Drugs in sports Page 2

  • pistol 25 Jul 2013 10:48:39 13,018 posts
    Seen 7 years ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    @Kosmoz

    But it's not all the top athletes whho dope, especially in pro cycling back in the last 20 odd years. A lot of the dopers were and are riders who can barely hang on to the back of the peleton. It's only the real big names we hear about but a lot are very average and won't ever win anything. If those are caught and banned for life I'm sure they'd think twice.
  • elstoof 25 Jul 2013 12:25:03 25,589 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Point.

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    Head.
  • elstoof 25 Jul 2013 12:29:28 25,589 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Anyway, I'm not sure bodybuilding has been separated officially - you've got the people who claim to be clean but aren't and the people who claim to be clean and probably are.

    Edited by elstoof at 12:31:59 25-07-2013
  • Youthist 25 Jul 2013 12:32:10 14,210 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    mazty wrote:
    pistol wrote:
    mazty wrote:
    Mr_Sleep wrote:
    I still think the idea of having a doping and non-doping competition is the best solution. Let people go wild with whatever drugs they want, I want to see someone running the 100 metres in 2 seconds.

    Surely this is reaching a point where it's so endemic that there is little point in trying to stamp it out?
    This. Drug use is clearly rampant in all sports, so why not acknowledge this and split it up, just as is done in bodybuilding?
    Sorry but this is a ridiculous comment.

    How to we encourage our kids to take part in sport or even do it for a living if we are also going to let athletes take all the drugs they want?
    If they go pro, they're going to take drugs anyway so what is your point?
    I think this is the most retarded response I have ever read on this forum.
  • Benno 25 Jul 2013 12:35:24 11,722 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    I found this post interesting on reddit:

    At the pinnacle of sports, nobody is clean, just a bullshit illusion.
    Sprinters use mostly:
    hGH at a fairly low dose. The low dose is to avoid gaining water weight (or even excessive muscle weight) which would slow them down. It is mostly used to enhance recovery, allow them to tolerate more volume of work and MOSTLY for tendon strethening/repair. Sprinters are like F1 racing cars: high performance but break VERY easily. A common approach is 4-6IU EOD.
    Insulin. This is to facilitate recovery by enhancing glycogen resynthesis following training. It isn't used all the time; mostly after the most grueling training days (e.g. a day where they would have both high volume track work and strength training)... sprinters normally strength train 3 or 4 days a week, so they use insulin 3-4 days a week on average. (Dont try this at home, insulin is very dangerous if you dont know what you are doing)
    EPO. The role of EPO for improving endurance is well known. For that reason it is mostly associated with endurance athletes and it is often assumed that it doesn't give anything to the power/strength athlete. That is not true. EPO allows one to tolerate a greater overall volume of work and increases the rate of recovery. In performance athletics, drugs are mostly used to allow the athlete to train more often and with more volume.
    Testosterone. Some synthetic steroids might be used far away from competition (if the athlete doesn't live in a country that conducts random testing) but testosterone is the most comonly used AAS to improve strength and power. It is much easier to pass the drug tests when using testosterone, especially since some natural compounds can decrease the testo/Epitesto ratio that is used to test for testostetone use. A lot of athletes can get away with 50mg of testosterone propionate or suspension every 3 days without testing positive... some races can even use much higher doses of testosterone than that because they lack the enzyme UGT2B17 which increases testosterone excretion in the urine. Approximately 60% of Asians have very low levels of this enzyme. More than 50% of the individuals having low levels of enzymes can take 300-400mg of testosterone per week and not test positive.
    Obviously athletes from countries with a rich track and field support program use more exotic compounds that are harder to detect.
    The only reason Ben Johnson tested positive for stanozolol/winstrol is that he and Charlie Francis (his coach) didn't know that he was taking winstrol!
    Johnson never liked winstrol, the few times he used it it gave him severe joint pain which reduced his capacity to train.
    Charlie Francis went on record saying that he knew exactly how long before the last winstrol intake you needed to wait to avoid testing positive for it (harder now since the tests are more precise).
    What happened is that Dr.Astafan told Francis and Johnson that he could get them furazabol. At that time furazabol was not detectable (a doping test doesn't scan for ''steroids''... it needs the exact molecule or it's metabolite to know what to search).
    So all 3 believed that Johnson could continue taking it right up to the race whereas the other sprinters had to stop whatever they were using 10-14 days before, enough to get a small performance decrement that could make a big difference in placings.
    The problem is that the furazabol they bought was actually relabeled winstrol sold for 4-5 times the price.
    The anti-doping procedures are fairly strict now. In the information age, any stunt like that (pouring the piss down the drain) would eventually surface.
    However:
    Many countries/federation do ''home tests'' for their athletes. So they know EXACTLY when they need to stop using XYZ substance and which one they can keep taking without testing positive. Each physiology is different so this gives top athletes (as it is very expensive) the insurance of being able to use without risking testing positive.
    A lot of the people who design drug tests are hired by some countries/federation to explain how to beat the tests.
    A urine test needs to know the exact chemical structure that they are testing for. It can either be a drug itself or it's metabolites. Any decent chemist can make slight modification to the structure of a drug to make it undetectable (e.g. the clear).
    Believe me, nobody wants unbeatable tests. Why?
    If all of a sudden you can test everybody who uses drugs with 100% efficacy, the winning numbers or speed would drop by about 10% across the board. This will make the decades of abuse obvious as performance levels will go back to what they were around 1960-1970. No sport federation, or the IOC wants that.
    We have been used to a certain level of sporting performance. Why are people who don't give a sh*t about track keep talking about Bolt's 100 and 200m records? Because they boggle the mind... if all of a sudden nobody runs below 10s the general interest will drop... we could say the same about baseball for example. After the 1 year strike people lost interest and the next year's crowd started VERY low... what saved the season (financially speaking)? The McGuire/Sosa home run race. People like unimaginable feats... they want to see 60 home run hitters... you wont see that anymore. Notice that all the new baseball stadiums are very small... in Miami they have a 35 000 people capacity... during the home run craze you could see averages of 50 000 people per game.
    Sports is fueled by money:
    Players want more money... to get it they need (1) to outperform their rivals (2) for the teams to make a lot of money (if the teams don't make money, they cannot spend it on the players).
    Owners want to make money, so they need to pull more people to the stadium.
    The leagues want more money (which is spread over to the teams) so they need big TV contracts.
    The TV channels want more money and they get it by selling TV ads. The more viewer there are, the more they can charge for the air time.
    The comissioners want to make more money and their salary is based on how much money the teams make.
    The KEY if everybody is gonna make money is general interest... not the die hard fans who will come no matter what but rather the guys who are on the fence and need something special to go to games, watch them on TV and buy team stuff.
    If overall performance goes down, so does general interest. Less people watch the sport on TV, companies will spend less in advertisement, the league make less TV money, the teams receive less transfer, they have less money to invest in the players, etc.
    Coaches/trainers do not want effective tests either because people will realise that they aren't the geniuses people thought they were.
    NOBODY want clean sport.
  • pistol 25 Jul 2013 12:41:52 13,018 posts
    Seen 7 years ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    mazty wrote:
    pistol wrote:
    mazty wrote:
    Mr_Sleep wrote:
    I still think the idea of having a doping and non-doping competition is the best solution. Let people go wild with whatever drugs they want, I want to see someone running the 100 metres in 2 seconds.

    Surely this is reaching a point where it's so endemic that there is little point in trying to stamp it out?
    This. Drug use is clearly rampant in all sports, so why not acknowledge this and split it up, just as is done in bodybuilding?
    Sorry but this is a ridiculous comment.

    How to we encourage our kids to take part in sport or even do it for a living if we are also going to let athletes take all the drugs they want?
    If they go pro, they're going to take drugs anyway so what is your point?
    Maybe in the past but it's getting better.
  • elstoof 25 Jul 2013 12:42:35 25,589 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    It would stop me encouraging my children to pursue a career in sport though, and you don't usually make it very far in sport unless you start at a young age.
  • Youthist 25 Jul 2013 12:46:37 14,210 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    Mazty, please stop talking out of your ill-informed backside.

    Ta.
  • pistol 25 Jul 2013 12:47:09 13,018 posts
    Seen 7 years ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    elstoof wrote:
    Anyway, I'm not sure bodybuilding has been separated officially - you've got the people who claim to be clean but aren't and the people who claim to be clean and probably are.
    Whilst it's still not right, I don't think you can really compare bodybuilding to other more mainstream sports. I had a bodybuilding past and have been exposed to all sorts. I've been to many competitions over the years, some pro and some amatuer, and there is a big difference in the attitude to drugs, or was (not been around it since the early 90's).

    I've been to the IFBB World Championships and one Mr olympia, and at those shows it was pretty much a given that steriods were part of it. You had bodybuilders in the audience who used. I've also been to big Natural shows such as the ANB Mr Britain (friend competed for the title) and they are tested, the guys/girls are smaller as you'd expect.

    Apart from the natural federations, most fans of the sport seem to openly accept the drugs. It's different for other sports.
  • elstoof 25 Jul 2013 12:47:53 25,589 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    mazty wrote:
    elstoof wrote:
    Anyway, I'm not sure bodybuilding has been separated officially - you've got the people who claim to be clean but aren't and the people who claim to be clean and probably are.
    As official as it'll get - you have natural competitions which are all drug tested, and then the "regular" competitions where there is no testing. The reason the likes of Cutler will claim to be clean is because a)steroids are illegal and b)sponsorship. Sponsorship will drop you when you admit your gains are from steroids and not dynamite-muscle-mix-9000.
    So we agree they aren't officially separated then. Thanks for explaining why though.
  • pistol 25 Jul 2013 12:48:30 13,018 posts
    Seen 7 years ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    Youthist wrote:
    mazty wrote:
    pistol wrote:
    mazty wrote:
    Mr_Sleep wrote:
    I still think the idea of having a doping and non-doping competition is the best solution. Let people go wild with whatever drugs they want, I want to see someone running the 100 metres in 2 seconds.

    Surely this is reaching a point where it's so endemic that there is little point in trying to stamp it out?
    This. Drug use is clearly rampant in all sports, so why not acknowledge this and split it up, just as is done in bodybuilding?
    Sorry but this is a ridiculous comment.

    How to we encourage our kids to take part in sport or even do it for a living if we are also going to let athletes take all the drugs they want?
    If they go pro, they're going to take drugs anyway so what is your point?
    I think this is the most retarded response I have ever read on this forum.
    I couldn't even be bothered replying...
  • pistol 25 Jul 2013 12:50:43 13,018 posts
    Seen 7 years ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    mazty wrote:
    pistol wrote:
    mazty wrote:
    pistol wrote:
    mazty wrote:
    Mr_Sleep wrote:
    I still think the idea of having a doping and non-doping competition is the best solution. Let people go wild with whatever drugs they want, I want to see someone running the 100 metres in 2 seconds.

    Surely this is reaching a point where it's so endemic that there is little point in trying to stamp it out?
    This. Drug use is clearly rampant in all sports, so why not acknowledge this and split it up, just as is done in bodybuilding?
    Sorry but this is a ridiculous comment.

    How to we encourage our kids to take part in sport or even do it for a living if we are also going to let athletes take all the drugs they want?
    If they go pro, they're going to take drugs anyway so what is your point?
    Maybe in the past but it's getting better.
    Maybe, but doping is still rampant and cycling, especially the Tour De France, is fuelled mainly by steroids.
    Do you follow the sport or just read the headlines?

    Steriods haven't been rampant in pro cycling since the late 70's. It's all about the blood now.
  • pistol 25 Jul 2013 12:51:55 13,018 posts
    Seen 7 years ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    mazty wrote:
    elstoof wrote:
    It would stop me encouraging my children to pursue a career in sport though, and you don't usually make it very far in sport unless you start at a young age.
    Why though? I'm not aware of negative effects of doping, and even steroids can have beneficial uses.
    Tell that to Lance Armstrong

    There is a strong possibility that his cancer was caused by his EPO use and this is well documented.

    Also, in the early trials of EPO before it hit the Peleton properly around 87/88, young pro riders were dying because EPO made their blood so thick it couldn't pump round their body fast enough. Does that sound safe to you?

    Edited by pistol at 12:55:31 25-07-2013
  • elstoof 25 Jul 2013 12:52:31 25,589 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    mazty wrote:
    elstoof wrote:
    It would stop me encouraging my children to pursue a career in sport though, and you don't usually make it very far in sport unless you start at a young age.
    Why though? I'm not aware of negative effects of doping, and even steroids can have beneficial uses.
    Heroin has its beneficial uses too, they give it to women during childbirth for instance. Does that make you want to let your children to have a go though?
  • grey_matters 25 Jul 2013 12:56:42 5,198 posts
    Seen 24 minutes ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    @Benno

    Thanks Benno, good stuff.
  • elstoof 25 Jul 2013 13:07:45 25,589 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Have you just googled "drug use at Tour de France"? Because claiming that its more of a problem at this one race in a busy calendar than any other is like saying picking the US Open out of the tennis schedule and saying there's a problem there.
  • elstoof 25 Jul 2013 13:09:15 25,589 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    mazty wrote:
    elstoof wrote:
    mazty wrote:
    elstoof wrote:
    It would stop me encouraging my children to pursue a career in sport though, and you don't usually make it very far in sport unless you start at a young age.
    Why though? I'm not aware of negative effects of doping, and even steroids can have beneficial uses.
    Heroin has its beneficial uses too, they give it to women during childbirth for instance. Does that make you want to let your children to have a go though?
    Since when did we treat child as adults with medicine? That's a retarded example as that's not what happens in reality, and comparing an addictive opioid to steroids shows how little you know about both.
    Yeah.... I've seen enough now, thanks.
  • Load_2.0 25 Jul 2013 13:10:55 31,406 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    mazty wrote:
    That right there is the issue with steroids; "possibility". There has certainly not been enough research to determine the pros and cons of steroids, which probably stems from it being controversially made illegal in the US back in the 80's as the AMA, DEA, FDA and NIDA all opposed listing it as a controlled substance.
    Besides being wrong and obviously a regurgitated opinion from somewhere else, this post simply makes no sense.
Log in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.