Crap as this sounds, I've trained with Radcliffe and she's absolutley run me into the ground - this was when I was in fairly good shape. Freak of nature or simply prepared to commit to running as a life rather than a part-time hobby?
Printable View
Crap as this sounds, I've trained with Radcliffe and she's absolutley run me into the ground - this was when I was in fairly good shape. Freak of nature or simply prepared to commit to running as a life rather than a part-time hobby?
I think most peole would agree that you wouldn't get to the top of either cycling or athletics without at least two items from:Quote:
Originally Posted by dominion
Some people get by with only two.
- freak of nature
- massive commitment
- drugs
I think Mud picked on a poor example with Paula Radcliffe. Asthma Medicine gave her a chance to compete. Forget the genetics or the class issue, if you worked that hard you wouldn't be crap.
I think it works quite well, actually. Why do we say that athletics must be absolutely pure, but then allow some people to medically enhance bits of themselves which would otherwise limit performance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
I'm not saying "ban Paula". I'm simply thinking about why we think about sporting excellence in the way we do.
Is that in your head..?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Yes. It was to eliminate it as a factor in the discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mud
Have you got a better answer to the question you asked than I have, or an answer at all?
Well bearing in mind that a) hard cases make bad law, and b) this is the interweb, then I think that no, you shouldn't be able to choose between your bad genetic traits and your good ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
The public expects to see a battle between individuals based on natural (dis)ability, hard work and tactical planning.
If you're born with fantastic legs, then good luck to you. If you're born with crap lungs, pick running as a recreation rather than a career choice.
Hope this helps. Whether it's a "better" answer is a bit subjective....
If training induces asthma then is it acceptable to take a banned PED drug to control the effects?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paula Radcliffe
Asthma on exercise can be mimicked by voluntarily increasing the breathing rate.
At the 1996 Olympic Games 20 per cent of athletes reported asthma on exercise.
Taking Mud's argument to a logical conclusion, you would have to ban any athlete that had seen a doctor for problems related to their sport since most issues could be tracked back to some genetic weakness or predisposition. We all struggle with some problem or other. The achievement of greatness seems to be the refinement of one gift whilst reducing the negative effects of others....this applies equally to fishing as it does to marathon running. But we have to have balance. I agree some might struggle with the concept of allowing salbutamol to reduce the effects of asthma for runners but banning beta blockers to reduce the effects of the shakes in a snooker player.
The difference in this comparison is that the salbutamol is being used for its intended primary effect i.e. to treat asthma but the beta blocker is being used for its unintended side effect i.e., not to treat high blood pressure but to take advantage of its side effect on the sympathetic nervous system
My piles are slowing me down.
Would you ban anusol?
Absolutely!:p