Leaked IAAf report on doping

TRR_the_turd

walshb wrote: »

Testing for health and safety should be the goal and the norm, not testing for PEDs. If the athlete is tested and signed off as being healthy then away he goes. Surely in the 21st century we can implement this?

As it stands the concept/belief/want that everyone has the same chance in sport is ridiculous. The playing field is already uneven, and always will be. Allowing PEDs simply allows humans to create an even greater spectacle, and to reach new heights. They are already achieving sublime performances through aids and technology. Limiting this by banning PEDs is counterproductive.

What's your stance on bionic limbs. Let's say in the morning that it was possible to fit a robotic leg that was 20% more efficient than a human leg?

Legalising PEDs is the lazy option IMO and will never happen.

I'll give this to you walshie, you really do love a good debate!

walshb

TRR_the_turd wrote: »

What's your stance on bionic limbs. Let's say in the morning that it was possible to fit a robotic leg that was 20% more efficient than a human leg?

Legalising PEDs is the lazy option IMO and will never happen.

I'll give this to you walshie, you really do love a good debate!

I would allow PEDs within reason. No 'mechanical' aids. Everything stays the same. I am not saying a free for all. I am saying that athletes making a conscious and adult choice, with medical guidance and guidelines, that PEDs use should be allowed. I am not advocating strapping on jet packs, or bionic limbs etc.

Like I have said, the playing is already hugely uneven by "legal" means. Why is altitude training permitted, and altitude tents etc, when EPO is banned? There are many athletes who cannot avail of altitude training, or afford state of the art equipment and facilities to help them.

walshb

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

No obsession.

And the point is not trivial : Coe, Ovett, and Cram, running times for one country, in the same era, 30 years ago, that almost havent even been equalled by white men since, let alone improved on as one might expect (yes, Willis recently is in the zone), and rank with the Africans who completely dominate since and today.
Strip out African runners from the all time list which disguises them to some degree. They are a huge anomaly.

So, are you implying that white men didn't bother cheating post the days of Coe, and that Coe/Cram/did cheat? If cheating is so rampant in the sport, why do you think that no white men cheated post Coe days? If Coe and Cram and Ovett's times have barely been touched in 30 years, is it because the white men that followed them were clean, and that is why they didn't reach the times of the three "dirty" athletes from the past?

The Rape of Lucretia

walshb wrote: »

I would allow PEDs within reason. No 'mechanical' aids. Everything stays the same. I am not saying a free for all. I am saying that athletes making a conscious and adult choice, with medical guidance and guidelines, that PEDs use should be allowed. I am not advocating strapping on jet packs, or bionic limbs etc.

Like I have said, the playing is already hugely uneven by "legal" means. Why is altitude training permitted, and altitude tents etc, when EPO is banned? There are many athletes who cannot avail of altitude training, or afford state of the art equipment and facilities to help them.

There is a clear difference between altering your body to perform at it best using PEDs and using training techniques.

walshb

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

There is a clear difference between altering your body to perform at it best using PEDs and using training techniques.

It's still a uneven field no matter what way you look at it. Athletes who have access to the best facilities and doctors and technology already have a clear advantage over those who do not. Some countries have a clear advantage over others. Why then limit them by banning PEDs? If PEDs were legal then the filed I believe would even out much more. EPO/HGH and anabolic steroids are more attainable for less well off countries and federations thaN some of the state of the art facilities and amenities that wealthy federations and countries have access to.

The Rape of Lucretia

walshb wrote: »

It's still a uneven field no matter what way you look at it. Athletes who have access to the best facilities and doctors and technology already have a clear advantage over those who do not. Some countries have a clear advantage over others. Why then limit them by banning PEDs? If PEDs were legal then the filed I believe would even out much more. EPO/HGH and anabolic steroids are more attainable for less well off countries and federations thaN some of the state of the art facilities and amenities that wealthy federations and countries have access to.

I wouldnt be looking for an even field. Facilities, money, coaches, early develpoment and access to elite competition. Thats just life. PEDs are where the line must be drawn for all. People are not lab rats.

walshb

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I wouldnt be looking for an even field. Facilities, money, coaches, early develpoment and access to elite competition. Thats just life. PEDs are where the line must be drawn for all. People are not lab rats.

That's just it. You drawing lines....That's just life? Yet you want to limit it...

Within reason, and with guidelines for health and safety. No issue there, but the blanket ban on PEDs is wrong. That is what is against human nature.

The Rape of Lucretia

walshb wrote: »

That's just it. You drawing lines....That's just life? Yet you want to limit it...

Within reason, and with guidelines for health and safety. No issue there, but the blanket ban on PEDs is wrong. That is what is against human nature.

Yes. Drawing lines and limiting it. The overwhelming majority are agains drawing the line anywhere else, though you are entitled to your view. Most people do see the difference and what ever chance there is of eliminating PED use, there is even less if you draw the line some where WITHIN PEDs use.

Part of the problem is the old innocent until proven guilty process which is fine for general society where the overwhelming majority are innocent. But n eleite athletics that doesnt apply. Anything at all suscpicious in tests, even a 1 in a 1000000 chance should have some one turfed out of it. Some collateral damage with innocent athletes. Sure. I would have sympathy for the. But would be OK for that. Much better than the whole sport disappearing down the sewer as it has been for the last 40+ years.
Any detected anomalies. Out. For life.

Pherekydes

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

No obsession.

And the point is not trivial : Coe, Ovett, and Cram, running times for one country, in the same era, 30 years ago, that almost havent even been equalled by white men since...

I presume you'd feel the same about white women, born within days of each other and representing a much, much smaller population?

walshb

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Part of the problem is the old innocent until proven guilty process which is fine for general society where the overwhelming majority are innocent. But n eleite athletics that doesnt apply. Anything at all suscpicious in tests, even a 1 in a 1000000 chance should have some one turfed out of it. Some collateral damage with innocent athletes. Sure. I would have sympathy for the. But would be OK for that. Much better than the whole sport disappearing down the sewer as it has been for the last 40+ years.
Any detected anomalies. Out. For life.

That is why the system is not really effective. There's too much room for wriggling. Your idea to out them for any anomalies I disagree with. It is not an exact science.

There are athletes who can fail tests per the guidelines who are not intentionally cheating, nor are they gaining advantages. The red herrings being used, and at times, accepted in many cases is another reason to scrap the whole PEDs nonsense.

Allow them to use drugs. Monitor and test for their health, and then pass/refuse them fit to compete. End of story. No ambiguity or red herrings or appeals etc etc.

It will then be a true reflection of what athletes can achieve through hard work, talent, dedication, money and technology.

The Rape of Lucretia

Pherekydes wrote: »

I presume you'd feel the same about white women, born within days of each other and representing a much, much smaller population?

Depends on the instance, but yes, quite likely.

ultrapercy

walshb wrote: »

Let them at it. Maybe bring in threshold levels for a list of PEDs. Man will always strive to progress. Why hold back the tide? It happens in F1, and other sports too use money and technology to be better than their competitors. May actually see a more level playing field if the authorities simply allow humans to compete in T&F.

Will you stop talking ****e, good man.

Pherekydes

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Depends on the instance, but yes, quite likely.

Why would it depend on the instance? Either white people running fast is suspicious or it isn't.

Maybe you've watched too many Hollywood movies or read too many tabloids.

White men CAN jump (and run).

Notwork Error

Pherekydes wrote: »

Why would it depend on the instance? Either white people running fast is suspicious or it isn't.

Maybe you've watched too many Hollywood movies or read too many tabloids.

White men CAN jump (and run).

And not to mind the fact that the 1500m/mile WR holder is white.

walshb

Notwork Error wrote: »

And not to mind the fact that the 1500m/mile WR holder is white.

He is not white. He is of African origin. Brown would be a better color. Certainly not European white.

Notwork Error

walshb wrote: »

He is not white. He is of African origin. Brown would be a better color. Certainly not European white.

We're all of African Origin. He's Caucasian Arab if you want to get all pedanatic. Tiger Woods is Caucasian, American Indian, Asian black but everyone seems to call him black. Tbh, who gives a ****e, being white is a suspicion for doping now? This crap belongs on letsrun.

walshb

Notwork Error wrote: »

We're all of African Origin. He's Caucasian Arab if you want to get all pedanatic. Tiger Woods is Caucasian, American Indian, Asian black but everyone seems to call him black. Tbh, who gives a ****e, being white is a suspicion for doping now? This crap belongs on letsrun.

That's fine. Just wanted to be clear. He is not white like Cram and Ovett and Ray Flynn etc etc. Tiger Woods is of mixed race. In a color I would call him black. Closer to black than white anyway.

pc11

Chivito550 wrote: »

To be fair the Kenyans hadn't really become a big force during Coe's era, particularly not over 800m, like they are now. Also the doping in the Eastern Bloc didn't have near the same effects for men as for their women. Coe's victories alone wouldn't warrant any suspicion to be honest. The 1:41 back in the early 80s is eye opening though. The event has only come on less than 1 second since.

Historically the 800m has always been the hardest and rarest record to break and tends to progress very slowly. Times from the 1960s would still easily win major medals. No other event is like it. There is no reason to suspect Coe. We're getting into extreme paranoia there.

pc11

walshb wrote: »

Would you ban athletes with asthma?

Jesus, would you ever shut the f@ck up?

edit: Apologies for the outburst, but that's enough WalshB. I'm willing to bet I speak for 99% here when I say "enough!". We have your point. We all know what you're like. Go post elsewhere. There's making a point and then there's this.

Krusty_Clown

walshb wrote: »

Would you ban athletes with asthma?

I think you're confusing condition and treatment. Asthma is a condition that may hinder your sporting performance. The drugs that treat asthma may or may not have benefits to performance (most asthma medication doesn't appear on any banned or TUE list). Incidentally, I have asthma, but no longer take asthma medication (for the last couple of years). Would you have me banned?

walshb wrote: »

Allow them to use drugs. Monitor and test for their health, and then pass/refuse them fit to compete. End of story.

So are you're suggesting the Irish boxers should be taking PEDs? Boxing in general?

ThisRegard

Notwork Error wrote: »

We're all of African Origin. He's Caucasian Arab if you want to get all pedanatic. Tiger Woods is Caucasian, American Indian, Asian black but everyone seems to call him black. Tbh, who gives a ****e, being white is a suspicion for doping now? This crap belongs on letsrun.

Black is not used to describe their ethnic origins, simply their colour. It doesn't refer to being from one particular country.

walshb

pc11 wrote: »

Jesus, would you ever shut the f@ck up?

edit: Apologies for the outburst, but that's enough WalshB. I'm willing to bet I speak for 99% here when I say "enough!". We have your point. We all know what you're like. Go post elsewhere. There's making a point and then there's this.

Is that your 1st post on the thread? I have many, as you know. You chose one to quote in your rant. Very short one too. Odd, no?

Are you asthmatic? The reason I ask is that you seem rather offended by my post.

Asthma is quite a serious condition. Those who are against allowing PED usage use one argument about health and safety. I could apply that to an athlete who suffers from asthma. It's just a discussion forum. Not life and death. There are many other threads here that may interest you, or you could actually give your view and opinion on this one.

walshb

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I think you're confusing condition and treatment. Asthma is a condition that may hinder your sporting performance. The drugs that treat asthma may or may not have benefits to performance (most asthma medication doesn't appear on any banned or TUE list). Incidentally, I have asthma, but no longer take asthma medication (for the last couple of years). Would you have me banned?


So are you're suggesting the Irish boxers should be taking PEDs? Boxing in general?

No, I would not ban you. I was the one who asked the question. I asked it in relation to health and safety. I am speaking about the condition being a danger when one is involved in heavy cardio exercise. The IAAF and authorities don't ban asthmatic athletes. Some here are arguing about PED usage being a health and safety risk. I say test for health and safety, not PEDs, and if passed fit then allow the athletes to compete.

The boxing question is a wee bit different due to the very dangerous nature of the sport.

pc11

walshb wrote: »

Is that your 1st post on the thread? I have many, as you know. You chose one to quote in your rant. Very short one too. Odd, no?

Are you asthmatic? The reason I ask is that you seem rather offended by my post.

Asthma is quite a serious condition. Those who are against allowing PED usage use one argument about health and safety. I could apply that to an athlete who suffers from asthma. It's just a discussion forum. Not life and death. There are many other threads here that may interest you, or you could actually give your view and opinion on this one.

Nothing whatsoever to do with asthma, it was at this point that I exploded with rage at your idiocy and persistence in hijacking the discussion.

walshb

pc11 wrote: »

Nothing whatsoever to do with asthma, it was at this point that I exploded with rage at your idiocy and persistence in hijacking the discussion.

Exploded with rage? Someone needs a chill pill, pronto.

pc11

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I think you're confusing condition and treatment. Asthma is a condition that may hinder your sporting performance. The drugs that treat asthma may or may not have benefits to performance (most asthma medication doesn't appear on any banned or TUE list). Incidentally, I have asthma, but no longer take asthma medication (for the last couple of years). Would you have me banned?


So are you're suggesting the Irish boxers should be taking PEDs? Boxing in general?

I think you're feeding the troll Krusty.

walshb

pc11 wrote: »

I think you're feeding the troll Krusty.

There's a carter here that frowns upon that. Best to contribute and post informatively. It's much more pleasant.

menoscemo

pc11 wrote: »

Jesus, would you ever shut the f@ck up?

pc11 wrote: »

Nothing whatsoever to do with asthma, it was at this point that I exploded with rage at your idiocy and persistence in hijacking the discussion.

pc11 wrote: »

I think you're feeding the troll Krusty.

Yeah to be honest, maybe you are the one derailing the conversation?

pc11

menoscemo wrote: »

Yeah to be honest, maybe you are the one derailing the conversation?

He has 55 posts in this thread. He endlessly repeats the same trolling point. Yes, it's me is the problem.

walshb

pc11 wrote: »

He has 55 posts in this thread. He endlessly repeats the same trolling point. Yes, it's me is the problem.

There is a report post function, and an ignore user function. Could be quite beneficial for that oul rage.