Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Track vs. baseball and standards

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by bman
    The biggest problem is that the sport is boring to many people. Now, maybe this can never be solved, but I personally think that it can. We just need fresh ideas. We need athletes with fanbases. We need exciting one off races, duel meets with meaningful competition, night meets in big stadiums in HD, rivalries, unique events, better use of advertising, fill in the blanks with your ideas. This is not selling out to the mainstream. We want to see these things was well.
    Of course T&F kicks itself hard in the nards again and again by allowing the top guys in the 100 (and other events) to duck each other all season long. Might help just a bit if Bolt and Gay actually ran against each other every few weeks or so (And who can forget that scintillating matchup between Gatlin and Powell at Pre a few years ago??)

    Comment


    • #47
      we're drifting off-topic here.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by gh
        we're drifting off-topic here.
        ???

        Comment


        • #49
          let's get back on topic

          my contention is that track and field takes undue heat on the subject of breaking the rules while LA all of LA honors Manny the druglord
          Wolfie Lives

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by gh
            Pego, thanks for bringing a medical professional's cool detachment to this contentious subject.
            Yes, Pego and gh - that is a valuable piece of input. I happen to disagree with the perspective offered, but it's always good to listen to the other side.
            And of course it's easy to understand the safety/health concerns, which would be of primary importance for a Doctor.
            As a coach, however, I also need to explore the moral and ethical aspects of where sport fits into our society. So, if I read your posting correctly, Pego, you are stating that you see no difference between training to increase endurance performance, and injecting to increase endurance performance.
            Running a brisk 15 miler vs. an epo injection are the same to you - is that correct? So, really any athlete and coach, who don't have a doctor working with them to maximize/optimize haematocrit levels, shouldn't even be in the game at the top level? Because the playing field would be so tilted in the direction of very artificial, and obviously effective, means of enhancing performance.
            And I'm assuming that the only reason you are opposed to steroids and HGH
            and in favour of blood doping and EPO, is because of the safety factor. Is that correct?
            I know there are lots who agree with you. I'm just not one of them...

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by rasb
              Originally posted by gh
              Pego, thanks for bringing a medical professional's cool detachment to this contentious subject.
              Yes, Pego and gh - that is a valuable piece of input. I happen to disagree with the perspective offered, but it's always good to listen to the other side.
              And of course it's easy to understand the safety/health concerns, which would be of primary importance for a Doctor.
              As a coach, however, I also need to explore the moral and ethical aspects of where sport fits into our society. So, if I read your posting correctly, Pego, you are stating that you see no difference between training to increase endurance performance, and injecting to increase endurance performance.
              Running a brisk 15 miler vs. an epo injection are the same to you - is that correct? So, really any athlete and coach, who don't have a doctor working with them to maximize/optimize haematocrit levels, shouldn't even be in the game at the top level? Because the playing field would be so tilted in the direction of very artificial, and obviously effective, means of enhancing performance.
              And I'm assuming that the only reason you are opposed to steroids and HGH
              and in favour of blood doping and EPO, is because of the safety factor. Is that correct?
              I know there are lots who agree with you. I'm just not one of them...
              You are twisting some things I said. I simply mentioned different ways of improving performance, some more natural, some less, never put an equation mark between them. When it comes to EPO, I am willing to predict that legalizing autotransfusion would markedly reduce the need/use of EPO. Let me reemphasize, the primary reason I am promoting such legalization is that it could be done under controlled, professional conditions, which is not the case now.

              Why am I against steroids and HGH? While their side-effects have been generally exaggerated, there is no doubt in my mind that some long term and especially short term health problems exists. The users clearly have an upper hand and it is unconscionable to me that the non-users would be forced by the competition to risk their health against their wishes, or have no chance.
              "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
              by Thomas Henry Huxley

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Pego
                Originally posted by rasb
                Originally posted by gh
                Pego, thanks for bringing a medical professional's cool detachment to this contentious subject.
                Yes, Pego and gh - that is a valuable piece of input. I happen to disagree with the perspective offered, but it's always good to listen to the other side.
                And of course it's easy to understand the safety/health concerns, which would be of primary importance for a Doctor.
                As a coach, however, I also need to explore the moral and ethical aspects of where sport fits into our society. So, if I read your posting correctly, Pego, you are stating that you see no difference between training to increase endurance performance, and injecting to increase endurance performance.
                Running a brisk 15 miler vs. an epo injection are the same to you - is that correct? So, really any athlete and coach, who don't have a doctor working with them to maximize/optimize haematocrit levels, shouldn't even be in the game at the top level? Because the playing field would be so tilted in the direction of very artificial, and obviously effective, means of enhancing performance.
                And I'm assuming that the only reason you are opposed to steroids and HGH
                and in favour of blood doping and EPO, is because of the safety factor. Is that correct?
                I know there are lots who agree with you. I'm just not one of them...
                You are twisting some things I said. I simply mentioned different ways of improving performance, some more natural, some less, never put an equation mark between them. When it comes to EPO, I am willing to predict that legalizing autotransfusion would markedly reduce the need/use of EPO. Let me reemphasize, the primary reason I am promoting such legalization is that it could be done under controlled, professional conditions, which is not the case now.

                Why am I against steroids and HGH? While their side-effects have been generally exaggerated, there is no doubt in my mind that some long term and especially short term health problems exists. The users clearly have an upper hand and it is unconscionable to me that the non-users would be forced by the competition to risk their health against their wishes, or have no chance.
                I did not mean to twist your words, pego. I was trying to extrapolate from your statements, and arrive at conclusions. If I erred in that process, I apologize - that was not my intent.
                So do you think setting a max. Hct. and/or Hgb. level, tested prior to events, is a good way to go for distance running, or not? I know that both cycling and nordic skiing have previously worked with such parameters, but I am not sure if they are still using them or not....Cycling used a 50 Hct. , and skiing was working with 16.5 Hgb for women, and 18.5 Hgb for men. I'm sure you know that
                By the way, I do agree with your contention that degrees of "naturalness" or
                "artificiality" are not always so easily black and white, and are on more of a continuum. I still feel we need to draw the line somewhere, and I'm not sure how exactly that looks, in terms of a practical, safe and healthy, and morally and ethically sustainable model...

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by rasb
                  So do you think setting a max. Hct. and/or Hgb. level, tested prior to events, is a good way to go for distance running, or not? I know that both cycling and nordic skiing have previously worked with such parameters, but I am not sure if they are still using them or not.
                  Being neither hematologist, cardiovascular or exercise physiologist, I have no clue as what should be the optional number. All I know that combination of a fairly high hematocrit combined with dehydration of an exertional long distance event could have catastrophic result. That is the main reason why I think it should be legal and properly administered.
                  "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                  by Thomas Henry Huxley

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Pego
                    Why am I against steroids and HGH? . . . The users clearly have an upper hand and it is unconscionable to me that the non-users would be forced by the competition to risk their health against their wishes, or have no chance.
                    I totally agree, and I think the vast majority of athletes do too.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by tandfman
                      Originally posted by Pego
                      Why am I against steroids and HGH? . . . The users clearly have an upper hand and it is unconscionable to me that the non-users would be forced by the competition to risk their health against their wishes, or have no chance.
                      I totally agree, and I think the vast majority of athletes do too.
                      I agree with that part as well, but I am still pondering the Pego position on PED's that are related to haematocrit enhancing. I think I am clear that it is based on health and safety concerns, from a Physician's perspective, but I am thinking through the greater ramifications of legalization...

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        I don't think the "vast majority" of athletes do agree. Certainly wasn't true before they were illegalized.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by gh
                          I don't think the "vast majority" of athletes do agree. Certainly wasn't true before they were illegalized.
                          That depends on which athlete sample you are analyzing (pun intended)... Those who make it to the podium ? to the final ? to the semis ? to the Games at all ? Are you counting those who refused to go that route, and didn't make any teams, but knew their values ?
                          The really sad part about this is that the only difference between many of these athletes was/is the willingness to win at ALL costs... Just a reflection of our society I guess, but still sad to me....Can anyone say Wall Street???

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by rasb
                            Originally posted by gh
                            I don't think the "vast majority" of athletes do agree. Certainly wasn't true before they were illegalized.
                            That depends on which athlete sample you are analyzing (pun intended)... Those who make it to the podium ? to the final ? to the semis ? to the Games at all ? Are you counting those who refused to go that route, and didn't make any teams, but knew their values ?
                            But now we are talking about before they were illegalized. In other words, they were as acceptable as vitamins are today. When we illegalize vitamins, will you look back on contempt to those who chugged down their daily Flintstones??

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by bad hammy
                              Originally posted by rasb
                              Originally posted by gh
                              I don't think the "vast majority" of athletes do agree. Certainly wasn't true before they were illegalized.
                              That depends on which athlete sample you are analyzing (pun intended)... Those who make it to the podium ? to the final ? to the semis ? to the Games at all ? Are you counting those who refused to go that route, and didn't make any teams, but knew their values ?
                              But now we are talking about before they were illegalized. In other words, they were as acceptable as vitamins are today. When we illegalize vitamins, will you look back on contempt to those who chugged down their daily Flintstones??
                              Perhaps, I didn't make myself clear, bh....I was referring to those who are/were willing to risk even their own health to reach the top. And contempt isn't the right word, at least in terms of my own feelings...Just observing, and having the right to form and express an opinion....yes?
                              I think vitamins to balance out food intake, and assist with optimal health, as compared to steroids or HGH to gain an advantage, are very different situations...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                All right, the vitamins.
                                The answer is that no healthy young person needs to substitute his/her diet with vitamins in the pill form. Nor are any of the "legal supplements" of any performance enhancing value. To use them is a perpetration of a long-standing myth.
                                Stimulants might have a chickenshit amount of effectiveness, not nearly enough to be illegal. The suits finally got it right and at least caffeine has been finally removed from the banned list.
                                Autotransfusion and EPO are nothing more than hematocrit enhancers, just as a high altitude training or pressure chambers. I am familiar with some studies indicating that EPO might have more than this effect, but I was unimpressed. Note that I don't favor allotransfusion. The risk for administration of wrong type of blood is way too high.

                                That leaves us with two groups of PEDs. Steroids and HGH, true PEDs with potential side-effects.

                                I think, I said my piece. If I did not convince anybody, oh well.
                                "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                                by Thomas Henry Huxley

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X