Bigger, faster, stronger

d-gal

Finally got around to watching this documentary. Fantastic film and hopefully it will educate the fools that anabolic steroids are not bad and kill millions!

I recommend it to everyone of the public.

daveywavey08

Stream of it up here:
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=JPVTUU6S

Great doc. I recommend people watch it.

WolfForager

Ha, even protein seems wrong to me (stupid i know, dunno why :S), creatine is untouchable imo and steroids are just... gah.

Seems like a good movie, about 20mins in now.

DamienH

It's a good film alright, some grade A nutters

dioltas

I watched it last night after hearing about it in another thread. Good show.

amazingemmet

Awesome movie, really showed both sides of the story in regarding steroids which was unique compared to most sources.

dioltas

Ya, have to say it was very unbiased. Still though I'd never touch steroids. Fcuk that.

figs86

d-gal wrote: »

anabolic steroids are not bad and kill millions!

in fairness during the film it does say that anabolic steroids increase cholesterol, raise aggression (in 5% of population), shrink testicles, reduce fertility, cause acne, deepen female voice, menstrual problems, enlarged clitoris, cause hair growth so it can definitely be bad....as it points out all drugs can be

and more importantly there is NO research into the longterm effects of steroids and never will be because it would be unethical so that's a complete shot in the dark

point of the film (to me) is to educate people in the risk:gain ratio involved with them

just wanted to clarify d-gal's statement a bit, but obviously the proof offered during the film suggests steroids aren't nearly as fatal as thought in general, probably because they are confused with other drugs like EPO etc

d-gal

figs86 wrote: »

in fairness during the film it does say that anabolic steroids increase cholesterol, raise aggression, shrink testicles, causes hair growth so it can definitely be bad....as it points out all drugs can be

point of the film (to me) is to educate people in the risk:gain ratio involved with them

just wanted to clarify that statement a bit, but obviously the proof offered during the film suggests steroids aren't nearly as fatal as thought in general, probably because they are confused with other drugs like EPO etc

Shrink testicles is a small side effect (not all users get it) and reverses once off them. And 'roid rage' only occurs in 5% of users.
Only 3 related fatalities of steroids in the US compared to the millions of alcohol related was a good point as well, hope people wake up on that.
Liked the part when he was naming out a big list of bad effects that was caused by vitamin C :pac: priceless

figs86

d-gal wrote: »

Shrink testicles is a small side effect (not all users get it) and reverses once off them. And 'roid rage' only occurs in 5% of users.
Only 3 related fatalities of steroids in the US compared to the millions of alcohol related was a good point as well, hope people wake up on that.
Liked the part when he was naming out a big list of bad effects that was caused by vitamin C :pac: priceless

i believe i stated the facts as in the film succintly in my first post, including the 5% of users presenting increased aggression

regarding some of the effects reversing once off anabolic steroids, sure, that's true, but the guys in the film were all habitual users for years so when exactly are they getting off them???
seems to me that they like the strength and mass gains when they used them early on and continue(d) using them for years and years

they don't seem to be fatal (again, no longterm studies) but there are bad side effects - don't belittle that fact when its regarding people's health

Killme00

Interesting stuff. For me the use of drugs to enhance performance is and always will be cheating. Can anyone tell me if the use of steroids in a recreational sense is legal in this country?

I have a friend who has no cartilage in one of his ankles. He injects steroids every day just so that he can walk so i acn understand the use of steroids in medical treatments. Isnt there even some steroid as part of the jab for hayfever? That bull was some size, i hope it helps to find a cure for muscular dystrophy.

figs86

wasn't that cow just the result of selective breeding, not steroid use?

like these ones http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmkj5gq1cQU

davyjose

d-gal wrote: »

Shrink testicles is a small side effect

On planet WTF!!! perhaps. Anything that will shrink my balls is something that I would give a wide berth to. That alone would stop me. You can say it's temporary or whatever, but it's gotta be doing something drastic for that to happen.

Edit: To be fair, IF fitness were something that consumed me the way it does for some people. If it were something I lived for, then the gain:risk ratio would change, and I perhaps would consider it. I guess I'm not in the right demographic for steroid use. I mean, it's not asif the guy with Aids would consider shrunken balls as much of a drawback as death. Bu I really think it's something you need to think twice about; once you take them you probably won't go back.

Reyman

If you take something like steroids and get into great shape, surely you have to be thinking 'well I'm a fraud really - a complete fake'. None of this is real hard earned muscle!

amacachi

Reyman wrote: »

If you take something like steroids and get into great shape, surely you have to be thinking 'well I'm a fraud really - a complete fake'. None of this is real hard earned muscle!

:rolleyes:

davyjose

Reyman wrote: »

If you take something like steroids and get into great shape, surely you have to be thinking 'well I'm a fraud really - a complete fake'. None of this is real hard earned muscle!

In fairness, 90% of the people who take steroids are not doing it for the fun of it. These are dedicated people who literally work to 100% intensity. They're not doing it for a short-cut, they're doing it because they can achieve no more through simple diet and lifting. So it is very, very hard-earned tbh.

d-gal

Reyman wrote: »

If you take something like steroids and get into great shape, surely you have to be thinking 'well I'm a fraud really - a complete fake'. None of this is real hard earned muscle!

WTF? You just dont take steroids and get magic muscle! You have to train 5 times a week minimum, have a perfect diet and then you might get some small results after 4 weeks, hardly fake and not well earned :rolleyes:

Mickk

davyjose wrote: »

You can say it's temporary or whatever, but it's gotta be doing something drastic for that to happen.

The very simple reason for it doing that is that you are putting testosterone into your body, your body keeps a check on your testosterone levels and it soon realises that they are too high, so it tells the testes to produce less to try and normalise the test levels. Producing less = smaller.

It works the exact same as a woman on the estrogen pill, higher estrogen levels tricks their bodies into telling the ovaries to produce less estrogen and just as a side effect if they aren't producing estrogen (and are smaller btw) they don't make an egg either.

g'em

[annoying biology nerd]

Mickk wrote: »

It works the exact same as a woman on the estrogen pill, higher estrogen levels tricks their bodies into telling the ovaries to produce less estrogen and just as a side effect if they aren't producing estrogen (and are smaller btw) they don't make release an egg either.

There's no oestrogen only pills, only progestin/ progestin + oestrogen. All the eggs a woman has and stores in her ovaries are produced before birth, they're just released one at a time each month during ovulation.

[/annoying biology nerd mode]

davyjose

Mickk wrote: »

The very simple reason for it doing that is that you are putting testosterone into your body, your body keeps a check on your testosterone levels and it soon realises that they are too high, so it tells the testes to produce less to try and normalise the test levels. Producing less = smaller.

That's a reasonable enough explanation. My problem, and it's a problem I have with a lot of western medicine (not just steroids), is that the human body is a million times more complicated than we can comprehend, so basically when a side effect occurs, we've no way of knowing the long-term knock-on effects of this*, and shrinking balls is, for me, not something I'm willing to take a chance with. But then, I rarely even take paracetamol.

*And there are always knock-on effects to any drug. A friend of mine with a chronic (but not life-threatening) illness takes about 7 or 8 different types of pill. All but two are simply to treat the side-effects of the previous medication.

Reyman

davyjose wrote: »

In fairness, 90% of the people who take steroids are not doing it for the fun of it. These are dedicated people who literally work to 100% intensity. They're not doing it for a short-cut, they're doing it because they can achieve no more through simple diet and lifting. So it is very, very hard-earned tbh.

I'm sure they work very hard. I've no doubt about that. But for me they're just frauds and I can't respect them I'm afraid. I just lose interest in what they've achieved, because it's not a level playing field

But I know other people have a different view and consider steroids a normal part of bodybuilding it. That's their opinion and it's fine by me.

AARRRGH

dioltas wrote: »

Ya, have to say it was very unbiased.

It was utterly biased! You can see this by their editing.

I wonder did his brother lose his job after being in the documentary?

AARRRGH

Reyman wrote: »

I'm sure they work very hard. I've no doubt about that. But for me they're just frauds and I can't respect them I'm afraid.

Where do you draw the line though? Nearly every activity has some sort of performance enhancing object, whether that be caffeine for heightened mental activity during exams, or special tyres to handle wet roads, or expensive suits to impress customers, etc.

What about eating lots of protein? Isn't that "cheating" as normally people don't consume protein supplements?

IMO anything which helps you achieve your goals, and which does not harm others, is fine.

Zamboni

I treat steroids use in the same way as I would illegal/controlled substance in that I'll never take them. But if anyone else wants use them, good luck to them.

davyjose

AARRRGH wrote: »

It was utterly biased! You can see this by their editing.

If challenging the "all steroids are evil and will kill you and you are a cheat and everything is black and white" stereotype of steroids is biased, then yeah, it was biased.

AARRRGH

Unrelated, but you might find this interesting/funny: http://www.steroidssavedmylife.com/

dioltas

AARRRGH wrote: »

It was utterly biased! You can see this by their editing.

You mean biased towards steroids being bad? Well I mean, it showed me that steroids aren't as bad or as unhealthy as I would have thought before hand. I still wouldn't use them myself, or be anywhere near a level of fitness / strength that I would need to use them anyway.

It was obvious that your man was against them I suppose. Seemed to me that his older brother's problems weren't to do with steroids really, but more his failed dreams of being a pro wrestler.
His younger brother seemed to be doing fine with them.

Did anyone else think your man with the biceps was sick?

CoachBoone

Really enjoyed that show,even if the editing was sometimes a bit unforgiving to the casual viewer.

I think it showed both sides quite well, steroids are not the miracle drug for having shexy/powerful and they are not the devil. They are what they are, and used correctly and safely they have some very useful effects and some serious side effects. While abused, like all other drugs, lead to problems.

Anyone here think they could actually be psychologically addictive, if not physically (I dont know what pertains a physically addictive drug, nor a psychologically addivtive one) after watching some of the people on that show? Again, could just be the editing though.

PeakOutput

AARRRGH wrote: »

IMO anything which helps you achieve your goals, and which does not harm others, is fine.

well who should win a competition? the person who works his ass off with no steroids and does great but comes second by a few points OR the person who worked the exact same amount or even who didnt have to work as hard as the 2nd place guy but still did better due to steroids?

that, to me, is still harming others. i dont have any particular problem with them using it personally but when it comes to competition it should be drug free, its not fair to force people to use drugs just so they can win which is what happens in bodybuilding, as far as i can tell, if your not on drugs you have no chance.

dioltas

I agree with PeakOutput when it comes to competition.

kevpants

I think one of the most glaring hypocricies about the whole subject is the American attitude that performance enhancing drugs are evil...but only in sports.

I can say with only a little exaggeration that every American is taking or has taken some drug to improve or enhance something about themselves rather than treat a condition. Travelling around America it is truly shocking to observe the amount of drug advertising, evry second TV ad is for a drug, a prescription drug at that. They tell the audience to go to their GP and ask for this drug by name! Half the population of American housewives (there's that exaggeration again) are hooked on temazepam but it's being advertised on every ad break on Oprah.

In sports, performance enhancing drugs make for world records, gold medals and feats we cannot begin to comprehend, all performed by humans. If it turned out Ben Johnson was a robot made specifically for sprinting, THAT'S cheating. But are drugs really cheating?

If it turned out Barack Obama delivered his speaches while off his head on Beta Blockers should they run the election again? The drugs helped him deliver his speeches which were key in his victory surely they enhanced his performance?

If you want all humans to one day live long healthy lives free from cancer, alzeimers and other tragic illnesses man will need drugs. If you want to see a sub 9.5 second 100m's, a 1400lb squat etc man will need drugs too. Simple as.

What if there was a truly drug free olympics and no one broke a world record, would you watch?

Personally I wouldn't take them, I also wouldn't take most prescription drugs. But I couldn't answer "No" and not doubt myself if the question was:

"If you were 5% away from a world record at the sport you've dedicated your life to and you knew the previous record holder used, as well as all of your competitors, would you use drugs?"

Any one here ever taken Xanax or the like before an interview?

AARRRGH

kevpants wrote: »

Any one here ever taken Xanax or the like before an interview?

Nope. I've taken anti-biotics perhaps twice and painkillers maybe ten times. That's the extent of my legal drug taking in 30 years!

I wouldn't take steroids, as I know you can get large without steroids (e.g. Steve Blackman in his WWE days). I have a good work ethic, so I have no problem doing things naturally.

I agree with your post btw.

PeakOutput

funny you should mention the wwe arrgghh i think that if we all just accepted drug use then all sport just becomes like pro wrestling.

sometimes impressive and entertaining but never tear jerking like some sports feats and just general great sporting moments.

Hanley

kevpants wrote: »

I think one of the most glaring hypocricies about the whole subject is the American attitude that performance enhancing drugs are evil...but only in sports.

I can say with only a little exaggeration that every American is taking or has taken some drug to improve or enhance something about themselves rather than treat a condition. Travelling around America it is truly shocking to observe the amount of drug advertising, evry second TV ad is for a drug, a prescription drug at that. They tell the audience to go to their GP and ask for this drug by name! Half the population of American housewives (there's that exaggeration again) are hooked on temazepam but it's being advertised on every ad break on Oprah.

In sports, performance enhancing drugs make for world records, gold medals and feats we cannot begin to comprehend, all performed by humans. If it turned out Ben Johnson was a robot made specifically for sprinting, THAT'S cheating. But are drugs really cheating?

If it turned out Barack Obama delivered his speaches while off his head on Beta Blockers should they run the election again? The drugs helped him deliver his speeches which were key in his victory surely they enhanced his performance?

If you want all humans to one day live long healthy lives free from cancer, alzeimers and other tragic illnesses man will need drugs. If you want to see a sub 9.5 second 100m's, a 1400lb squat etc man will need drugs too. Simple as.

What if there was a truly drug free olympics and no one broke a world record, would you watch?

Personally I wouldn't take them, I also wouldn't take most prescription drugs. But I couldn't answer "No" and not doubt myself if the question was:

"If you were 5% away from a world record at the sport you've dedicated your life to and you knew the previous record holder used, as well as all of your competitors, would you use drugs?"

Any one here ever taken Xanax or the like before an interview?

Stunningly good post.

You forgot something tho, we should get rid of genetics too. Since the guys with the best genetics will always have an unfair advantage. The only TRUE way to have a fair competition would be to only allow guys within say +/- 10% of the average genetic mean to compete.

Maybe then we could all get along and enjoy the competition.

PeakOutput wrote: »

funny you should mention the wwe arrgghh i think that if we all just accepted drug use then all sport just becomes like pro wrestling.

sometimes impressive and entertaining but never tear jerking like some sports feats and just general great sporting moments.

No, that's not what it'd be like at all. That is of course unless you got Hollywood in to write the end of the Tour de France, or scripted the 100m Olympic final.

Sport is about competition, not scripted endings.

For those of you giving out about steroids being cheating... How many of you have trained alongside someone using performance enhancers that is at the absolute pinnacle of their sport?

Jimmy Bottlehead

Excellent documentary.

Before seeing it, I was always 100% anti-steroids for the same reasons as Joe Public; because I was told they were bad and assumed that to be the truth.

However, after seeing it I feel that they're not the evil plague they're made out to be. I wouldn't do them myself, but I certainly wouldn't judge someone who does, provided they're well educated as to the positive and also the negative side-effects, and are smart about it.
Realistically, alcohol and smoking are more dangerous to a persons health, yet they're socially acceptable and so any moron can buy them without being aware of the real side effects. And I've seen personally what both have done to family members.

However, in a competitive sporting situation where they are banned, they simply should not be used. As (I believe it was) Roper said, the excuse that "everyone is using them" is not a valid one.

kevpants

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

However, in a competitive sporting situation where they are banned, they simply should not be used. As (I believe it was) Roper said, the excuse that "everyone is using them" is not a valid one.

True but is it not a valid reason to look at whether pharmaceuticals should be studied to see if there's a way of rescuing sports like the tour de france. It would be hugely controversial but what if the bans and tests were to determine levels rather than use of performance enhancing drugs.

It's about differentiating "abuse" and "use".

For example the nasty side effects are often as a result of abuse rather than use. I mean HGH can be USED to treat arthritis or ABUSED to create the massively bloated stomachs you see on bodybuilders with single digit bodyfat.

So many of these guys are self medicating and IMO that's the problem, if it was controlled by a trained doctor who knew not to simply double the dose if the athlete wasn't improving satisfactorily you wouldn't have so many issues I feel.

I just don't think drugs will ever get out of sports and I don't see the side effects being so bad that they should remain prohibited.

brianthebard

AARRRGH wrote: »

It was utterly biased! You can see this by their editing.

I wonder did his brother lose his job after being in the documentary?

There's an interview with the film maker on T-nation where he says he's anti-steroids, and continues to be after the film was made. I haven't seen it(the film), but he comes across as anti-ignorance and pro-knowledge in the interview, rather than pro-steroids.

p.s. Kevpants.

Brian?

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

However, in a competitive sporting situation where they are banned, they simply should not be used. As (I believe it was) Roper said, the excuse that "everyone is using them" is not a valid one.

I agree completely. The rules are the rules.

F1 has rules about what features your car can have, many electronic driver aids are banned.

Golf has rules about what kind of clubs and balls you can use and even how many.

Boxing has rules about what type of gloves can be worn.

Cycling has rules about the type of bikes that can be ridden in a race.

Taking performace enhancing drugs in a sport that has banned them is like breaking any of the rules above, sure it gives you that competitive edge to be the best, but its still cheating if its againest the rules.

Bodybuilders and powerlifters can take whatever the hell they want for all I care, as long as they're not actually cheating. The same goes for the average joe soap who wants to look better in a t-shirt, juice up all you want, its your own life.

I've watched cycling destroy itself over the last 20 years with bad anti doping enforcment, trust me its not enjoyable watching a sport when you know everyone is on something.

davyjose

Hanley wrote: »

You forgot something tho, we should get rid of genetics too. Since the guys with the best genetics will always have an unfair advantage. The only TRUE way to have a fair competition would be to only allow guys within say +/- 10% of the average genetic mean to compete.

Well, a massive part of the documentary, in fact, probably the filmmakers main point of contention with steroids, was that they were an unfair advantage to people who didn't have the talent that others might have been blessed with - i.e. genetics. If people want to take steroids (for competition purposes), they really need to admit that they are cheating. Justifying it by comparing it to good genetics is kidding oneself. When I watch a major sporting event, I want to see the guys with the best genetics in the world, not guys who have had the most success with steroids. You can try to slice it up any way you like, you can try to reason it out, but that's why 99% of us watch sports.

Hanley wrote: »

For those of you giving out about steroids being cheating... How many of you have trained alongside someone using performance enhancers that is at the absolute pinnacle of their sport?

Does the answer "No" in some way validate or invalidate anyones opinion?

One last point i'll make is this: Even the act of taking steroids involves too much of a random factor. If two guys can run 100m in ten seconds flat, and they both start taking steroids, it doesn't mean that both guys will knock the exact same amount off their time. I think that's actually a major sticking point with them. Supposing everbody did take them, if that guaranteed a 10% increase in performance across the board, then I could accept them easier. I could say, "well that guy is still the best". But it doesn't work like that, and quite often the reason guy A wins an event over guy B is down to the simple fact that he reacts better to the steroids. And that ain't the kind of genetic excellence I look for.

PeakOutput

Hanley wrote: »

Sport is about competition, not scripted endings.

so why should someone be forced to take drugs(illegal as far as i know but thats a technicality) just to compete at the top level of their chosen sport.

i dont care if they create a drug tour de france or an all out genetically modified olympics but there should always be the drug free version with strict pentalties for people who break the rules in them. sport is about one man or team versus another man or team its not about the team with the best scientist against everyone else and reaping the rewards.

it is not fair that two people can train their ass of for an entire lifetime 12 hours a day every day or whatever and one wins because he took drugs and the other is considered a loser.

Hanley

davyjose wrote: »

Well, a massive part of the documentary, in fact, probably the filmmakers main point of contention with steroids, was that they were an unfair advantage to people who didn't have the talent that others might have been blessed with - i.e. genetics. If people want to take steroids (for competition purposes), they really need to admit that they are cheating. Justifying it by comparing it to good genetics is kidding oneself. When I watch a major sporting event, I want to see the guys with the best genetics in the world, not guys who have had the most success with steroids. You can try to slice it up any way you like, you can try to reason it out, but that's why 99% of us watch sports.

Is it your belief that drugs overcome genetics? Taking the average and making them superhuman?

Do you believe Usain Bolt is drug free? Do you believe his competition is?

Do you believe Michael Phelps is drug free? Do you believe his competition is?

Does the answer "No" in some way validate or invalidate anyones opinion?

It completely invalidates it. Specifically for those who complain about drug users not working as hard as non users. Without seeing them train, you've no way of knowing this. I would argue that the guys on drugs train harder and sacrifice more. The ones at the top anyway.

One last point i'll make is this: Even the act of taking steroids involves too much of a random factor. If two guys can run 100m in ten seconds flat, and they both start taking steroids, it doesn't mean that both guys will knock the exact same amount off their time. I think that's actually a major sticking point with them. Supposing everbody did take them, if that guaranteed a 10% increase in performance across the board, then I could accept them easier. I could say, "well that guy is still the best". But it doesn't work like that, and quite often the reason guy A wins an event over guy B is down to the simple fact that he reacts better to the steroids. And that ain't the kind of genetic excellence I look for.

Cite your source. Or are you just speculating?

There's a million factors that could effect this. Nutrition, compounds, training etc etc.

Hanley

i dont care if they create a drug tour de france or an all out genetically modified olympics but there should always be the drug free version with strict pentalties for people who break the rules in them. sport is about one man or team versus another man or team its not about the team with the best scientist against everyone else and reaping the rewards.

Ok, lets do away with sports scientists, coaches, nutritionists, physios and psychologists too and lets just throw the athlete out there on their own to see what they can do.

While we're at it, lets ban sponsorship, and stop government support too. Because all of those things create unfair advantages too.

If we're gonna level the playing field, lets do it right and not just use drugs as the half arsed whipping boy when it comes to the inherent inequality that exists in sport anyway.

it is not fair that two people can train their ass of for an entire lifetime 12 hours a day every day or whatever and one wins because he took drugs and the other is considered a loser.

Highly unlikely that'll ever happen tbh. They fail because their genetics are not good enough, or they're not training as effeciently as possible. Like I said earlier, steroids won't over come genetics. I bet plenty of people have spent as much time as me in the gym over the last 5 years, but I doubt many would out total me. They might have worked just as hard, so why has life been unfair to them??

PeakOutput

Hanley wrote: »

Highly unlikely that'll ever happen tbh. They fail because their genetics are not good enough, or they're not training as effeciently as possible.

thats crap and you know it if the steroids didnt make people better than they can be 'naturally' they wouldnt take them.

if steroids didnt have the ability to make up for some genetic handicap the athletes believe they have they wouldnt take them

if people believed they could be the best body builder in the world without steroids they would not take them.

two identical people train identically for one race. one takes some sort of drug the day before that is against the rules of the sport. who deserves to win the race?

Hanley

PeakOutput wrote: »

thats crap and you know it if the steroids didnt make people better than they can be 'naturally' they wouldnt take them.

That's not your argument, and it's not what I'm arguing against. You were talking about fairness, hard work and talent, and how the person who works the hardest should win. I contest that there is an inherent inequality that exists in sport above and beyond drug use.

Hard work isn't just enough to be the best. Genetic excellence is a pre-requisite. Taking drugs isn't going to make some also-ran a champion. And when you get to the top level I would confidently state that drug use is more prevelent that most people care to think. And that the top guys would still be the top guys if everyone was clean.

two identical people train identically for one race. one takes some sort of drug the day before that is against the rules of the sport. who deserves to win the race?

So you're asking that in the abscense of drugs, who'll win a race that no-one can win??

You're talking about an intellectually pure argument which will never exist in real life, so the point is irrelevant. I would concede in the above quote that the guy who is clean deserves to win, but that point could only be one of morality, for if they're equally matched in all other regards, it would be a draw.

Hanley

PeakOutput wrote: »

thats crap and you know

Outline for me how genetics, training and the access to the best coaches and resources is "crap"?

PeakOutput

Hanley wrote: »

That's not your argument, and it's not what I'm arguing against. You were talking about fairness, hard work and talent, and how the person who works the hardest should win. I contest that there is an inherent inequality that exists in sport above and beyond drug use.

of course there is but thats a 'natural' inequality or just life, is not an excuse to try and garner an unfair advantage

Taking drugs isn't going to make some also-ran a champion. And when you get to the top level I would confidently state that drug use is more prevelent that most people care to think. And that the top guys would still be the top guys if everyone was clean.

i cant remember the name of the guy but a year or two ago an irish runner was caught after doping/steroids. his coach or the irish team coach specifically commented that this person was nothing special throughout his national career and was, for example, consistantly 4th/5th in ireland or in his races. he then over the course of a season shot to the top of the races and the rankings. it was either the world championships or the olympics he qualified for before he got caught.

now if he hadnt of gotten caught he would of prevented someone more talented than him and more deserving of an opportunity to represent their country against the best in the world.

So you're asking that in the abscense of drugs, who'll win a race that no-one can win??You're talking about an intellectually pure argument which will never exist in real life, so the point is irrelevant.

there has to be absolutes when it comes to rules. these things are not allowed simple as that therefore NOONE should be taking them if they are competeing in those sports. like it or not there are people who WILL follow the rules and they deserve to be able to compete without having to worry about others cheating (as i said already i dont care who takes what as long as they are not competeing in a sport were its against the rules).

there are cyclists who wont dope and they are entitled to a tour de france that isnt tarnished by doping scandalls. same for olympians and future olympians

i know an ex irish team swimmer who i asked about doping and steroids and he said he honestly knows of no1 on the team while he was there that would even consider it(the cynical will say maybe thats why he is not on the team anymore) but i would argue that if what you say is true and drugs are alot more prevalent at the top than most people think isnt it sad that these irish swimmers may never get the chance to be in the olympics because their times are half a second behind these steroid taking top swimmers?

by the way i think myself and hanley have had this debate before

Hanley

PeakOutput wrote: »

of course there is but thats a 'natural' inequality or just life, is not an excuse to try and garner an unfair advantage



i cant remember the name of the guy but a year or two ago an irish runner was caught after doping/steroids. his coach or the irish team coach specifically commented that this person was nothing special throughout his national career and was, for example, consistantly 4th/5th in ireland or in his races. he then over the course of a season shot to the top of the races and the rankings. it was either the world championships or the olympics he qualified for before he got caught.

Cathal Lombard?

He went from being mediocore at a national level, to being mediocore at an international level

now if he hadnt of gotten caught he would of prevented someone more talented than him and more deserving of an opportunity to represent their country against the best in the world.

They may have represented the country, but wouldn't have done much else.

Don't forget, my argument is that drugs don't take the genetically average and make them into world beaters. And it is in this context that I make my points.

there has to be absolutes when it comes to rules. these things are not allowed simple as that therefore NOONE should be taking them if they are competeing in those sports. like it or not there are people who WILL follow the rules and they deserve to be able to compete without having to worry about others cheating (as i said already i dont care who takes what as long as they are not competeing in a sport were its against the rules).

Well what if any Irish athlete has to move to the US to live and train so he can be competitive. But for whatever reason he doesn't want to. Should everyone else be penalised because they've an unfair advantage due to their place of birth that this Irish athlete hasn't enjoyed?

by the way i think myself and hanley have had this debate before

We probably have... I think there are a lot more important inequalities that exist when it comes to creating a level playing field than just doping. And I defend steorids as a result. If everything else was fair, my position would probably be different, but they;re not!

Sangre

Hanley wrote: »

e.

Hard work isn't just enough to be the best. Genetic excellence is a pre-requisite. Taking drugs isn't going to make some also-ran a champion.

Michelle de Bruin?

Roper

I hate steroid debates because mostly we all argue about what we think has happened, what might be happening now, and what we assume will happen in the future.

For me, the here and now is more important than any conjecture, and the here and now says is you take PEDs, you're a cheat. Just like if you tie the guy's laces together in a race, if you punch the ball into the net in soccer, if you take padding out of your gloves in boxing, or if you sneeze in a fella's backwsing.

What people may or may not do or questioning how many are taking at whatever level is totally irrelevant in that light. It's still against the rules today.

Hanley

Sangre wrote: »

Michelle de Bruin?

What was she banned for again?

Brian?

Hanley wrote: »

What was she banned for again?

Her whizz was full of whiskey