Haha. Thanks for that =D
[quote]alexus wrote:
[quote]TheJonty wrote:
[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…
no doubt some will think it idealistic…
a myth like Santa Claus.
tis what we make of it, i suppose…
[/quote]
You are being idealistic because you are expecting something to happen which simply won’t happen.
And furthermore, regardless of your lofty view of the olympics, cheating and corruption has been going on since ancient times. It is clearly a part of our DNA in all areas of life. To fold your arms and sulk about it just seems completely pointless to me.
You know, it’s not like just anyone can use some PEDs and poof they’re Olympians. We say “steroids are cheating” as if it were simply a matter of doing a few cycles and getting instantly stronger and instantly become a champion. But it takes a hell of a lot of hard work and talent. PEDs can’t do anything for the talent aspect but they do help with the hard work. Ultimately it’s that hard work that creates champions. Nobody is trying to get out of the hard work that it takes. In fact they are taking these drugs in the hope of doing even harder work. So when we use the word “cheating” we should keep that in mind.
james
Genetics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> roids
I think if someone is bred and built to be a champ in a certain sport, they are probably going to be pretty successful regardless.
The whole performance enhanement arguement will probably continue to blaze for eternity in some way or another.
I think when i turn 60 years old , i will buy some roids for myself as a birthday gift, to re kindle the flames. lol
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]bcingu wrote:
[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)[/quote]
Well maybe not angry with me, but with the situation in general. I can totally understand why though.
[quote]Field wrote:
Genetics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> roids
I think if someone is bred and built to be a champ in a certain sport, they are probably going to be pretty successful regardless.[/quote]
I don’t have enough ammunition to counter your assertion that genetics beat out proper “supplementation” but I will say there is a huge difference between “pretty successful” and Olympic champion.
[quote]bcingu wrote:
[/quote]
[quote]Field wrote:
Genetics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> roids[/quote]
And it would be wonderful if there were such a KRATOS-like being whose genetics were so good that PEDs literally couldn’t improve them, thereby putting the athlete so far ahead that no amount of ‘supplimentation’ could allow others to catch up. Unfortunately, that is just plain fantasy (although one which people idealistically choose to entertain). The real equation goes like this:
Genetics <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< roids with genetics
Your roidz vs genetics argument works fine in the gym, where any idiot can walk in and be a participant. But I think it’s fair to assume that at the olympics, each athlete (by virtue of being there) has some genetic advantage in his/her field of sport, so it will never be a simple case of genetics vs drugs. The genetics are a given in each case (except for in extreme exceptions). How the athlete pushes even further into excellence is the question here. And Mendes and many others have clearly shown us how it is achieved!
If PED’s are banned for athletes, should’t photoshop be banned for models?
[quote]Ed Ache wrote:
If PED’s are banned for athletes, should’t photoshop be banned for models?[/quote]
They do two completely different things. Photoshop can give me six pack abs. PEDs can’t give me a 400lb clean.
james
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]Ed Ache wrote:
If PED’s are banned for athletes, should’t photoshop be banned for models?[/quote]
They do two completely different things. Photoshop can give me six pack abs. PEDs can’t give me a 400lb clean.
james
[/quote]
Are you a model? They make a living of their abilities, that are touched up using artificial means. Althletes make a living of their abilities, that are touched up using PEDs.
PEDs allow me to work harder and train longer which should increase my performance. There’s a big difference between allowing me to work harder and something that allows me to do nothing yet get a “perfect” body.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
PEDs allow me to work harder and train longer which should increase my performance. There’s a big difference between allowing me to work harder and something that allows me to do nothing yet get a “perfect” body.[/quote]
Again, my analogy was with models…people who are in good shape, and are ‘beautiful’ already. Not calling you ugly…
[quote]Ed Ache wrote:
If PED’s are banned for athletes, should’t photoshop be banned for models?[/quote]
Modelling is not a sport. The models are not competing against anyone.
[quote]Ed Ache wrote:
If PED’s are banned for athletes, should’t photoshop be banned for models?[/quote]
Modelling is not a sport. The models are not competing against anyone and there is no law against using it.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
PEDs allow me to work harder and train longer which should increase my performance. There’s a big difference between allowing me to work harder and something that allows me to do nothing yet get a “perfect” body.[/quote]
If that was the case even you could be a model, as with PED’s there still has to be something there.
debra - i feel sad for pat, too. if anything i think the adults are more responsible. you know, those coaching him etc.
yarni - i hope you are young.
i’m generally a cynic, too.
arguments of this form?
‘people have always done x therefore x is morally acceptable’ don’t work. it is an ‘appeal to history’ and it is important that just because something may have been done in the past doesn’t make it morally acceptable.
e.g., rape is a big part of human history. you think it is inevitable (therefore acceptable?) as well? how about racism? think we should accept that as inevitable, too? genocide? do i really need to go on???
You are being idealistic because you are expecting something to happen which simply won’t happen.
so what do you think should happen then?
anything goes? lift the ban on substances…
the way i see it we have two routes (if we accept the current rules)
-
think that other countries / people getting away with cheating justifies it / requires it for ourself (you know, if we are properly ambitious)
-
think that other countries / people getting away with cheating requires more testing of those getting away with it. level the playing field that way.
i’m kinda an advocate of the latter in case you hadn’t noticed.
i’m not sulky about what happened…
i’m pissy that someone came here and lied to us about the doping thing (could have just ignored the TRUE allegations)…
and i get pissy that people go ‘wah genetics that is why i can’t make progress’ (instead of looking at other issues like sleep and nutrition) and that people go ‘wah steroids that is why america sucks’ (instead of similarly looking at other issues that seem pretty fucking pertinent such as getting lots of kids involved seriously from a young age).
[quote]alexus wrote:
debra - i feel sad for pat, too. if anything i think the adults are more responsible. you know, those coaching him etc.
yarni - i hope you are young.
i’m generally a cynic, too.
arguments of this form?
‘people have always done x therefore x is morally acceptable’ don’t work. it is an ‘appeal to history’ and it is important that just because something may have been done in the past doesn’t make it morally acceptable.
e.g., rape is a big part of human history. you think it is inevitable (therefore acceptable?) as well? how about racism? think we should accept that as inevitable, too? genocide? do i really need to go on???
You are being idealistic because you are expecting something to happen which simply won’t happen.
so what do you think should happen then?
anything goes? lift the ban on substances…
the way i see it we have two routes (if we accept the current rules)
-
think that other countries / people getting away with cheating justifies it / requires it for ourself (you know, if we are properly ambitious)
-
think that other countries / people getting away with cheating requires more testing of those getting away with it. level the playing field that way.
i’m kinda an advocate of the latter in case you hadn’t noticed.
i’m not sulky about what happened…
i’m pissy that someone came here and lied to us about the doping thing (could have just ignored the TRUE allegations)…
and i get pissy that people go ‘wah genetics that is why i can’t make progress’ (instead of looking at other issues like sleep and nutrition) and that people go ‘wah steroids that is why america sucks’ (instead of similarly looking at other issues that seem pretty fucking pertinent such as getting lots of kids involved seriously from a young age).
[/quote]
[quote]bcingu wrote:
[quote]alexus wrote:
debra - i feel sad for pat, too. if anything i think the adults are more responsible. you know, those coaching him etc.
yarni - i hope you are young.
i’m generally a cynic, too.
arguments of this form?
‘people have always done x therefore x is morally acceptable’ don’t work. it is an ‘appeal to history’ and it is important that just because something may have been done in the past doesn’t make it morally acceptable.
e.g., rape is a big part of human history. you think it is inevitable (therefore acceptable?) as well? how about racism? think we should accept that as inevitable, too? genocide? do i really need to go on???
You are being idealistic because you are expecting something to happen which simply won’t happen.
so what do you think should happen then?
anything goes? lift the ban on substances…
the way i see it we have two routes (if we accept the current rules)
-
think that other countries / people getting away with cheating justifies it / requires it for ourself (you know, if we are properly ambitious)
-
think that other countries / people getting away with cheating requires more testing of those getting away with it. level the playing field that way.
i’m kinda an advocate of the latter in case you hadn’t noticed.
i’m not sulky about what happened…
i’m pissy that someone came here and lied to us about the doping thing (could have just ignored the TRUE allegations)…
and i get pissy that people go ‘wah genetics that is why i can’t make progress’ (instead of looking at other issues like sleep and nutrition) and that people go ‘wah steroids that is why america sucks’ (instead of similarly looking at other issues that seem pretty fucking pertinent such as getting lots of kids involved seriously from a young age).
[/quote]
[/quote]
The fuck you say?