Experimenting with steroids

d-gal

Had an excellent chat with a leading S&C coach in the UK yesterday. As expected the conversation drifted onto steroid use and the dominance of usage in all sports and even with the average trainer. He admitted to me he has used steroids in the past but purely as an experiment to see what it feels like. He used for nearly a full year & went on several different kinds that were most relevant to the 3 sports he was most involved in. His opinion was that he had to do this because he sees it in the same away as not doing an exercise, you can't just go by what the book sez so to speak, you have to do the actual exercise.
Now I am constantly asked questions about steroids by all my clients/friends and even the general public. I know as I get more and more successful (hopefully) this will come a more dominant topic so my question is to all... Is it a benefit/necessity for a trainer to take steroids?

Please keep it as a good discussion and no bull about steroids will kill you etc.

PS I am not considering taking steroids what-so-ever, that's just me, I believe steroids should only be used by athletes to get a level playing field with other nations

ragg

Fantastic Read

Original Article & Pics on here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/may/18/healthandwellbeing.features1

g'em

The OP is NOT asking "should you take steroids?", the OP is quite clearly asking "Should a trainer/ coach take athletes in order to be able to give more personable advice to their clients/ athletes having 'walked the walk' and experienced them first hand?"

Stay on-topic, at the first hint that this turns into a pro vs cons of steroid use the thread gets locked.

floggg

To be honest, it depends on your propsective on the pros v cons.

If you think steroids are unhealthy/unethical/unadvisable, you would have no real need or desire to ever take them, and certainly wouldnt need to take them just so you tell your clients how bad they. That would be like smoking and getting cancer, just so you could be qualified to tell others not to.

if you think they are great/ethical/have no effect on health, then you obviously don't think there is no big deal with them, so you would have no difficulty doing them.

For that reason i don't think your question can be answered without opening up the steroids debate.

g'em

floggg wrote: »

For that reason i don't think your question without opening up the steroids debate.

Yeah, that's fair enough, can we keep it relative to the OP so?! I've just seen enough of these threads descend into chaos in super-quick time and I'm rather cautious

\harrassed Mod mode

AlphaMale 3OO

It's a fascinating topic you've brought up and I'm sure this thread is going to throw up a lot of controversy as a result. I would say what you are asking is already in motion in a lot of sports. Steroids are obviously not a new phenomenon and were arguably just as widespread in the 80's when testing was less stringent so it makes sense that a lot of the present day coaches are or have indeed been on and know how best to adminster training advice and possibly even advice on actually cycling the gear itself. I think there are benefits to that because a coach's job is to impart knowledge to his or her athletes based on his or her experience in relation to a variety of factors such as training, nutrition and yes, steroids. There is no point in denying that steroids are not being utilised in modern sport - sometimes peoples naivety stuns me. There are certain physiques and acts of sheer super humanness that cannot be achieved without ergogenic assistance. <snip - no unfounded allegations please> - their all on, and they need to be because (a)they are at the top of their sports and (b)they need to even the playing field. There's too much at stake for these guys to not be on. The only thing I can't figure out is how they are beating the tests but to come back to your original point, maybe the better connected coaches are helping out with this too? People may think what I have said is unbelievable, after all if this was all going on how would any of it be kept under wraps? Simple, why would anyone in their right mind talk about it?

ragg

g'em wrote: »

The OP is NOT asking "should you take steroids?", the OP is quite clearly asking "Should a trainer/ coach take athletes in order to be able to give more personable advice to their clients/ athletes having 'walked the walk' and experienced them first hand?"

Stay on-topic, at the first hint that this turns into a pro vs cons of steroid use the thread gets locked.

Was that at me?

Its a first hand accout of steroids - thought it was a good piece and very relevant

brianthebard

ragg wrote: »

Fantastic Read

Original Article & Pics on here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/may/18/healthandwellbeing.features1

Read that last year, thought it was a terrible article. The author intentionally went overboard with the cycle he used first to create better results but also to mess up his body. In the end it amounted to the very same "drugs are bad, m'kay" argument it supposedly set out to counter.

Regards athletes using steroids as per the OP, it would be great to believe that you can get away without it but the more I learn about athletics the more I believe that's not the case. Everyone says that the top athletes are genetically gifted and would be there regardless if they didn't take steroids. This may be true but that doesn't mean a genetically gifted athlete who's drug free will out perform another gifted athlete on steroids.

MagicMarker

He took steroids for a year as an ''experiment''?

lol.

ragg

I agree in part with what you are saying - but his intentions were to experience it for a character he was writing about in a book.
I don't think he is some kind anti drugs zealot.
I found it very interesting - seeing his amazing gains and his side effects was very interesting. I'm glad he wrote about all of it.
Although the creatine line at the end was cringe

Regards athletes using steroids as per the OP, it would be great to believe that you can get away without it but the more I learn about athletics the more I believe that's not the case. Everyone says that the top athletes are genetically gifted and would be there regardless if they didn't take steroids. This may be true but that doesn't mean a genetically gifted athlete who's drug free will out perform another gifted athlete on steroids

They would be there anyway, no doubt. but the argument that he takes steroids so I have is just a vicious circle.
Its almost like saying let them all take drugs and oneday we will have the 100 meters in 5 seconds - which is good for spectators. Its probably true, but ultimately flawed

g'em

ragg wrote: »

Its a first hand accout of steroids - thought it was a good piece and very relevant

It's a very OTT, sensationalised and innaccurate account of steroids, he likens the 'rituals' to heroin use ffs. My point is that the question in the OP is the ethical implications of coaches and trainers taking gear for the benefit of their relationship of their client though.

ragg

g'em wrote: »

It's a very OTT, sensationalised and innaccurate account of steroids, he likens the 'rituals' to heroin use ffs. My point is that the question in the OP is the ethical implications of coaches and trainers taking gear for the benefit of their relationship of their client though.

i thnk the heroine thing was the constant injecting and the problems associated with it - but I take your point about the OP.

I personally dont think risking the side effects is worth it - I also don't think that your average trainer should be giving advice about steroids, under any circumstances.
Its one thing if they use them themselves and asked about it, its completely another to
a) take them to have an opinion
b)give advice on something you don't have an indepth knowledge of.

both are equally dangerous.

Your average person that visits a trainer will never, ever, have a need to take steroids and if they choose to do so, it should be on their own heads

g'em

ragg wrote: »

I personally dont think risking the side effects is worth it - I also don't think that your average trainer should be giving advice about steroids, under any circumstances.
Its one thing if they use them themselves and asked about it, its completely another to
a) take them to have an opinion
b)give advice on something you don't have an indepth knowledge of.

But this then begs the question, who does provide the knowledge? Granted, steroids are illegal, that's unquestionable, but people do and will continue to take steroids for both athletic and aaesthetic enhancement. It is possible to take steroids safely, but people don't know how. You have to closely monitor your bloods, know what the warning signs for certain side effects are, know how to cycle and with what - the dangers are when they're taken incorrectly.

ragg wrote:

Your average person that visits a trainer will never, ever, have a need to take steroids

I completely agree, but people will still take them. Is a coach or trainer who has experience in using gear either first hand or having closely monitored soemone who is doing it in a better position to advise them on the healthy way to do it?

ragg

But is trainer doing that, not leaving themselves open to a law suit?

I think doing anything illegal, there is an inherent risk. It shouldn't be up to a trainer to advise on it.
IMO - someone who takes this decision, should look at one of the numerous online communities and take from that what they will.

to use an outrageous analogy - who teaches Smack heads how to take heroin? They don't go to a doctor to a learn, they learn off people who already do it.

mloc

ragg wrote: »

to use an outrageous analogy - who teaches Smack heads how to take heroin? They don't go to a doctor to a learn, they learn off people who already do it.

There are very few competitions involving taking smack nowadays.

d-gal

ragg wrote: »

I also don't think that your average trainer should be giving advice about steroids, under any circumstances.
Your average person that visits a trainer will never, ever, have a need to take steroids and if they choose to do so, it should be on their own heads

Well if your training athletes that might require steroids you will def not be an 'average trainer'. It's not like some gym instructor giving advice to a newbie, this is about having top end athletes with perfect training routines and diets who have an exceptionally high goal to achieve.

d-gal

Kolten Rhythmic Fax wrote: »

OP, the coach you were talking to was talking through his arse tbh.

Taking steroids for one year as an experiment would tell you almost zilch, 12 months using steroids is such a small time and the difference between the various drugs is only appricated by the experienced user.

If the coach was going to guide someone through a steroid regime, then at best he/she could provide the basics like show the client how to load & inject safely, speak to them about Post Cycle Therapy and maybe drugs to avoid using for the novice.

What he won't be experienced enough to warn the client about is the effects steroids will have on your personal circumstances in the long run, how when your off you'll fight for motivation & alittle bouts of depression.

Funnily enough i was talking to two guys just there who are heavy users for the last few years and they both thought it was a good idea, each to your own I suppose.
I wouldn't really say he is talking thru his arse either, he is one of the most respected S&C coaches in the UK at the moment.
After a year of cycling on/off you would suffer minor depression bouts, I have seen it first hand with a close friend. Obviously it would not be as bad as 10years of usage but still. I forgot to ask him did he suffer afterwards, must do that.
Cheers for the post

ragg

d-gal wrote: »

Well if your training athletes that might require steroids you will def not be an 'average trainer'. It's not like some gym instructor giving advice to a newbie, this is about having top end athletes with perfect training routines and diets who have an exceptionally high goal to achieve.

What kind of athlete though? An amatuer? A Pro?
I still think its not the trainers place to give this advice - in fact if it's a pro, getting a doctor to supervise is usually the done thing - its certainly not a fitness coach LOL

Hanley

AlphaMale 3OO wrote: »

IThere are certain physiques and acts of sheer super humanness that cannot be achieved without ergogenic assistance. <snip names> - their all on, and they need to be because (a)they are at the top of their sports and (b)they need to even the playing field.

That's a pretty libellous statement to make.

I haven't read the majority of this discussion, but my initial thoughts are no, a coach shouldn't have to use gear to see what it's like so he can more effectively coach an athlete. If you wanted to go down that road it'd probably be more beneficial to go to a "guru" and see from that what the best way is, and how it effects people. Guys like Conte, Dan Duchaine (RIP) and Coleman/Cutlers contest prep guy who's name escapes me.

I'll probaby be back with more thoughts later!

EDIT: thought of something else, if one was to start a cycle and told their doctor about it and said they wanted blood test/workups done every 6 weeks, could the doctor ethically refuse?? Obviously he's going to tell you to stop and not do it, probably try to scare ya into it, but if you took those results and got in communication with a less ethical doctor, or someone with great experience in the field, it would seem you could effectively monitor the state of your health?

Nate--IRL--

ragg wrote: »

Fantastic Read

Original Article & Pics on here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/may/18/healthandwellbeing.features1

I seem to remember this article being comprehensively debunked as a work of fiction, I'll dig around for the links.

Nate

Edit:- Disregard post, can't find the link.

d-gal

ragg wrote: »

What kind of athlete though? An amatuer? A Pro?
I still think its not the trainers place to give this advice - in fact if it's a pro, getting a doctor to supervise is usually the done thing - its certainly not a fitness coach LOL

it seems like you really don't rate trainers much. S&C coaches play an integral part in steroid usage in sports, and some higher tiers of these coaches have PhDs. They are still a trainer. For any decent team you are coaching 99% of the time you are required to have at least a masters in your field, especially abroad. So they would be able to 'supervise' fine, besides blood testing obviously.
Very little amateur athletes would not require gear as they are simply amateur in their sport, I am talking about the next tier up

Kev M

I think no, a trainer shouldn't have to use drugs to give advice on them.
A doctor doesn't experiment on himself with every type of medicine he prescribes LOL.

It's up to the athlete to make sure they're listening to the right people. I've heard trainers say some blatantly wrong stuff about steroids to people in gyms with complete conviction, not the most inspiring displays of professionalism. It's such a loaded subject that I just like to steer clear.

Mickk

AlphaMale 3OO wrote: »

<snip names> - their all on, and they need to be because (a)they are at the top of their sports and (b)they need to even the playing field.

Sorry but that is a really stupid statement, <snip name> has been breaking world records since he was 14, are you proposing he was using then aswell? Lots of high caliber athletes do but not all do, some are naturally genetic freaks.

D-gal, doing a few cycles and researching on the internet will never put you in a position to advise elite athletes on steroid use. Hanley is on the money, send them directly to a guru for that advice. You train them and break them down, let the guru build them up again.

Roper

I'm usually slated for my opinions on this matter on this forum... actually, I'm usually just slated. But I'll plough away anyway.

Firstly, I doubt what the guy was telling you is true, and if it is it's not accurate for all the reasons Makikomi has stated. I'm not sure what a top S&C coach has to gain from admitting to steroid use to a Personal Trainer from the West of ireland, no offence intended to you.

Secondly I've been around high level athletes enough to see the dedication involved in reaching your peak, and I hate to see any of that attributable to steroids. I think that this topic assumes widespread use where proof is absent.

ragg

d-gal wrote: »

it seems like you really don't rate trainers much. S&C coaches play an integral part in steroid usage in sports, and some higher tiers of these coaches have PhDs. They are still a trainer. For any decent team you are coaching 99% of the time you are required to have at least a masters in your field, especially abroad. So they would be able to 'supervise' fine, besides blood testing obviously.
Very little amateur athletes would not require gear as they are simply amateur in their sport, I am talking about the next tier up

So you are talking about pros? I'd love to see a pro that would do this without a doctor supervising them - bodybuilders not included obv.
Personally I think you are kidding yourself if you think that a top sportsperson is going to go to an S&C coach for this type of advice.
If they do, the are far to haphazard. Also, a fitness coach who has dabbled so they can experience it ( :rolleyes: ) isn't going to be to that clued in on the newest innovations required to beat the drug tests. A top sportsperson, would either go to a doctor or to a someone who si known in the industry, as someone else said, a guru, if not both.

d-gal

Roper wrote: »

Firstly, I doubt what the guy was telling you is true, and if it is it's not accurate for all the reasons Makikomi has stated. I'm not sure what a top S&C coach has to gain from admitting to steroid use to a Personal Trainer from the West of ireland, no offence intended to you.

He's a friend of a friend that I have got to known a lot of recently, no offence taken at all!

Mickk wrote: »

D-gal, doing a few cycles and researching on the internet will never put you in a position to advise elite athletes on steroid use. Hanley is on the money, send them directly to a guru for that advice. You train them and break them down, let the guru build them up again.

Would def agree with the guru part but the availability of one would be another thing. Take rugby for example, a lot of gear users but I know there isn't exactly a lot of well known gurus around, especially in Ireland. I suppose the coach was looking for the experience of steroid use and he could relate more to it, obviously nothing like a guru would

ragg wrote: »

So you are talking about pros? I'd love to see a pro that would do this without a doctor supervising them - bodybuilders not included obv.
Personally I think you are kidding yourself if you think that a top sportsperson is going to go to an S&C coach for this type of advice.
If they do, the are far to haphazard. Also, a fitness coach who has dabbled so they can experience it ( :rolleyes: ) isn't going to be to that clued in on the newest innovations required to beat the drug tests. A top sportsperson, would either go to a doctor or to a someone who si known in the industry, as someone else said, a guru, if not both.

You would be surprised, I know one international rugby player who took it on the advice of their S&C coach, no doctor supervision, hell I know one girl who was given deca tablet form by a committee member of her association!

d-gal

Hanley wrote: »

EDIT: thought of something else, if one was to start a cycle and told their doctor about it and said they wanted blood test/workups done every 6 weeks, could the doctor ethically refuse?? Obviously he's going to tell you to stop and not do it, probably try to scare ya into it, but if you took those results and got in communication with a less ethical doctor, or someone with great experience in the field, it would seem you could effectively monitor the state of your health?

A guy I know goes to get his bloods checked every time he going thru a cycle. He said the doctor has no option, they know what your doing, it is not illegal and your paying them for the service. He said he has never got turned away. Awful expensive tho at €50 a pop but he said it is peace of mind more than anything

Mickk

Roper wrote: »

I'm usually slated for my opinions on this matter on this forum... actually, I'm usually just slated. But I'll plough away anyway.

Firstly, I doubt what the guy was telling you is true, and if it is it's not accurate for all the reasons Makikomi has stated. I'm not sure what a top S&C coach has to gain from admitting to steroid use to a Personal Trainer from the West of ireland, no offence intended to you.

Secondly I've been around high level athletes enough to see the dedication involved in reaching your peak, and I hate to see any of that attributable to steroids. I think that this topic assumes widespread use where proof is absent.

I think you (one) gets back what you put out to a certain extent. As in you make your feelings and opinions known, if I was an athlete around you and was on steroids I wouldn't tell you because I know you would think less of me. I think when you understand what exactly steroids do and how they don't make it easier, they allow you to not overtrain and let you completely destroy your body. You work twice as hard and being on steroids repairs you so you can do it again the next day instead of taking a week off.

I think the S&C coach talking to d-gal would have nothing to lose by telling him he was using, he isn't cheating in a competitive sport. I think Victor Conte showed how widespread steroid use is in high level sport, he got caught but you can bet there are another 50 like him who havn't. I would be pretty sure you know personally a well known international athlete who used to work in a shop selling steroids.

injured365

I think when it come to a coach or trainer its more important that s/he has all the facts about anything their clients asks them about or is able to find the relevant information.

If someone comes to you saying they are planning to run a marathon/triathlon/ultra do you decide to run one and see how it feels?

Mickk

d-gal wrote: »

Would def agree with the guru part but the availability of one would be another thing. Take rugby for example, a lot of gear users but I know there isn't exactly a lot of well known gurus around, especially in Ireland. I suppose the coach was looking for the experience of steroid use and he could relate more to it, obviously nothing like a guru would

To be crude, they don't need an expert to stick it in their arse for them. They need knowledge, timing, explanations of what they are feeling and why, monitoring of bloods and just someone they can ask questions/relate fears to who really knows the answers and has heard it all before. All that can be done over the phone/internet.

Transform

simple - NO.

Have no intention and think its just a cop out to getting on with hard and progressive training. I have learned more from this approach over the past 10 years than going down the drug approach where there is no real learning other than i assume steroids work.

Plus i think i can hold my own ground with any steroid user in terms of conditioning, low body fat, strength, fitness etc when they are NOT on a course. All done naturally

Roper

Mickk wrote: »

I think you (one) gets back what you put out to a certain extent. As in you make your feelings and opinions known, if I was an athlete around you and was on steroids I wouldn't tell you because I know you would think less of me. I think when you understand what exactly steroids do and how they don't make it easier, they allow you to not overtrain and let you completely destroy your body. You work twice as hard and being on steroids repairs you so you can do it again the next day instead of taking a week off.

I think the S&C coach talking to d-gal would have nothing to lose by telling him he was using, he isn't cheating in a competitive sport. I think Victor Conte showed how widespread steroid use is in high level sport, he got caught but you can bet there are another 50 like him who havn't. I would be pretty sure you know personally a well known international athlete who used to work in a shop selling steroids.

You'll have to pm me who that is .

I still think that he, or rather his athletes, would have plenty to lose from letting it be known. Rumours spread and for example it wouldn't be a huge stretch for me to find out who d-gal was talking to. Before you know it, every athlete you train is getting tested because it's known that you've put yourself in a position to advise them on use.

I have more thoughts than this, but I'm off to pad my new gym's wall!

AlphaMale 3OO

Hanley wrote: »

That's a pretty libellous statement to make.

Well then the mod is perfectly entitled to delete it and any subsequent posts it appeared in.

Khannie

AlphaMale 3OO wrote: »

Well then the mod is perfectly entitled to delete it and any subsequent posts it appeared in.

I did. I've better things to be doing with my time though. Use some restraint please.

edit: I suppose that goes for everyone else too (though I'm not pointing any fingers or anything). I just don't want to have to wade in, so try to keep it clean in this thread. Thanks.

AlphaMale 3OO

Mickk wrote: »

Sorry but that is a really stupid statement, <That Sprinter> has been breaking world records since he was 14, are you proposing he was using then aswell? Lots of high caliber athletes do but not all do, some are naturally genetic freaks.

Really stupid to presume the man responsible for comfortably obliterating the world 100 metre record after slowing down and waving his arms about with 20 metres to go, fuelled by a nutritious snack of 5 chicken nuggets was using some form of chemical enhancement? How stupid of me to even consider it.

Also, why does it matter that he has been breaking records since he was 14? Does that automatically mean he is not juicing now? Does it mean Dwayner Chambers was using in his teens because he was successful then and is now a known drugs user? Using that logic we can exempt <That Sprinter> from all future drug tests, after all he's been breaking records for years so he couldn't possibly be on now. You might have found my statements controversial but yours are just illogical.

theluckyduck

I think everyone knows here that the use of drugs is quite "common" in many sports... I use "common" quite loosely as all we know about are the professionals that are caught and we do not know if they are simply the tip of the iceberg or if they are infact the entire mountain.. we are simply making educated guesses.

To say that one athlete in particular is definitely cheating when he has passed every test out there is unfair on the athlete even if he is cheating. I know the tests a far from perfect for many reasons... but to come out with unproven statements like that is ridiculous... innocent until proven guilty my good sir!!

Mickk

AlphaMale 3OO wrote: »

Really stupid to presume the man responsible for comfortably obliterating the world 100 metre record after slowing down and waving his arms about with 20 metres to go, fuelled by a nutritious snack of 5 chicken nuggets was using some form of chemical enhancement? How stupid of me to even consider it.

Also, why does it matter that he has been breaking records since he was 14? Does that automatically mean he is not juicing now? Does it mean Dwayner Chambers was using in his teens because he was successful then and is now a known drugs user? Using that logic we can exempt <That Sprinter> from all future drug tests, after all he's been breaking records for years so he couldn't possibly be on now. You might have found my statements controversial but yours are just illogical.

You didn't consider it, you stated it and you can't do that just because he is the fastest. The fact he was a record breaker in his early teens shows he has world class genetics, it doesn't make a statement about use now either way because we just don't know and probably never will.

Personally I think his actions show someone who isn't using, as I believe Gem eloquently put steroids are a finisher or fine tuner, when you get to 99% on your own steroids will give you the extra 1%. He looks like he isn't taking it that seriously but again that's only an opinion and we will never know.

"That Sprinter" is from Jamaica and recently came into a bit of "money" so to speak. "That Sprinter" knows his potential. "That Sprinter" gets "new money" for every record he breaks and continues to break. What is the point in giving your 150% absolute maximum record when you know you are 21 (22?) and have plenty more years in the tank before the hamstring starts giving you grief. It's called being intelligent with what you've got and it's business sense really because sprinting 100 metres in less than 9 seconds is not going to be that useful unless you are making $$$$ over the span of your career.

It was a genius tactic by an incredible athlete who is thinking of the bigger picture - more hype in the future, more records broken and most importantly for a young, arrogant (in a beautiful way) Jamaican kid - MORE $$$$ in the future and we all know that top level athletes love making $$$$$

thirtyfoot

Deleted User wrote: »

"That Sprinter" is from Jamaica and recently came into a bit of "money" so to speak. "That Sprinter" knows his potential. "That Sprinter" gets "new money" for every record he breaks and continues to break. What is the point in giving your 150% absolute maximum record when you know you are 21 (22?) and have plenty more years in the tank before the hamstring starts giving you grief. It's called being intelligent with what you've got and it's business sense really because sprinting 100 metres in less than 9 seconds is not going to be that useful unless you are making $$$$ over the span of your career.

I think we discussed this here last year but it is not possible to predict or run a certain time in a 100m, well to hundreths of a second anyway. I don't think he deliberatetly ran 'slow' in Beijing to not lower the record too much. From what I heard from him in the media and from his camp (his manager is a Donegal man) it was not in his mindsight and times were not an issue in the 100m. They were in the 200 though. He may never break the 100m record again, I'd be surprised but it could happen. But I agree now, he probably will pick his record attempts wisely and why not!

As far as Alpha Male 300 is concerned, thats why you gotta love the internet. Its so easy to say this and say that without any proof. But then again, maybe Alpha Male 300 has followed the sprinter around and knows everything that has entered his body for the past 7 years. Classic internet barstoolery. Its easier not to argue on these cases most times as you can't win as the guys who sit on the internet barstools know their stuff and can't be convinced.

Roper

AlphaMale 3OO wrote: »

You might have found my statements controversial but yours are just illogical.

Your statements are not controversial, just bitter. You can't win a thing or put on some muscle these days without getting someone casting aspersions on your achievements.

Regarding his alledged holding back so he could get himself several more records, I haven't heard one person involved in athletics state that because they know how silly it is to slow down so that you can shave or add what is 100ths of a second off your time. The only people I've heard saying that are the sort of people who watch the games every 4 years and become instant experts. The same guys watch the 6 nations and know everything about why Ireland were beaten, watch boxing once a year and know everything about that. You know the sorts I'm sure.

Roper, truth be told you don't know why he held back. It's all speculation and opinion.

I believe he held back as he knew his potential in the future. It remains to be seen.

AlphaMale 3OO

Roper wrote: »

Your statements are not controversial, just bitter. You can't win a thing or put on some muscle these days without getting someone casting aspersions on your achievements.

Regarding his alledged holding back so he could get himself several more records, I haven't heard one person involved in athletics state that because they know how silly it is to slow down so that you can shave or add what is 100ths of a second off your time. The only people I've heard saying that are the sort of people who watch the games every 4 years and become instant experts. The same guys watch the 6 nations and know everything about why Ireland were beaten, watch boxing once a year and know everything about that. You know the sorts I'm sure.

Why would I be bitter? I'm not in his field and I don't care if we wins or loses. I'm just stating my opinion which is graduated by the sheer ridiculousnous of his performance. I've put on plenty of muscle drug free so I know it can be done but there is putting on muscle and there is something else. Was everyone in that 100m final drug free? Doubtful, yet somehow without chemical assistance he makes a mockery of the world record and blasts home for the win - drug free of course. The level of naivety here is staggering. I've seen you come out with your fair share of bitterness so you shouldn't be so smug.

AlphaMale 3OO

Mickk wrote: »

You didn't consider it, you stated it and you can't do that just because he is the fastest. The fact he was a record breaker in his early teens shows he has world class genetics, it doesn't make a statement about use now either way because we just don't know and probably never will.

Personally I think his actions show someone who isn't using, as I believe Gem eloquently put steroids are a finisher or fine tuner, when you get to 99% on your own steroids will give you the extra 1%. He looks like he isn't taking it that seriously but again that's only an opinion and we will never know.

Most sprinters in the Olympics have world class genetics. Most athletes at the top of their sport do. Various pundits have indicated that they think as much (about the Jamaican guy) so while you mightn't believe them are they all wrong? From my point of view he is much more likely to be using than not, though my statement was absolute. Why is it so irational to be convinced that the world's freakiest athlete is taking drugs? Anyway I can't convince you and you can't convince me so it should be dropped.

cardio,shoot me

i dont think ive seen it mentioned that he doesnt take steriods, what they're arguing is you are so quick to claim hes on them and that your so confident that he is. The truth is we dont know if he is or isnt.

floggg

AlphaMale 3OO wrote: »

Really stupid to presume the man responsible for comfortably obliterating the world 100 metre record after slowing down and waving his arms about with 20 metres to go, fuelled by a nutritious snack of 5 chicken nuggets was using some form of chemical enhancement? How stupid of me to even consider it.

Also, why does it matter that he has been breaking records since he was 14? Does that automatically mean he is not juicing now? Does it mean Dwayner Chambers was using in his teens because he was successful then and is now a known drugs user? Using that logic we can exempt <That Sprinter> from all future drug tests, after all he's been breaking records for years so he couldn't possibly be on now. You might have found my statements controversial but yours are just illogical.

Sorry, not to nitpick, but while you have not named "That Sprinter" you're comments are clearly and easily referable to a certain well known sprinter, and so therefore no less damaging to his reputation. Therefore you're comments are no less libellous just because you gave him a code name.

And you are twisting Mickks words. he never said he shouldn't be tested. He just said that he has been consistently breaking records since a kid, so unless he was put on steroids at the age of 10, why is it such a leap to think that he could break them as an adult. Somebody better/faster always come along.

And if people are naive for giving him the benefit of the doubt when they have no proof to suggest he is on steroids, does it not make you highly arrogant to think you know for a fact that he is when you have not a shred of evidence to base you're assumptions on, other than that he's really really fast?

g'em

This thread is now going completely off-topic. Why does every single thread on this topic have to result in bringing a famous sports persons' name into disrepute??

Locked, unfortunately.