Steriods-allowed in sport -yeh or nay

I'm very much for the usage of steriods nowadays in sport-reason being that so many athletes who are at the top are subsequently found out to be using and imoa this is unfair on those who decide to go natural throughout their career-so I say let them take what ever performance enhancing drugs/vitamins they want but before competition they should be tested and the results should be listed against the competion results.

[northwind]

There was a half-serious campaign to have a "drug olympics" and "natural olympics"- basically do every event twice, or have 2 sets of finishers same way as you would in a rally or similiar.

Thing is, some of the drugs used **** you up. And though it's the competitor's decision to use them, it makes sense to reduce the pressure to do so. And since you start training young, and you want to keep this sort of thing away from kids, you've kind of got to be against it for adults too.

[fizzwheel]

What about EPO / Doping in cycling then ?

Has / had a history of young fit cyclists dieing from heart attacks because they doped to much and their hearts couldnt cope with how thinck their blood had become...

What would be the limit on it ? How much was OK and is it OK to drug yourself up to the eyeballs and damage your body / kill yourself.

Would it get to the point where the winners were the ones who could afford the best medical care ?

I used to compete at a high level in sport, and I'm totally against drug use in sport. but when u say those who paid for the best drugs would get the best results, well do the beat athletes who get access to the best coaches/ best equipment/best training not alredy have the same advantages??

at what point does it become using drugs, surely some of the suplements used already would almost qualify, it's maybe just that some of them have been found out by the testers!

I see both sides of the arguemet, it's a hard topic!

No. Simply because what are those that dont want to do them going to do?

what about this woman in the news who might actually be a bloke, haha were does that come in?

[maviczap]

Originally Posted by fizzwheel

What about EPO / Doping in cycling then ?

Has / had a history of young fit cyclists dieing from heart attacks because they doped to much and their hearts couldnt cope with how thinck their blood had become...

What would be the limit on it ? How much was OK and is it OK to drug yourself up to the eyeballs and damage your body / kill yourself.

Would it get to the point where the winners were the ones who could afford the best medical care ?

+12 British cycling has proved that you can be competive at a high level without the drugs.

But the ones who take the drugs are just trying to take a short cut, because they don't have the motivation to training hard enough to be successful.

Doping controls are there not only to catch the cheats, but also prevent health damage to young riders tempted to take short cuts to make it to the top.

Cycling is singled out for its doping problems, but when the Doctor's clinc in the Operation Peurto drug/blood doping case was raided, not only did they find cyclists on his list of clients, but Top tennis players and footballers.

Stragely only the cyclists were named and they were quite rightly banned

When I was cycling, working up to a competive level I was offered epo, steroids, painkillers etc all the time. Not by the people I trained with but just mates and acquaintances. This carp is everywhere. You'll never eliminate it from the sports but by naming and shaming, subsequent banning and stripping of titles hopefully the use will decrease.
Bullcarp no it wont but we can only hope. I'm not anti drugs (by any means) but sport is sport, it's supposed to be a competition pitting man (or woman) against man (or woman). Not a battle of medical and chemical wizardry.

[Ian P]

IMOA i dont think that taking drugs is a short cut, as it means that you can train more often and train harder. But drugs have no place in sport and i am all for training clean

[maviczap]

Originally Posted by Ian P

IMOA i dont think that taking drugs is a short cut, as it means that you can train more often and train harder. But drugs have no place in sport and i am all for training clean

I think you've contradicticted yourself with this reply, because if you can train harder and more often if you take drugs, then that's taking a short cut, as the body is not going through it's natural recovery process. Therefore its a short cut because you're not having to wait before you can train again, cut down on the time it takes.

That would be the definition of a shortcut would it not, by reducing the time it takes to do any given task?

At least you agree with the riding clean part