Moderator: Community Team
betiko wrote: 1) what if you are an athlete that doesn't want to put strange products in your system?
2) which is by the way, the rule?
betiko wrote:first creatine is not legal
jimboston wrote:betiko wrote:first creatine is not legal
... from Wiki...
"Creatine and athletic performance"
"Creatine use is not considered doping and is not banned by the majority of sport-governing bodies. However, in the United States, the NCAA recently ruled that colleges could not provide creatine supplements to their players, though the players are still allowed to obtain and use creatine independently."
===
I am sure that different sports have different rules about what is and is not banned.
Another problem with these rules... some substances stay in the body longer than others. So you can use the substancs while training... just not as the competition (and testing time) nears. The only way to truly have an even playing field with the bans in place is to test atheletes daily... even months/years in advance of actual competition.
jimboston wrote:
My thoughts are not specific to Lance.
1) If you don't want to put "strange products" inot your system... don't do it.
2) This thread is about discussing whether or not this should be the rule. We can't change the past.
Saying "it's the rule" is not a reason to keep that rule in place. Why or why not should we ban "doping", "steroids", or other products (natural or unnatural) that will enhance our bodies performance?
jimboston wrote:Right... but he DID get cancer. Isn't overcoming that (even with drugs) impressive?
... but I don't want to discuss Lance in particular. Just use this latest example of a top athelete getting 'caught' to discuss wether or not we should/can even police this.
Symmetry wrote:jimboston wrote:
My thoughts are not specific to Lance.
1) If you don't want to put "strange products" inot your system... don't do it.
2) This thread is about discussing whether or not this should be the rule. We can't change the past.
Saying "it's the rule" is not a reason to keep that rule in place. Why or why not should we ban "doping", "steroids", or other products (natural or unnatural) that will enhance our bodies performance?
You kind of started a topic about Lance Armstrong and his past achievements, But ass-holey to criticise people for looking at Lance *It;s so cute that you're on first name terms
Plus. of course, it's kind of a dick move to start a thread about previous winners of the Tour while weirdly demanding that they shouldn't be mentioned.
jimboston wrote:One guy got kicked out of the Olympics because he had pot in his system. How ridiculous is that? How did the pot help him???
What is the difference between these banned substances... and legal things like creatine, and vitamins, and protein, and advil???
2dimes wrote:Should they hold separate events? One where everyone is natural and one where performance enhancing substances are encouraged?
jimboston wrote:2dimes wrote:Should they hold separate events? One where everyone is natural and one where performance enhancing substances are encouraged?
This is actually the only reasonable response to fix the problem offered so far.
Everyone else is saying "just keep testing".
Unless you change how you do the testing though... and unless you test BEFORE the competition (so dopers don't compete) you still have problems.
Army of GOD wrote:just imagine how small his single ball is now
Gillipig wrote:Why are people who don't know what they're talking about always the ones who yell the loudest?
First off they've been hunting him for 15 years trying to convict him for doping. He's passed every doping test he's been put through and he holds the record in number of doping tests taken by an athlete. He's been tested and tested throughly. And passed. During all these years the "evidence" has never been strong enough to find him guilty. What he's chosen now is to just quit the circus There have been a lot subjective indication that he might have been taking doping. Other cyclists have claimed he did it, doping tests from unknown persons in races he's participated in was shown positive (very weak evidence indeed) and knowing how many cyclists that have been (and are) doping themselevs makes the most succesful cyclist of all time look bad. But never has he been found guilty of doping. Innocent until proven guilty right? The USADA has made it their life goal to try to convict Armstrong. They've failed time after time after time to prove that he's been taking doping, but apperantly persistance (stalking) pays off. Lance was never found guilty, he just refused to defend his right anymore 'Take my titles, I don't care! We all know who won these races anyway.' He's still innocent. If the USADA was unable to prove him guilty after making it their goal for 15 years, then I don't see any reason to believe they would've now either.
laughingcavalier wrote: but it really does appear, with Bradley Wiggins for example, we have a generation of riders now who are winning the biggest races without cheating on drugs.
Gillipig wrote:Why are people who don't know what they're talking about always the ones who yell the loudest?
First off they've been hunting him for 15 years trying to convict him for doping. He's passed every doping test he's been put through and he holds the record in number of doping tests taken by an athlete. He's been tested and tested throughly. And passed. During all these years the "evidence" has never been strong enough to find him guilty. What he's chosen now is to just quit the circus There have been a lot subjective indication that he might have been taking doping. Other cyclists have claimed he did it, doping tests from unknown persons in races he's participated in was shown positive (very weak evidence indeed) and knowing how many cyclists that have been (and are) doping themselevs makes the most succesful cyclist of all time look bad. But never has he been found guilty of doping. Innocent until proven guilty right? The USADA has made it their life goal to try to convict Armstrong. They've failed time after time after time to prove that he's been taking doping, but apperantly persistance (stalking) pays off. Lance was never found guilty, he just refused to defend his right anymore 'Take my titles, I don't care! We all know who won these races anyway.' He's still innocent. If the USADA was unable to prove him guilty after making it their goal for 15 years, then I don't see any reason to believe they would've now either.
jimboston wrote:Gillipig wrote:Why are people who don't know what they're talking about always the ones who yell the loudest?
First off they've been hunting him for 15 years trying to convict him for doping. He's passed every doping test he's been put through and he holds the record in number of doping tests taken by an athlete. He's been tested and tested throughly. And passed. During all these years the "evidence" has never been strong enough to find him guilty. What he's chosen now is to just quit the circus There have been a lot subjective indication that he might have been taking doping. Other cyclists have claimed he did it, doping tests from unknown persons in races he's participated in was shown positive (very weak evidence indeed) and knowing how many cyclists that have been (and are) doping themselevs makes the most succesful cyclist of all time look bad. But never has he been found guilty of doping. Innocent until proven guilty right? The USADA has made it their life goal to try to convict Armstrong. They've failed time after time after time to prove that he's been taking doping, but apperantly persistance (stalking) pays off. Lance was never found guilty, he just refused to defend his right anymore 'Take my titles, I don't care! We all know who won these races anyway.' He's still innocent. If the USADA was unable to prove him guilty after making it their goal for 15 years, then I don't see any reason to believe they would've now either.
You may be right,
My thoughts / questions/ intent of this thread was to discuss OTHER WAYS of dealing with enhancements.... so we can avoid this BS.
I mean... what is "doping" anyway?
If you sent a nutritionist/trainer from today back to 1912 he'd be able to feed and train selected athletes so that their performance CRUSHED the competition at that time. People would think there was something nefarious going on. Maybe these enhancements are today's version of vitamins?
What happens in 50 years when we can genetically alter people's cells... maybe so they heal faster, so they can train harder... or maybe modifying the genes to allow for a more favorable muscle/mass ratio. Will genetically altered athletes be tested? Unable to compete? What if the genetic alterations are done pre-conception... is it still cheating.
If we don't deal with doping now... we are going to have bigger fish to fry later.
jimboston wrote:One guy got kicked out of the Olympics because he had pot in his system.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users