walshb wrote: » Testing for health and safety should be the goal and the norm, not testing for PEDs. If the athlete is tested and signed off as being healthy then away he goes. Surely in the 21st century we can implement this? As it stands the concept/belief/want that everyone has the same chance in sport is ridiculous. The playing field is already uneven, and always will be. Allowing PEDs simply allows humans to create an even greater spectacle, and to reach new heights. They are already achieving sublime performances through aids and technology. Limiting this by banning PEDs is counterproductive.
TRR_the_turd wrote: » What's your stance on bionic limbs. Let's say in the morning that it was possible to fit a robotic leg that was 20% more efficient than a human leg? Legalising PEDs is the lazy option IMO and will never happen. I'll give this to you walshie, you really do love a good debate!
The Rape of Lucretia wrote: » No obsession. And the point is not trivial : Coe, Ovett, and Cram, running times for one country, in the same era, 30 years ago, that almost havent even been equalled by white men since, let alone improved on as one might expect (yes, Willis recently is in the zone), and rank with the Africans who completely dominate since and today. Strip out African runners from the all time list which disguises them to some degree. They are a huge anomaly.
walshb wrote: » I would allow PEDs within reason. No 'mechanical' aids. Everything stays the same. I am not saying a free for all. I am saying that athletes making a conscious and adult choice, with medical guidance and guidelines, that PEDs use should be allowed. I am not advocating strapping on jet packs, or bionic limbs etc. Like I have said, the playing is already hugely uneven by "legal" means. Why is altitude training permitted, and altitude tents etc, when EPO is banned? There are many athletes who cannot avail of altitude training, or afford state of the art equipment and facilities to help them.
The Rape of Lucretia wrote: » There is a clear difference between altering your body to perform at it best using PEDs and using training techniques.
walshb wrote: » It's still a uneven field no matter what way you look at it. Athletes who have access to the best facilities and doctors and technology already have a clear advantage over those who do not. Some countries have a clear advantage over others. Why then limit them by banning PEDs? If PEDs were legal then the filed I believe would even out much more. EPO/HGH and anabolic steroids are more attainable for less well off countries and federations thaN some of the state of the art facilities and amenities that wealthy federations and countries have access to.
The Rape of Lucretia wrote: » I wouldnt be looking for an even field. Facilities, money, coaches, early develpoment and access to elite competition. Thats just life. PEDs are where the line must be drawn for all. People are not lab rats.
walshb wrote: » That's just it. You drawing lines....That's just life? Yet you want to limit it... Within reason, and with guidelines for health and safety. No issue there, but the blanket ban on PEDs is wrong. That is what is against human nature.
The Rape of Lucretia wrote: » No obsession. And the point is not trivial : Coe, Ovett, and Cram, running times for one country, in the same era, 30 years ago, that almost havent even been equalled by white men since...
The Rape of Lucretia wrote: » Part of the problem is the old innocent until proven guilty process which is fine for general society where the overwhelming majority are innocent. But n eleite athletics that doesnt apply. Anything at all suscpicious in tests, even a 1 in a 1000000 chance should have some one turfed out of it. Some collateral damage with innocent athletes. Sure. I would have sympathy for the. But would be OK for that. Much better than the whole sport disappearing down the sewer as it has been for the last 40+ years. Any detected anomalies. Out. For life.
Pherekydes wrote: » I presume you'd feel the same about white women, born within days of each other and representing a much, much smaller population?
walshb wrote: » Let them at it. Maybe bring in threshold levels for a list of PEDs. Man will always strive to progress. Why hold back the tide? It happens in F1, and other sports too use money and technology to be better than their competitors. May actually see a more level playing field if the authorities simply allow humans to compete in T&F.
The Rape of Lucretia wrote: » Depends on the instance, but yes, quite likely.
Pherekydes wrote: » Why would it depend on the instance? Either white people running fast is suspicious or it isn't. Maybe you've watched too many Hollywood movies or read too many tabloids. White men CAN jump (and run).
Notwork Error wrote: » And not to mind the fact that the 1500m/mile WR holder is white.
walshb wrote: » He is not white. He is of African origin. Brown would be a better color. Certainly not European white.
Notwork Error wrote: » We're all of African Origin. He's Caucasian Arab if you want to get all pedanatic. Tiger Woods is Caucasian, American Indian, Asian black but everyone seems to call him black. Tbh, who gives a ****e, being white is a suspicion for doping now? This crap belongs on letsrun.
Chivito550 wrote: » To be fair the Kenyans hadn't really become a big force during Coe's era, particularly not over 800m, like they are now. Also the doping in the Eastern Bloc didn't have near the same effects for men as for their women. Coe's victories alone wouldn't warrant any suspicion to be honest. The 1:41 back in the early 80s is eye opening though. The event has only come on less than 1 second since.
walshb wrote: » Would you ban athletes with asthma?
walshb wrote: » Allow them to use drugs. Monitor and test for their health, and then pass/refuse them fit to compete. End of story.
pc11 wrote: » Jesus, would you ever shut the f@ck up? edit: Apologies for the outburst, but that's enough WalshB. I'm willing to bet I speak for 99% here when I say "enough!". We have your point. We all know what you're like. Go post elsewhere. There's making a point and then there's this.
Krusty_Clown wrote: » I think you're confusing condition and treatment. Asthma is a condition that may hinder your sporting performance. The drugs that treat asthma may or may not have benefits to performance (most asthma medication doesn't appear on any banned or TUE list). Incidentally, I have asthma, but no longer take asthma medication (for the last couple of years). Would you have me banned? So are you're suggesting the Irish boxers should be taking PEDs? Boxing in general?
walshb wrote: » Is that your 1st post on the thread? I have many, as you know. You chose one to quote in your rant. Very short one too. Odd, no? Are you asthmatic? The reason I ask is that you seem rather offended by my post. Asthma is quite a serious condition. Those who are against allowing PED usage use one argument about health and safety. I could apply that to an athlete who suffers from asthma. It's just a discussion forum. Not life and death. There are many other threads here that may interest you, or you could actually give your view and opinion on this one.
pc11 wrote: » Nothing whatsoever to do with asthma, it was at this point that I exploded with rage at your idiocy and persistence in hijacking the discussion.
pc11 wrote: » I think you're feeding the troll Krusty.
pc11 wrote: » Jesus, would you ever shut the f@ck up?
menoscemo wrote: » Yeah to be honest, maybe you are the one derailing the conversation?
pc11 wrote: » He has 55 posts in this thread. He endlessly repeats the same trolling point. Yes, it's me is the problem.
