|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
On Aug 2, 5:50 pm, chester wrote:
Sounds like a shill for the pharmceutical association. I think to compare systematic exclusion of women and certain ethnic groups from competition to restricting performance enhancement is a really, really egregious rationalization. Some of these issues were brought up in the days of Prozac Nation, and I'm not an absolutist about this. There is a difference between treating pathoses and performance enhancement of the normal, but the line isn't always sharp. Usually though, to paraphrase Potter Stewart, it's tough to define what is unfair, but I know it when I see it. Steve "Sounds like a shill for the pharmceutical association." I don't think so. Look, the point of the article is this. Eventually, the average joe viewer will be more enhanced and drugged up than the professional athlete. How reasonable is that? The fact is I can go to my doctor any time and request a testosterone patch top supplement my system. It doesn't take much to get it. But the pro cannot ever do that. Also, I guess I am curious what the obsession is with 100% natural and "clean", when really these guys (and girls) are so much different than the average person, naturally and/or due to excessive training, diet and supplements. I admit I have mixed feelings about drugs no drugs, but it isn't cut and dry to me. So lets try a fantasy medically enhanced professional regiment. What would be allowed? Steroids? No, but just a little testosterone for recovery? Perhaps. Growth hormone? I don't think so. EPO? None, or in limited amounts? Altitude tents? Probably. Not a drug. Blood transfusions? I don't think so. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
chester wrote:
Sounds like a shill for the pharmceutical association. I think to compare systematic exclusion of women and certain ethnic groups from competition to restricting performance enhancement is a really, really egregious rationalization. Some of these issues were brought up in the days of Prozac Nation, and I'm not an absolutist about this. There is a difference between treating pathoses and performance enhancement of the normal, but the line isn't always sharp. Usually though, to paraphrase Potter Stewart, it's tough to define what is unfair, but I know it when I see it. Steve "Sounds like a shill for the pharmceutical association." I don't think so. Look, the point of the article is this. Eventually, the average joe viewer will be more enhanced and drugged up than the professional athlete. How reasonable is that? The fact is I can go to my doctor any time and request a testosterone patch top supplement my system. And your doc gives it to you--just like that? I disagree BTW. Maybe the first few Dutch and Belgian cyclists that died from uncontrolled use of EPO didn't know how dangerous it could be when abused. But you hope (at the least) that the average Joe viewer will have a doctor who will know the risks, know the benefits, and do the right thing. BTW, there will ALWAYS be risks. Steve It doesn't take much to get it. But the pro cannot ever do that. Also, I guess I am curious what the obsession is with 100% natural and "clean", when really these guys (and girls) are so much different than the average person, naturally and/or due to excessive training, diet and supplements. I admit I have mixed feelings about drugs no drugs, but it isn't cut and dry to me. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
On Aug 2, 8:23 pm, Steven Bornfeld
wrote: chester wrote: Sounds like a shill for the pharmceutical association. I think to compare systematic exclusion of women and certain ethnic groups from competition to restricting performance enhancement is a really, really egregious rationalization. Some of these issues were brought up in the days of Prozac Nation, and I'm not an absolutist about this. There is a difference between treating pathoses and performance enhancement of the normal, but the line isn't always sharp. Usually though, to paraphrase Potter Stewart, it's tough to define what is unfair, but I know it when I see it. Steve "Sounds like a shill for the pharmceutical association." I don't think so. Look, the point of the article is this. Eventually, the average joe viewer will be more enhanced and drugged up than the professional athlete. How reasonable is that? The fact is I can go to my doctor any time and request a testosterone patch top supplement my system. And your doc gives it to you--just like that? I disagree BTW. Maybe the first few Dutch and Belgian cyclists that died from uncontrolled use of EPO didn't know how dangerous it could be when abused. But you hope (at the least) that the average Joe viewer will have a doctor who will know the risks, know the benefits, and do the right thing. BTW, there will ALWAYS be risks. Steve It doesn't take much to get it. But the pro cannot ever do that. Also, I guess I am curious what the obsession is with 100% natural and "clean", when really these guys (and girls) are so much different than the average person, naturally and/or due to excessive training, diet and supplements. I admit I have mixed feelings about drugs no drugs, but it isn't cut and dry to me. Steve- it isn't clear to me what you disagree with. Banning EPO? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:44:51 -0700, DirtRoadie
wrote: So, if this were to happen, at what age or stage of development do juniors/amateurs get introduced to the juice that they will need to work their way into the elite ranks? That's up to their Pediatrician. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
"Steven Bornfeld" wrote in message
link.net... I disagree as a matter of principle that pros may as well be allowed to do whatever they wish to their bodies because everyone is doing it. In the first place everyone isn't doing it; secondly (and aside from the ethical issues) there are dangers to the pro looking for an "edge", and that given the ethical cloud under which doping resides, so-called "medical supervision" cannot be trusted. There will always be an ethical conflict between the doctor hired by a team to help the team win and the athlete. That's pretty much my beliefs as well. And we should be banning effect and not attempts. EPO that is indistinguishable from human EPO will be available soon. So the tests won't pick that up. But fixing a maximum hematocrit will help. We can test for additional oxygenation components added to the blood so that's not a problem. hGH doesn't show ANY performance enhancing properties but you can test for it. People who have used it tell me that they feel really great when using that stuff so I suppose that's why the belief that it works. Steroids? Again, setting limits on testosterone levels and ratios is intelligent. Disqualifying people who have low testosterone levels is insane. What is natural? If someone naturally doesn't produce a hormone due to a physical mutation do you disqualify them for using manufactured hormones to bring their levels to normal? Here's the bottom lines - as long as there are rewards for enhanced performance people will try any method to win even if it means destroying their own health. In order to prevent this you can't play hide and go seek with their drug use - it's just too expensive to continue the growing amounts of testing. Instead limit the amount of gain they can get from being illegal with a combination of limiting any possible gains to what you could achieve from normal training and losing income from disqualifications for using drugs. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
On Aug 2, 10:28 pm, Jack Hollis wrote:
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:20:51 -0700, wrote: So lets try a fantasy medically enhanced professional regiment. What would be allowed? Steroids? No, but just a little testosterone for recovery? Perhaps. Growth hormone? I don't think so. EPO? None, or in limited amounts? Altitude tents? Probably. Not a drug. Blood transfusions? I don't think so. You're never going to clean up cycling with that attitude. You're never going to clean up cycling. Read the editorial I posted to start this topic. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
performance enhancement | gym.gravity | Racing | 2 | December 20th 06 07:15 PM |
Finally getting traction against the Adventure Pass (Federal LandsRecreation Enhancement Act) | G.T. | Mountain Biking | 2 | October 1st 06 11:03 PM |
Life bans for doping | Xavier Santiago Amarillo - Dentista | Racing | 9 | August 16th 06 10:46 PM |
Another Drug Infested Sport | B. Lafferty | Racing | 5 | July 25th 05 09:31 PM |
Visibility Enhancement | Jim | Recumbent Biking | 41 | December 10th 04 01:03 AM |