doping question (Re Lance Armstrong scandal)

[Jimmypoo]

Don’t play polypharmacologist here unless you are an endocrinologist or have some very special background in the human HPG axis (such as… time in a graduate program for Toxicology/Pharmacolgy!), in addition to current/recent analytical-physical chemistry knowledge & methods for proper assays, hormone pK/pD & ADME, AND/OR are an M.D. certified (not pedaling Rx’s) in Men’s Health with 100+ CMEs in reproductive endo.

You’re wasting your time. And everyone else’s.

[Mac-A-Matic]

zero wrote:
[quote=Mac-A-Matic]
If we can live and be happy with genetically modified food, then what's the problem with doping in sports???

With GMOS:
1. You are forced to eat them, and put them inside your body, in order to live and sustain your human body

With Steroids
1. Its a choice, but you will probably not be as good an athlete as someone else.
That's completely inaccurate about being forced to eat genetically modified foods. There is a choice, one must work to make that choice but the choice is there.

[mattkime]

A number of posts implied limited implications due to doping. just to be clear -

a) lance's cancer may have been due to taking testosterone

b) cyclists have died due to doping. EPO and other methods aim to increase red blood cell count. if its too high your bood is likely to clot while you sleep which is potentially lethal.

c) a doping allowed league would get ugly really really quickly. how many competitors would need to die before it was considered cruel?

d) people are more interested in a sport they can participate in. the rules should be the same from the pros down to the casual amateurs

[mattkime]

e) everyone doping didn't level the playing field. lance had better doping. he was cheating at cheating.

[vision63]

mattkime wrote:
A number of posts implied limited implications due to doping. just to be clear -

a) lance's cancer may have been due to taking testosterone

b) cyclists have died due to doping. EPO and other methods aim to increase red blood cell count. if its too high your bood is likely to clot while you sleep which is potentially lethal.

c) a doping allowed league would get ugly really really quickly. how many competitors would need to die before it was considered cruel?

d) people are more interested in a sport they can participate in. the rules should be the same from the pros down to the casual amateurs

They should not allow doping for the simple fact that it's not healthy. Period. It shows the character of the governing body when that isn't their top priority. The proof is in how they rarely express that. Now, they never really caught him. But their arrogance won't allow them to ever say "We don't know what the hell we're doing." "We don't know how to catch the most sophisticated doper." "We're incompetent, yet we'd like our circumstantial, anecdotal and hearsay evidence to stand as factual proof of guilt." I can't stand people like this. I definitely can't stand crybabies and tattletales. Losers.