[quote]Swolegasm wrote:
Is it really cheating (in a physical sense) when your competitors are all doing it?
[/quote]
Not everyone uses them, though. Not by a long shot. [/quote]
I never said everybody?? [/quote]
Your competitors at the nationals aren’t using, generally. Is it still okay then? [/quote]
I should have expanded, i meant when your in klokov or lu xiajouns situation.
Also you seem quite angry? I never made them do it, their all grown men and women who make their own choices. No point in taking it out on me.[/quote]
Angry? Wha?? How so? Not enough smilies? :PPP
I’m just arguing.
But to that point, can you see the issue with taking when you’re in a country that doesn’t use, generally? Because that is what we’re talking about. Not Russian Nationals.
[quote]Swolegasm wrote:
Is it really cheating (in a physical sense) when your competitors are all doing it?
[/quote]
Not everyone uses them, though. Not by a long shot. [/quote]
I never said everybody?? [/quote]
Your competitors at the nationals aren’t using, generally. Is it still okay then? [/quote]
I should have expanded, i meant when your in klokov or lu xiajouns situation.
Also you seem quite angry? I never made them do it, their all grown men and women who make their own choices. No point in taking it out on me.[/quote]
Angry? Wha?? How so? Not enough smilies? :PPP
I’m just arguing.
But to that point, can you see the issue with taking when you’re in a country that doesn’t use, generally? Because that is what we’re talking about. Not Russian Nationals.[/quote]
Well they are in the minority and they got caught. Plus gilbert came 3rd? While what they didn’t wasn’t right, they just wanted to succeed in a sport that has alot of drug use.
If I was in their situation and I knew it would come to using some day. Then I’d wait till i’d be able to win the USA nationals cause if you can’t win them with drugs how the hell am I going to win the worlds?
Quoting so maybe more people will read it. It’s an interview with Angel Heredia, who provided banned PEDs to a number of prominent Olympians (including Marion Jones). The English translation of the interview is also posted in full over on Pendlay’s forums if you’re too lazy to punch it up in Google.
elaborate.[/quote]
I can’t man… same reason I’m not posting on the pendlay thread either, lol. I’ll get sucked into it like Jonty, but let’s just say I haven’t disagreed with anything he’s said so far.[/quote]
Yeah, my original plan was just to start the thread and let it go where it may . . .
That kind of went out the window haha. Maybe I can keep myself from ranting and play fact-checker from here on out . . .
[quote]ape288 wrote:
I’ve also read a lot about how the US sporting bodies tend to have a mindset towards drugs that’s opposite to the one laid out here, in regards to sports such as track. Carl Lewis supposedly tested positive (can’t remember for what) at Seoul (the same competition where he won gold by default because Ben Johnson was stripped of the medal), but the whole thing was covered up by USA Track and Field. Ben Johnson also claims that he was using before the Seoul Olympics, but he was not using Stanazolol, which is what he popped for.[/quote]
If I remember correctly, I think Carl Lewis’ positive test was in the months leading up to Seoul, and was indeed swept under the rug by USA Track. Though I think it was for something relatively innocuous like an ingredient used in cold medicine.
I also remember Ben Johnson’s doctor saying he was on, I think, furazabol, and not stanozolol (which, as you say, is what he tested positive for). The doc also said furazabol would have cleared his system by the time he was tested (furazabol’s half-life is 4 hours compared to a full day for stanozolol, according to Wikipedia).
[quote]debraD wrote:
I’m curious what everyone here thought about allowing the Muslim weightlifter to cover her arms and legs when that was a controversy. I seem to recall most were against changing the rules and that she shouldn’t be allowed. [/quote]
I think allowing competitors to cover their arms/legs is a mistake, especially when the line between a pressout and a good lift is so fine and often blurred as it is. That being said, I’m no official, and if they think they can competently judge lifts with the arms and legs of the competitor covered, then I can live with that.
What really grinds my gears about that (especially looking back) is the circumstances under which they changed that rule and the apparent reason for doing so. Just seemed to me like the IWF caved and catered to a minority who started screaming about religious intolerance. If your faith doesn’t allow you to abide by the rules of a competitive sport, well, that’s your problem, not the problem of the sport or the governing body. But that’s just my opinion, and there were obviously some very loud voices who felt otherwise.
[quote]debraD wrote:
But with the drug issue, if you don’t actually care about them, why have rules at all?[/quote]
I think in this case, most often the ones willing to break the rules, aren’t the ones making them.
[quote]ape288 wrote:
I’ve also read a lot about how the US sporting bodies tend to have a mindset towards drugs that’s opposite to the one laid out here, in regards to sports such as track. Carl Lewis supposedly tested positive (can’t remember for what) at Seoul (the same competition where he won gold by default because Ben Johnson was stripped of the medal), but the whole thing was covered up by USA Track and Field. Ben Johnson also claims that he was using before the Seoul Olympics, but he was not using Stanazolol, which is what he popped for.[/quote]
If I remember correctly, I think Carl Lewis’ positive test was in the months leading up to Seoul, and was indeed swept under the rug by USA Track. Though I think it was for something relatively innocuous like an ingredient used in cold medicine.
I also remember Ben Johnson’s doctor saying he was on, I think, furazabol, and not stanozolol (which, as you say, is what he tested positive for). The doc also said furazabol would have cleared his system by the time he was tested (furazabol’s half-life is 4 hours compared to a full day for stanozolol, according to Wikipedia).[/quote]
Jonty you seem smarter every time you post. Half life eh? I is impressed.
[quote]TheJonty wrote:
If your faith doesn’t allow you to abide by the rules of a competitive sport, well, that’s your problem, not the problem of the sport or the governing body. [/quote]
Not to derail but I totally agree. Its your own problem.
[quote]debraD wrote:
I’m curious what everyone here thought about allowing the Muslim weightlifter to cover her arms and legs when that was a controversy.[/quote]
To put it generously, I thought she should have picked a different sport. The allegations of “Islamophobia” were belligerently mind-numbing. I made my feelings clear in the original thread, so I’ll just leave it at “Don’t get me started.”
[quote]ape288 wrote:
I’ve also read a lot about how the US sporting bodies tend to have a mindset towards drugs that’s opposite to the one laid out here, in regards to sports such as track. Carl Lewis supposedly tested positive (can’t remember for what) at Seoul (the same competition where he won gold by default because Ben Johnson was stripped of the medal), but the whole thing was covered up by USA Track and Field. Ben Johnson also claims that he was using before the Seoul Olympics, but he was not using Stanazolol, which is what he popped for.[/quote]
If I remember correctly, I think Carl Lewis’ positive test was in the months leading up to Seoul, and was indeed swept under the rug by USA Track. Though I think it was for something relatively innocuous like an ingredient used in cold medicine.
I also remember Ben Johnson’s doctor saying he was on, I think, furazabol, and not stanozolol (which, as you say, is what he tested positive for). The doc also said furazabol would have cleared his system by the time he was tested (furazabol’s half-life is 4 hours compared to a full day for stanozolol, according to Wikipedia).[/quote]
Yeah, my point with that was all the governing bodies know that the top guys are using, it’s not like it’s some big mystery. So they let it slide for the most part until it’s time to show that they’re out there keeping the competitions “pure.” Then someone has to become the scapegoat. Though in Johnson’s case, it does kind of seem like someone was out to get him with a more malicious intent.
[quote]debraD wrote:
I’m curious what everyone here thought about allowing the Muslim weightlifter to cover her arms and legs when that was a controversy.[/quote]
To put it generously, I thought she should have picked a different sport. The allegations of “Islamophobia” were belligerently mind-numbing. I made my feelings clear in the original thread, so I’ll just leave it at “Don’t get me started.”[/quote]
lol sorry I didn’t mean to get you guys angry
I just found it interesting what rules matter and what rules don’t. I’m in agreement with you guys but that isn’t the point. But I think I’ve said all I want to say on this.
(Still not sure why Swolegasm thinks I’m angry at him though :P)
Quoting so maybe more people will read it. It’s an interview with Angel Heredia, who provided banned PEDs to a number of prominent Olympians (including Marion Jones). The English translation of the interview is also posted in full over on Pendlay’s forums if you’re too lazy to punch it up in Google.[/quote]
It’s great to have a definitive perspective on olympic sports. Well you can never know “for sure”, who could possibly know better then this guy? Very informative interview.
religious intolerance. If your faith doesn’t allow…
was that really the reason?
i thought it was CULTURAL INTOLERANCE. the idea being that many women who (they say) voluntarily choose to wear headscarfs / cover their arms and legs say that it is for CULTURAL reasons and they don’t identify with the Islam religion at all.
in fact…
they say that they personally choose to wear headscarfs / cover their arms / legs because they think that if they don’t then they are leaving themselves open to being sexually objectified by men rather than being taken seriously as a person.
which, uh, is why when people post threads ‘look at the hot chick weightlifting’ i ask whether they would say that about a woman who covered her arms / legs / was wearing a headscarf. in other words… does doing that prevent one being sexually objectified by men? seems so… sometimes… i do have some kind of sympathy for the notion that something like that actually is required. i mean… i sort of think they have some kind of a valid point.
think about what happened to that pole vaulter chick… can’t remember her name… her image went viral… she was a serious athlete and her sexual objectification went viral. isn’t that some kind of abuse? perhaps… what do women need to do to prevent that (they should be allowed to choose for that not to happen - yeah??)
[quote]debraD wrote:
I just found it interesting what rules matter and what rules don’t.[/quote]
When you’re willing to do whatever it takes to win, the rules aren’t a hard and fast definition of what you can and can’t do. They’re guidelines that define what you can’t get away with. You can get away with doping by beating the tests. Before the rule change it was not possible to get away with wearing sleeves on an international competition platform. For those for whom winning is everything, that is the only distinction between a rule that matters and one that doesn’t.
Found that on her website (which also has what looks like a religious quote on the homepage), took the extra couple minutes to try to find one from before the rule change.
Doesn’t really matter, whether the decision was based on faith or culture, it was her personal decision, and my opinion on the matter would stay the same.
Not touching the rest of your post, this thread has been derailed enough as is.
[quote]debraD wrote:
I just found it interesting what rules matter and what rules don’t.[/quote]
When you’re willing to do whatever it takes to win, the rules aren’t a hard and fast definition of what you can and can’t do. They’re guidelines that define what you can’t get away with. You can get away with doping by beating the tests. Before the rule change it was not possible to get away with wearing sleeves on an international competition platform. For those for whom winning is everything, that is the only distinction between a rule that matters and one that doesn’t.[/quote]
yes.
those for whom winning is everything.
i think i remember something about the spirit of the Olympic Games…
Yeah I guess I’m idealistic too lol. Although I think I’m actually really cynical, usually.
But whatever I suppose.
I do feel for Pat. So young and to have all of this negative media. FTR in all my opinions I spew forth, I don’t have any real judgment against the people caught up in this stuff. Well I do a bit because I know clean lifters who are actually competitive but it’s obviously a dilemma for everyone.
