For example, stimulants, nootropics, anxiolytics, etc. My thought process came from thinking about the growth of regulation in the Olympics over many years. I'm curious to know what the community thinks about this, since professional gaming (or streaming) is becoming more and more popular by the day but is still relatively new as a "sport".
Also I do not think Olympic athletes should be tested. I once competed at a very high level in sports and the use of drugs is significantly higher then anyone would expect. The difference was that the poorer countries only had access to old school steroids (testosterone, dbol, tren etc) while the richer countries had access to things which at the time were impossible to detect (GH, IGF-1, Research Peptides).
The effects of steroids specifically are seen many years after use, so unless you are testing the lifetime of an athlete the test is meaningless anyway.
2 twins, one does steroids for 2 years, one does not. The steroid user comes off of drugs for another 2 years, and still has a major advantage over the non-using athlete.
Many people like to believe our choices are between letting the best drug infused athlete win, or the best drug free candidate win.
But based on your comment and other readings I think that is a false choice, and the real choice is between letting the best drug infused athlete win, or letting the best athlete who can hide their drug use win.
The difference between natty and enhanced body building is not drug use, but deception.
Physical sports are a completely different thing. Games simply don't require the same kind of physical effort and so physiological-enhancements probably won't help.
Other than stimulants to keep people awake for long periods of time, I doubt there are any drugs that would serve as an unfair advantage.
Being well rested and physically healthy would probably be the most effective strategy.
Well if "professional gamers" want to be considered athletes, they should be subjected to the same amount of checks and restrictions that regular athletes are subjected to.
But not all stimulants etc are used for performance enhancement, etc. There are many legitimate uses so like anything else, there would have to be exceptions to “the rule.”
If it would be shown to give a clear significance in gaming, then I guess there should be screened for it. As it would indeed be offering an unfair advantage.
Right, in athletic sports, you're supposed to get by on training and skill. Drugs are seen as cheating. What sort of enhancements would be seen as cheating by gamers?
I'm not sure about beta blockers, but Adderall doesn't do well for games - it's more suited to holding down attention on things like spreadsheets. Modafinil doesn't work nearly as well as sleep. It helps in learning, but not so much on the battlefield, unless someone had an all nighter.
A few cups of tea might just do all of these better than drugs would. And things like L Theanine or creatine don't really need to be banned.
I agree with you, unless you have serious ADHD I don't think Adderall etc. would work very well.
I would imagine that Adderall would be useful for TRAINING for games, if you need to practice some repetitive task over and over (I'm thinking of ssbm here). Not that this warrants a ban.
There's also markets for gaming gear that has lower latency and modified gaming gear like console controllers with extra buttons or scriptable buttons.
I think the gear would give more of an advantage over drugs since it would be more consistent.
Many professional tournaments have everyone playing on the exact same hardware for this reason. You bring your keyboard/mouse and everything else is identical between competitors.
Also I do not think Olympic athletes should be tested. I once competed at a very high level in sports and the use of drugs is significantly higher then anyone would expect. The difference was that the poorer countries only had access to old school steroids (testosterone, dbol, tren etc) while the richer countries had access to things which at the time were impossible to detect (GH, IGF-1, Research Peptides).
The effects of steroids specifically are seen many years after use, so unless you are testing the lifetime of an athlete the test is meaningless anyway.
2 twins, one does steroids for 2 years, one does not. The steroid user comes off of drugs for another 2 years, and still has a major advantage over the non-using athlete.