Printable View
Reading this here this morning really made me angry. For those who follow the sport and are as old as I am Eddy Merckx will always be the greatest cyclist of all time but Lance is a close second and a man I greatly admire. This POS Landis couldn't climb the rope so he wants to pull down those who could. :rant:
Sounds exactly like a 15 year old who'd been caught smoking wakky bakky. "But mum, everyone does it..!"
Theres absolutely no point in having competitive sport if the paying field isnt level, anyone can see that. And these guys who dope are the first to sit there preaching clean living and exercise while their shenanigans arent public, but as soon as they are its denials and counter accusations all the way.
If you dope to compete in professional sports, you should be chucked out permanently AFAIC.
Here is a guy who finally admits that he has been lying for the past four years and now comes forward with the admission of guilt accompanied with these accusations for which he has no proof whatsoever. I hope it isn't true but unfortunately there will always be some ambiguity there.
I feel sorry for these athletes who came of age in the era of performance enhancing drugs. The temptation to take advantage of them must be almost unbearable with the competitive drive that the top players have. Along with that the knowledge that your competitors are probably using the stuff to their advantage.
Jimmy, I hate to spoil it for you , but Merckx was a user as well. He admitted as much a couple of years ago during the local Belgian doping scandals.
I think there isn't a single top level cyclist who doesn't use -something- to allow him to get an edge. The only difference is whether what they are using or how they are using it is legal or not, and whether it is picked up in drug tests or not.
Actually...the playing field IS level because most all of them do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubear
Whatever happened to the notion that the best skilled at a particular sport wins as opposed to the athlete with the best drugs win?
True, but the thing is its only MOST of them. So the ones who've decided to complete solely on the sweat of their brow and skill get left behind because the other guys are all using something.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
I do agree with Mark as well, it should be the best man wins. Not the one who's using the best drugs, or the ones that didnt show up in testing.
drugs don't win it for these guys. The drugs may allow some who would not be competitive otherwise move up a bit. They also give the great ones a boost too. Blood doping went on for many years in the "aerobic sports". It is still hard to tell when a guy infuses himself with a unit of packed cells..(Red blood cells which effectively gives one more "wind") The natural way is to train at altitude, (the higher you live, the higher your red blood cell count). . They won't make a champion out of just anyone like some beleive.
If Lance Armstrong had any testosterone levels, it would have been artificial. men don't make this when they have been castrated because of testicular cancer period..
It is well documented that anabolic steroids are safe and effective when used properly with proper dosing in adult men,(no teens). The politically correct say otherwise without scientific proof. Its funny that all the studies done to prove steroids dangerous failed in that respect. The only bad thing found on a regular basis is more frequent acne.
My views on this are well researched. I'm a Doctor of Pharmacy and have read every study i could get my hands on. It may very well be unethical to use performance enhancers, but the fact is that safe and effective use is possible.
Kirk (Exarcher)
At the moment it's being sidelined by the financial rewards while prestige (national/individual etc) is taking a back seat. Wasn't so in the past, of course, when the combination was more weighted in the other direction. The ancient Olympic games were rife with unfair advantages gained. Plus ça change and all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
I have to confess that I am cynically ambivalent about it (in fact, a glance at the terrain those guys cover during the Tour de France in six or so weeks led me to think that if they're not on drugs, then they should be), but my Dad, no mean athlete in his day, has given up watching track and field as a result of the doping around those events.
True. I read that the reason steroids got banned was that there was a proliferation of amateurish usage of steroids (incl with teenager boys) leading to many problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by exarcher
I think that part of the problem however is that as time goes on newer methods are thought of to enhance performance.
So what IS an illegal performance enhancer.
1) Injecting your own blood?
2) Eating a piece of fruit at the right time?
3) taking a pill that helps you focus?
4) Drinking extra coffee during a game?
The edge is pretty foggy as far as I can tell.
Exactly, thanks for pointing it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
I hate to say it, guys, but, chances are, your favorite athlete is either most likely using or has used in the past.
Face it: ergonomic aids are here to stay. Practically any sport that relies on endurance, strength or speed is riddled with either steroids or other performance enhancers.
Is it "cheating"? Well, that's up for you to decide.
Many public speakers and professional musicians use beta blockers to inhibit anxiety during a performance. Is that "cheating"? After all, someone not taking those things would likely have a much more difficult time performing than those who did.
If a sports player drinks or takes caffeine pills, a substance that can substantially increase cognition, mental acuity and stamina, does that mean that he has a better advantage, and is therefore "cheating" as opposed to another team's player that didn't take it?
All these things are obviously subjective, but I personally don't feel you can demonize one substance whilst supporting another; several "accepted" compounds out there can have a dramatic effect on ones' performance in any given sport or skill.
So, the question is: what is "cheating" and what's not? Does perceived legality of a substance, ala steroids; prohormones; fat burners; etc., have any effect on how someone views "accepted" and "legal" substances?
What if certain legal compounds have a much better performance-enhancing effect on a given individual than do "illegal" or "restricted" substances? Should those things be illegal for that person? After all, everyone is different and different things work for different people.
I know that all my comments are rhetorical. My point is that, in my opinion, "doping" legislation in professional sports is a sham.
While taking steroids isn't going to enable everyone to hit 60+ home runs in a season it may enhance the ability of someone who couldn't otherwise do it. For Babe Ruth it seems to have been something in the beer, hot dogs or cigars that did the trick. I wonder if McGuire or Sosa could have broken the records without the performance enhancing drugs ?
I recall that Floyd Landis in his tour "win" was more or less out of the running after a really bad day. The following day he came back like gangbusters in the mountain stages and left everyone in the dust. At the close of that day's race people found it incredible that he could have performed at that level drug free and of course it turned out he was indeed "on" something. So maybe I'm one of those "born every minute" but I give Lance the benefit of the doubt. If it turns out that he was "dirty" I'll feel as I did when I found out there isn't a Santa Claus after all. :)
Armstrong is probably the only athlete that I give that benefit to. He has been accused of this for years and has passed all drug tests both before and after the allegations.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyHAD
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out he was taking something. Cheating has existed for as long as competition in one form or another, and we've heard so many great athletes deny taking drugs (e.g. Marion Jones) up until the point where it's proven that they actually did.
Well I agree and wouldn't be surprised either but I hope it ain't so. One thing on the plus side. I've read that the French and other European competing nations are somewhat perturbed that an American not only won the tour, but won it seven times. They have gone to extremes to prove that Lance was doping and had no success. If they could prove it one time that would negate his record so if he is/was doping he was doing it smart.Quote:
Originally Posted by commiecat
My wife and I watched the downtown Modesto leg of this race. As always all of these racers are just amazing atheletes. I certainly hope Lance just passes whatever tests they throw at him and I agree the animosity from some of the europeans is uncalled for.
Anything which breaks the rules is cheating. Even the allowableQuote:
Originally Posted by Allen
amount of caffeine in the body is strictly regulated by the IOC.
The athletes know the rules. If they don't like the rules, then they shouldn't compete.
I'm a motorsport Scrutineer (Tech Inspector in the US) I find that most of the comptetitors are scrupulous in sticking to the rules, but there are some that will cheat if they think it will give them a competitive edge.
Often a cheat, when caught will say, everyone does it. I'm no psychologist, but I sometimes wonder if some compulsive cheats have to convince themselves that all the others are cheating in order to validate their success.
Now the federal government is investigating Landis's allegations with the intention of bringing charges of fraud against Lance if the allegations can be proved. NY Times breaking news here .
I am not a fan of the feds digging into a sport that hasQuote:
Originally Posted by JimmyHAD
rules, regulation and testing of its own. Unlike the Feds
the reach of the sport regulations are international.
In passing I have met some professional cycle folk and
their family. Cheating is not in the nature of any of the
people I have met.
sorry but i don't agree with the first sentence i quoted here. but i do agree with the second part. i myself have never taken steroids or any performance enhancing drugs as i never saw the point, if i had been dedicated enough and talented enough to have a shot at making a sport my career i can't say that my opinion might not have changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by exarcher
the problem i have with the first sentence is that i have had many friends that tried the "juice" and described the bad side of them, as in mood swings and the down time once you stop using them when your body has to start making regular amounts of testosterone again. also there is the argument on whether testosterone that isn't made by your body can react differently in the long term. on the other hand if used responsibly in a safe way you shouldn't be using them for long periods and there are natural herbs that help rebalance your hormones (and are very effective). and really if we are talking about taking them in a safe manner there are a lot less negative aspects to steroids, so i guess i don't totally disagree with the first statement.