Should we be testing athletes for Steroids?

With the influx of arguments from all over the globe about unfair testing of athletes in sport, especially in women, one has to ask the question… Is it worth it?

New studies have shown that some women may have considerably higher testosterone levels than others.  They argue that these women should not be classified as non-female, but “unlucky”, because of their genetic predisposition.  Then of course there is the issue with intersex female athletes.  Many people don’t know or care that these intersex women would have unnaturally high testosterone levels due to their internal ‘testes.’  But does it constitute producing the same levels as a man, who on average have 10 x higher levels than its female counterparts? 

The current ruling in athletics is that intersex women can compete if they can prove that their receptors are androgen resistant.  Androgen is the hormone that makes men strong, fast, grow beards, be aggressive etc.  Unfortunately for these intersex women athletes, it doesn’t matter whether they have their internal ‘testes' removed or can prove that their receptors are androgen resistant, because they would already have had a huge advantage over any normal born female athlete.  This is due to the development of the individual from childhood into adulthood.  Growing up with male hormones in a womans’ body would have obvious advantages to the physical potential of the individual.  Combine this with years of training and the result will be exactly what it is.  A male in female form…  The results are everlasting.  The evidence can clearly be seen in how the intersex women are built and their masculine facial features.  Once muscle growth has been established by this process in women it is easily maintained by proper diet and regular exercise.

The misconception about steroid use is that it is a wonder drug that makes you superhuman, overnight.  Male athletes who use steroids, do so to establish new peaks once their performance has reached a plateau.  These periods of steroid use in men are only temporarily useful, as the body can only hold the excess hormones as long as the half-lives of the hormones allows.  The only way to stay at high levels is to continuously use the chosen steroid, but even this has its downside.  The receptors become saturated by the dosage and more of the steroid needs to be injected or ingested to maintain the same result of positive nitrogen balance in the muscle.  The excess testosterone also causes the body to try and counteract the imbalance by producing Estrogen.  If not properly controlled, this could have the opposite effect on the person.  Some side-effects include crying for no reason, excess fat storage, hardening of the nipples to name but a few.

The downfall for men is that they have already reached their natural testosterone peak in their early twenties and it just goes downhill from there.  It is a scientific fact that hormone levels reduce drastically after 30- and even more so after 40 years of age in men.  In women, once they start playing around with male hormones the change is a drastic one.  Increased facial hair, increased libido, enlarged clitoris, deepening of the voice, oily skin and hair, pimples and of course the only desired result in sports, increased muscle mass and aggression.  If steroids are used for long periods of time by women, most of these side-effects become permanent.  Testosterone has the opposite result in men, as the male body returns to its original testosterone levels with proper post course treatment.

This brings us to the point of how they can justify it unfair for women who have higher testosterone levels, to be excluded from competing with other normal Testosterone levelled women?

Would it be acceptable to the pro activists, to have Caitlyn Jenner, formerly known as Bruce Jenner, an Olympic Gold medalist in Decathlon for men, compete with women just because he had a sex change?  Same difference, don’t you think?  Although he is a woman now, he is still in essence a man and he proved that he could compete with the best of them.

The answer is simple.  If you test higher than your peers you are not a normal woman in the strict sense of the word and should be classified as such.  Is it not more unfair to the majority of female athletes who have normal levels to compete against women who have a mans’ testosterone levels, than it is to let the ‘unlucky’ ones compete with unfair advantage? 

Another option of course would be to not test athletes at all.  After-all, sport is no longer a passion or a hobby, as it was in years passed, but merely a driving force for money under the cover of entertainment.   I for one, don’t watch sport anymore.  What is the point?  Everyone is clearly cheating at International level.  It is not a question of using steroids anymore, it is more a question of what steroid and how much.  It has become a required necessity to be one of the elites in modern day sport.  One can but only hope our youth understands this predicament and see it for what it is… 

I say don’t test them anymore, let them make a spectacle of themselves. 

After all… that is what entertainment is about, isn’t it?

(The views in this article are not necessarily the views of the writer)

Socialism vs Democracy

In order to understand Socialism one needs to first understand Communism.  Please see my previous blog on Communism vs Democracy.  Communism and Socialism are usually used in parallel, but they are in fact not that similar, as we will see below.

Whereas a Communistic ideal is a political movement and classified as stateless, classless and governed by the people, for the people, this is never the case.  Socialism falls more into the economic rule of things, where the state adjusts the production to economic demands and human needs at that time.  Socialistic states can also coexist with other political movements and has been particularly popular with Social Democratic movements.  Whereas Communism abolishes private ownership, Socialism allows for two kinds of property:  Personal; which would include houses, furniture, cars etc. and Public property; which include factories, mines etc. owned by the State, but run by the workers.  Religion is also the choice of the individual in a Socialistic state, albeit a secular one, which is not the case in Communistic states.

Socialism is derived from the Latin word ‘Sociare’, which means to share or combine.  Since we are left with the problem of comparing two different ideals, the one being Democracy, which is a Political ideology, and Socialism, which is an economic system, we should look at what they have in common;  Both systems are focused for the greater goals of society.  Some experts say that Socialism and Democracy could possibly be the best combination if they could balance freedom and rights on the one end, while at the same time have social cooperation on the other.  But can this be done?

Through Democracy, everyone in essence, has a free and equal chance to become what they want.  The problem arrives when citizens in a Democracy abuse their equal rights privilege and turn it into Capitalism.  (Think you had a fair chance just like anyone else of becoming a property owner because you worked hard to get there...)  Then eventually you bought a property, you were lucky to pay below the market value for it and a few years later there is an economic boom.  Soon more people are looking for houses in your area due to a new shopping mall that has been built around the corner.  All of a sudden you realise, that you can sell your property for 3 x times the original value due to the high demand for housing.  Of course you would have been dumb to not do exactly that.  Of course this opens your eyes to an opportunity in the market and you are very much chuffed with your wise investment.  The problem is, now you want to do this again and again.  So you buy more properties in other areas and wait for another shopping mall to be built…  Just because you can... 

Although you are operating in a mixed economy and you have either worked to get to this point, or by luck, or by inheritance… you are now making it extremely difficult for other people to have the same chance as you, in obtaining an affordable property.  In other words the rich get richer and the poor stagnates.

Socialism on the other hand would allow you to buy your property and sell it as you wish, but it would have to be sold at the same price you bought it, plus maybe extra for the improvements you have done.  Sharing is caring, right?

Now we all know that this is the case in real world Democracies.  Just think for example; how can a business run and not capitalise on its profit?  That in itself would not be a business.  In Socialistic states the employees would all get paid the same wages according to the profit of the business.  Socialism also believes in everyone having access to the same medical treatment and educational systems, for free.

Let us compare Democracy with Socialism directly by looking at their benefits and negative attributes:

Democracy fights for peoples’ rights, protecting individual interests, the power to vote, majority party rule and in general prevention of monopoly of authority.  The negative sides are: too much red tape, no economic freedom, no political freedom, inefficiency and elimination of the individualist.

Socialism on the other hand fights for economic growth, better welfare, greater efficiency, absence of monopoly and absence of business fluctuations. The same can be said for the negative sides in comparison to Democracy: too much red tape, no economic freedom, no political freedom, inefficiency and elimination of the individualist.

It is clear from this, that although it is possible to combine them into one ideology, as has been done by numerous European countries, there are more negatives in common than positives.

As Albert Einstein once said:  “The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even his economic existence… Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely and deprived of the naïve, simple and sophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.”

What do you think?

(The views in this article are not necessarily the views of the writer)

Communism vs Democracy

The word Communism translates to “universal or common” and stems from the Latin word ‘communis’. 

A widely tested ideology worldwide both in the past and in some countries today.  Let us compare how Communism as a whole, fares against another well-known and currently very popular system, Democracy.

We have already seen in a previous article on Anarchy (See “Anarchy vs Democracy”) how Democracy is not what it seems to be.  Although Democracy stands for people rule, it is evident that the populace does not have much say, even though they voted in their chosen, ruling party.  The same can be said for Communism.

Generally ruled by a one party government, and most often by an Authoritarian, in Communistic societies, class is not allowed.  This translates to the state owning everything and the society making it work.  The public has no say in production, taxes, price of goods etc. but they are expected to share all production and proceeds equally.   (Think, you don’t have to worry that someone is earning more money than you, because everyone gets the same.)  Sounds good doesn’t it? 

This in reality however, is not the case.  The poor are generally treated very badly and rulers are known to create famines to subdue citizens who do not support the regime.  A well-known Soviet Union leader was known to have over 40 million people murdered for the “good of the state”.  This, as you can see, make the rulers very powerful and obviously rich.  So much for sharing…

Communist states also prevent people from moving around or leave the country, so freedom is not a part of the sharing idea.  Religion prevention is also achieved by allocating jobs to everyone, without looking at their capabilities. (Think, I earn the same salary my neighbour earns, but I have to do hard labour, while he is a pen pusher at the Post office.)  To not even go into specialised fields such as doctors, engineers, scientists etc.

Communism gave rise to the Cold war, after the Soviet Union sided with the Allied forces to defeat Adolf Hitler and Germany during the Second World War. 

After the Second World War, the Soviet Union enticed many Eastern European countries to join, offering military protection, in what became known as the Eastern Bloc under the Warsaw Pact.  With the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 however, the start of the end of the Cold war ensued, giving rise to the collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union. This in turn caused these countries to leave the pact and have a go at it themselves.  Now here is where it becomes interesting. 

From its beginnings, the allied union for Western countries in Europe, the European Union (EU), saw the opportunity to absorb those Eastern Bloc countries willing to join. With an EU Democratic structure of “power to the people”, these smaller countries grabbed the opportunity in order to win back their long lost freedom with the added advantage of economic sustainability and military protection.  Little did they know that history would only repeat itself.  Very few people realise that the EU concept is actually a design of Communistic origin.  One of the 11 founding members, Mr. Altiero Spinelli, played a big part in the ideology of the EU and was a part of the Italian Communist party who fought against the Fascist dictatorship of Benito Mussolini.  Mr. Spinelli also designed the Maastricht Treaty and the Single European act. 

These smaller countries, although representative on the EU board, are still being bulldozed into submission when it comes to decision making.  As to how Democratic the EU is, well…  Although there are public sessions that take place in the EU, the majority of their meetings are held behind closed doors.  No minutes are released (if even taken), no recordings are made, nothing.  This has been noticed by the rest of the world and is now known as the Democratic Deficit.  The meaning of deficit translates from Latin into “there is lacking”.

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?  Parties making decisions on behalf of the people, without consulting the people…

As Aristotle once said: “But one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn, for the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth… And one is for a man to live as he likes, for they say that this is the function of liberty, in as much as to live not as one likes, is the life of a man that is a slave.”

Although one has to go into more detail between each type of Communism and Democracy to adequately compare their ideologies, one should consider that it would be safe to say they are indeed similar enough to be easily confused by the general population.

Another great philosopher Plato, has once said: "The Tyrant, is the son of a Democratic man…"

Communism has historically followed the same path into Tyranny.

Is Democracy and Communism not the same then?

I’ll let you decide…

(The views in this article are not necessarily the views of the writer)

Anarchy vs Democracy

Politics do not accommodate well with everyone and it is conceivable that most ordinary citizens would not even know where to begin, let alone understand ideologies in politics.  In todays’ day and age, everyone has heard of, or at least pretends to know what Democracy is. The influx of Democracy worldwide as a means of governing, has been considered the ultimate solution to the worlds’ problems.  Or has it?

Looking at the current state of our beautiful planet one has to ask, has it started taking its toll?  Never-ending quarreling, abuse of power, lack of pride and a false sense of humanity.  This leaves one to consider whether Democracy is the right ideology. 

I will endeavor to cover as many ideologies in plain language, as is possible.  Both new and old, so as to enable you, the reader, to decide which is best.  

Today, let us consider our first - Anarchy.

Most people think of Anarchy as a negative, violent approach to overthrow states and cause chaos. 

Although Anarchy can be divided into many different approaches, let us have a look at what Anarchy as a whole, can actually do for a country.

Anarchy is described as a society that is self-governed with its own voluntary organisations.  (Think, you decide what the laws are individually, and as a group, and you choose who monitors those laws.)  The ideology believes that no state or hierarchy is necessary to govern the populace and that free choice and mutual help towards your fellow man is key.  (Think, you don’t get told what to do by someone, you mutually agree what gets done.)  

Is this not what most people want?  Free choice…, mutual respect…? 

Anarchy also ignores other facets such as organised religion. Christian anarchists believe Jesus and his disciples to be the first Anarchist society and that Jesus taught these exact ideologies.  Is glorification of a state not just another form of idolatry?  (Think, The Vatican.)

Democracy, at its core, undermines the intelligence of the human race and serves as a means to control the populace.  In a Democracy, we are coaxed into a sense of false security.  Being told that freedom of speech is democratic, leads to the belief that one can think and say what one wants…  But, is that the case? 

Anarchy comes with its own flaws though.  Not everyone understand mutual respect and love for the fellow man, and as such some have taken Anarchy in the past as an excuse to do, and get what they want, when they want.  Fights would break out almost instantaneously in these conditions and a spree of rape and pillage would ensue.  This in turn would cause reaction from the model citizens and a riot of sorts would escalate into a civil war.  This in turn would need to be stopped and thus an autocratic environment ensues.

But can this be done without violence and abuse of ones’ own wants and needs? 

To answer this question, one has to compare states versus people reign. 

The first concern anyone would have is security and justice in a stateless country.  How would one be assured of a fair trial?  In Democratic states the ruling is made by a judge or panel of judges after the accused has had a trial, by referring to previous rulings similar to the current case.  Although this seems fair, wouldn’t each case be better judged by its own criteria?

One should also consider that it is not uncommon to falsify evidence to appeal to some corrupt politicians need.  Or to make or break a trial outcome, thus enabling further financial, political or public opinion gains. 

In an Anarchistic environment the individual would likely be given the choice of defense and the public would decide his fate privately.

This sounds primitive, but isn’t that what we are?  Are we not only modernised because of technology? Do we not still get primitive urges on a daily basis?   Could this not solve cultural differences as well?

Another important aspect to take in consideration in a stateless environment are taxes. 

There would be no need to pay taxes.  According to Anarchists, taxing by the state is theft.  These taxes are used to empower themselves (The State) for a stronger foothold internationally, by flexing military muscles, advancing technology, brokering deals to cut off non-game playing countries through embargoes etc… the list goes on.

Anarchy already exists in many forms worldwide.  Just think of Home Owners Associations, Membership clubs and Trade unions.  These are all chosen institutions by the public involved in them, by themselves, and they work just fine.

For Anarchy to work, change should not be drastic, but rather a slow and parallel one with the state, until the state eventually dissolves itself.

According to Anarchists, the more people realise their own power, the better their understanding would be of the freedom and peace that Anarchy can bring.

(The views in this article are not necessarily the views of the writer)