Air gun sport and drug doping, would it be fair?

Daxx

Member
Jul 2, 2015
253
1
We've all heard about various other sports in the news of athletes using performance enhancing drugs to gain a competitive edge. I'm sure there are drugs shooters could use to their advantage as well.

For example, someone nervous could take antianxiety medication, or blood pressure medication to reduce gun sway, or muscle relaxers to help stay nice and steady. Just to name a few, there are many drugs that could be used.

But is it fair? I ask because people take these medications all the time for various other reasons at home and most likely they would be on them at a match, so would you think it's a fair game of you're up against another person that's shooting well due to drug enhancement.

I'm not suggesting someone on blood pressure medications stop taking there meds, what I'm saying is a person who's blood pressure is normally 210/100 is now nice and and steady at 95/70, hell you can barely tell they're alive. Meanwhile another person not on meds is 130/89 and higher if nervous and can definitely feel the pulse in their gun.

There would be similar advantages to anti anxiety and muscle relaxants.

Is it a fair match?

Thoughts?
 
Many target shooters do indeed use a powerful drug that reduces nervousness. Nicotine! 

I believe it's against the rules to use alcohol at a match (understandably). However many people take anti-anxiety medications by doctor prescription....which might up their scores a bit. Antihypertensive Atenolol also works for stage fright (fear of public speaking), which could also help your hold.

Good thing there's no prize money in this sport, lest we become like cycling ;)
 
I would think that if it were a medically necessary drug it would be ok, as in high blood pressure meds. Having said that I have friends in their 50's that take testosterone because their levels are low. They are buff like you wouldn't believe and say they feel like they are 18. I think they'd have an advantage against me on a wrestling mat. Olympic shooters get tested for sure. I guess at some point it's a distinct possibility that competitive shooters would be tested.
 
There was a recent article in WSJ on a related issue. Some Masters bicycle racers (older age group) got in trouble for testosterone - because it builds muscle, improves training efficiency, etc. However they were given this by their MDs because they tested low for testosterone.

Isn't this unfair to normal-testosterone bike racers?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/prescription-steroids-get-a-quiet-exemption-1461365753

In any case AR target shooting is a hobby sport for fun, not money. So probably best not to worry about it.
 
"NeilClague"So how would you apply the rules to people like myself who are on pain medications for life and go through severe withdrawal symptoms without them? I have severe nerve damage and can not function unless I am medicated so it seems like applying this type of rule would eliminate people like myself from competitions.
I'm not trying to develop a rule, I'm only asking if it's fair. If you are on pain medications due to severe pain and it just so happens it makes you shoot better, should someone not on pain medications be allowed to use them for shooting purposes?

Example:

Shooter A is on blood pressure, anti-anxiety, and pain medication.
Shooter B is all natural.

Shooter A wins the match.

Would Shooter A have lost the match if he wasn't on medication?
Would Shooter B have won the match if he was on the same medication?
 
I do not think anyone who is being medicated for good reason should be victimized for it, if someone has low testosterone then surely it is fair to have that level raised by medications to a normal level. If someone is on a medication to enable them to function normally in life then why should they be penalized, they are not getting the medication to improve their ability to do something they are taking the medication to allow them to function. Sorry but from where I am sitting the whole drug thing can be taken too far, there is a huge difference between someone who knowingly cheats by taking performance enhancing drugs and someone who takes them for a known condition and can not function without them. I am not talking about any forms of sedatives, which can help relax the person and calm their nerves, I am talking about certain medications, where without them the person just can not function normally. After all, if that person does not take them, they are at a severe disadvantage to someone without any medical conditions, isn't than an unfair advantage to the person with good health?
I personally think the whole drug thing is taken too far because of sour grapes, someone gets beaten and does not like it and will use any excuse to try and get the winner disqualified. There is a huge difference between taking performance enhancing medications and medications taken for a long standing known condition. The problem is, where do you draw the line, do you ban everyone who takes any form of medication, including cold remedies etc. My personal view is if I get beaten in a competition by someone, I congratulate them, they shot better than me and deserved to win, why have we started to become a bunch of whiners not liking to lose and looking for excuses?
I hope we do not take this too far and start acting like the pro's, Neil.
 
I guess it all depends on your point of view. As one person said, if you're competing it better be with what you were born with, that's your God given talent. But we live in a new age where people can be "normalized" with medication. However, we must define normal function and it must be measurable, otherwise your abilities can be either diminished or enhanced by medication as compared to someone not taking medication.

I'll give you another example. Suppose a college student with ADHD is taking Adderall, known to calm the effects of ADHD, but with the added benefit of cognitive enhancement. This student is topping the test scores in the classroom, while others not on Adderall are scoring lower, but could possibly perform much better if they were taking Adderall, possibly even better than the student with ADHD. The student has a medical reason for taking Addrerall, but is also gaining a cognitive advantage over the other students. The other students cannot get Adderall because they don't have ADHD and therefore cannot gain the cognitive benefits of the drug. Fair???

On the other hand, I personally don't care if you take hydrocodone and chase it down with a case of beer before you show up to a shooting competition, more power to ya. I'm just posing the question to the forum. There are always people that take competition more seriously than others -- your basic Type A vs Type B personalities.
 
Mr.Gadgets, I do think that is a good idea. If we can upgrade and enhance our tools, guns, ammo, etc. Why not do the same with ourselves? If I could take a drug that made me shoot better, smarter, younger, etc., why not? I'm in favor of allowance rather than restriction. Allowance sparks innovation, while restriction halts progress.
 
Daxx all I was trying to say is that for people like myself, the drugs in no way enhance my performance, they just allow me to have a more functional life. They never completely relieve me of all the pain they just dull the amount of pain I am in to allow me to function. Without them there is no way I could concentrate or function like a normal person. It is a very difficult area for anyone to determine what should be allowed and what should not. Without the meds I would not be able to work or do anything normal people do and I am sure they are also responsible for my worsening vision, so they could also be seen as detrimental. I am glad I am not one who would have to decide on this subject because I weigh things up from both sides and would be arguing both cases in my own head, it would drive me crazy, thank god the decision would be left to others, lol, Neil.
 
You Guys are funny.
Like my Perkin's Patient that told me he stop drinking coffee,
when I ask why , He said he kept spelling it all over myself..
That was in a another life time for me..
Now when I have an attack and I hit the albuterol a little heavy
I get the shakes, I can still take a sparrow at 48 yards on a tripod. And rifle
My pistol free hand is another story.
And I do not eat peas with a fork anymore, The wife makes fun of me.
Mike