Victor Conte makes sense.

Fwiw, my scribbling appears inside [these things]

Schwarzenegger laments steroids in his own contest

By Adam Tanner and Howard Goller

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Some contestants in the largest annual
celebration of bodybuilding starting on Friday will likely be on
steroids,

[Duh. Ya think?]

highlighting how hard it is to keep performance-enhancing drugs out of
sport, Arnold Schwarzenegger said of the contest that bears his name.

"The question always is if random testing ... really works 100
percent," Schwarzenegger said in an interview on Thursday. "I believe
they can slip through it. I believe that we have athletes on the stage
that are taking things."

[I'd love a laundry list of what would be defined as "things" from a
bodybuilding menu perspective. And the cost of those products as well,
both financially and physically. While I'm what I consider pro freedom
- let the athletes take drugs but with good medical advice associated
with that drug use - I can't see how the athletes are making a profit
other than a psychological "I won the contest!" profit. I can't
remember which magazine it was in at the moment, but recently someone
called bodybuilding a niche sport with the niche salary included. The
IFBB does not pay an NFL or NBA salary, obviously. So, what's the
motivation to spend the bucks on various (and illegal) drugs while
participating in this sport?]


"Every single year I feel uncomfortable when we have the competition,"
said Schwarzenegger,

[Man, and, although I'm a Schwarzenegger fan, my hypocrisy/CYA alarm
is sounding big time. Uncomfortable? I'm guessing that Lorimar and
Schwarzenegger are both raking in a considerable sum. Perhaps I'm
wrong on that count. I'm no accountant.]

the actor-turned-California-governor, who has acknowledged using
steroids during his own bodybuilding days.

[Steroids, iirc from at least one book on Ahnuld, were legal during
those years. There's at least a slight contradiction, however, if you
believe Wendy Leigh's tell-all book where someone stated that Arnold
took truckloads of anabolics as a teenager and beyond, while Arnold
said he only took small doses.]

After becoming the most famous bodybuilder in the sport's history,
Schwarzenegger set up the annual Arnold Classic in Columbus, Ohio, in
1989.

[I was there. What a fantastic event.]

He remains the star of the three-day event.

[But do they still do the Polaroid thing? I'm guessing that's no
longer offered.]

"Just the way some of the athletes look - it is just an instinctive
thing.

[Wtf?]

I've been around the field enough to know there is a certain puffiness
and a certain size of the necks and this and that," he told Reuters.

[A certain puffiness? Uh, come on. Arnold is God, but come ON!]

Professional sports including baseball and track and field have
struggled to root out steroids in recent years and arrests this week
in a suspected steroid ring in Florida, New York and Texas highlighted
the issue anew.

"With a cyclist, you just don't know," said Schwarzenegger, 59, who is
recovering from a broken leg and using a cane. "In bodybuilding or in
lifting, you can see the look of the people, and to me the look today
is different than with some of the athletes from the days when I was
competing."

[Still, Arnold would most definitely *not* be laughed off the stage if
he'd be able to appear in his prime, imo.]

FIGHTING FOR YEARS

The Austrian-born Schwarzenegger has spoken out against steroids in
recent years.

[As a CYA strategy, however. In his heart of hearts, I'm certain that
Arnold recalls the drive to win a bodybuilding title at almost any
cost.]

"I have been fighting this battle for an endless amount of years. As a
matter of fact, I was the first one to have actual drug testing at the
competition," he said.

The former Mr. Olympia and Mr. Universe said he wanted to test
competitors an hour before the contest but faced resistance from the
International Federation of Bodybuilding & Fitness.

"They are not willing to do that. They say that there will be
lawsuits, that it will be illegal to do that to ask for the urine
test," he said.

[What test is that? And what would a urinalysis cover? What would it
detect? Growth hormone wouldn't show up, right?]

The best-known distributor of steroids in recent years, BALCO head
Victor Conte, said drugs in sport mirrored society's wider interest in
chemical fixes.

"From plastic surgery to Prozac to Viagra, we have essentially become
a performance-enhanced society," Conte, who was released from prison
last year, told Reuters this week. "A more important question than
who's cheating in sports is who isn't cheating to gain a competitive
edge in their pursuit of the American Dream?"

"Before we judge the athletes who are basically forced into using
drugs to be competitive, we need to look at our reflections in the
mirror and take an inventory of what's in our own medicine cabinets."/
copy and paste from http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...622F3C79DAF227

I just mentioned that article in the February Humour Award thread, but
thought Conte's words deserved a spot in the MFW reader lineup.

Almost disappointed in Arnie's take on the subject.

--
Curt

On Mar 3, 11:45 am, "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The best-known distributor of steroids in recent years, BALCO head
> Victor Conte, said drugs in sport mirrored society's wider interest in
> chemical fixes.

Perhaps you need a little historical perspective, dumbass.

Victor Conte was an habitual liar who told everyone in this newsgroup
that the performance of the elite athletes with whom he associated was
attributable to his ZMA bullshit. He stood consistently and firmly on
his claim when many here (including me) argued that point with him.
When he got busted and the truth was out, nobody in this newsgroup had
the slightest sympathy for him.

Both of you can eat shit and die.

John M. Williams wrote:
> "Curt" wrote:

> > The best-known distributor of steroids
> > in recent years, BALCO head Victor
> > Conte, said drugs in sport mirrored
> > society's wider interest in chemical
> > fixes.
>
> Perhaps you need a little historical
> perspective,

Perspective is almost always a good thing. Regardless, do you dispute
the words found in the article by Adam Tanner and Howard Goller? To
wit:

The best-known distributor of steroids in recent years, BALCO head
Victor Conte, said drugs in sport mirrored society's wider interest in
chemical fixes.

"From plastic surgery to Prozac to Viagra, we have essentially become
a performance-enhanced society," Conte, who was released from prison
last year, told Reuters this week. "A more important question than
who's cheating in sports is who isn't cheating to gain a competitive
edge in their pursuit of the American Dream?"

"Before we judge the athletes who are basically forced into using
drugs to be competitive, we need to look at our reflections in the
mirror and take an inventory of what's in our own medicine cabinets."/
copy and paste, see also http://tinyurl.com/2d5r2n

> dumbass.

If you are disputing those words, then some might say it's you who
should be identified as a dumbass. ;o)

I mean, how often have you offered up your Bronkaid fix? Trying to
beat the ban or help others circumvent such a ban?

> Victor Conte was an habitual liar

Define liar. Because you obviously have subpar understanding of truth,
ime.

> who told everyone in this newsgroup
> that the performance of the elite athletes
> with whom he associated was attributable
> to his ZMA bullshit.

How is that relevant to his quote above?

> He stood consistently and firmly on
> his claim when many here (including
> me) argued that point with him.

And how did your arguments relate to the idea that "drugs in sport
mirrored society's wider interest in chemical fixes"?

Well?

> When he got busted and the truth

Again, your idea of truth is marginal at best, imo. And I'm positive
that your interest in the matter had little if anything to do with
truth, but, rather, your joy at seeing someone with more than just
likely more smarts than yourself getting punished by a legal system
that has imprisoned more than one person without just cause.

> was out, nobody in this newsgroup had
> the slightest sympathy for him.

Whoopie.

> Both of you can eat shit

Go suck some Bronkaid, Em.

> and die.

Most would say that's eventual. Still, don't hold your breath.

--
Curt

JMW <jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 11:45 am, "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The best-known distributor of steroids in recent years, BALCO head
>> Victor Conte, said drugs in sport mirrored society's wider interest in
>> chemical fixes.
>
> Perhaps you need a little historical perspective, dumbass.
>
> Victor Conte was an habitual liar who told everyone in this newsgroup
> that the performance of the elite athletes with whom he associated was
> attributable to his ZMA bullshit. He stood consistently and firmly on
> his claim when many here (including me) argued that point with him.
> When he got busted and the truth was out, nobody in this newsgroup had
> the slightest sympathy for him.
>
> Both of you can eat shit and die.
>

Wow, curt just makes friends where ever he goes, doesnt he.




-----yttrx




--
http://www.yttrx.net

yttrx@yttrx.net (yttrx) wrote:

>JMW <jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 11:45 am, "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The best-known distributor of steroids in recent years, BALCO head
>>> Victor Conte, said drugs in sport mirrored society's wider interest in
>>> chemical fixes.
>>
>> Perhaps you need a little historical perspective, dumbass.
>>
>> Victor Conte was an habitual liar who told everyone in this newsgroup
>> that the performance of the elite athletes with whom he associated was
>> attributable to his ZMA bullshit. He stood consistently and firmly on
>> his claim when many here (including me) argued that point with him.
>> When he got busted and the truth was out, nobody in this newsgroup had
>> the slightest sympathy for him.
>>
>> Both of you can eat shit and die.
>>
>
>Wow, curt just makes friends where ever he goes, doesnt he.

But nowhere is he as beloved as in rec.arts.bodyart.

Curt wrote:
> John M. Williams wrote:
>> Perhaps you need a little historical
>> perspective,
>
> Perspective is almost always a good thing. Regardless, do you dispute
> the words found in the article by Adam Tanner and Howard Goller?

I will.

> To wit:
>
> The best-known distributor of steroids in recent years, BALCO head
> Victor Conte, said drugs in sport mirrored society's wider interest in
> chemical fixes.
>
> "From plastic surgery to Prozac to Viagra, we have essentially become
> a performance-enhanced society,"

Prozac doesn't work better than a placebo. Using Animal Pak is
not "cheating". You know very well that most of the stuff you like to take
could be secretly changed into powdered sugar capsules and you'd see no
difference.

> Conte, who was released from prison
> last year, told Reuters this week. "A more important question than
> who's cheating in sports is who isn't cheating to gain a competitive
> edge in their pursuit of the American Dream?"
>
> "Before we judge the athletes who are basically forced into using
> drugs to be competitive,

Nobody is "basically forced into using drugs". If an organization where
athletes compete is interested in keeping the sport "clean", they succeed.
I read an article analyzing a rate of progress in Olympic weightlifting.
They still didn't achieve the results they used to have when drug testing
was not fully enforced. If everybody is "basically forced into using
drugs" why they still can't lift as much as they could?

So it's "basically nonsense".

> we need to look at our reflections in the
> mirror and take an inventory of what's in our own medicine cabinets."/
> copy and paste, see also http://tinyurl.com/2d5r2n

I don't have a medicine cabinet. Never had, actually.

--
Andrzej Rosa

Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> Curt wrote:
[...]

> > do you dispute the words found in the
> > article by Adam Tanner and Howard
> > Goller?
>
> I will.

How? Which words specifically?

> > To wit:
>
> > The best-known distributor of steroids
> > in recent years, BALCO head Victor
> > Conte, said drugs in sport mirrored
> > society's wider interest in chemical fixes.
>
> > "From plastic surgery to Prozac to
> > Viagra, we have essentially become
> > a performance-enhanced society,"
>
> Prozac doesn't work better than a placebo.

I certainly hope Prozac works better than a placebo. Otherwise plenty
of people are wasting their money, yes?

Perhaps you meant Prozac works better than a placebo? Regardless,
what's that got to do with Conte's words?

> Using Animal Pak is not "cheating".

Neither is using "plastic surgery to Prozac to Viagra," depending on
who you ask. Perspective. Context. Law. Perspective is rather
individual, context varies, and laws differ from place to place.

> You know very well that most of the stuff
> you like to take could be secretly changed
> into powdered sugar capsules and you'd
> see no difference.

I'm not sure I'm getting your point, Andrzej. I will go along with the
idea that some substances are absolutely more powerful than others.
When I took Accutane as a 20-something, I absolutely noticed a drastic
physical change. The oil in my skin was seemingly sucked, leeched,
disintegrated, vaporized or in some other manner made to seemingly
vanish. Noticeable change.

Otoh, I've finished my Animal Paks and didn't observe any difference
in my energy levels, etc.

Still, what does that have to do with Conte or his statements?

> > Conte, who was released from prison
> > last year, told Reuters this week. "A
> > more important question than who's
> > cheating in sports is who isn't cheating
> > to gain a competitive edge in their pursuit
> > of the American Dream?"
>
> > "Before we judge the athletes who are
> > basically forced into using drugs to be
> > competitive,
>
> Nobody is "basically forced into using drugs".

So, this is the portion you dispute? Obviously, at least one or two
athletes have made the choice to use drugs in order to compete at an
Olympic or world class level. Choosing to fail or succeed based on
physical limitations versus "basically forced into using drugs" to
reach beyond those physical limitations is semantics at best, imo.

> If an organization where athletes compete
> is interested in keeping the sport "clean",
> they succeed.

This is, afaik, Conte's contention - that keeping the sport "clean" is
a joke. Everyone's using, is apparently his opinion.

> I read an article analyzing a rate of progress
> in Olympic weightlifting.
> They still didn't achieve the results they used
> to have when drug testing was not fully
> enforced. If everybody is "basically forced
> into using drugs" why they still can't lift as
> much as they could?

Fear of the consequences of testing positive.

Or, if you have a brighter soul or rosier lenses, embracing good
sportsmanship and a sense of fair play.

> So it's "basically nonsense".

I disagree.

> > we need to look at our reflections in the
> > mirror and take an inventory of what's in
> > our own medicine cabinets."/copy and
> > paste, see alsohttp://tinyurl.com/2d5r2n
>
> I don't have a medicine cabinet. Never had, actually.

Would you like one? There's a Lowe's <www.lowes.com> and a Home Depot
<www.homedepot.com> nearby.

> Andrzej Rosa

--
Curt

JMW" <jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172950382.554392.270970@s48g2000cws.googlegr oups.com...
> On Mar 3, 11:45 am, "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The best-known distributor of steroids in recent years, BALCO head
>> Victor Conte, said drugs in sport mirrored society's wider interest in
>> chemical fixes.
>
> Perhaps you need a little historical perspective, dumbass.
>
> Victor Conte was an habitual liar who told everyone in this newsgroup
> that the performance of the elite athletes with whom he associated was
> attributable to his ZMA bullshit. He stood consistently and firmly on
> his claim when many here (including me) argued that point with him.
> When he got busted and the truth was out, nobody in this newsgroup had
> the slightest sympathy for him.
>
> Both of you can eat shit and die.
>

John,
To be honest, I don't know why you even both with reading ANYTHING that Curt
has to say, but anyone who will take the time will find out that you are
100% correct. I can't tell you how many times Dan Duchaine and I busted
Victor's balls here about his hollow claims regarding ZMA. He is a con man
of the highest order. He should have done 10 times the amount of time he did
just for conning people. Anyone who claims that ZMA can do anything, let
alone work like anabolic steroids is either a moron or a con man. Victor is
both. It is interesting to see that he NEVER came back here after everything
hit the fan.

Rob



--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/


"

On Mar 3, 5:16 pm, "Curt" <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> >
> > I don't have a medicine cabinet. Never had, actually.
>
> Would you like one? There's a Lowe's <www.lowes.com> and a Home Depot
> <www.homedepot.com> nearby.

I don't think they deliver to Poland, dumbass.

Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:escpri$ecm$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Curt wrote:
>> John M. Williams wrote:
>>> Perhaps you need a little historical
>>> perspective,
>>
>> Perspective is almost always a good thing. Regardless, do you dispute
>> the words found in the article by Adam Tanner and Howard Goller?
>
> I will.
>
>> To wit:
>>
>> The best-known distributor of steroids in recent years, BALCO head
>> Victor Conte, said drugs in sport mirrored society's wider interest in
>> chemical fixes.
>>
>> "From plastic surgery to Prozac to Viagra, we have essentially become
>> a performance-enhanced society,"
>
> Prozac doesn't work better than a placebo.

Really? Where do you get this horse shit?

Using Animal Pak is
> not "cheating". You know very well that most of the stuff you like to
> take
> could be secretly changed into powdered sugar capsules and you'd see no
> difference.
>
> --
> Andrzej Rosa


What are YOU taking that could be swapped out for powdered sugar and still
work? NOTHING that I take would meet that criteria and I take about 10
different medications every day. Do you think I could stop taking the anti
rejection medication for my kidney transplant with no side effects? PLEASE
use some facts when presenting something here.



--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/


"

John M. Williams wrote:
[...]

re Lowe's and Home Depot

> I don't think they deliver to Poland,
> dumbass.

Well, then I guess I'd have to climb on my Harley and ride there,
wouldn't I? I think a medicine cabinet would easily fit in a backpack.
Ymmv.

I bet Andrzej would even have a mind to offer up his home address if
asked nicely. Say, do you have a home address? Because you mentioned
something about my riding to your place, iirc.

Oh, that was just you blowing smoke. No surprise.

And, mayhap you've heard of an organization called the United States
Postal Service, Johnny.

http://pe.usps.gov/text/imm/immicl/immiclnr_020.html

They deliver.

You might recall my offering a copy of The Abs Diet as a gift to at
least one patron of this newsgroup. Why not offer a gift in the form
of a medicine cabinet?

Still, being the kind of person I'm assuming you are, it seems that
you interpreted my comment as merely offering up a URL.

--
Curt

Curt wrote:

> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>> Curt wrote:
[...]
>> Prozac doesn't work better than a placebo.
>
> I certainly hope Prozac works better than a placebo.

It doesn't. There is a negligible difference between Prozac and typical
placebo, which disappears totally when subjects are given some other
medicine which reproduces at least some of the side effects which Prozac
(and other similar drugs) typically give. At least some patients can tell
if they are on placebo, due to lack of typical side effects. If they have
side effects, they can't tell, and under this conditions Prozac works
exactly like a placebo.

> Otherwise plenty
> of people are wasting their money, yes?

Hard to say. There are no better drugs, and Prozac at least is a strong
placebo, due to aggressive marketing. Placebo works, but only if one
believes in it. Marketing helps us believe.

> Perhaps you meant Prozac works better than a placebo?

It doesn't. I'm sorry. ;-)

> Regardless, what's that got to do with Conte's words?

It shows that we actually aren't "performance enhanced society". At least
not as much as we would like to be. We often stuff ourselves with various
pills, but plenty of them simply do not work.

>> Using Animal Pak is not "cheating".
>
> Neither is using "plastic surgery to Prozac to Viagra," depending on
> who you ask. Perspective. Context. Law. Perspective is rather
> individual, context varies, and laws differ from place to place.

Plastic surgery is like clothes or makeup, and it's surgery, not chemistry,
so it's bad example. Prozac is a placebo (there is good research on it and
believe me that I read it very carefully), so bad example again. Viagra
supposedly works. One out of three is bad.

>> You know very well that most of the stuff
>> you like to take could be secretly changed
>> into powdered sugar capsules and you'd
>> see no difference.
>
> I'm not sure I'm getting your point, Andrzej. I will go along with the
> idea that some substances are absolutely more powerful than others.
> When I took Accutane as a 20-something, I absolutely noticed a drastic
> physical change. The oil in my skin was seemingly sucked, leeched,
> disintegrated, vaporized or in some other manner made to seemingly
> vanish. Noticeable change.
>
> Otoh, I've finished my Animal Paks and didn't observe any difference
> in my energy levels, etc.
>
> Still, what does that have to do with Conte or his statements?

I mean that as much as we would want to have effective performance
enhancers, there aren't many which actually work well, or if they do work,
we don't take them regularly. For example amphetamine works very well in
increasing somebody's mental abilities. So what? How many people have it
in their medicine cabinets?

>> > "Before we judge the athletes who are
>> > basically forced into using drugs to be
>> > competitive,
>>
>> Nobody is "basically forced into using drugs".
>
> So, this is the portion you dispute? Obviously, at least one or two
> athletes have made the choice to use drugs in order to compete at an
> Olympic or world class level. Choosing to fail or succeed based on
> physical limitations versus "basically forced into using drugs" to
> reach beyond those physical limitations is semantics at best, imo.

No, it's not semantics. If you don't want to, you don't take drugs. If you
take drugs and they catch you, you are punished. Plenty of organizations
try to force their athletes into staying clean, and even in untested
competitions not everybody is taking drugs.

>> If an organization where athletes compete
>> is interested in keeping the sport "clean",
>> they succeed.
>
> This is, afaik, Conte's contention - that keeping the sport "clean" is
> a joke. Everyone's using, is apparently his opinion.

Not everybody. Don't you think that contemporary female sprinters are
actually quite good looking? Nowadays the look almost like women.

>> I read an article analyzing a rate of progress
>> in Olympic weightlifting.
>> They still didn't achieve the results they used
>> to have when drug testing was not fully
>> enforced. If everybody is "basically forced
>> into using drugs" why they still can't lift as
>> much as they could?
>
> Fear of the consequences of testing positive.

So the testing works, after all?

>> So it's "basically nonsense".
>
> I disagree.

I mean that Conte is IMO wrong both in his metaphor and his claim. We are
neither performance enhanced society, nor athletes cheat if they are
regularly tested. The stuff which people often take is not really
effective, and the drugs which some athletes may still take, aren't working
too. One can analyze the rate of improvement in various sports, and the
idea that everybody is drugged to the gills simply doesn't hold any water.

>> I don't have a medicine cabinet. Never had, actually.
>
> Would you like one? There's a Lowe's <www.lowes.com> and a Home Depot
> <www.homedepot.com> nearby.

Why would I need one? If I'm ill and need some pills, I take them and I'm
done.

--
Andrzej Rosa

Robert Schuh wrote:
[...]

> I can't tell you how many times Dan
> Duchaine and I busted Victor's balls
> here about his hollow claims regarding
> ZMA.

And? Is that you tooting your own horn for some reason? Did you read
the quote I referenced?

"From plastic surgery to Prozac to Viagra, we have essentially become
a performance-enhanced society," Conte, who was released from prison
last year, told Reuters this week. "A more important question than
who's cheating in sports is who isn't cheating to gain a competitive
edge in their pursuit of the American Dream?"

"Before we judge the athletes who are basically forced into using
drugs to be competitive, we need to look at our reflections in the
mirror and take an inventory of what's in our own medicine cabinets." /
quote

> He is a con man of the highest order.
> He should have done 10 times the
> amount of time he did just for conning
> people.

Did you do time? If so, for what? And, if you break a law, but don't
con anyone, then it's A-OK?

> Anyone who claims that ZMA can do
> anything, let alone work like anabolic
> steroids is either a moron or a con man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Conte

Regardless of whether Conte was a snitch, a moron, or a con man, none
of those appellations has anything to do with the merit of the quote,
imo.

> Victor is both. It is interesting to see that
> he NEVER came back here after
> everything hit the fan.

People set their priorities.

> Rob

--
Curt

Hard Bop Drums wrote:

> Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:escpri$ecm$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> Prozac doesn't work better than a placebo.
>
> Really? Where do you get this horse shit?

From scientific publications.

>> Using Animal Pak is not "cheating". You know very well that most of the
>> stuff you like to take could be secretly changed into powdered sugar
>> capsules and you'd see no difference.
>
> What are YOU taking that could be swapped out for powdered sugar and still
> work? NOTHING that I take would meet that criteria

If you take it consciously, most would still work to some extent. That's
why you need double blind trials.

> and I take about 10
> different medications every day. Do you think I could stop taking the anti
> rejection medication for my kidney transplant with no side effects?

It's a medication, not a performance enhancing drug. Performance enhancing
drugs are taken by generally healthy people.

> PLEASE use some facts when presenting something here.

I use facts regularly. They are still legal around where I live.

--
Andrzej Rosa

Andrzej wrote:
[...]

> >> Prozac doesn't work better than a placebo.
> <snip> There is a negligible difference
> between Prozac and typical placebo, which
> disappears totally when subjects are given
> some other medicine which reproduces
> at least some of the side effects which
> Prozac (and other similar drugs) typically
> give. At least some patients can tell
> if they are on placebo, due to lack of typical
> side effects. If they have side effects, they
> can't tell, and under this conditions Prozac
> works exactly like a placebo.

Interesting.

> <snip> There are no better drugs, and
> Prozac at least is a strong placebo, due
> to aggressive marketing. Placebo works,
> but only if one believes in it. Marketing
> helps us believe.

Prozac may be like this or as you describe, but Accutane definitely
packed a punch. I'm not disputing your comments entirely, but neither
will I dispute Conte's words. Many people will cheat, given the
motivation and/or opportunity, unfortunately.

[...]

re "what's that got to do with Conte's words?"

> It shows that we actually aren't
> "performance enhanced society". At least
> not as much as we would like to be. We
> often stuff ourselves with various pills,
> but plenty of them simply do not work.

Okay, I see your point.

[...]

> >> You know very well that most of the stuff
> >> you like to take could be secretly changed
> >> into powdered sugar capsules and you'd
> >> see no difference.
[...]

Fortunately, the stuff I like to take is not necessary to my continued
life on this earth.

> I mean that as much as we would want
> to have effective performance enhancers,
> there aren't many which actually work well,
> or if they do work, we don't take them
> regularly.

That is entirely true from my perspective. I buy a ton of supplements
and then wind up watching them collect dust.

> For example amphetamine works very
> well in increasing somebody's mental
> abilities. So what? How many people
> have it in their medicine cabinets?

Hold on. Let me check. ;o)

[...]

> If you don't want to, you don't take drugs.
> If you take drugs and they catch you,
> you are punished. Plenty of organizations
> try to force their athletes into staying
> clean, and even in untested competitions
> not everybody is taking drugs.

Again, an instance of exaggeration does not disqualify the entire
quote, imo.

> >> If an organization where athletes compete
> >> is interested in keeping the sport "clean",
> >> they succeed.
[...]

re "Everyone's using."

> Not everybody. Don't you think that
>contemporary female sprinters are
> actually quite good looking? Nowadays
> the look almost like women.

Yeah, but I think Kelli White is quite good looking. Marion Jones,
too.

[...]

> So the testing works, after all?

I don't know. I suspect it does, but I've read that it doesn't work on
all substances. And, certainly, people can pop a false positive or
that, at least, is within what I'd guess is the realm of possibility.
Did you see the recent woman athlete who was told she's, uh, not a
woman? D'OH!

> >> So it's "basically nonsense".

THAT's what I'd call basically nonsense.
[...]

> I mean that Conte is IMO wrong both in
> his metaphor and his claim. We are
> neither performance enhanced society,
> nor athletes cheat if they are regularly
> tested. The stuff which people often take
> is not really effective, and the drugs
> which some athletes may still take, aren't
> working too. One can analyze the rate of
> improvement in various sports, and the
> idea that everybody is drugged to the gills
> simply doesn't hold any water.

So, perhapsprobablymaybe he was exaggerating. I would like to think
that, all things being equal, the same people would be on top in their
respective sports, but, as it stands, I wouldn't be at all surprised
if there have been instances where athlete A (an athlete who without
drugs would be inferior to athlete B) "drugged to the gills" beat
athlete B a.k.a. the drug-free athlete due to that percentage of edge
allowed by the drug use. Oooh, that was an ugly sentence. I hope you
got what I meant.

re medicine cabinets

> Why would I need one? If I'm ill and
> need some pills, I take them and I'm
> done.

Good. That'll save me in postage.

Still, I keep aftershave, my razor, extra blades, and toothpaste in
there.

> Andrzej Rosa

--
Curt

Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:esd0nk$aqd$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Hard Bop Drums wrote:
>
>> Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:escpri$ecm$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>>> Prozac doesn't work better than a placebo.
>>
>> Really? Where do you get this horse shit?
>
> From scientific publications.
>
>>> Using Animal Pak is not "cheating". You know very well that most of the
>>> stuff you like to take could be secretly changed into powdered sugar
>>> capsules and you'd see no difference.
>>
>> What are YOU taking that could be swapped out for powdered sugar and
>> still
>> work? NOTHING that I take would meet that criteria
>
> If you take it consciously, most would still work to some extent. That's
> why you need double blind trials.
>
>> and I take about 10
>> different medications every day. Do you think I could stop taking the
>> anti
>> rejection medication for my kidney transplant with no side effects?
>
> It's a medication, not a performance enhancing drug. Performance
> enhancing
> drugs are taken by generally healthy people.


So your contention is that Anabolic Steroids do not work? Their effects are
just placebo? Are you proud of your ignorance??


>
>> PLEASE use some facts when presenting something here.
>
> I use facts regularly. They are still legal around where I live.
>
> --
> Andrzej Rosa

Right. I am DYING to hear your response to what I wrote above.




--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/


"

"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> schreef:

>> I certainly hope Prozac works better than a placebo.

> It doesn't.

What about MDMA?

Its not the same drug, and its mechenism entirely different, but they have
something in common.

>There is a negligible difference between Prozac and typical
> placebo, which disappears totally when subjects are given some other
> medicine which reproduces at least some of the side effects which Prozac
> (and other similar drugs) typically give. At least some patients can tell
> if they are on placebo, due to lack of typical side effects. If they have
> side effects, they can't tell, and under this conditions Prozac works
> exactly like a placebo.

How do you know all that?

>> Perhaps you meant Prozac works better than a placebo?

> It doesn't. I'm sorry. ;-)

I remember we discussed this before.

I am sure that in some cases, it can be used as a performance enhancer.

>> Regardless, what's that got to do with Conte's words?

> It shows that we actually aren't "performance enhanced society". At least
> not as much as we would like to be. We often stuff ourselves with various
> pills, but plenty of them simply do not work.

I think its a matter of selection. There are some freaky drugs out there.

For instance, due to my sleeping problem, i tried the classic stuff a few
times. But they didnt do much.
Cyproheptadine, an anti-histamine, and very effective to counteract
allergies and motion sickness, worked a lot better. And its not addictive.
Downside is, you have to spend more money on food.

Scary thing is, that my doctor didnt suggest the drug. I did. As usual.

>> Neither is using "plastic surgery to Prozac to Viagra," depending on
>> who you ask. Perspective. Context. Law. Perspective is rather
>> individual, context varies, and laws differ from place to place.

> Plastic surgery is like clothes or makeup, and it's surgery, not
> chemistry,
> so it's bad example. Prozac is a placebo (there is good research on it
> and
> believe me that I read it very carefully), so bad example again. Viagra
> supposedly works. One out of three is bad.

There, you say it again. I have been reading about pharmaceuticals since
more then 2 decades.

Why do you think Prozac is a placebo?

> I mean that as much as we would want to have effective performance
> enhancers, there aren't many which actually work well, or if they do work,
> we don't take them regularly. For example amphetamine works very well in
> increasing somebody's mental abilities.

True. Just as Ritalin.

> So what?

Doctors dont prescribe it. They prescribe SSRIs. LOTSA SSRIs.
I am not kidding. I got suspicious. I asked them if they get a bonus each
and every time they prescribe it.

> How many people have it in their medicine cabinets?

Well, i dont.
I WISH i had. And just to function normally. Nothing fancy.

>> This is, afaik, Conte's contention - that keeping the sport "clean" is
>> a joke. Everyone's using, is apparently his opinion.

> Not everybody. Don't you think that contemporary female sprinters are
> actually quite good looking? Nowadays the look almost like women.

Its possible to enhance a certain feminin look by taking AS, especially if
the woman looked feminin to begin with, and if muscles such as quads, hams,
calves and glutes get developed.

Just sayin its possible.

>> Fear of the consequences of testing positive.

> So the testing works, after all?

Andre, the half-live of most orals is aprox. 4 hours. Pregnyl helps to
restore the test/epitest ratio.

And they still cant detect EPO and growt hormone. Really, they cant.

> I mean that Conte is IMO wrong both in his metaphor and his claim. We are
> neither performance enhanced society, nor athletes cheat if they are
> regularly tested. The stuff which people often take is not really
> effective, and the drugs which some athletes may still take, aren't
> working
> too.

Which are those?

> One can analyze the rate of improvement in various sports, and the
> idea that everybody is drugged to the gills simply doesn't hold any water.

Different sports, different drugs.

What if i told that i perform better at the shooting range if take
propranolol. Would you believe me?

But that doesnt mean all the other shooters have the same benefits.

--
Pete

"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> schreef:

> It's a medication, not a performance enhancing drug.

Whoa, wait a minute!

Whats a medication for sick people is a performance enhancer for the
athlete.

Have you ever the seen the dosages of oxymetholone/nandrolone taken by
people who are HIV positive?

> Performance enhancing drugs are taken by generally healthy people.

All the "performance enhancers" i am aware of, are in fact medications.

Even Ecstacy and PCP were meds at one point.

--
Pete

Pete wrote:
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
>>> I certainly hope Prozac works better than a placebo.
>
>> It doesn't.
>
> What about MDMA?

I don't know if it helps, but it may work.

>> There is a negligible difference between Prozac and typical
>> placebo, which disappears totally when subjects are given some other
>> medicine which reproduces at least some of the side effects which Prozac
>> (and other similar drugs) typically give. At least some patients can
>> tell
>> if they are on placebo, due to lack of typical side effects. If they
>> have side effects, they can't tell, and under this conditions Prozac
>> works exactly like a placebo.
>
> How do you know all that?

I read research. I think it was by Kirsch. It was definitely available for
free in full text, and it was good science. I can tell good science when I
see it.

>> It shows that we actually aren't "performance enhanced society". At
>> least not as much as we would like to be. We often stuff ourselves with
>> various pills, but plenty of them simply do not work.
>
> I think its a matter of selection. There are some freaky drugs out there.
>
> For instance, due to my sleeping problem, i tried the classic stuff a few
> times. But they didnt do much.
> Cyproheptadine, an anti-histamine, and very effective to counteract
> allergies and motion sickness, worked a lot better. And its not addictive.
> Downside is, you have to spend more money on food.
>
> Scary thing is, that my doctor didnt suggest the drug. I did. As usual.

It's not performance enhancing, not according to how I understand this term.
If would be if perfectly normal person would use it to help him in his
career, or something analogous. Using a medication to get back to normal
is a cure, not performance enhancing.

>> Plastic surgery is like clothes or makeup, and it's surgery, not
>> chemistry, so it's bad example. Prozac is a placebo (there is good
>> research on it and believe me that I read it very carefully), so bad
>> example again. Viagra supposedly works. One out of three is bad.
>
> There, you say it again. I have been reading about pharmaceuticals since
> more then 2 decades.
>
> Why do you think Prozac is a placebo?

Why do Psychiatric Times think the same?

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/show...leID=175802224
#v+
Antidepressants are widely believed to be exceptionally effective
medications. The data, however, tell a different story. Kirsch et al.
(2002a) analyzed the data sent to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by
the manufacturers of the six most widely prescribed antidepressants
(fluoxetine [Prozac], paroxetine [Paxil], sertraline [Zoloft], venlafaxine
[Effexor], nefazodone [Serzone] and citalopram [Celexa]). Their research
showed that although the response to antidepressants was substantial, the
response to inert placebo was almost as great. The mean difference was
about two points on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D).
Although statistically significant, this difference is not clinically
significant (Jacobson et al., 1999). More than half of the clinical trials
sponsored by the pharmaceutical companies failed to find significant
drug/placebo difference, and there were no advantages to higher doses of
antidepressants. The small difference between antidepressant and placebo
has been referred to as a "dirty little secret" by clinical trial
researchers (Hollon et al., 2002), a secret that was believed by FDA
officials to be "of no practical value to either the patient or prescriber"
(Leber, 1998, as cited in Kirsch et al., 2002b).
#v-

>> So what?
>
> Doctors dont prescribe it. They prescribe SSRIs. LOTSA SSRIs.
> I am not kidding. I got suspicious. I asked them if they get a bonus each
> and every time they prescribe it.

Some do. Some researchers and medicine doctors hold stock in pharmaceutical
companies. Then they publish research showing how well some drugs they
indirectly sell work. I'm not joking. Some researchers are simply bought
to endorse new drugs on scientific conferences. Good names, too. Ugly
stuff.

>> How many people have it in their medicine cabinets?
>
> Well, i dont. I WISH i had. And just to function normally. Nothing fancy.

You see? You want to be normal, not superhuman. It's not performance
enhancing, it's a treatment. Anyway, some students used it when I was one
of them. Why, even my auntie did use it once and she never used any
recreational drugs. It was performance enhancement, but it was an
exception, even among university students.

>> Not everybody. Don't you think that contemporary female sprinters are
>> actually quite good looking? Nowadays the look almost like women.
>
> Its possible to enhance a certain feminin look by taking AS, especially if
> the woman looked feminin to begin with, and if muscles such as quads,
> hams, calves and glutes get developed.
>
> Just sayin its possible.

Sure it is, and maybe some of them take the risks of being banned and take
something anyway. But do you remember how female athletes used to look?
Hideous. Those days using was probably a rule, not an exception.

>>> Fear of the consequences of testing positive.
>
>> So the testing works, after all?
>
> Andre, the half-live of most orals is aprox. 4 hours. Pregnyl helps to
> restore the test/epitest ratio.
>
> And they still cant detect EPO and growt hormone. Really, they cant.

Why then they still can't lift as much as they used to two decades ago? If
all the stuff you can't test would work even half as well as the old gear,
they would surpass their achievements long time ago, wouldn't they?

>> I mean that Conte is IMO wrong both in his metaphor and his claim. We
>> are neither performance enhanced society, nor athletes cheat if they are
>> regularly tested. The stuff which people often take is not really
>> effective, and the drugs which some athletes may still take, aren't
>> working too.
>
> Which are those?

Sprinters, for example. Ben Johnson was faster than supposedly drugged to
the gills contemporaries.

>> One can analyze the rate of improvement in various sports, and the
>> idea that everybody is drugged to the gills simply doesn't hold any
>> water.
>
> Different sports, different drugs.
>
> What if i told that i perform better at the shooting range if take
> propranolol. Would you believe me?

I could. If I wouldn't, I could measure your performance and find out. In
some sports it's not possible, and funnily enough, Conte leached on
athletes playing in these sports.

> But that doesnt mean all the other shooters have the same benefits.

So it isn't a wonder drug?

--
Andrzej Rosa

Curt wrote:
> Andrzej wrote:
[...]
>> So the testing works, after all?
>
> I don't know. I suspect it does, but I've read that it doesn't work on
> all substances.

It doesn't need to. It's enough if it works on effective ones.

> And, certainly, people can pop a false positive or
> that, at least, is within what I'd guess is the realm of possibility.
> Did you see the recent woman athlete who was told she's, uh, not a
> woman? D'OH!

No, I didn't, but if it's about chromosomal sex, it's nothing new.

>> working too. One can analyze the rate of
>> improvement in various sports, and the
>> idea that everybody is drugged to the gills
>> simply doesn't hold any water.
>
> So, perhapsprobablymaybe he was exaggerating. I would like to think
> that, all things being equal, the same people would be on top in their
> respective sports, but, as it stands, I wouldn't be at all surprised
> if there have been instances where athlete A (an athlete who without
> drugs would be inferior to athlete B) "drugged to the gills" beat
> athlete B a.k.a. the drug-free athlete due to that percentage of edge
> allowed by the drug use. Oooh, that was an ugly sentence. I hope you
> got what I meant.

For once, there are many sports where you can measure an absolute
performance. You do not need to speculate if some magical drugs works or
not, you can tell for sure. And they don't work. For second, Conte is
trying to say that cheating is OK, because everybody's on something
(including the whole society), so it's not cheating. Well, it is cheating,
according to athletes who compete in drug tested competitions.

--
Andrzej Rosa

Hard Bop Drums wrote:

> Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:esd0nk$aqd$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> Hard Bop Drums wrote:
>>
>>> Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:escpri$ecm$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>>>> Prozac doesn't work better than a placebo.
>>>
>>> Really? Where do you get this horse shit?
>>
>> From scientific publications.
>>
>>>> Using Animal Pak is not "cheating". You know very well that most of
>>>> the stuff you like to take could be secretly changed into powdered
>>>> sugar capsules and you'd see no difference.
>>>
>>> What are YOU taking that could be swapped out for powdered sugar and
>>> still
>>> work? NOTHING that I take would meet that criteria
>>
>> If you take it consciously, most would still work to some extent. That's
>> why you need double blind trials.
>>
>>> and I take about 10
>>> different medications every day. Do you think I could stop taking the
>>> anti
>>> rejection medication for my kidney transplant with no side effects?
>>
>> It's a medication, not a performance enhancing drug. Performance
>> enhancing
>> drugs are taken by generally healthy people.
>
>
> So your contention is that Anabolic Steroids do not work? Their effects
> are just placebo? Are you proud of your ignorance??

Of course not. Are you proud of your reading skills? ;-)

--
Andrzej Rosa

Pete wrote:

> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
>> It's a medication, not a performance enhancing drug.
>
> Whoa, wait a minute!
>
> Whats a medication for sick people is a performance enhancer for the
> athlete.

Some may be, but they aren't regularly used by "a society".

> Have you ever the seen the dosages of oxymetholone/nandrolone taken by
> people who are HIV positive?

They use it because they need a treatment. If not for HIV, they most
probably wouldn't use them.

>> Performance enhancing drugs are taken by generally healthy people.
>
> All the "performance enhancers" i am aware of, are in fact medications.
>
> Even Ecstacy and PCP were meds at one point.

Thats not the point. Point is, that normal people do not regularly use
effective performance enhancers.

--
Andrzej Rosa

"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> schreef:

>>>> I certainly hope Prozac works better than a placebo.

>>> It doesn't.

>> What about MDMA?

> I don't know if it helps, but it may work.

When the body (brain) needs serotonine, the body doesnt have to produce it.
Its allready there. So the body starts to release it.

MDMA kinda opens the vault, and a lot serotonine comes out. So there is more
(a LOT more!) serotonine in the synaps. The effect?

Ah, well ;-O
Prozac inhibits the uptake. So there is more (a little) in the synaps.

So there must be some effect. I think.

>>> There is a negligible difference between Prozac and typical
>>> placebo, which disappears totally when subjects are given some other
>>> medicine which reproduces at least some of the side effects which Prozac
>>> (and other similar drugs) typically give. At least some patients can
>>> tell
>>> if they are on placebo, due to lack of typical side effects. If they
>>> have side effects, they can't tell, and under this conditions Prozac
>>> works exactly like a placebo.

>> How do you know all that?

> I read research. I think it was by Kirsch. It was definitely available
> for
> free in full text, and it was good science. I can tell good science when
> I
> see it.

I still am convinced that Prozac is more than just a placebo.

>> For instance, due to my sleeping problem, i tried the classic stuff a few
>> times. But they didnt do much.
>> Cyproheptadine, an anti-histamine, and very effective to counteract
>> allergies and motion sickness, worked a lot better. And its not
>> addictive.
>> Downside is, you have to spend more money on food.

>> Scary thing is, that my doctor didnt suggest the drug. I did. As usual.

> It's not performance enhancing, not according to how I understand this
> term.
> If would be if perfectly normal person would use it to help him in his
> career, or something analogous. Using a medication to get back to normal
> is a cure, not performance enhancing.

Yes, but the drug is the same. And doctors associate one with the other.

>> There, you say it again. I have been reading about pharmaceuticals since
>> more then 2 decades.

>> Why do you think Prozac is a placebo?

> Why do Psychiatric Times think the same?

> http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/show...leID=175802224

Weird, i admit.

>>> So what?

>> Doctors dont prescribe it. They prescribe SSRIs. LOTSA SSRIs.
>> I am not kidding. I got suspicious. I asked them if they get a bonus each
>> and every time they prescribe it.

> Some do. Some researchers and medicine doctors hold stock in
> pharmaceutical
> companies. Then they publish research showing how well some drugs they
> indirectly sell work. I'm not joking. Some researchers are simply bought
> to endorse new drugs on scientific conferences. Good names, too. Ugly
> stuff.

Several doctors have tried, without succes, to shove that stuff down my
throat.
I told them i would refuse ANY drug with a negative impact on my sex-drive.