut feeling decision. I was willing to use something help a localized problem but I felt that system-wide pain relief was too risky. I wanted to retain some notion of control.

My goal was to finish the marathon, w/ relative comfort. I think that meant 2 things in particular: 1) I was willing to do certain things to help me finish, which included training for like half a year and the Biofreeze, and 2) I was going to do all I can to avoid hitting the wall, which meant I ate ALL the food provided, even if I didn't need it. That was my goal and I did what I felt was reasonable given that goal.

Finally, at the end of the race, I took the Tylenol and ice for my knees. By that point I had finished the race and I was willing to take almost whatever PED (i.e. not steroids) to help me recover and avoid injuries.

Not sure if that contributes anything to the discussion, but I figure I should just post something from personal experience. Have fun training for the marathon Allen!! ^_^

Post a Comment