[amphibian]

The odds are high that Usain Bolt is on PEDs. Just about every major sport in the Olympics and otherwise features a majority of competitors who use some form of PEDs. The money, prestige and results are too big for most competitors not to cheat that way and it's been an open secret in sports for so long that I fail to generate any sympathy for people outraged about PED usage.

There have been MMA champions who have tested positive for steroids (Josh Barnett being the most famous and he's repeatedly been a dumbass regarding PEDs - see collapse of Affliction). In my view, these PED-positive fighters still won their titles. I also view the fighters who didn't test positive and won other titles as winning the same level of title.

All PEDs do is make it easier to train. They don't make it so that you hit harder, cycle faster or improve your hand-eye coordination. In fact, the wrong combination/cocktail leaves you open to increased ligament and tendon damage among other debilitating conditions.

[D'rek]

Look at Tiger Woods. He didn't get accused of doping (would that even help in golf? Geometry steroids?), but he did have a big public scandal with the whole multiple affairs thing. He publicly apologized, did rehab for it, stayed out of the limelight for a bit and is still competing, and generally it hasn't been a big deal anymore. I believe Tiger felt genuine remorse, really felt that he had a problem and wanted to fix himself.

in contrast, Lance has made this interview thing into a big deal, and doesn't seem particularly remorseful, even if he is saying some of the words. If a year from now Lance releases the "tell all" book, then I don't think he cares at all and is just trying to find whatever way he can now to have people pay attention and money to him.

[Coco with marshmallows]

Actually Drek there have been repeated rumours about Tiger doping too over the years.

For one thing his doctor was arrested for dodgy practices including over prescribing steroids to people under his care.

For another, his forearms and shoulders developed dramatically in the last 5 years or so compared to before.

As to how it would help, upper body strength is a massive help for speed of swing, etc.

[Khellendros]

Tapper, on 24 January 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

What makes me feel he is not a winner is all the damage he caused others: he sued a people for defamation, in clear attempts to silence or even bankrupt them through legal costs: journalists, team mates, former cyclists, and his own masseuse when they said he had used doping.
He declared under oath that he did not use them in those trials.
He can be held (in)directly responsible for two cyclists leaving the peleton who said he couldn't be clean: one of them Armstrong even chased down personally instead of letting his team do it when he had a chance at a stage win in the Tour: no team would want a rider who was clearly not allowed to win by the peleton's patron in the biggest competition in the world.

This is the bit which I can very much agree on - this is really the most shameful aspect of it all, especially that first paragraph.

[amphibian]

Khellendros, on 24 January 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

Tapper, on 24 January 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

What makes me feel he is not a winner is all the damage he caused others: he sued a people for defamation, in clear attempts to silence or even bankrupt them through legal costs: journalists, team mates, former cyclists, and his own masseuse when they said he had used doping.
He declared under oath that he did not use them in those trials.
He can be held (in)directly responsible for two cyclists leaving the peleton who said he couldn't be clean: one of them Armstrong even chased down personally instead of letting his team do it when he had a chance at a stage win in the Tour: no team would want a rider who was clearly not allowed to win by the peleton's patron in the biggest competition in the world.

This is the bit which I can very much agree on - this is really the most shameful aspect of it all, especially that first paragraph.

Sure, he's a scumbag for doing all that. However, he still won 7 titles in my eyes and raised something like $500 million for cancer research. That's a pretty good deal for cheating in a cycling sport.

To be clearer, I'm very much against things like loading hand wraps in boxing/MMA, taking hospital-grade painkillers to get back on the field/in the ring (almost any sport) and TRT exemptions for people who do not genuinely have testosterone problems.

I'm mostly not against steroids though. I think the health effects have been overblown and the legitimate effects of it driven so far underground that they're hidden from the public.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 24 January 2013 - 06:42 PM

[Macros]

I don't see how you can defend using PED's Amph, if they are sanctioned and allowed by the sports governing body, fine. If they arent, and you use them, you're a cheat and have no claim to any titles you win whilst on them.
You claim they only make it easier to train, and what about the guys that don't take them and have to train?
Regardless of the set up, the sport or the person, using a substance to enhance your performance or ease your training and then going to great lengths to hide it (hence knowlingly breaking the sports rules, and thereby the rules of any trophy you may win) is fucking cheating. You do not deserve your name on any trophy, you cheated to get there.
If Sebastian Leob took a short cut on a rally stage, would he be allocated his points for finishing quickest? no, he'd be fucking cheating and that stage would be discounted for him. Were he judged to have done so knowingly, he'd be disqualified from the whole rally.

[Daser]

As a kid i loved Tour de France, Boxing, The olympics, but it quickly began to annoy me when another big name got caught for some kind of doping.

After Ben Johnson and Florence Griffin Joiner it was all over. Dont see any of those sports anymore.

They are corrupt and broken in their current form.

Now it is team sports only. NFL and Soccer.

PS. Lance Armstrong is a fucking scumbag and i hope he gets sued for every penny he owns and then dies a horrible lonely death as a dirty homeless dude.

[amphibian]

Macros, on 24 January 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

I don't see how you can defend using PED's Amph, if they are sanctioned and allowed by the sports governing body, fine. If they arent, and you use them, you're a cheat and have no claim to any titles you win whilst on them.
You claim they only make it easier to train, and what about the guys that don't take them and have to train?
Regardless of the set up, the sport or the person, using a substance to enhance your performance or ease your training and then going to great lengths to hide it (hence knowlingly breaking the sports rules, and thereby the rules of any trophy you may win) is fucking cheating. You do not deserve your name on any trophy, you cheated to get there.
If Sebastian Leob took a short cut on a rally stage, would he be allocated his points for finishing quickest? no, he'd be fucking cheating and that stage would be discounted for him. Were he judged to have done so knowingly, he'd be disqualified from the whole rally.

If Mr. Leob won each race for five years, created a decent advocate for anti-drunk driving that raised $200 million and it turned out he was using some sort of additive in his fuel tank that may or may not have been specifically proscribed by the governing body for most of the five races, what then? Does it obviate the skill he used to win the races? Does it retroactively destroy any and all enjoyment you had watching those races? Does it eliminate his (hypothetical) charity work from existence?

I can respect a cheater for winning a race, even if I don't like the cheating or the insane protectivism with which the cheater behaved towards accusations of cheating.

The Tour de France is an astoundingly difficult race to complete, much less win. Cheater or not, the man won it seven times and did so in often dominant fashion. That's impressive, even if he used PEDs to do so - as did most of the other competitors.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 24 January 2013 - 09:22 PM

[Illuyankas]

I think you should drop the 'but he raised money for charity, that makes him doing [illegal activity] not as bad' argument. There's nothing at all stating he couldn't earn that money without cheating. Besides, while clearly not on the same order of incorrect act, Jimmy Savile raised fucking tons for charity, it's not a good debating tactic.

[amphibian]

Illuyankas, on 25 January 2013 - 01:01 AM, said:

I think you should drop the 'but he raised money for charity, that makes him doing [illegal activity] not as bad' argument. There's nothing at all stating he couldn't earn that money without cheating. Besides, while clearly not on the same order of incorrect act, Jimmy Savile raised fucking tons for charity, it's not a good debating tactic.

Jimmy Savile committed criminal sexual acts against dozens of minors. He destroyed lives with his actions again and again and it was covered up or at the very least actively ignored.

Armstrong did nothing of the kind. He bullied outspoken people through litigation and with his own words. He won cycling races again and again and lied to many people about what PED substances he was taking/ingesting/hiding.

They are very different things.

[Macros]

If Loeb won his races by using a fuel that was illegal and gave him a benefit over other competitors he would be a cheat.
he would have unfairly beaten his competition, he would likely be turfed out of the wrc circuit and I would like to think his trophies would be stripped as well.
why? Because he would have removed so.e of the element of fair competition, removed a part if individual skill making the difference, by having using a fuel that quite simply made him go faster than anyone else.

can the charity angle.

this is about Lance Armstrong cheating. He cheated to win, therefore his wins are tainted and can not be viewed th same as someone who put in the hours, trained and climbed that hill on their own. He had illegal help.

[Khellendros]

amphibian, on 25 January 2013 - 04:19 AM, said:

Illuyankas, on 25 January 2013 - 01:01 AM, said:

I think you should drop the 'but he raised money for charity, that makes him doing [illegal activity] not as bad' argument. There's nothing at all stating he couldn't earn that money without cheating. Besides, while clearly not on the same order of incorrect act, Jimmy Savile raised fucking tons for charity, it's not a good debating tactic.

Jimmy Savile committed criminal sexual acts against dozens of minors. He destroyed lives with his actions again and again and it was covered up or at the very least actively ignored.

Armstrong did nothing of the kind. He bullied outspoken people through litigation and with his own words. He won cycling races again and again and lied to many people about what PED substances he was taking/ingesting/hiding.

They are very different things.

It could be argued that Armstrong also destroyed lives - employees whose reputations were tarnished, were they able to work in their chosen profession again? How much money did they lose when they were sued by Armstrong? Not to mention the huge psychological impact of having no one believe you, and feeling entirely helpless against the legal behemoth which Armstrong could bring against you.

[amphibian]

Given how scandal-ridden and widespread PED cheating in cycling is, I wouldn't put the work issues that highly. Victor Conte - the guy behind BALCO - has a job selling supplements to athletes again.

The legal bullying is a bigger deal and Armstrong is rightly being excoriated for doing so.

[Jakovasaurus]

[Silencer]

Khellendros, on 25 January 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

amphibian, on 25 January 2013 - 04:19 AM, said:

Illuyankas, on 25 January 2013 - 01:01 AM, said:

I think you should drop the 'but he raised money for charity, that makes him doing [illegal activity] not as bad' argument. There's nothing at all stating he couldn't earn that money without cheating. Besides, while clearly not on the same order of incorrect act, Jimmy Savile raised fucking tons for charity, it's not a good debating tactic.

Jimmy Savile committed criminal sexual acts against dozens of minors. He destroyed lives with his actions again and again and it was covered up or at the very least actively ignored.

Armstrong did nothing of the kind. He bullied outspoken people through litigation and with his own words. He won cycling races again and again and lied to many people about what PED substances he was taking/ingesting/hiding.

They are very different things.

It could be argued that Armstrong also destroyed lives - employees whose reputations were tarnished, were they able to work in their chosen profession again? How much money did they lose when they were sued by Armstrong? Not to mention the huge psychological impact of having no one believe you, and feeling entirely helpless against the legal behemoth which Armstrong could bring against you.

Not that I've ever been into cycling - but how about all the people who looked up to him, went into the sport because of him, and have just had their beliefs and idol shattered? Potentially making them lose interest in a sport they only pursued because of said idol. And yes, Amph, it CAN retroactively destroy the excitement someone experienced watching it happen. It tarnishes the memory and the achievement, after all.

End of the day, I'm pretty sure every phenomenal athlete of the hour has done something involving performance-boosting (whether that is for training or in competition is irrelevant) drugs; it just happens that the ones who don't get caught straight away are ahead of the curve of testing vs concealing. It's pretty cynical of me, but so far I've yet to see anything that would contradict that view - slowly, over the years, more and more athletes who have performed above and beyond get caught; that for me is pretty damning. And it's actually rather sickening that people seem to feel they can't compete without resorting to this crap and in doing so further forcing the next generation to resort to it. How incredibly selfish.

This is actually one of the reasons I don't really watch much sport any more.

[amphibian]

Silencer, on 28 January 2013 - 01:59 AM, said:

End of the day, I'm pretty sure every phenomenal athlete of the hour has done something involving performance-boosting (whether that is for training or in competition is irrelevant) drugs; it just happens that the ones who don't get caught straight away are ahead of the curve of testing vs concealing. It's pretty cynical of me, but so far I've yet to see anything that would contradict that view - slowly, over the years, more and more athletes who have performed above and beyond get caught; that for me is pretty damning. And it's actually rather sickening that people seem to feel they can't compete without resorting to this crap and in doing so further forcing the next generation to resort to it. How incredibly selfish.

The financial benefits, crowd adulation and lasting legacy (in terms of record books/medals/trophies) of nearly all sports are geared in such a way that pushing the envelope is always going to be rewarded. There are so few truly special athletes (LeBron James-caliber) that without PED assistance, envelope pushing just isn't possible in the way that gets athletes millions of dollars.

PEDs can literally be the difference between making zero to negative money in a sport you love and a decent living or a decent living and stardom. The benefits are outsized in proportion to the penalties of getting caught or suffering injury.

In an ideal world, I'd put an extremely high priority on pushing drug testing to be further ahead than PEDs in their probably-forever arms race. I'd have totally clean athletes and immediate detection of cheaters, who'd be booted out. But with testing being so far behind PEDs, it's not workable now. A better solution is to figure out what can be legal and what truly is health-damaging.

I'm actually for the legalization of some PEDs.

[D'rek]

Silencer, on 28 January 2013 - 01:59 AM, said:

End of the day, I'm pretty sure every phenomenal athlete of the hour has done something involving performance-boosting (whether that is for training or in competition is irrelevant) drugs; it just happens that the ones who don't get caught straight away are ahead of the curve of testing vs concealing. It's pretty cynical of me, but so far I've yet to see anything that would contradict that view - slowly, over the years, more and more athletes who have performed above and beyond get caught; that for me is pretty damning. And it's actually rather sickening that people seem to feel they can't compete without resorting to this crap and in doing so further forcing the next generation to resort to it. How incredibly selfish.

This is actually one of the reasons I don't really watch much sport any more.

I think there's plenty of sports where doping just isn't a thing at all. You should get into curling or something.

[Jakovasaurus]

[Hinter]

@Jakovasaurus - great post, who is the comedian?

Finally sat down to watch it. Still can not find it in my heart to condemn him (I'm an atheist btw, don't confuse this with religious forgiveness).

Interesting to see how many mafia players replied. Obviously High House Mafia contains a more discerning sports fan...

[Hinter]

Having just noticed the tag at the top - Bill Blurr may well be the funny guy.