[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-25, 17:08, said:

I tend to doubt very much that Lance Armstrong wrote that article. If he did, then some drug he took seems to have addled his brain.

The website it's on tells me all I need to know.

http://www.theonion....-mass-sh,29293/

[BunnyGo]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-25, 17:08, said:

I tend to doubt very much that Lance Armstrong wrote that article. If he did, then some drug he took seems to have addled his brain.

Perhaps those of you in England aren't as familiar with the hilariously astute Onion, "America's Finest News Source."

[blackshoe]

BunnyGo, on 2012-August-25, 19:26, said:

Perhaps those of you in England aren't as familiar with the hilariously astute Onion, "America's Finest News Source."

Heh. I'm familiar with the Onion. That's the reason I "tend to doubt very much that Lance Armstrong wrote that article". Also, I'm not in England.

[Flem72]

So how many bridge players do PED?

[ggwhiz]

Flem72, on 2012-August-25, 20:41, said:

So how many bridge players do PED?

All of the ones that put World Class in their profile without the star and more than half the expersts. Addled brains and drugs that don't work..

[wyman]

Flem72, on 2012-August-25, 20:41, said:

So how many bridge players do PED?

Studies about PE are inconclusive, but D? Lots.

[jonottawa]

Flem72, on 2012-August-25, 20:41, said:

So how many bridge players do PED?

What kinda drug would qualify? Would crystal meth improve one's game (at least in the short run)?

Next day edit: Presumably the same as for taking the SAT?

[mike777]

Flem72, on 2012-August-25, 20:41, said:

So how many bridge players do PED?

I would expect all or almost all will as memory enhancing drugs become ...cheap, safe and effective.


If other drugs might help us overcome fatigue etc then add those....

As for now how many of us take heart drugs to improve our bodies and hence our performance as compared too if we did not take heart drugs?

If improving heart performance is ok...why not brain or fatigue perfomance?

[mike777]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-25, 11:26, said:

In the 60s they were almost all on speed and various other things.

Armstrong was prescribed steroids while on his cancer treatment, but he also LOST a lot of weight which is not the normal steroid beneficial effect which is to put on muscle mass. Basically he lost pretty much all his body fat which would have helped him considerably (and this is what he said benefitted him considerably). I thought they'd clamped down on which asthma inhalers you were allowed to use now in sport, so the old really beneficial ones were no longer permitted.

Baseball has had its steroid age, NFL is having its crisis now with concussions but also steroid related deaths http://en.wikipedia....iki/Lyle_Alzado for an early example.

I watched an interview with a doctor with an interest in doping during the Olympics, and he said that getting caught in competition was a stupidity test, the drugs were all done 9 months ago in training and the intelligent athletes had long since stopped taking them so would pass tests.

yes after ww11 many players took many drugs such as speed and other so called super cocktails.....one ny doctor become very famous for this.....see Kennedy family...baseball players etc....

as for the olympics I just add art limbs that let you beat other runners allowed....see african runner in last olympics who beat out other africans to make his country's team.....

so art. limbs..ok...transfusions with your own blood....illegal......??

[Cyberyeti]

mike777, on 2012-August-26, 22:11, said:

yes after ww11 many players took many drugs such as speed and other so called super cocktails.....one ny doctor become very famous for this.....see Kennedy family...baseball players etc....

as for the olympics I just add art limbs that let you beat other runners allowed....see african runner in last olympics who beat out other africans to make his country's team.....

so art. limbs..ok...transfusions with your own blood....illegal......??

I would agree with you if Pistorius amputated his healthy legs so he could put the artificial ones on, he didn't, he needed prosthetics. The reason he was allowed to compete in the Olympics is that it was ruled his prosthetics gave him no advantage, they are in fact a big handicap at the start as they have less flexibility than a human ankle so the initial acceleration is more difficult.

[billw55]

kenberg, on 2012-August-25, 09:11, said:

The world has changed, I have changed, all of this doping is not a change I welcome. Fundamentally I am repulsed by it. Logic aside, rational thought aside, money aside, I just find it repulsive. If that's big time sports, I'll live my way, they can live their way.

Doping has been around a long time. Catching it is the change.

Unfortunately, even rigorous testing programs seem to catch only a minority. The cheaters are always a step ahead: they think up new ways to cheat, and it takes several years for the authorities to (a) realize what they are doing, and (b) devise a means of testing for it. Testing old samples may work in principle, but I have serious doubts about the integrity of these samples. I work in the environmental testing industry, and all chemistry tests have what is called a holding time. The sample must be analyzed within this time period to be valid, even when other handling and storage methods are proper. Holding times are typically 7-28 days. And they propose to analyze samples years later? OK they are frozen, yes these may be different analytes, etc ... but I am still skeptical.

And even at that, the best USADA could come up with on Armstrong is samples "consistent with" doping. They choose their words very carefully, and are careful not to say "positive." This can only mean that the tests were not, in fact, positive. IMO "consistent with" are weasel words that could mean almost anything.

Then again, all the best riders in the world were doping, and Armstrong dominated them all, over and over again, without doping? It is easy to skeptical about this too.

[billw55]

Flem72, on 2012-August-25, 20:41, said:

So how many bridge players do PED?

mike777, on 2012-August-26, 22:07, said:

I would expect all or almost all will as memory enhancing drugs become ...cheap, safe and effective.

This (and similar for physical PEDs, etc) is an opinion I have heard sometimes. You could be right. Personally, I do not believe that drugs can do anything. Certainly not cheaply or without adverse side effects. Look at the billions of dollars and decades invested in pharma research; but still no drugs for many ailments. Not everything is possible.

[jonottawa]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-27, 03:35, said:

I would agree with you if Pistorius amputated his healthy legs so he could put the artificial ones on, he didn't, he needed prosthetics. The reason he was allowed to compete in the Olympics is that it was ruled his prosthetics gave him no advantage, they are in fact a big handicap at the start as they have less flexibility than a human ankle so the initial acceleration is more difficult.

Couple of things I don't like about that deal:

His prosthetics don't require blood to function (leaving more oxygen for the rest of his body) and if they break they are instantly replaceable. Those 2 factors alone are a big advantage.

FWIU he competed in the paralympics as well. That rubs me the wrong way. Don't be like Cartman, bro.

[billw55]

jonottawa, on 2012-August-27, 09:32, said:

Couple of things I don't like about that deal:

His prosthetics don't require blood to function (leaving more oxygen for the rest of his body) and if they break they are instantly replaceable. Those 2 factors alone are a big advantage.

FWIU he competed in the paralympics as well. That rubs me the wrong way.

People who think Pistorius has an unfair advantage rub me the wrong way.

Good grief people, the guy has no legs. No freaking legs!! And this isn't a Monty Python skit! He competed against the best athletes in the world who have freaking legs, and advanced from a preliminary to a semifinal, where he finished last. The dude is awesome.

Get back to me when the best sprinters in the world are on prosthetics. When more than, say, one (!) has advanced to that level?

[gwnn]

It's a tricky situation. Suppose there are 1000000x more healthy runners than runners on prosthetics. Then even if prosthetics gave you an unfair advantage, it could easily be masked by the fact that the most talented runners will almost surely be healthy (because there are so many more healthy runners). So it is impossible to tell from his results alone whether or not he enjoys an unfair advantage on the race track. Of course, he suffers from an unfair disadvantage outside the race track but that is not the issue. Next maybe if someone stole my car I will get 0.1 seconds for the next 100m race because it's not fair that they stole my car (yes, somewhat clumsy and insensitive analogy).

Just to clarify: I am not saying that he has an unfair advantage, just that it is possible that he has an unfair advantage, and that we should analyse this without thinking about the apparent moral issue of "oh no! have you no heart!? he has no legs and now you want to ban him!!"

[jonottawa]

FWIU his prosthetics are also significantly lighter than the corresponding biological parts.

I don't see him as a hero. I don't see him as 'disabled.' He's a guy who's never known legs below the knee who wasn't raised to see himself as "less-than" or disadvantaged. If you've never known it, you don't really miss it. I'm sure the prosthetics chafe and I'm sure he was teased somewhat as a boy, and that's a bummer.

Now he buys white tigers and dates russian supermodels. Yay?

(I could be wrong. Maybe he really does train twice as hard as everyone else. Maybe his dietary regimen would make a billy goat puke. Maybe the suffering and sacrifice he has undergone dwarfs anything previously encountered in human history. But I doubt it.)

[billw55]

jonottawa, on 2012-August-27, 10:58, said:

FWIU his prosthetics are also significantly lighter than the corresponding biological parts.

I don't see him as a hero. I don't see him as 'disabled.' He's a guy who's never known legs below the knee who wasn't raised to see himself as "less-than" or disadvantaged. If you've never known it, you don't really miss it. I'm sure the prosthetics chafe and I'm sure he was teased somewhat as a boy, and that's a bummer.

Now he buys white tigers and dates russian supermodels. Yay?

(I could be wrong. Maybe he really does train twice as hard as everyone else. Maybe his dietary regimen would make a billy goat puke. Maybe the suffering and sacrifice he has undergone dwarfs anything previously encountered in human history. But I doubt it.)

Wow, really comical. Is it so hard to believe that he trains just like any other sprinter, and has reached a high level, along with many other sprinters?

And less weight due to having no legs .. an advantage .. absolutely hilarious.

[jonottawa]

This write-up seems fairly decent: Huffington Post An excerpt:

"The reduced viscosity of the blade relative to muscle, as well as its lightness, explains why Pistorius demonstrates faster leg swings than his able-bodied peers. In fact, in a competing report to the JAP study (conduct by physiologist Peter Weyland of Southern Methodist University and biomechanist Matthew Bundle of the University of Wyoming), it was found that the carbon-fiber blades allow Pistorius to reposition his limbs 15.7-percent faster than the most recent world record holders in the 100-meter dash. This enables for a 15- to 30-percent increase in sprint speed.

To make matters even more partisan, the structure of the blade appears to have a longer functional lever arm than that of the human foot (i.e., the point of contact is further away from the axes of rotation -- lower extremity joints -- than the typical contact point of the foot). This allows for a larger generation of torque when an identical magnitude of force is applied (torque = force x lever arm). The catch-22, however, is that Pistorius does not exert as much force during push-off from the ground as an able-bodied runner. While this would appear to negate any advantage that he may possess, attributed to the springy, elastic-like structure of the blades, Pistorius requires less than half of the muscle force and 20-percent less ground forces to attain the same running speeds as able-bodied runners.

Conclusion

So, when you add it up, you get a runner who has light-weight, spring-like legs that allow for more efficient movement, and a reduced requirement of force production. The question is therefore not whether he possesses an advantage but how much of an advantage is unfair."

[billw55]

Haha, ok, whatever.

At least the IOC had enough simple good sense to allow him to compete.

[lalldonn]

I think it's totally absurd that he was allowed to compete. It has nothing to do with his 'natural' running advantages such as being lighter, that's just luck of the draw (unlucky in life of course but lucky in running) just as if a weight lifter has naturally huger muscles than everyone around him. Ie it's not an unfair advantage, it's a fair advantage. The problem is he is being allowed a device that gives him an advantage. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way. Even moreso given that he was allowed to compete in the paralympics, which seems (to me?) obviously intended for people who have no chance to compete in the regular olympics.

I find it no less ridiculous than if a perfectly able-bodied runner were allowed a device identical to the prosthetics that he uses.

I don't even understand what arguments there are to let him use those prosthetic devices while competing. All I have heard amounts to some version of "he didn't come close to winning a medal anyway so why would we be so heartless as to stop him from competing?" Well what about the next time the same situation comes up and does win a medal? I would feel completely screwed if I were the person who lost out on a medal due to him competing. I see that argument above with "Good grief people, the guy has no legs. No freaking legs!! And this isn't a Monty Python skit! He competed against the best athletes in the world who have freaking legs, and advanced from a preliminary to a semifinal, where he finished last. The dude is awesome." of which the only subjective portion with which I agree is that he is awesome.