This is almost universally true for any professional sport. Ultimately, it's personal preference, and the people at the top are committed to fighting to get to the top anyway.
It's about keeping danger to the athlete to a moderate level.
The line has to be drawn somewhere because a pro athlete will do the dumbest thing to gain an advantage. And with doping, we've nearly seen where this can end with pro bicycle riders like Bjarne with a hematocrit of 64%.
Some sports ban certain techniques to protect athletes, just some examples:
* Backflip in figure skating
* Sommersault in longjump
* Spinning javelin in javelin throw
* Cartwheel in shot put
True, and if anything I'm arguing for exactly that, keeping danger to a moderate level.
It's just that doping is only one way, so ignoring something like this which seems likely to cause lasting damage because 'destroying the body for sport is not unusual' is a bit weird when on the other hand athletes are subjected to incredibly invasive surveillance to avoid the temptation to use even the tiniest amount of substances.
I honestly believe that some forms of doping are less dangerous than professional sport per se. This isn't the fairest comparison but far fewer cyclists died of EPO than by trying to descend too quickly.
I wouldn’t compare these. While both are bad and should be addressed, there’s a difference between “moving like this repeatedly for 20 years might cause mobility issues” and “injecting this might cause a heart attack”.
There is doping and there is doping. I don't see why athletes over say 30 can't do some mild oral steroids to bring them back to the testosterone levels of a 25 year old. Would help with recovery and probably lessen the severity of injury.
Medical studies agree that steroid use reduces life expectancy, it's one of the core reasons why they're highly regulated. Not only does it reduce life expectancy, but time spent healthy is reduced as well, meaning that not only might you die a number of years earlier, you'll run into age related illnesses a number of years earlier as well.
Studies don't show that for mild oral steroid use after 30, I also gave reasons I suspect it would be net beneficial for health.
Men have lower testosterone levels than their grandfathers, there are many possible causes but the treatment I'm talking about only really brings you to a bit above where grandpa would've been.
I would dose based on testosterone levels, if they took steroids out of program that would show in the blood work and the dose adjusted to zero, after that you test for the now prohibited steroid use.
The goal isn't to get them to a superhuman level, just to level the best genetics produce.