(Listen) Sports doping should be legal - and accepted

There's no way to avoid the reality: this is the Drug Age of sports. There
is not one top-calibre athlete in any sport or discipline who does not in
all likelihood tweak their body using cocktails of legal, illegal and grey
area drugs.

Whether it's track and field, cycling, hockey, baseball or pro-wrestling...
the winners are using drugs.

Drugs are not going away, and they cannot be controlled. With biomeds and
nanotech, the very definition of what constitutes a "drug" will be
challenged. Instead of labouring under the pretense (or delusion) that
clean sports are possible with enough testing and regulation, the world
needs to face the hard fact: drug testing only confers an advantage onto
athletes who use undetectable drugs. It doesn't - and will never - stop
drug use.

Drug-friendly competitions would be the easiest and fairest way to level
the playing field. If any competitor can use whatever substance he or she
wants, then there are no longer any possible unfair advantages as far as
drugs go.

Sports authorities need to put the irrational taboo of drug use far behind
them. Technology will be changing sports in far more drastic ways than what
we see today. Soon, advancements in prosthetics will allow amputees to leap
higher and punch harder than mundane, unaugmented vanilla human beings.
When these cyborg athletes begin applying to compete against regular
humans, the drug Puritans will regret their actions in this time period.

"Menark Telroni" <afterthepounce@monty.brown> wrote

> Drug-friendly competitions would be the easiest and fairest way to level
> the playing field.

I resemble that remark.

--Tedward

Menark Telroni wrote:
> There's no way to avoid the reality: this is the Drug Age of sports. There
> is not one top-calibre athlete in any sport or discipline who does not in
> all likelihood tweak their body using cocktails of legal, illegal and grey
> area drugs.
>
> Whether it's track and field, cycling, hockey, baseball or pro-wrestling...
> the winners are using drugs.
>
> Drugs are not going away, and they cannot be controlled. With biomeds and
> nanotech, the very definition of what constitutes a "drug" will be
> challenged. Instead of labouring under the pretense (or delusion) that
> clean sports are possible with enough testing and regulation, the world
> needs to face the hard fact: drug testing only confers an advantage onto
> athletes who use undetectable drugs. It doesn't - and will never - stop
> drug use.
>
> Drug-friendly competitions would be the easiest and fairest way to level
> the playing field. If any competitor can use whatever substance he or she
> wants, then there are no longer any possible unfair advantages as far as
> drugs go.
>
> Sports authorities need to put the irrational taboo of drug use far behind
> them. Technology will be changing sports in far more drastic ways than what
> we see today. Soon, advancements in prosthetics will allow amputees to leap
> higher and punch harder than mundane, unaugmented vanilla human beings.
> When these cyborg athletes begin applying to compete against regular
> humans, the drug Puritans will regret their actions in this time period.

You obviously are on drugs yourself to make this kind of post.

On 15 Nov 2006 11:05:35 -0800, "trijcomm" <trijcomm@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Menark Telroni wrote:
>> There's no way to avoid the reality: this is the Drug Age of sports. There
>> is not one top-calibre athlete in any sport or discipline who does not in
>> all likelihood tweak their body using cocktails of legal, illegal and grey
>> area drugs.
>>
>> Whether it's track and field, cycling, hockey, baseball or pro-wrestling...
>> the winners are using drugs.
>>
>> Drugs are not going away, and they cannot be controlled. With biomeds and
>> nanotech, the very definition of what constitutes a "drug" will be
>> challenged. Instead of labouring under the pretense (or delusion) that
>> clean sports are possible with enough testing and regulation, the world
>> needs to face the hard fact: drug testing only confers an advantage onto
>> athletes who use undetectable drugs. It doesn't - and will never - stop
>> drug use.
>>
>> Drug-friendly competitions would be the easiest and fairest way to level
>> the playing field. If any competitor can use whatever substance he or she
>> wants, then there are no longer any possible unfair advantages as far as
>> drugs go.
>>
>> Sports authorities need to put the irrational taboo of drug use far behind
>> them. Technology will be changing sports in far more drastic ways than what
>> we see today. Soon, advancements in prosthetics will allow amputees to leap
>> higher and punch harder than mundane, unaugmented vanilla human beings.
>> When these cyborg athletes begin applying to compete against regular
>> humans, the drug Puritans will regret their actions in this time period.
>
>You obviously are on drugs yourself to make this kind of post.

Ooh, snappy comeback. Take that. =Kapow= +Bam+
=JS

Menark Telroni wrote:

>There's no way to avoid the reality: this is the Drug Age of sports. There
>is not one top-calibre athlete in any sport or discipline who does not in
>all likelihood tweak their body using cocktails of legal, illegal and grey
>area drugs.
>
>Whether it's track and field, cycling, hockey, baseball or pro-wrestling...
>the winners are using drugs.
>
>Drugs are not going away, and they cannot be controlled. With biomeds and
>nanotech, the very definition of what constitutes a "drug" will be
>challenged. Instead of labouring under the pretense (or delusion) that
>clean sports are possible with enough testing and regulation, the world
>needs to face the hard fact: drug testing only confers an advantage onto
>athletes who use undetectable drugs. It doesn't - and will never - stop
>drug use.
>
>Drug-friendly competitions would be the easiest and fairest way to level
>the playing field. If any competitor can use whatever substance he or she
>wants, then there are no longer any possible unfair advantages as far as
>drugs go.

Perhaps - but in the real world, it wouldn't be "any competitor can
use whatever substance he or she wants", but "any competitor can use
whatever substance he or she can afford (or, whatever substance his or
her sponsors/country/backers can develop that's better than what the
opponents have)". It no longer becomes a contest of athletics, but a
contest of who has (or can afford) the better laboratories.

-- Don

"Don Del Grande" <It no longer becomes a contest of athletics, but a contest
of who has (or can afford) the better laboratories.
>

That's what has been going on for the last 30-40 years of the Olympics, and
at least since the 1980s in most pro sports.

Who gets caught? The guys who don't spend the big bucks to clean out their
systems. Right now, any pro athlete that can afford HGH can get away with
it, since there is not test for HGH.

So when less than twenty athletes out of 4,000 get caught for doping in the
Olympics, it is because the other 3,980 were smart enough to demand the best
drugs they could get.

In article <8hR6h.205$g34.110@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
"Roly Poly Man" <wacky@yahoo.com> wrote:

> So when less than twenty athletes out of 4,000 get caught for doping in the
> Olympics, it is because the other 3,980 were smart enough to demand the best
> drugs they could get.

Was it the Austrian X-C team in the Olympics which had their suite
raided, finding drugs, needles, etc ... and a coach who'd been staying
with them (but who was banned from competition for past drug offenses)
fled the country ...

and not one of the athletes tested positive for anything.

Drug testing is a joke.

-Ron

In article <bmmnl2hvgrq4jv6c0clu91hrobr0ig2np0@4ax.com>,
Don Del Grande <del_grande_news@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Menark Telroni wrote:
>
> >There's no way to avoid the reality: this is the Drug Age of sports. There
> >is not one top-calibre athlete in any sport or discipline who does not in
> >all likelihood tweak their body using cocktails of legal, illegal and grey
> >area drugs.
> >
> >Whether it's track and field, cycling, hockey, baseball or pro-wrestling...
> >the winners are using drugs.
> >
> >Drugs are not going away, and they cannot be controlled. With biomeds and
> >nanotech, the very definition of what constitutes a "drug" will be
> >challenged. Instead of labouring under the pretense (or delusion) that
> >clean sports are possible with enough testing and regulation, the world
> >needs to face the hard fact: drug testing only confers an advantage onto
> >athletes who use undetectable drugs. It doesn't - and will never - stop
> >drug use.
> >
> >Drug-friendly competitions would be the easiest and fairest way to level
> >the playing field. If any competitor can use whatever substance he or she
> >wants, then there are no longer any possible unfair advantages as far as
> >drugs go.
>
> Perhaps - but in the real world, it wouldn't be "any competitor can
> use whatever substance he or she wants", but "any competitor can use
> whatever substance he or she can afford (or, whatever substance his or
> her sponsors/country/backers can develop that's better than what the
> opponents have)". It no longer becomes a contest of athletics, but a
> contest of who has (or can afford) the better laboratories.

That's exactly what we have nowadays with all the legal substances and
technology. Training centers in the rich countriess are more like
laboratories than traditional athletic facilities.

--
JD

"...if you think the 'Star Wars' prequels are a disease, then
'Serenity' is the cure."

Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <bmmnl2hvgrq4jv6c0clu91hrobr0ig2np0@4ax.com>,
> Don Del Grande <del_grande_news@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Menark Telroni wrote:
>>
>>> There's no way to avoid the reality: this is the Drug Age of
>>> sports. There is not one top-calibre athlete in any sport or
>>> discipline who does not in all likelihood tweak their body using
>>> cocktails of legal, illegal and grey area drugs.
>>>
>>> Whether it's track and field, cycling, hockey, baseball or
>>> pro-wrestling... the winners are using drugs.
>>>
>>> Drugs are not going away, and they cannot be controlled. With
>>> biomeds and nanotech, the very definition of what constitutes a
>>> "drug" will be challenged. Instead of labouring under the pretense
>>> (or delusion) that clean sports are possible with enough testing
>>> and regulation, the world needs to face the hard fact: drug testing
>>> only confers an advantage onto athletes who use undetectable drugs.
>>> It doesn't - and will never - stop drug use.
>>>
>>> Drug-friendly competitions would be the easiest and fairest way to
>>> level the playing field. If any competitor can use whatever
>>> substance he or she wants, then there are no longer any possible
>>> unfair advantages as far as drugs go.
>>
>> Perhaps - but in the real world, it wouldn't be "any competitor can
>> use whatever substance he or she wants", but "any competitor can use
>> whatever substance he or she can afford (or, whatever substance his
>> or her sponsors/country/backers can develop that's better than what
>> the opponents have)". It no longer becomes a contest of athletics,
>> but a contest of who has (or can afford) the better laboratories.
>
> That's exactly what we have nowadays with all the legal substances and
> technology. Training centers in the rich countriess are more like
> laboratories than traditional athletic facilities.

That's not in the least bit true is it? I mean how does an asphalt track
resemble a lab? How does a weights room resemble a lab? You're talking out
your hat, unless of course you've been to one of these training facilities
and witnessed test tube / bunsen burner experiments going on?

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

"Roly Poly Man" <wacky@yahoo.com> schreef:

> "Don Del Grande" <It no longer becomes a contest of athletics, but a
> contest
> of who has (or can afford) the better laboratories.

You dont need a lab to make steroids effective. Trust me.

> Who gets caught? The guys who don't spend the big bucks to clean out their
> systems.

How do you clean the system?

> Right now, any pro athlete that can afford HGH can get away with
> it, since there is not test for HGH.

There is no test for EPO either. But they can measure the amount, just like
Gh.

And the test for test is not a real test either.

> So when less than twenty athletes out of 4,000 get caught for doping in
> the
> Olympics, it is because the other 3,980 were smart enough to demand the
> best
> drugs they could get.

The beast drugs are avoided, they usually have a pretty long half-life.

----
Pete

"Menark Telroni" <afterthepounce@monty.brown> wrote in message
news:Xns987C5951BF880123j1kj4@217.22.228.20...
> There's no way to avoid the reality: this is the Drug Age of sports. There
> is not one top-calibre athlete in any sport or discipline who does not in
> all likelihood tweak their body using cocktails of legal, illegal and grey
> area drugs.
snip


It is legal.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

> Whether it's track and field, cycling, hockey, baseball or pro-wrestling...
> the winners are using drugs.

No, the losers use drugs.
Period.

Hey you have a headache you take a drug. Rick (Tonowanda) you have
menstral cramps you take a drug. You have a stumic ache you take a
drug. You want to go to sleep you take a drug. You want to stay awake
you take a drug. You want to remember more you take a drug. You want
to foget you take a drug. You want to have a good time you take a
drug. You want to have a bad time you take a drug. You want to lose
weight you take a drug. You want to gain weight you take a drug. You
are a fighter pilot on a long mission you take a drug. You are a Space
Shuttle astronaut and want to get rid of motion sickness you take a
drug. You want to kill yourself, you take a drug. You want to save
yourself you take a drug ... seems to me, drugs are pretty much an
important part of our daily lives already...

.... Are we being hypocrits when we say drugs are bad for baseball and
then we use them all the time ourselves?

GOOOOOOOO Barry! I believe!

Barry


Edward M. Kennedy wrote:
> "Menark Telroni" <afterthepounce@monty.brown> wrote
>
> > Drug-friendly competitions would be the easiest and fairest way to level
> > the playing field.
>
> I resemble that remark.
>
> --Tedward

Menark Telroni <afterthepounce@monty.brown> wrote in
news:Xns987C5951BF880123j1kj4@217.22.228.20:

> There's no way to avoid the reality: this is the Drug Age of sports.
> There is not one top-calibre athlete in any sport or discipline who
> does not in all likelihood tweak their body using cocktails of legal,
> illegal and grey area drugs.
>
> Whether it's track and field, cycling, hockey, baseball or
> pro-wrestling... the winners are using drugs.
>

I'm not so sure about the Kenyans who win the Marathons. There are an
inordinate number of them doing so, after all. At least to some extent
it has to be genetic.


--
Yours,
Dan S.

Reporting to you from South Bend
-The first step to beating an addiction is to admit that you believe in
addictions.

Pro-Wrestling isn't a sport... its entertainment. Bowling is a sport,
and yes a bowler could benefit from steroids. I found out a few months
back that Chess is a sport, and they do have a drug enforcement
program. Many a time I have seen Chess players go balistic or start to
shake.

Barry

Menark Telroni wrote:
> There's no way to avoid the reality: this is the Drug Age of sports. There
> is not one top-calibre athlete in any sport or discipline who does not in
> all likelihood tweak their body using cocktails of legal, illegal and grey
> area drugs.
>
> Whether it's track and field, cycling, hockey, baseball or pro-wrestling...
> the winners are using drugs.
>
> Drugs are not going away, and they cannot be controlled. With biomeds and
> nanotech, the very definition of what constitutes a "drug" will be
> challenged. Instead of labouring under the pretense (or delusion) that
> clean sports are possible with enough testing and regulation, the world
> needs to face the hard fact: drug testing only confers an advantage onto
> athletes who use undetectable drugs. It doesn't - and will never - stop
> drug use.
>
> Drug-friendly competitions would be the easiest and fairest way to level
> the playing field. If any competitor can use whatever substance he or she
> wants, then there are no longer any possible unfair advantages as far as
> drugs go.
>
> Sports authorities need to put the irrational taboo of drug use far behind
> them. Technology will be changing sports in far more drastic ways than what
> we see today. Soon, advancements in prosthetics will allow amputees to leap
> higher and punch harder than mundane, unaugmented vanilla human beings.
> When these cyborg athletes begin applying to compete against regular
> humans, the drug Puritans will regret their actions in this time period.

Barry Bonds wrote:
> Pro-Wrestling isn't a sport... its entertainment. Bowling is a sport,
> and yes a bowler could benefit from steroids. I found out a few months
> back that Chess is a sport, and they do have a drug enforcement
> program. Many a time I have seen Chess players go balistic or start to
> shake.
>
> Barry
>
> Menark Telroni wrote:
> > There's no way to avoid the reality: this is the Drug Age of sports. There
> > is not one top-calibre athlete in any sport or discipline who does not in
> > all likelihood tweak their body using cocktails of legal, illegal and grey
> > area drugs.
> >
> > Whether it's track and field, cycling, hockey, baseball or pro-wrestling...
> > the winners are using drugs.
> >
> > Drugs are not going away, and they cannot be controlled. With biomeds and
> > nanotech, the very definition of what constitutes a "drug" will be
> > challenged. Instead of labouring under the pretense (or delusion) that
> > clean sports are possible with enough testing and regulation, the world
> > needs to face the hard fact: drug testing only confers an advantage onto
> > athletes who use undetectable drugs. It doesn't - and will never - stop
> > drug use.
> >
> > Drug-friendly competitions would be the easiest and fairest way to level
> > the playing field. If any competitor can use whatever substance he or she
> > wants, then there are no longer any possible unfair advantages as far as
> > drugs go.
> >
> > Sports authorities need to put the irrational taboo of drug use far behind
> > them. Technology will be changing sports in far more drastic ways than what
> > we see today. Soon, advancements in prosthetics will allow amputees to leap
> > higher and punch harder than mundane, unaugmented vanilla human beings.
> > When these cyborg athletes begin applying to compete against regular
> > humans, the drug Puritans will regret their actions in this time period.


There's more to it. The post about taking a drug for everything. With
every drug you pay a penalty of some kind. Usually, over time that
includes
the liver. Messing with steroids does potentially pay a long term
price in
testicular function, liver disorders and other problems.

That said the number of high school kids emulating stars in their use
of drugs
is out of control. That's a real problem with longer term consequences.

No one can tell me that regular steroid use does not increase the
possibility
of prostate problems, increased possibility of liver disorders, and
other problems.
Ignoring that won't make them go away.

As far as use of HGH, something that makes heads grow on adults has to
be
a bit bizarre. Certainly, during recovery and after injuries it makes
a lot of sense.
What are exactly the long term effects? Show me the long term
studies?

Every drug has a down side. The more they're are used, the larger the
downside.

It doesn't mean the hysteria of anti all drugs is justified either. The
anti-drug movement
takes away civil rights, and makes vast quantities of people
"criminals". We saw
the good prohibition did.

"Beach Runner" <Bob4Health@hotmail.com> schreef:

> There's more to it. The post about taking a drug for everything. With
> every drug you pay a penalty of some kind. Usually, over time that
> includes the liver. Messing with steroids does potentially pay a long
> term
> price in testicular function...

We figured out how to circumvent that decades ago...

> liver disorders and other problems.


We figured out how to circumvent that decades ago...

> No one can tell me that regular steroid use does not increase the
> possibility of prostate problems...

That depends.

> increased possibility of liver disorders, and
> other problems.

Like what?

> Ignoring that won't make them go away.

Ignoring that certain problems can be solved doesnt help either.

Scare tactics dont work. They never worked before.

> As far as use of HGH, something that makes heads grow on adults has to
> be a bit bizarre. Certainly, during recovery and after injuries it makes
> a lot of sense. What are exactly the long term effects? Show me the long
> term
> studies?

Please do.

> Every drug has a down side. The more they're are used, the larger the
> downside.

Possible.

----
Pete