Sayonara Posted April 24, 2004 Posted April 24, 2004 Gah, was hoping it would actually contain some reasoning but apparently not. Apart from the bit where it identifies that some of those substances may be endogenous, and the part right at the end where it concedes that others may be present in a range of off-the-shelf products, it doesn't actually have any kind of description of policy in it. I'll have a look for other documents too.
dryan Posted May 7, 2004 Posted May 7, 2004 I agree with the "banned for sports (and body-building), regulated for personal use." Steriods do have an important role for the treatment and prevention of asthma and allergies, and aren't just used for body building.
Thorin Posted May 16, 2004 Posted May 16, 2004 Even inhalers for Asthma can inhance performance and oxygen utilization. Should we draw the line at "medically necessary," or does that give a "crutch" that allows people to play who couldn't otherwise do so?
aeroguy Posted July 14, 2004 Posted July 14, 2004 What about the genetic differences? The top athletes have advantages giving similar results. I know of one guy here in Sweden who got caught in a doping test, but claimed he was innocent. His testosteron levels were above the legal limit. Of his free will, he locked himself up and had doctors take tests when he had no access to any drugs, and his levels were still just as high. He was cleared. I remember taking a "blood count" a few years back. I was very close to the limit for that test value. It's not difficult to imagine some people exceeding it naturally.
Guest gren Posted July 20, 2004 Posted July 20, 2004 Testosterone is not a synthetic... and actually I believe Ephedra-based energy things have been used for performance enhancing... the main ingredient being the same. Shit, sudafed is the main ingredient in ****ing meth
why? Posted April 28, 2005 Posted April 28, 2005 i think it shud b banned for sports and for those who take it just for the heck . i mean it is okfor those who need it like asthma or something but not for those who do not need it . plus there r many disadvantages of taking the dug . now u all will say that it only effects ourselves and not others. well my answer for that is that u r promoting something that should not be ( except for those who need it ) . if u take drugs others will b influenced by it 2 so u shudnt. thats wat i think
Kylonicus Posted April 28, 2005 Posted April 28, 2005 I believe there should be free us of steroids, after all, isn't sports all about entertaiment? If someone wants to destroy their body through the use of steroids, let them, we should simply not provide free medical care though.
Lance Posted April 28, 2005 Posted April 28, 2005 I agree. I think a group should sit down and should decide what would be the most entertaining. If this includes sacking all the 300lb football players and hiring female models then so be it.
JPQuiceno Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 I believe steroids should be allowed. They should let every athelete use them, make them publicly available and level the field, and therefore remove the whole situation with "steroid cheating and abuse". With this remedy, every athelete has the ability to use it, and it is his or her own problem to use them correctly. In my opinion, everyone is happy. Some may argue that the teams signing the players dont want them take steroids, since they can have some drawbacks, but if they dont want them taking them, they should include that information on the contract, and if the player agrees he should sign and if not, then dont sign. Simple as that.
Mokele Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 I agree with aeroguy's post. IMHO, most people with great "natural talent" are simply mutants. It seems hypocritical to talk about a "level playing field" when some players already have a distinct advantage simply due to chances of genetics. Mokele
JPQuiceno Posted April 30, 2005 Posted April 30, 2005 Seems to me that genetics is something natural and nothing we can do about. The have been affecting the way proffesional atheletes play sports for all of time.
RedAlert Posted April 30, 2005 Posted April 30, 2005 if it`s for "sports" then I say Banned, for the simple reason it would then cease to be about how Good you are at the sport (like it should be), but a matter of how good your Chemist is! Scientists are the most important people in the world after all.....
Mokele Posted April 30, 2005 Posted April 30, 2005 Seems to me that genetics is something natural and nothing we can do about. The have been affecting the way proffesional atheletes play sports for all of time. Of course, but that doesn't make it fair. After all, people have been inheriting money for a long time too, so does that make it a fair contest when one of the two can afford an expert trainer and train 24/7, while the other has to self-train in between 3 jobs just to make ends meet? That's my issue: claiming that steroids are "unfair" doesn't make sense given the sheer number of other "unfair" factors that are completely overlooked. Mokele
JPQuiceno Posted April 30, 2005 Posted April 30, 2005 you go into this buisness knowing those things. If you cant afford a trainer, thats your fault. You get payed to play, and what you spend it on is your problem.
Mokele Posted April 30, 2005 Posted April 30, 2005 you go into this buisness knowing those things. If you cant afford a trainer, thats your fault. You get payed to play, and what you spend it on is your problem. Two kids want to be pro track stars. One is born in the US, one is born in Angola. The USA kid is from a middle-class family who can afford to hire him a personal trainer from a young age and let him dedicate much of his time to track. The Angolan kid is from a family of poor farmers who need him to work the fields simply in order to keep food in their mouths, and atheltic coaches don't even *exist* as far as he knows. How is that his fault? You could even say the same for a middle-class versus inner-city kid in the US. Where you are born and how much $ your parents have can ensure or prevent any atheltic career at all. Surely this is every bit as unfair as steroids. Mokele
Sayonara Posted May 4, 2005 Posted May 4, 2005 I agree with aeroguy's post. IMHO, most people with great "natural talent" are simply mutants. It seems hypocritical to talk about a "level playing field" when some players already have a distinct advantage simply due to chances of genetics. Isn't the point of competitive sports to establish which sportsperson (or team) is the most naturally capable? If everyone is going to be physically the same to start with, whether through careful player selection or being "topped up" with supplements, what's the point?
Insane Posted May 6, 2005 Posted May 6, 2005 If it were allowed, or 'regulated' as you put it, it would become a 'who can make the best steriods' contest for sure.
Mokele Posted May 11, 2005 Posted May 11, 2005 Isn't the point of competitive sports to establish which sportsperson (or team) is the most naturally capable? But if that's the case, why aren't training regimes standardized? Seems to me that's adding another big variable that can conflict or overpower natural ability? I'm certainly not a sports person, but to me it just seems like the contest is "who's better?", which, because it's such an open question, invites these sort of problems. Mokele
Sayonara Posted May 13, 2005 Posted May 13, 2005 But if that's the case, why aren't training regimes standardized? Seems to me that's adding another big variable that can conflict or overpower natural ability? That's an entirely separate argument. I'm certainly not a sports person, but to me it just seems like the contest is "who's better?", which, because it's such an open question, invites these sort of problems. It does, yes. But I think the general differentiation is that athletic training is operational within the existing capacities of the individual, whereas external intervention through the use of drugs isn't. Or something.
Evangelante Posted May 13, 2005 Posted May 13, 2005 Mmm... No don't ban them.. regulate them. If people want to die, let them die. I can't wait until people come out with the gene altering drugs.
TheGeek Posted August 1, 2005 Posted August 1, 2005 In my opinion if a player uses steroids it is not fair to other players.
darkkazier Posted August 1, 2005 Posted August 1, 2005 I say make them legal. People already have advantages over others anyway, so if average joe schmo wants to takes the super drug YT2095 makes so he can be a super athlete let him. It's not fair that guy a was born with inferior genes and can't build muscle as fast as super athlete( yeah my best friend doesn't have to work out at all to keep his good shape and he eats whatever he wants, but i have to work out one hour a day every day to stay in shape).
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now