shaka wrote: » Don't think so , whether or not barca payed for it he had a medical condition that would of been treated at some stage . Think maybe it's a case of earlier the better for all parties concerned.. It's fairly well documented, not some dirty little secret like pharmstrong .. Ps I'll go with vertically challenged
Leroy42 wrote: » Without wanting to go OT,(but still) if the storys about Messi are true about growth hormones then surely that is an even greater use of PED's than even LA partook in. Messi was aparantly born and grew so that he wouldn't cut it in the world of professional football. Barcelona decided that his inherent skill was such that he would be re-engineered. That is dangerously close to DNA re-engineering for me. How is that not as bad as what LA did? Is it because its football that so little is said about it. It has been suggested in many quarters that the next wave of PED's will be DNA changing based. Would the Messi example not be along the lines of taking guys with low VO2 max and giving them drugs to bring them up to superstar levels?
Leroy42 wrote: » @Brandon - I would not qustion USPS paying for cancer treatment, the man was dying and it is right that an employer looks after someones health. Messi is a different case. Messi's life, as far as I understand and am fully open to correction, was not under threat. It was only a medical condition in so far as medicine could help change it. You could argue that EPO can change my inherent abilities as well. My point being that it is a fine line between doping and medical enhancements. @ Shaka, I am pretty sure there are plenty of vertically challenged people going around. But what next. A guy who is good at basketball but is short is given growth hormones to get to 6'6". Why stop there, use better drugs to get to 7' or 8'. It is well documented because it is accepted. That doesn't make it right. What effect does blood doping and EPO have on an elite athelete. It takes his natural abilities and allows them to push far beyond what 'Normal' elites can achieve. Is Messi's treatment any different?
noddy69 wrote: » Em LA didnt have a medical condition that was credible which the treatment for was growth hormone. Huge difference.Monumental difference ....in fact not even on the same planet and to suggest it is worse than Armstrongs doping, well ,from another planet comes to mind
paddy no 11 wrote: » Is being short a medical condition?
hardCopy wrote: » I don't see the Messi thing as being any different to straight up doping. Most football fans would seem to disagree. How is a hormonally deficient footballer any more deserving of medical help than a Cardio-Vascularly Challenged mid-pack cyclist?I'm 5'9" and played as a back-row forward in rugby. Sadly the IRFU never noticed my nascent talent and missed the opportunity to boost my hormones and turn me into a beast of a Number 6, I think 6'5" would be an ideal height for me.
Leroy42 wrote: » But I'm guessing that many people who dope, and this is stated in regards to hemocrit, would say that all they are doing is levelling the playing field. Messi so called medical condition was that he was too small, my point is where do you draw the line. Why should I suffer from having a lower VO2 max then you. what if you're democrat is naturally 45 while mine is 40. I can argue that medical treatment can fix that. Messi would still be alive and well without the growth hormone treatment, but obviously not a professional footballer.being too small to be a professional foot ball player is not a medical condition.
brandon_flowers wrote: » Thanks for that Dr. Hibbert. I now give up.
MPFG wrote: » I don't think I did My point was if you are a radio station and run anti doping programmes would you have Maradonna as your mascot...and how I would like to see soem balanced programming re drugs in other sports I don't think that point excuses Armstrong or compares the two....but the reality of the issues of drugs is they are in other sports but no one seems to investigate or report .......
MPFG wrote: » Kimmage sues UCIhttp://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kimmage-counter-sues-verbruggen-mcquaid
Cienciano wrote: » I love paul kimmage!
hardCopy wrote: » I don't see the Messi thing as being any different to straight up doping. Most football fans would seem to disagree. .
petethedrummer wrote: » At LAST!!! Newstalk are doing a bit on doping in soccer.
Raam wrote: » They did a piece last week. Some fella who used to play for Milwall was on saying that he was tested maybe once in eight years, or something like that.
kumate_champ07 wrote: » ye heard that too, but was that back in the 90's? think theres more testing these days in football.
Importantly, WADA said it had an external, independent review of the application of the statute of limitations, and said, "that opinion is clear and confirms that the interpretation given by USADA is proper and supported by case law".
crumliniano wrote: » Just watched the new Southpark episode about the Lance affair on Comedy Central. As usual it's about the most intelligent commentary on current affairs on TV. Great stuff.
shaka wrote: » I don't think it's the same , taking steroids to be a 6 6 basketball player is different from a 11 year old kid with a projected height of 4ft 7 getting treatment he deserves. River plate couldn't afford the treatment. It's not a case of him being born to be a short ass , he had a growth hormone deficiency. I think that's different to someone like pharmstrong having a talent deficiency