[quote]theBird wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
as if cycling is a sport, crossfit thinks cycling is a lame excuse for a sport. [/quote]
Have you ever ridden a bike?
[/quote]
I used to ride my a bike all the time, but then i got drivers license.
[quote]gregron wrote:
I really hope that he writes a book and details everything he did throughout his career. When he started, what he used, how much he used, how he got around all the tests.
That would be a fascinating book and would sell MILLIONS of copies. I would live to read it.[/quote]
You should read Tyler Hamilton’s book. It pretty much covers all of this since they were teammates.
[quote]Toohard wrote:
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
The problem with PED’s and American sports is no one wants to be the sacrificial lamb. Nobody comes out on top and says this is what has to be done to compete at the ultimate level. Only then can sports develop better ways of monitoring PEDs and any side effects they may have.[/quote]
The thing is people WANT to see world records being broken… People want to see inhuman performances. What happens when everyone competes natural? No one will watch track and field anymore. It is a difficult question. I think one survey asked the public would they rather see a doped athlete run a new WR or natural runner running 10s 100m. No surprise over 70% said they’d rather take the doped WR.[/quote]
What the public really wants is to see the WR while still believing the athlete is clean. That is why the drug testing gets beat so easily, its really there just for show to affect our perception of the athletes.
a white ford bronco just passed me on the highway with lance in it.
[quote]Toohard wrote:
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
The problem with PED’s and American sports is no one wants to be the sacrificial lamb. Nobody comes out on top and says this is what has to be done to compete at the ultimate level. Only then can sports develop better ways of monitoring PEDs and any side effects they may have.[/quote]
The thing is people WANT to see world records being broken… People want to see inhuman performances. What happens when everyone competes natural? No one will watch track and field anymore. It is a difficult question. I think one survey asked the public would they rather see a doped athlete run a new WR or natural runner running 10s 100m. No surprise over 70% said they’d rather take the doped WR.[/quote]
You misunderstood my post. I’m saying it’s ok for the records to be broken but at this point it’s going to require PED’s. Most sports are already 100 years in, Darwins supposed theory takes millions of years what new can be done without some outside enhancement.
However, with none of the people at the top fighting for PEDs, the government and sports communities are not going to just hand them the freedom to use. The list of banned substances is huge, down to some OTC substances for many NCAA sports. Sports Management hasn’t aged, and long as nobody fights it won’t ever.
100% how I feel
Well that was interesting. (Watched the first part of the interview last night.)
He actually came clean! I thought there’d be lots of dancing around and word games, but he actually just fessed up. Who woulda’ thought?
I thought the interview was good. I liked how he answered most questions candidly but you could tell that he had definitely been coached up and prepped for a lot of the potential questions that Oprah was going to ask.
I also thought it was good that he didn’t name names and call people out since that was what he blasted so many people for.
Best part of the interview:
“I did call her crazy. I did call her a bitch, but you know what Oprah? I never called her fat.”
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Maybe this was covered and I missed it (I’ll admit to not reading 100% of this thread) but is it possible that perhaps these drugs were partly responsible for keeping his body cancer free? I mean he shouldn’t be alive today let alone winning the Tour.
Regarding cheating, that’s a bit of a laugh isn’t it? I mean the drugs helped him to train harder but it’s not like he injected a miracle in his body 2 minutes before the race that made him superman.
james
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The average person is a dumbass who sees their entire life like a football game. They act that way in politics and even with science. It is why you have old people still telling you eggs will kill you with passion.
The bottom line is this will HARM the access to optimal life and aging treatment.
People cheering that on are dumb as shit.[/quote]
I don’t think it will they’re two completely different issues. I don’t think anyone would object to an old man taking testosterone to improve his quality of life into old age, or people taking steroids to help with muscle wasting diseases or whatever, but some do object to a sportsman taking it for the sole reason of getting an advantage over another competitor. I want sports to be fair, as in the word ‘sporting’ “to be fair and generous”
But what do I know? I’m a dumbass because I don’t share your point of view.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Regarding cheating, that’s a bit of a laugh isn’t it? I mean the drugs helped him to train harder but it’s not like he injected a miracle in his body 2 minutes before the race that made him superman.
james[/quote]
See this I don’t understand. They either help or they don’t. We have the pro-drug element on here saying everyone should be able to take them so man can reach his true potential (so they obviously do make a difference then) and at the same time say that they DON’T make the difference between being a champion or not. I mean Lance probably would have won 7 Tour de Frances anyway!
So we need drugs to continue pushing the ‘human performance’ envelope, but they don’t make the difference between winning and losing? I don’t see how you can have it both ways.
A 2000 mile race over three weeks where first and second place could be decided by a matter of seconds could easily be decided by one athlete using a drug that gave him just a tiny 0.5% improvement in his performance.
[quote]FarmerBrett wrote:
See this I don’t understand. They either help or they don’t. We have the pro-drug element on here saying everyone should be able to take them so man can reach his true potential (so they obviously do make a difference then) and at the same time say that they DON’T make the difference between being a champion or not. I mean Lance probably would have won 7 Tour de Frances anyway!
So we need drugs to continue pushing the ‘human performance’ envelope, but they don’t make the difference between winning and losing? I don’t see how you can have it both ways.
A 2000 mile race over three weeks where first and second place could be decided by a matter of seconds could easily be decided by one athlete using a drug that gave him just a tiny 0.5% improvement in his performance.[/quote]
I didn’t mean that it didn’t help out. What I really was trying to say that it wasn’t the drugs that gave him super powers to win the race. The drugs gave him the ability to train harder and improve his conditioning. But he couldn’t have gone from being untrained to winning races simply by taking the drugs. I get the feeling that people think that they could win these races (or be really huge) if they only took drugs.
james
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Maybe this was covered and I missed it (I’ll admit to not reading 100% of this thread) but is it possible that perhaps these drugs were partly responsible for keeping his body cancer free?
james[/quote]
I wondered that as well.
But then it COULD be like an electric shock - it can stop a heart or start it.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Maybe this was covered and I missed it (I’ll admit to not reading 100% of this thread) but is it possible that perhaps these drugs were partly responsible for keeping his body cancer free?
james[/quote]
I wondered that as well.
But then it COULD be like an electric shock - it can stop a heart or start it.[/quote]
He admitted to using before he got cancer so maybe it was the drugs that have h cancer and then those same drugs helped him survive it. Ever think of that?
Mind=Blown
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Maybe this was covered and I missed it (I’ll admit to not reading 100% of this thread) but is it possible that perhaps these drugs were partly responsible for keeping his body cancer free?
james[/quote]
I wondered that as well.
But then it COULD be like an electric shock - it can stop a heart or start it.[/quote]
He admitted to using before he got cancer so maybe it was the drugs that have h cancer and then those same drugs helped him survive it. Ever think of that?
Mind=Blown[/quote]
That’s just what I meant. 
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]FarmerBrett wrote:
See this I don’t understand. They either help or they don’t. We have the pro-drug element on here saying everyone should be able to take them so man can reach his true potential (so they obviously do make a difference then) and at the same time say that they DON’T make the difference between being a champion or not. I mean Lance probably would have won 7 Tour de Frances anyway!
So we need drugs to continue pushing the ‘human performance’ envelope, but they don’t make the difference between winning and losing? I don’t see how you can have it both ways.
A 2000 mile race over three weeks where first and second place could be decided by a matter of seconds could easily be decided by one athlete using a drug that gave him just a tiny 0.5% improvement in his performance.[/quote]
I didn’t mean that it didn’t help out. What I really was trying to say that it wasn’t the drugs that gave him super powers to win the race. The drugs gave him the ability to train harder and improve his conditioning. But he couldn’t have gone from being untrained to winning races simply by taking the drugs. I get the feeling that people think that they could win these races (or be really huge) if they only took drugs.
james[/quote]
Yeah I agree that just taking PEDs won’t turn a talentless chump into a world beater, but when you are dealing with the top fraction of a percent who are nearing the natural limits of human performance where the difference between them is infinitesimal then drugs can certainly make the difference between gold and silver or 7 Tour de Frances and none.
When you’re talking about two athletes of the same ability then…
Athlete + drugs beats athlete without drugs every time.
I agree we mustn’t make out that it’s all about the drugs, but we can’t dismiss their involvement either. If they didn’t do anything then nobody would be taking them.
Nothing personal James, I normally agree with everything you say.
[quote]FarmerBrett wrote:
Yeah I agree that just taking PEDs won’t turn a talentless chump into a world beater, but when you are dealing with the top fraction of a percent who are nearing the natural limits of human performance where the difference between them is infinitesimal then drugs can certainly make the difference between gold and silver or 7 Tour de Frances and none.
When you’re talking about two athletes of the same ability then…
Athlete + drugs beats athlete without drugs every time.
I agree we mustn’t make out that it’s all about the drugs, but we can’t dismiss their involvement either. If they didn’t do anything then nobody would be taking them.
[/quote]
In fact, people who know a bit of cycling can make a good case that Lance wasn’t a particularly outstanding cycling talent. In other words, some of his competitors were more talented. Hence, his superior doping system (there is also evidence that it was in fact superior to what other did) might have made all the difference. But we know how tricky counterfactual reasoning is…
ps: The interview was rather stupid, as I expected. He didn’t say anything interesting and actually continued to lie about some stuff. But again, totally expected and I don’t care either way.
[quote]FarmerBrett wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]FarmerBrett wrote:
See this I don’t understand. They either help or they don’t. We have the pro-drug element on here saying everyone should be able to take them so man can reach his true potential (so they obviously do make a difference then) and at the same time say that they DON’T make the difference between being a champion or not. I mean Lance probably would have won 7 Tour de Frances anyway!
So we need drugs to continue pushing the ‘human performance’ envelope, but they don’t make the difference between winning and losing? I don’t see how you can have it both ways.
A 2000 mile race over three weeks where first and second place could be decided by a matter of seconds could easily be decided by one athlete using a drug that gave him just a tiny 0.5% improvement in his performance.[/quote]
I didn’t mean that it didn’t help out. What I really was trying to say that it wasn’t the drugs that gave him super powers to win the race. The drugs gave him the ability to train harder and improve his conditioning. But he couldn’t have gone from being untrained to winning races simply by taking the drugs. I get the feeling that people think that they could win these races (or be really huge) if they only took drugs.
james[/quote]
Yeah I agree that just taking PEDs won’t turn a talentless chump into a world beater, but when you are dealing with the top fraction of a percent who are nearing the natural limits of human performance where the difference between them is infinitesimal then drugs can certainly make the difference between gold and silver or 7 Tour de Frances and none.
When you’re talking about two athletes of the same ability then…
Athlete + drugs beats athlete without drugs every time.
I agree we mustn’t make out that it’s all about the drugs, but we can’t dismiss their involvement either. If they didn’t do anything then nobody would be taking them.
Nothing personal James, I normally agree with everything you say.[/quote]
The athletes wouldn’t even have to be that close in terms of ability. The boost in performance by EPO is huge, up to 10%. Any of the top 100 on drugs would destroy a clean field.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
The athletes wouldn’t even have to be that close in terms of ability. The boost in performance by EPO is huge, up to 10%. Any of the top 100 on drugs would destroy a clean field.[/quote]
Really? I didn’t realize that was the case. I was thinking that they were more inline with helping you train harder especially since I figured he would have had to stop them prior to the race because of testing.
I might actually have just changed my position.
And I don’t want people thinking I was defending Lance. He’s an asshole who ruined the lives of people in order to cover up his lie. He’s an absolute bastard who deserves to be ruined.
james
[quote]FarmerBrett wrote:
I don’t think it will they’re two completely different issues. I don’t think anyone would object to an old man taking testosterone to improve his quality of life into old age, or people taking steroids to help with muscle wasting diseases or whatever, but some do object to a sportsman taking it for the sole reason of getting an advantage over another competitor. I want sports to be fair, as in the word ‘sporting’ “to be fair and generous”[/quote]
???
What about otherwise healthy 35 year olds?
The issue here is clueless soccer moms and the media should not have a strangle hold on QUALITY OF LIFE for all people, not just the “old men”…whatever that means exactly.
Yeah, you do seem to misunderstand it…because you ONLY seem to allow it in your own concept of “old men”.
Also, FarberBrett seems to not realize the difficulty men still have after 40 getting testosterone therapy.
There is plenty of rejection to the idea of testosterone therapy in males in the entire medical community.
It is ALL related.
While you all worry about Oprah, she just took your balls away for good.