Re: Steroid News Item

[Guest guest]

This is a follow up to the CJ Hunter 'scandal'. It was reported by the

Australian Broadcasting Corporation that -

" Hunter tested positive four times: IOC

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) says champion United States shot

putter CJ Hunter has tested positive to steroids four times since June.

Hunter withdrew from the Sydney Olympics before they began, citing injury,

but is in Sydney supporting and coaching , who opened her quest for

five gold medals by winning the 100m on Saturday.

The IOC's medical commission chief, Prince andre de Merode, says Hunter

failed three out-of-competition tests in Rome, Barcelona and Oslo as well as

one in-competition test, also in Oslo.

He says all four tests produced similar results, showing Hunter had the

banned steroid nandrolone in his system.

" Nearly the same level, nearly the same result, " he said. " That was clear in

all these tests. "

The IOC had confirmed the in-competition test yesterday.

IOC official Johann Koss says the US Track and Field team has only itself to

blame if n ' bid for five gold medals in Sydney is derailed by

Hunter's positive drugs tests.

Koss, the IOC representative on the World Anti-Doping Agency, said the US

tried to conceal Hunter's dope test and was to blame for the announcement

coming in the middle of ' Olympic campaign.

" I should think this is affecting her a lot to prepare for the rest of the

Games and I think that's unfair for her, " he told Channel 9.

" But I think the US Track and Field should have released this a long time

before this happened so this wouldn't happen now just during the Games. "

However, Koss said it would be unfair to cast aspersions on just

because her husband had tested positive.

" These are two totally different cases, " he said.

" n is under a lot of pressure now and certainly she is totally

innocent and she has no relation to his positive case and I think this is

very clear. " "

*** CJ gave an emotional press conference today, he was flanked by wife,

n. (His mass was so great that several of the lighter bodyweight

reporters began to orbit around him!). He denies having ever used drugs and

as is invariably the case when a top athlete tests positive he will try to

clear his name through the courts.

As an aside - Mel Siff's comments about impolite US reporters reflects an

earlier post of mine about drugs in sport which referred to the Australian

media. They're not quite as rude as the US media in the post-race

interviews. However, some post-race general comments made during a

commercial radio broadcast by former Australian swim gold medallist in

Moscow, Neil , about Inga Debrujn (who was too good for the Aussies)

were libelous towards the Dutch woman. I believe he was heavily censured as

a result of his behaviour. (In fact it wouldn't surprise me if Neil was on

the gear when he won gold - he does have a big head on him!).

There wasn't one mention of drugs when Freeman won gold last night in

the 400m. Had she lost (as Ian Thorpe did to Pieter Van Den Hooganband)

Australians would have been crying foul. On a positive note, the Aussie TV

swim commentators were entirely professional during their 'secondment'. Well

done Dennis Commetti and Baildon.

Cheers,

_______________________

Mavromatis

Department of Economics

Monash University

AUSTRALIA

_______________________

" The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the

inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. "

Winston Churchill.

[Guest guest]

Ok This prompts a sad followup question:

Is n clean?

sigh. One has to wonder.

Also I find it very sad that people lie, when it's a matter of public record

like that too - why on earth? and whose image is he protecting? his

positive test prompts the question about her as well.

The Phantom

Steroid News Item

>

>The following article relates to another case of anabolic steroid use by an

>international athlete:

>

><http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,1238641%255E2,00.html >

>

>< US SHOT put star C J Hunter, husband of Olympic 100m champion n

,

>has tested positive to steroids (nandrolone and testostreone), triggering

his withdrawal from the United States Olympic team. The 1999 world

champion shot putter tested positive to two steroids during a competition in

Europe, forcing his withdrawal from the US Olympic team, which he announced

earlier this month.

>

>The revelation makes a mockery of Hunter's statement he was forced to

>withdraw from the Games -- where he and were expected to each win

gold

>- because of a knee injury that required surgery on September 3.>

>

>Dr Mel C Siff

>Denver, USA

>mcsiff@...

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I hope CJ Hunter's positive drug test doesn't tarnish the results of

his wife, n . She is clearly the most gifted female

sprinter in the world today. It would be a shame to see her hounded

out of the sport.

Also of interest is an interview with Charlie Francis (coach of Ben

) which appeared at

http://www.testosterone.net

over the weekend. It will put some perspective into the issue (or non-

issue because it's a foregone conclusion) of 'doping'.

Cheers,

Mavromatis

[Guest guest]

>Ok This prompts a sad followup question:

>

>Is n clean?

Personally I really couldn't care less. However I can understand the

frustration of anyone trying to become the best in the world without using

doping (if there are any...).

Like some guy once said: " If you fail a doping test you are either stupid,

Norwegian or Iranian " .

Jan

Oslo, Norway

[Guest guest]

On Sunday, September 24, 2000 7:00 PM, Schaefer wrote:

> Ok This prompts a sad follow-up question:

> Is n clean?

> sigh. One has to wonder.

> Also I find it very sad that people lie, when it's a matter of public

record

> like that too - why on earth? and whose image is he protecting? his

> positive test prompts the question about her as well.

,

Aren't you the person who posted that your friend had what you believed to

be a false positive for nandrolone? The numbers for nandroline positives

(^2ng/ml for men and 5ng/ml for women) are low maximums according to several

scientists in the field. You were sure that your friend was innocent because

you know him and trust he is not lying, yet you would say " > Is n

clean?> sigh. One has to wonder. > Also I find it very sad that people lie,

when it's a matter of public record. " Isn't your friend's positive also a

matter of public record? Yet you assume innocence for someone you know. Ah

human nature. Quirky, we are in the we and they of it.

Now you are willing to assume guilt by association!! It seems that the

press, in the story Dr. Mel referred us to on that web site, was willing to

plant the seeds for such an association. Here's the opening line in the

story: " US SHOT put star C J Hunter, husband of Olympic 100m champion n

, has tested positive to steroids,... " In the 4th paragraph, before

they detailed HIS numbers in HIS tests they went on to infer her associative

guilt by reporting: " The controversy may affect 's aspirations for a

five gold medal haul. However, there is no suggestion of facing any

doping allegations herself. "

This brings up that very suggestion of doping by using some of the phrasing

tactics of insidious persuasive methods that Dr. Siff pointed out last week

when he sent in those web sites on induction and mind control exposing these

kinds of methods. The press planted this idea in their first sentence by

mentioning his marital partner rather than reporting accurately his offense

without mentioning her right then at all. Then again, by the statement

" The controversy may affect 's...there is no suggestion of facing

any doping allegations herself. " This is a sneaky way of creating the very

suggestion which the sentence appears to be refuting. Why mention her at

all? How many other accused athletes' wives with less visibility have been

mentioned in such a way?

In our legal system we are protected from this kind of thinking, but in the

arena of public opinion this is the kind of unfair " reporting " which can put

a person's reputation in jeopardy based on nothing but a speculative

emotional innuendo. Once rumors spread and imply guilt it is very hard for a

person to fully retrieve her credibility. Public figures are quite

vulnerable. We want pure heroes and we crucify them if they appear to fall

short, even if it is an unproven offense. Isn't innocent until PROVEN guilty

really a better assumption after all? Why does his positive prompt a

question about her? Have you not known marriage partners, one who smoked and

one didn't, or one who drank and one who didn't?

In this story it is not until the 8th paragraph that they mention the

details of his offense:

" ...tested positive to the steroids nandrolone and testosterone at the

Bislett Games in Oslo on July 28.

It is understood he had a reading of nandrolone 1000 times the legal limit.

The limit for nandrolone is 2 nanograms per milliliter of urine.

Sources confirmed Hunter also tested positive to testosterone by recording a

testosterone to epitestosterone reading greater than 6:1. It is understood

the International Amateur Athletics Federation and US track and field were

aware of the results.

IAAF spokesman Giorgio Renieri yesterday refused to confirm the drug

readings, saying he was unaware of the positive test. "

I am not suggesting that he is innocent of the offense. I do not have enough

background information on what's going on here to jump to conclusions,

though 1000x normal sounds pretty huge. Testosterone to epitestosterone

ratios can be influenced by other factors, esp. in women who are taking

birth control pills, which is of course not relevant here. For more than two

decades Dr. DiPasquale, for one, has criticized the short sightedness of the

IOC drug testing standards. Much of what he has said in that period of time

has turned out to be right, particularly the flawed

testosterone/epitestosterone ratio used for detecting the use of exogenous

testosterone. Changes were subsequently made to correct some, but not all,

of the deficiencies. I haven't studied this issue thoroughly enough to know

if there is reason to believe that this could apply in any way in this case.

I do know that guilty athletes can and have covered their tracks

successfully and innocent ones have been falsely suspended.

According to a " Real Sports " story on HBO today, IAAF is the very committee

that denied knowledge of and also overturned cocaine positives on two

offenses for the Cuban athlete so that he could go to the games and also

pardoned 3 others, names unmentioned, on the same day of arbitration. They

had apparently only overturned 3 suspensions in all the previous years

combined. Hummmm, what might have prompted those pardons, spirit of fair

play, benefit of the doubt? Couldn't possibly be greedy back pocket politics

with the desire to have those who bring in the sponsors and the fans there

at the games, could it? Naw....that wouldn't be a fair application of the

rules.

I heard that recently in Alberta, Robin Lyons, an Olympic hammer thrower,

who was banned as a result of a positive nandrolone urine test, her levels

were 9.0 and 8.4 had her suspension for nandrolone metabolites upheld by an

arbitrator. Merlene Ottey presented with levels of 14 ng/ml and was cleared

earlier this year. Exercise alone has been shown to increase nandrolone

levels by 300%, this could easily explain these womens' results. Once

accused, can an athlete regain her reputation, even if overturned in appeal?

This is precisely why I fear the kangaroo court tactics of these committees

and distrust their inconsistencies far more than I trust their ability to

protect the trusting public from nefarious doping athletes.

Di

Dianna Linden diannnal@...

[Guest guest]

Dear List,

I " m asking this question as a matter of interest and as a professional - not an

athlete trying to cover up!!!!

Do I have the right idea on how these athletes are

a) doping and getting away with it

accidentally getting caught

Firstly, I'm guessing that a lot of countries don't do rigorous out of season

testing, thus people are doping leading up to the games, then stopping. If they

are likely to get tested is the half life of these drugs enough to calculate how

long it will take to get excreted given their body weight? and aided by

diuretics etc. Thus some get caught because their metabolism isn't perfectly

" normal " ? Or, are only the poorer countries using nandrolone and the likes

because the others have much more advanced drugs?

Comments, info etc. would be appreciated becasue I'm interested. It is often a

topic of discussion in our clinic and I would like to know the answer. (It has

been said that approx. 80% have or are taking a performance enhancing drug -

does this sound right?)

Thanks,

Epsley

Physiotherapist

Brisbane, Australia.

--

On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 02:29:09

.Mavromatis wrote:

>

>I hope CJ Hunter's positive drug test doesn't tarnish the results of

>his wife, n . She is clearly the most gifted female

>sprinter in the world today. It would be a shame to see her hounded

>out of the sport.

>

>Also of interest is an interview with Charlie Francis (coach of Ben

>) which appeared at

>

>http://www.testosterone.net

>

>over the weekend. It will put some perspective into the issue (or non-

>issue because it's a foregone conclusion) of 'doping'.

>

>Cheers,

>

> Mavromatis

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Do we really want to know??? I'd rather not.

Dassie, MS, CSCS

Director of Physical Enhancement

Siouxland Acceleration & Fitness

" Schaefer " <thephantom198@...>:

Ok This prompts a sad followup question:

Is n clean?

sigh. One has to wonder.

Also I find it very sad that people lie, when it's a matter of public record

like that too - why on earth? and whose image is he protecting? his

positive test prompts the question about her as well.

The Phantom

Steroid News Item

>The following article relates to another case of anabolic steroid use by an

>international athlete:

>

><http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,1238641%255E2,00.html >

>

> US SHOT put star C J Hunter, husband of Olympic 100m champion n

> ,has tested positive to steroids (nandrolone and testosterone),

triggering

> his withdrawal from the United States Olympic team......

[Guest guest]

> Firstly, I'm guessing that a lot of countries don't do rigorous out

of season testing, thus people are doping leading up to the games,

then stopping.

***

I agree. I know for a fact that here in Canada he are one of the

country which does the most out of season testing relative to the

number of athletes ... and even then we don't do that much, of course

more inopinate tests will be conducted in the year of the Olympics.

Testing is expensive and they will not test for nothing, they must

have a good reason to do so ... it might be an already strong

suspicion that the athlete is using prohibited substances, it might

be that the athlete is not federation-friendly or it might be a

question of clearing up the public image.

***

If they are likely to get tested is the half life of these drugs

enough to calculate how long it will take to get excreted given their

body weight? and aided by diuretics etc. Thus some get caught

because their metabolism isn't perfectly " normal " ? Or, are only the

poorer countries using nandrolone and the likes because the others

have much more advanced drugs?

***

Good point. But I still don't understand why athletes use Nandrolone

since it is detectable for up to 18 months in the human body!

Athletes fooling with steroids not naturally found in the human body

are either ignorants or " know " that they wont be tested.

From a low ranked athlete with no real coaching and no expert advice

I could see why they would test positive for nandrolone ( a) they

don't know that it stays long in the body it's a relatively easy

drug to get a hold off and c) they see all the positive tests for it

and want to do like the big boys) but when a world class athlete gets

caught using it I find it hard to accept ... after all they DO have

expert counselling on the subject.

My guess is that in the past, elite levels (the " superstars " ) were

guaranteed not to be tested positive by the federations (you don't

cut your best superstar do you?) so they were able to use nandrolone

without fear of getting caught. All of a sudden the IOC and various

sports feds decide to get a bit tougher on doping and the now " non-

protected " superstars get caught.

Or they could just plain ignore that nandrolone is detectable for up

to 18 months...

But there is little doubt in my mind that the " intelligent " , or

better counselled athletes use natural hormones (testosterone, growth

hormone, insulin, IGF-1) or undetectable substances (HCG, EPO/before

this year) and have their levels checked by a Doc to avoid getting

over the " legal " ratios before the competition.

Thibaudeau

[Guest guest]

On Sept 25, 2000, Epsley wrote:

<I'm asking this question as a matter of interest and as a

professional ....are only the poorer countries using nandrolone and the

likes because the others have much more advanced drugs?

Comments, info etc. would be appreciated because I'm interested. It is

often a topic of discussion in our clinic and I would like to know the

answer.>

Aside from the Charlie Francis interview at http://www.testosterone.net ,

you might find a more detailed perspective on the topic of nandrolone and

the presence of its metabolites in individuals not using nandrolone itself

or any of its precursors in the review by Dr. Simon of the Lawrence

Berkeley National Laboratories at:

<http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Simon1/Nandro.html>

I've heard that www.mesomorphosis.com might have a position paper on this

topic soon as well.

Best,

Di

Dianna Linden diannal@...

[Guest guest]

wrote,

>Ok This prompts a sad followup question:

>Is n clean? Sigh. One has to wonder.

It is sad. However, as far as I know there is no guilt by association. Let's

take n's accomplishments for what they are rather than tarring her

because of her husband. She has passed the drug tests - her husband didn't.

Presumably if she was doing the same thing that he was doing, she would have

failed as well.

This is the unfortunate thing about drugs. Everyone get tarred with the

same brush and the accomplishments of those athletes who are clean are

belittled.

[Guest guest]

From: " Schaefer " <thephantom198@...>

Date: Mon Sep 25, 2000 11:17am

Dianna:

First of all, I respect your opinions. Here is again the case of the PL in

CO and my opinions expanded a bit:

The powerlifter here has had conclusive tests done by quest diagnostics on

his amino acid supplement that show clear contamination with andro and

norandro from the factory (he submitted all of his supplements, including

pyruvate and vitamins too, not just the amino supp and none were labeled to

have anything not permitted to a drug free athlete). This is a male PL in

his 50's and 114 lb class, Galant, and knowing for 4 years,

frankly I did believe him. The tests on his supplements prove this case as

well. This was a clear case of accidental dosing with nandrolone, NOT a

hormonal case such as the gal in the hammer - and not a person who is

married to a man who has just failed a steroid screen. has also sent

out a notice to all lifters here regarding his case, and warned everyone to

use more caution than ever, even recommending one quit ALL supplements 2

weeks out to be careful and not end up spending time and money trying to

clear his name!

Oh, and having acne is not a direct indicator of having steroids in the

system by the way - I personally have acne and have had it for 25 years now,

it simply does not respond to treatment and gee, I haven't been on ANY

STEROIDS EVER. So whoever posted that comment needs to realize that adults

break out from stress and travel, humidity, air pollution, allergies, any

number of reasons and that acne, in and of itself, is NOT an indicator (The

comment was that n's face is broken out, that alone would not convince

me of anything except perhaps stress or other factors - quite likely at an

Olympics). The only remaining treatment in my case is accutane and I

personally do not feel messing with my genes a good idea....and acne does

not impair one's ability as an athlete or one's health, just the opinion of

people who react on FACE VALUE. However, severe overall BODY acne -

" backne " so bad you bleed when the bench shirt is on, that is perhaps more

of a valid indicator.......I think there is a measure of severity here.

The reason I made the comment about marion though, the problem is that she

is indeed married to someone who did pop for steroids. The questions of

" sink tests " for the elite athletes - this is a valid question. And it is

only a question. I am not saying she is a roider, I am saying I would

wonder, based on HIS conviction for such usage. The temptation would be

great to an elite sprinter living with a person who is doing steroids, to

also do them. And his example does sadly reflect on her, as she is married to

him.

The Phantom

-----Original Message-----

On Sept 24, 2000, Schaefer wrote:

>> Ok This prompts a sad follow-up question:

>> Is n clean? sigh. One has to wonder.

>> Also I find it very sad that people lie, when it's a matter of public

>>record like that too - why on earth? and whose image is he protecting? his

>> positive test prompts the question about her as well.

From: Dianna Linden diannal@n...

>,

>

>Aren't you the person who posted that your friend had what you believed to

>be a false positive for nandrolone? The numbers for nandroline positives

>(^2ng/ml for men and 5ng/ml for women) are low maximums according to

>several scientists in the field. You were sure that your friend was innocent

>because you know him and trust he is not lying, yet you would say " Is n

>clean? sigh. One has to wonder. Also I find it very sad that people

>lie,when it's a matter of public record. " Isn't your friend's positive also a

>matter of public record? Yet you assume innocence for someone you know. Ah

>human nature. Quirky, we are in the we and they of it.

>

>Now you are willing to assume guilt by association!!......

[Guest guest]

Dianne wrote,

>

>I heard that recently in Alberta, Robin Lyons, an Olympic hammer thrower,

>who was banned as a result of a positive nandrolone urine test, her levels

>were 9.0 and 8.4 had her suspension for nandrolone metabolites upheld by an

>arbitrator. Merlene Ottey presented with levels of 14 ng/ml and was cleared

>earlier this year. Exercise alone has been shown to increase nandrolone

>levels by 300%, this could easily explain these womens' results. Once

>accused, can an athlete regain her reputation, even if overturned in appeal?

I've heard quite a few people who know Robin that they believe she is

innocent. By their accounts, this is a person of unquestioned integrity

whose sporting aspirations have been derailed by this positive test.

It would be a shame if Robin is lying, if she has taken illegal drugs and

is simply covering up. In this was the case I would say Robin should be

ashamed.

But what if she is telling the truth? Can you imagine how you would feel if

you hadn't used and got this positive result? Recent tests appear to

support Robin's contention.

Who should be ashamed now? An athlete like Lyons has made many sacrifices

to get where she was. She has paid a dear price - and it isn't a matter of

money. I support drug free sport, but it is necessary to have tests that

work - and don't implicate innocent people.

[Guest guest]

Hobman <khobman@s...> wrote:

<.....I support drug free sport, but it is necessary to have tests

that work - and don't implicate innocent people.>

*** OK, just to play devil's advocate here - Why the hatred of drugs

in sport? Why do performance enhancing drugs (the ones that work!)

carry the " mark of the beast " ? I have my theories, but I'm

interested in hearing other's views. Wouldn't medical support and monitoring of

athletes - who are going to use drugs, anyway - be preferable to

demonization?

Shafer

Texas, USA

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Hobman wrote:

> This is the unfortunate thing about drugs. Everyone get tarred with the

> same brush and the accomplishments of those athletes who are clean are

> belittled.

Don't flame me here, but I honestly think that while steroids make a difference

to the elite athlete, the mere fact that one is doping doesn't make

him into a superstar. If CJ Hunter can throw (and he sure can), I don't

care what he's taking. It doesn't make him any less of a thrower to me.

I don't take steroids, but I do think they should be legalized (but there

is the problem of IDIOTIC levels of abuse, like always)

No flames, okay?

[antonsevilla]

[Guest guest]

> I've heard that www.mesomorphosis.com might have a position paper on this

> topic soon as well.

Yes, we will send out Mauro DiPasquale's position paper on nandrolone

tonight in the Think Muscle Email Newsletter. It is too long to post here,

so if anyone is interested (and does not wish to subcribe), you may download

a copy sometime later tonight at:

<http://www.thinkmuscle.com/newsletter/007.pdf>

Millard Baker, Founder

Mesomorphosis - http://www.mesomorphosis.com/

" A Harm Reduction Approach to Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Abuse "

============================================================

Subscribe to the Think Muscle Newsletter

http://www.mesomorphosis.com/newsletter.htm

The Think Muscle Newsletter publishes the latest news and research on

health, nutrition, bodybuilding, fitness, exercise physiology, dietary

supplements, performance enhancement and lifestyle management. The

newsletter is dedicated to providing accurate and unbiased

scientifically-based information.

[Guest guest]

> Good point. But I still don't understand why athletes use Nandrolone

> since it is detectable for up to 18 months in the human body!

> Athletes fooling with steroids not naturally found in the human body

> are either ignorants or " know " that they wont be tested.

The burning question of the moment is whether or not nandrolone metabolites

are naturally occurring. If so, this changes the criteria for failing a

doping test for nandrolone.

> >From a low ranked athlete with no real coaching and no expert advice

> I could see why they would test positive for nandrolone ( a) they

> don't know that it stays long in the body it's a relatively easy

> drug to get a hold off and c) they see all the positive tests for it

> and want to do like the big boys) but when a world class athlete gets

> caught using it I find it hard to accept ... after all they DO have

> expert counselling on the subject.

>

> My guess is that in the past, elite levels (the " superstars " ) were

> guaranteed not to be tested positive by the federations (you don't

> cut your best superstar do you?) so they were able to use nandrolone

> without fear of getting caught. All of a sudden the IOC and various

> sports feds decide to get a bit tougher on doping and the now " non-

> protected " superstars get caught.

>

> Or they could just plain ignore that nandrolone is detectable for up

> to 18 months...

Nandrolone-based drugs are old drugs and practically all athletes are aware

of the risk of detection due to the long half-life. So, the question of why

so many athletes have tested positive for nandrolone metabolites in the past

year (over 300) is a good one!

Millard Baker, Founder

Mesomorphosis - http://www.mesomorphosis.com/

" A Harm Reduction Approach to Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Abuse "

===================================================

Subscribe to the Think Muscle Newsletter

http://www.mesomorphosis.com/newsletter.htm

The Think Muscle Newsletter publishes the latest news and research on

health, nutrition, bodybuilding, fitness, exercise physiology, dietary

supplements, performance enhancement and lifestyle management. The

newsletter is dedicated to providing accurate and unbiased

scientifically-based information.

[Guest guest]

wrote,

>

>*** OK, just to play devil's advocate here - Why the hatred of drugs

>in sport? Why do performance enhancing drugs (the ones that work!)

>carry the " mark of the beast " ? I have my theories, but I'm

>interested in hearing other's views. Wouldn't medical support and

>monitoring of

>athletes - who are going to use drugs, anyway - be preferable to

>demonization?

Several reasons for me.

1. The measure of a person's success should be determined by the person,

not in a lab. With drugs much of the onus is taken away from the hard work

of the athlete and is determined by who gets the best pharmaceuticals.

2. There is no way you can get equality in drugs. The rich countries will

dominate all sports simply because they can afford the best drug programs.

Once again, the measure of success no longer is determined by the person -

it becomes a matter of economics. You can say it already is, but you are

wrong. It is still possible for countries like Kenya to produce exceptional

runners without economic advantages.

3. Often with drug use (as in bodybuilding anyhow) the best is determined

by who is willing to heap the most abuse on their bodies.

4. Where does it end?

To me anything that tilts the playing field is wrong. Drugs completely

distort the concept of a level playing field. They favour the rich nations.

They favour the rich athlete. To a great degree they take away from the

need to develop individualized training programs specifically for each

athlete.

[Guest guest]

> Why the hatred of drugs

> in sport? Why do performance enhancing drugs (the ones that work!)

> carry the " mark of the beast " ? I have my theories, but I'm

> interested in hearing other's views.

I think many people would like to believe that athletes become champions

solely through the strength of their character, their determination, and

just sheer will. Anything that shatters this notion, whether is is the use

of chemistry and performance enhancing drugs (or dicussions of race,

genetics and performance), is unacceptable for many people.

>Wouldn't medical support and monitoring of

> athletes - who are going to use drugs, anyway - be preferable to

> demonization?

Remember when Samaranch proposed medically-supervised doping

for the IOC? I've never seen anyone backtrack so fast from a statement!

Clearly, I think a harm minimization approach is the best solution given the

current state of drug testing technology. It would be nice if the IOC, etc

were more concerned about the health of an athlete rather than focus on

creating the illusion of drug-free sports competition.

Millard Baker, Founder

Mesomorphosis - http://www.mesomorphosis.com/

" A Harm Reduction Approach to Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Abuse "

===================================================

Subscribe to the Think Muscle Newsletter

http://www.mesomorphosis.com/newsletter.htm

The Think Muscle Newsletter publishes the latest news and research on

health, nutrition, bodybuilding, fitness, exercise physiology, dietary

supplements, performance enhancement and lifestyle management. The

newsletter is dedicated to providing accurate and unbiased

scientifically-based information.

[Guest guest]

Shafer <sknd100@...> wrote:

> Hobman <khobman@s...> wrote:

>

> > ...I support drug free sport, but it is necessary to have tests

> > that work - and don't implicate innocent people.>

>

> OK, just to play devil's advocate here - Why the hatred of

> drugs in sport? Why do performance enhancing drugs (the ones that

> work!) carry the " mark of the beast " ?

Regardless of 's views on whether drugs are good or bad (for

everyone), his point there was that if you have drug-free

competition, it must be tested.

Unenforceable rules aren't real rules. They create a terrible

situation just asking for hypocrisy. Imagine if most people didn't

drive and didn't have personal experience with real-life driving.

" You...you speed? But that's against the law! "

Matt Madsen

[Guest guest]

> 1. The measure of a person's success should be determined by the person,

> not in a lab. With drugs much of the onus is taken away from the hard work

> of the athlete and is determined by who gets the best pharmaceuticals.

All elite athletes DO essentially have equal access to the best

pharmaceuticals. Actually, it may be more difficult for american athletes to

find the " best pharmaceuticals " due to the criminalization of AAS in the US.

Yet, this doesn't seem to hamper their access or, more importantly, their

performance.

> 2. There is no way you can get equality in drugs. The rich countries will

> dominate all sports simply because they can afford the best drug programs.

> Once again, the measure of success no longer is determined by the person -

> it becomes a matter of economics. You can say it already is, but you are

> wrong. It is still possible for countries like Kenya to produce

exceptional

> runners without economic advantages.

Performance enhancing drugs are very inexpensive. Much cheaper than most

nutritional supplements and advanced training facilities, equipment etc.

Yet, I don't see any movement to ban advanced dietary supplements or

training facilities simply because poor countries can't afford them.

So, it would seem that performance enhancing drugs are the easiest, most

practical way of levelling the " economic " playing field. In fact, IMO the

inclusion of drugs in sports may do more to level the playing field than the

removal of drugs from sports. (Even so, I don't think this should be a

justification of drug use in sports.)

Granted, I do see how rich athletes/countries have greater resources to

" beat " the drug tests.

> 3. Often with drug use (as in bodybuilding anyhow) the best is determined

> by who is willing to heap the most abuse on their bodies.

But outside of bodybuilding/weightlifting, this is generally not true. Most

track athletes don't need to use large amounts of AAS for maximum

performance-enhancing effects and consequently don't compromise their health

to the same extent. So, it is not a matter of more is better.

Most of the abuse incurred by most elite athletes does not result from their

drug regimens anyway. It results from their extreme training regimens.

> To me anything that tilts the playing field is wrong. Drugs completely

> distort the concept of a level playing field. They favour the rich

nations.

> They favour the rich athlete. To a great degree they take away from the

> need to develop individualized training programs specifically for each

> athlete.

Clearly, there are ethical issues that are involved in doping and sports

that I did not bother to discuss. These deserve consideration.

I do agree with you to some extent regarding the economic disparities. But I

do believe that the complete removal of drugs from sports will do little to

level the playing field as you suggest. The concept of a level playing field

is illusory IMO.

Millard Baker, Founder

Mesomorphosis - http://www.mesomorphosis.com/

" A Harm Reduction Approach to Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Abuse "

===================================================

Subscribe to the Think Muscle Newsletter

http://www.mesomorphosis.com/newsletter.htm

The Think Muscle Newsletter publishes the latest news and research on

health, nutrition, bodybuilding, fitness, exercise physiology, dietary

supplements, performance enhancement and lifestyle management. The

newsletter is dedicated to providing accurate and unbiased

scientifically-based information.

[Guest guest]

--- Hobman <khobman@...> wrote:

<SNIP>

> 1. The measure of a person's success should be

> determined by the person,

> not in a lab. With drugs much of the onus is taken

> away from the hard work

> of the athlete and is determined by who gets the

> best pharmaceuticals.

>

*** Granted - that would be ideal. Wouldn't we need

to return to the days of naked Olympians, though?

Much of a modern athletes success is also based on the

quality of equipment/physical aids available. If you

wish to level the playing field - level it all the

way!

> 2. There is no way you can get equality in drugs.

> The rich countries will

> dominate all sports simply because they can afford

> the best drug programs.

> Once again, the measure of success no longer is

> determined by the person -

> it becomes a matter of economics. You can say it

> already is, but you are

> wrong. It is still possible for countries like Kenya

> to produce exceptional

> runners without economic advantages.

>

*** See above re: equipment. The more affluent

countries are able to provide their athletes with

better physical aids. What about state supported

athletes in less affluent countries? How do we

measure the advantage they have by having all their

needs catered to by " big brother " .

> 3. Often with drug use (as in bodybuilding anyhow)

> the best is determined

> by who is willing to heap the most abuse on their

> bodies.

>

*** I thought we were talking about real sports and

performance enhancement? <evil grin> - not

bodybuilding... This is where decriminalization comes

into play. Educate doctors and trainers, monitor

athletes for health issues, and educate the public

rather than maintain the hypocrisy.

> 4. Where does it end?

>

> To me anything that tilts the playing field is

> wrong. Drugs completely

> distort the concept of a level playing field. They

> favour the rich nations.

> They favour the rich athlete. To a great degree they

> take away from the

> need to develop individualized training programs

> specifically for each

> athlete.

*** The issue as it stands today is profit - not pure

economics (although the winning athlete potentially

profits as well). As long as moneyed sponsors demand

the bar be set ever higher with each olympics, we will

see athletes doing whatever it takes to win. Same

argument holds for the " win it for the mother country "

crowd. There will never be a level playing field with

the forces at work in the modern Olympics.

Why not minimize the damage these individuals may

potentially do to themselves or have done to them?

Develop individual training, nutrition, AND doping

programs, tailored to the individual athlete, with the

goal of enhancing performance while preserving health.

Emphasis on the " preserving health " ...

Shafer

Texas, USA

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Just because some of these (most - over 50%?) athletes are taking ergogenic

aids, doesn't mean they aren't working as hard, if not harder than those that

are not taking the drugs. Anyone who is familiar with how and why they work

should know this. My guess is the ones that are probably working much harder

than those that aren't, because the drugs allow them to.

Why shouldn't athletes take them, if their opponents are? I've heard very high

numbers of reported users in MLB, NBA and NFL, so why are we to believe that

this is not the case in Olympic competition?

Don't frown on these athletes, they still have to put their time in and still

have to have the genetic gifts to get where they are, with or without the drugs.

And yes, I believe they should be legalized, but only obtainable with a doctor's

prescription and continued monitoring (blood test, liver function, etc..)

Dassie, MS, CSCS

Director of Physical Enhancement

Siouxland Acceleration & Fitness

>>> " Millard Baker " <millard@...> 09/25 11:59 AM >>>

> Why the hatred of drugs

> in sport? Why do performance enhancing drugs (the ones that work!)

> carry the " mark of the beast " ? I have my theories, but I'm

> interested in hearing other's views.

I think many people would like to believe that athletes become champions

solely through the strength of their character, their determination, and

just sheer will. Anything that shatters this notion, whether is is the use

of chemistry and performance enhancing drugs (or dicussions of race,

genetics and performance), is unacceptable for many people.

>Wouldn't medical support and monitoring of

> athletes - who are going to use drugs, anyway - be preferable to

> demonization?

Remember when Samaranch proposed medically-supervised doping

for the IOC? I've never seen anyone backtrack so fast from a statement!

Clearly, I think a harm minimization approach is the best solution given the

current state of drug testing technology. It would be nice if the IOC, etc

were more concerned about the health of an athlete rather than focus on

creating the illusion of drug-free sports competition.

Millard Baker, Founder

Mesomorphosis - http://www.mesomorphosis.com/

" A Harm Reduction Approach to Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Abuse "

===================================================

Subscribe to the Think Muscle Newsletter

http://www.mesomorphosis.com/newsletter.htm

The Think Muscle Newsletter publishes the latest news and research on

health, nutrition, bodybuilding, fitness, exercise physiology, dietary

supplements, performance enhancement and lifestyle management. The

newsletter is dedicated to providing accurate and unbiased

scientifically-based information.

[Guest guest]

<SNIP>

> Remember when Samaranch proposed

> medically-supervised doping

> for the IOC? I've never seen anyone backtrack so

> fast from a statement!

>

*** Wow! Outstanding idea! I am suprised he wasn't

drawn and quartered, or at least impeached, for even

suggesting honesty in doping...

> Clearly, I think a harm minimization approach is the

> best solution given the

> current state of drug testing technology. It would

> be nice if the IOC, etc

> were more concerned about the health of an athlete

> rather than focus on

> creating the illusion of drug-free sports

> competition.

>

*** Agreed...

Shafer

Texas, USA

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

> US Shot put star C J Hunter, husband of Olympic 100m champion

> n , has tested positive to steroids (nandrolone and

> testostreone), triggering his withdrawal from the United States

> Olympic team.

Why would any tested athlete ever take nandrolone? They have to know

it's easily detected. They have better options. I can't imagine

they're really that dense. What don't we know?

Matt Madsen

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Epsley <physio@...> wrote:

> Or, are only the poorer countries using nandrolone and the likes

> because the others have much more advanced drugs?

Nandrolone ( " Deca " ) is a popular androgenic-anabolic steroid.

Testosterone serves the same purpose (at least in men), costs less,

and is harder to detect. The poorer countries wouldn't necessarily

have access to HGH, IGF-1, etc., but they'd probably have access to

testosterone.

Matt Madsen