So much for drug testing in sport

deadlybuzzman

I came across a very enlightening interview with victor conte
http://blog.joerogan.net/archives/5517

He has some very interesting things to say about the 3 strikes and you're out system for testing, one of the williams sisters, the jamacian sprint team, athletic nutriton and lots of other stuff.

Will Heffernan

I've had this conversation with different people about once a month for the past 20 years at a minimum.

Drugs are all pervasive in society in general let alone in sport specifically.

What generally makes me laugh is that whether here in Australia or there in Ireland EVERYONE seems to be of the opinion that it is only other countries athletes that take drugs.

My experience from working in Australia, Europe and the US is that the rate of drug use amongst professional athletes is pretty much 'standard' with regard the percentage of athletes using.

kevpants

The thing about Conte is he turned from bad guy with vested interests, manipulating situations to his advantage and now that he's turned good guy we're expected to believe he's no longer manipulating or has any vested interests.

Brian?

kevpants wrote: »

The thing about Conte is he turned from bad guy with vested interests, manipulating situations to his advantage and now that he's turned good guy we're expected to believe he's no longer manipulating or has any vested interests.

That's exactly what I thought. Victor Conte is out for number 1.

jive

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Drugs are all pervasive in society in general let alone in sport specifically.

One could argue they're far more important in sport due to the money involved and the clean athletes cheated, though. I know that's an extremely simplistic view but that's why use is so controversial in sport.

I was listening to an interview on Newstalk a few weeks ago (Off The Ball, specifically) with a guy who was axed from Armstrong's team for refusing to take drugs. Everyone is saying people like conte or the other guys on Armstrong's team were so brave for coming out and discussing the topic but he argued that he didn't make any money, he got the sack. These guys coming clean doesn't mean anything, they're not giving back the money they made directly from drug usage. They're not giving the millions they made back to the clean athletes who were cheated. The guy who refused drugs got no money and now can't carve out a career about discussing drugs like some of these other guys can.

http://www.maxboxing.com/news/main-lead/the-ped-mess-part-one
part two also a good read, talks about drug testing in boxing.

Long story short, a shít load of athletes are on drugs. Nobody wants to believe it. Look at Armstrong - people still didn't believe it after heaps of people pointed the finger at him. He was beating athletes proven to be dirty for years and people still thought he was clean. The only sports that I actually assume people are clean are largely skill or technique-based sports like soccer, golf, tennis etc. If we're talking athletics or strength based sports then I just assume they've taken drugs at some point in time. Drug testing across the board is a piss take (excuse the pun) and the windows of opportunity are obvious. Once you do a bit of research into this the holes become extremely clear and the incentives for taking drugs are obvious. You're actually better off to turn a blind eye because testing is so far behind and decent testing is extremely difficult to implement. Most sports turn a blind eye, otherwise you end up like cycling with an absolutely ruined reputation. Ignorance is bliss.

Bruce7

jive wrote: »

If we're talking athletics or strength based sports then I just assume they've taken drugs at some point in time. Drug testing across the board is a piss take (excuse the pun) and the windows of opportunity are obvious. Once you do a bit of research into this the holes become extremely clear and the incentives for taking drugs are obvious. You're actually better off to turn a blind eye because testing is so far behind and decent testing is extremely difficult to implement. Most sports turn a blind eye, otherwise you end up like cycling with an absolutely ruined reputation. Ignorance is bliss.

A top athletics coach in the US was telling me this (That you would have to go out of your way to get caught, not that everyone is dirty.)

The people who do get caught are the ones who have rocked the boat in some way, or have pissed off the administrators. If you get on the wrong side of them, they'll screw you.

Because their testing lags what people are actually doing by so much, the stuff they 'catch' people for tends to be stuff that nobody has taken in years, or that nobody in their right minds would have taken.

E.g. a very well known shot putter was 'caught' taking methlytestosterone at a routine test in the 90s. He knew exactly when he was going to be tested and this stuff is detectable in urine for a week, which he also would have known full well.

It was just a coincidence that he had a very public row with a US Olympic committee member a few days beforehand.

deadlybuzzman

jive wrote: »

Drug testing across the board is a piss take (excuse the pun) and the windows of opportunity are obvious. Once you do a bit of research into this the holes become extremely clear and the incentives for taking drugs are obvious. You're actually better off to turn a blind eye because testing is so far behind and decent testing is extremely difficult to implement. Most sports turn a blind eye, otherwise you end up like cycling with an absolutely ruined reputation. Ignorance is bliss.

This was the biggest surprise to me, organisations make a big thing of how good their testing is yet to dodge them all you have to do is miss your tests when you're 'on' and then make sure you're clean when you come to being on your last chance, that leaves plenty of time to get it done.

deadlybuzzman

kevpants wrote: »

The thing about Conte is he turned from bad guy with vested interests, manipulating situations to his advantage and now that he's turned good guy we're expected to believe he's no longer manipulating or has any vested interests.

Im presuming the reason he did the interview was to up his profile and that in the same way most people do chat show interviews to sell stuff, he was selling himself and his services.
That said the obvious and needless gaps in testing that he pointed out that behind all the lip service, how little enthusiasm there is for keeping sports clean

cc87

Bruce7 wrote: »

A top athletics coach in the US was telling me this (That you would have to go out of your way to get caught, not that everyone is dirty.)

The people who do get caught are the ones who have rocked the boat in some way, or have pissed off the administrators. If you get on the wrong side of them, they'll screw you.

Because their testing lags what people are actually doing by so much, the stuff they 'catch' people for tends to be stuff that nobody has taken in years, or that nobody in their right minds would have taken.

E.g. a very well known shot putter was 'caught' taking methlytestosterone at a routine test in the 90s. He knew exactly when he was going to be tested and this stuff is detectable in urine for a week, which he also would have known full well.

It was just a coincidence that he had a very public row with a US Olympic committee member a few days beforehand.

Just out of curiosity was he a college athletics coach? I know the NCAA are notorious for cherry picking who they test and dont test.

baalthor

jive wrote: »

The only sports that I actually assume people are clean are largely skill or technique-based sports like soccer, golf, tennis etc. .

Richie Sadlier is of the opinion that illegal substances are probably used by soccer players and that the testing regime isn't that strenuous. Also weren't there allegations of a nandrolone ring in serie A several years ago ?

Tennis: surely drugs would have a big impact on a sport where physical strength and stamina play a huge role and which is played one on one ?

Golf: look at the outfits some of these guys are wearing :-)

cc87

baalthor wrote: »

Richie Sadlier is of the opinion that illegal substances are probably used by soccer players and that the testing regime isn't that strenuous. Also weren't there allegations of a nandrolone ring in serie A several years ago ?

Tennis: surely drugs would have a big impact on a sport where physical strength and stamina play a huge role and which is played one on one ?

Golf: look at the outfits some of these guys are wearing :-)

Testing in the Premier League is fairly strict anyway, players can be tested at any stage of the year. Testers can turn up and test a player at any time from 6am to 10pm, no matter where the player is.

I think the average player will get tested about 6-8 times a year.

Will Heffernan

jive wrote: »

One could argue they're far more important in sport due to the money involved and the clean athletes cheated, though. I know that's an extremely simplistic view but that's why use is so controversial in sport.

I don't know that controversial is really the right word. There was a massive crackdown after the Olympics in 1988...they actually set about testing to try and catch people. I remember talking to a friend who worked in marketing for Coca Cola Amatil who explained to me what a disaster it was...the World Cup in Athletics in 1989 was won in 10.10 secs...no one was watching and no one cared...that's the world without drugs. If you wanted clean sport you could say goodbye to ever seeing a world record ever broken again.

I was listening to an interview on Newstalk a few weeks ago (Off The Ball, specifically) with a guy who was axed from Armstrong's team for refusing to take drugs. Everyone is saying people like conte or the other guys on Armstrong's team were so brave for coming out and discussing the topic but he argued that he didn't make any money, he got the sack. These guys coming clean doesn't mean anything, they're not giving back the money they made directly from drug usage. They're not giving the millions they made back to the clean athletes who were cheated. The guy who refused drugs got no money and now can't carve out a career about discussing drugs like some of these other guys can.

http://www.maxboxing.com/news/main-lead/the-ped-mess-part-one
part two also a good read, talks about drug testing in boxing.

Long story short, a shít load of athletes are on drugs. Nobody wants to believe it. Look at Armstrong - people still didn't believe it after heaps of people pointed the finger at him. He was beating athletes proven to be dirty for years and people still thought he was clean. The only sports that I actually assume people are clean are largely skill or technique-based sports like soccer, golf, tennis etc. If we're talking athletics or strength based sports then I just assume they've taken drugs at some point in time. Drug testing across the board is a piss take (excuse the pun) and the windows of opportunity are obvious. Once you do a bit of research into this the holes become extremely clear and the incentives for taking drugs are obvious. You're actually better off to turn a blind eye because testing is so far behind and decent testing is extremely difficult to implement. Most sports turn a blind eye, otherwise you end up like cycling with an absolutely ruined reputation. Ignorance is bliss.

The three sports you mentioned are the three sports in the industry that along with NFL, NBA and the MLB are considered globally to the most drug ridden. Soccer has been one of the sports at the forefront of PED usage and tennis and golf are right up there as well.

Will Heffernan

cc87 wrote: »

Testing in the Premier League is fairly strict anyway, players can be tested at any stage of the year. Testers can turn up and test a player at any time from 6am to 10pm, no matter where the player is.

I think the average player will get tested about 6-8 times a year.

You know that Lance never tested positive right?

cc87

Will Heffernan wrote: »

You know that Lance never tested positive right?

True but you cant blame the people carrying out the test for that. I was just saying that people are carrying out tests.

I think they should just stop testing....level the playing field. Everyone can get doped up all they want. :pac:

Will Heffernan

cc87 wrote: »

True but you cant blame the people carrying out the test for that. I was just saying that people are carrying out tests.

Agreed.

The problem is that 1. The testers (not the person actually turn up at your house/gym/track but the bodies) don't want to actually catch anyone. 2. No one else (sponsors/sporting bodies/athletes and most importantly the athletes) wants them to catch anyone.

I think they should just stop testing....level the playing field. Everyone can get doped up all they want. :pac:

That is pretty much where we're at now.

People just don't want to hear it. 'People' still don't think Lance was on drugs...people think that skills sports like tennis, golf and soccer aren't really effected by drugs. You are talking about sports where the participants are earning millions and millions of dollars and either have the possibility of earning millions and millions of dollars or continuing to earn millions and millions of dollars but they wouldn't stoop to taking drugs? I mean come on...in soccer people are willing to throw themselves onto the ground routinely in an effort to have opponents sent off and to gain a penalty...soccer is a sport where people consider cheating just 'part of the game'...but that these people would draw the line at taking PED's? I've nothing against soccer...I am just using it as an example. I just think people talk about drugs like it is everyone else and every other sport but their own.

jive

baalthor wrote: »

Richie Sadlier is of the opinion that illegal substances are probably used by soccer players and that the testing regime isn't that strenuous. Also weren't there allegations of a nandrolone ring in serie A several years ago ?

Tennis: surely drugs would have a big impact on a sport where physical strength and stamina play a huge role and which is played one on one ?

Golf: look at the outfits some of these guys are wearing :-)

Richie Sadlier was on them himself he believes!! He was taking a bunch of supplements (while he was at Millwall I think) and then one day he had to stop taking one of the tablets that he had been taking for a while because they had been banned or were banned while he was taking them. Illegal substances probably are used but, in my opinion, they won't have as significant effect as they would in other sports purely because a lot of it is skill based.

Tennis yeah they could be taking stuff but again it's largely technique based. I'd imagine it's more prominent in the women's game than the men's game. You don't have to be that strong to be a tennis player and with regards to stamina they take a lot of breaks between games/sets. I'm not saying that nobody uses in the sports I listed, I was simply saying that they are probably less prominent or effective.

Golf- again there's a possibility, there's a few big lads playing golf but it's all about the swing really. It won't separate the men from the boys like in other sports.

Will Heffernan wrote: »

The three sports you mentioned are the three sports in the industry that along with NFL, NBA and the MLB are considered globally to the most drug ridden. Soccer has been one of the sports at the forefront of PED usage and tennis and golf are right up there as well.

It's obvious people are using in the NFL and MLB just because of the size of some of the fúckers, same can be said for a lot of NBA players. I'm not saying that they don't use PEDs in the sports listed but I discussed it above in this post. I have my doubts that they are as effective or as widely used in the sports I listed. In cycling if you are clean you're not going to make it pro (maybe today, not a few years ago) but in soccer you still can.

I know 2 professionals, one in the premier league, and I highly doubt they are on drugs or at least if they are they're not aware of it. I know that 'he couldn't be on drugs!' is the worst argument out there but the 2 lads I know definitely weren't on anything when they were playing locally because they were just too naive or simple to even think about that side of things. I'm sure there are plenty of users in soccer solely due to the numbers but I don't think it has as much of an effect as it does on athletes in track/field, fighting or weightlifting.

Will Heffernan wrote: »

You know that Lance never tested positive right?

He did have at least one positive test I believe! Cortisone I _think_ but not 100%.

Will Heffernan

jive wrote: »

Richie Sadlier was on them himself he believes!! He was taking a bunch of supplements (while he was at Millwall I think) and then one day he had to stop taking one of the tablets that he had been taking for a while because they had been banned or were banned while he was taking them. Illegal substances probably are used but, in my opinion, they won't have as significant effect as they would in other sports purely because a lot of it is skill based.

You don't understand PED's. People who don't understand PED's always discuss there usage based on size. Steroids that are 'growth promotors' are not the most commonly used PED's and never have been.

Tennis yeah they could be taking stuff but again it's largely technique based. I'd imagine it's more prominent in the women's game than the men's game. You don't have to be that strong to be a tennis player and with regards to stamina they take a lot of breaks between games/sets. I'm not saying that nobody uses in the sports I listed, I was simply saying that they are probably less prominent or effective.

EPO doesn't make you any bigger.

Golf- again there's a possibility, there's a few big lads playing golf but it's all about the swing really. It won't separate the men from the boys like in other sports.

Like baseball you mean? A sport where you use a stick to hit a ball that is being thrown at you at 160km/h...that sports all about 'the swing' as well.

It's obvious people are using in the NFL and MLB just because of the size of some of the fúckers, same can be said for a lot of NBA players. I'm not saying that they don't use PEDs in the sports listed but I discussed it above in this post. I have my doubts that they are as effective or as widely used in the sports I listed. In cycling if you are clean you're not going to make it pro (maybe today, not a few years ago) but in soccer you still can.

Yeah...people will be saying that right up and until and probably for a while after someone in professional football comes clean...if and when that ever happens.

I know 2 professionals, one in the premier league, and I highly doubt they are on drugs or at least if they are they're not aware of it. I know that 'he couldn't be on drugs!' is the worst argument out there but the 2 lads I know definitely weren't on anything when they were playing locally because they were just too naive or simple to even think about that side of things. I'm sure there are plenty of users in soccer solely due to the numbers but I don't think it has as much of an effect as it does on athletes in track/field, fighting or weightlifting.

As I said...everyone thinks it's other countries and other sports. It's just naive.

He did have at least one positive test I believe! Cortisone I _think_ but not 100%.

I stand corrected

It was obviously the cortisone that did the trick

Hanley

Tennis? Drug free? Yeah bloody right. Look at the competition schedule of top players. Not a hope.

jive

Will Heffernan wrote: »

You don't understand PED's. People who don't understand PED's always discuss there usage based on size. Steroids that are 'growth promotors' are not the most commonly used PED's and never have been.

I think you'll find I do. Anabolic steroids, see MLB as the prime example, are commonly used. I never said they were the most commonly used.

EPO doesn't make you any bigger.

I never said it did? I know exactly what EPO is, I know how to make it, I know what it does and what it's used for outside of sport.

Like baseball you mean? A sport where you use a stick to hit a ball that is being thrown at you at 160km/h...that sports all about 'the swing' as well.

Really? You're comparing baseball to golf based on swing? It's completely different. Baseball requires far more strength than golf. Look at the people who play it, it also requires sprinting which golf doesn't. I don't understand how you can even link the two. If you think golf has a drug problem on a par with baseball then that's your opinion, but I think you'll find based on the data that it's an inaccurate opinion. Sure, the data isn't perfect because some sports ignore the issue of drugs but it gives some indication. I'd imagine beta blockers might be used, can't imagine a widespread use in the players doing well on tour though.

Yeah...people will be saying that right up and until and probably for a while after someone in professional football comes clean...if and when that ever happens.

I never said soccer was clean. Again, based on the data available (which again isn't perfect because some sports are better at testing than others), I don't think the issue is as large in soccer as it is in other sports.

As I said...everyone thinks it's other countries and other sports. It's just naive.

I don't think any sports are clean, I'm saying there are certain sports which are likely to have lesser use due to the characteristics of the sports. You can't tar every sport with the same brush.

Hanley wrote: »

Tennis? Drug free? Yeah bloody right. Look at the competition schedule of top players. Not a hope.

Never said drug free.

Will Heffernan

jive wrote: »

I think you'll find I do.

I don't know what could possibly have confused me.....oh....yes I do...it was these comments:

The ones relating to size first....

jive wrote: »

there's a few big lads playing golf but it's all about the swing really.

So do you have to be jakt and have gunz and a six pack to be on PED's or not? This is what gave me the crazy idea that you didn't really understand PED's...the constant references to size being an indicator of usage?

jive wrote: »

It's obvious people are using in the NFL and MLB just because of the size of some of the fúckers, same can be said for a lot of NBA players.

But you fully understand that size isn't the primary indicator of PED usage though?

jive wrote: »

I'm sure there are plenty of users in soccer solely due to the numbers but I don't think it has as much of an effect as it does on athletes in track/field, fighting or weightlifting.

Surely you aren't referring to the size thing again?

and then the ones relating to PED's not being of much use in skills based sports...

jive wrote: »

in my opinion, they won't have as significant effect as they would in other sports purely because a lot of it is skill based.

So you fully understand the effect of PED's on things like nerve conduction and visual acuity.

jive wrote: »

Tennis yeah they could be taking stuff but again it's largely technique based.

You understand PED's effects on motor learning and skill development and execution?

jive wrote: »

You don't have to be that strong to be a tennis player and with regards to stamina they take a lot of breaks between games/sets.

This one is a 50/50 one where I can't work out whether you don't understand tennis at an elite level or that you don't understand strength.

jive wrote: »

I was simply saying that they are probably less prominent or effective.

You know that there are PED's that are so effective that there are elite athletes who no longer require the use of prescription glasses and contact lenses? That PED's that speed up nerve conduction and coordination and that improve eyesight beyond normal wouldn't be something that athletes in skills based sports may desire?

Anabolic steroids, see MLB as the prime example, are commonly used. I never said they were the most commonly used.

Agreed.

I never said it did? I know exactly what EPO is, I know how to make it, I know what it does and what it's used for outside of sport.

Good stuff. It was just the constant references to 'size' and the ongoing and continued references to PED's not being as prevalent or as useful in 'skills' based sports that mistakenly made me think you didn't really understand what you were talking about.

Really?

Yes.

You're comparing baseball to golf based on swing?

I am comparing to skill based sports where swinging is an element and hitting a ball is an element. Where hitting a ball a given distance in a given direction is an element.

It's completely different.

Agreed. They are completely different like tennis and squash are completely different. Like ice skating and roller blading are completely different.

Baseball requires far more strength than golf.

It requires different strength.

Look at the people who play it,

Exactly...thanks for making my point without even knowing it. How many white Irish golfers do you think would be at the top of the game if every predominantly black neighbourhood in America had a golf course instead of a basketball court? Golf is the way it is because of the people that are able to play it...so is tennis....so is polo....so is fencing. To make the argument that baseball requires far more strength than golf shows that you don't understand what would happen to golf as a sport if different athletes made up its ranks.

it also requires sprinting which golf doesn't.

Yes, and baseball requires lots of sitting on your ass....so what?

I don't understand how you can even link the two. If you think golf has a drug problem on a par with baseball then that's your opinion, but I think you'll find based on the data that it's an inaccurate opinion.

Well I think I may well be more involved with sport than you know and I may know more people in the 'industry' than you think I do. I see what you are saying though....I am sure a sport where millions and millions of dollars are at stake at every tournament would incentivise cheating.

Sure, the data isn't perfect because some sports ignore the issue of drugs but it gives some indication. I'd imagine beta blockers might be used, can't imagine a widespread use in the players doing well on tour though.

You've convinced me....I mean what sort of golfer would need better eyesight and coordination....asides from any and all of them that is.

I never said soccer was clean. Again, based on the data available (which again isn't perfect because some sports are better at testing than others), I don't think the issue is as large in soccer as it is in other sports.

The 'testing' is irrelevant. Testing is an intelligence test not a PED usage test.

I don't think any sports are clean, I'm saying there are certain sports which are likely to have lesser use due to the characteristics of the sports. You can't tar every sport with the same brush.

As I said previously...I don't think you understand modern PED usage or prevalence.

Never said drug free.

That's good...because that would be foolish.

Scuba Ste

All sports are physical as well as skills based so I don't see how PED use wouldn't be an advantage.

The ball's being driven further in golf and hit faster in tennis than before. And the athletes do look noticeably more athletic than previous generations if size/physique is anything to go by. It'd be naive to think PED use was lower in these sports because they're skills based.

Didn't golf only recently bring in drug testing? I'm sure no-one took advantage of that.

I think the whole drug testing industry is a bit of a crock anyway. From what I've read the funding isn't there to actually do anything and the governing bodies are too bothered to change that.

I just assume everyone is up to their eyeballs.

jive

Will Heffernan wrote: »

The ones relating to size first....
So do you have to be jakt and have gunz and a six pack to be on PED's or not? This is what gave me the crazy idea that you didn't really understand PED's...the constant references to size being an indicator of usage?

No but with a basic understanding of human physiology it can be a good indicator.



Would this indicate usage to you or no? Extreme example, shows the point I'm making nonetheless.

But you fully understand that size isn't the primary indicator of PED usage though?

I never said it was, you've just picked up on one part of my post and continually lambasted it despite it being a valid point. What's the primary indicator?

Surely you aren't referring to the size thing again?

Not solely referring to muscle hypertrophy, no, although I thought that was obvious.

and then the ones relating to PED's not being of much use in skills based sports...

So you fully understand the effect of PED's on things like nerve conduction and visual acuity.


You understand PED's effects on motor learning and skill development and execution?

Yeah, I have a fair understanding. I'm not sure about the effect of PED's on visual acuity, care to enlighten me?

This one is a 50/50 one where I can't work out whether you don't understand tennis at an elite level or that you don't understand strength.

I understand tennis at an elite level. There are drug cheats in tennis, i don't see your point? I was saying strength isn't the most important aspect in tennis, i.e. you can achieve the levels of strength required naturally. I'm sure drugs help and I'm sure some use them because there's shít drug testing off-season in tennis in particular. My point is that drugs won't make or break you in tennis, too much technique involved.

You know that there are PED's that are so effective that there are elite athletes who no longer require the use of prescription glasses and contact lenses? That PED's that speed up nerve conduction and coordination and that improve eyesight beyond normal wouldn't be something that athletes in skills based sports may desire?

Name some of these PED's for eyesight? I'm aware of numerous ones in relation to controllong nerve conductivity but no those which enhance eyesight beyond normal. That is something I'd like to research further.

Good stuff. It was just the constant references to 'size' and the ongoing and continued references to PED's not being as prevalent or as useful in 'skills' based sports that mistakenly made me think you didn't really understand what you were talking about.

Fair point, I stand by what I said though.

It requires different strength.

?

Exactly...thanks for making my point without even knowing it. How many white Irish golfers do you think would be at the top of the game if every predominantly black neighbourhood in America had a golf course instead of a basketball court? Golf is the way it is because of the people that are able to play it...so is tennis....so is polo....so is fencing. To make the argument that baseball requires far more strength than golf shows that you don't understand what would happen to golf as a sport if different athletes made up its ranks.

Yeah I disagree. I see your point but I don't think it's valid. Golf is far more technique dominated than the vast majority of sports where your genetic predispositions play a much larger role.

Yes, and baseball requires lots of sitting on your ass....so what?

No, it doesn't and that's not really relevant. Fastest short distance runners in athletics have historically been on anabolic steroids. Running in 4 straight lines in baseball is not a far cry away from that so it's obvious that anabolic steroids would be beneficial.

Well I think I may well be more involved with sport than you know and I may know more people in the 'industry' than you think I do. I see what you are saying though....I am sure a sport where millions and millions of dollars are at stake at every tournament would incentivise cheating.

I'm not making any assumptions with how involved you are with sport and, again, it's not really relevant. I don't know who you know in the industry and I'm not being smart but just because you know people in the sports industry doesn't mean anything. I know people in the sports industry, it doesn't mean anything. If we're going to debate over word of mouth or opinions of a few in the industry then we may as well be pissing against the wind. Anyone in the industry knows that drugs are a problem, I know that drugs are a problem and you know that drugs are a problem. The last sentence you have doesn't make sense because it is built up to be sarcastic but... then it's not. I know what you are saying. Just because there are millions at stake doesn't mean people are cheating or that cheating will make the difference in golf. Sure, people are cheating, no doubt about it. I have my doubts that the likes of McIlroy and Donald are taking anything illegal. The effects of PEDs in golf, at least the ones that I'm aware of, are more limited than in other sports.

The 'testing' is irrelevant. Testing is an intelligence test not a PED usage test.

I completely disagree. At present, yes what you said is true. We need to develop testing so that you can detect the use of PEDs long after they have been used. Whether these will ever exist is debatable. Whether they will be biomarker based or what I don't know, but certainly testing is the most important part of the 'war' against PEDs. Once you develop efficient diagnostic tests which can accurately determine who used what long after they have used it then you are laughing. Unlikely to happen, and new drugs will be developed, but still the gold standard for stopping the use of drugs in sport.

As I said previously...I don't think you understand modern PED usage or prevalence.

And you're more than welcome to that opinion, but I wholeheartedly disagree

colman1212

I'd be interested to hear what people think about the use of PEDs in Rugby Union. Its a sport where strength, size and speed are hugely important and yet I don't recall any players ever testing positive.

Then I read about Will Genia benching 180kg for 2 reps in a wallabies camp @ 84kg Bodyweight. Digby Ioane benching 180 kg for 1 rep.
These figures seem incredibly high for athletes who spend quite a bit of time out with injuries and have a huge amount of cardio involved in their training programs.
I suppose there is always the arguement that a lot of these guys are genetically gifted anyway and thats why they are playing at the highest level.

DL Saint

cc87 wrote: »

True but you cant blame the people carrying out the test for that. I was just saying that people are carrying out tests.

I think they should just stop testing....level the playing field. Everyone can get doped up all they want. :pac:

Brian?

colman1212 wrote: »

I'd be interested to hear what people think about the use of PEDs in Rugby Union. Its a sport where strength, size and speed are hugely important and yet I don't recall any players ever testing positive.

Then I read about Will Genia benching 180kg for 2 reps in a wallabies camp @ 84kg Bodyweight. Digby Ioane benching 180 kg for 1 rep.
These figures seem incredibly high for athletes who spend quite a bit of time out with injuries and have a huge amount of cardio involved in their training programs.
I suppose there is always the arguement that a lot of these guys are genetically gifted anyway and thats why they are playing at the highest level.

I have no idea about drug use in rugby union but those numbers wouldn't ring any alarm bells. They are pro athletes with nothing to do but train and play.

I am suspicious of how few rugby players you hear testing positive. The only reason cycling has such a bad name IMO is they genuinely went after doping with measures like the biological passport. The sport was rife with EPO usage and the authorities knew it. Obviously the tests aren't perfect.

Size, strength and the ability to recover would be huge in rugby. There have to be players using PEDs. They don't even have to be anything fancy; T and HGH would do nicely. So why is no one being caught? Are they all saints or are the tests ****e?

Mellor

jive wrote: »

No but with a basic understanding of human physiology it can be a good indicator.

[pic]

Would this indicate usage to you or no? Extreme example, shows the point I'm making nonetheless.


I never said it was, you've just picked up on one part of my post and continually lambasted it despite it being a valid point. What's the primary indicator?


Not solely referring to muscle hypertrophy, no, although I thought that was obvious.

In strength based sports, MLB, NFL etc I'm sure anabolics are probably the dominant type of PED.
in endurance sports, something else is going to be more common.
Similarly "technical sports", like tennis, something that allows you to play better for longer is going to be a massive benefit.

I imagine there are very few sports where there is no drug that enhance your performance.

Will Heffernan

Mellor wrote: »

In strength based sports, MLB, NFL etc I'm sure anabolics are probably the dominant type of PED.

That's what everyone assumes but it just isn't true. We maybe need a PED sticky because I get the feeling that people just think steroids = big and epo = endurance and this is just such a gross simplification that it makes this conversation really difficult to have.

What people are talking about here is only getting the equivalent of a young girl coming on here and arguing the following:

Girls shouldn't do weights. Men do weights and get huge. Therefore if i do weights I will get huge. Weights will make me a man.

Then she posts up pictures of Ronnie C deadlifting and screaming 'Light weight' to emphasise the validity of her argument.

in endurance sports, something else is going to be more common.

Testosterone derivatives were amongst the most commonly used PED's in cycling.

Similarly "technical sports", like tennis, something that allows you to play better for longer is going to be a massive benefit.

Agreed.

I imagine there are very few sports where there is no drug that enhance your performance.

This would be a fun game. You name a sport and I will name a PED...I've actually played this game before actually so it would be a bit of a cheat. I'll tell you what happens though...it's like the golf argument...people just start naming sports that are currently dominated by rich, fat caucasians as a result financial and or sociological, cultural or geographic exclusion.

It is easier to play this game if you try to think of a sport that wouldn't be able to be better performed by a super fit, super lean, extremely coordinated/agile and outstandingly athletically gifted individual rather than the person you currently have in mind.

Will Heffernan

jive wrote: »

No but with a basic understanding of human physiology it can be a good indicator.

This is true. The problem is...you don't have that.

How about if I alter your post a little and we go with another one of the greatest dopers known to man.

What about instead of a picture of a body builder I put a picture of Lance Armstrong up and said:

*Edit...someone will have to explain/show me how to insert a picture of Lance Armstrong looking jakt here to illustrate my point and for extra comedic value.

Would this indicate usage to you or no? Extreme example, shows the point I'm making nonetheless.

Wouldn't that look pretty retarded? Personally I think it would...but that's just me...that's what you've done.

jive wrote: »

I never said it was, you've just picked up on one part of my post and continually lambasted it despite it being a valid point. What's the primary indicator?

Ahhhh...performance outside of the norms.

Your points and your arguments here I can already see are just a repeat of the dumb things and restating of arguments built on false premises you've already stated. You are obviously convinced you know what's what so it's probably easier just to go with you're right and I am wrong and then secretly just let everyone else reading these posts make up their own minds as to whose points seem to be more valid. I can't just keep pointing out the same things over and over again.

Not solely referring to muscle hypertrophy, no, although I thought that was obvious.

Another example....no, it's just that every time you made a point you made it in relation to size and that's like me coming on here and saying all cyclists are obviously not taking drugs because they AREN'T huuuuuuge.

Yeah, I have a fair understanding. I'm not sure about the effect of PED's on visual acuity, care to enlighten me?

No, but only because I can't be bothered. You can go and use google like everyone else does when they say I am wrong and they are right.

I understand tennis at an elite level. There are drug cheats in tennis, i don't see your point? I was saying strength isn't the most important aspect in tennis, i.e. you can achieve the levels of strength required naturally. I'm sure drugs help and I'm sure some use them because there's shít drug testing off-season in tennis in particular. My point is that drugs won't make or break you in tennis, too much technique involved.

You might as well say drugs don't make or break you in any sport. You don't understand tennis, you don't understand training and you most certainly don't understand PED's.

Name some of these PED's for eyesight? I'm aware of numerous ones in relation to controllong nerve conductivity but no those which enhance eyesight beyond normal. That is something I'd like to research further.

Go and google it. I have the discretion here to decide who I help and who I don't. I help lots of people that disagree with me or that tell me they think I am wrong but only when they are open and receptive to information. I like discussions not arguments. Discussions involve the sharing of information....arguments by definition don't involve sharing....and we're involved in the latter.

Fair point, I stand by what I said though.

So after disagreeing with me and pointing out alllllll the ways in which I am mistaken....we get to here....where you acknowledge that you can see my point....but that you stand by everything you've said.

Cool. At least I know where I stand now.

Yeah I disagree. I see your point but I don't think it's valid. Golf is far more technique dominated than the vast majority of sports where your genetic predispositions play a much larger role.

That could quite possibly be the dumbest thing you've ever said on so many levels that I don't where to start. So I just won't bother starting.

No, it doesn't and that's not really relevant. Fastest short distance runners in athletics have historically been on anabolic steroids. Running in 4 straight lines in baseball is not a far cry away from that so it's obvious that anabolic steroids would be beneficial.

......and yet again you illustrate that you don't understand sport, training and or PED's.

I'm not making any assumptions with how involved you are with sport and, again, it's not really relevant.

LOL. So if I had been involved in multiple professional sports and had first hand experience of PED usage that's not really relevant? Right, I gotcha now. I see why we're having difficulties communicating.

I don't know who you know in the industry and I'm not being smart

This is all true.

but just because you know people in the sports industry doesn't mean anything.

You've already made this point. Someone being involved in professional sport and having first hand knowledge of PED's count for nothing....check.

I know people in the sports industry, it doesn't mean anything. If we're going to debate over word of mouth or opinions of a few in the industry then we may as well be pissing against the wind. Anyone in the industry knows that drugs are a problem, I know that drugs are a problem and you know that drugs are a problem.

We're not debating though...like I said...this is an argument. I'm going out of my way to try and find things to agree with you on....it's just that your ignorance is making it really hard. I will keep trying though.

The last sentence you have doesn't make sense because it is built up to be sarcastic but... then it's not. I know what you are saying. Just because there are millions at stake doesn't mean people are cheating or that cheating will make the difference in golf. Sure, people are cheating, no doubt about it. I have my doubts that the likes of McIlroy and Donald are taking anything illegal. The effects of PEDs in golf, at least the ones that I'm aware of, are more limited than in other sports.

Like I said....you are entitled to your opinions and people can judge for themselves the validity of our arguments and offer their own opinions. Unfortunately though I can't 'un-know' what I already know.

I completely disagree. At present, yes what you said is true. We need to develop testing so that you can detect the use of PEDs long after they have been used. Whether these will ever exist is debatable. Whether they will be biomarker based or what I don't know, but certainly testing is the most important part of the 'war' against PEDs. Once you develop efficient diagnostic tests which can accurately determine who used what long after they have used it then you are laughing. Unlikely to happen, and new drugs will be developed, but still the gold standard for stopping the use of drugs in sport.

And you're more than welcome to that opinion, but I wholeheartedly disagree

That's grand. Good luck with you google searches.

Mellor

Will Heffernan wrote: »

That's what everyone assumes but it just isn't true. We maybe need a PED sticky because I get the feeling that people just think steroids = big and epo = endurance and this is just such a gross simplification that it makes this conversation really difficult to have.

I was trying to simplify it for the sake highlighting "not all PEDs are steroids" and that every sport will vary in which is most beneficial. But even that simplistic view has its issues.

Testosterone derivatives were amongst the most commonly used PED's in cycling.

I would have imagined so. Everytime I heard of somebody new getting stripped of a yellow jersey it was for sumtingnew-ebol or sumtingelse-erone.

This would be a fun game. You name a sport and I will name a PED...I've actually played this game before actually so it would be a bit of a cheat. I'll tell you what happens though...it's like the golf argument...people just start naming sports that are currently dominated by rich, fat caucasians as a result financial and or sociological, cultural or geographic exclusion.

It is easier to play this game if you try to think of a sport that wouldn't be able to be better performed by a super fit, super lean, extremely coordinated/agile and outstandingly athletically gifted individual rather than the person you currently have in mind.

Well that's what I was getting at. I can imagine the kinda of answers that come up that people think have no possible PED. And i can think of drugs they are overlooking.

Will Heffernan

Mellor wrote: »

I was trying to simplify it for the sake highlighting "not all PEDs are steroids" and that every sport will vary in which is most beneficial. But even that simplistic view has its issues.

Agreed. I am not trying to bust anyones balls. Just trying to do my bit in putting the conversation in the best framework possible. The whole steroids = body builder is just dumb. It's one of the reasons that people can't get their head around the whole PED argument and why many people have always thought Lance was 'drug free'...that is...he doesn't look like a body builder and therefore he can't be using drugs. People saying 'Sure there are some 'big guys' in golf but it's all about the swing' is just dumb and it doesn't help have a proper discussion.

I would have imagined so. Everytime I heard of somebody new getting stripped of a yellow jersey it was for sumtingnew-ebol or sumtingelse-erone.

LOL...I am totally going to steal those drug names and use them later to pretend I am way funnier than I really am.

Well that's what I was getting at. I can imagine the kinda of answers that come up that people think have no possible PED. And i can think of drugs they are overlooking.

That's why I was saying golf is the perfect example...there are barriers to entry that aren't related to skill, athleticism and physical ability. You would have to be a conservative wealthy white supremacist to think that the current crop of top golfers are where they are because of their skill, athleticism and physical ability alone. Prior to 1950 basketball was played and dominated by white players and I am sure one of the best players in the NBA was some 'Rory McIlroy looking mo fo' as well who had all the skills, all the power and endurance, all the technique in the world and I am sure back then no one watching could imagine anything could ever be any different....well things changed and they changed in a big way.

Bruce7

cc87 wrote: »

Just out of curiosity was he a college athletics coach? I know the NCAA are notorious for cherry picking who they test and dont test.

Yes, a college coach, although the thrower I mentioned was out of college by this stage, and was being tested on a regular schedule which he knew all about. In other words, there is no way he would have been doing what he was supposedly caught doing. They just screwed him.

One thing I don't get is if PEDs have all advanced so much, how is it that certain sports do not seem to have progressed at all in a long time? E.g. the throws.

Hammer - world record set in 1986
Shot - world record set in 1990
Discus - world record set in 1986
Javelin - world record set in 1996

Not only are the world records not being beaten, nobody is anywhere near these levels.

It's hardly because they are all clean nowadays?

Will Heffernan

Bruce7 wrote: »

Yes, a college coach, although the thrower I mentioned was out of college by this stage, and was being tested on a regular schedule which he knew all about. In other words, there is no way he would have been doing what he was supposedly caught doing. They just screwed him.

One thing I don't get is if PEDs have all advanced so much, how is it that certain sports do not seem to have progressed at all in a long time? E.g. the throws.

Hammer - world record set in 1986
Shot - world record set in 1990
Discus - world record set in 1986
Javelin - world record set in 1996

Not only are the world records not being beaten, nobody is anywhere near these levels.

It's hardly because they are all clean nowadays?

1. Pre testing it was a free for all...when you sat down to work out your training program you could work out your drugs program as well.

2. Dan John will hate me for saying this but hammer, shot, discus and javelin just ain't as sexy as they used to be. I know I couldn't name a single current hammer, shot, discus or javelin thrower...I wonder how many people could.

3. I think most importantly and just in my personal opinion...the main reason is that gold medals in those sports used to be the way to fame, fortune and early retirement for athletes in the former Eastern Block and that just isn't the case anymore.

4. I think that the athletes that were predisposed to success in these sports are now finding success in other sports that now have greater rewards.

Bruce7

Will Heffernan wrote: »

1. Pre testing it was a free for all...when you sat down to work out your training program you could work out your drugs program as well.

2. Dan John will hate me for saying this but hammer, shot, discus and javelin just ain't as sexy as they used to be. I know I couldn't name a single current hammer, shot, discus or javelin thrower...I wonder how many people could.

3. I think most importantly and just in my personal opinion...the main reason is that gold medals in those sports used to be the way to fame, fortune and early retirement for athletes in the former Eastern Block and that just isn't the case anymore.

4. I think that the athletes that were predisposed to success in these sports are now finding success in other sports that now have greater rewards.

Fair points. It did occur to me that it might be just that they can't afford the good stuff because they aren't making any money.

It's probably also fair to say that the coaches who would be able to produce the next world record holder are also working in sports where there are greater rewards.

The US coaches only seem to produce guys with freakish levels of strength (e.g. Christian Cantwell can incline press 300kg) and very poor technique.

Thud

ancient article, one of the first things he mentions is HGH improving eyesight, i'm sure there are lots of golfers using it, would imagine golfers would have some relaxant type drugs as well

http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/Drug-Test.html

jive

Will Heffernan wrote: »

This is true. The problem is...you don't have that.

How about if I alter your post a little and we go with another one of the greatest dopers known to man.

What about instead of a picture of a body builder I put a picture of Lance Armstrong up and said:

*Edit...someone will have to explain/show me how to insert a picture of Lance Armstrong looking jakt here to illustrate my point and for extra comedic value.

Would this indicate usage to you or no? Extreme example, shows the point I'm making nonetheless.

Wouldn't that look pretty retarded? Personally I think it would...but that's just me...that's what you've done.

I have a very good understanding of human physiology actually, I've the degree to prove it.

Cycling is a long distance sport, obviously him looking 'jakt' wouldn't indicate usage. Again, you can't tar all sports with the same brush. Whether you want to agree or not, size can be a good indicator... particularly a dramatic increase in muscularity in a short period of time. You disagree, that's fine, I think you're wrong.

Ahhhh...performance outside of the norms. 

What quantifies the norms? Genuinely curious. If so many people are on drugs then aren't the norms established by those people on drugs?

Another example....no, it's just that every time you made a point you made it in relation to size and that's like me coming on here and saying all cyclists are obviously not taking drugs because they AREN'T huuuuuuge.

No, it isn't.

No, but only because I can't be bothered. You can go and use google like everyone else does when they say I am wrong and they are right.

Go and google it. I have the discretion here to decide who I help and who I don't. I help lots of people that disagree with me or that tell me they think I am wrong but only when they are open and receptive to information. I like discussions not arguments. Discussions involve the sharing of information....arguments by definition don't involve sharing....and we're involved in the latter.

This is a discussion. I'm not sure how it's an argument just because we have a difference of opinion. You stated that PEDs can enhance visual acuity and I'm asking which ones? I'm not aware of _any_ PEDs that enhance visual acuity. It's obvious that you don't now of any PEDs that do this because otherwise, instead of writing a hilarious paragraph about sharing information, you would have just shared the information.

That could quite possibly be the dumbest thing you've ever said on so many levels that I don't where to start. So I just won't bother starting.

Wow, what an insightful point. I could belittle everything you said with nothing to back it up also. What a fun time this forum shall become.

LOL. So if I had been involved in multiple professional sports and had first hand experience of PED usage that's not really relevant? Right, I gotcha now. I see why we're having difficulties communicating.

No you said 'who you know in the industry', you never said you had first hand experience of it. First hand experience _is_ relevant, knowing someone that's involved isn't. It's just word of mouth which doesn't mean anything because people have different motives and can tell, believe it or not, lies!

We're not debating though...like I said...this is an argument. I'm going out of my way to try and find things to agree with you on....it's just that your ignorance is making it really hard. I will keep trying though.

Argument is a synonym of debate. It doesn't matter whether we agree or not, but I'm not ignorant. I'd admit ignorance if you had anything to disprove what I have said but you don't so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't care if you ignore this entire post, but just name any drug that enhances visual acuity in athletes and I'll be happy. Googling it and searching databases hasn't returned anything and I'm not aware of any such drugs.

Will Heffernan

I am going to make this really short because you really aren't worth we wasting my time here and there are plenty of other people I'd rather help. As for the validity of what you've said and what I've said...well I suppose people reading this thread can just judge for themselves.

jive wrote: »

I have a very good understanding of human physiology actually, I've the degree to prove it.

I'm sure it was a great investment.

Cycling is a long distance sport, obviously him looking 'jakt' wouldn't indicate usage. Again, you can't tar all sports with the same brush. Whether you want to agree or not, size can be a good indicator... particularly a dramatic increase in muscularity in a short period of time. You disagree, that's fine, I think you're wrong.

You need an irony detector.

What quantifies the norms? Genuinely curious. If so many people are on drugs then aren't the norms established by those people on drugs?

Did you do any 'stats' when you did your degree? What field would that be in because I don't know a single sports science graduate who wouldn't know what I am talking about. I certainly don't know anyone who knows anything about PED's who doesn't know that there's actually a spreadsheet used to identify athletes for targeted testing.

Anyway, I already feel I am wasting too much time on your post because again you are not adding anything to this but ridiculousness.

There are very well established norms for pretty much all traditional Olympic sports because many sports have records going back 100 years now. I know at the AIS there was a simple excel spreadsheet that you could just put times and dates in for swimming that would indicate drug usage for example.

If anyone is really interested in this you can PM me and I will put you on the right track. Again, I am not confident in anyone that has a degree and can't use google.

No, it isn't.

Zing.

This is a discussion. I'm not sure how it's an argument just because we have a difference of opinion. You stated that PEDs can enhance visual acuity and I'm asking which ones? I'm not aware of _any_ PEDs that enhance visual acuity. It's obvious that you don't now of any PEDs that do this because otherwise, instead of writing a hilarious paragraph about sharing information, you would have just shared the information.

Blah blah blah blah bunch of hilarious stuff that's supposed to 'dare' me to tell you.

Wow, what an insightful point. I could belittle everything you said with nothing to back it up also. What a fun time this forum shall become.

Don't worry. Anyone that has said anything worthwhile I've been happy to discuss the topic with. You on the other hand just keep on saying the same dumb stuff over and over again.

No you said 'who you know in the industry', you never said you had first hand experience of it. First hand experience _is_ relevant, knowing someone that's involved isn't. It's just word of mouth which doesn't mean anything because people have different motives and can tell, believe it or not, lies!

Agreed.

Argument is a synonym of debate. It doesn't matter whether we agree or not, but I'm not ignorant. I'd admit ignorance if you had anything to disprove what I have said but you don't so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Fine.

I don't care if you ignore this entire post, but just name any drug that enhances visual acuity in athletes and I'll be happy. Googling it and searching databases hasn't returned anything and I'm not aware of any such drugs.

LOL. Time to go back to the laboratory professor because your google and 'databases' must be broken.

jive

Will Heffernan wrote: »

There are very well established norms for pretty much all traditional Olympic sports because many sports have records going back 100 years now. I know at the AIS there was a simple excel spreadsheet that you could just put times and dates in for swimming that would indicate drug usage for example.

Cool but surely this isn't immune from drug testing? Cycling has been an olympic sport for as long as I can remember and obviously it has been riddled with drugs for the past 3 decades at least. If the testing can't catch them, then whoever compiles these norms must assume they are clean, and everyone is going faster then wouldn't that become the norm? I don't know anything about how these times or spreadsheets work, but I'd find it hard to believe if there weren't significant pitfalls like that.

LOL. Time to go back to the laboratory professor because your google and 'databases' must be broken.

So you still can't name any drugs that enhance visual acuity then? If you can't name even one then just say it, this beating around the bush is truly laughable.

Will Heffernan

jive wrote: »

Cool but surely this isn't immune from drug testing?

...and hence the reason that the database becomes more and more effective as the data for athletes who have tested positive and or perform outside of the norms is removed.

Cycling has been an olympic sport for as long as I can remember and obviously it has been riddled with drugs for the past 3 decades at least. If the testing can't catch them, then whoever compiles these norms must assume they are clean, and everyone is going faster then wouldn't that become the norm? I don't know anything about how these times or spreadsheets work, but I'd find it hard to believe if there weren't significant pitfalls like that.

You seem to find it hard to believe anything.

So you still can't name any drugs that enhance visual acuity then? If you can't name even one then just say it, this beating around the bush is truly laughable.

You caught me. I made it up. I suppose it was only a matter of time before someone pulled back the curtain to expose me for what I am.

*shhhh...don't tell Jive but anyone who's really interested can just PM me and I'll tell you.....but shhhhh....you have to keep it a secret.

jive

Will Heffernan wrote: »

...and hence the reason that the database becomes more and more effective as the data for athletes who have tested positive and or perform outside of the norms is removed.

Weird opinion coming from you who has said that "testing is irrelevant" when I stated its importance.

You caught me. I made it up. I suppose it was only a matter of time before someone pulled back the curtain to expose me for what I am.

*shhhh...don't tell Jive but anyone who's really interested can just PM me and I'll tell you.....but shhhhh....you have to keep it a secret.

So again you can't name any drugs? You've made it clear at this point that you were in fact talking out of your arse when you said that PEDs can enhance visual acuity in athletes.

Will Heffernan

jive wrote: »

Weird opinion coming from you who has said that "testing is irrelevant" when I stated its importance.

Life is full of mystery.

So again you can't name any drugs?

No, as I said. You are right about everything and I am wrong about everything. I think you should stop rubbing it in now. I think when people read this thread it will be perfectly clear to everyone that you have your finger on the pulse when it comes to this topic and that I wouldn't have a clue even though I've actually worked at Olympic and World Championship level in multiple sports in multiple countries and have spent pretty much my entire career working in professional sport for the past 20 years....as I've said...your posts speak for themselves and people can make up their own minds.

You've made it clear at this point that you were in fact talking out of your arse when you said that PEDs can enhance visual acuity in athletes.

I'm glad I finally made something clear to you.

jive

Will Heffernan wrote: »

No, as I said. You are right about everything and I am wrong about everything. I think you should stop rubbing it in now. I think when people read this thread it will be perfectly clear to everyone that you have your finger on the pulse when it comes to this topic and that I wouldn't have a clue even though I've actually worked at Olympic and World Championship level in multiple sports in multiple countries and have spent pretty much my entire career working in professional sport for the past 20 years....as I've said...your posts speak for themselves and people can make up their own minds.

I'm glad I finally made something clear to you.

Instead of stroking your ego and going to sarcastic extremes you could have just said that what you said previously about drugs enhancing visual acuity was factually incorrect. This whole charade of pm'ing you about drugs that don't exist is hilarious. As you said others can form their own opinions based on what we have discussed but they shouldn't have to PM you about imaginary drugs.

Will Heffernan

jive wrote: »

Instead of stroking your ego and going to sarcastic extremes you could have just said that what you said previously about drugs enhancing visual acuity was factually incorrect.

You are really pounding me out now...I am almost down for the count.

This whole charade of pm'ing you about drugs that don't exist is hilarious. As you said others can form their own opinions based on what we have discussed but they shouldn't have to PM you about imaginary drugs.

This is true. I apologise it will never happen again.

jive

Will Heffernan wrote: »

This is true. I apologise it will never happen again.

Cringe. What you said was wrong. I'm not going to reply to someone who makes erroneous statements and can't admit to them or, when it comes to admitting to them, responds like a child. I'm out.

amg-slurp

This is fun!

Anyway, a 5 second google search found this...

http://www.evolutionary.org/performance-enhancing-drugs-in-sports/


Looks interesting.

Will Heffernan

amg-slurp wrote: »

This is fun!

Like a cat with a ball of yarn you mean?

Anyway, a 5 second google search found this...

http://www.evolutionary.org/performance-enhancing-drugs-in-sports/

You fired up the google machine and searched your databases

Looks interesting.

It's an amazing area that is just accelerating away into the distance...thankfully if you are using the right combination of human growth hormone, insulin-like growth factor-I LR3, modafinil and adderall you can still just see it when others can't.

jive

Will Heffernan wrote: »

human growth hormone, insulin-like growth factor-I LR3, modafinil and adderall you can still just see it when others can't.

So your finally naming the drugs or is this meant to be sarcasm? Funnily enough modafinil and adderall have been noted to cause blurring of vision, whilst none mentioned have been shown to improve visual acuity. But what do I know, I'm just a doctor, you've worked with athletic people so know everything PED related.

colman1212

colman1212 wrote: »

I'd be interested to hear what people think about the use of PEDs in Rugby Union. Its a sport where strength, size and speed are hugely important and yet I don't recall any players ever testing positive.

I find it hard to believe it would be particularly clean. League was filthy in the early 90s, the players were bigger than they are now. They started to "clean up" when Union went pro, really they just stopped going for the silly size gains. In England Union and League have around the same number of positive tests a year, or did a few years ago anyway.

Will Heffernan

jive wrote: »

So your finally naming the drugs or is this meant to be sarcasm?

I suppose we'll just never know.

Funnily enough modafinil and adderall have been noted to cause blurring of vision, whilst none mentioned have been shown to improve visual acuity.

Thanks for the top tip...I'll adjust my dosage if and when required.

But what do I know, I'm just a doctor, you've worked with athletic people so know everything PED related.

Thankfully while working with athletes I've also got to work with some of the best sports physicians on the planet. But as you continue to point out...my experience counts for nothing anyway.

Will Heffernan

Deleted User wrote: »

I find it hard to believe it would be particularly clean. League was filthy in the early 90s, the players were bigger than they are now. They started to "clean up" when Union went pro, really they just stopped going for the silly size gains. In England Union and League have around the same number of positive tests a year, or did a few years ago anyway.

Ahhhh the good old days...you still basically have people outing themselves these days...I remember seeing an article in the Indo about an Irish rugby professional putting on 8kgs in 6 weeks and mentioning his off season training camp in Spain...even remembering it now makes me chuckle...if I was him I wouldn't have told anyone and I certainly wouldn't have wanted it in the Indo

I was involved in Rugby League in the 90's and the most amazing transformation I saw was an winger who went from weighing in at 88kg and an 8 site bodyfat score in the 70-80mm range to being one of the best locks playing the game at 106kg and 60-70mm body fat over two seasons.

Will Heffernan

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Ahhhh the good old days...you still basically have people outing themselves these days...I remember seeing an article in the Indo about an Irish rugby professional putting on 8kgs in 6 weeks and mentioning his off season training camp in Spain...even remembering it now makes me chuckle...if I was him I wouldn't have told anyone and I certainly wouldn't have wanted it in the Indo

I was involved in Rugby League in the 90's and the most amazing transformation I saw was an winger who went from weighing in at 88kg and an 8 site bodyfat score in the 70-80mm range to being one of the best locks playing the game at 106kg and 60-70mm body fat over two seasons.

If you watch the Super League you'll know a fullback/half-back type of player who broke through about 3 years ago and looked, to my eyes anyway, far too slight. If it was 20 years earlier he would've come back after his first season about 10kg heavier, instead he's just "filled out" a bit over the course of 3 years. It really is off-putting seeing old clips with players looking like professional wrestlers compared to the "normal"-looking lads now.

Will Heffernan

Deleted User wrote: »

If you watch the Super League you'll know a fullback/half-back type of player who broke through about 3 years ago and looked, to my eyes anyway, far too slight. If it was 20 years earlier he would've come back after his first season about 10kg heavier, instead he's just "filled out" a bit over the course of 3 years. It really is off-putting seeing old clips with players looking like professional wrestlers compared to the "normal"-looking lads now.

The demands of the game make carrying the sort of 'mass' that some guys attain let alone sustain through a season pretty much beyond the realms of 'natural' possibility.

The speed of the game has played a big part in the changing physiques of the players and that has changed to requirements with regard to preferred PED's in the game as well.