[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]
Yeah, EPO’s effect in cycling (and other endurance sports) is pretty huge. A couple of examples (paraphrased, I’m not going back to check the exact year and number) from Tyler Hamilton’s book:
The average speed of the Peloton (basically, the overall average speed of everyone in the entire race) went from 37 kph one year in the late 80s to 41 kph one year in the late 90s or early 00s. This doesn’t mean everyone was using as riders can draft off of others, but certainly a great many were.
The winning time in 2012 (or maybe 2011, anyway after the Tour really ramped up their drug testing, although I’m sure people were still using) up Alp d’Huez would have been the 40th fastest time in 2001.
This is why everyone who was really connected to the sport knew Lance was using and just beating the tests (and why they didn’t stop going after him). The effect of the drugs was just too huge for him to have the success he did without them.
Of course, that doesn’t mean he didn’t work as hard or harder than everyone else and all his top competitors were doping (although perhaps not as well/intelligently). His achievement is still quite remarkable, just dishonest and against the rules.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
[/quote]
A few years ago I wanted to see if a little test would help with my injuries so I looked up a doc who specializes in that type of stuff. I went to see him and he asked If I could get it up. I said yeah and that was the end of discussion. No blood test, no nothing. He couldn’t help me and that was that.
I later got some test cream on line from Australia and it turned out to be of no benefit to me but that’s beside the point.
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”.[/quote]
No you’re deliberately misunderstanding me. If some one has low testosterone be they 25 or 85 then they should get medically prescribed testosterone of course.
What I don’t agree with is a person who has normal testosterone levels taking EXTRA test in order to increase his performance in competitive sports. If you can’t see the difference there then you’re not as smart as I thought you were.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Well don’t you think the bodybuilding and sports community are partly to blame for the bad reputation that testosterone has within general society?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
[/quote]
A few years ago I wanted to see if a little test would help with my injuries so I looked up a doc who specializes in that type of stuff. I went to see him and he asked If I could get it up. I said yeah and that was the end of discussion. No blood test, no nothing. He couldn’t help me and that was that.
I later got some test cream on line from Australia and it turned out to be of no benefit to me but that’s beside the point.
[/quote]
God forbid the same situation arises for a young adult or gasp a teenager. Then there’s the added issue of actually getting a proper blood test and having it come back with the dreaded “low end of normal range” result.
[quote]FarmerBrett wrote:
Well don’t you think the bodybuilding and sports community are partly to blame for the bad reputation that testosterone has within general society?[/quote]
How?
At best that’s a loaded question, at worst it’s an awful(and in my opinion an incorrect) rhetorical one. I’d love to see you actually make an assertion about how physique and sport athletes are responsible for the stigma testosterone(really, steroids) have before I make an unnecessarily long post about why it’s not true.
No you’re deliberately misunderstanding me.[/quote]
Not likely.
??? Do you realize that “low” is even being debated now? The issue is, LOW (as determined without regard to QUALITY OF LIFE) is not how you should be prescribed testosterone.
Uh, no, considering most in that field are NEVER asked for the medical opinion nor do they give much attention to medical professionals who do NOT share your opinion.
What “bad reputation”? That it helps guys with cancer be fucking awesome?
Well don’t you think the bodybuilding and sports community are partly to blame for the bad reputation that testosterone has within general society?[/quote]
How?
At best that’s a loaded question, at worst it’s an awful(and in my opinion an incorrect) rhetorical one. I’d love to see you actually make an assertion about how physique and sport athletes are responsible for the stigma testosterone(really, steroids) have before I make an unnecessarily long post about why it’s not true.[/quote]
It’s because the only time your average non-lifting person (or soccer mom as Prof X would call them) will hear about steroids is in the mainstream media and usually in the form of some cheating in sports expose’. Ben Johnson, Barry Bonds, Marion Jones, Mark McGwire to name a few.
This is how their negative views on the subject get formed, rightly or wrongly, and why they see steroids as inherently bad, regardless of the good they can also do. If you don’t think I’m right ask your Gran what she thinks about them. Bet she mentions sports and one of those names.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
??? I am NOT talking about sports.
[quote]
Well I AM talking about sports, this is a thread about Lance Armstrong admitting to doping IN SPORTS after all.
I didn’t really expect my anti-drug views to go down too well on a site full of bodybuilders LOL.
I’m now off to join a vegan website to argue the health benefits of eating meat.
Well I AM talking about sports, this is a thread about Lance Armstrong admitting to doping IN SPORTS after all. [/quote]
Gee, yes it is…and as I wrote before, that attention to ONLY sports will screw the average non-thinking "gets his knowledge from the latest FOX news broadcast) from quality of life medical care in the future.
Think outside the box.
[quote]
I didn’t really expect my anti-drug views to go down too well on a site full of bodybuilders LOL.
I’m now off to join a vegan website to argue the health benefits of eating meat.[/quote]
??? So, a non-lifter just tried to tell us that bodybuilders are why there is a negative image of steroids?
LOL. What is your background if you don’t mind me asking.
You dropped some shit here and ran. That ain’t cute, kid.
Well I AM talking about sports, this is a thread about Lance Armstrong admitting to doping IN SPORTS after all. [/quote]
Gee, yes it is…and as I wrote before, that attention to ONLY sports will screw the average non-thinking "gets his knowledge from the latest FOX news broadcast) American sheeple person from quality of life medical care in the future.
Think outside the box.
[quote]
I didn’t really expect my anti-drug views to go down too well on a site full of bodybuilders LOL.
I’m now off to join a vegan website to argue the health benefits of eating meat.[/quote]
??? So, a non-lifter just tried to tell us that bodybuilders are why there is a negative image of steroids?
LOL. What is your background if you don’t mind me asking.
You dropped some shit here and ran. That ain’t cute, kid.[/quote]
Where did you get I’m a non lifter from? and don’t patronise me by calling me kid.
Where did you get I’m a non lifter from? and don’t patronise me by calling me kid.
And what shit did I drop exactly? [/quote]
For one, you didn’t address even one comment I actually made in that last post. You simply said you are talking about sports…as if the comment about bodybuilders negatively affecting the image or your lack of knowledge of the debate about what “low” is with “low test” was a load of feces dropped in the wrong place.
Yes, there are bodybuilders here…some of which are doctors, lawyers and nurses…not idiots.
Get better at debate. Try attempting to address some of those points above.
Where did you get I’m a non lifter from? and don’t patronise me by calling me kid.
And what shit did I drop exactly? [/quote]
For one, you didn’t address even one comment I actually made in that last post. You simply said you are talking about sports…as if the comment about bodybuilders negatively affecting the image or your lack of knowledge of the debate about what “low” is with “low test” was a load of feces dropped in the wrong place.
Yes, there are bodybuilders here…some of which are doctors, lawyers and nurses…not idiots.
Get better at debate. Try attempting to address some of those points above.[/quote]
If you look back through my posts you’ll see that I’m all for the use of testosterone in medicine and if you put your ego aside for one second you would see that there is more than one discussion going on this thread. It just seems to be you who’s going on about doctors prescribing test for quality of life. I don’t care what low test is considered to be, I was talking about Lance Armstrong’s cheating.
Forgive me if my arguing skills aren’t quite as developed as yours.
The way policy gets dictated regarding PEDs is based upon high-profile SPORTS cases like this one and the ongoing baseball scandal (NOT the fringe sport if bodybuilding…the average person couldn’t even name a single bodybuilder if you had a gun to his head).
So these laws get passed at the FEDERAL LEVEL like they did in the 80’s, and it has a profoundly chilling effect upon ANY application of those drugs, including for legitimate medical purposes. Putting aside for a moment that I have never even seen a valid argument as to why AAS, for example, should be classified and prosecuted in the same manner as addictive narcotics, I dare anyone to go over the to the Over 35 forum and ask those guys what kinds of hoops they have to jump through to get just basic testosterone replacement therapy.
Meanwhile, some girl who is convinced she was born the wrong gender can receive a script for test without any hassle, and her doctor will give it to her without the fear of prosecution he has to face when giving the same script to a younger male.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
??? Do you realize that “low” is even being debated now? The issue is, LOW (as determined without regard to QUALITY OF LIFE) is not how you should be prescribed testosterone.[/quote]
That’s a huge part of the problem right there. You could practically have the test levels of a dying 90 year old and still fall into the “normal range”. The bar doctors have set for low testosterone is ridiculously low.
Well don’t you think the bodybuilding and sports community are partly to blame for the bad reputation that testosterone has within general society?[/quote]
How?
At best that’s a loaded question, at worst it’s an awful(and in my opinion an incorrect) rhetorical one. I’d love to see you actually make an assertion about how physique and sport athletes are responsible for the stigma testosterone(really, steroids) have before I make an unnecessarily long post about why it’s not true.[/quote]
It’s because the only time your average non-lifting person (or soccer mom as Prof X would call them) will hear about steroids is in the mainstream media and usually in the form of some cheating in sports expose’. Ben Johnson, Barry Bonds, Marion Jones, Mark McGwire to name a few.
This is how their negative views on the subject get formed, rightly or wrongly, and why they see steroids as inherently bad, regardless of the good they can also do. If you don’t think I’m right ask your Gran what she thinks about them. Bet she mentions sports and one of those names.[/quote]
Ok that is as I suspected and why I didn’t write out my long winded post; you’re not actually putting the blame on sports but the media, who is concentrated on sports because we worship athletes as heroes and cheating in sports is one of the worst things a person can do in this society. By the rules of the competitions, using steroids is cheating, so steroid users = bad cheaters = omg steroids are the devil(it goes well beyond that but as I noted, don’t wish to ramble more than I already am).
There are cheaters everywhere, we just happen to lump the ones in sports with steroids because it’s one of the only ways to ‘cheat’ in sports short of penalties within the actual run-time of the game and straight up throwing competition.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
??? Do you realize that “low” is even being debated now? The issue is, LOW (as determined without regard to QUALITY OF LIFE) is not how you should be prescribed testosterone.[/quote]
That’s a huge part of the problem right there. You could practically have the test levels of a dying 90 year old and still fall into the “normal range”. The bar doctors have set for low testosterone is ridiculously low.[/quote]
Exactly.
Typical “normal” levels range from 260-1080 ng/dl. That is a HUGE difference in what is considered in the “normal” range.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
??? Do you realize that “low” is even being debated now? The issue is, LOW (as determined without regard to QUALITY OF LIFE) is not how you should be prescribed testosterone.[/quote]
That’s a huge part of the problem right there. You could practically have the test levels of a dying 90 year old and still fall into the “normal range”. The bar doctors have set for low testosterone is ridiculously low.[/quote]
Exactly.
Typical “normal” levels range from 260-1080 ng/dl. That is a HUGE difference in what is considered in the “normal” range.[/quote]
Part of this is the result of testosterone being treated as if it were a narcotic, so doctors are afraid to call legitimate anything beyond what are often extreme cases for fear of being prosecuted. Another thing to keep in mind is that many doctors remain undereducated as to how to treat cases of low test in men because, again, the stigma attached to the drug has resulted in a dearth of research in these cases.
It’s unreal.
Meanwhile, the media will wholly ignore the fact mentioned earlier: That Lance Armstrong came back from a cancer that is often viewed as an automatic death sentence to perform a feat that no human in the history of sports has ever done, in a pool of competitors who were also using massive amounts of those evil PEDs, not killing their families, and performing their own achievements, most of which the average HEALTHY person without those drugs could never hope to achieve with a lifetime of trying.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
??? Do you realize that “low” is even being debated now? The issue is, LOW (as determined without regard to QUALITY OF LIFE) is not how you should be prescribed testosterone.[/quote]
That’s a huge part of the problem right there. You could practically have the test levels of a dying 90 year old and still fall into the “normal range”. The bar doctors have set for low testosterone is ridiculously low.[/quote]
Exactly.
Typical “normal” levels range from 260-1080 ng/dl. That is a HUGE difference in what is considered in the “normal” range.[/quote]
Part of this is the result of testosterone being treated as if it were a narcotic, so doctors are afraid to call legitimate anything beyond what are often extreme cases for fear of being prosecuted. Another thing to keep in mind is that many doctors remain undereducated as to how to treat cases of low test in men because, again, the stigma attached to the drug has resulted in a dearth of research in these cases.
It’s unreal.
[/quote]
I think quite a bit of it has to do with liability and potentially being sued/losing their licenses. As a doctor you potentially have a ton to lose by prescribing test (since it has such an unfair negative stigma) and not much to gain.