PED

walshb · 09-07-2014 03:12PM

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Take a look at the list of longest matches in tennis history. A hndful from 80's and 90's and pretty much all the rest come from the last 15 years.

Not sure what this has to do with anything. So we have more competitive matches. Big deal. Stats show that recently the longest tennis matches have occurred. That's just a bland statistic. Nothing biting at all.

Tennis players today are fitter and faster and stronger. That needs to be shown. The reasons for the fitter and faster and stronger is where we are debating. We cannot deny the technology/professionalism and improvements in all aspects of the players' lives. This has to improve them as athletes on the court.

Now, we also have the drugs that are helping. That is something that cannot be shown unless they test positive or admit to cheating.

I personally see nothing extraordinary on the courts that lead me to believe that is must be down to doping, and not just technology and hard work and overall scientific improvements in all aspects of the player's lives.

RosyLily · 09-07-2014 03:21PM

Interesting debate.

Careful with the doping speculation as it could be seen as defamatory.

Halloween Jack · 09-07-2014 03:24PM

walshb wrote: »

Not sure what this has to do with anything. So we have more competitive matches. Big deal. Stats show that recently the longest tennis matches have occurred. That's just a bland statistic. Nothing biting at all.

Tennis players today are fitter and faster and stronger. That needs to be shown. The reasons for the fitter and faster and stronger is where we are debating. We cannot deny the technology/professionalism and improvements in all aspects of the players' lives. This has to improve them as athletes on the court.

Now, we also have the drugs that are helping. That is something that cannot be shown unless they test positive or admit to cheating.

I personally see nothing extraordinary on the courts that lead me to believe that is must be down to doping, and not just technology and hard work and overall scientific improvements in all aspects of the player's lives.

Ok show me a metric for the dividend better 'professionalism' has bequeathed players, seeing as you are taking it as read and they can be demonstrated whereas the gains from doping cant.

The idea that the increases in performance we have seen across the board in sports are down to professionalism etc are a cover for whats really going on.

But then again maybe its down to gluten free diets and and the imbibing of tap water religiously at room temp thats doing it.

walshb · 09-07-2014 03:28PM

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Ok show me a metric for the dividend better 'professionalism' has bequeathed players, seeing as you are taking it as read and they can be demonstrated whereas the gains from doping cant.

.

I never said it could be read. That is my whole point, it's difficult to read. Tennis being such a skilled based game. We can surely all see the speed and power and fitness and strength improvements through the years? You agree surely that equipment and technology and diets have made tennis players fitter and stronger and better athletes? If you can't agree on this then let's leave it.

I used the word professionalism; this word encompasses everything related to improvement (diet/technology/equipment etc)

Not just tennis by the way. Other sports have improved by them becoming more and more professional. Look at soccer/rugby from the 80s compared to today. GAA as well. Don't get bogged down on the word professionalism. I had assumed that you knew what I meant by the word. It is everything to do with human improvement in sport.

Halloween Jack · 09-07-2014 03:28PM

I personally see nothing extraordinary on the courts that lead me to believe that is must be down to doping, and not just technology and hard work and overall scientific improvements in all aspects of the player's lives.

You cant watch a match between any of the top four these days without the commentators going on at length about the physical heights the players have taken the game too and their extrordinary ability to run/defend/cover court.

Halloween Jack · 09-07-2014 03:43PM

walshb wrote: »

I never said it could be read. That is my whole point, it's difficult to read. Tennis being such a skilled based game. We can surely all see the speed and power and fitness and strength improvements through the years? You agree surely that equipment and technology and diets have made tennis players fitter and stronger and better athletes? If you can't agree on this then let's leave it.

I used the word professionalism; this word encompasses everything related to improvement (diet/technology/equipment etc)

Not just tennis by the way. Other sports have improved by them becoming more and more professional. Look at soccer/rugby from the 80s compared to today. GAA as well. Don't get bogged down on the word professionalism. I had assumed that you knew what I meant by the word. It is everything to do with human improvement in sport.

I do believe obviously that increased knowledge in the field of sports science has helped athletes in all manner of performance.

However i believe these gains are secondary to the gains made through illegal means.

I further believe that tennis has become far, far more physical in the last 5-10 years than any explanation involving diets, racquets, training regimens can explain.

Like ive said its impossible to prove conclusively either way, so i'll leave it with you at that.

walshb · 09-07-2014 03:49PM

Halloween Jack wrote: »

You cant watch a match between any of the top four these days without the commentators going on at length about the physical heights the players have taken the game too and their extrordinary ability to run/defend/cover court.

That is called improvement. I'd be saying the same thing. Extraordinary ability to run faster and harder and longer than players in the 70s and 80s? What's extraordinary about it? It's called improvement through the years. It happens in pretty much every discipline on earth.

Giruilla · 09-07-2014 04:20PM

Halloween Jack wrote: »

You cant watch a match between any of the top four these days without the commentators going on at length about the physical heights the players have taken the game too and their extrordinary ability to run/defend/cover court.

Exactly! That trend has come through big time in tennis. Look at the change in the womens game.. Williams sisters dominating.. Bartoli.
Even Murray after he lost this year.. first thing he says in his interview is he needs to get back in the gym and work on his muscles.
All commentators talk about now is what great 'athletes' they are.. and how Djokovic's 'gluten free' diet has 'transformed' him :rolleyes:.

It's not just tennis.. Golf now is ALL about big drives. Tiger Woods walking around with a 'MusclePharm' logo on his bag. (Same guy who's doctor was caught importing various illegal PED's including HGH into US). Amazingly I actually had an debate before with a guy who didnt believe steroids/PED's could help golfers and said golf swing is all 'technique'!

Look at rugby players now compared to 20 years ago.. better diets clearly!

Then theres football... totally being transformed into a run long distances stamina/strength sport with skillful players being left by the wayside. You've running robots like Antonio Valencia playing for Manchester United where Beckham and George Best once would have stood.. it's sad to see.

Giruilla · 09-07-2014 04:28PM

“If I'm going to play better tennis than I am just now, the only way to do that is by working even harder than I have before. Getting in the gym, getting stronger, becoming physically better,”

That's why tennis players want to take drugs.

WADA numbers from 2013. Interesting to see no hGH tests in tennis in 2013.
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/Re...ORT-REPORT.pdf

That's why tennis players do take drugs.

It's as simple as that.

walshb · 09-07-2014 04:29PM

Soccer players aren't just running machines. That's plain silly. They are also very skilled. Just happens that they aren't out boozing 3-4 mights a week like in the old days.

George Best was in the 60s for chrissake.

Let's add in darts and snooker while we're at it. I suppose they're doped too because they can pot better? Nothing to do with them being sober at the table or the ockey?

Drugs aren't all that good for Tiger seeing as he is 7- 8 years without a major.

Drugs exist in sport, no doubt. You guys want us to believe that any top sports star has to be on drugs, because if not they are idiots. Silly talk.

Halloween Jack · 09-07-2014 05:51PM

walshb wrote: »

Soccer players aren't just running machines. That's plain silly. They are also very skilled. Just happens that they aren't out boozing 3-4 mights a week like in the old days.

George Best was in the 60s for chrissake.

Let's add in darts and snooker while we're at it. I suppose they're doped too because they can pot better? Nothing to do with them being sober at the table or the ockey?

Drugs aren't all that good for Tiger seeing as he is 7- 8 years without a major.

Drugs exist in sport, no doubt. You guys want us to believe that any top sports star has to be on drugs, because if not they are idiots. Silly talk.

As regards football, it's only british football culture that was mired in booze and unprofessional behaviour. Other football cultures had a sophisticated and professional approach and indeed doping regimens going as far back as the 50's.

The great juventus side of the 90's were proven to have been systematically doping. There are football teams referenced in the Fuentes case and del moral is widely believed to have worked with football clubs.

Halloween Jack · 09-07-2014 05:57PM

walshb wrote: »

Soccer players aren't just running machines. That's plain silly. They are also very skilled. Just happens that they aren't out boozing 3-4 mights a week like in the old days.

George Best was in the 60s for chrissake.

Let's add in darts and snooker while we're at it. I suppose they're doped too because they can pot better? Nothing to do with them being sober at the table or the ockey?

Drugs aren't all that good for Tiger seeing as he is 7- 8 years without a major.

Drugs exist in sport, no doubt. You guys want us to believe that any top sports star has to be on drugs, because if not they are idiots. Silly talk.

Maybe you should be sorry for us cynics and skeptics? Sorry that we can't dream big? Sorry we can't believe in miracles?

walshb · 10-07-2014 08:45AM

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Maybe you should be sorry for us cynics and skeptics? Sorry that we can't dream big? Sorry we can't believe in miracles?

I'm not sorry, just finding it difficult to believe that you are so skeptical. Unwilling to accept any great feat. Tennis players being faster and stronger seems to not be believable to you. I am with you as regards some athletes that have performed brilliantly but whom have not tested positive for PEDs. I know the testing isn't perfect, and that cheats slip through undetected, but some of the examples given by you don't really reek of suspicion. These miracles that you speak of. Sprinters running 10 seconds and below. That's not a miracle. Nor is Nadal and Nole and Murray and Federer playing GS tournaments in two weeks, with maybe a couple of 5 setter matches.

Giruilla · 10-07-2014 08:59AM

walshb wrote: »

Let's add in darts and snooker while we're at it. I suppose they're doped too because they can pot better? Nothing to do with them being sober at the table or the ockey?

You actually think many darts and snooker players don't dope? Ever hear of beta-blockers?! Try reading Alex Higgins auto-bio.

walshb wrote: »

Drugs aren't all that good for Tiger seeing as he is 7- 8 years without a major.

It's sad you and others think you are actually making a valid point with this drool and what else you've written.

You won't believe any athlete is on gear unless they directly fail a dope dest. I get it. Enjoy the illusion.

Halloween Jack · 10-07-2014 09:19AM

walshb wrote: »

I'm not sorry, just finding it difficult to believe that you are so skeptical. Unwilling to accept any great feat. Tennis players being faster and stronger seems to not be believable to you. I am with you as regards some athletes that have performed brilliantly but whom have not tested positive for PEDs. I know the testing isn't perfect, and that cheats slip through undetected, but some of the examples given by you don't really reek of suspicion. These miracles that you speak of. Sprinters running 10 seconds and below. That's not a miracle. Nor is Nadal and Nole and Murray and Federer playing GS tournaments in two weeks, with maybe a couple of 5 setter matches.

My last post was basically the words of lance Armstrong. That's what he said after coming back to win the tour. The point I was making was that it's in everybodies interests to believe the hype. I'm sure there is plenty of similar comments regarding barry bonds and mark McGwire when they were pummelling unprecedented numbers of home runs out the park, I'm sure people were saying that the cynics just couldn't dream big

walshb · 10-07-2014 10:28AM

Giruilla wrote: »

You actually think many darts and snooker players don't dope? Ever hear of beta-blockers?! Try reading Alex Higgins auto-bio.

It's sad you and others think you are actually making a valid point with this drool and what else you've written.

You won't believe any athlete is on gear unless they directly fail a dope dest. I get it. Enjoy the illusion.

Never said darts and snooker players don't dope. I also never said that I believe all athletes are clean that haven't failed tests. You need to read what I write. Athletes slip through the net.

And no need for the snide comments. Supposed to be a friendly and polite discussion. Because we disagree doesn't mean we should resort to that nonsense. I'm the only poster offering a debate/discussion to yourself.

Good day!

Giruilla · 10-07-2014 10:53AM

walshb wrote: »

I'm the only poster offering a debate/discussion to yourself.

You think writing

walshb wrote: »

That's plain silly.

walshb wrote: »

Drugs aren't all that good for Tiger seeing as he is 7- 8 years without a major.

walshb wrote: »

Silly talk.

is offering some sort of constructive debate?

.. no thanks.

You've consistently shown an ignorance to the benefits of PED's and why/when people would use them. You're argument essentially boils down to you not believing people are on juice unless they've failed a test.. or do feats incredible enough to satisfy some level you've set for whats implausible. Theres not much more to it than that.

walshb · 10-07-2014 11:20AM

Giruilla wrote: »

You think writing

is offering some sort of constructive debate?

.. no thanks.

You've consistently shown an ignorance to the benefits of PED's and why/when people would use them. You're argument essentially boils down to you not believing people are on juice unless they've failed a test.. or do feats incredible enough to satisfy some level you've set for whats implausible. Theres not much more to it than that.

Nice one for picking out a tiny percentage of my words to back up your snottiness.

As I said, I don't do snide and confrontational. Politeness and civility suits me best. Maybe I should have ripped at you when you incorrectly posted Ben's times for Carl's times, and then had the audacity to roll the eyes when I simply queried the times.

For the second time, Good Day!

Giruilla · 10-07-2014 11:40AM

walshb wrote: »

As I said, I don't do snide and confrontational. Politeness and civility suits me best. Maybe I should have ripped at you when you incorrectly posted Ben's times for Carl's times, and then had the audacity to roll the eyes when I simply queried the times.

That was a mistake a completely admitted and apologized for.

I write

Golf now is ALL about big drives. Tiger Woods walking around with a 'MusclePharm' logo on his bag. (Same guy who's doctor was caught importing various illegal PED's including HGH into US).

This is MusclePharm who have an image of Arnold Schwazenegger from his youth on their products. A life steroid user.

You're contribution

Drugs aren't all that good for Tiger seeing as he is 7- 8 years without a major.

Civility is wonderful but when your comments have the hard hitting insight of that, the conversation gets boring very quickly.

walshb · 10-07-2014 11:52AM

If the conversation is boring, or you can't contain your snottiness then bid me a good day. Nobody is forcing you to try and debate in a civil fashion.

Picking out a tiny percentage of my words to try and belittle my posts is not really helpful.

Best to read a bit more and maybe take some of the 'better' points that I made.

The Tiger issue. You ready to label him a drug user because of "Tiger Woods walking around with a 'MusclePharm' logo on his bag" is just as silly and daft as you are claiming my retort is. Maybe I should have just said that to the best of my knowledge Tiger has never tested positive for PEDs. Would that be daft as well? As daft as you labeling him a cheat because of a logo?

If the debate needs to be all agreeing with you then I will no longer post. It seems you are wanting this. Maybe it's annoying you that I don't agree with all that you say?

RosyLily · 10-07-2014 12:03PM

Enough of the snide comments.

Either discuss the topic or leave.

Halloween Jack · 10-07-2014 12:21PM

walshb wrote: »

If the conversation is boring, or you can't contain your snottiness then bid me a good day. Nobody is forcing you to try and debate in a civil fashion.

Picking out a tiny percentage of my words to try and belittle my posts is not really helpful.

Best to read a bit more and maybe take some of the 'better' points that I made.

The Tiger issue. You ready to label him a drug user because of "Tiger Woods walking around with a 'MusclePharm' logo on his bag" is just as silly and daft as you are claiming my retort is. Maybe I should have just said that to the best of my knowledge Tiger has never tested positive for PEDs. Would that be daft as well? As daft as you labeling him a cheat because of a logo?

If the debate needs to be all agreeing with you then I will no longer post. It seems you are wanting this. Maybe it's annoying you that I don't agree with all that you say?

Do you see where people are coming from though walshb?

Only the other day tiger admitted he hadn't been tested once all year. WADA have confirmed the ITF did hardly any tests for EPO and no test at all for HGH. Furthermore there is a long list of dopers whoe successfully cheated the system for years without testing positive.

These are the reasons why your stance believing athletes to be clean unless they test positive could irk some people.

We all know golfers dope, we all know tennis players dope, the authorities surely know athletes dope. How then can the testing across the sports be so lax unless by design?

Not failing a test is proof of absolutely nothing with all this in mind.

walshb · 10-07-2014 12:29PM

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Do you see where people are coming from though walshb?

Only the other day tiger admitted he hadn't been tested once all year. WADA have confirmed the ITF did hardly any tests for EPO and no test at all for HGH. Furthermore there is a long list of dopers whoe successfully cheated the system for years without testing positive.

These are the reasons why your stance believing athletes to be clean unless they test positive could irk some people.

We all know golfers dope, we all know tennis players dope, the authorities surely know athletes dope. How then can the testing across the sports be so lax unless by design?

Not failing a test is proof of absolutely nothing with all this in mind.

For the umpteenth time I am aware that cheats slip through the net. I couldn't be clearer. I said this several times. It's in many posts.

Here is where we essentially are debating: Applying the rule of not failing a test (as being of no relevance) to almost any great athlete. Surely that is naive?

We may as well close the debate. Drugs tests means NOTHING. All great achievements and performances must be down to doping. I believe you said it, that if the great players are not doping then they are idiots? I think it was you who said this.

Imagine applying that or saying that to many many greats in sport through the years. Sure, some may well have cheated, but applying it so liberally just doesn't sit with me.

walshb · 10-07-2014 12:31PM

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Not failing a test is proof of absolutely nothing with all this in mind.

And labeling them cheats with hearsay and speculation and innuendo also proves nothing. You surely can agree with this. I agree with your claim.

If an athlete does not get tested at all in a year then we still can't label him/her a cheat. That's ridiculous. If said athlete is evading tests then yes, I am ready to be very suspicious.

walshb · 10-07-2014 12:40PM

Take Michael Phelps. The guy was tested non stop for many years. He is a great. The GOAT. Does the testing mean nothing as regards him? Is he somehow cheating but not getting caught?

Maybe he isn't a good example, as FINA seem fairly stringent with testing.

Halloween Jack · 10-07-2014 12:56PM

walshb wrote: »

And labeling them cheats with hearsay and speculation and innuendo also proves nothing. You surely can agree with this. I agree with your claim.

If an athlete does not get tested at all in a year then we still can't label him/her a cheat. That's ridiculous. If said athlete is evading tests then yes, I am ready to be very suspicious.

Obviously its wrong to flat out label people cheats with out anything approaching hard evidence. I dont think ive claimed anybody to be doping outright?

That however is precisely the tradgedy in all this. Im not here arguing about this with you because im a conspiracy nut, or i claim to have insider knowledge, or i like a good yarn. Im arguing the toss with you over this because i care, and im angry and i feel like ive been robbed of the enjoyment of something i cherished so much.

The Armstrong stuff was a bit of a watershed for me. Previous to that i had zero, and i mean zero interest or knowledge in doping. I thought it was something that happened in athletics and cycling, but even then predominantly in the past. But the more i read around the armstrong case the more i believed that those notions were exactly what certain interests wanted me to think. I cant unread or unlearn what ive read, and common sense tells me that a lot of what im seeing just isnt plausible anymore.

I still watch sports and enjoy them, but the feeling you describe, one of wonder and awe and inspiration at extrordinary feat performed my mortal men and women, will be tainted for me until things change drastically.

Re: phelps, dont know much about him, other than the records etc. As far as i know he's clean. But as ive iterated, nothing would surprise me. A big, big factor in me getting belief back in the authorities would be a system of storing samples and re-testing periodically them in line with improved tests. If athletes knew for a fact that even if they were ahead of the curve, they would be caught in future then id be happier. Id also advocate jailing dopers when caught as to my mind its outright fraud.

walshb · 10-07-2014 01:14PM

No real argument with that, Halloween Jack. In a nutshell it boils down to what we view as humanly possible and what we really suspect as being aided by PEDs.

I strongly disagree with the view that athletes at the top who aren't doping are silly because the testing in their sport is not very stringent. I believe there are honest and clean and wanting to be honest and clean athletes. Win/lose or draw, they are not going to cheat! I will throw in the big four of Federer and Murray and Nadal and Nole in that. I think all four are great players. I believe them to be attaining success through dedication. I don't see anything extraordinary that cannot be put down to dedication and technology and improvements through the years.

One great athlete I believe in is Ed Moses, the hurdler. So dominant and great, in a time when track and field was not near as tested as it is today. Why do I believe him? Well, from all I have read about the guy, his manner/attitude and preparation. It all points to a clean athlete. Now, if I was to take the view that he must be a doper because he was the best in the world at a time when doping tests weren't as strict as post 1988, then I dismiss the man completely. I dismiss that a man can do what he did through hard work and dedication. Would I be completely shocked if it transpired that he doped? No. But a shock nonetheless.

walshb · 10-07-2014 01:22PM

Michelle Smith at the time for me was given the benefit of the doubt, (why dope in 1998 after all she achieved in 1996)? But when you look back over her career and her times and improvements it is hard to accept that it was done without PEDs. I was annoyed with the sour grapes attitude from the Americans. Plus, Michelle wasn't swimming remarkable times; but I suppose they were remarkable for her! Now, never tested positive for a PED as far as I know, had some positive test that was dismissed I believe, (I am open to correction), but I do think she used PEDs. Found guilty of tampering with a drugs sample.

Halloween Jack · 10-07-2014 01:38PM

There are indeed athletes who are clean and would never cheat, unforunately its hard to know who is who. It is indeed another tradgedy of doping some that such athletes are being robbed of the careers they should be having by those who are prepared to cheat.

Re: the comment about athletes being idiots for not doping, that was meant to infer that the testing was so obviously obviously beatable that honesty really is the only thing that would hold an athlete back. The chances of getting caught are slim to none and the rewards for doping potentially huge. I mentioned Johnson's coach before, he raised a point about the culture of doping in athletics in the 80's. He claimed that the athletes didnt really even see it as cheating, their reasoning being that it would only be cheating if you were alone in doping, if everybody is doing it, you are only levelling the playing field by joining in. It is this type of thinking that makes doping widespread, and means that the scandals always involve whole echelons of individual sports.

Imagine you keep hammering a guy in the juniors, then all of a sudden he starts blowing you away, you start to think, this guy isnt legit, im better than him, he must be using. What do you do then, even if your an honest athlete? Do you accept that this guy who isnt as good as you will go on to have the career you should be having or do you go looking for whatever he's having to level the terms again?

I think you are correct in assuming that most athletes are honest or at least start out so. But the way the authorities habdle doping (ie: tacitly accept it) corrupts athletes and entire sports. Eradicating doping protects athletes from having to make this kind of compromise and protects their health. The human body was designed to be able to do so much. Pushing it beyond what it was designed for can only be a bad thing.

walshb · 10-07-2014 01:48PM

Halloween Jack wrote: »

He claimed that the athletes didnt really even see it as cheating, their reasoning being that it would only be cheating if you were alone in doping, if everybody is doing it, you are only levelling the playing field by joining in. It is this type of thinking that makes doping widespread, and means that the scandals always involve whole echelons of individual sports.

This is one point that sort of cements my view that Carl was not a PED user. It's not a provable belief or fact, but Lewis was clearly faster than Ben. That IMO was just talent. Then Ben starts to clearly dominate Carl. A complete turnaround. Lewis knew something was up quite a while before Seoul, but still, Lewis' performances and times were steady and consistent. It was Ben who was booming with dramatic time improvements.

The U.S. surely had access, or could have had access to the same good stuff that Ben was on, and the knowledge and expertise to use it wisely, but Lewis was still Mr. consistent. Nothing extraordinary happening with him. I reckon a Lewis doped on the juice that Ben was on could have run faster than anything Ben achieved. Holy god, imagine Lewis with a much more explosive start, for example? The guy used to take 50 metres to get going. Imagine taking 20 metres off that and Lewis was booming down the track? 9.5/9.6?

PED

Comments