[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;39225884]That's not true at all hth but yes otherwise its not an equatable scenario.[/QUOTE]
can you explain. afaik steroids basically make it so you can train harder, recover more quickly, and basically push yourself the extra mile for sports.
if i'm wrong i would love to know why.
It increases the payoff. You need to train less hard to achieve the same results.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, 'doping' is a dumb word
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39226062]can you explain. afaik steroids basically make it so you can train harder, recover more quickly, and basically push yourself the extra mile for sports.
if i'm wrong i would love to know why.[/QUOTE]
Steroids, specifically referring to anabolic androgenic steroids are substances such as, or derived from testosterone and basically mimic the effects of testosterone in the body.
In short, without going into a diatribe, they dramatically improve protein synthesis and turnover rate (basically making muscle building and injury recovery improved) as well as effecting the nervous system allowing for faster and greater adaptations in muscle strength. So while Ben Johnson (and every other sprinter because lmao, sprinters are the biggest abusers of steroids in the olympics) still required a great deal of training, technique and natural talent to make a 9.79 100 meter dash, it probably would not have been possible without the explosive strength gained from training under the assistance of steroids.
Anabolic steroids also increase Red Blood Cell count which in theory may allow for better oxygen utilization and endurance.
So while they do allow someone to theoretically train harder, its not why they are used.
I've written a very detailed guide to what AAS is and what it does here: [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1214886[/url]
Also while steroids have definitely been used in cycling, the drug of choice for endurance athletes remains EPO which is not a steroid.
[QUOTE=faze;39222867]So the man raises millions for cancer research while having cancer and is called a piece of shit several times over for lying about a fucking [B]sport[/B]???
Wow.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't be surprised if he's admitting he did it just so everyone would shut the fuck up and stop bothering him about it. It's been non stop for a decade for him
Who cares if he was using drugs the money went to a good cause and all the other athletes were doing it too.
[QUOTE=coldroll5;39226206]Who cares if he was using drugs the money went to a good cause and all the other athletes were doing it too.[/QUOTE]
A+ moral standards here
The only reason he's talking now is because he got a deal to keep all his money for exposing the others involved.
This is a man who knowingly cheated and lied his way to the top of professional cyclism. He was part of and helped establish a professional doping ring like sport has never seen. He knew what he was doing [B]at all times, yet he always denied all accusations[/B], even when the greatest doping investigation professional sport has seen uncovered everything.
Now he chooses to confess on Oprah, on his own terms, because that fat bitch would do anything for rating. He talks about cancer, about his foundation, sheds a tear or two, following the script his lawyers wrote for him. This [B]nothing but a calculated move by a cold, morally bankrupt shell of a man[/B], who cheated, lied and used everyone to reach his goals. He should be forgotten, not praised.
[QUOTE=Shovelpass;39222970]When men lose testicles, the single testicle often ramps up test production to compensate.
The human body does not want to produce the maximum amount of testosterone it can. Its goal is homeostasis, testosterone increases RBC count (blood pressure) and can mess with lipid profiles, therefore having tons of it in your body is not exactly the optimal environment. Sure, a proper diet and whatnot can mean being healthy even with massive amounts of test in the body, but the body isn't about to take that chance and go "I'm going to make massive amounts of this shit and hope the brain part of me takes care of my health."
So once again, losing testicles does not exactly mean lower test production. Testicles are virtually never at maximum test production capabilities.[/QUOTE]
Actually it's quite normal to have just one testicle. I was born with only one, and I've grown precisely the same as everyone else.
[editline]15th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=zugu;39226682]This is a man who knowingly cheated and lied his way to the top of professional cyclism. He was part of and helped establish a professional doping ring like sport has never seen. He knew what he was doing [B]at all times, yet he always denied all accusations[/B], even when the greatest doping investigation professional sport has seen uncovered everything.
Now he chooses to confess on Oprah, on his own terms, because that fat bitch would do anything for rating. He talks about cancer, about his foundation, sheds a tear or two, following the script his lawyers wrote for him. This [B]nothing but a calculated move by a cold, morally bankrupt shell of a man[/B], who cheated, lied and used everyone to reach his goals. He should be forgotten, not praised.[/QUOTE]
Whether you're doped or not, winning tour de france 7 times is quite a feat. And half of the rider's are doped anyway, so who really cares?
I'm really not sure why there was any doubt in the first place. The only reasons I could see were his background and his charity work, and if that was the case then it wouldn't be an extreme leap of logic[sub]*[/sub] to conclude the latter was a smokescreen.
[sub][sup]It would, however, be cynical[/sub][/sup]
This is now conclusive proof that every single time he went on TV and swore on God, his soul, and his mother's grave that he never doped, he was LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH.
What an asshole.
[QUOTE=Killuah;39226359]A+ moral standards here[/QUOTE]
Yes because winning a shitty competition is more important than raising millions towards cancer research
[QUOTE=faze;39222867]So the man raises millions for cancer research while having cancer and is called a piece of shit several times over for lying about a fucking [B]sport[/B]???
Wow.[/QUOTE]
i literally have not seen anything that denounces his entire life as being "a piece of shit" in regards to this
so thanks for the anecdote but there's nothing that suggests he wasn't a philanthropist, people just hate him for how stupidly cocky he got during all the trials. plus everyone's thought that he quit fighting just because he knew he'd lose came magically and wonderfully true now that he's admitting his doping
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;39225813]Thats a ridiculous analogy.
PED use would be the equivalent advantage of someone tuning up their mouse settings over someone who doesn't.
A shit athlete with the best drug regime won't even come close to beating a talented athlete. At the elite level its talent + drugs.[/QUOTE]
If you have two athletes who are almost the exact same skill-wise, but one of them has a bunch of money to buy the best drugs, the drug guy wins. Not exactly sportsmanlike conduct
If so many cyclists have to dope themselves maybe it's a sign that the tour de france is just too extreme for humans.
[QUOTE=sedarahC;39222734]I wonder if his testicles were at the point of no return because of the cancer when he decided to dope up.[/QUOTE]
I thought he was doping, like reusing his own blood transplants.
Not steroids
Who gives a shit. Give him all his medals, they all dope. I don't understand why people think juicing or whatever these biking fags do is cheating. When your racing for millions, you sure as hell are gonna do everything you can to win.
Why not make doping legal in sports?
[QUOTE=Ericson666;39246863]If you have two athletes who are almost the exact same skill-wise, but one of them has a bunch of money to buy the best drugs, the drug guy wins. Not exactly sportsmanlike conduct[/QUOTE]
Except PED's like steroids are dirt cheap and with a few exceptions, all work the same. Once you hit pharma grade (which isn't all that expensive, especially for a sponsored athlete) there is no "better drugs." The playing field is even at that point.
[QUOTE=Ericson666;39246863]If you have two athletes who are almost the exact same skill-wise, but one of them has a bunch of money to buy the best drugs, the drug guy wins. Not exactly sportsmanlike conduct[/QUOTE]
Not really.
And uh, to be honest, so what?
you hear anti-doping bodies cry about "level playing fields" all the time. The reality is, if drug use could actually be stopped in athletics (and it won't, ever) you would not have a level playing field. Some dude would have an inherent genetic advantage over others, and he would've got that not by hard work or application of knowledge, he would've got just for being lucky enough that his parents coupling produced a favorable set of genetics. Thats not "fair" in any sense of the word.
And please, dont try on the "natural selection" argument like I've seen a few people do, because natural selection would actually favor the athlete who was smart enough to use drugs.
This is the problem I have with casual sport observers, and I'm not even trying to be a dick about it, but you guys get your viewpoints from the media which have demonized drugs in sports since the 1989 scandal because US of A got mad their boy Lewis got whipped by the Canadian, even though Lewis and every other athlete in that event was known to be on drugs too.
Elite level athletics is about pushing the envelope of human performance. Is it so hard to accept that maybe modifying our hormonal profiles through the use of drugs IS the next step in achieving greater performance?
Furthermore, it's very easy to demonize these guys when you are just looking at the olympics as being a fair competition (and it's not, its corrupt as fuck), people soon forget that there is huge amounts of money involved. This isn't just a hobby for these guys, it's their goddamn [B]life[/B]. If my option is to use drugs and be able to compete at the elite level, or not use drugs and forever resign myself to being a mediocre athlete who gets no money and has no career, which one do you think I'm going to choose?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39226840]Whether you're doped or not, winning tour de france 7 times is quite a feat. And half of the rider's are doped anyway, so who really cares?[/QUOTE]
He's a cheat, he won those titles by cheating. His titles are worthless, his feats are worthless because he cheated.
And I seriously don't get this "they're all doping, just let them be" thing. Doping and cheating are exactly that: doping and cheating, a cancer upon this sport. If this cancer can't be removed, then they should do something radical, such as putting Tour de France on hiatus indefinitely - anything but the status quo.
[QUOTE=zugu;39252858]He's a cheat, he won those titles by cheating. His titles are worthless, his feats are worthless because he cheated.
And I seriously don't get this "they're all doping, just let them be" thing. Doping and cheating are exactly that: doping and cheating, a cancer upon this sport. If this [B]cancer[/B] can't be removed, then they should do something radical, such as putting Tour de France on hiatus indefinitely - anything but the status quo.[/QUOTE]
Hey man whoa that's a bit offensive to joke about don't you think? No zing for you.
I have lost all respect for this man.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;39250497]Not really.
And uh, to be honest, so what?
you hear anti-doping bodies cry about "level playing fields" all the time. The reality is, if drug use could actually be stopped in athletics (and it won't, ever) you would not have a level playing field. Some dude would have an inherent genetic advantage over others, and he would've got that not by hard work or application of knowledge, he would've got just for being lucky enough that his parents coupling produced a favorable set of genetics. Thats not "fair" in any sense of the word.
And please, dont try on the "natural selection" argument like I've seen a few people do, because natural selection would actually favor the athlete who was smart enough to use drugs.
This is the problem I have with casual sport observers, and I'm not even trying to be a dick about it, but you guys get your viewpoints from the media which have demonized drugs in sports since the 1989 scandal because US of A got mad their boy Lewis got whipped by the Canadian, even though Lewis and every other athlete in that event was known to be on drugs too.
Elite level athletics is about pushing the envelope of human performance. Is it so hard to accept that maybe modifying our hormonal profiles through the use of drugs IS the next step in achieving greater performance?
Furthermore, it's very easy to demonize these guys when you are just looking at the olympics as being a fair competition (and it's not, its corrupt as fuck), people soon forget that there is huge amounts of money involved. This isn't just a hobby for these guys, it's their goddamn [B]life[/B]. If my option is to use drugs and be able to compete at the elite level, or not use drugs and forever resign myself to being a mediocre athlete who gets no money and has no career, which one do you think I'm going to choose?[/QUOTE]
Something else to consider on top of this; Taking performance enhancing compounds outside of "sports". Most high level musicians are on shit like beta blockers constantly. Yet almost nobody seems to give a single solitary fuck about it.
I can understand disliking performance enhancing drugs, but in my eyes it's mostly an all or nothing deal. You can't criticize cycling, while being perfectly OK with people in an orchestra doing something very similar to enhance their performance.
[QUOTE=danelo;39253986]I have lost all respect for this man.[/QUOTE]
I haven't. I couldn't care less if he was doping or not. If pro atheltes dope so much then maybe the rules should be adjusted. If anything it will make things more fair since people who feel bad about cheating won't have to any more.
I thought the reason why PED is banned in sports is that they're usually bad for your health, making it a necessity to risk your health if you want to compete in any sport. The ban is there for the protection of the athletes.
[QUOTE=Mmrnmhrm;39254317]I thought the reason why PED is banned in sports is that they're usually bad for your health, making it a necessity to risk your health if you want to compete in any sport. The ban is there for the protection of the athletes.[/QUOTE]
Lmao no.
Most of these drugs are of minimal impact on the health, and honestly when all is said and done, the governing bodies don't give a FUCK about athletes health, otherwise the focus would be on helping athletes not punishing them.
Most of these governing bodies are corrupt as fuck and only actually pursue rigorous testing when they want to get a scapegoat or start a witchhunt for media attention to make it look like they are actually cleaning the sport up. They will happily clean out the lower level guys, but the top athletes bring in too much money.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;39254268]Something else to consider on top of this; Taking performance enhancing compounds outside of "sports". Most high level musicians are on shit like beta blockers constantly. Yet almost nobody seems to give a single solitary fuck about it.
I can understand disliking performance enhancing drugs, but in my eyes it's mostly an all or nothing deal. You can't criticize cycling, while being perfectly OK with people in an orchestra doing something very similar to enhance their performance.[/QUOTE]
Uh, except only one of those is a contest?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
