Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Track vs. baseball and standards

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • bad hammy
    replied
    Originally posted by rasb
    How would you deal with the male/female issue ? Women that have been born with a male chromosome alignment are innocent, but they can't compete against other women.
    Let them run with the guys.

    Leave a comment:


  • lonewolf
    replied
    [quote="rasb"][ Women that have been born with a male chromosome alignment are innocent, but they can't compete against other women. quote]

    I am curious about the disposition of the Stella Walsh case. I assume she competed before the days of X-Y chromosone testing. After her death, it was discovered/reported she had external female genitalia but had no uterus and had internal undescended testes, yet her records have been permitted to stand.

    Leave a comment:


  • rasb
    replied
    [quote=bad hammy]
    Originally posted by rasb
    Originally posted by "bad hammy":131g8vvz
    Originally posted by rasb
    And if you are a "genetic freak" in that aspect (eg. males that can naturally have a 50 + level), well then you have to compete against aliens, so the rest of the planet can level the playing field...
    That is the problem with establishing arbitrary thresholds for any biological parameters.
    Personally, if I had any kind of choice, I would rather have a very few not able to compete, as compared to encouraging the very many to artificially enhance.
    My preference is for rules that do not punish the innocent . . .[/quote:131g8vvz]

    Agreed, in theory, for sure. I'm just saying there may be some difficult crossroads to negotiate, in terms of the innocent/guilty divide.
    How would you deal with the male/female issue ? Women that have been born with a male chromosome alignment are innocent, but they can't compete against other women. And I predict there are other discoveries to be made in that area in the future...

    Leave a comment:


  • bad hammy
    replied
    Originally posted by rasb
    Originally posted by bad hammy
    Originally posted by rasb
    And if you are a "genetic freak" in that aspect (eg. males that can naturally have a 50 + level), well then you have to compete against aliens, so the rest of the planet can level the playing field...
    That is the problem with establishing arbitrary thresholds for any biological parameters.
    Personally, if I had any kind of choice, I would rather have a very few not able to compete, as compared to encouraging the very many to artificially enhance.
    My preference is for rules that do not punish the innocent . . .

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    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 ?
    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???
    I'm quoting two athlete samples: those on my college team in the late '60s, and those athletes who were my "peer group" (by age) in the early '70s. In other words, when steroids where hitting the scene like gangbusters, and were not yet specifically illegal (and were not so until '72).

    At that point they were viewed as no different than any other "vitamin." They were a supplement you tried in the hope of getting better. And when, once t hey were illegal, the U.S. Olympic team marshalled for Munich and had the medical staff say to them with a straight face, "don't take that stuff, it has no benefit," they laughed in their face.

    Remember also, this is a time where there was a worse sin than taking steroids. There was a FAR more hideous thing you could take. I can barely bring myself to even use the word. Do you have the kids hidden? Dare I utter that-which-cannot-be-named? It was Volde..... volde... volde... volde-money!

    It was (far) worse to violate the "amateur" strictures. (Thanks Avery)

    Those who "cheated" in those days saw it all as part of the game. Take steroids, take money under the table.

    In my experience--not minimal--in those days, the people who didn't take steroids were mainly because they couldn't afford to. I don't recall any great moral uproar on the subject.

    I take that back, sorta. I do remember one veteran on the scene (an Olympian) who was really pissed, because he had been dabbling in steroids for several years (while fully legal), and this new young punk had come along, and he was (gasp!) a super-responder, as they called them. He barely tried the stuff and his marks went ballistic.

    The vet was pissed only because he wasn't getting the same bang for his buck.

    So, no, before they were formally illegalized, I don't for a minute believe that the majority of athletes were opposed.

    Leave a comment:


  • rasb
    replied
    Originally posted by Pego
    Originally posted by rasb
    The increased blood viscosity, associated with artificially enhanced Hct. levels, obviously is capable of producing major heart disease/stroke issues, and as you note, the dehydration accompanying severe endurance activity, contributes to the problem.....Perhaps 18 pro-cylists dying over the past decade or so, and attributed to Hct. enhancement? I understand that is driving your position, but it can't be better to legalize this enhancement, can it?
    Only legalizing it and allowing professionals to handle it can you reduce risks. Let me ask you again. Considering all the potential side effects (all of those you mentioned), who is better equiped to find the least risky solution? A sport physician, trained in exercise physiology, cardiorespiratory function and hematology or the charlatans? Perhaps, there would be lesser number of deaths. Did prohibition stop alcoholism? Do the laws against prostitution eliminate it, or contribute to the spread of STD's instead? Isn't illegal marijuana among the top cash crops? But I deviated from the scope of our debate .

    That's okay, I enjoyed the deviation, and as always, you raise some very interesting points, which I will consider, and respond to, after I have dealt with all my deviations..... :wink:

    Leave a comment:


  • rasb
    replied
    Originally posted by bad hammy
    Originally posted by rasb
    And if you are a "genetic freak" in that aspect (eg. males that can naturally have a 50 + level), well then you have to compete against aliens, so the rest of the planet can level the playing field...
    That is the problem with establishing arbitrary thresholds for any biological parameters.
    Yes, I hear you on that, bh... I'm not claiming I have any ultimate answers here. But there is clearly a problem, or so, in this area, and there may be some difficult compromises to be reached, during the search for a solution...
    Personally, if I had any kind of choice, I would rather have a very few not able to compete, as compared to encouraging the very many to artificially enhance.
    I am sure you are familiar with some of the very few humans who were trapped in a body that was neither totally female, nor totally male, and subsequently could not compete....And that is only the ones who were identified....Clearly, some biological parameters may be necessary...

    Leave a comment:


  • Pego
    replied
    Originally posted by rasb
    The increased blood viscosity, associated with artificially enhanced Hct. levels, obviously is capable of producing major heart disease/stroke issues, and as you note, the dehydration accompanying severe endurance activity, contributes to the problem.....Perhaps 18 pro-cylists dying over the past decade or so, and attributed to Hct. enhancement? I understand that is driving your position, but it can't be better to legalize this enhancement, can it?
    Only legalizing it and allowing professionals to handle it can you reduce risks. Let me ask you again. Considering all the potential side effects (all of those you mentioned), who is better equiped to find the least risky solution? A sport physician, trained in exercise physiology, cardiorespiratory function and hematology or the charlatans? Perhaps, there would be lesser number of deaths. Did prohibition stop alcoholism? Do the laws against prostitution eliminate it, or contribute to the spread of STD's instead? Isn't illegal marijuana among the top cash crops? But I deviated from the scope of our debate .

    Leave a comment:


  • bad hammy
    replied
    Originally posted by rasb
    And if you are a "genetic freak" in that aspect (eg. males that can naturally have a 50 + level), well then you have to compete against aliens, so the rest of the planet can level the playing field...
    That is the problem with establishing arbitrary thresholds for any biological parameters.

    Leave a comment:


  • rasb
    replied
    Originally posted by Pego
    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.
    I don't expect a response, Pego, because you made your position clear, which I respect.
    Since my last post on here, I have been able to spend some time reading up on the subject, that we previously discussed...
    And, aside from the moral/ethical issue, I can find no way of agreeing that artificial haematocrit enhancement is a safe and wise solution to an obvious problem...
    Whether it is autotransfusion, or EPO, or related enhancers, the dangers of driving up the Hct. level artificially seem to be increasingly apparent to the researchers on the subject. I know there is a difference between "healthy" individuals and those recovering from diseases such as cancer, but the official position, as I read it, has changed dramatically over the last few years...
    The increased blood viscosity, associated with artificially enhanced Hct. levels, obviously is capable of producing major heart disease/stroke issues, and as you note, the dehydration accompanying severe endurance activity, contributes to the problem.....Perhaps 18 pro-cylists dying over the past decade or so, and attributed to Hct. enhancement? I understand that is driving your position, but it can't be better to legalize this enhancement, can it?

    If testing/monitoring is to be effective, I would suggest that the maximum legal Hct. level be reduced considerably.... To a level that humans could aspire to, without the needles or the pills, and if you test over that, you better donate some blood, and drink a lot of water...And if you are a "genetic freak" in that aspect (eg. males that can naturally have a 50 + level), well then you have to compete against aliens, so the rest of the planet can level the playing field...

    Leave a comment:


  • Pego
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • rasb
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • bad hammy
    replied
    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??

    Leave a comment:


  • rasb
    replied
    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???

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X