drug taking in sport

I suspect this is why Margarine asked the question! What are we to make of Paula's amazing performances? Especially when set against her very public protestations?
Notlob, the idea of quarantine might sound impractical at first, but think about it. If it means that the athlete is allowed access to the defining moment of their career, won't they grab the chance? I reckon this is a more practical way than destroying careers by after-the-fact legal actions. In the end, all that will happen is athletics will end up forking over vast sums of money to the legal profession. Far better to put resources into quarantine camps. I mean, Lanzarote is almost one already!!:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Margarine

I hope I don't sound naive, and this is a genuine question - is it possible for ANY athlete to compete and succeed at the very highest levels of sort without taking drugs, assuming that at least a proportion of their competitors will be doing so?

---

in cycling its not possible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daz h

in cycling its not possible

---

Why not? Lance did??

runs away quick....

Well I am not an expert but I have read a bit of the cycling literature - like Paul Kimmage's 'A Rough Ride' which is a great read - I believe it got him into trouble too - and I hadn't come across Anquetil's remark but it is in the same vein as Eddy Mercx's (have I spelt that right?) when he said "you don't get round the tour on a cheese sandwich". I do wonder if it is safest to assume that all top athletes are drug assisted and if cynicism is the best policy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Margarine

Well I am not an expert but I have read a bit of the cycling literature - like Paul Kimmage's 'A Rough Ride' which is a great read - I believe it got him into trouble too - and I hadn't come across Anquetil's remark but it is in the same vein as Eddy Mercx's (have I spelt that right?) when he said "you don't get round the tour on a cheese sandwich". I do wonder if it is safest to assume that all top athletes are drug assisted and if cynicism is the best policy?

---

but kimmage rode with two great riders who never took drugs
kelly and roche
even the great merckx tipped his hat as he rode by the simpson memorial as he climbed the ventoux in 1970
richard virenque remains a cycling hero in france yet willy voet is exiled by the public

margarine just to give you some idea in cycling
by the year 2000, 40 per cent of the tour de france peloton had registered drugs with the UCI doctors, so basically you could say that 40per cent of the worlds healthiest men could not ride the tour without drugs, in effect they had sick notes from the actual people that were testing them.

its funny how things turn out
true dom armstrong has never been proven guilty
cycle back to 2000 and as the peloton climbed the col de columbiere, roberto heras, ullrich, and virenque crushed armstrong, even lance admitting it was the worst day he had ever had on a bike , imagine the pain that man went through. the others just sailed away, heras overshot a bend , virenque came in first fresh as a daisy, ullrich 2nd , 2minutes in front of lance.
he nearly lost the tour that day , epo was the only difference

heras= positive for doping
virenque= positivefor doping
ullich = positive for doping
what happened the following year , armstrong aquired heras and in effect neutralised him

I don't get this "You can't ride the tour on a cheese sandwich" stuff. I've heard that quoted, or versions of it on numerous occasions. As I see it, yes you can ride the tour on a cheese sandwich, but average speeds will drop and the public will probably moan that it's not be such a great spectacle. Is that a bad thing though?

If it really isn't possible to ride the tour on a cheese sandwich then the organisors are idiots for condoning drug cheats by setting an impossible challenge.

Glucosamine
Cod Liver Oil
Multi Vit

That lot every day.

I don't know if it performance enhancing:o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Notlob till i die

Again referring back to my previous point, surely Paula Radcliffe is doing so. I am sure that someone will correct me but using this as an example I think is a false example as performance enhancing drugs are used mainly in distances far less than what could be classed as endurance events.

---

Notlob I'm glad you've brought this up.Paula Radcliffe does use drugs that are on the banned list, but She's given exemption because of a condition she claims to have.

She takes the asthma medication Salbutamol.This drug is a very potent Bronchodilator(relaxes the airways in the lungs)and stimulant.It increases the breakdown of glycogen(sugar) to provide energy and also stimulates the release of red cells.It is so potent that it can make your hands shake!

It is on the banned lists because of its SIDE EFFECTS, not the main effect for which it is given.Many world class athletes have used this drug including Miguel Indurain and Jan Ullrich.Doctors give a certificate stating the athlete has Asthma and they're allowed to compete.

Even if an athlete has Asthma, they still gain the performance enhancing effects of the medication, and therefore have an unfair advantage.

Should athletes with conditions requiring performance enhancing medication be allowed to compete?

I don't think they should.If we're to make it fair!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dominion

Why not? Lance did??

runs away quick....

---

Lance Armstrong is not a good example.In 1999 he gave a urine sample, which was stored.About 5years later it was opened and tested for research only.It contained EPO and the results were leaked to the press.When the sample was taken there was no EPO test.It was only a year later, that the test was developed enough to be used, but the athletes didn't know that.Also, they didn't know the samples would be kept.

Ultimately the drugs problem is moral.Men and Women in competing, agree to abide by the rules laid down regardless of what others are doing.Its called integrity.If we don't like the rules we shouldn't take part.Outside of our voluntary agreements, we should be able to do whatever we want to our own bodies and of course take the consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Notlob I'm glad you've brought this up.Paula Radcliffe does use drugs that are on the banned list, but She's given exemption because of a condition she claims to have.

She takes the asthma medication Salbutamol.This drug is a very potent Bronchodilator(relaxes the airways in the lungs)and stimulant.It increases the breakdown of glycogen(sugar) to provide energy and also stimulates the release of red cells.It is so potent that it can make your hands shake!

It is on the banned lists because of its SIDE EFFECTS, not the main effect for which it is given.Many world class athletes have used this drug including Miguel Indurain and Jan Ullrich.Doctors give a certificate stating the athlete has Asthma and they're allowed to compete.

Even if an athlete has Asthma, they still gain the performance enhancing effects of the medication, and therefore have an unfair advantage.

Should athletes with conditions requiring performance enhancing medication be allowed to compete?

I don't think they should.If we're to make it fair!

---

christopher in a court of law surely sabutamol would be classed as medication , therefore this is the problem. If an athlete went to the doctor and said i require cocaine to help me breath he or she would be laughed out loud but if they said oh i need some sabutamol to help me breath they are allowed it.
ive always maintained that you HAVE to have a clear list of whats dope and whats medication, once you start allowing things then it becomes a can of worms