|
Excellent OP, thanks for that and hope to read more from you as the thread goes on. By Ronaldo, did you mean Christiano Ronaldo or the Brasilian Ronaldo? Didn't realize either of them has raised eyebrows in that regard... That cycling illustration from 2001-2010 was brilliant as well. I absolutely loved watching the Tour de France mountain stages in the 90´s and early 2000s, everyone was so loving pumped up from maximum EPO and other PEDs that it felt like watching Roman gladiators. Unfortunately Lance and US postal went overboard with it due to their endless resources that it became boring eventually. Floyd Landis stage 17/2006 never forget! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHCRhzrSRA0) What would you say is the biggest showcase in terms of advantage gained from PEDs in history? Flo-Jo? Armstrong? Pantani? One of those East German track&field world records from the 80s or Jarmila Kratochvílová? Some obscure Chinese world record? Bolivar fucked around with this message at 08:57 on Jul 3, 2014 |
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
Bolivar posted:Excellent OP, thanks for that and hope to read more from you as the thread goes on. The East German women's track and field records are really loving crazy, because they basically gave them chemical sex changes with testosterone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
EvanTH posted: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. Except the best drugs are often very expensive so in reality they don't Robin Hood athletic talent and its spoils to the poor but rather just give the rich and particularly athletes lucky enough to be born in Western countries yet more money
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
Great OP !  Tammy Thomas, woman track cyclist. About the moral argument, it's not : "I shouldn't put harmful things in my body" but "by being a pro athlete I choose to agree to a set of rules, ignoring those rules would be cheating." i e they don't admit doping and when they have no choice but to admit it, they often pretend the PED wasn't the reason they won. Armstrong says everyone else was on PED, while he is technically correct, they weren't on the same amount and they didn't use so many different products like he did. About skills sports : At low level it's true that PED won't have much benefit if it all, that's why many have an hard time believing the pro use PED. There is also this kind of poo poo : He is suspected of drugging opponents of his son to lessen their performance. One of them is dead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 09:50
|
|
|
ElwoodCuse posted:SAS isn't pro-doping, it's anti-bullshit. The witch hunts against Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez were laughable. Well, they both used tons of PEDs and were punished. "Smart" fans and analysts have decided to insanely overreact to moralism of sportswriters by making victims of out people who are anything but (e.g. the silliness earlier in the thread about steroids not helping you hit home runs).
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
also the argument that 'wow! we see more 500 yard passes!' is really stupid in my opinion. the only reason a 500 yard pass is impressive in the first place is because its something of our own performing it; I compare it with my own abilities as a human being, and am amazed at the difference. if I saw a machine launch a ball 500 metres I wouldn't be amazed, because I know machines can do that. similarly, when I see someone on a cocktail of drugs throw a long ball I'm not particularly thrilled, because that's just what cocktails of drugs allow you to do. there's no real surprise, its not an achievement, who gives a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
WEREWAIF posted:There was a big ESPN the magazine poll of NFL players, and one of the questions was "How many players are doping" and the answer was like 25-30%. Even assuming large understatement, that means that less than half of players are doing what they consider to be illegal doping. I think it's fair to stretch that for most American team sports. A widely regarded opinion is that most athletes on teams have no loving clue what the doctors are giving them and if they're illegal. A great example of that was an interview with Gary Neville about England in Euro 96. They had a Doctor that would come round and give them 'vitamin' injections.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 10:07
|
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:Well, they both used tons of PEDs and were punished. "Smart" fans and analysts have decided to insanely overreact to moralism of sportswriters by making victims of out people who are anything but (e.g. the silliness earlier in the thread about steroids not helping you hit home runs). Could you please link the paper that shows the number of extra home runs that steroids make you hit? Also maybe you could talk about why it's appropriate for business owners to collude against a worker and drive him out of an industry, or how pursuing a witch hunt against one individual is worth criminally interfering with a Federal investigation against PED suppliers. Thanks. Mr.Nice posted:About the moral argument, it's not : "I shouldn't put harmful things in my body" but "by being a pro athlete I choose to agree to a set of rules, ignoring those rules would be cheating." i e they don't admit doping and when they have no choice but to admit it, they often pretend the PED wasn't the reason they won. Armstrong says everyone else was on PED, while he is technically correct, they weren't on the same amount and they didn't use so many different products like he did. Maybe this is different in some sports, but the ones I follow are generally fine with cheating. I mean, you'll get punished of course, but with the exception of outright dangerous play the vitriol associated with steroids is just not there. Even amphetamine abuse (in baseball, at least) is seen as completely fine. You can get a bad reputation for, say, flopping, but not something that's going to get your blackballed. In many cases, cheating actually adds to the reputation of the player, giving them a reputation for being crafty or willing to do anything to win. e: Compare e.g. Barry Bonds taking steroids to Diego Maradona and the Hand of God. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 10:24 on Jul 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 10:13
|
|
|
Do you legitimately not realise that not being exhausted from playing 90 games a season due to steroid recovery abuse makes you able to not only be physically stronger for longer, but also not mentally exhausted too, and does, infact, make you hit more home runs. Or are you just trolling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 10:38
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:Even if the top 10 were all doping, to say a clean player can't beat a doped player is to massively overstate the power of PEDs. In the long run, the doped players will always come out on top, like has already be mentioned, Nadal is a chief example Bolivar posted:
Brazilian Ronaldo, although I'd say with the black cloud over all over Spanish football and how Cristiano has got better and better since going to a Spanish club then its highly likely hes on something. Not that English clubs arent doping either though
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
I think a big part of the morality argument is getting ignored, or at least only given lip service, and that is the requirement on upcoming players to take PEDs in order to reach the top level. There's all this talk about how fairness and equality in sports is apparently bullshit anyway because of genetics, and people who are doping are choosing to dope anyway, they could easily not, and anyway sports is a dangerous profession even if you aren't doping. Sure. Whatever. What kills me about it, though, is that there are legitimately professional athletes who don't want to dope, but in order to reach the top level they have to. They can work as hard as they want, be as genetically gifted as they can be, but still not reach the same level as someone who has the same level of talent and determination, but is also willing to take PEDs. That other athlete may have made the calculated risk decision, of the PED side effects in exchange for a leg up on his competition (or he may have simply been given them by his coaches and trainers without full knowledge). But the first athlete is now faced with the pressure to either take a potentially life-threatening drug, or to fall behind. If you were a cyclist facing off against Lance Armstrong who had never taken any PEDs, you could be just as naturally talented as him and train just as hard as him, and you would still lose. You are then faced with the dilemma of either playing clean and losing, or taking dangerous PEDs in order to have a shot at winning. That is not a choice athletes should have to make. You should be able to reach the top level of any sport by being clean, if you have enough talent and work hard enough. That is simply not the case anymore, because there is an entire corps of top level players who are all doped to the gills to the point of unhealthiness, and in order to reach that level it's not enough to be willing to risk concussions or broken bones or whatever, you now also risk the side effects of whatever PED you end up taking to join that elite circle. That, for me, is the real morality argument. It's not about the player who makes the decision to be the first to dope, weighing the pros and cons and health risks. It's about the one hundredth player, who knows that if he doesn't dope there are 99 guys who are better, faster, and stronger than him, and that if he doesn't join them in their unhealthy doping program he will literally be unable to ever catch them, no matter what training regime he uses, or how dedicated he is, or what his level of natural talent is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Do you legitimately not realise that not being exhausted from playing 90 games a season due to steroid recovery abuse makes you able to not only be physically stronger for longer, but also not mentally exhausted too, and does, infact, make you hit more home runs. Oh, well, I guess I just didn't realize that the single factor that goes into hitting a home run was fatigue, I thought that baseball swings were a complex mechanical system where small changes can have any number of effects. In that case it's probably reasonable to make inspecific claims based on "common sense" guesswork in lieu of any kind of data.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 10:49
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Oh, well, I guess I just didn't realize that the single factor that goes into hitting a home run was fatigue, I thought that baseball swings were a complex mechanical system where small changes can have any number of effects. In that case it's probably reasonable to make inspecific claims based on "common sense" guesswork in lieu of any kind of data. Do you develop skills faster if you can train longer and harder. Is being able to get more out of a given weights session so you can spend more time on other training useful. Is being able to play more games a season because you recover from injury faster not something that would improve your play.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 11:31
|
|
|
Byolante posted:Do you develop skills faster if you can train longer and harder. Is being able to get more out of a given weights session so you can spend more time on other training useful. Is being able to play more games a season because you recover from injury faster not something that would improve your play. Not if it's not in papers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Oh, well, I guess I just didn't realize that the single factor that goes into hitting a home run was fatigue, I thought that baseball swings were a complex mechanical system where small changes can have any number of effects. In that case it's probably reasonable to make inspecific claims based on "common sense" guesswork in lieu of any kind of data. This poster doesn't understand that being able to train longer and harder is of any benefit to competitive sports.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 11:51
|
|
|
lmaoboy1998 posted:also the argument that 'wow! we see more 500 yard passes!' is really stupid in my opinion. the only reason a 500 yard pass is impressive in the first place is because its something of our own performing it; I compare it with my own abilities as a human being, and am amazed at the difference. if I saw a machine launch a ball 500 metres I wouldn't be amazed, because I know machines can do that. similarly, when I see someone on a cocktail of drugs throw a long ball I'm not particularly thrilled, because that's just what cocktails of drugs allow you to do. there's no real surprise, its not an achievement, who gives a poo poo. agreed and it doesn't have anything to do with "morality", which is what SAS seems to like characterizing people who care about this sort of thing as, some kind of morality police. It's about why sport is interesting in the first place, and you only need to see what happened to cycling to see what it can do to a sport's image and mainstream appeal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:This poster doesn't understand that being able to train longer and harder is of any benefit to competitive sports. Baseball is the kind of sport that steroid use won't improve a player's hitting average. Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa were both slim men who suddenly got really big. Bonds, who'd never hit 50 HR in a season, went on to hit 73. Sammy Sosa hit 36 one season, then 66 the next, in '98. Coincidences do happen. These were coincidences. Mark McGwire admitted taking steroids during the 1998 season (where he hit 70) but says they didn't help him and he didn't need them to hit long. It's just a coincidence. 8 men have hit over 600 home runs in MLB. 3 of those 8 have either tested positive for PEDs or have admitted using them. No doubt these were good players, PEDs (performance enhancing drugs) can't make a player hit better or further (enhance performance), it's just coincidence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 12:53
|
|
|
Can you do doping if you have a medical condition that can only be relieved by drugs classified as banned performance enhancers?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
Charlotte Hornets posted:Can you do doping if you have a medical condition that can only be relieved by drugs classified as banned performance enhancers? If you had such a condition that something like EPO would relieve it, you would probably not be able to get insured to compete in professional sports.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 13:09
|
|
|
how many players featured in the simpsons softball episode have been busted for PEDs??
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:If you had such a condition that something like EPO would relieve it, you would probably not be able to get insured to compete in professional sports. Didn't Neymar suddenly develop 'anemia' when he transferred to Barcelona?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
pacquiao is almost assuredly doped up to all hell right? i'm assuming pretty much every major boxer is tbh
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
Charlotte Hornets posted:Can you do doping if you have a medical condition that can only be relieved by drugs classified as banned performance enhancers? It's called 'Theraputic Use Exemption' and it's why every MMA fighter over 30 is on low T therapy and why it's ok for Chris Froome to use steroids during a race. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
Charlotte Hornets posted:Can you do doping if you have a medical condition that can only be relieved by drugs classified as banned performance enhancers? Yes, in fact it recently came out that Alex Rodriguez had a therapeutic use exemption at one point, making it even more hilarious that MLB decided to throw him under the bus. (e: Presumably he had low T because he'd already been abusing PEDs for years and they hosed up his endocrine system.) By the way, still waiting on folks to tell me how many extra home runs Magic Dinger Juice makes you hit. Surely this should be an easy task, since we're not just basing our opinions on uninformed kneejerk analysis itt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Yes, in fact it recently came out that Alex Rodriguez had a therapeutic use exemption at one point, making it even more hilarious that MLB decided to throw him under the bus. If you're legitimately too thick to make the connection from being able to train harder and recover faster, and how that leads to being better at doing something, I don't think you should be posting in here any more since you're clearly trolling at this point. I suppose you think Armstrong was innocent too since you cant put a physical number on how many extra miles he could do due to the magic cycle juice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 13:48
|
|
Sour Grapes posted:It's called 'Theraputic Use Exemption' and it's why every MMA fighter over 30 is on low T therapy Testosterone replacement therapy just got made illegal in MMA this year and all exemptions were pulled. It led to the hilarious situation where people have suddenly started failing drug tests left right and centre. At some point in the near future I fully expect fighters to find a new way around the regulations and the number of suspensions to drop again.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
tbp posted:pacquiao is almost assuredly doped up to all hell right? i'm assuming pretty much every major boxer is tbh I'd suspect any boxer who went up a load of weight classes winning constantly used them but there is so much fight fixing and other poo poo going on in boxing who knows. Boxers don't fight anywhere near as often now as they used to which is why you have boxers lasting a lot longer than before
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
Since no one is posting anything with any numbers regarding homeruns and steroids, here is an article/study about it: http://steroids-and-baseball.com also, this which is how I found it
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:If you're legitimately too thick to make the connection from being able to train harder and recover faster, and how that leads to being better at doing something, I don't think you should be posting in here any more since you're clearly trolling at this point. Pointing out that you are talking out your rear end is not trolling. Here, let me give you an example of trolling: Known steroid user Nook Logan hit 2 HR in almost 1000 Major League plate appearances, therefore steroids actually make you worse at hitting HR. Presumably they do this by leading to unnecessarily bulky muscles, throwing off a player's mechanics. It's incredible that some guys were able to be such great hitters despite this handicap. The reason this is such a good troll is that this stupid opinion has exactly as much evidence as yours. You should admit that you do not know the effect of PED use on home runs, because in fact no one knows that. e: Oops, I undersold my case. I hadn't read over Kibner's link before but I guess some people do know the effect of PED use on HR and it's 0.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Yes, in fact it recently came out that Alex Rodriguez had a therapeutic use exemption at one point, making it even more hilarious that MLB decided to throw him under the bus. (e: Presumably he had low T because he'd already been abusing PEDs for years and they hosed up his endocrine system.) You can't put a number on it. Mark McGwire claimed he took steroids 'for health use', that he took performance enhancing drugs simply to recover quicker, that he'd still have hit 70 without them. Is it a coincidence that both he and Sammy Sosa took PEDs and broke a record that had stood for 37 years? That Barry Bonds took PEDs and broke that record only three years later? I'm not denying that all three of those players were fine baseball players, but is it a coincidence that all three went from slim, decent hitters to massive, amazing hitters in a short space of time?    Are there not too many coincidences here for your theory that PEDs don't affect how a baseball player hits home runs to be accurate? Maybe these really are just coincidences. I've not even mentioned Manny Ramirez, also known for being a big hitter, also used PEDs. I'm sure there's a few more I can't think of right now, because I haven't followed MLB for a fair while.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
i go to the most troll-free forums on the web and this is what i get?! loving despicable in my honest opinion. Doping isnt going to change your skillset but it will certainly amplify it as you are able to recover quicker and train harder. This is canon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:e: Oops, I undersold my case. I hadn't read over Kibner's link before but I guess some people do know the effect of PED use on HR and it's 0. Not necessarily 0, but close enough that since there are so many other factors that have a much larger impact, it is not a significant amount. e: My guess would be the players having a better chance of staying healthier throughout a season would be the main benefit for homerun totals. Kibner fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Jul 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
The "come on, just look at him!" fallacy is really tired at this point and has no actual science to back it up. It also ignores a lot of known factors of baseball, such as the ball itself, ballparks, pitching, strike zones, and the cyclical nature of the sport. There were boom and bust times for offense throughout the history of the sport.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
Wait a minute, are you telling me that three young adults gained weight as they aged? My god, steroids are truly powerful! A conjunction of factors (juiced balls, smaller parks, smaller strike zones, expansion, tactical changes, health & nutrition advances, etc. as well as perhaps new PEDs) led to a league-wide power surge in the late 90s and early 00s. It's no surprise that you will see home run records fall in the most extreme home-run-hitting environment in the history of the game. Attributing this fact solely to steroid use is both purely anecdotal and also displays total ignorance of all the other factors involved. In fact, it's even worse than making an argument with nothing but anecdotes; you're making an argument with nothing but anecdotes in the face of actual data contradicting you. e: The whole discussion in baseball is especially funny, because we know amphetamines improve performance, and that they've been in every single clubhouse for half a century or more and nobody gives a poo poo about amphetamine users. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Jul 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
I don't want this side-argument to detract from the point that many of us wish players didn't feel taking PEDs was necessary to compete.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
i need nate silver to weigh in to be sure
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
ElwoodCuse posted:The "come on, just look at him!" fallacy is really tired at this point and has no actual science to back it up. It also ignores a lot of known factors of baseball, such as the ball itself, ballparks, pitching, strike zones, and the cyclical nature of the sport. There were boom and bust times for offense throughout the history of the sport. So the fact a 37 year record was broken twice in one year by two men who took PEDs is a coincidence, or it was the ball's fault? Mornacale posted:Wait a minute, are you telling me that three young adults gained weight as they aged? My god, steroids are truly powerful! Are you loving kidding me? Do you even know what steroids do or are you just being ridiculous because your sport is under fire for being full of cheats? Mornacale posted:A conjunction of factors (juiced balls, smaller parks, smaller strike zones, expansion, tactical changes, health & nutrition advances, etc. as well as perhaps new PEDs) led to a league-wide power surge in the late 90s and early 00s. It's no surprise that you will see home run records fall in the most extreme home-run-hitting environment in the history of the game. Attributing this fact solely to steroid use is both purely anecdotal and also displays total ignorance of all the other factors involved. In fact, it's even worse than making an argument with nothing but anecdotes; you're making an argument with nothing but anecdotes in the face of actual data contradicting you. Tactical changes? Smaller strike zones? Could you explain how these allow the best MLB hitters to be the best MLB hitters (the ones who also took PEDs)?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
mynameisjohn posted:i need nate silver to weigh in to be sure He's too busy investigating pubes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlHswJr_m-4
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:Are you loving kidding me? Do you even know what steroids do or are you just being ridiculous because your sport is under fire for being full of cheats? He seems to think that all PED's do are give you massive gently caress off muscles which couldnt be further from the truth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 14:42
|
|