tkdbboy
Likes Dirt
TL;DR
Dozer has a nice butt
TL;DR
So... should we not drug test?Yeah, I'll give you that, seems contradictory on my part.
There is a bit of backstory to my opinion on drug testing in sport. I'll try to keep it brief.
.
.
.
You made it this far!
I dunno, I see the big picture of it and when we're talking totally conclusive evidence in situations like Lance Armstrong etc, that needs to be actioned for sure. I'm not acting like I understand what some of these banned substances do, I don't have much of a clue but I don't have trust in it and every case seems to have such a varied set of allegations and circumstances. Some seem so obvious yet many seem like a simple honest error. When all you've got to go on is someone's word, it shows a shit side of human interaction with the whole innocent until proven otherwise thing.So... should we not drug test?
But there is no innocence here. They have both tested positive and neither are contesting the result. They admit to having substances on board that should not have been there.When all you've got to go on is someone's word, it shows a shit side of human interaction with the whole innocent until proven otherwise thing.
They never properly caught Lance on a doping test. The conclusive evidence came witness testimony under oath.. He would have walked free if that hadn’t have happened..I dunno, I see the big picture of it and when we're talking totally conclusive evidence in situations like Lance Armstrong etc, that needs to be actioned for sure.
I see your point... but most of these problems can be avoided by simply staying clean. Yeah, that's another hurdle, I know but like my mum says "don't do good things that look wrong"I dunno, I see the big picture of it and when we're talking totally conclusive evidence in situations like Lance Armstrong etc, that needs to be actioned for sure. I'm not acting like I understand what some of these banned substances do, I don't have much of a clue but I don't have trust in it and every case seems to have such a varied set of allegations and circumstances. Some seem so obvious yet many seem like a simple honest error. When all you've got to go on is someone's word, it shows a shit side of human interaction with the whole innocent until proven otherwise thing.
There's actually ways of testing for blood transfusions, they can find minute trace elements of the plastic that the blood had been stored in and something with blood ages faster when it's stored out of the body for a long period. It's actually quite a dangerous process with ill side effects when it all goes bad.They never properly caught Lance on a doping test. The conclusive evidence came witness testimony under oath.. He would have walked free if that hadn’t have happened..
If you follow doping in cycling the common factor is riders being busted with only minute/trace banned substance. And so many times it is later discovered the rider was on a program and gets tested when a banned drug hasn’t fully cleared their system. Or if they transfused a tainted bloodbag.. You rarely hear of a rider juiced to the gills that tested red hot positive, they aren’t that stupid anymore.. So that’s why a lot of cycling followers don’t buy the excuse “I took it accidentally”..
In the case of Graves, I really don’t understand why they thought it was a good idea to name him when he has serious health issues.. If there ever was a case to surpress the name of an athlete this is it. Once he had recovered then yeah he can face the music but right now is pretty poor form..
Needs to be conclusive or nothing.I dunno, I see the big picture of it and when we're talking totally conclusive evidence in situations like Lance Armstrong etc, that needs to be actioned for sure. I'm not acting like I understand what some of these banned substances do, I don't have much of a clue but I don't have trust in it and every case seems to have such a varied set of allegations and circumstances. Some seem so obvious yet many seem like a simple honest error. When all you've got to go on is someone's word, it shows a shit side of human interaction with the whole innocent until proven otherwise thing.
I am of the view that any personal or health issues are irrelevant to him being named as failing a drug test. He failed a test and it has been reported, as long as every one is treated equally in this respect and policy is followed, tough luck.In the case of Graves, I really don’t understand why they thought it was a good idea to name him when he has serious health issues.. If there ever was a case to surpress the name of an athlete this is it. Once he had recovered then yeah he can face the music but right now is pretty poor form..
I agree but disagree. We have shown time an time again that we haven't and possbly won't ever win the war on drugs. Just allow athletes to take whatever they want. I mean their support and science that goes into their efforts is already well beyond most average Joes, drugs are simply another dimension to that. Look at the entourage of high profile athletes and ask if this is an unfair advantage. Some of them have on call doctors, physios, masseuse, shrinks and model gfs.This is going to make me even less popular then the colour green - but all professional sport is bullshit.
I feel bad for Jared and Richie but I would rather they get busted, then have more Tom Simpsons. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Tom_Simpson
Chris Froome wasn’t named when he got caught, a newspaper found out and leaked it. It would have never been known to the public otherwise. It is no uncommon to not name the athlete in certain doping voliations in particular with a specified substance positive test, the UCI are experts at it..I am of the view that any personal or health issues are irrelevant to him being named as failing a drug test. He failed a test and it has been reported, as long as every one is treated equally in this respect and policy is followed, tough luck.
Also Graves states in the pinkbike article he has never been tested before in the EWS and had no knowledge of anyone being tested (paraphrased), this is a massive red flag to me, in a competition that does not test for PED's, suddenly testing occurs, some high profile athletes are caught... who have been previously struggling with form / results... absolutely shocked I am!
I’ve read heaps about doping, yes it was the plasticiser from the blood bag that caused grief for contador along with his tainted cow meat clenbuturol..If a sports enhancing drug isn't legally available for everyone in the same race and gives an unfair advantage to the Athlete that takes it, it's not really a fair playing field. Oxilofrine isn't like eating a banana or drinking caffeine, it's more like taking Meth and that's why its banned in sport.
There's actually ways of testing for blood transfusions, they can find minute trace elements of the plastic that the blood had been stored in and something with blood ages faster when it's stored out of the body for a long period. It's actually quite a dangerous process with ill side effects when it all goes bad.
Go to 11:23 mins on this vid.
I haven't read that book yet, It wouldn't surprise me one bit if most high profile road cycling athletes are doping to get an edge.I’ve read heaps about doping, yes it was the plasticiser from the blood bag that caused grief for contador along with his tainted cow meat clenbuturol..
Have you read Tyler Hamilton’s book? The stories about tainted/off blood bags is horrific..
Tyler's book is a good read. Let's not overlook the fact that Armstrong was on the gear for many years. It's highly possible that his experimental drug taking regime has a direct correlation to his many cancers.I’ve read heaps about doping, yes it was the plasticiser from the blood bag that caused grief for contador along with his tainted cow meat clenbuturol..
Have you read Tyler Hamilton’s book? The stories about tainted/off blood bags is horrific..
I think that's a load of shit. By proposing to make it a free-for-all, you are guaranteeing that there will be more athlete deaths and long term chronic illnesses, because everyone IS actually doing PEDs. and they will be doing the maximum, because everyone else will be.I agree but disagree. We have shown time an time again that we haven't and possbly won't ever win the war on drugs. Just allow athletes to take whatever they want. I mean their support and science that goes into their efforts is already well beyond most average Joes, drugs are simply another dimension to that. Look at the entourage of high profile athletes and ask if this is an unfair advantage. Some of them have on call doctors, physios, masseuse, shrinks and model gfs.
In terms of safety of the drugs, this is also a oxymoron. The drugs get more dangerous as you regulate because to have the same bang for buck while avoiding testing, you have to take more risks. Conversely, if you let the pharma companies sponsor and supply drugs to the athletes in a deregulated environment, they have their reputations on the line and certainly will not want the athletes dying of sudden heart attacks on their drugs wearing their corporate colours.