| |
Main
Date: 01 Aug 2007 21:15:17
From:
Subject: Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
|
This is an editorial in Nature magazine:
A sporting chance p512
Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier
prohibitions on women and remuneration.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7153/full/448512a.html
Editorial
Nature 448, 512 (2 August 2007)
|
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 05:01:36
From:
Subject: Re: Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
|
On Aug 2, 10:28 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:20:51 -0700, r...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >So lets try a fantasy medically enhanced professional regiment. What
> >would be allowed? Steroids? No, but just a little testosterone for
> >recovery? Perhaps.
>
> >Growth hormone? I don't think so.
>
> >EPO? None, or in limited amounts? Altitude tents? Probably. Not a
> >drug.
>
> >Blood transfusions? I don't think so.
>
> You're never going to clean up cycling with that attitude.
You're never going to clean up cycling. Read the editorial I posted
to start this topic.
|
| |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 18:19:20
From:
Subject: Re: Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
|
On Aug 2, 8:23 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> chester wrote:
>
> >> Sounds like a shill for the pharmceutical association. I think to
> >> compare systematic exclusion of women and certain ethnic groups from
> >> competition to restricting performance enhancement is a really, really
> >> egregious rationalization.
> >> Some of these issues were brought up in the days of Prozac Nation,
> >> and I'm not an absolutist about this. There is a difference between
> >> treating pathoses and performance enhancement of the normal, but the
> >> line isn't always sharp. Usually though, to paraphrase Potter
> >> Stewart, it's tough to define what is unfair, but I know it when I see
> >> it.
>
> >> Steve
>
> > "Sounds like a shill for the pharmceutical association."
>
> > I don't think so. Look, the point of the article is this. Eventually,
> > the average joe viewer will be more enhanced and drugged up than the
> > professional athlete. How reasonable is that? The fact is I can go to my
> > doctor any time and request a testosterone patch top supplement my
> > system.
>
> And your doc gives it to you--just like that?
> I disagree BTW. Maybe the first few Dutch and Belgian cyclists that
> died from uncontrolled use of EPO didn't know how dangerous it could be
> when abused. But you hope (at the least) that the average Joe viewer
> will have a doctor who will know the risks, know the benefits, and do
> the right thing.
> BTW, there will ALWAYS be risks.
>
> Steve
>
> It doesn't take much to get it. But the pro cannot ever do that.
>
>
>
> > Also, I guess I am curious what the obsession is with 100% natural and
> > "clean", when really these guys (and girls) are so much different than
> > the average person, naturally and/or due to excessive training, diet and
> > supplements. I admit I have mixed feelings about drugs no drugs, but it
> > isn't cut and dry to me.
Steve- it isn't clear to me what you disagree with. Banning EPO?
|
| | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 02:44:06
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
|
rjk3@my-deja.com wrote:
> On Aug 2, 8:23 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> chester wrote:
>>
>>>> Sounds like a shill for the pharmceutical association. I think to
>>>> compare systematic exclusion of women and certain ethnic groups from
>>>> competition to restricting performance enhancement is a really, really
>>>> egregious rationalization.
>>>> Some of these issues were brought up in the days of Prozac Nation,
>>>> and I'm not an absolutist about this. There is a difference between
>>>> treating pathoses and performance enhancement of the normal, but the
>>>> line isn't always sharp. Usually though, to paraphrase Potter
>>>> Stewart, it's tough to define what is unfair, but I know it when I see
>>>> it.
>>>> Steve
>>> "Sounds like a shill for the pharmceutical association."
>>> I don't think so. Look, the point of the article is this. Eventually,
>>> the average joe viewer will be more enhanced and drugged up than the
>>> professional athlete. How reasonable is that? The fact is I can go to my
>>> doctor any time and request a testosterone patch top supplement my
>>> system.
>> And your doc gives it to you--just like that?
>> I disagree BTW. Maybe the first few Dutch and Belgian cyclists that
>> died from uncontrolled use of EPO didn't know how dangerous it could be
>> when abused. But you hope (at the least) that the average Joe viewer
>> will have a doctor who will know the risks, know the benefits, and do
>> the right thing.
>> BTW, there will ALWAYS be risks.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> It doesn't take much to get it. But the pro cannot ever do that.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Also, I guess I am curious what the obsession is with 100% natural and
>>> "clean", when really these guys (and girls) are so much different than
>>> the average person, naturally and/or due to excessive training, diet and
>>> supplements. I admit I have mixed feelings about drugs no drugs, but it
>>> isn't cut and dry to me.
>
> Steve- it isn't clear to me what you disagree with. Banning EPO?
>
I disagree as a matter of principle that pros may as well be allowed to
do whatever they wish to their bodies because everyone is doing it. In
the first place everyone isn't doing it; secondly (and aside from the
ethical issues) there are dangers to the pro looking for an "edge", and
that given the ethical cloud under which doping resides, so-called
"medical supervision" cannot be trusted. There will always be an
ethical conflict between the doctor hired by a team to help the team win
and the athlete.
Steve
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 02:57:48
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
|
"Steven Bornfeld" <dentaltwinmung@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:WDwsi.14533$zA4.7998@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> I disagree as a matter of principle that pros may as well be allowed to do
> whatever they wish to their bodies because everyone is doing it. In the
> first place everyone isn't doing it; secondly (and aside from the ethical
> issues) there are dangers to the pro looking for an "edge", and that given
> the ethical cloud under which doping resides, so-called "medical
> supervision" cannot be trusted. There will always be an ethical conflict
> between the doctor hired by a team to help the team win and the athlete.
That's pretty much my beliefs as well.
And we should be banning effect and not attempts. EPO that is
indistinguishable from human EPO will be available soon. So the tests won't
pick that up. But fixing a maximum hematocrit will help.
We can test for additional oxygenation components added to the blood so
that's not a problem.
hGH doesn't show ANY performance enhancing properties but you can test for
it. People who have used it tell me that they feel really great when using
that stuff so I suppose that's why the belief that it works.
Steroids? Again, setting limits on testosterone levels and ratios is
intelligent. Disqualifying people who have low testosterone levels is
insane.
What is natural? If someone naturally doesn't produce a hormone due to a
physical mutation do you disqualify them for using manufactured hormones to
bring their levels to normal?
Here's the bottom lines - as long as there are rewards for enhanced
performance people will try any method to win even if it means destroying
their own health. In order to prevent this you can't play hide and go seek
with their drug use - it's just too expensive to continue the growing
amounts of testing. Instead limit the amount of gain they can get from being
illegal with a combination of limiting any possible gains to what you could
achieve from normal training and losing income from disqualifications for
using drugs.
|
| |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 17:20:51
From:
Subject: Re: Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
|
On Aug 2, 5:50 pm, chester <ches...@hotmeal.com > wrote:
> > Sounds like a shill for the pharmceutical association. I think to
> > compare systematic exclusion of women and certain ethnic groups from
> > competition to restricting performance enhancement is a really, really
> > egregious rationalization.
> > Some of these issues were brought up in the days of Prozac Nation,
> > and I'm not an absolutist about this. There is a difference between
> > treating pathoses and performance enhancement of the normal, but the
> > line isn't always sharp. Usually though, to paraphrase Potter Stewart,
> > it's tough to define what is unfair, but I know it when I see it.
>
> > Steve
>
> "Sounds like a shill for the pharmceutical association."
>
> I don't think so. Look, the point of the article is this. Eventually,
> the average joe viewer will be more enhanced and drugged up than the
> professional athlete. How reasonable is that? The fact is I can go to my
> doctor any time and request a testosterone patch top supplement my
> system. It doesn't take much to get it. But the pro cannot ever do that.
>
> Also, I guess I am curious what the obsession is with 100% natural and
> "clean", when really these guys (and girls) are so much different than
> the average person, naturally and/or due to excessive training, diet and
> supplements. I admit I have mixed feelings about drugs no drugs, but
> it isn't cut and dry to me.
So lets try a fantasy medically enhanced professional regiment. What
would be allowed? Steroids? No, but just a little testosterone for
recovery? Perhaps.
Growth hormone? I don't think so.
EPO? None, or in limited amounts? Altitude tents? Probably. Not a
drug.
Blood transfusions? I don't think so.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 22:28:33
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:20:51 -0700, rjk3@my-deja.com wrote:
>So lets try a fantasy medically enhanced professional regiment. What
>would be allowed? Steroids? No, but just a little testosterone for
>recovery? Perhaps.
>
>Growth hormone? I don't think so.
>
>EPO? None, or in limited amounts? Altitude tents? Probably. Not a
>drug.
>
>Blood transfusions? I don't think so.
You're never going to clean up cycling with that attitude.
|
| |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 17:59:54
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
|
rjk3@my-deja.com wrote:
> This is an editorial in Nature magazine:
>
> A sporting chance p512
>
> Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier
> prohibitions on women and remuneration.
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7153/full/448512a.html
>
> Editorial
> Nature 448, 512 (2 August 2007)
|
| | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 14:50:11
From: chester
Subject: Re: Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
|
>
> Sounds like a shill for the pharmceutical association. I think to
> compare systematic exclusion of women and certain ethnic groups from
> competition to restricting performance enhancement is a really, really
> egregious rationalization.
> Some of these issues were brought up in the days of Prozac Nation,
> and I'm not an absolutist about this. There is a difference between
> treating pathoses and performance enhancement of the normal, but the
> line isn't always sharp. Usually though, to paraphrase Potter Stewart,
> it's tough to define what is unfair, but I know it when I see it.
>
> Steve
>
"Sounds like a shill for the pharmceutical association."
I don't think so. Look, the point of the article is this. Eventually,
the average joe viewer will be more enhanced and drugged up than the
professional athlete. How reasonable is that? The fact is I can go to my
doctor any time and request a testosterone patch top supplement my
system. It doesn't take much to get it. But the pro cannot ever do that.
Also, I guess I am curious what the obsession is with 100% natural and
"clean", when really these guys (and girls) are so much different than
the average person, naturally and/or due to excessive training, diet and
supplements. I admit I have mixed feelings about drugs no drugs, but
it isn't cut and dry to me.
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 00:23:41
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
|
chester wrote:
>
>>
>> Sounds like a shill for the pharmceutical association. I think to
>> compare systematic exclusion of women and certain ethnic groups from
>> competition to restricting performance enhancement is a really, really
>> egregious rationalization.
>> Some of these issues were brought up in the days of Prozac Nation,
>> and I'm not an absolutist about this. There is a difference between
>> treating pathoses and performance enhancement of the normal, but the
>> line isn't always sharp. Usually though, to paraphrase Potter
>> Stewart, it's tough to define what is unfair, but I know it when I see
>> it.
>>
>> Steve
>>
> "Sounds like a shill for the pharmceutical association."
>
> I don't think so. Look, the point of the article is this. Eventually,
> the average joe viewer will be more enhanced and drugged up than the
> professional athlete. How reasonable is that? The fact is I can go to my
> doctor any time and request a testosterone patch top supplement my
> system.
And your doc gives it to you--just like that?
I disagree BTW. Maybe the first few Dutch and Belgian cyclists that
died from uncontrolled use of EPO didn't know how dangerous it could be
when abused. But you hope (at the least) that the average Joe viewer
will have a doctor who will know the risks, know the benefits, and do
the right thing.
BTW, there will ALWAYS be risks.
Steve
It doesn't take much to get it. But the pro cannot ever do that.
>
> Also, I guess I am curious what the obsession is with 100% natural and
> "clean", when really these guys (and girls) are so much different than
> the average person, naturally and/or due to excessive training, diet and
> supplements. I admit I have mixed feelings about drugs no drugs, but it
> isn't cut and dry to me.
|
| |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 10:20:19
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
|
On Aug 2, 10:53 am, r...@my-deja.com wrote:
> On Aug 2, 10:39 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 11:44 pm, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > So, if this were to happen, at what age or stage of development do
> > > juniors/amateurs get introduced to the juice that they will need to
> > > work their way into the elite ranks?
>
> > Innovations come from the young. --D-y
>
> I wonder, if a medical protocol were to be permitted, what drugs
> would, or should, be permitted? Which ones should be totally outlawed
> as injurious to the riders' health?
I think that's the place to start. A massively reduced banned list and
some common sense. Vaughters wasp sting at the Tour was a perfect
example of the stupidity of the system.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 09:36:35
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
|
On Aug 2, 9:53 am, r...@my-deja.com wrote:
> On Aug 2, 10:39 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 11:44 pm, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > So, if this were to happen, at what age or stage of development do
> > > juniors/amateurs get introduced to the juice that they will need to
> > > work their way into the elite ranks?
>
> > Innovations come from the young. --D-y
>
> I wonder, if a medical protocol were to be permitted, what drugs
> would, or should, be permitted? Which ones should be totally outlawed
> as injurious to the riders' health?
Well, maybe not steroids:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8162930835755001242
Son of a gun, the AMA (they who would take vitamins off store shelves)
opposed the restriction of steroid use.
How about that?
Like orange juice if used with care-- IOW, under the supervision of a
real doctor with expertise in the field?
--D-y
|
| | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 12:50:30
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 09:36:35 -0700, "dustoyevsky@mac.com" <dustoyevsky@mac.com >
wrote:
>On Aug 2, 9:53 am, r...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> On Aug 2, 10:39 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Aug 1, 11:44 pm, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > So, if this were to happen, at what age or stage of development do
>> > > juniors/amateurs get introduced to the juice that they will need to
>> > > work their way into the elite ranks?
>>
>> > Innovations come from the young. --D-y
>>
>> I wonder, if a medical protocol were to be permitted, what drugs
>> would, or should, be permitted? Which ones should be totally outlawed
>> as injurious to the riders' health?
>
>Well, maybe not steroids:
>
>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8162930835755001242
>
>Son of a gun, the AMA (they who would take vitamins off store shelves)
>opposed the restriction of steroid use.
>
>How about that?
It's more about power for their profession rather than anything else. Why don't
we look at the AMA as we do any other industry trade group.
Ron
|
| |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 07:53:03
From:
Subject: Re: Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
|
On Aug 2, 10:39 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 11:44 pm, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > So, if this were to happen, at what age or stage of development do
> > juniors/amateurs get introduced to the juice that they will need to
> > work their way into the elite ranks?
>
> Innovations come from the young. --D-y
I wonder, if a medical protocol were to be permitted, what drugs
would, or should, be permitted? Which ones should be totally outlawed
as injurious to the riders' health?
|
| |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 07:39:46
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
|
On Aug 1, 11:44 pm, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com > wrote:
> So, if this were to happen, at what age or stage of development do
> juniors/amateurs get introduced to the juice that they will need to
> work their way into the elite ranks?
Innovations come from the young. --D-y
|
| |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 03:48:19
From:
Subject: Re: Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
|
On Aug 2, 12:44 am, DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 10:15 pm, r...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > This is an editorial in Nature magazine:
>
> > A sporting chance p512
>
> > Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier
> > prohibitions on women and remuneration.
>
> >http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7153/full/448512a.html
>
> > Editorial
> > Nature 448, 512 (2 August 2007)
|
| |
Date: 01 Aug 2007 21:44:51
From: DirtRoadie
Subject: Re: Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
|
On Aug 1, 10:15 pm, r...@my-deja.com wrote:
> This is an editorial in Nature magazine:
>
> A sporting chance p512
>
> Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier
> prohibitions on women and remuneration.
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7153/full/448512a.html
>
> Editorial
> Nature 448, 512 (2 August 2007)
|
| | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 22:14:22
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bans on drug enhancement in sport may go the way of earlier prohibitions...
|
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:44:51 -0700, DirtRoadie <DirtRoadie@aol.com >
wrote:
>So, if this were to happen, at what age or stage of development do
>juniors/amateurs get introduced to the juice that they will need to
>work their way into the elite ranks?
That's up to their Pediatrician.
|
|
