Marion Jones Admits Steroid Use

[undeadlift]

[quote]cormac wrote:
jtrinsey wrote:
cormac wrote:
Doping in sport is a serious offense - it is unethical and immoral.

If it wasn’t against the rules of a governing body. Would it still be unethical and immoral?

Naturally.

Cheating is wrong by its very nature. It actually frightens me that an intelligent person such as yourself can seem so incapable of understanding that. If a person is not capable of winning using what they were born with then they do not deserve to win.[/quote]

If it wasn’t against the rules of a governing body, it wouldn’t be cheating.

[cormac]

Dude are you actually trying to defend doping by holding the Nazis up as the paragon of competitive spirit?

[quote]Blacksnake wrote:
cormac wrote:
If a person is not capable of winning using what they were born with then they do not deserve to win.
Deserve?..Excuse me?..Even the most extreme purveyors of genetic superiority mythology as science: The Nazis, used pharmacology on both their sports and military atheletes (not to mention Adolf’s own daily multiple dose addiction)…Even these racist crackpots secretly understood “genetics” had built in limitations, with only so many “Supermen” available “naturally”, and sought the holy grail “Super Soldier” elixir through science…Benzedrine and methanphetamine were given to German Olympians and Waffen S.S.“Shock” Troops to enhance performance…and they worked! (although some of the users still did not win their individual competitions, genetics be dammed)…Who is trying to fool whom here?…Even Gladiators of the Roman era ate hearts and livers of Lions, seeking a performance edge: This is nothing new or innovative!…Mincing about claiming to be truehearts on this subject is comedic to the realist, who understands such a position is mere vanity based, egotistical moralistic bigotry, unsupported by historical fact…

[/quote]

[cormac]

I am impressed with how smart you are, but you are making a conscious effort to distort reality with this comment and I think you can recognize this. You see the difference is: Supplements like vitamins, protein powder, fish oil, creatine, et cetera are available through ones diet in one way or another - without buying capsules or powders.

As a result - though they may show up on a banned substances list - they are not tested for explicitly. This is important to me, because it puts an end to the argument that this is simply a matter of “If it wasn’t against the rules of a governing body, it wouldn’t be cheating.” Because to me the advantage given by any product must be quantifiable in some way. That to me is where the purpose of drug testing lies. It’s called objectivity.

If the blood profile of an athlete falls within normal ranges on parameters like T:E ratio and hematocrit, and hemaglobin then the athlete is fine no matter how many supplements they are taking. Testing elite athletes for the presence of synthetic steroids in their system seems very fair, because these athletes are crossing the line into the pharmaceutical realm for their advantage. This presents a massive ethical problem, even if the athletes T:E ratio is kept nearly human! The reason is that athletes and coaches start to push the limits farther and farther.

(Bill Belichick and the fucking Patriots, I mean come on now. I’m from Boston and even I think that shit is ridiculous.)

The pharmaceutical realm holds fascinating power for giving advantage to an athlete. However, Nobody in their right minds should want to see a battle between pharmaceutical companies out on the field, the road, or what have you. As long as the pervasive attitude is “If you aren’t cheating/doping then you aren’t trying hard enough” in this country - and I assure you this is more a domestic problem than an international one in terms of sporting policy and general consensus - then we will never see an International American Football League or a World Series.

[quote]booger wrote:
Well now, as far as I know a person is not born with money, sponsorships, world-class coaches, world-class training facilities, custom-made shoes/suits/etc, ART practitioners, sports doctors, vitamins, minerals, fish oil, creatine/glutamine/beta-alanine supplements, protein powder, tailored diets and so on and so forth.

All of the above are available in different quantities to different competitors, and those who cannot obtain the above are placed at an incredibly severe disadvantage, often through no fault of their own. Seems to me that steroids are only one factor out of many that will un-level the playing field, and even then they probably aren’t the most powerful factor.

Should we then ban athletes for receiving more coaching than a stipulated amount? Should we decree that all athletes can only devote a certain amount of time and money to a sport? Should we mandate that all athletes in a certain sport have the same genes?

cormac wrote:

Cheating is wrong by its very nature. It actually frightens me that an intelligent person such as yourself can seem so incapable of understanding that. If a person is not capable of winning using what they were born with then they do not deserve to win.

[/quote]

[Uncle_Gabby]

I still think she’s cute.

[booger]

It’s nice to see that one can have polite discussions about such controversial topics, even on an internet forum.

I don’t think we will ever convince each other of anything, as is so often the case when morals are debated. I just differ from you in terms of what I consider cheating or going too far to be. To me, cheating is breaking explicitly stated rules, and I’m fine with any form of doping - drug, blood or genetic, (which is still a bit of a dream) as long as the athlete’s long-term health is not significantly compromised.

In a world where alcohol, tobacco and marijuana are socially acceptable, there really isn’t a reason why pharmaceutical measures to improve physical performance should not be. I rather think such behaviour ought to be celebrated instead, but I can respect such differences in opinion.

I agree that athletes who get caught doping should be punished. They broke the rules they agreed to compete under, after all. I also agree that it’s possible to go too far. I must admit the idea of a truly level playing field, where the sole determinants of success are talent and hard work, appeals to me. But those days are long gone, if they ever existed in the first place. Creative interpretation of rules and the seeking of advantages not available to other competitors are as old as human nature.

Besides, superhuman performances and shattered records, drug-fueled or otherwise, have their own brand of appeal.

[quote]cormac wrote:
I am impressed with how smart you are, but you are making a conscious effort to distort reality with this comment and I think you can recognize this. You see the difference is: Supplements like vitamins, protein powder, fish oil, creatine, et cetera are available through ones diet in one way or another - without buying capsules or powders.

As a result - though they may show up on a banned substances list - they are not tested for explicitly. This is important to me, because it puts an end to the argument that this is simply a matter of “If it wasn’t against the rules of a governing body, it wouldn’t be cheating.” Because to me the advantage given by any product must be quantifiable in some way. That to me is where the purpose of drug testing lies. It’s called objectivity.

If the blood profile of an athlete falls within normal ranges on parameters like T:E ratio and hematocrit, and hemaglobin then the athlete is fine no matter how many supplements they are taking. Testing elite athletes for the presence of synthetic steroids in their system seems very fair, because these athletes are crossing the line into the pharmaceutical realm for their advantage. This presents a massive ethical problem, even if the athletes T:E ratio is kept nearly human! The reason is that athletes and coaches start to push the limits farther and farther.

(Bill Belichick and the fucking Patriots, I mean come on now. I’m from Boston and even I think that shit is ridiculous.)

The pharmaceutical realm holds fascinating power for giving advantage to an athlete. However, Nobody in their right minds should want to see a battle between pharmaceutical companies out on the field, the road, or what have you. As long as the pervasive attitude is “If you aren’t cheating/doping then you aren’t trying hard enough” in this country - and I assure you this is more a domestic problem than an international one in terms of sporting policy and general consensus - then we will never see an International American Football League or a World Series.

[/quote]

[cormac]

You make strong points on your side! Yeah I definitely did not want this thread to turn to flamebait.

You see my stance on the issue is rooted in a long familial history of cycling
(my brother, Gavin [ http://www.irishcycling.com/publish/news/art_2564.shtml ],
is the reigning junior US National Champion!) My father, and his father were themselves multi-time national champions in Ireland. The sport of cycling is undergoing rapid change in response to not just a few deaths as a result of blood doping and EPO use among elite riders on the international stage. I only hope, for the sake of health and life, that people can lean more towards my side especially when they are close to people with a real future in sport.

[quote]booger wrote:
It’s nice to see that one can have polite discussions about such controversial topics, even on an internet forum.

I don’t think we will ever convince each other of anything, as is so often the case when morals are debated. I just differ from you in terms of what I consider cheating or going too far to be. To me, cheating is breaking explicitly stated rules, and I’m fine with any form of doping - drug, blood or genetic, (which is still a bit of a dream) as long as the athlete’s long-term health is not significantly compromised.

In a world where alcohol, tobacco and marijuana are socially acceptable, there really isn’t a reason why pharmaceutical measures to improve physical performance should not be. I rather think such behaviour ought to be celebrated instead, but I can respect such differences in opinion.

I agree that athletes who get caught doping should be punished. They broke the rules they agreed to compete under, after all. I also agree that it’s possible to go too far. I must admit the idea of a truly level playing field, where the sole determinants of success are talent and hard work, appeals to me. But those days are long gone, if they ever existed in the first place. Creative interpretation of rules and the seeking of advantages not available to other competitors are as old as human nature.

Besides, superhuman performances and shattered records, drug-fueled or otherwise, have their own brand of appeal.

cormac wrote:
I am impressed with how smart you are, but you are making a conscious effort to distort reality with this comment and I think you can recognize this. You see the difference is: Supplements like vitamins, protein powder, fish oil, creatine, et cetera are available through ones diet in one way or another - without buying capsules or powders.

As a result - though they may show up on a banned substances list - they are not tested for explicitly. This is important to me, because it puts an end to the argument that this is simply a matter of “If it wasn’t against the rules of a governing body, it wouldn’t be cheating.” Because to me the advantage given by any product must be quantifiable in some way. That to me is where the purpose of drug testing lies. It’s called objectivity.

If the blood profile of an athlete falls within normal ranges on parameters like T:E ratio and hematocrit, and hemaglobin then the athlete is fine no matter how many supplements they are taking. Testing elite athletes for the presence of synthetic steroids in their system seems very fair, because these athletes are crossing the line into the pharmaceutical realm for their advantage. This presents a massive ethical problem, even if the athletes T:E ratio is kept nearly human! The reason is that athletes and coaches start to push the limits farther and farther.

(Bill Belichick and the fucking Patriots, I mean come on now. I’m from Boston and even I think that shit is ridiculous.)

The pharmaceutical realm holds fascinating power for giving advantage to an athlete. However, Nobody in their right minds should want to see a battle between pharmaceutical companies out on the field, the road, or what have you. As long as the pervasive attitude is “If you aren’t cheating/doping then you aren’t trying hard enough” in this country - and I assure you this is more a domestic problem than an international one in terms of sporting policy and general consensus - then we will never see an International American Football League or a World Series.

[/quote]

[jtrinsey]

Cormac,

You seem to make two points that don’t quite line up with each other. In one effect, you make a stand against pharmaceutical measures because they are unethical. And on the other, you are opposed because they are unhealthy for the athlete.

If a substance is not banned, then taking it is not cheating. I don’t see how you can argue that. You imply that it is immoral for somebody to win without “what they are born with.” What kind of bs is that? So basically you are just implying that the most genetically talented should win, since they are born with the most? An athlete should look for every possible edge on their opponent that is allowed by the governing bodies of their sport. Or should I say it another way, that is not disallowed by their governing bodies.

Right now, steroids are not allowed by the governing body of track and field, thus taking them is cheating. However, if, hypothetically, they were allowed, taking them would not be immoral. Thus there is nothing inherently immoral about taking steroids; the problem lies in defying the rules your sport. You are like a powerlifter arguing that using a bench shirt is immoral because one can’t lift that much on their own, despite the fact that it is allowed by their federation.

If a person is not capable of winning using what they were born with then they do not deserve to win.

An athlete is born with nothing. The very essence of sport is to achieve beyond what is thought possible, to push beyond what appears to be our genetic limitations, to push beyond the limits that others set for us. What the hell does “deserve to win” mean? Nobody deserves to win except who crosses the finish line first.

[cormac]

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Cormac,

You seem to make two points that don’t quite line up with each other. In one effect, you make a stand against pharmaceutical measures because they are unethical. And on the other, you are opposed because they are unhealthy for the athlete.
[/quote]

My argument is not that I am opposed to doping because it is unhealthy. My last statement [ http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=1750410&pageNo=1#1753548 ] directed towards Mr. booger was not intended to be a premise to my argument whatsoever. Perhaps it should have been a private message…

The benefits of health are merely a probable side effect of prescribing to the idea that doping is a Bad Thing. But this reason is outside the scope of my argument entirely. I do not personally believe there is anything ethically or morally wrong with taking whatever drug one chooses to if they are not a competitive athlete.

If a substance is not banned, then taking it is not cheating. I don’t see how you can argue that. You imply that it is immoral for somebody to win without “what they are born with.” What kind of bs is that? So basically you are just implying that the most genetically talented should win, since they are born with the most?

Genetics are the raw material for athletic success.

An athlete should look for every possible edge on their opponent that is allowed by the governing bodies of their sport.

I disagree, now you are apparently confused with what my argument is.

Or should I say it another way, that is not disallowed by their governing bodies. Right now, steroids are not allowed by the governing body of track and field, thus taking them is cheating. However, if, hypothetically, they were allowed, taking them would not be immoral.

You are definitely not understanding what I said.

As of right now there are useful methods for determining who is doping. There are quantifiable changes and levels of chemical markers shown through blood profiles and urinalysis screenings. I think that changes in key elements of human physiology indicates that one is doping - and this is an excellent method for eradicating people who are taking “nutrition” to a level where it is definitely cheating.

I think that the banned substance list is simply a practical guide for what to steer clear from. I think that pharmaceuticals are all together bad news because their use opens an ethical pandora’s box - the limits of medicine increase without bound and provide an opportunity for cheating athletes to stay one step ahead of the capabilities of testing methods).

Thus there is nothing inherently immoral about taking steroids; the problem lies in defying the rules your sport. You are like a powerlifter arguing that using a bench shirt is immoral because one can’t lift that much on their own, despite the fact that it is allowed by their federation.

The reason that powerlifting will never become an international sport is because of its inability to find common ground on what is fair and unfair. Some organizations, like the 100% Raw Powerlifting Federation would contend that it is unethical to use a bench shirt to claim a bench press number over someone competing with the use of a normal singlet. I tend to agree with them.

Obviously, you need to come up with a better example.

If a person is not capable of winning using what they were born with then they do not deserve to win.

An athlete is born with nothing.

An athlete is born with genes - raw potential for success. You’re obviously not an athlete yourself.

[quote]
The very essence of sport is to achieve beyond what is thought possible, to push beyond what appears to be our genetic limitations, to push beyond the limits that others set for us. What the hell does “deserve to win” mean? Nobody deserves to win except who crosses the finish line first.[/quote]

Nobody that crosses the line first deserves to win if they have an advantage through doping over someone quantifiable by changes in their blood profiles and urinalysis screenings.

Also, reading through what you have said, I think your definitions of morals and ethics are completely muddled.

I think that this confusion is more profound in people who do not have morals (basically, an Intuitive sense of right and wrong). These are different from ethics (a man-made definition of right and wrong).

[jsbrook]

Yeah, it’s more complicated than than. You can’t control every single thing and some athletes at lower levels will have more access to resources that allow them to rise more than someone of equal ability. Little can be done about that. But ONCE athletes rise to the top, they have the same access to sponsorships, world class coahces, world-class training facilities, ART, tailored diets, etc… WITHOUT a much more stringent policy and much more stringent testing, athletes are forced to use steroids to be competitive at the top level.

Maybe that’s a choice that we as a society don’t or shouldn’t want athletes to have to make. Particularly in the current system where a few get targeted and take the hit for something most everyone is doing.

[quote]booger wrote:
Well now, as far as I know a person is not born with money, sponsorships, world-class coaches, world-class training facilities, custom-made shoes/suits/etc, ART practitioners, sports doctors, vitamins, minerals, fish oil, creatine/glutamine/beta-alanine supplements, protein powder, tailored diets and so on and so forth.

All of the above are available in different quantities to different competitors, and those who cannot obtain the above are placed at an incredibly severe disadvantage, often through no fault of their own. Seems to me that steroids are only one factor out of many that will un-level the playing field, and even then they probably aren’t the most powerful factor.

Should we then ban athletes for receiving more coaching than a stipulated amount? Should we decree that all athletes can only devote a certain amount of time and money to a sport? Should we mandate that all athletes in a certain sport have the same genes?

cormac wrote:

Cheating is wrong by its very nature. It actually frightens me that an intelligent person such as yourself can seem so incapable of understanding that. If a person is not capable of winning using what they were born with then they do not deserve to win.

[/quote]

[jtrinsey]

[quote]cormac wrote:
I think that the banned substance list is simply a practical guide for what to steer clear from. I think that pharmaceuticals are all together bad news because their use opens an ethical pandora’s box - the limits of medicine increase without bound and provide an opportunity for cheating athletes to stay one step ahead of the capabilities of testing methods).[/quote]

You sir, are in fact misunderstanding what I am saying. I never argued that cheating, as defined by defying the rules of your governing body, is wrong. My point is that there is nothing inherently wrong about pharmaceuticals themselves; it is breaking the rules of the governing body of your sport that is wrong.

[quote]
The reason that powerlifting will never become an international sport is because of its inability to find common ground on what is fair and unfair. [/quote]

Last I checked powerlifting is an international sport. Perhaps you are referring to why powerlifting will not become an Olympic sport. Big difference there. Who cares if it’s an Olympic sport or not?

[quote]
Some organizations, like the 100% Raw Powerlifting Federation would contend that it is unethical to use a bench shirt to claim a bench press number over someone competing with the use of a normal singlet. I tend to agree with them.[/quote]

Then you’re an idiot. It’s immoral to compete in a DIFFERENT SPORT? Equipped powerlifting and raw powerlifting are different sports. It has nothing to do with “claiming numbers”, it has to do with pushing yourself in the sport. What would be immoral would be to attempt to use lifting aids that are not allowed in a given federation. If a triple-ply shirt is allowed in the federation you compete in, you’d be an idiot not to use it.

[quote]
An athlete is born with genes - raw potential for success. You’re obviously not an athlete yourself.[/quote]

Really? That’s quite an assumption to make there. I’ve been an athlete since the day I’ve been born. I also don’t choose to hang on the coattails of my family. I’m currently competing at a high collegiate level in my sport and hopefully will play professionally one day. I understand all about genetics since I face opponents born with superior ability all the time.

[quote]
Also, reading through what you have said, I think your definitions of morals and ethics are completely muddled.

I think that this confusion is more profound in people who do not have morals (basically, an Intuitive sense of right and wrong). These are different from ethics (a man-made definition of right and wrong).[/quote]

Wow that’s quite an attack on my character there buddy. Basicall you’re making the claim that your morals, your “intuitive sense of right and wrong” is superior to others. Quite a claim.

[cormac]

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
cormac wrote:
I think that the banned substance list is simply a practical guide for what to steer clear from. I think that pharmaceuticals are all together bad news because their use opens an ethical pandora’s box - the limits of medicine increase without bound and provide an opportunity for cheating athletes to stay one step ahead of the capabilities of testing methods).

You sir, are in fact misunderstanding what I am saying. I never argued that cheating, as defined by defying the rules of your governing body, is wrong. My point is that there is nothing inherently wrong about pharmaceuticals themselves; it is breaking the rules of the governing body of your sport that is wrong.
[/quote]

And I disagree. Is that okay with you?

The reason that powerlifting will never become an international sport is because of its inability to find common ground on what is fair and unfair.

Last I checked powerlifting is an international sport. Perhaps you are referring to why powerlifting will not become an Olympic sport. Big difference there. Who cares if it’s an Olympic sport or not?

But the IPF is certainly not regarded as the central Powerlifting federation by a great deal of the very best powerlifters. This stands in stark contrast to federations like the IWF and the UCI, to name but a few.

Some organizations, like the 100% Raw Powerlifting Federation would contend that it is unethical to use a bench shirt to claim a bench press number over someone competing with the use of a normal singlet. I tend to agree with them.

Then you’re an idiot. It’s immoral to compete in a DIFFERENT SPORT? Equipped powerlifting and raw powerlifting are different sports. It has nothing to do with “claiming numbers”, it has to do with pushing yourself in the sport. What would be immoral would be to attempt to use lifting aids that are not allowed in a given federation. If a triple-ply shirt is allowed in the federation you compete in, you’d be an idiot not to use it.

I lift under USAPL rules, I consider powerlifting to be powerlifting. I lift in the raw class because I believe it is the purest form of powerlifting. It is not a different sport and I do not go around telling people who use triple-ply shirts and lift in the Collegiate class that they are lesser powerlifters than I. It’s a matter of personal preference and I am just glad that I am not forced to compete with them in the same class.

An athlete is born with genes - raw potential for success. You’re obviously not an athlete yourself.

Really? That’s quite an assumption to make there. I’ve been an athlete since the day I’ve been born. I also don’t choose to hang on the coattails of my family. I’m currently competing at a high collegiate level in my sport and hopefully will play professionally one day. I understand all about genetics since I face opponents born with superior ability all the time.

That’s a fair attack on me, it’s very personal - but I can take it. The fact is that I made some very poor decisions as a youngster. Fortunately my brain has always been my strongest part and I am on the right path now.

Also, reading through what you have said, I think your definitions of morals and ethics are completely muddled.

I think that this confusion is more profound in people who do not have morals (basically, an Intuitive sense of right and wrong). These are different from ethics (a man-made definition of right and wrong).

Wow that’s quite an attack on my character there buddy. Basicall you’re making the claim that your morals, your “intuitive sense of right and wrong” is superior to others. Quite a claim.

I know that this is going to get me quite a bit of flack, and I do not really feel myself to be an all around “morally superior” individual. I certainly have never asserted any such thing. I just think that on this particular matter my heart is in the right place.

[jtrinsey]

[quote]cormac wrote:
I know that this is going to get me quite a bit of flack, and I do not really feel myself to be an all around “morally superior” individual. I certainly have never asserted any such thing. I just think that on this particular matter my heart is in the right place.[/quote]

That’s fine. Agree to disagree. Not much use in continuing this discussion since all the relevant points seem to have been made and anything further is simply going to degenerate into undesirable flaming. Good luck in your training endeavors.

[Damici]

Apparently she’s given back five of her medals, though it’s not immediately clear how they will be redistributed.

MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos

The bitch STILL tries to play semi-innocent by claiming that she initially “didn’t know” that her drug guy was giving her drugs, and that it only dawned on her well into it: “By November 2003, I realized he was giving me performance-enhancing drugs.”

“Realized??!”

Bitch, you full-well knowingly used this shit and EVERYBODY KNOWS IT! Victor Conte said YEARS ago that he WATCHED YOU SHOOT UP! NO ONE IS BELIEVING THE NAIVETE DEFENSE!!!

For fuck’s suck, I don’t get why, when it has obviously reached the point of the whole thing coming crashing down publicly, someone in that situation wouldn’t just come clean – as in REALLY, HONESTLY clean. As in, “Yes, I knowingly took performance-enhancing drugs and I am sorry for it. I was wrong.”

That’s it! The time for claiming semi-innocence is over. Grow up, man up (for lack of a better term) and at least try to salvage SOME modicum of respect in the eyes of the world.

Jeezus.

[baretta]

This is so much fucking bullshit.

I’d be willing to guess that every Olympic level sprinter took some sort of steroid at some point to get where they are. Look at their bodies for fuck sake. If you are going to call one of them out, do it for all of them.