Guest guest Posted September 25, 2000 Report Share Posted September 25, 2000 > 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> 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. Me: Drugs alone do not make a champion. Nandrolone will not turn a couch potato into a sub-10 sprinter. Drugs do enable an athlete to train, and recover from, workloads that would otherwise be impossible to sustain, drug-free. In other words, drugged athletes work harder, not less hard. : 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. Me: I suppose this explains the spate of drug suspensions of athletes from the (certainly with respect to the US and EU) dirt poor ex-East Bloc and other countries -- such as Bulgarian lifters, Nigerian sprinters, Chinese swimmers, Cuban high jumpers .... : 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. Me: For distance running, maybe. Even that is doubtful. Take a look at the medals table at the Sydney Olympics. Where are the facilities for pole vault, discus, decathlon, swimming, bobsledding, yachting, rowing, figure-skating, ski-jumping, water polo, volleyball, weight training, physiotherapy, sport injury surgery, treatment, and recovery? That's right, in the same countries topping the medals table. You won't find any of the above in Uganda, or Burundi, or Senegal. It is no coincidence either that most top African athletes live and train in the West -- and this goes for ALL sports, even the popular " grassroots " sports. For example, Nigeria's national soccer team represents that soccer-crazed nation and consists exclusively of players living and playing in Europe. : 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. Me: True. This is one of the most powerful arguments against drug legalization in sports. That statement is however also true irregardless of drug usage. The best are determined by those willing to take their bodies to the furthest extremes. Elite sport is not, and never has been, the healthiest of activities, with or without drug usage. And there have been arguments made that, without the extra recovery possibilities offered by drug usage, top sport would be even less healthy. : 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. Me: As the medals table shows (http://www.olympics.com) the playing field is already completely and irrevocably tilted in the direction of the rich nations. Poorer countries that want to compete on the same level have realized that money gets results: massive state-sponsored programs are the only way to even remotely compete with the rich West. The bottom line is, the idea of equality in sports is a myth, and always has been. Athletes are not born equal, and do not have equal financial and training opportunities, and this is especially true in professional sports. This is true at all levels, international, national and local. Drugs are not the cause of this inequality; at most they are simply an additional element. -- Elliott Oti Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2000 Report Share Posted September 25, 2000 Good point. Test all or not at all - and do it accurately! Since there is doubt about the utility of the te$t$, why bother te$ting at all? Shafer Texas, USA --- Matt Madsen <mmadsen@...> wrote: > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2000 Report Share Posted September 25, 2000 Hobman <khobman@...> wrote: > 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. With equal access to drugs, that doesn't seem to be a problem -- particularly since the drug improve recovery ability enough to allow users to work harder. > 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. Yes and no. Right now the rich countries have a much greater advantage in training facilities than in anabolic drugs. Steroids aren't expensive, especially when you think about bang for the buck. > 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. That does seem most true of bodybuilding. Cycling comes pretty close too though, and weightlifting certainly had a reputation -- one that hasn't gone away. > 4. Where does it end? With genetically engineered athletes who don't need exogenous drugs. Matt Madsen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2000 Report Share Posted September 25, 2000 Oti wrote, > >Me: >I suppose this explains the spate of drug suspensions of athletes >from the (certainly with respect to the US and EU) dirt poor ex-East >Bloc and other countries -- such as Bulgarian lifters, Nigerian >sprinters, Chinese swimmers, Cuban high jumpers .... Right. They can't afford to fund labs to stay on top of beating the tests, so they get caught because they use old stacks and masking agents - in effect old technology. > >: >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. > >Me: >For distance running, maybe. Even that is doubtful. >Take a look at the medals table at the Sydney Olympics. >Where are the facilities for pole vault, discus, decathlon, swimming, >bobsledding, yachting, rowing, figure-skating, ski-jumping, water >polo, volleyball, weight training, physiotherapy, sport injury >surgery, treatment, and recovery? >That's right, in the same countries topping the medals table. You >won't find any of the above in Uganda, or Burundi, or Senegal. It is >no coincidence either that most top African athletes live and train >in the West -- and this goes for ALL sports, even the >popular " grassroots " sports. For example, Nigeria's national soccer >team represents that soccer-crazed nation and consists exclusively of >players living and playing in Europe. Bulgaria is an poor country that does great a weightifting. For others money is an issue, no question, but it is still possible for a poor country to compete in a few sports which ignite a national passion. > > >The bottom line is, the idea of equality in sports is a myth, and >always has been. Athletes are not born equal, and do not have equal >financial and training opportunities, and this is especially true in >professional sports. This is true at all levels, international, >national and local. Drugs are not the cause of this inequality; at >most they are simply an additional element. No question that you are correct in this respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2000 Report Share Posted September 27, 2000 Dianna Linden wrote: > you will 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 > > http://www.mesomorphosis.com, http://www.thinkmuscle.com will have a > position paper on this topic by Dr. Di Pasquale soon as well, if it's not > already up there. For those who are not subscribers to the Think Muscle Newsletter, the latest issue, which includes Dr. Di Pasquale's position paper, is NOW available for download at http://www.thinkmuscle.com/newsletter/007.pdf The feature article, " Nandrolone Positive Drug Tests - What Do They Mean? " , is too long to post in this forum. So, I've only included my introduction to Dr. Di Pasquale's piece below: ==================================================================== Drug Testing and the Games of the XXVII Olympiad By Millard Baker Email: millard@... On September 25, 2000, the Daily Telegraph in Australia reported that the 1999 World Champion shot putter C.J. Hunter had tested positive for nandrolone during a competition in Europe in July. The next day, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) confirmed the positive result and disclosed that C.J. Hunter had failed four nandrolone doping tests in the past year. Hunter is the husband and trainer of n , the Olympic 100 meter champion. The media has created a fair amount of controversy with the insidious suggestion of n ' associative guilt. However, rather than jumping to conclusions regarding n ' guilt, perhaps we should first ask ourselves whether or not Hunter is, in fact, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a doping offense. It is commonly known in athletic circles, and has been for several years, that athletes subject to drug testing should avoid using nandrolone steroids. Athletes have been repeatedly warned that the metabolites of nandrolone esters can remain in the body for several months after the last administration. So, why would any competitive athlete use nandrolone esters given the greater risk for detection? Most elite athletes have equal access to the best performance enhancing drugs and there are several anabolic-androgenic steroids that offer equal or greater performance-enhancing advantages without the same risk of detection. Could C.J. Hunter have been completely unaware of nandrolone and its risk for detection? If the positive nandrolone test were an isolated occurrence, we could easily attribute it to the ignorance of the athlete. But it is not. Over three hundred elite athletes have failed the nandrolone test in the past year. Are they all just stupid? Do current doping control procedures offer conclusive evidence that an athlete is guilty of a doping offense? There is mounting evidence that the IOC nandrolone drug test, in its current form, is seriously flawed; however, in spite of the heightened public awareness of drugs in sports due to the " Games of the XXVII Olympiad, " this information is notably absent from popular media discussions of the topic. In an effort to offer our readers a greater understanding of drug testing in sports, Think Muscle has contacted Dr. Mauro Di Pasquale, a world-renowned sports physician and expert in drug testing protocol and procedure. In a position paper prepared for Think Muscle, Dr. Di Pasquale discusses the possible reasons for false positive nandrolone drug tests, the problems associated with the IOC's current nandrolone doping control procedures, and possible solutions to these shortcomings. Think Muscle would like to thank Dr. Di Pasquale for sharing his insight with our readers. ==================================================================== 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. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.