Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Christian Coleman [cleared by USADA] [Facing new suspension?]

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    gh
    Administrator

  • gh
    replied
    Originally posted by user4 View Post

    I disagree. PED use in the NFL was just as cutting edge starting in the 1980s.
    I would posit that while overall NFL usage might have been as high, it and all other ball sports were still behind the curve in the cutting-edge department.

    Comparing American ball leagues to track is really apples & oranges (or at least, was), as the American sports were insular and dealt only with a home market, whereas track had scientists from many far-flung countries developing PED technology. Unless there was some rogue EastBloc lab working on building a better tight end.

    Leave a comment:

  • mungo man
    Senior Member

  • mungo man
    replied
    Originally posted by gh View Post

    that's easy to answer: because success in track & field is largely measured by the times/distances achieved, and PEDs can markedly up your stock in that department. Same improvements aren't as obvious in team games.
    Thank you for summarizing the point I have been trying to make. The part in bold , You put it more succinctly in one sentence than I did in several paragraphs.
    Its a really easy answer. I am shocked that I had to go to such lengths to explain it.
    mungo man
    Senior Member
    Last edited by mungo man; 06-17-2020, 11:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • gh
    Administrator

  • gh
    replied
    Originally posted by mungo man View Post

    And why has track always been more cutting edge when it comes to doping?
    Could it be because the demand for doping is higher in track than it is in basketball. I.E. the demand is market driven?
    that's easy to answer: because success in track & field is largely measured by the times/distances achieved, and PEDs can markedly up your stock in that department. Same improvements aren't as obvious in team games.

    Leave a comment:

  • Master403
    Senior Member

  • Master403
    replied
    Originally posted by user4 View Post

    I disagree. PED use in the NFL was just as cutting edge starting in the 1980s.
    You're going to have to go back much farther than that to make your point.

    https://trackandfieldnews.com/wp-con...-Feuerbach.pdf

    Leave a comment:

  • tandfman
    Senior Member

  • tandfman
    replied
    Originally posted by user4 View Post

    I disagree. PED use in the NFL was just as cutting edge starting in the 1980s.
    And it probably still is, given that the NFL has deliberately not adopted the World Anti-Doping Code.

    Leave a comment:

  • user4
    Senior Member

  • user4
    replied
    Originally posted by gh View Post
    Track was always far more cutting-edge in the PED department than were the pro ball leagues.
    I disagree. PED use in the NFL was just as cutting edge starting in the 1980s.

    Leave a comment:

  • mungo man
    Senior Member

  • mungo man
    replied
    Originally posted by user4 View Post

    Answer, yes, it is. But there is no aggressive testing so there is no proof. Where there is no proof there can be no presumption of guilt and in a multi billion dollar business with countless advertisers and lawyers and very few testers there will be no drug scandals.

    Let me go one step further and move us back to the topic of this thread: Christian Coleman is no more a PED abuser than 50% of NBA and NFL players... and that is a worst case scenario of Coleman.
    I see you have conveniently skipped the rest of my questions 😂😂

    So you are suggesting that NBA players were protected from being mentioned in the Balco scandal due to lawyers and advertizers?
    For your info Lance Armstrong also had an army of advertizers and lawyers.
    mungo man
    Senior Member
    Last edited by mungo man; 06-17-2020, 11:16 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • mungo man
    Senior Member

  • mungo man
    replied
    Originally posted by gh View Post

    Victor Conte had roots in the track world dating back to the '80s.... that's simply how his business developed.

    Track was always far more cutting-edge in the PED department than were the pro ball leagues.
    And why has track always been more cutting edge when it comes to doping?
    Could it be because the demand for doping is higher in track than it is in basketball. I.E. the demand is market driven?

    Leave a comment:

  • user4
    Senior Member

  • user4
    replied
    Originally posted by mungo man View Post
    Question: Do you think doping in the basketball is as rampant as it is in track?
    Answer, yes, it is. But there is no aggressive testing so there is no proof. Where there is no proof there can be no presumption of guilt and in a multi billion dollar business with countless advertisers and lawyers and very few testers there will be no drug scandals.

    Let me go one step further and move us back to the topic of this thread: Christian Coleman is no more a PED abuser than 50% of NBA and NFL players... and that is a worst case scenario of Coleman.
    user4
    Senior Member
    Last edited by user4; 06-17-2020, 11:10 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • gh
    Administrator

  • gh
    replied
    Originally posted by mungo man View Post
    .........

    Why is it that almost all the Balco clients were track athletes and no NBA players?
    Please explain
    Victor Conte had roots in the track world dating back to the '80s.... that's simply how his business developed.

    Track was always far more cutting-edge in the PED department than were the pro ball leagues.

    Leave a comment:

  • mungo man
    Senior Member

  • mungo man
    replied
    DrJay and User4

    While you are at it, please explain why state sponsored doping programs are usually targeted at track and field and not basketball ?
    I know doping can benefit soccer as it does basketball, so why didn't East Germany dope their soccer players to the extent they did with track. After all soccer is more prestigious in Europe?
    In fact East Germany was very poor in team sports. They only did well in sports that required raw ability namely track and swimming. This is where drugs are most useful.
    Why has there never been a state sponsored doping scandal in basketball?


    Why is it that Eastern European countries that had doping programs did so well in track but poorly in basketball. Whereas the Eastern European countries that excelled in basketball were poor in track e.g. Croatia, Serbia, Lithuania et al.

    Please explain why the recent Russian doping scandal exposed by Hajjo Sepelt did not engulf any Russian soccer or basketball players.

    Coach Ma Jun Ren of China suddenly produced an army of world record breaking athletes in China in the early 1990s. Basketball is very popular in China. Far more popular than track or soccer. So how come we have never seen anything similar in basketball?


    The simple answer to all these questions is that the impact of doping especially state sponsored doping is much higher in track than it is in basketball.
    Basketball requires a lifetime of constant practice to commit the skills to muscle memory. Basically your brain must memorize the moves until they become 2nd nature. Doping won't help with muscle memory. That's why East Germany and other nations that had state sponsored doping programs were so poor at sports that require skill.
    mungo man
    Senior Member
    Last edited by mungo man; 06-17-2020, 11:05 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • mungo man
    Senior Member

  • mungo man
    replied
    Originally posted by user4 View Post

    Its very simple, these drugs make you faster, quicker, stronger, more explosive, they allow you recover much faster. They are perfect for basketball performance enhancement and they ARE being used in the NBA.
    I don't deny that doping can help in basketball. You lot are using the tactic of willful distortion.

    Question: Do you think doping in the basketball is as rampant as it is in track?

    If so then why is it that when a doping scandal is exposed such as the Balco scandal that engulfed track and to a lesser extent baseball, no NBA players are ever exposed. Don't you think Victor Conte and Balco for example would have had numerous NBA clients?

    Why is it that almost all the Balco clients were track athletes and no NBA players?
    Please explain

    Note: Their are far more people trying to make it to the NBA than those trying to earn a living in track. So the likes of Victor Conte and Balco should be making a lot more money in basketball than they do in track.

    So please explain why Balco had few or no basketball clients.
    mungo man
    Senior Member
    Last edited by mungo man; 06-17-2020, 11:08 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • user4
    Senior Member

  • user4
    replied
    Originally posted by mungo man View Post
    Please explain how doping would benefit a basketball player.
    The basic skills required to play in the NBA are skills like dribbling, shooting, passing, vision, reflexes, anticipation, court vision.
    Please explain How would doping enhance those skills.
    Its very simple, these drugs make you faster, quicker, stronger, more explosive, they allow the athlete to recover much faster. They are perfect for basketball performance enhancement and they ARE being used in the NBA.
    user4
    Senior Member
    Last edited by user4; 06-17-2020, 10:44 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • mungo man
    Senior Member

  • mungo man
    replied
    Originally posted by Conor Dary View Post
    I am not saying that an NBA player will not dope. I am saying that the incentive for doping in the NBA is far less than in track.

    Considering the money available in basketball is astronomical compared to the pittance in track I find that hard to believe.... also the fact the NBA really doesn't test at all. But everyone has their fantasies.
    If the NBA does not test at all then why have some NBA players been suspended for PED?

    Also. It seems you only read one sentence out of each post then you press the reply button. Your responses are very simplistic and offer no substance. Its almost like you've never watched or played basketball. You haven't even tried to explain what aspect of basketball would be enhanced by doping.

    Your statement is the equivalent of a person saying: "Most sprinters must be on EPO since the distance runners use it and sprinters make a lot of money"..
    Any track fan would deem that an ignorant statement since the impact of EPO on sprinting is minimal.
    mungo man
    Senior Member
    Last edited by mungo man; 06-17-2020, 11:07 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • Conor Dary
    Senior Member

  • Conor Dary
    replied
    I am not saying that an NBA player will not dope. I am saying that the incentive for doping in the NBA is far less than in track.

    Considering the money available in basketball is astronomical compared to the pittance in track I find that hard to believe.... also the fact the NBA really doesn't test at all. But everyone has their fantasies.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X