Lance Armstrong, Doper.

[Shotgun 1]

Don't know, don't really care. I've never understood the huge appeal of spectator sports (sorry, no offense to anyone, that's just me). But, from what little I know about it, it seems like professional athletes do everything possible to "up their game," so I don't really understand why certain substances are forbidden here. If the substances are dangerous, that should be up to the individual to decide if he/she wants to take that chance.

[ryoder 1,412]

Quote

Watch the Youtube link I provided. The Bell brothers really shed light on a lot of interesting things (they're well known in the powerlifting world). Honestly I have serious doubts that any professional sport is with out rampant drug use, regardless of the "testing" that is conducted.

I saw the film a year ago; Refreshing to see a discussion on doping without all the hysteria.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[lawrocket 3]

Yep. I read an article a few days ago about paralympians breaking toes and shocking their balls before a match to get adrenaline and blood pressure up.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ryoder 1,412]

Quote

Yep. I read an article a few days ago about paralympians breaking toes and shocking their balls before a match to get adrenaline and blood pressure up.

Oh, yeah! I was half asleep when the clock radio came on with NPR talking about that, but forgot about it once awake.
"Boosting" is what they call it:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/24/us-paralympics-boosting-idUSBRE87N0XL20120824

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[billvon 2,476]

>so I don't really understand why certain substances are forbidden here.

Well, one reason is if they are legal, then any sporting event becomes more a question of:

-who has more money
-who takes better/more drugs
-who survives the match without an aneurysm/heart attack etc

than of talent or training. And the people who pay for such events think that won't sell as well.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

>so I don't really understand why certain substances are forbidden here.

Well, one reason is if they are legal, then any sporting event becomes more a question of:

-who has more money
-who takes better/more drugs
-who survives the match without an aneurysm/heart attack etc

than of talent or training. And the people who pay for such events think that won't sell as well.

That really isn't entirely true, since even with a level playing field in terms of drug use, the playing field isn't level. Look at colleges as a good example. Some college programs have the money to make sure their athletes get enough rest, enough good calories and have the best/newest/most advanced training possible. Other schools can't afford that and their training suffers. There may be some stand out athletes, but those athletes could have been even more if given the right tools.

The modern athletic drug wars (steroids) started with Olympic athletes in the 50s and 60s. The Soviets were the first to use the isolated anabolic compounds to enhance their lifters, the Soviet coach got drunk and let it slip. The US coach found out and the US program started their own research into doping and started injecting their athletes with anabolic steroids.

Personally I'm not a fan and won't use them, but I'm not getting paid millions of dollars a year to be the best athlete I can be either.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[billvon 2,476]

>That really isn't entirely true, since even with a level playing field in terms of drug use,
>the playing field isn't level. Look at colleges as a good example. Some college
>programs have the money to make sure their athletes get enough rest, enough good
>calories and have the best/newest/most advanced training possible.

Right. So someone with the talent will do better at that school (due to the better training) than someone at a different school that has a less comprehensive training program. And advertisers believe that people want to see athletes compete based on their talent and training rather than on how much of a certain drug their bodies can handle, or how much money someone gives them. Witness how fast advertisers drop sponsored athletes who end up in doping scandals.

>Personally I'm not a fan and won't use them, but I'm not getting paid millions of
>dollars a year to be the best athlete I can be either.

Right, and that's why people do it. People won't generally risk their lives over winning the World Meet, even if it means you're the best skydiver in the world. Skydivers get tens of thousands in sponsorship if they're lucky. But they'll risk their lives for winning the Olympics and landing millions in sponsorship deals.

[EFS4LIFE 0]

Quote

And the people who pay for such events think that won't sell as well.

Are you serious Bill? Explain wrestling, football, or bodybuilding. The people who pay for it love it. Ignorance is not an excuse anymore. Everyone knows it is going on and they don't give a shit. Maybe I misunderstood you, but that statenment, prima facia, is ridiculous.

I am an asshole, but I am honest

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

>so I don't really understand why certain substances are forbidden here.

Well, one reason is if they are legal, then any sporting event becomes more a question of:

-who has more money
-who takes better/more drugs
-who survives the match without an aneurysm/heart attack etc

than of talent or training. And the people who pay for such events think that won't sell as well.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I was already under the impression that most high-level sporting events already depended largely on who has more money (which affects a lot of other things). And regarding who takes more/better drugs, who decides which drugs are forbidden? Caffeine? Citicoline? Drugs affect people differently, so you might be banning one that would give an advantage to one person, while not banning another that gives an advantage to others.

And does the performance-enhancing clothing affect whether it is a question of talent or training? Or is it fine for the person with more money to buy better performance-related clothing and gear?

[BikerBabe 0]

"In the clearing stands a boxer
and a fighter by his trade
and he carries the reminders
of every glove that laid him down
or cut him till he cries out
in his anger and his shame,
'I am leaving, I am leaving,
but the fighter still remains..."

Maybe he was just...tired. Tired of fighting a losing battle, where you're guilty until proven innocent, and the people charging you with a misdeed are allowed to change the rules at whim to stonewall you and head you off and never ever give you a fair shake.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120825,0,2080853.column

Doping or not, Armstrong is definitely not the only party here that could be considered shady.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

>Personally I'm not a fan and won't use them, but I'm not getting paid millions of
>dollars a year to be the best athlete I can be either.

Right, and that's why people do it. People won't generally risk their lives over winning the World Meet, even if it means you're the best skydiver in the world. Skydivers get tens of thousands in sponsorship if they're lucky. But they'll risk their lives for winning the Olympics and landing millions in sponsorship deals.

There is always the give and take. People want to see skydiving make it onto the big stage, but if it ever does and there was real money at stake for winning, we'll see the same problems. In fact right now I wouldn't be surprised to find out some top RW competitors are taking beta-blockers so they can focus with less anxiety.

Pop-quiz, what performance enhancing drug is highly abused by collegiate students?

Aderral.

Kids who don't have any sort of legitimate use for the drug buy the drug from friends or lie to get a prescription so they can focus harder on their school work and tests. Street value around here is $20 a pill, I don't know what it is over where you're at.

Looking at the comparison to anabolic steroids, are those students any better than an athlete using a steroid to get better/faster? Anabolic steroids have legitimate medical use, yet some athletes lie to get prescriptions. Both students and athletes have a lifetime of paychecks at stake with their performance.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

There is always the give and take. People want to see skydiving make it onto the big stage, but if it ever does and there was real money at stake for winning, we'll see the same problems. In fact right now I wouldn't be surprised to find out some top RW competitors are taking beta-blockers so they can focus with less anxiety.

Many musicians take beta blockers before a performance for the same reason.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Quote

There is always the give and take. People want to see skydiving make it onto the big stage, but if it ever does and there was real money at stake for winning, we'll see the same problems. In fact right now I wouldn't be surprised to find out some top RW competitors are taking beta-blockers so they can focus with less anxiety.

Many musicians take beta blockers before a performance for the same reason.

Yup.

Where as a society do we draw the line? Where is the outrage over the musicians or the students using PEDs? Why should the outrage only be contained to the athletes? Students are working to get to a bigger pay check. Musicians are using drugs to get more and better paying gigs.

For everyone surprised or outraged about the athletes, what is the answer?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Coreece 190]

Quote

But, from what little I know about it, it seems like professional athletes do everything possible to "up their game," so I don't really understand why certain substances are forbidden here.

I think people severely underestimate the power of steroids...it gets to the point where you're practically not even human anymore.

The glory of athleticism is having the discipline to overcome the life long physical and mental challenges to be the greatest. With steroids there is no challenge...

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

But, from what little I know about it, it seems like professional athletes do everything possible to "up their game," so I don't really understand why certain substances are forbidden here.

I think people severely underestimate the power of steroids...it gets to the point where you're practically not even human anymore.

The glory of athleticism is having the discipline to overcome the life long physical and mental challenges to be the greatest. With steroids there is no challenge...

What about the side-effects of steroids? When an athlete quits taking steroids, his body looks like a sack full of bobcats.


Chuck

[Remster 26]

Quote

steroids

Steroids? Wow.. You guys are so 90's!

Remster

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

steroids

Steroids? Wow.. You guys are so 90's!

Chuck

[winsor 192]

Quote

Is he? Stripped of 7 titles, if he isn't guilty why doesn't he fight it? I'd hate to think that he was a cheat he has accomplished so much but the reports all seem to say yep Lance Armstrong is a doper. Whats your thoughts?

The Tour de France sounds like good, clean fun.

[billvon 2,476]

>Perhaps I'm wrong, but I was already under the impression that most high-level
>sporting events already depended largely on who has more money (which affects a lot
>of other things).

For many of them, true. I think that's seen as undesirable by advertisers/promoters etc. They wish to be able to advertise their competitions as contests of skill or athletic ability, rather than as simple "biggest payer wins" games.

Often rules are used to try to level the playing field - performance and specification limits on race cars would be one example, so that it's more about the driver's skill as opposed to the money spent on the car (although money is obviously still a big factor and the cars cost a lot of money even staying within the rules.)

>Or is it fine for the person with more money to buy better performance-related
>clothing and gear?

In sports where the gear is a big determining factor there are often rules as to what you can and can't use (car performance limits, hockey stick and bat sizes, protective gear etc.) Although they tend to regulate size/performance/specifications rather than cost.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

steroids

Steroids? Wow.. You guys are so 90's!

Oh, excuse me...I guess I should've said "dope"

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The glory of athleticism is having the discipline to overcome the life long physical and mental challenges to be the greatest. With steroids there is no challenge...

Try telling that to 70s Arnold. Did you ever read his book?

The challenge remains the same - push the envelop of what your mind thinks it can do. Steroids just push some boundaries out a bit, but the effort level (maximal) is just as taxing.

[Remster 26]

Quote

but the effort level (maximal) is just as taxing.

Well, if "taxing" is what you measure, no. In cycling, what most modern PEDs do is speed up your recovery, so, in fact, you are less taxed after going all out.

If what you want to measure if the energy output for training at an all out effort, then, in fact, doped cyclist will work harder for longer more often than clean ones..

Remster

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Steroids just push some boundaries out a bit, but the effort level (maximal) is just as taxing.

Not when you can wake up feeling 100% practically every morning...who couldn't push the limits?

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[masterrig 1]

Didn't Armstrong pass those tests at the time of the events he was entered in and won? Am I missing something? Does the cycling committee go-back and re-test old samples when new tests are brought about? I don't follow cycling but I have read the news stories of Armstrong's testing and passing those tests and I'm confused.


Chuck

[Remster 26]

Quote

Didn't Armstrong pass those tests at the time of the events he was entered in and won? Am I missing something? Does the cycling committee go-back and re-test old samples when new tests are brought about? I don't follow cycling but I have read the news stories of Armstrong's testing and passing those tests and I'm confused.


Chuck

Technically, yes, Lance passed those tests. That means that when he was tested (ie when he raced) he was clean.

Remster