FDHA Forum DopeHead Anonymous
Printable View
FDHA Forum DopeHead Anonymous
Of course they are dangerous. But they are only dangerous to the people taking them. It's all about where you draw the line. I'd say some of the training regime's and other techniques and substances which are legal are just as dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
The problem is, sports like cycling will never be clean when the benefits of enhancements are so large.
We've already started to see in running that prosthetic legs may have an advantage (i.e. "The Blade Runner" Oscar Pistorius whose leg prosthesis are claimed to be superior to normal legs. With further developments in that technology, where do you draw the line in what is legal and what is not? I have absolutely no doubt that within the next decade prosthetic legs will be comprehensively superior to able-bodied people.
Would it be right for someone to have their legs removed and replaced with prosthesis in order to compete at the highest level? With what's at stake I'm sure there would be people who would do it.
Good point. Surgery to fix an athletes body is One thing but where does this become an enhancement? I can't see why someone with a sight impediment or a false arm cannot legally compete in the normal Olympics so why not the blade runner against Bolt. Would it be discrimination to deny him? I don't know?
I bet swimmers would get a benefit from cosmetic surgery to streamline them or web their feet and hands for example. Would this be allowed?
i'm not sure the thread title is entirely fair, seeing as he hasn't been found guilty of anything, nor has he accpeted any guilt - he's just given up the fight against the USADA. what that actually means i don't know, and I'm unsure whether he perhaps was or wasn't doping, given the prevalence of it in that period and his dominance I am scpetical at least. we will probably never know, although it is likely that the evidence will still need to see the light of day for the international cycling body to be convinced to take the tour titles away from Lance, something the USADA has no remit over and the "trial" wll probably be between the 2 organisations instead. I hope he is/was innocent, as its an amazing story, but I think everyone has pretty healthy doubts.
But it is definatley wrong to say he has been found guilty, as no drug trial, arbitration, hearing or whatever has actually taken place.
By accounts not only was he doping but he was pretty much the ring leader in the peloton making sure it was kept quiet.
It's fairly simple for someone like Armstrong to pass every test (except for one for corticoids from his saddle sore cream in 1999 with the subsequent cover-up, and the retest of old urine samples for EPO), when he's given at least 20 minutes warning beforehand. Plenty of time to top up plasma or micro-inject EPO, allegedly :dozey:
Everyone was doing it? Everyone was a dopehead.
Tested after every race, tested hundreds of times every year, nothing found. Get of his back already. They can take the titles ,but the fact remain he won and I know who I was watching pedal Pyrenees . Stay strong champ!!!
FIAT1, have you ever read David Millar's book. He never failed a drug test either. Fascinating book and one I recommend if you want to know more about doping in that era.
I understand what you are saying, and if everyone was doping ,he still won, point is punish the sport as a whole for those years by eliminating all the records as they never took place or stop the bs.How do we know that 2nd place did not use miracle to be 2nd? Now it looks like after all these years someone is playing big shot for his own political gain.Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
really?Quote:
Originally Posted by FIAT1
why? so as not to spoil the fairy tale?Quote:
Originally Posted by FIAT1
but the fact remain his blood was dodgy, as was that of manyQuote:
Originally Posted by FIAT1
so do IQuote:
Originally Posted by FIAT1