52 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

supervike, on 13 October 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

Well, the real point is that the RULES says that it is cheating to use them.  Just as I'm sure the rules state Lance couldn't use a motor scooter on the Tour De France.

If 'performance enhancement' becomes legal to the rules, then it's not cheating.  But, to use them, knowing full well that you are breaking the rules indicates he's a cheat.

Exactly right.

The question seems to be why are some performance enhancing substances OK, while some are not?

[questionmark]

Babe Ruth, on 14 October 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

Exactly right.

The question seems to be why are some performance enhancing substances OK, while some are not?

You got that wrong: all performance enhancing substances are banned from sports, it is just that some are detectable now (used by the less wealthy or intelligent) and some will be detectable in the future. What has changed is the rules where now biological samples are preserved until a statute of limitations and checked for forbidden substances in the future as soon as the test becomes available.

That way the anti-doping agencies hope to take away the incentive of creating new drugs to enhance performance of what can be achieved by natural training.

What does exist is a list of known substances that are forbidden with exemptions when they may be used (i.e. certain illnesses on part of the athlete) and common food components (i.e. caffeine, lactose, glucose) that, while increasing performance, are not banned if within limits. That is not quite the same as having a list of allowed and disallowed doping.

[Babe Ruth]

Questionmark

It could be fairly easily argued that specially formulated protein drinks and powders are performance enhancing supplements.  So too breathing oxygen can enhance performance.  If pain disables a person, are pain killers also performance enhancing?

For my old body, drinking Gatorade while exercising can be performance enhancing.

Training regularly ALSO enhances one's performance, it might be argued.

So if they can "bulk up" by way of certain supplements, why not "bulk up" (choose your term) with steroids?

[questionmark]

Babe Ruth, on 14 October 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

Questionmark

It could be fairly easily argued that specially formulated protein drinks and powders are performance enhancing supplements.  So too breathing oxygen can enhance performance.  If pain disables a person, are pain killers also performance enhancing?

For my old body, drinking Gatorade while exercising can be performance enhancing.

Training regularly ALSO enhances one's performance, it might be argued.

So if they can "bulk up" by way of certain supplements, why not "bulk up" (choose your term) with steroids?

How much Gatorade do you have to drink and how much Coca-Cola to achieve a muscle mass of 50ml of steroids? Right, that is why.

[Habitat]

If the reports are to be believed, Armstrong employed intimidation and bullying to keep things quiet, that seems to compound his sins. Moral of the story is, choose your heroes carefully.

[and then]

Habitat, on 15 October 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:

If the reports are to be believed, Armstrong employed intimidation and bullying to keep things quiet, that seems to compound his sins. Moral of the story is, choose your heroes carefully.

If they are substantiated with physical evidence then I will admit it gladly.  I don't support cheating.  But neither do I condone railroading an innocent for political purposes.  If it is physically possible to cheat hundreds of tests administered in a random manner then what use is the testing?

[questionmark]

and then, on 15 October 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

If they are substantiated with physical evidence then I will admit it gladly.  I don't support cheating.  But neither do I condone railroading an innocent for political purposes.  If it is physically possible to cheat hundreds of tests administered in a random manner then what use is the testing?

If it is a doping method that cannot be tested at the time: yes.

The doping doctors have been ahead on the curve for quite a while, that is why we will learn later whether somebody has doped or not. In fact, many people who won gold this year could face some tough questioning in years to come, and some of those who came in last because they did not use any performance enhancing drugs will get the medals then.

[Eldorado]

questionmark, on 15 October 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

In fact, many people who won gold this year could face some tough questioning in years to come, and some of those who came in last because they did not use any performance enhancing drugs will get the medals then.

If they rename it the Tour de Dope everyone can keep their medals!  (lol)

Who do we trust in all this?  From what I can read the whole sport of cycling was/is corrupt from head to toe, all spitting bile at one another.  Am wary of believing testimony of folk who are only testifying because they've been caught lying.  At least Lance raised hopes and cash for millions of people, which is a helluva a lot more impressive than anything any of the other players is this sordid drama have ever done.  A cheat with a heart.  

Edited by Eldorado, 15 October 2012 - 04:30 PM.

[questionmark]

Eldorado, on 15 October 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

If they rename it the Tour de Dope everyone can keep their medals!  (lol)

Who do we trust in all this?  From what I can read the whole sport of cycling was/is corrupt from head to toe, all spiiting bile at one another.  At least Lance raised hopes and cash for millions of people, which is a helluva a lot more impressive than anything any of the other players is this sordid drama have ever done.  A cheat with a heart.  

I say its simple, but nobody is taking my Olympics, Special Olympics and Frankenstein Olympics seriously....

And yes, Lance Armstrong has shown that even after surviving cancer you can be a success in sports, but that would be more lasting and impressive if he had lost trying instead of won lying.

[Eldorado]

questionmark, on 15 October 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

And yes, Lance Armstrong has shown that even after surviving cancer you can be a success in sports, but that would be more lasting and impressive if he had lost trying instead of won lying.

I feel similarly about the "Liberation" of Iraq.

[Professor Buzzkill]

questionmark, on 15 October 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

I say its simple, but nobody is taking my Olympics, Special Olympics and Frankenstein Olympics seriously....

And yes, Lance Armstrong has shown that even after surviving cancer you can be a success in sports, but that would be more lasting and impressive if he had lost trying instead of won lying.

I read that some steroids caused testicular cancer which may be a factor in Lances case. If it is "self inflicted" cancer, then i have no sympathy.