Lance Armstrong Doping Scandal: It’s Time to Legalize Drugs in Sports

There are two hidden truths that no one seems to talk about when sports doping cases like Lance Armstrong’s fall from grace come to light.

Firstly, whether we admit it or not, almost every professional athlete is enhancing in some way or another. Secondly, the methods of testing and detecting performance enhancers cannot keep up with the rate of innovation — and new hormones, blood booster, absorption techniques and supplements are always being introduced faster than we can develop tests to find them.

So why are we still pursuing this futile battle? Why don’t we design a truly level playing field by allowing, regulating, and monitoring the use of any and all scientific enhancements? Tennis star Roger Federer wants to go the other way, and force athletes to have "blood passports" that keep annual records of their blood to be tested years down the line. We are now hearing newaccusations hurled against Olympians from this kind of back-record scrutiny. Boxer Julio Caesar Chavez Jr is even getting penalized for smoking marijuana, which isn't even a performance enhancer — although it certainly seems to have helped Michael Phelps stay cool in the pool.

Wouldn't it just make more sense to allow steroids, human growth hormones, blood boosters, supplements, and anything else we can find? Many people couldn't get past the fact that Lance Armstrong’s sociopathic apology read about as sincere as Casey Anthony’s sad face. But the real controversy is in pretending these isolated accusations are not indicative of a common practice throughout almost all sports.

I get the ideals of purity and level playing fields, but there are disparities and advantages even within the legal realms of athleticism. What would you call a nutritionist, personal trainer, physical therapist, or high-end sports gear and gym facilities? Keeping the enhancement practice under wraps only endangers the athletes further by not allowing it to be monitored by medical professionals. The more we normalize and standardize all advantages, the more performance comes down to the will of the individual athlete.

Original illustration by Nina Azzarello

Punishing athletes has done little to deter them, and all the cyclists who inherited Lance Armstrong’s Tour de France titles have been implicated in doping scandals of their own. It’s naive to think that only the ones we catch are doing it. If we legalized all forms of enhancement, we’d not only have an instantly even playing field, but it would also be one of peak performance and athletic ability — which is the essence of sports. Faster pitches, runs, and penalty shots. Harder tackles. Higher jumps. Increased agility, recovery and endurance. It makes the sports more watchable, profitable and enjoyable.

Why waste time drawing these arbitrary lines, when there’s already inane dispute within sports organizations as to what even constitutes an enhancer? Athletes are banned from human growth hormones — which can help with injury recovery — but can freely use muscle-building creatine. How are we defining what is kosher and what isn't?

For those worried about potential health risks, let’s remember we’re talking about people who put on armor to crash into each other, run for hours at a time, or wear knives on their feet to slide across ice. Danger is part of the game. Safely distributing, monitoring, and controlling performance enhancers on a case by case basis would only reduce the potential harm of indulging in them — as each athlete's regiment could be tailored and optimized.  

The last remaining component is historical purity, and not wanting to let synthetically-enhanced athletes take a place alongside "pure" hall of fame record holders. But most of the greats hold claims from antiquated eras — and every generation improves rules, talent pools, equipment, and regulations. Could Babe Ruth really compete in today's Baseball? Would Muhammed Ali be able to beat Wladimir Klitschko?

 

This is not a debate over spitballs or corner-cutting cheats. Every athlete is already doing this to some degree. Let’s just get it out in the open and see where the human body can truly go.

Gun Control Debate: New Gun Laws Arrive – But Will They Do Anything?

Congress is moving towards its first gun lawvote since the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in December. In that time, over 2,500Americans have been killed with guns, including 45 children and 127 teenagers. So why has it taken this long? Does this bill have a chance of becoming law? Most importantly, will it actually change anything about our violent culture?

The Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11-7 to strengthen penalties against illegal firearms purchases, pushing for the first congressional legislation on the matter since Sandy Hook. Meanwhile, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is demanding more bans on military-style assault weapons — a cause she has championed for years. She traces mass shootings in America’s history to the Austin 1966 clock tower. But the killer in that incident actually used a sniper rifle — a weapon not among the kinds being discussed. Other states have started moving on their own legislation, like South Dakota’s law allowing guns in classrooms. Obama’s deft political maneuverings, as covered by Politico, showed that he chose to include a lot of key gun groups in this debate ... on the strict condition they would be silent and supportive when it came time to announce the legislation. So whether effective or not, we shouldn't hear too much noise from the opposition.

That leaves the only meaningful question: will this have any actual effect on gun death rates in America?

Liberal views will be that this is a superficial bandage on a wound that still requires tougher medicine. Conservatives will say it’s an encroachment on a constitutional right, and that gun feature laws or vague "assault" labels will make most guns illegal. The pragmatic political perspective will claim that change comes in steps — some are disappointingly small, some are overambitious or too broad ... but it doesn't matter, just as long as we’re still moving forward!

But the real, ugly, and factual reality is that we can’t do anything about mass killings. Psychological testing wouldn't necessarily catch those who see no flaw in themselves. Weapons bans won’t affect someone determined to slaughter en masse. Even a full blown police state won’t stop sociopathic anomalies. But we’re not wrong to keep debating and trying ideas — because that’s how you ensure these incidents remain anomalies.

Studies do conclude that states with the most gun laws have fewest gun deaths. We've always addressed a rise in danger and violence with legislation — just look at anti-smoking laws or harsh penalties for DUI. But for a problem as prolific as our gun death rate, we should be trying far more avenues than one gun-specific legal sweep.

Most gun owners are sane and sensible people — they don’t deserve to have a hobby and constitutional right completely taken away from them. The NRA doesn't even represent the true interests of its members; it just lobbies for gun manufacturers and pushes whatever legislation will keep sales up. That’s why Wayne LaPierre supported universal background checks when they were never going to happen, but is now adamantly against them.

The truth is, Democrats only hurt their cause when they try to ban the guns that seem scary, because sales for those exact rifles skyrocket. The NRA even makes posters like this as part of that cycle:

 

By using bogus stats and scary stories the Democrats try to take on the role of championing helpless victims against violent lunatics. But instead of trying to pass legislation that will just infuriate conservatives and increase partisanship, why not follow through on the agenda linked to the Democratic platform?

Why not strengthen the inexplicably weakened A.T.F.? Choose an agency leader that will give the department teeth to take on the small groups dealing in illegal weapons. Why not focus on the true victims of gun violence? The highest numbers don't come from freak mass killing anomalies— they originate from violence in low income, economically and educationally neglected communities. The gun debate seems to only surge in the political arena when the victim draws unique attention from the public, or whenever Democrats can paint themselves as fighting the heartless opposition. But sensible drug policy reform would go a lot further in bettering the lives of the day-to-day victim. Police departments could be given better resources and mandates than simply arresting drug users. Education programs and smart social welfare reform could foster a stronger sense of community. Encouraging investment in afflicted metropolitan areas would incentivize businesses and police to keep the area safe.

If we are truly to claim that we want afflicted children to have better choices in life than  selling drugs and avoiding getting shot, we have to start removing the reasons most people shoot each other in the first place.

How Space Exploration Can Unite Humanity … Again

The Voyager spacecraft was launched in 1977 and is currently flying through the outermost layer of the Helioshpere — a region outside of our solar system where solar wind slows down due to pressure from interstellar gas.

Voyager still sends us regular information about its surroundings through the Deep Space Network (DSN) and carries aboard it a greeting for any extra-terrestrials who may bump into it. This little robotic hunk of metal, roaming the endless oceans of our galaxy, is a perfect symbol for humanity’s purest potential.

I wasn't alive to hear President Kennedy make the awe-inspiring speech that would launch man to the moon. By demanding that we take longer, more ambitious strides, Kennedy united us in innovation, and turned the deadly arms race into an altruistic space race. As a child of the 90s, my vision of the future was filled with jet-packs and moon bases — not iPhones and Internet pornography.

 

We have come a long way as a society, but we are also repeating a lot of our old mistakes. As our economy slowly climbs upwards, and our wars come to an overdue end, perhaps it is time we once again invest in dreams that truly move us forward. 

NASA has tragically lost a huge chunk of its budget, but the private sector is racing to fill the void. How will the corporate version of space exploration manifest? Will waste disposal companies start blasting our garbage off into the last frontier? Will travel agents book us on higher orbit holiday cruises to view our planet from the heavens? Billionaires have already invested in mining companies to gather precious resources from asteroids. Meanwhile, impatient millionaires are trying to organize their own missions to explore Mars.

While I applaud the private sectors diversity of ideas, competitive innovation and fast paced productivity, I still think there is a role for government to play in guiding our designs for a better future. When NASA launched voyager, it included a beautiful album of pictures which tried to give an overview of our species’ history, scientific discoveries, languages and spirit. It also included a beautiful message from former President Jimmy Carter:

"This Voyager spacecraft was constructed by the United States of America. We are a community of 240 million human beings among the more than 4 billion who inhabit the planet Earth. We human beings are still divided into nation states, but these states are rapidly becoming a single global civilization.

We cast this message into the cosmos. It is likely to survive a billion years into our future, when our civilization is profoundly altered and the surface of the Earth may be vastly changed. Of the 200 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy, some — perhaps many — may have inhabited planets and space-faring civilizations. If one such civilization intercepts Voyager and can understand these recorded contents, here is our message:

This is a present from a small distant world, a token of our sounds, our science, our images, our music, our thoughts, and our feelings. We are attempting to survive our time so we may live into yours. We hope someday, having solved the problems we face, to join a community of galactic civilizations. This record represents our hope and our determination, and our good will in a vast and awesome universe."

What nationalistic ideal, economic model or religious doctrine can surpass that beauty? Anyone who has looked out of his or her airplane window has enjoyed an elevated perspective of the anthill of humanity. The heightened overview of our streets, buildings, farms, and civilizations offers a glimpse of the cosmic viewpoint that could unite us.

Earth is a biological spaceship, spinning around a massive nuclear explosion. Our atmosphere is a paper-thin layer of blue harmony, which protects us from the harsh darkness of space. The biggest change in perspective that we garnered from going to the moon, was looking back at our precious world from a distance — and seeing that pale blue dot all alone, on which all of our lives play out. What better time than now, to discover our cosmic roots, and drive our education, technology and industry towards the stars that bore us?

The first space race redefined American culture into one of discovery and scientific innovation. Hundreds of technologies spun-off from the movement, and fed our home-grown economy. Most importantly, it is the best way to nourish our fundamental desire to explore.

Patent Trolls: Legal Warfare is Killing Intellectual Innovation

In the last few years, large financial institutions have been accumulating vast numbers of patents for the sole purpose ofsuing other companies, rather than create any new products themselves.

By owning an ocean of generalized patents, these companies can force smaller competitors, start-ups, or inventors to pay out expensive settlements, rather than face the daunting process of a lengthy trial.

These hijackers of innovation have become an alarming trend, the most publicized example of which was the Apple vs. Samsung$1,000,000,000 verdict, in which Samsung was forced to pay fines for allegedly infringing on Apple patents.

But trolls may soon be feeling the first blow against their predatory habits, with a recently introduced bill that aims to force them to pay defendant’s legal fees should their lawsuits fail in court. Furthermore, plaintiffs would be exempt if they invented the patent themselves, or could demonstrate that they had made substantial investments trying to bring the product to market.

This bill will hopefully signal the end of people buying cheap patents simply to attack companies with vaguely similar technologies. In 2011 alone, businesses were estimated to have paid out approximately $29 billion in expensive settlements.

The purchase and pursuit of ideas should always feed innovation, eventually bringing products to the marketplace and consumer. Inventors should no doubt profit from their creations, but not by stifling everyone else. Striking a fair balance in this regard can be a difficult task, but we’ve clearly seen a shift in favor of restrictive practices lately.

An interesting figurehead in this ongoing debate is Nathan Myhrvold – Microsoft’s ex Chief Technology Officer. Myhrvold is a fascinating genius of the highest order, and has an academic track record that would rival most Bond villains. He attended university at the tender age of 14, studying mathematics, geophysics and astrophysics – quickly followed with a master’s degree in mathematical economics and a PhD in theoretical and mathematical physics at Princeton. He also held a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Cambridge, where he worked under asomewhat notable Physicist named Stephen Hawking.

Myrhvold's main company, Intellectual Ventures, pursues a lot of inventions that aim to "solve difficult problems in science and technology." Among those manifestations, are a number of philanthropic endeavors – including TerraPower which aims to produce a "travelling-wave nuclear reactor" utilizing non-weaponizable uranium and functioning for 50-100 years without refueling. Another venture is a mosquito killing "photonic fence" which could greatly aid in the battle against Malaria.

But Intellectual Ventures is also one of the biggest purchasers of intellectual property, and has been trying to create a capital market for inventions by buying thousands upon thousands of patents from a wide variety of industries. With the power of owning new ideas, comes the ability to charge rates on innovation and decide which players can survive in any given field. This has, perhaps justifiably, drawn Myrhvold a lot of criticism.

Intellectual Venture, and other I.P. hoarders of its magnitude, often utilize Wall Street bankers to help assess the value of the patents. The only problem with this filtration process, however, is that bankers are motivated by profit – not research and development, innovation or the public good. If you want to cash out of I.P., who better to partner with than financial experts that always advocate the route of highest profit?

It becomes hard to know if vast quantities of patents would be better off not being owned by one corporation or incredibly accomplished genius – rather than spread across a variety of smaller industries in an open and free market. Without access to data, it’s impossible to know what might have happened had these patents not been swallowed up.

Myrhvold himself is frustrated with the trolling accusations, and for all intents and purposes his aims might very well be to support innovation and technological development. But whether satisfying his personal passions, or seeking to profit off of boundless enterprises, it seems perfectly reasonable to keep a concerned eye on anyone who wants to stick their fingers in this many pies.

The 2008 economic collapse brought to light the way in which capital is managed in vast pools, and all the evidence needed to see that this isn’t necessarily a good thing. A corporation of ideas, which doesn’t concentrate on one market or innovate one product – but rather places many tentacles in several pools, can’t simply be dismissed as broad investment practices. The potential hazards, delays and restrictions across a massive array of industries are simply too great.