Dwight says "Legalize Steroids"

[marknhj]

From Time magazine. Most of it is a rehash but look at Dwight's statement at the bottom of Page 2. What the hell is he thinking? Next time he is commentating and they are talking about Balco do you think he'll say that on air? I doubt it. Let's wait for the, "it was taken out of context" backpedaling to begin.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... -1,00.html

[tafnut]

Re: Dwight says

wow - that is a ghastly position statement by Stones. I do, however, love this line about legalizing steroids:

"While that might be an easy fix, it would turn sports into a test to see whose liver processed drugs best, a world where the long-jump record could be held by Keith Richards."

[Friar]

Re: Dwight says

They all know that the day even a de facto acceptence of drugs is out there,the spon. revenue is going to evaporate.Can you immagine Dwight commenting on what new 'roids the winner, experimented with?

[The Kitchen Cynic]

Re: Dwight says

>They all know that the day even a de facto acceptence of drugs is out there the, spon. revenue is going to evaporate.<

Yeah, the way it has for all of the professional sports that have had de facto acceptance of drugs for years, right?

[Kurt Francis]

Re: Dwight says

De facto acceptance doesn't seem to have hurt Joe Weider any in the last 30 years!

[Pego]

Re: Dwight says

The biggest (perhaps the only) problem I envision in legalization of steroids, EPO or the growth hormone is that many young people will be forced to use them to keep up and quite a few of them will get hurt by them either while using them or pay the price later. This is something I simply cannot accept.

[O Atkins]

Re: Dwight says

I agree with Pego. I would say legalize drugs but for the health risk to the youngsters. I still enjoy each great event I see by not speculating or even thinking about drugs.
Orville Atkins

[tafnut]

Re: Dwight says

my position has always been that if we legalize drugs, then
a. the gold goes to whoever has the best pharmicist,
and
b. the cost in death and illness would be very great.

[Runninghorse]

At Last!!!! A Voice of Reason

It is a witch hunt and nothing more. The testing scene absolutely, posititvely DOES NOT result in drug-free athletes AND never will. Furthermore, it indicts in the jury of public opinion athletes who may very well be drug-free, unfairly besmirching their good name for life. The banned list is long - very long, filled with names many of you would be hard-pressed to pronounce, let alone even know whether or not you have ingested any of these substances. One substance, in particular, really caught my eye - strychnine. Huh? Ladies and gentlemen, every time you eat tomatoes, you ingest strychnine. In larger quantities, strychnine is a lethally toxic. The vines of tomatoes contain legal does of strychnine. How many of you athletes even know this? This is just for starters in the litany of the ludicrous protocols of prohibition and testing.

[Bob Duncan]

Re: At Last!!!! A Voice of Reason

>One
>substance, in particular, really caught my eye - strychnine.
Actually, strychnine has stimulant properties, when used in small quantities. It is sometimes used in cockfighting and has been used (illegally) in horse racing.

[Runninghorse]

Re: At Last!!!! A Voice of Reason

Actually, strychnine has stimulant properties, when used in small
>quantities. It is sometimes used in cockfighting and has been used
>(illegally) in horse racing.


So in other words, chomping on a few green tomatoes before competition can get you a positive test. How ridiculous.

[Cubby]

Re: At Last!!!! A Voice of Reason

> So in other words, chomping on a few green tomatoes before competition can get you a positive test. How ridiculous. <

No, chomping on a few green tomatoes before competition will not get you a positive test.

[Pego]

Re: At Last!!!! A Voice of Reason

Just as chewing on a handful of almonds won't give you a cyanide poisoning.

[RMc]

Re: At Last!!!! A Voice of Reason

>It is a witch hunt and nothing more. The testing scene absolutely, posititvely
>DOES NOT result in drug-free athletes AND never will.

NO law or enforcement of that law EVER results in the disappearance of a crime or misbehavior. That's why we have laws and enforcement agencies. No one has truthfully and credibly ever claimed that sports would be entirely drug free. However, evidence over the years indicates that our sport is less influenced by drugs than it was in the 1980s and earlier. One only needs to look at the women's all time list in most events, and the men's throws lists to understand that fact.

Furthermore, it indicts
>in the jury of public opinion athletes who may very well be drug-free, unfairly
>besmirching their good name for life.

Ah, an anarchist at heart. We should not have laws of any kind because perhaps some innocents may be caught up. We only want to catch the guilty 100% of the time, no mistakes allowed. The harm created by the guilty could never ever possibly outweigh the harm to few who are mistakenly accused. NOT.

[Runninghorse]

Re: At Last!!!! A Voice of Reason

>>It is a witch hunt and nothing more. The testing scene absolutely,
>posititvely
>DOES NOT result in drug-free athletes AND never will.

NO law
>or enforcement of that law EVER results in the disappearance of a crime or
>misbehavior. That's why we have laws and enforcement agencies. No one has
>truthfully and credibly ever claimed that sports would be entirely drug free.
>However, evidence over the years indicates that our sport is less influenced
>by drugs than it was in the 1980s and earlier. One only needs to look at the
>women's all time list in most events, and the men's throws lists to understand
>that fact.

Furthermore, it indicts
>in the jury of public opinion athletes
>who may very well be drug-free, unfairly
>besmirching their good name for
>life.

Ah, an anarchist at heart. We should not have laws of any kind
>because perhaps some innocents may be caught up. We only want to catch the
>guilty 100% of the time, no mistakes allowed. The harm created by the guilty
>could never ever possibly outweigh the harm to few who are mistakenly accused.
>NOT.

Want to create more criminals? Create more laws - the more ridiculous, the better the results. Presto, you then have more violators and people forced to live in secrecy. Just take a look at that long, long list. There's not a person on this board who can say with all honesty that they don't have some of those chemicals in their system. The list is long. Ridiculously long. Who created this list? What were their rationales. Why is substances like cannibis on the the list. You mean to tell me smoking a joint will make you faster? If the answer is "no," then why is it on the list? Arrogant politics and abusive power and nothing more.

I still maintain it is all a witch hunt. The odd thing about all this is that often when a medal winner tests positive and the medals taken away, it is very often given to someone who also has taken a banned substance. Real logical.