Baking soda and a second breath...

[Mullins]

Creatine morally wrong, then?

 

[rxcnc2]

I know it's not polite to answer a question with another questions... but can you tell me why some performance-enhancing substances are permitted and others are prohibited?

Another question: the main effect of packing is to increase the net amount of oxygen in our lungs, which can be done of course also by inhaling a single gulp of air with higher concentration of O2. Why one is legal and the other one not?

I cannot say what is morally right or wrong, but I do have these doubts.

 

[Mullins]

I know it's not polite to answer a question with another questions... but can you tell me why some performance-enhancing substances are permitted and others are prohibited?

A variety of reasons, but I think it mostly boils down to two: safety and fairness. It would be irresponsible to allow drugs that greatly increase performance and have dangerous side-effects. Athletes would then have to choose between their health (or even their survival) and success, which benefits nobody. As for fairness, the best drugs in some cases cost a lot of money and some athletes would not be able to afford them. In this aspect, drugs are treated like high-tech equipment.

There is also the matter of what the sport aims to measure or represent - see below.

Another question: the main effect of packing is to increase the net amount of oxygen in our lungs, which can be done of course also by inhaling a single gulp of air with higher concentration of O2. Why one is legal and the other one not?

Because the aim of freediving as a sport, at least under AIDA, is to facilitate and measure human performance under conditions that, while relatively controlled, are otherwise representative of real-world situations. This keeps the performances largely relevant to more popular activities like spearfishing or just clowning around in pools, to which most people can relate. If you remove that general equivalence (like Guinness does by recognising O2 statics), perspective on the performance becomes difficult or is lost altogether. It becomes more of a freak show than a sport. Packing, by contrast, is a technique that anybody can use.

Incidentally, breathing pure O2 doesn't just shift the focus of the sport too far from its origins; it also comes under the 'dangerous drug' category.

For each of the three aspects above (safety, fairness and relevance) there is obviously a continuum rather than discrete categories waiting there to be uncovered and defined. A drug can be moderately expensive, only slightly harmful and occasionally used in equivalent recreational activities. Sporting bodies have to choose where to draw the line so that everybody knows where they stand. The whole point of a sport is to establish rules within the bounds of which athletes can innovate. But if you take the position that there is little difference between substances above and below the 'acceptable' line, you are pretty much abandoning that process and everything an athlete does, uses or ingests then goes onto a sliding scale from 'least wrong' to 'most wrong'. That's seldom useful unless you're in the process of revisiting the rules.

So... yes the rules are arbitrary. Sporting rules always are. But once they are established there is a world of difference, in moral terms, between using those that are legal and using those that are banned.

 

[rxcnc2]

Yes all of your points have occurred also to me, and when I think long enough about them I see that my doubts are justified.

 

[Mullins]

You feel justified in doubting that it's morally acceptable to pack in a freediving comp? I think you can probably rest easy on that score.

You mentioned above it was a 'fine line'. I don't think it's a fine line at all, once the position of the line has been decided. It's very clear cut.

 

[rxcnc2]

As I wrote, I don't see the moral difference between packing and breathing some O2.

You like testing the human limits: both do. You think O2 is dangerous? sure it is, that's why it is done with medical supervision. you think packing is not dangerous? I beg to differ. you think O2 gives long-term effects? I don't think so. You think O2 is expensive? it isn't. You think that O2 is against the "pureness" of the sport? Sure it is, I agree, but then why do we say "one breath" when you go to a dive competition and you see people breathing 30 times starting one minute before OT?

Mind you, I am not trying to say we should have O2 (I am against it!) and I am not trying to ban packing. But I just picked one case, I could list tens more. That's why I say that I have doubts and I understand Trux' comment, nothing more and I also think I am seriously going off topic so I'll stop

 

[trux]

I know it's not polite to answer a question with another questions... but can you tell me why some performance-enhancing substances are permitted and others are prohibited?

Besides what Dave answered, another reason is also detectability. At many substances it is simply impossible to detect them or distinguish between natural and artificially induced levels (that's the case of creatine too, as far as I remember).

As to my original claim that I do not find it ethical and moral to take substances for improving the performance - I do not care whether others take them or not, and was not suggesting banning all of them. It's more my personal feeling towards myself. Everyone is free to act as he likes. I prefer purely natural approach. I do not care knowing how longer I can hold if I fill up with lemon juice, baking soda, creatine, or other substances. I want to know what my performance is in my natural state. I want to dive continuously, but I have not the slightest wish to feed my body with chemistry for that purpose. Others have certainly a different opinion and I don't care. I am just amazed that many beginners who can double or triple their performances by better technique and some training, prefer searching first what drugs will help them getting better fast. I find it sad.

Adjusting own diet in the way that you make it healthier is fine with me. Consuming vitamins, minerals or other supplements would be still acceptable if one is unable to get sufficient balanced levels in normal food for some reason (bad quality of food, or increased demand due to intensive training or disease).

However changing my own diet in the sole purpose of improving the breath-hold, while potentially risking bringing the organism out of natural balance (for example by acidic or alkaline diet) is not what I am willing to do.

EDIT: packing is morally fine with me, though I am also not willing to start packing excessively, gaining perhpas some precious seconds while damaging my lungs. That's a safety concern, not an ethical one.

 

[Mullins]

As I wrote, I don't see the moral difference between packing and breathing some O2.

You like testing the human limits: both do. You think O2 is dangerous? sure it is, that's why it is done with medical supervision. you think packing is not dangerous? I beg to differ. you think O2 gives long-term effects? I don't think so. You think O2 is expensive? it isn't. You think that O2 is against the "pureness" of the sport? Sure it is, I agree, but then why do we say "one breath" when you go to a dive competition and you see people breathing 30 times starting one minute before OT?

Mind you, I am not trying to say we should have O2 (I am against it!) and I am not trying to ban packing. But I just picked one case, I could list tens more. That's why I say that I have doubts and I understand Trux' comment, nothing more and I also think I am seriously going off topic so I'll stop

[takes deep breath]

The moral difference is that one is allowed in our sport and the other is not - therefore to use it would be cheating. I'd condemn somebody who used O2 but I don't care if people pack. If you're talking about recreational diving then there is no morality involved; people can do what they like.

02 would kill people if used for depth comps, and probably also if used in the pool. CO2 blackouts = orders of magnitude more dangerous than packing.

Death is a long-term effect.

Never said O2 was expensive.

The 'One breath' refers to the fact you can only take 1 breath with you on a freedive. You can take as many as you like beforehand, but you have to exhale all except the last one, because that's how breathing works.

It's all very well to talk about personal preferences. But to call something immoral is different, and a big call - you're effectively calling me an immoral competitor because I've used creatine, sodium bicarbonate, lemon juice, iron etc. I have absolutely no problem with doing this, because it's a level playing field (incidentally I haven't found a performance gain with any of them, so I don't bother any more).

And Eric Fattah - well, he's the devil!!

 

[rxcnc2]

Dave, you are putting in my mouth statements that I never said.. oops I should say fingers and wrote.

 

[Mullins]

Which ones? I didn't want to quote every statement separately and reply to it; gets a bit messy. They're intended as direct responses to things you've said though, so I could go back and do that?

There may be some confusion because I'm talking mainly about competitive diving here. If you're just talking about recreational diving then I largely agree: anything goes and there is no difference between (say) steroids and packing in moral terms, because there's simply no moral standard in place for people to adhere to. People can go take HGH, EPO, beta blockers and (heaven forbid!) sodium bicarbonate and best of luck to them.

 

[trux]

[takes deep breath]
It's all very well to talk about personal preferences. But to call something immoral is different, and a big call - you're effectively calling me an immoral competitor because I've used creatine, sodium bicarbonate, lemon juice, iron etc. I have absolutely no problem with doing this, because it's a level playing field (incidentally I haven't found a performance gain with any of them, so I don't bother any more).

It's difficult, but between a clearly immoral behaviour (taking illegal substances or cheating) and perfectly clean natural performance, there are thausands of shades of the "morality". I do not think that the official WADA list of banned substances represents the real threashold between morality and immorality. It was discussed here on DB frequently that there are drugs not on the WADA list that may considerably improve the performance of a breath-hold diver. Is it then perfectly moral to take them just because they are not banned, and just because the competitor cannot be disqualified? I do not think so. Perhaps others do not mind, but I would not find it correct.

I would not call you immoral for using creatine or other legal substances, but frankly told I am glad you did not find any performance gain with them and avoid them.

 

[mystiach]

Well, to throw a cat amongst the pigeons even more, what about using fins and a suit? That's enhancing physical capacity. As has been said, if there are regulations in place for competition, that is where the line is drawn. Morality is more about if there are things that are banned but you do them on the sly to gain unfair advantage over fellow competitors anyway - otherwise, it's got absolutely nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with personal sensibility and stupidity

Trux, I agree advocating that anything that is unhealthy should be avoided, and I think that is where most of the regulations come from in the first place. The fact that the undetectable substances so closely mirror natural responses and levels in the body implies that they don't have a significantly negative effect (mind you, I know little about them and I have no interest in using them either).

All sports evolve, and when things come up that give significant advantage, they either adopt them into the sport or ban them. After a few years people stop making a fuss about it and it becomes accepted. It takes time to get the rules balanced and because this is such a new sport, perhaps it is behind, but play according to the rules and nobody can be accused of doing anything 'unfair'. Once upon a time people would have thought it madness to spend 3-5 hours exercising every day and live according to a strict diet, but that is what our sportsmen do these days. Not to mention the crazy aerodynamic bodysuits, carbon fiber equipment and goodness knows what else!

Hmm... I say it's a real shame that chocolate or beer aren't wonder enhancers... if so, somehow I'm guessing there would be less opposition to their use

 

[Mullins]

I think we'll just have to differ there Trux. I see it as pretty black and white: the governing body sets the rules, and within those rules we do what we want. That's sport. Training methods, techniques, equipment, diet, supplements - all just parts of the arsenal we deploy when we compete. If particular legal substances are considered dodgy then it's the rules that need improving.

Settingsteel, look at all the trouble you've caused! rofl

 

[Mullins]

Mystiach - I'm with you on the 'natural' thing. Better get rid of the mono, the fluid goggles, the suit, the noseclip and any physiological adaptations you've accumulated...

 

[mystiach]

Haha - yep - I can think of plenty of people who would be advocating no suit!

I, however, like to enjoy modern comforts rofl

 

[trux]

Well using fins for CNF or DNF would be certainly cheating. And I'd tell using fins for disciplines with fins is rather comprehensible. I have also nothing against using O2 for O2 records - it belongs there, but should not be mixed with normal freediving. And if someone wants to openly create a record under EPO, betablockers, or other drugs, I have nothing against it either - no moral problems as long as it is presented for what it is. I still have problems with manipulating the body chemistry artificially for standard competitions, records, or even recreational diving, regardless whether the drugs are banned or not. That's just my own personal preference, and I won't enforce it anywhere, or judge someone else by it. It is up to everyone to choose their way.

 

[Mullins]

Fins are in the rules, yeah. But so, by omission, is manipulation of body chemistry. Same situation, and both equally 'natural' (i.e. not very)?

Whether you judge by rules or by 'naturalness', there's still no difference between fins & creatine. Both are legal and unnatural.

I can understand the personal aversion to drugs, supplements etc though. I largely share it and would prefer not to use them. I'd be very careful about making moral judgements about it, that's all

 

[mystiach]

And I'd tell using fins for disciplines with fins is rather comprehensible..

Of course it is - but it gets really messy now technology has become involved in improving sport performance. The bottom line is that if you want to compete you have to stay on the cutting edge of development. Sad but true. I don't think my little soft lap swim bifins from the 90s would really cut it in DYN or CWT...

 

[Johan Andersson]

I don't know if it was already posted here, but for a substance or method to be put on the WADA Prohibited List it has to either mask the use of another substance or fulfil at least two of the following three requirements:

- increase performance
- be potentially dangerous to the health
- break the "spirit of sports"

 

[rddk]

I think that having a diet that help the "engine" work better has no problem, i mean if the sustance is legal and admitted it mean that studies has been doing on it and it do not change ur performance in a relevant way, i explain myself better. Take food supplements like spirulina, amminoacid, vitamins, creatine all sustance that are LEGAL and not dangerous just give to ur body some nutrients for have a better efficency and work in optimal condition, but they don't make the performace, behind 200+ metres in dynamic there's hard training of hours and years spent behind it. Obviusly taking o2 will make the performace faked because it will change it in a relevant way. taking certain supplement and have a particular diet will just make ur body in his best efficency not more not less. Changing our diet for work better is normal i mean i take coffee every morning with some milk but obviusly i avoid coffee when i go freediving i mean is it doping? I agree with trux when he says that newerby think to improuve they're performance justa taking this stuff, that's because lot of people don't know what is sacrifice and wanna reach they're goal in the shortest way even if it's not properly clean. Same thing for the equipment for do not have disavantages at all athlets must use the same wetsuit, fins, mask, googles ecc... This is nonsense. You can give all the supplement you want and best equipment to me but if i don't train myself hard in a competition people well trained like dave will do more than me just farting.