|
Fag Boy Jim posted:It's a significant factor. The slower courts emphasize a stamina-based game, and the stamina-based game is susceptible to doping. But surely the ability to rely on stamina also encourages a more drawn out style of play, so the creation of players with ultra-stamina itself contributes to the issue? It's kind of like a feedback loop almost: something tips the scale towards a quality that can be leveraged by dopers, the dopers then become successful and promote the playstyle based on this quality still further, sort of thing.
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 23:48 |
|
|
I think the ability to draw out the play is much more dependent on court speed than you seem to be saying. Even a super doped Nadal probably wouldn't be able to beat, say, Boris Becker on a 90's fast hardcourt, for instance- as much as Nadal could run around all day, it wouldn't help if the court speed was fast enough that you could just volley past him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Michael Jordan was a shithead cheater who drugged
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Fag Boy Jim posted:I think the ability to draw out the play is much more dependent on court speed than you seem to be saying. Even a super doped Nadal probably wouldn't be able to beat, say, Boris Becker on a 90's fast hardcourt, for instance- as much as Nadal could run around all day, it wouldn't help if the court speed was fast enough that you could just volley past him. It's really hard to state how different the game is now than it used to be. Clay/Grass/Hard court were like baseball/croquet/cricket. I can't think of a good comparison. Maybe in racing, banked dirt short tracks, huge flat paved ovals, and street courses. Vando posted:But surely the ability to rely on stamina also encourages a more drawn out style of play, so the creation of players with ultra-stamina itself contributes to the issue? It's kind of like a feedback loop almost: something tips the scale towards a quality that can be leveraged by dopers, the dopers then become successful and promote the playstyle based on this quality still further, sort of thing. If I get what you're saying you mean the high stamina guys encouraged the homogenization of tennis, which encouraged more high stamina guys, which encouraged doping? That makes sense, I think we're all on the same page.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
WEREWAIF posted:Isn't the argument that 'bodies respond to drugs differently' as an argument against peds somewhat disingenuous? Bodies also respond to weight lifting and running differently. The people whose bodies respond best get an unfair genetic advantage over the rest of us. I'm curious what the response to this argument is. Lebron James is maybe an extreme example (some football players might also be good choices for this), but he's the one I always point to in this type of argument. There is not and will never be a fair playing field on a purely athletic level between Lebron James and an average dude. And it's only getting more and more pronounced with some of these athletes. The best of the best in the world are all coming to play, and they're having kids with one another, and they're raising their kids to play sports right away. Why should only those who won the genetic lottery get to participate in sport at the highest level? Why can't an average person willing to take risks (and put in work, because doping does not mean you're putting in any less work) join them on the field?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Is there a compelling reason why controlled substances should be made available for non-therapeutic purposes? Wanting to be a professional athlete so you can make a lot of money seems like it wouldn't be enough for most people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:Why should only those who won the genetic lottery get to participate in sport at the highest level? Why can't an average person willing to take risks (and put in work, because doping does not mean you're putting in any less work) join them on the field? If you aren't good enough to reach the big time, no drugs are going to put you over the top. This is why they need to be controlled and why sports leagues need to stress how dangerous they are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:Why should only those who won the genetic lottery get to participate in sport at the highest level? Why can't an average person willing to take risks (and put in work, because doping does not mean you're putting in any less work) join them on the field?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
I'm not especially for doping or anything, I do believe it has a place as a mechanism for injury recovery. I don't really think contemporary athletes *need* to have their performance enhanced. It's all a very slippery slope somewhere. There are scores of people on the internet reading papers and tweaking their steroid regimens. I think this makes it a lot safer than it was in the past, if someone wants information they can get it relatively easily. But there will always be dumb kids who inject themselves with massive doses and ruin things for everyone. The gray areas are huge. And cycling is a good example of how a better doping + bribes program can break a sport. Everblight posted:Because LeBron could dope too and be even better (also both your and LeBron's hearts would explode when you turned 45.) Lyle Alzado wasn't doping in any sort of intelligent way. He was using tons of stuff in ridiculous unsafe doses. East Germany basically invented a failsafe steroid program and then exceeded it in search of results. Under medical supervision, most people can use steroids and suffer no ill affects. I'm all for gene doping and letting people become freaks in search of sport perfection.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
Being OK with therapeutic use is a totally reasonable position. If MLB okayed HGH for injury recovery tomorrow, I wouldn't care either. Doing it to be able to compete and creating an atmosphere where players have to take those same risks just to maintain parity is a negative in my opinion. Like, if you're not good enough to make it into top level pro play just through training, well, join the rest of us. I'm sure it sucks to be a hot prospect that tops out in AAA, but those are the breaks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:I'm curious what the response to this argument is. Why should there be a level playing field though? How would that improve the sport? What motivation is there for someone to put the hours in at the gym to improve when instead they should just dope themselves up to the eyeball. As sports fans we want those superstars that stand out in a field of elite athletes but we want it to be as fair as possible and if we have to pick between being good because you won the genetic lottery with regard to natural ability and response to training or the lottery of response to PED's i know which one i'm picking every time. Doping hard work if it's allowed. Protocol 5 posted:Being OK with therapeutic use is a totally reasonable position. If MLB okayed HGH for injury recovery tomorrow, I wouldn't care either. Doing it to be able to compete and creating an atmosphere where players have to take those same risks just to maintain parity is a negative in my opinion. Like, if you're not good enough to make it into top level pro play just through training, well, join the rest of us. I'm sure it sucks to be a hot prospect that tops out in AAA, but those are the breaks. I completely disagree, therapeutics use exemptions are total bullshit. More often the not there is little evidence for their effectiveness, their effects last much longer then the period of injury and they are already routinely abused. There has been some discussion about footballer Frank Ribery and him missing world cup where statements have revealed players can easily have 40 local corticosteroid injections over a year. This is total loving madness and is a massive dose of steroid. That's going to have huge systemic effects throughout a season and long term side effects. We'll be revisiting riberys club soon. I'm pretty busy with work at the moment but will hopefully have another effort post soon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
So your belief is that doping eliminates the need to put in hours at the gym or training? Also you suggest in the OP that there should be a level playing field when you refer to people having different levels of response to PEDs and a financial arms race as being negatives. Jordan7hm fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
Loving Africa Chaps posted:What motivation is there for someone to put the hours in at the gym to improve when instead they should just dope themselves up to the eyeball. Doping doesn't eliminate the need to put in the hours at the gym. It just lets you get more out of those hours and recover faster. Someone who is doping still has to put in the work. I'm against doping in sport as a general rule, but dopers aren't doing it because they're lazy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:Doping doesn't eliminate the need to put in the hours at the gym. It just lets you get more out of those hours and recover faster. Someone who is doping still has to put in the work. I'm against doping in sport as a general rule, but dopers aren't doing it because they're lazy. Some of the bizarre new compunds that are banned from research for aggresively causing cancers were giving up to 80% better endurance in mice with no actual fitness or training.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Loving Africa Chaps posted:I completely disagree, therapeutics use exemptions are total bullshit. More often the not there is little evidence for their effectiveness, their effects last much longer then the period of injury and they are already routinely abused. There has been some discussion about footballer Frank Ribery and him missing world cup where statements have revealed players can easily have 40 local corticosteroid injections over a year. This is total loving madness and is a massive dose of steroid. That's going to have huge systemic effects throughout a season and long term side effects. We'll be revisiting riberys club soon. Sounds like a problem with poor oversight and shady doctors to me. If something has a legitimate therapeutic use, it has a legitimate therapeutic use. If people are abusing it, take better measures to curb abuse. Edit: Missed it on the first pass, but just to clarify, you do understand that corticosteroids are different from anabolic steroids right? Just want to make sure. Shooting a dude full of anti-inflammatories at the drop of a hat is not a good idea, but I'd hardly call that doping. Protocol 5 fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Protocol 5 posted:Sounds like a problem with poor oversight and shady doctors to me. If something has a legitimate therapeutic use, it has a legitimate therapeutic use. If people are abusing it, take better measures to curb abuse. How does the oversight change with your idea? There's an issue if the cure to everything becomes a needle too. David Millar describes very well how 'legitimate' rehydration and injections of amino acids becomes full fledged doping and why cycling now has a no needle policy. Corticosteroids do enhance performance although that is not their primary use.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
It's quite interesting that when it comes to Corticosteroids it's one of those things that is very open, I remember on plenty occasions commentators talking about how this player or that player was going to get an injection to allow them to play a particular game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Is there anyone here who can talk about doping in "non-physical" sports like snooker, archery, shooting, etc? I assume these guys are all on beta blockers, but I really don't know anything about other drugs they could use, if there is any decent doping control in these sports and stuff like that. Also, is doping less effective in these sports since they don't require any stamina?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Loving Africa Chaps posted:How does the oversight change with your idea? There's an issue if the cure to everything becomes a needle too. David Millar describes very well how 'legitimate' rehydration and injections of amino acids becomes full fledged doping and why cycling now has a no needle policy. I dunno, made you could have independent doctors determine whether a particular therapy is medically indicated and veto it if it's not? This is not particularly complicated. If you're anti sports medicine of any kind, well, we don't have anything to discuss, because it's an insoluble disagreement, and I have no desire to argue fruitlessly about something so trivial.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
cgfreak posted:Is there anyone here who can talk about doping in "non-physical" sports like snooker, archery, shooting, etc? I assume these guys are all on beta blockers, but I really don't know anything about other drugs they could use, if there is any decent doping control in these sports and stuff like that. Also, is doping less effective in these sports since they don't require any stamina? Beta blockers and alcohol are banned at the NCAA level for shooting and archery. Idk if they actually breathalyze people during events though
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Protocol 5 posted:I dunno, made you could have independent doctors determine whether a particular therapy is medically indicated and veto it if it's not? This is not particularly complicated. If you're anti sports medicine of any kind, well, we don't have anything to discuss, because it's an insoluble disagreement, and I have no desire to argue fruitlessly about something so trivial.  TUE in picture form
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Yeah, OK. If it's just the whole "athletes must be absolutely pure to maintain the integrity of sport" conversation, then I have nothing to contribute, so I'll leave you guys to it. Have fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
ElwoodCuse posted:If you aren't good enough to reach the big time, no drugs are going to put you over the top. This is why they need to be controlled and why sports leagues need to stress how dangerous they are. The arguments regarding the danger of a drug seem tenuous at best. Yes, some drugs are obviously dangerous. But some does not mean all. Pure testosterone, one of the best PEDs, is prescribed by endocrinologists to regular people all the time. While I know there are many unscrupulous doctors out there, am I to believe this practice is ultimately detrimental to said patient's health? (I haven't done any research and probably should, but maybe someone here knows). Less pertinent, though still relevant; when I was briefly a Division I athlete, the NCAA went to great lengths to specify what constitutes doping. The over-consumption of caffeine prior to an event was specifically mentioned. I still have my old rulebook somewhere, but from my recollection, examples of "over-consumption" included drinking a Five Hour Energy or two cups of coffee. Caffeine can provide a huge edge to certain endurance events (and probably aid coordination, as well), after all it is a stimulant. Is this doping? Should we regard it in the same context as Test? EPO? rest his guts fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
Fly McCool posted:The arguments regarding the danger of a drug seem tenuous at best. Yes, some drugs are obviously dangerous. But some does not mean all. Pure testosterone, one of the best PEDs, is prescribed by endocrinologists to regular people all the time. While I know there are many unscrupulous doctors out there, am I to believe this practice is ultimately detrimental to said patient's health? (I haven't done any research and probably should, but maybe someone here knows). Increased risk of blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, and (maybe) prostate cancer are a few of the side effects of testosterone therapy. The incidence rate is lower when therapy is used to correct for a deficiency than when it's used to boost "normal" levels and your endocrine system compensates for elevated hormone levels in lots of fun and interesting ways. Also consider that "Low-T" patients are generally prescribed the minimally effective dose. Athletes take as much as they can up to the point of diminishing returns. And they take it while they're young, meaning they might be looking forward to an entire adult lifetime with a screwy endocrine system that typically isn't seen in patients under age 70.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
runoverbobby posted:Increased risk of blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, and (maybe) prostate cancer are a few of the side effects of testosterone therapy. The incidence rate is lower when therapy is used to correct for a deficiency than when it's used to boost "normal" levels and your endocrine system compensates for elevated hormone levels in lots of fun and interesting ways. I'm a moron and admittedly ignorant, and as such I obviously completely overlooked that difference. That makes complete sense. A different question, then. Supposing that "normal" has a fairly large deviation, would it be deleterious if one on the lower end of normal boosted his T to the upper threshold? Would this have a noticeable effect on performance?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Someone else would need to tackle that question because I can't intelligently speak to that level of detail. You're not a moron by the way. A lot of people overlook that the harm drugs cause are often responsive rather than toxicity. A good example is heroin. It's not harmful to the body at all and has fewer side effects than morphine or Vicodin. It's just horribly addictive. e: unadulterated heroin. the heroin slung around your neighborhood is probably cut with rat poison and powdered sugar and AIDS water runoverbobby fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
I don't care at all about doping because it's not cheating in the slightest, it's little more than a modification of one's diet which is completely acceptable under any current imagining. The idea that there's some innate "fairness" in sports because of equally applicable rules is wrong in the first place. People are born with varying body chemistries and that's not cheating. People are born with different heights and speeds and coordinations and intelligences and it's not cheating. It's currently legal for an already-rich athlete to spend thousands a day on a team of trainers and nutritionists to trick their bodies legally into producing more of the useful athletic chemicals and that's not at all cheating, but it's Profoundly Unethical for someone who's trying to earn a contract, a deal that could fundamentally change their entire family's lives for the better, to take a supplement that could increase their performance, it's not okay if it's from Column A instead of Column B? If someone thought their family's ability to thrive was on the line then they'd be something of a coward not to risk it. Naturally I don't believe athletes should be sacrificing their health to play a sport, but if that's the reason you want to make something illegal than go ahead and make contact sports illegal (obviously don't do this). What difference does it make to the viewer? They get to see more home runs, more dunks, more 150mph serves, and it makes no difference whatsoever if that athlete was simply born with a rare combination of genes that gives them slightly more testosterone rather than took a pill along with their 50000 hours a day training regimen? There is absolutely nothing wrong with doping aside from the increased risk athletes put themselves at through modifying their body chemistry, and people who are trying to ban PEDs would be disingenuous to claim that that was their aim. It's an element of a training regimen, it has nothing to do with the actions taken on the court/field/pitch and shouldn't be considered cheating. Loving Africa Chaps posted:What motivation is there for someone to put the hours in at the gym to improve when instead they should just dope themselves up to the eyeball. You think there's some situation where an athlete starts dominating the sport while sitting on a couch for training because they popped the perfect pill? Excellence in athletics will always require an excessive amount of work and dedication regardless of PEDs. EvanTH fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
EvanTH posted:I don't care at all about doping because it's not cheating in the slightest, it's little more than a modification of one's diet which is completely acceptable under any current imagining. This is quite possibly one of the most awful, uneducated posts about doping I have ever seen. Your stance is 'well genetics arent fair so people should be able to take pills. Except the pills aren't 'fair' either. Everyone reacts differently too them. If you legitimately think turning your blood so thick you have to wake up every 2 hours and exercise so you dont die of a heart attack is fine, then theres something wrong with you. And yes, there was a pill that caused up to a 68% increase in stamina in mice without any extra work. It also caused rapid, massive cancerous tumour growth too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
EvanTH posted:I don't care at all about doping because it's not cheating in the slightest, it's little more than a modification of one's diet which is completely acceptable under any current imagining. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW501516
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 09:35
|
|
|
One of my favourite excuses for blatant doping is that Usain Bolt is clean because he's tall and thats why hes able to not only beat drug failed sprinters but smash them. As if being tall offers such a bio-mechanical advantage to sprinting that it only applies to bolt! But also lol at the suggestion that Bolt every is drugs tested in the first place
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:This is quite possibly one of the most awful, uneducated posts about doping I have ever seen. Your stance is 'well genetics arent fair so people should be able to take pills. Except the pills aren't 'fair' either. Everyone reacts differently too them. If you legitimately think turning your blood so thick you have to wake up every 2 hours and exercise so you dont die of a heart attack is fine, then theres something wrong with you. His point is not that PEDs are fair, but rather that there is no such thing. In the arena of "fairness," there's no line between PEDs, supplements, healthy food, working out, or winning the genetic lottery. I think it is good to discourage dangerous PEDs, just like it's good to discourage dangerous play on the field, but trying to turn it into some moral issue is extremely silly. Much like people do with all illegal drugs, really--it's not good enough to say "these are dangerous so we'll control them," we have to skip past that to "you're a bad person if you use this." e: ^^^ Now if kyoon isn't posting in this thread by the end of the week I'm gonna be upset.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 11:42
|
|
|
TelekineticBear! posted:One of my favourite excuses for blatant doping is that Usain Bolt is clean because he's tall and thats why hes able to not only beat drug failed sprinters but smash them. As if being tall offers such a bio-mechanical advantage to sprinting that it only applies to bolt! Considering other Jamaicans have tested positive its a fair bet he's doping too. It would be hugely damaging to sprinting/athletics if he was caught doping I doubt anyone high up in Tennis would want strict testing because of the reaction if a grand slam winner tests positive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 11:52
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:His point is not that PEDs are fair, but rather that there is no such thing. In the arena of "fairness," there's no line between PEDs, supplements, healthy food, working out, or winning the genetic lottery. A-Rod gets doped to his eyeballs and gets a massive set for life contract to play baseball. If you say its ok to be doped to the eyeballs then anyone else will see that part of how he got there was doping himself to the eyeballs and doing the same. That makes A-Rod a bad person for doping regardless of anything to do with the legitimacy of the sport.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
So all MLB players that chew tobacco are bad people, too? It encourages others to do the same because of how tightly it is associated with the league.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 12:51
|
|
|
Kibner posted:So all MLB players that chew tobacco are bad people, too? It encourages others to do the same because of how tightly it is associated with the league. If chewing tobacco is a performance enhancer than yes
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 13:04
|
|
|
Jose posted:I doubt anyone high up in Tennis would want strict testing because of the reaction if a grand slam winner tests positive. There's no way it ever happens. As much as Nadal has been celebrated, they'll never have the stones to out a guy who is very likely chemically enhanced. Djokovic probably is too, and I am almost certain he was doing something in 2011 when he was unbeatable and had one of the best seasons ever. He hasn't been near that good since, so maybe he dialed it back. I'm less sure about Murray and I'd be surprised if Federer was doing anything fishy, but I suppose anything is possible these days.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 13:30
|
|
|
Karmalaa70 posted:There's no way it ever happens. As much as Nadal has been celebrated, they'll never have the stones to out a guy who is very likely chemically enhanced. Djokovic probably is too, and I am almost certain he was doing something in 2011 when he was unbeatable and had one of the best seasons ever. He hasn't been near that good since, so maybe he dialed it back. Every single one of them is, if you're in the top 20 in the world, you're on PEDs
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 13:45
|
|
|
I used to play poker with one of the head chefs that worked at the Australian Open (this would have been around '10-11) and apparently managed a lot of the food for the players. He was telling me stories about how he'd get these incredibly specific lists of food that had come from guys like Federer and Nadal's nutritionists that would be along the lines of 200g of x kind of pasta, 250g of this kind of lettuce and what have you. Apparently Murray would just come in and order three cheeseburgers and a pile of chips. Now that's all anecdotal second hand stuff, but I thought it was funny.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
spamman posted:I used to play poker with one of the head chefs that worked at the Australian Open (this would have been around '10-11) and apparently managed a lot of the food for the players. He was telling me stories about how he'd get these incredibly specific lists of food that had come from guys like Federer and Nadal's nutritionists that would be along the lines of 200g of x kind of pasta, 250g of this kind of lettuce and what have you. Apparently Murray would just come in and order three cheeseburgers and a pile of chips. I think Murray probably takes his nutrition a little more seriously now!
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 23:48 |
|
|
EvanTH posted:There is absolutely nothing wrong with doping aside from the increased risk athletes put themselves at through modifying their body chemistry, and people who are trying to ban PEDs would be disingenuous to claim that that was their aim. The increased risk is literally the only reason I care about and oppose doping. Everything else for me branches off of that point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 15:49
|
|