Drugs in other sports and the media.

rick_chasey

All these people saying Drs should intervene sooner: what the hell have you been watching in cycling over the past 20 years?

You crash, you get up, you get back on your bike & worry about the injuries later.

If they don't get up, then you know it's bad.

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Independent doctors need to be there and be better at benching people then. I know that the players will always want to play regardless but someone needs to step in. One of the reasons for anti-doping efforts is to protect athlete health, this is no different really.

But no doctor has the right to order someone to do anything. And anyway, that would just encourage sportsmen to keep quiet about their injuries - which is even worse.

(For example, look at Pierre Rolland in the Tour who refused to have his hand examined in case he was told to quit. Vaughters praised him for this attitude.)

Can a doctor not stop a boxing match if a fighters health is at risk?
Do other sports not have blood substitutions?

tailwindhome

Jose Maria Olazabal attempting a return to golf after a year out with rheumatoid arthritis

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/golf/a ... s-out.html


Interesting to know what treatments he's getting for this condition and how those who argue that athletes who need a TUE to compete would view his case.

dolan_driver

RichN95 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Isn't the risk of letting players play when they're constantly on tramadol that they will end up with serious or chronic injuries?

I get wanting to play through injuries and that some injuries might be OK but I don't think it's right that players should be routinely playing under strong painkillers or be dependent on them in order to compete. Same for cyclists and tramadol.

But the players are going to play, with or without painkillers.

Then let them play without painkillers.

DD.

Richmond Racer 2

This is getting into quasi-fundamentalist territory, and is inhumane.


In other news, still chuckling over Rich's reference to Kimbo and his disco biccies. Perfect.

TheBigBean

RichN95 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Independent doctors need to be there and be better at benching people then. I know that the players will always want to play regardless but someone needs to step in. One of the reasons for anti-doping efforts is to protect athlete health, this is no different really.

But no doctor has the right to order someone to do anything. And anyway, that would just encourage sportsmen to keep quiet about their injuries - which is even worse.

(For example, look at Pierre Rolland in the Tour who refused to have his hand examined in case he was told to quit. Vaughters praised him for this attitude.)

Doctors can't force treatment, but they can prevent participation by recommending to the appropriate party that the rider should not be allowed to continue. Riders are not riding races by right they are riding by invitation / licence which can be revoked.

Personally, I don't really care if someone rides with a broken finger, but I can see a strong argument that riding with concussion is particularly stupid. Boonen being a case in point.

rick_chasey

Dolan Driver wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Isn't the risk of letting players play when they're constantly on tramadol that they will end up with serious or chronic injuries?

I get wanting to play through injuries and that some injuries might be OK but I don't think it's right that players should be routinely playing under strong painkillers or be dependent on them in order to compete. Same for cyclists and tramadol.

But the players are going to play, with or without painkillers.

Then let them play without painkillers.

.

What's your thought on bandages for road rash?

Performance enhancing for the injury innit.

rick_chasey

Might as well ban glasses too while you're at it.

I like my athletes with 20/20 vision.

Richmond Racer 2

Don't have a lot of time for this new-found Calvinist shizz, I have to say

rick_chasey

S'not Calvinist.

It's pious.

davidof

It is all going a bit Pete Tong for the Norwegian skiers, now Therese Johaug has been controlled positive for clostebol, a steroid, this goes way beyond the TUEs for Asthma treatment the team had previously been accused of abusing. (see: viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12885414&p=19960191&hilit=therese#p19960191 )

http://www.aftenposten.no/100Sport/lang ... 9916_1.snd

Sun creme is being blamed for this one and the team doctor has taken the bullet for Therese. Is this another Alan Baxter or something more serious?

for the Norwegians that's like finding out that their Queen likes dogging round the back of the palace in Oslo (and I'm not talking about taking the corgies for a stroll).

Here is a picture of St Therese of the failed drug test.



and some advertising for Huwaie

https://youtu.be/C_PhhPIy24k

bobmcstuff

RichN95 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Independent doctors need to be there and be better at benching people then. I know that the players will always want to play regardless but someone needs to step in. One of the reasons for anti-doping efforts is to protect athlete health, this is no different really.

But no doctor has the right to order someone to do anything. And anyway, that would just encourage sportsmen to keep quiet about their injuries - which is even worse.

(For example, look at Pierre Rolland in the Tour who refused to have his hand examined in case he was told to quit. Vaughters praised him for this attitude.)

No, I know - and that kind of thing is one of the things I like about cycling.

But there's got to be a line, I'm just a bit uneasy that someone who needs (for example) tramadol before every event just to take part should be competing, because they'll be crippled by the time they're 30. I suppose if they're ok with that then fine, but the same could be said about many other drugs with negative health impacts - if they're ok with that then why not (one of the reasons PEDs are banned is supposedly for athlete health).

Ed: actually plenty of sports have doctors who order players to stop competing.

rick_chasey

No-one minded Hamilton riding with basically one hand for 2 and a half weeks of the Tour.

He ground his teeth away.

What's the difference?

Does dental health not count? or is it just about injecting stuff?

dish_dash

bobmcstuff wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Independent doctors need to be there and be better at benching people then. I know that the players will always want to play regardless but someone needs to step in. One of the reasons for anti-doping efforts is to protect athlete health, this is no different really.

But no doctor has the right to order someone to do anything. And anyway, that would just encourage sportsmen to keep quiet about their injuries - which is even worse.

(For example, look at Pierre Rolland in the Tour who refused to have his hand examined in case he was told to quit. Vaughters praised him for this attitude.)

No, I know - and that kind of thing is one of the things I like about cycling.

But there's got to be a line, I'm just a bit uneasy that someone who needs (for example) tramadol before every event just to take part should be competing, because they'll be crippled by the time they're 30. I suppose if they're ok with that then fine, but the same could be said about many other drugs with negative health impacts - if they're ok with that then why not (one of the reasons PEDs are banned is supposedly for athlete health).

Ed: actually plenty of sports have doctors who order players to stop competing.

Why do we need to be so caught up about safeguarding athletes health? If they want to go balls out, win everything and die by 30 isn't that their problem? It's sad... but how is that different from an Amy Winehouse (insert any other musician who dies of overdose)? She left us with some great music, some of it because she was on drugs...

dinyull

dish_dash wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Independent doctors need to be there and be better at benching people then. I know that the players will always want to play regardless but someone needs to step in. One of the reasons for anti-doping efforts is to protect athlete health, this is no different really.

But no doctor has the right to order someone to do anything. And anyway, that would just encourage sportsmen to keep quiet about their injuries - which is even worse.

(For example, look at Pierre Rolland in the Tour who refused to have his hand examined in case he was told to quit. Vaughters praised him for this attitude.)

No, I know - and that kind of thing is one of the things I like about cycling.

But there's got to be a line, I'm just a bit uneasy that someone who needs (for example) tramadol before every event just to take part should be competing, because they'll be crippled by the time they're 30. I suppose if they're ok with that then fine, but the same could be said about many other drugs with negative health impacts - if they're ok with that then why not (one of the reasons PEDs are banned is supposedly for athlete health).

Ed: actually plenty of sports have doctors who order players to stop competing.

Why do we need to be so caught up about safeguarding athletes health? If they want to go balls out, win everything and die by 30 isn't that their problem? It's sad... but how is that different from an Amy Winehouse (insert any other musician who dies of overdose)? She left us with some great music, some of it because she was on drugs...

Could the same not be said for people having to work with asbestos/hazardous materials? Sure, some people would be happy to handle it without appropriate PPE...but what happens with the general public exposed to it?

Or Winehouse's syringe picked up by a kid playing in the street. Or an innocent rider taken out because someone else it smacked off their t*ts on tramadol.

dish_dash

Life would be a bit boring though... surely some of this world's greatest creations have come about due to being under the influence...

My point really is that trying to create a system where doctors over-sanitise by taking preventative action would greatly diminish the sport. Just as it would in rock music if a doctor had banned the Rolling Stones aged 19 from doing drugs...

Richmond Racer 2

Playgrounds are rubbish now. All those soft nancy surfaces. Grit into my cuts and the occasional bit of broken glass when I fell off the climbing frame never did me any harm

rick_chasey

Dinyull wrote:

Could the same not be said for people having to work with asbestos/hazardous materials? Sure, some people would be happy to handle it without appropriate PPE...but what happens with the general public exposed to it?

Or Winehouse's syringe picked up by a kid playing in the street. Or an innocent rider taken out because someone else it smacked off their t*ts on tramadol.

Oh get off your high horse.

At best, you want to avoid your own guilt when watching.

At worse this position provides you with a platform to be permanently outraged and gives you a chance for periodic 'i told you so' moments in relation to conspiracy to dope.

dinyull

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Playgrounds are rubbish now. All those soft nancy surfaces. Grit into my cuts and the occasional bit of broken glass when I fell off the climbing frame never did me any harm

My cousin has an elbow that won't bend now after falling from a climbing frame and shattering it on the tarmac below haha.

rick_chasey

No-one here can actually care about the athletes because we don't know them.

We can simulate empathy but ultimately they are doing what they do for our viewing pleasure. We're all self interested at heart, so your opinion says a lot more about you and what you like to do with that opinion, rather than anything else.

dinyull

Rick Chasey wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

Could the same not be said for people having to work with asbestos/hazardous materials? Sure, some people would be happy to handle it without appropriate PPE...but what happens with the general public exposed to it?

Or Winehouse's syringe picked up by a kid playing in the street. Or an innocent rider taken out because someone else it smacked off their t*ts on tramadol.

Oh get off your high horse.

At best, you want to avoid your own guilt when watching.

At worse this position provides you with a platform to be permanently outraged and gives you a chance for periodic 'i told you so' moments in relation to conspiracy to dope.

Huh...

rick_chasey

I mean, honestly, can anyone here ever tell when a pro-rider is riding on painkillers or not?

Is it going to actually materially change the way in which the race is ridden? Not often, and not in way you'll notice like EPO did.

In which case, the caring is some theoretical BS.

I don't think I've heard a legitimate claim half way through a race 'well he's clearly on painkillers, that's changed the way it panned out'.

I've heard that about EPO.

So stop getting so pious. It keeps the riders racing, and we don't actually notice.

dinyull

So as long as there's no performance gain it should be allowed?

Rider safety has to come into it at some point, and I'm not talking about the safety of riders using.

The quote re. Vaughters is telling. Of course he's going to praise Rolland for carrying on - as his big signing (french to boot) in the Tour. If he didn't a lot of their exposure was gone, so less stats for negotiating sponsors next season.

Money shouldn't come over rider health/safety.

dish_dash

Why? Again... I reference any number of rock stars?

dinyull

What does a smacked up rock musician have to do with a group of cyclists descending a mountain at over 60mph?

This might be going off topic, but I personally wouldn't want to be descending with someone concussed or having taken medication that could leave them spaced out.

Out of interest, why should money come over rider safety?

r0bh

Dinyull wrote:

This might be going off topic, but I personally wouldn't want to be descending with someone concussed or having taken medication that could leave them spaced out.

How about a rider with an injured hand that hampered his ability to handle the bike? Because fans generally seem to praise such "toughness" e.g. the example of Pierre Rolland above

rick_chasey

Who said anything about money?

In most instances the rider is in the position to decide what they should do or not. So by and large, leave it up to them.

I wouldn't go commuting with a broken collarbone, but Hamilton did and it was chuffing brilliant. Imagine trying to descend behind a guy who can't squeeze his back brake?

dinyull

The money was aimed as dish_dash who (I thought) was asking why money should come above safety.

Bones are different. Senses, vision, reactions aren't usually affected by fractures.

rick_chasey

Bahaha.

So you think not being able to squeeze the brakes is less dangerous than some painkillers?

Well on that basis I can't have a further discussion with you, since I have a different view of what's dangerous and not to you.

Tschuss.

dinyull

Depends on side affects. But someone who can't apply a brake shouldn't be riding at all. Which is why independent Dr's should examine all injured riders and signing them off.

This is all just playing devils advocate.