Author Topic: doping in sport -- interesting post  (Read 5886 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LBSS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11376
  • plugging away...
  • Respect: +5971
    • View Profile
    • Email
doping in sport -- interesting post
« on: September 08, 2010, 11:49:04 am »
0
Came across this while trying to look for a post on Lyle's forum where he and a couple other people described their cold remedy (I feel one coming on strong, strangely). I agree with pretty much every single thing he says. Too bad Sisson went all paleo and junk.

Quote from: Mark Sisson
http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/gcms.html
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.

- Avishek

handstand + backflip + flag

adarqui

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30212
  • who run it.
  • Respect: +7367
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2010, 04:46:24 pm »
0
well i must say, that was very well put.. i'm very much anti-PED's in competition, but I also realize that creates the situation of "never having a level playing field", due to some people sneaking by during testing etc. His health-issues concern makes sense, but then in the same sense, if PED's were legal, athletes would still do as much (or more) harm by irresponsibly using these drugs... not all, but a high percentage would, I imagine.

very difficult issue heh.

everyone should be required to eat nothing but pop-tarts, and train using nothing but iso extremes & their sport specific event, then we could figure out who is the true #1.


Quote

In other cases, athletes who have been diagnosed with asthma (now nearing 25% of the elite athlete population

wtf?





LBSS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11376
  • plugging away...
  • Respect: +5971
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2010, 04:54:57 pm »
0
if PED's were legal, athletes would still do as much (or more) harm by irresponsibly using these drugs... not all, but a high percentage would, I imagine.

Cause they're not doing this now?
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.

- Avishek

handstand + backflip + flag

TheSituation

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1333
  • Just remember me when I make it shine
  • Respect: +209
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2010, 12:55:19 am »
0
I don't lift for girls, I lift for guys on the internet



[7:31pm] adarq: ripp, being honest, it's hard for u to beat jcsbck, he's on fire lately
[7:31pm] adarq: he's just
[7:31pm] adarq: wrecking people
[7:31pm] adarq: daily




Say NO to Maroko

And also NO to anyone who associates with him. No Taylor Allan. No Adam Scammenauger. No Kelly Baggett. No Elliot Hulse. No Jtrinsey. NO JUMP USA


Don't PM me asking me training questions. I'm here for the lulz. If you want help, post on the forums and get help from all the members, maybe even me.

Royal

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2010, 01:08:24 am »
0


lol, where do you find this shit?

i have to agree my attention span just can't really read through that much wall of text anymore.
Lazy kid. Doesn't take training as extreme/serious as most of adarq.org

LBSS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11376
  • plugging away...
  • Respect: +5971
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2012, 10:21:03 am »
0
here's another thoughtful, even-handed piece on doping in sport and why people seem so gleeful about lance armstrong's fall from grace, from a psych professor in england.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/10/sponsors-overboard-guest-post-on.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FcJKs+%28The+Science+of+Sport%29&utm_content=FaceBook

excerpt:

Quote
As with fairness, it may be rather simplistic to insist that doping-free sport eliminates risks. Elite sport in particular can reward all sorts of risk-taking, but opening the door to more drug use again seems to potentially worsen the problem. For this author at least it’s this issue of safety that finally leads to a parting of ways with Savulescu and Foddy. I’m not sure I can get comfortable with a sport where a legitimate route to winning is for young athletes to push the limits of pharmaceutical assistance. Should I be comfortable with sport that encourage pushing the limits in other ways? Perhaps not. But that doesn’t mean I want to open another avenue of risk. There is the possibility of improving safety with medical supervision, but a glance at the motley collection of doping medics who populate recent sport memoirs leaves me a little low on confidence that this would help.

The involvement of those dubious doctors, though, highlights a counter-argument and brings us back to the issue of illegality itself compromising safety. As with recreational drugs, if a substance is permitted there may be a greater incentive to improve its safety (rather than at present where the emphasis is on undetectability), and for people of greater integrity to become involved in its supervision. In the end the issue pivots on whether you can argue convincingly enough that, as in the case of something like heroin, prohibition actively contributes to the risks via dodgy suppliers, unsafe drugs or badly controlled administration. If someone could make this case might it change things?

and another excerpt:

Quote
Another way to look at it though is to consider the possibility that Armstrong is not quite as reprehensible as all that. It could be that we are seeing (as Tyler Hamilton and others have suggested) someone trapped inside a lie that’s too big for easy escape and driven by fear. Fear of failing, of discovery, of loss of the esteem which some still have. How would most people deal with that? How would you? Armstrong’s public stance of studied (or pretend) indifference is quite agonising to watch. It may be that that he is simply an ordinary person, albeit in extraordinary circumstances, with weaknesses and flaws like the rest of us. And this is the heart of his problem: if you’re Lance Armstrong, the journey to just being an ordinary guy is a long, long way down.
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.

- Avishek

handstand + backflip + flag

Mutumbo000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2761
  • Respect: +2086
    • View Profile
    • http://www.youtube.com/user/Mutumbo000?feature=mhee
    • Email
Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2012, 07:46:52 pm »
0
http://www.muscleweek.com/is-usain-bolt-on-steroids
Some of the article is poorly researched/worded but you get the gist. Even though the article is referring to Bolt it applies to everybody else to.

This part of the article stood out to me.

A typical PED cycle would begin 12 weeks out from competition with the target date being the day prior to or of the competition. Along with the use of undetectable steroids and daily growth hormone injections, the athlete would also have his blood drawn on a daily basis to monitor his testosterone and rhGH ratios in an effort to keep them within Olympic World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) testing limits. Close monitoring of these ratios allow an Olympic sprinter such as Bolt to both use PEDs up to the day of competition while still comfortably submitting to multiple drug tests.
 
This isn’t evidence particular to Usain Bolt, as it could just as easily describe the protocol that every Olympic sprinter is using to pass the drug tests. However, it is mentioned simply to point out how easily Olympic athletes are able to pass an Olympic-level drug test, even with the highest levels of scrutiny. The bottom line is that if an athlete is within the permissible testosterone and rhGH ratios, he is deemed clean. The reality is that any athlete who doesn’t maximize his testosterone and rhGH levels to the maximum permissible level has no chance of breaking a world record.
 
For example, let’s assume that a talented NCAA sprinter has a testosterone ratio (testosterone: epitestosterone) of 1:1 which is considered normal, or average. The current WADA guidelines permit a ratio of up to 4:1. Given the fact that the only way for an NCAA sprinter to make any money sprinting is to win international competitions and garner endorsements, what reason could that NCAA sprinter possibly have for NOT quadrupling his testosterone ratio up to the maximum of 4:1? Using a number of undetectable steroid compounds, that same athlete would presumably see a major improvement in his sprint times without ever ‘testing positive’.
more info on test:epi ratio- http://www.rxmuscle.com/articles/chemical-enhancement/2325-understanding-the-testosterone-to-epitestosterone-ratio-drug-test.html
 
And this is the folly of drug testing: It gives ‘dirty’ athletes all the ammunition they need to proclaim themselves ‘clean’ — replete with Olympic level testing results.

The worst argument that anyone can make for Usain Bolt being a clean athlete is that he has yet to fail a steroid or other drug test, despite being subjected to rigorous drug testing protocols.
 
The reality is that most Olympic athletes have their blood levels so closely monitored that only an egregious miscalculation in the timing of a steroid injection or use of a masking agent (i.e. diuretics) to dilute the levels of a steroid within the blood would result in a positive test. This is the only reason why we rarely see positive tests for Olympic level athletes.
 
International steroid expert Anthony Roberts told Muscleweek: “With regards to fooling the Olympic drug tests, many of the same loopholes that existed ten to twenty years ago still exist today. Until those loopholes are closed, there will always be a shadow of doubt falling on the Olympics.”
 
Roberts continued, “Testosterone, hGH and most of the other highly potent anabolics are virtually undetectable — when we see a positive test and a tearfully apologetic athlete, he or she probably represents less than 1% of those who are actually using banned substances.”

« Last Edit: October 18, 2012, 07:55:12 pm by Mutumbo000 »
"IMO, It didn't happen if it's not on vid/official"- adarqui

It's easier to keep up than it is to catch up...

adarqui

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30212
  • who run it.
  • Respect: +7367
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
« Reply #7 on: October 20, 2012, 11:05:00 pm »
0
http://www.muscleweek.com/is-usain-bolt-on-steroids
Some of the article is poorly researched/worded but you get the gist. Even though the article is referring to Bolt it applies to everybody else to.

This part of the article stood out to me.

A typical PED cycle would begin 12 weeks out from competition with the target date being the day prior to or of the competition. Along with the use of undetectable steroids and daily growth hormone injections, the athlete would also have his blood drawn on a daily basis to monitor his testosterone and rhGH ratios in an effort to keep them within Olympic World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) testing limits. Close monitoring of these ratios allow an Olympic sprinter such as Bolt to both use PEDs up to the day of competition while still comfortably submitting to multiple drug tests.
 
This isn’t evidence particular to Usain Bolt, as it could just as easily describe the protocol that every Olympic sprinter is using to pass the drug tests. However, it is mentioned simply to point out how easily Olympic athletes are able to pass an Olympic-level drug test, even with the highest levels of scrutiny. The bottom line is that if an athlete is within the permissible testosterone and rhGH ratios, he is deemed clean. The reality is that any athlete who doesn’t maximize his testosterone and rhGH levels to the maximum permissible level has no chance of breaking a world record.
 
For example, let’s assume that a talented NCAA sprinter has a testosterone ratio (testosterone: epitestosterone) of 1:1 which is considered normal, or average. The current WADA guidelines permit a ratio of up to 4:1. Given the fact that the only way for an NCAA sprinter to make any money sprinting is to win international competitions and garner endorsements, what reason could that NCAA sprinter possibly have for NOT quadrupling his testosterone ratio up to the maximum of 4:1? Using a number of undetectable steroid compounds, that same athlete would presumably see a major improvement in his sprint times without ever ‘testing positive’.
more info on test:epi ratio- http://www.rxmuscle.com/articles/chemical-enhancement/2325-understanding-the-testosterone-to-epitestosterone-ratio-drug-test.html
 
And this is the folly of drug testing: It gives ‘dirty’ athletes all the ammunition they need to proclaim themselves ‘clean’ — replete with Olympic level testing results.

The worst argument that anyone can make for Usain Bolt being a clean athlete is that he has yet to fail a steroid or other drug test, despite being subjected to rigorous drug testing protocols.
 
The reality is that most Olympic athletes have their blood levels so closely monitored that only an egregious miscalculation in the timing of a steroid injection or use of a masking agent (i.e. diuretics) to dilute the levels of a steroid within the blood would result in a positive test. This is the only reason why we rarely see positive tests for Olympic level athletes.
 
International steroid expert Anthony Roberts told Muscleweek: “With regards to fooling the Olympic drug tests, many of the same loopholes that existed ten to twenty years ago still exist today. Until those loopholes are closed, there will always be a shadow of doubt falling on the Olympics.”
 
Roberts continued, “Testosterone, hGH and most of the other highly potent anabolics are virtually undetectable — when we see a positive test and a tearfully apologetic athlete, he or she probably represents less than 1% of those who are actually using banned substances.”

interesting post, thnx.

this quote from the article illustrates very well the point they are trying to make:

Quote
United States Olympic Gold Medalist Marion Jones proudly proclaimed that she passed more than 160 drug tests in her career. The fact remains that she won three gold medals at the 2000 Olympics while passing the supposedly stringent requirements of Olympic WADA testing.

And yet, despite breaking world records in the 100m and 200m sprints; despite being romantically involved with and coached by Olympic shot-putter CJ Hunter who tested positive for steroids four times leading up to the 2000 Olympics and was subsequently banned by the ITAF; despite being romantically involved with and coached by Olympic sprinter Tim Montgomery who tested positive for steroids and was subsequently banned; despite training under track coach Trevor Graham who has been banned for life from track and field; and despite her affiliation with BALCO Labs and the insistence of BALCO president Victor Conte who admitted to injecting Marion Jones with steroids, the general public and sports ‘journalists’ were still gullible enough to believe that Marion Jones was in fact, a ‘clean athlete.’


Quote
Among his clients, Mr. Heredia identified 12 athletes who had won a combined 26 Olympic medals and 21 world championships. Four of the 12 athletes, including Ms. Jones, had been named and barred from competition for illicit drug use. Eight of the 12 — notably, the sprinter Maurice Greene — have never been previously linked to performance-enhancing drugs.

Mr. Greene, a two-time Olympic gold medalist and a five-time world champion, has never failed a drug test.




WTF?

Quote
Answer: Usain Bolt hired the new incarnation of Angel Heredia to become his track ‘coach’ in 2009. Unfortunately for Mr. Heredia





armstrong never failed a drug test either.. now look at what has happened to him.. kind of tragic in a sense, the guy has done alot of good for this world/people.. now he's losing everything.. not sure how i feel about it, most of me still supports him heh.

adarqui

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30212
  • who run it.
  • Respect: +7367
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2012, 11:06:30 pm »
0
burn:

Quote
Amazing, indeed. Earlier today, Usain Bolt just became the first Olympic athlete to repeat winning Gold in the 100m and 200m sprints. His times of 9.63s in the 100m and 19.32 in the 200m are his best times since the 2009 World Championships and after his 200m victory, he boldly declared that he is “the greatest athlete who ever lived.”

It probably doesn’t hurt that he just happens to have “the greatest chemist who ever lived” right there in his corner.

Mutumbo000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2761
  • Respect: +2086
    • View Profile
    • http://www.youtube.com/user/Mutumbo000?feature=mhee
    • Email
Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
« Reply #9 on: October 21, 2012, 08:07:44 am »
0
Yeah it's actually interesting that Maurice Greene wasn't pursued but once again that's due to politics. Depending on your standing they either protect you or they hunt you.
E.g example of protection is Dennis Mitchell-
"In 1998, Mitchell was banned by IAAF for two years after a test showed high levels of testosterone. His defense of "five bottles of beer and sex with his wife at least four times . . . it was her birthday, the lady deserved a treat," was accepted by USA Track and Field but not by the IAAF.[4]"

Either way Ato Boldon doesn't have any time for Maurice Greene anymore.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/apr/20/athletics.drugsinsport
"IMO, It didn't happen if it's not on vid/official"- adarqui

It's easier to keep up than it is to catch up...

LBSS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11376
  • plugging away...
  • Respect: +5971
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2012, 06:09:12 pm »
0
burn:

Quote
Amazing, indeed. Earlier today, Usain Bolt just became the first Olympic athlete to repeat winning Gold in the 100m and 200m sprints. His times of 9.63s in the 100m and 19.32 in the 200m are his best times since the 2009 World Championships and after his 200m victory, he boldly declared that he is “the greatest athlete who ever lived.”

It probably doesn’t hurt that he just happens to have “the greatest chemist who ever lived” right there in his corner.

interesting. this guy is obviously not an unbiased source but 8/8 is strong words. makes you wonder.


Quote
And a small piece of the interview transcript from German publication Der Spiegel’s 2008 interview with Angel Hernandez:

    SPIEGEL: Mr. Heredia, will you watch the 100 meter final in Beijing?

    Heredia: Of course. But the winner will not be clean. Not even any of the contestants will be clean. (emphasis added)

    SPIEGEL: Of eight runners …

    Heredia: … eight will be doped.

    SPIEGEL: There is no way to prove that.

    Heredia: There is no doubt about it. The difference between 10.0 and 9.7 seconds is the drugs.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2012, 06:14:33 pm by LBSS »
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.

- Avishek

handstand + backflip + flag

Coges

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
  • Respect: +1652
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2012, 08:43:28 pm »
0
Quote
armstrong never failed a drug test either.. now look at what has happened to him.. kind of tragic in a sense, the guy has done alot of good for this world/people.. now he's losing everything.. not sure how i feel about it, most of me still supports him heh.

You know what, the part of me that feels for Lance is the part that realises that whoever won the tour during those years would have been doped to the gills so really wasn't he just competing on a level playing field?

The other part of me says screw him cause he lied, bullied and cheated his way into the hearts of people all over the world and built a multi-million dollar fortune off the back of it (and yes I realise what he's done for cancer research).
"Train as hard as possible, as often as possible, while staying as fresh as possible"
- Zatsiorsky

Coges

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
  • Respect: +1652
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2012, 08:47:36 pm »
0
Overall I am amazed at the general public's naivety over PED use in sports in general. Ask 10 people on the street of they thought Bolt would use PEDs and you'll probably get 10 looks of  :o at how you could suggest such a thing.
"Train as hard as possible, as often as possible, while staying as fresh as possible"
- Zatsiorsky

seifullaah73

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3147
  • Respect: +1258
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
« Reply #13 on: October 24, 2012, 08:35:17 am »
0
Of course, i wouldn't believe he was on drugs.
if he was then ... that might explain his ability to maintain speed so well; loses very little speed and has excellent endurance
PED's (i don't know which one) increase red blood cell counts and helps endurance runners.

but to say everyone at the 100m final will be on drugs lol  :headbang: that is just hard to believe, except for gatlin, he has previous history of PED usage.
but then i guess the playing field is equal now in terms of the finalist's
lol
----------------------------------------------------------------
So, verily, with every difficulty, there is relief.
Holy Quran 94:5
-------------------------------------------------------------
Measuring reminder:
5 toe to heel steps = 148cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------

�Strength comes from the legs, Power comes from the torso and Speed comes from the arm.� � Al Vermeil

My Progress Log
A Journey to Running fast and Jumping High

Mutumbo000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2761
  • Respect: +2086
    • View Profile
    • http://www.youtube.com/user/Mutumbo000?feature=mhee
    • Email
Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
« Reply #14 on: October 24, 2012, 09:39:18 am »
+2
Of course, i wouldn't believe he was on drugs.
if he was then ... that might explain his ability to maintain speed so well; loses very little speed and has excellent endurance
PED's (i don't know which one) increase red blood cell counts and helps endurance runners.

but to say everyone at the 100m final will be on drugs lol  :headbang: that is just hard to believe, except for gatlin, he has previous history of PED usage.
but then i guess the playing field is equal now in terms of the finalist's
lol

There probably still are clean athletes, especially ones that are in countries with stringent drug testing policies or less resources (without high level resources you won't be able to get away with cheating). However, in Bolt's case I don't belive it basically coz of Yohan Blake and the other Jamaicans as well as their relaxed drug testing.

Like T0ddday said- "It's totally possible that Bolt is running ridiculous times cleanly if he is the extreme value.... But if all the other Jamaicans start putting up similar ridiculous times it suggests that something else is at play....". Blake has already showed in the past that he's not immune to the temtations of drugs-  http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/8167898.stm
Plus he comes out and runs a 19.26 200m, which is ridiculous considering that only 2 other men in history have gone below 19.5 and they are track legends- Michael Johnson & Usain Bolt.

Than you've got other Jamaican athletes that train under different coaches but still end up with some eye raising results. Like Asafa Powell and Shelly Ann Fraser train together. At 17 Asafa run the 100 in 11.45 than the next year he dropped it down to 10.5. Than within 3 years he managed to chisel that down to 9.87. http://speedendurance.com/2009/10/19/asafa-powell-and-carmelita-jeter-peak-training-age/
Shelly Ann Fraser runs 11.74 in 2006, which is actually a de-gression from her 2004 PR of 11.72. Than suddenly in 2008 she's managed to get that down to 10.78. http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2630660
Steve Mullings tested positive for drugs after his times went from 10 down to 9.8 http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/aug/11/jamaican-sprinter-steve-mullings-positive
Than you've got other Jamaican sprinters like Michael Frater that from 2003 to 2007 managed to drop their time by only .1 of a second from 10.13-10.03 than suddenly from 2010 to 2011 they've managed to drop .1 second from 9.98-9.88. Isn't it supposed to be harder to drop your times once you get faster AND older- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Frater
But yeh I guess it's just bannanas and yams that's the reason Jamaicans are soo fast!

Drawing comparison to another country it used to be that Bulgarians dominated weightlifting and everybody wondered how a small European country of 6 million people could manage soo much success. Were they just naturally strong? Did they have superior training methods? Of course in hindsight it turned out that their advantage was attributed to superior 'restorative' (doping) methods.
"IMO, It didn't happen if it's not on vid/official"- adarqui

It's easier to keep up than it is to catch up...