Let the Games Be Doped

Off Topic
81

[quote]tedro wrote:

tedro wrote:
Science is not used to advance all aspects of sports.

You are putting the emphasis on the wrong word. Science is obviously used to advance some aspects of sports, but not [b]all[/b] of them.

Also, you cannot credit science for all the changes we have seen in sports over the years, that would be absurd. Science has also been used to hold back advancement in many sports. Golf is the easiest example.

Extensive testing is done on all new equipment to make sure it does not surpass certain weight and velocity requirements that are set arbitrarily by the USGA.[/quote]

SO I find your direct quote, and you are bitching at me about how YOU put the emphasis? Please.

The argument isn’t over what science has not been allowed to do, but that it been used to advance ALL aspects of sport.

Your point is horrible as you know it can very easily be proven wrong.

Science/technology has touched every single aspect of every single sport. To say otherwise is to expose your ignorance of sport.

[quote]You need to go back and learn the definition of a strawman. I am commenting only on your words. I have added nothing. No strawman. At least not on this side.

My points are the same as they have been been. Your line drawing is arbitrary at the very least. “It’s okay to improve equipment - but leave the athlete alone”.

That would be a strawman right there. I never said that, nor did I attempt to make that point.[/quote]

Once again - your words:

If the equipment or enhancement is on one side, it’s ok. If it’s on the other, it’s not.

Give up the idea of the strawman. You are even more clueless about its definition than you are ‘hypocrisy’.

There is no defensible argument against the use of steroids in sports.

I think your “line” has been shown for what it is.

Maybe you should try with the lessor subjective of arguments. You are not doing a very good job with this one.

82

[quote]Makavali wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Well crap, I thought I was really going to get an argument with that one. No one wants to touch that one huh? Me equating synthol and implants in BBing to the performance enhancement argument�?� no takers huh? Professor X�?�…

Personally, I think Bodybuilding is about aesthetics. If you can find a way of making synthol look good, then go for it.

EDIT: Although, that said the sport is called “bodybuilding”. Synthol isn’t building a body, and neither is implants.[/quote]

Exactly, I’m just trying to get people to admit that there has to be a line somewhere.

83

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Exactly, I’m just trying to get people to admit that there has to be a line somewhere.[/quote]

But what line is there to stop steroid use? You may as well stop ALL supplements instead of banning a select few.

No more protein powers, Surge, BCAA’s, herbal Test boosters, Fat-burners. They aren’t “natural” either. If anything, injecting yourself with a naturally occurring hormone is much more… well, natural.

Saying Synthol should be accepted in Bodybuilding is not a good way to get your point across. Synthol is hardly building a body, is it?

84

Synthol is already a staple in most IFBB pro’s regimens.

It’s not THAT they use it, it is how judicious they are in using it.

85

Wow, popular thread… I didn’t read all the posts since mine on the first page, but I will say this…

Again, testing isn’t necessarily for the athletes themselves nor is it for the “integrity” of the competition. What it is, is a business decision to attempt to provide a false sense of legitimacy and security to those such as journalists, media, fans, kids and spectators for that particular sport.

Nobody cares when records are being smashed that stood for decades, ie homerun record. Only years later, when someone gets caught and rolls on someone. But you know what, everyone enjoyed watching McGwire, Sosa and Bonds pound homeruns! I believe soon, almost every sport where you use athletic ability will have some kind of “testing”.

On the subject of sports “enhancing”… DID YOU KNOW THAT TIGER WOODS HAD TWO(2) LASIK EYE SURGERIES?? Or as someone pointed out already, what about cortisone shots??? The term enhancing or “steroids” is for the uninformed.PERIOD.

Because they hear those terms and immediately the rational part of their brain shuts off and dumb turns on. All the sport has to do is say we test for steroids and performance enhancing drugs, and everyone is fine and happy.

Even though the athletes still get bigger and stronger and faster, and still BREAK RECORDS…! Come on now, seriously. There will always be ways around the tests, when they provide what they are testing for.

You either have the athletic ability and mental focus to excel at a certain sport or you don’t. It’s the one’s that don’t that wine and complain about steroids and cheating!PERIOD…

86

[quote]Makavali wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Exactly, I’m just trying to get people to admit that there has to be a line somewhere.

But what line is there to stop steroid use? You may as well stop ALL supplements instead of banning a select few.

No more protein powers, Surge, BCAA’s, herbal Test boosters, Fat-burners. They aren’t “natural” either. If anything, injecting yourself with a naturally occurring hormone is much more… well, natural.

Saying Synthol should be accepted in Bodybuilding is not a good way to get your point across. Synthol is hardly building a body, is it?[/quote]

You forgot No-explode, its just like a steroid. (sorry, I had to)

No, it’s not the best argument for steroids. However, some of the folks weren’t stopping with steroids. We were also arguing bionic eyes, limbs, surgical mods, and I think it is a valid point there.

87

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Synthol is already a staple in most IFBB pro’s regimens.

It’s not THAT they use it, it is how judicious they are in using it. [/quote]

What are you saying, that those 27 inch-armed guys we’ve all seen in the articles of truth™ aren’t the only oil/site injection users, but really just the ones who have no clue on how to utilize the stuff properly ?
Man, what a shock.

/end sarcasm

88

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why do you think someone using anabolics is somehow performing at a level that is not “physiological”?

Think about it, would a human from 3,000 years ago have the same advances in diet and training that we do today? Wouldn’t we technically be able to perform at greater levels than humans in past eras simply because of WHEN we were born?

Why does this one topic keep people from seeing this?

Enhancement is our future. It always has been. [/quote]

Sorry for the delayed response.

I, personally, have no qualms with PED’s in the Olympics (in fact, I would say I would prefer it if they were allowed). I was merely playing devil’s advocate for this thread and trying to offer up why I feel most people have a problem with the various PED’s in the Olympic games.

That being said, I wouldn’t say that anabolics allow people to perform at a level that isn’t physiological (I know it came off like this, and I apologize - I was in a rush yesterday and am not one to be able to collect and organize my thoughts in the two minutes it takes to post), more that I feel people regard the differences in specialized training/nutrition (allowing one to optimize their body’s own potential) and PED’s (allowing one, in many cases, to actually overshoot their body’s “natural” potential, whether it be in terms of recovery, muscle mass, strength, RBC count, or whatever) as being one of, as mentioned, a human vs. superhuman controversy.

In regards to your 3,000 year old human, I think that many would argue that although athlete’s today are working with a more sophisticated approach in regards to their diet and training, they are still working within the genetic cap of what their body will allow them to do (regardless of how they lift weights, their body will only allow them to get so strong…stronger than our caveman, no doubt, but nevertheless working within their “God-given” ability).

Using laboratory created chemicals to encourage/force the body to drastically overshoot these limits (PED’s will allow them to achieve greater levels of strength than even the best nutrition/training will allow them to) gives today’s athletes a “superhuman” ability that I think many feel takes away from the point of the games - the ability to stand in awe of human achievement.

This is why I feel that PED’s will always be more controversial than any advances in sports equipment - because no matter how sophisticated the technology behind equipment is, people will, in the end, still see it as humans ultimately relying on their God-given talent and hard work to compete.

That being said - I am well aware of several possible arguments that can be made against this idea (there are plenty of things athletes do today that makes this concept a stretch, at best)…I’m just saying what I feel most people believe, to some degree, in this regard.

Not to mention that the public consensus on PED’s is that they are manufactured straight from the blood of Satan.