- Joined
- Jun 16, 2014
- Messages
- 6,775
- Reaction score
- 685
Today's MMA Fighting Live Chat was enjoyable. Luke Thomas finally came out with his true views on PEDs.
He doesn't think PEDs are all that bad, on the grounds that sport is inherently unfair. He pointed to some people possessing superior genetics compared to others as an example of 'unfairness', and repeatedly returned to this point. Luke then mentioned that he has recently undergone a DNA test and discovered that he has zero genetic athleticism. The idea that PEDs might 'violate the spirit of the sport' is 'a total non-starter for me'. It is 'bankrupt'. He favours minimal testing and wants to see 'excellence' when he switches on the TV.
I find comparing illegal chemical enhancement to genetic advantage simply ridiculous. You have no human right to excel in sport, or anything else. Luke's argument is bogus. Let's test this by applying Luke's own logic. Let's say I am an excellent and gifted theoretical physicist. Someone else who lacks my genetically-determined intelligence would, according to Luke, be fully justified in cheating on tests and experiments in order to compete with me. Moreover, for me to complain about this is 'bankrupt' and 'a total non-starter'.
That's stupid. One might even say it's the argument of a donk.
Luke then embarrassed himself further by stating that 'anybody who tries to boil an ethical dilemma down to "are you clean or are you dirty?" is someone with a fundamentally unserious position'. The whole purpose of an ethical dilemma is to separate right from wrong, Luke.
It's striking that Luke doesn't put the onus on the individual to obey civilised norms (a bit like his defence of Jon Jones). Like a true ideological statist, he then started banging on about the failures of commissions to regulate the sport properly and protect people from bad referees - as if that is even connected to the separate issue of PEDs. It's interesting that Luke always looks to the government rather than the individual, isn't it?
EDIT: Latest from Luke:
He doesn't think PEDs are all that bad, on the grounds that sport is inherently unfair. He pointed to some people possessing superior genetics compared to others as an example of 'unfairness', and repeatedly returned to this point. Luke then mentioned that he has recently undergone a DNA test and discovered that he has zero genetic athleticism. The idea that PEDs might 'violate the spirit of the sport' is 'a total non-starter for me'. It is 'bankrupt'. He favours minimal testing and wants to see 'excellence' when he switches on the TV.
I find comparing illegal chemical enhancement to genetic advantage simply ridiculous. You have no human right to excel in sport, or anything else. Luke's argument is bogus. Let's test this by applying Luke's own logic. Let's say I am an excellent and gifted theoretical physicist. Someone else who lacks my genetically-determined intelligence would, according to Luke, be fully justified in cheating on tests and experiments in order to compete with me. Moreover, for me to complain about this is 'bankrupt' and 'a total non-starter'.
That's stupid. One might even say it's the argument of a donk.
Luke then embarrassed himself further by stating that 'anybody who tries to boil an ethical dilemma down to "are you clean or are you dirty?" is someone with a fundamentally unserious position'. The whole purpose of an ethical dilemma is to separate right from wrong, Luke.
It's striking that Luke doesn't put the onus on the individual to obey civilised norms (a bit like his defence of Jon Jones). Like a true ideological statist, he then started banging on about the failures of commissions to regulate the sport properly and protect people from bad referees - as if that is even connected to the separate issue of PEDs. It's interesting that Luke always looks to the government rather than the individual, isn't it?
EDIT: Latest from Luke:
Last edited:
