But you would think we would have made significant advances in biochemistry (or whatever the relevant fields are) since then…
thats why i said 5% more now.
they are more strict about drugs now so athletes/coaches make it so that they don’t get caught. and sometimes they get caught anyway
[quote]alexus wrote:
i guess by ‘cheating’ i just mean breaking the rules. the rules say that you can’t take whatever substances… so if you take those substances then you can’t legitimately win. it would be like hiding assistive gear under your weightlifting suit when the rules expressly prohibit that. of course you can tell yourself ‘everybody else is doing it’ which may or may not be true. seems to me to be beside the point, however.
[/quote]
I can’t speak for anyone else (let alone elite weightlifters from across the world) but I’ve never personally really thought of PEDs as “cheating” per se. I would imagine there are others who share the same view. I would also imagine that there are those who would say the only thing that makes your win legitimate is lifting more than the other athletes on a given day. I view PEDs and assistance gear separately in that your analogy, for me at least, does not work although I can see where you’re coming from. And the important distinction may not be that “everybody else is doing it,” but rather that there is a belief that it is necessary to use PEDs to train and compete at the world elite level.
[quote]alexus wrote:
i don’t understand the rules insofar as whether they actually say you need to be lifetime clean or just clean for the competitive season… but whatever it is that they do say… breaking that would be cheating, wouldn’t it? i mean… what else does cheating mean than breaking the rules and trying to get away with it?[/quote]
I don’t know the exact letter of the rules, although I will say that a rule stating you need to be lifetime clean is unenforceable. And as far as the mentality of cheating, one could suppose that it is a mental shift from the attitude of “The rules say I can’t test positive so I can’t use PEDs” to “The rules say I can’t test positive so I need to alter my usage so that my system is clear when I am being tested.” Again, I can’t say whether or not anyone uses this justification or any other, I’m just spitballing here.
[quote]alexus wrote:
EDIT:
Perhaps weightlifting should have non-tested federations or whatever like powerlifting and bodybuilding. I’d be interested to see what the male and female human body can do both with a variety of assistive substances and without…
[/quote]
I disagree. Although I, too, am curious to see what would be capable if there were no restrictions on drug use, I wouldn’t want weightlifting to become fractured like powerlifting and to a lesser extent, bodybuilding. I believe that is one of our sport’s strengths, that there is unity as far as rules and competitions are concerned. I am not a proponent of having to qualify the title of “World Champion” with what federation bestowed that title.
[quote]TheJonty wrote:
I can’t speak for anyone else (let alone elite weightlifters from across the world) but I’ve never personally really thought of PEDs as “cheating” per se. I would imagine there are others who share the same view.[/quote]
Well, for me, using PEDs becomes a moral issue when you compete against others who believe in not using PEDs (i.e. the rules), especially if he/she is naive about the issue. This problem is compounded by the fact that we can’t never be sure who’s a user or not.
[quote]alexus wrote:
well…
i thought it was cheating to be an athlete and using.
is it stupid not to cheat?[/quote]
i’m sorry,
The statement about being “stupid if you don’t use” is my personal take after reviewing the data. The original question dealt with “do drugs really make a difference?” and according to the doctors who tell you steroids are bad, yes, yes they do work. That said, if you read the paper, the group who performed the best, was the group who were given testosterone AND lifted weights 3x a week. I just found it startling that the group given testosterone and told to do nothing made gains across all measured parameters vs. the poor blokes bust-n-ass 3x a week in the weight room and given a placebo.
Is it stupid not to cheat?
i don’t know. Why, becasuse its against the law?
Really?, like it was OK and morally cool to own a slave in 1800 cause it wasn’t against the “law”.
Most “law” is simply designed by and for keeping those on top there.
Maybe John Wayne was right when he said:
Life is hard
Life is harder when your stupid.
Perhaps that translates to the weight room.
LB
[quote]LBramble wrote:
i’m sorry,
The statement about being “stupid if you don’t use” is my personal take after reviewing the data. The original question dealt with “do drugs really make a difference?” and according to the doctors who tell you steroids are bad, yes, yes they do work. That said, if you read the paper, the group who performed the best, was the group who were given testosterone AND lifted weights 3x a week. I just found it startling that the group given testosterone and told to do nothing made gains across all measured parameters vs. the poor blokes bust-n-ass 3x a week in the weight room and given a placebo.
Is it stupid not to cheat?
i don’t know. Why, becasuse its against the law?
Really?, like it was OK and morally cool to own a slave in 1800 cause it wasn’t against the “law”.
Most “law” is simply designed by and for keeping those on top there.
Maybe John Wayne was right when he said:
Life is hard
Life is harder when your stupid.
Perhaps that translates to the weight room.
LB[/quote]
hahaha great post
YAAAAY!!! Intellectual Masturbation for the WIN!!!
I think it is important to distinguish between legality and morality. Some things might be illegal but not immoral (e.g., driving on the wrong side of the road) while other things might be legal but immoral (e.g., lying to ones friends). One might have moral obligations to follow the law… But one might not… Depends on the law.
I do think that when one chooses to play a game one should play by the rules of the game, however. One can’t legitimately play the game unless one plays by the rules.
I’m not sure what the rules say…
If they say that if you test positive for certain substances then your lifts don’t count - then seems to me that using is fine. It is just testing positive that is the issue.
If they say that certain substances are banned… For use during the competitive season or for use period (e.g., lifetime) then that seems to be different, though.
Whether or not the person gets caught.
To use banned substances is breaking the rules. I don’t see how it is different from hiding assistive gear. If people are determined to use assistive substances or gear that is currently banned it would be better if they fractionated and created their own non-Olympic sport - wouldn’t it? Leave those who choose to play the sport by the rules to participate accordingly.
Similarly with natural and non-natural bodybuilders. Both are interesting (to me anyway). To see what humans are capable of both without and with drug assistance (I don’t think anybody thinks that drugs don’t help performance if used sensibly). What seems to me to be cheating, however, is a non-natural bodybuilder competing against natural bodybuilders in a competition that is supposed to be natural. Similarly for people who use substances they know to be banned in the sport. The person who doesn’t use (especially if they lose because of it) was robbed. Cheated. That doesn’t seem to me to be fair.
YAAAYYY!! Intellectual masturbation for the WIN!!! 
YAAAY!! Intellectual m*****bation for the WIN!!!
[quote]alexus wrote:
If people are determined to use assistive substances or gear that is currently banned it would be better if they fractionated and created their own non-Olympic sport - wouldn’t it? Leave those who choose to play the sport by the rules to participate accordingly.
[/quote]
The problem with that is you’ll then have “Olympic” weightlifters who no longer participate in the Olympics that may very well set a standard for lifting that is higher than that found in the Olympics…higher weights lifted on average, higher records, etc. That would, in my opinion, sort of minimize what is accomplished at the Olympics by “clean” or at least less drugged up athletes.
That’s part of the reason powerlifting can never become a legitimate Olympic sport, except in reverse. Athletes who have set the precedent in the sport, who are not used to being tested, would have to now be tested, and it would probably have to be a raw competition too. So the records would go way the fuck down.
Nobody wants to see the records go way the fuck down. And nobody wants to see non-Olympic athletes doing better than Olympic athletes in an Olympic sport.
[quote]alexus wrote:
I do think that when one chooses to play a game one should play by the rules of the game, however. One can’t legitimately play the game unless one plays by the rules.
I’m not sure what the rules say…
If they say that if you test positive for certain substances then your lifts don’t count - then seems to me that using is fine. It is just testing positive that is the issue.
If they say that certain substances are banned… For use during the competitive season or for use period (e.g., lifetime) then that seems to be different, though.
Whether or not the person gets caught.[/quote]
I was perusing the IWF Anti-Doping policy today (you can find it on www.iwf.net if you want) and it appears that the use or attempted use of a prohibited substances or method by an athlete qualifies as a doping violation (section 2.2, if you’re looking). That means using at any time, regardless of whether you test positive or whether you are otherwise caught, is technically against the rules.
[quote]alexus wrote:
To use banned substances is breaking the rules. I don’t see how it is different from hiding assistive gear.[/quote]
In terms of whether or not they are allowed by the rules they are no different. However, I have always looked at assistive gear as a crutch that allows you to lift more weight, whereas PEDs allow the athlete to push themselves harder, train at a higher intensity and more often, and generally push the human body to perform beyond it’s natural limits. Although that is perhaps my own ignorance (having never used either assistive gear or any PED) showing through in my opinion.
Also I’d just like to say it’s not really possible to “hide” assistive gear on a weightlifter, unless you’re Houdini, maybe.
[quote]alexus wrote:
If people are determined to use assistive substances or gear that is currently banned it would be better if they fractionated and created their own non-Olympic sport - wouldn’t it? Leave those who choose to play the sport by the rules to participate accordingly.
Similarly with natural and non-natural bodybuilders. Both are interesting (to me anyway). To see what humans are capable of both without and with drug assistance (I don’t think anybody thinks that drugs don’t help performance if used sensibly). What seems to me to be cheating, however, is a non-natural bodybuilder competing against natural bodybuilders in a competition that is supposed to be natural. Similarly for people who use substances they know to be banned in the sport. The person who doesn’t use (especially if they lose because of it) was robbed. Cheated. That doesn’t seem to me to be fair.
[/quote]
On top of what I’ve already said about olympic weightlifting fractionating in this thread, regardless of whether or not there is a non-tested federation to compete in there will be people who will use drugs, circumvent the tests and compete in the tested federation for no other reason than that they can do better there. It’s my understanding that this happens in both powerlifting and bodybuilding; why would we assume our sport should be any different? Not everyone’s moral compass points quite as north as yours. I would think in training centers and clubs that produce world champions, the focus is not on fair competition, but on winning.
[quote]ViKtoricus wrote:
YAAAY!! Intellectual m*****bation for the WIN!!! :D[/quote]
I’ve got a funny feeling that little laugh I got from you censoring “masturbation” is going to be about the sum of your contribution to this thread (even though you started it, you didn’t add much intelligent discussion).
[quote]ape288 wrote:
[quote]alexus wrote:
If people are determined to use assistive substances or gear that is currently banned it would be better if they fractionated and created their own non-Olympic sport - wouldn’t it? Leave those who choose to play the sport by the rules to participate accordingly.
[/quote]
The problem with that is you’ll then have “Olympic” weightlifters who no longer participate in the Olympics that may very well set a standard for lifting that is higher than that found in the Olympics…higher weights lifted on average, higher records, etc. That would, in my opinion, sort of minimize what is accomplished at the Olympics by “clean” or at least less drugged up athletes.
That’s part of the reason powerlifting can never become a legitimate Olympic sport, except in reverse. Athletes who have set the precedent in the sport, who are not used to being tested, would have to now be tested, and it would probably have to be a raw competition too. So the records would go way the fuck down.
Nobody wants to see the records go way the fuck down. And nobody wants to see non-Olympic athletes doing better than Olympic athletes in an Olympic sport. [/quote]
Good points. Some of your reasons actually contributed to my decision to train for weightlifting as opposed to powerlifting.
It makes enough of a difference that no elite athlete in any physical sport is not on PEDs at least some of the time.
If you watch an olympic track or field event, yes they are literally all on PEDs.
Weightlifters, no one in the A class in any weight class is not on PEDs. It can’t be done.
I say this not as a sleight against any athletes, it is not a reflection of some sort of jealousy on my behalf as I have been accused of when making similar statements in the past, the way I see it its still a level playing field. The strongest are still the strongest, the fastest still the fastest. Who cares if they are on drugs? Because they are, all of them.
The problem with that is you’ll then have “Olympic” weightlifters who no longer participate in the Olympics that may very well set a standard for lifting that is higher than that found in the Olympics…higher weights lifted on average, higher records, etc. That would, in my opinion, sort of minimize what is accomplished at the Olympics by “clean” or at least less drugged up athletes.
Yes you would. That would be expected. I don’t think people use drugs because they expect their performance to go down.
Do you really think the existence of non-tested (drug using) powerlifting federations minimizes what is accomplished by the non drug using powerlifters in the tested federations?
Similarly, do you really think the existence of assistive geared powerlifting federations minimizes what is accomplished by the raw powerlifers in the raw federations?
I figured they were two different games, really, with their different rules.
Similarly, female lifters might well lift less than male lifters… Under 18 year old lifters might lift less than over 18 year old lifters… Masters Lifters might lift less than younger lifters… Lighter weight lifters lift less than superheavy weightlifters…
But whatever one of those gets up to doesn’t minimize the accomplishments of those in different categories.
I would have thought.
Nobody wants to see the records go way the fuck down.
They would rather people cheat?
I guess I think assistive gear and doping are similar in the sense that they allow you to perform more highly (lift more) than not using them. I don’t have a moral problem with doping anymore than I have a moral problem with assistive gear. I do have a moral problem with cheating, however.
there will be people who will use drugs, circumvent the tests and compete in the tested federation for no other reason than that they can do better there. It’s my understanding that this happens in both powerlifting and bodybuilding; why would we assume our sport should be any different? Not everyone’s moral compass points quite as north as yours. I would think in training centers and clubs that produce world champions, the focus is not on fair competition, but on winning.
That is probably true.
At the end of the day we can only be responsible for our own behavior and our own decisions, though.
I have no idea whether all or most or some or next to none of the Olympic competitors have doped.
I don’t see how that is relevant to my decision, though. And I do think they should be more stringent about drug testing.
Though I guess I would also like to see non-tested competitions. If for no other reason than making progress on performance enhancing drugs and the underlying mechanisms behind performance.
People in untested feds lifting more than people in drug-free feds doesn’t minimize what the latter are doing, but the bigger, stronger freaks with the monster numbers tend to grab most of the spotlight. Case in point, I don’t really follow powerlifting, but I know the names Benedikt Magnusson (1000+ deadlift), Andy Bolton (1000+ deadlift, 1200 squat), Scot Mendelson (1000+ bench), Gene Rychlak (1000+ bench), Ryan Kennelly (1000+ bench), Donnie Thompson (1200+ squat, WR total). Magnusson and Mendelson have lifted raw, but I doubt any of them are drug-free. The big numbers get the big exposure.
[quote]alexus wrote:
They would rather people cheat?
[/quote]
They would rather sit in their glass houses and be entertained by the freaks of nature while remaining blissfully ignorant of whatever substances those athletes are taking to perform at that level. As an example, the NFL wouldn’t be near as much fun to watch if every team wasn’t stocked full of genetic freaks who can run a 4.4 40 yard dash at 250 pounds (exaggerating, but maybe not by much). Maybe that’s just me being a little cynical, but I think there’s truth to it.
[quote]alexus wrote:
I guess I think assistive gear and doping are similar in the sense that they allow you to perform more highly (lift more) than not using them. I don’t have a moral problem with doping anymore than I have a moral problem with assistive gear. I do have a moral problem with cheating, however.[/quote]
I think we’re just looking at the doping/gear comparison differently, which is fine. And I think I can understand your moral stance on doping vs cheating, although in the case of internationally competitive olympic weightlifters I’m not sure I share it.
[quote]alexus wrote:
At the end of the day we can only be responsible for our own behavior and our own decisions, though.
I have no idea whether all or most or some or next to none of the Olympic competitors have doped.
I don’t see how that is relevant to my decision, though. And I do think they should be more stringent about drug testing.
Though I guess I would also like to see non-tested competitions. If for no other reason than making progress on performance enhancing drugs and the underlying mechanisms behind performance.
[/quote]
Unless you are measuring your success in this sport against others, whether or not anyone else is doping is, of course, of no consequence to your decision whether or not to use PEDs yourself. I’d say damn near all of us on this forum have no real cause to measure ourselves against the world elite because unless I’m mistaken, none of us are really competitive beyond the local/national stage at best. And given your aforementioned moral stance on doping/cheating, I’m not surprised you would be in support of more stringent drug testing.
I would also like to see what some of the international elite athletes would be capable of if they were not restricted by the anti-doping policy, but I would not want to see it if it meant fracturing our sport, which I believe would cause irreparable damage.
[quote]TheJonty wrote:
People in untested feds lifting more than people in drug-free feds doesn’t minimize what the latter are doing, but the bigger, stronger freaks with the monster numbers tend to grab most of the spotlight. Case in point, I don’t really follow powerlifting, but I know the names Benedikt Magnusson (1000+ deadlift), Andy Bolton (1000+ deadlift, 1200 squat), Scot Mendelson (1000+ bench), Gene Rychlak (1000+ bench), Ryan Kennelly (1000+ bench), Donnie Thompson (1200+ squat, WR total). Magnusson and Mendelson have lifted raw, but I doubt any of them are drug-free. The big numbers get the big exposure.
Yes. They are all guys, too. Over 18. Not Masters. Superheavies, yeah?
They would rather sit in their glass houses and be entertained by the freaks of nature while remaining blissfully ignorant of whatever substances those athletes are taking to perform at that level.
Yeah. People don’t tend to care about the performance of lighter weightclasses either. Or women. Or Masters. Or Youth…
As an example, the NFL wouldn’t be near as much fun to watch if every team wasn’t stocked full of genetic freaks who can run a 4.4 40 yard dash at 250 pounds (exaggerating, but maybe not by much). Maybe that’s just me being a little cynical, but I think there’s truth to it.
Yeah we like to watch the genetic freaks.