Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 64
  1. Collapse Details
     
    #21
    The issue most people have with Gatlin is that he never ever admitted any guilt on his part even up to this day.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    north coast USA
    Posts
    2,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Pego View Post
    I have watched the use of stimulants in sports/recreational activities for many decades. There have been many studies and all of them conclude "it may enhance performance", "some scientists think..." and such. There have been a few, even posted on this board in the past that unequivocally concluded that there is a PED property to stimulants. The problem with those was that a methodology was flawed to say the least and to the best to my knowledge, nobody was able to reproduce those positive results.

    I will just keep repeating my mantra, "Stimulants make you feel like Tarzan, but you perform like Jane."
    thanks, Pego.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    rural Northern California
    Posts
    986
    Quote Originally Posted by JumboElliott View Post
    Maybe they're banned because they're actually harmful, unlike anabolic steroids.

    I can't think of many things more potentially catastrophic than high intensity activity after taking something that will increase your heart rate.
    Anabolic steroids have shown themselves to be extremely harmful, especially over time. However, you're right about the potential dangers of high-intensity activity under the effect of stimulants. It can be very dangerous. However, I don't think that is the rationale for the ban. This discussion has been about the false notion that they are performance enhancing. But I think the question of their potential dangers is also worth addressing.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Rohe o Te Whanau a Apanui
    Posts
    1,716
    Depends on who Jane is
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,476
    Quote Originally Posted by JumboElliott View Post
    Then you can stop referring to Justin Gatlin as a two time drug cheat and tell other people to, because his first "bust" was for a prescribed stimulant.
    This, I never knew. I always thought it was for something far more serious. I suppose that's why he got only 4 years instead of a lifetime ban for his 2nd failed test in 2006.
    Last edited by CookyMonzta; 08-02-2014 at 08:25 PM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    beyond help
    Posts
    10,579
    Quote Originally Posted by oldvaulter View Post
    Anabolic steroids have shown themselves to be extremely harmful, especially over time. However, you're right about the potential dangers of high-intensity activity under the effect of stimulants. It can be very dangerous. However, I don't think that is the rationale for the ban. This discussion has been about the false notion that they are performance enhancing. But I think the question of their potential dangers is also worth addressing.
    Yes. Every pharmacologically active substance has a potential for side-effects, some catastrophic. Most of them are dose-related. You cannot protect everybody from him/herself. Cyanide is deadly, but that does not mean that we should prohibit use of almonds.
    A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact.


    Thomas Henry Huxley
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    rural Northern California
    Posts
    986
    Quote Originally Posted by Pego View Post
    Yes. Every pharmacologically active substance has a potential for side-effects, some catastrophic. Most of them are dose-related. You cannot protect everybody from him/herself. Cyanide is deadly, but that does not mean that we should prohibit use of almonds.
    This statement suggest something very important that we too often overlook. What exactly is the rationale for banning any substance? I think that WADA, and the anti-doping movement as a whole, has been too casual and vague about this important subject. Not intending to be comprehensive, I would suggest two essential criteria:

    1. The substance must be shown to have clear performance-enhancing potential.
    2. The substance must be shown to have clear potential for harm.

    Anabolic steroids meet both criteria. Therefore they should be banned.

    Stimulants meet only the second criterion, and therefore should not be banned.

    Many healthy foods, and even some pure, uncontaminated, natural supplements may meet the first condition, but not the second.

    The reason for banning substances that meet both criteria should also be made clear. In my view, the reason is that if a substance that is both 1) performance enhancing, and 2) otherwise harmful, is permitted, then athletes will be pressured into harming themselves in order to be competitive. That's what we want to prevent.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    beyond help
    Posts
    10,579
    I would add EPO to the steroids on the banned list. All other hematocrit enhancing agents including autotransfusion should be legal. HGH also meets oldvaulter's criteria, but it appears that it's PED property is exclusively (or almost exclusively) as an adjunct to anabolic steroids. Of course, steroid masking agents should remain on the Index as well.
    A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact.


    Thomas Henry Huxley
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #29
    One of reasons for such long lists of banned substances is in part there is no definitive clinical research on long term effects when used for performance, or even if they affect some people and nit others Sure we have circumstantial evidence and smart arses giving what they believe is definite answers, but clinical trails just for sport would probably not be approved and would fundamentally be unethical. Also encouraging a drugs arms race would increase hazards and risks in the production of such substances and their environment of use. Do people really think athletes will wait 5 or 10 years for these substances to be approved for sports use as the usual clinical methology would require? There is also the factor that we know supplement companies are often throwing junk or other stuff in their powders, encouraging them to go further by being more generous with the limits only creates an environment that is more hazardous.

    Some substances may be debated for their PED effects but if's it is debatable the athletes shouldn't be taking them.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Pego View Post
    My camp is growing. Slowly but surely ;-).
    I'm 100% not in your camp.
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •