Drugs in other sports and the media.
Comments
-
0
-
ddraver wrote:I still reckon it's just because it sounds so cool....
No way something called Meldonium can't make you at least 20% more awesome
Sales to amateurs are going go through the roof innit
Get in the online drug sales business, lads0 -
ThomThom wrote:Amateurs. Cyclists ain't got no time for this poor man's drug! Ahead of the game, as always!
0 -
Sad to see that so many athletes will have to give up their musical careers...
What next, banning synthesisers?
Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Forget the moral obscenity of public funding for pro games, in 10 years time it will be considered abusive to encourage a child to pursue a career in sports. Shame about that legacy Lord Coe....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0
-
Dork...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0
-
Button trouble. On drugs....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0
-
^are you talking Motorsport now?0
-
Dropping like flies today.
Looks to me like they have targeted 17% of all Russians in the first couple of months of the year. Specifically for Meldonium.
Mutko was right, there will be a spate of positives.0 -
-
ThomThom wrote:YorkshireRaw wrote:Can you imagine powerful and dominant Serena Williams would be if she used PEDs?
You are telling me that you don't think the brother Williams haven't used peds in their career?
I may have been being a tad sarcastic.... ;-)0 -
RichN95 wrote:
That's not targeting. Testing 17% in a two month period equates to one test per athlete per year. That's under testing.Joelsim wrote:Looks to me like they have targeted 17% of all Russians in the first couple of months of the year. Specifically for Meldonium.
I meant testing the 17% of Russians who had traces of Meldonium in their samples in 2015, in early 2016 in a targeted way i.e. specifically testing for Meldonium.0 -
0
-
There's talk of one Ukrainian doctor facilitating the supply to Ethiopian athletes0
-
30,000 feetMad_Malx wrote:Whoosh0 -
It is bizarre that Sharapova has allowed herself to fail a dope test. Allegedly, she has been using this medicine for 10 years and somehow no-one in her entourage spotted that it was going onto the banned list for 2016? She alone is a small industry, for want of a better description, with plenty of hangers-on relying on her for a large annual salary and somehow they let the changing status of this drug slip by without raising a red flag? Very odd.
She has participated in tennis in one of two ways;
1. She has genuinely taken the decision to compete cleanly and also put her faith in the expertise of her medical staff/doctors to only prescribe her medication she needs for her genuine medical condition/ailments which are not on any banned list, thus facilitating her to compete as a truly clean athlete.......
or
2. She and her entourage have taken the decision at some point to use whatever performance-enhancing substance is available that somehow is not yet on any banned list. Technically legal but ethically questionable.
The fact that so many athletes are getting popped right now for the same drug raises the question of whether all these other athletes also have heart/cholesterol problems too. If Sharapova's positive dope test was one of only a very few for Meldonium, she might get the benefit of the doubt but the shed-load of positives being reported seems to indicate she has been a PED user.
She also seemed a little flippant at times during the press conference so perhaps she knows that medical records will back up her claim for genuine use of Meldonium and she also knows a soft ban or suspended sentence is coming. She is the golden girl of tennis after all and tennis may somehow feel they need her glamorous image to sustain women's tennis. Will she get the Armstrong treatment or will it brushed under the carpet? This now a test of the sport of tennis itself and those who govern the sport.
DD.0 -
I think we need to understand that most professional athletes will go right to the wire in terms of what they use to aid performance - be it weight loss, recovery, whatever.
ethically right? Whose ethics? It's totally subjective. Dolan Driver, you might find something ethically questionable, whereas I might be fine about it. That not a question of ethics, but individuals' opinions on something.
Just as in life.
The ethics argument is a bit of a morass.
Did an athlete take something that was banned at the time, and without a TUE? Yes, ok, bang to rights
Did the athlete take something that wasn't banned at the time, but ceased taking it as soon as it was added to the banned list? You know what, that's fine by me
Give you an example: in a Kimbo 'I've got the Gestapo light shining in your eyes' interview with Nico Roche last year, Kimmage asked Nico if he'd ever used 1. L-Carnitine, and 2. Tramadol. Nico said yes, he had. Now neither are banned at the moment, and I'm not going to pull up some bullsheet ethical and moral judgement on Nico. And if either product gets banned in the future, i'm not going to think back 'oh, Nico said he'd used that before it was banned, he's a cheat'.0 -
Attractive young blonde Russian woman not clicking on email message is an ironic twist.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
0
-
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:I think we need to understand that most professional athletes will go right to the wire in terms of what they use to aid performance - be it weight loss, recovery, whatever.
ethically right? Whose ethics? It's totally subjective. Dolan Driver, you might find something ethically questionable, whereas I might be fine about it. That not a question of ethics, but individuals' opinions on something.
I agree with all that. But... another argument is that the AD authorities ban substances on the grounds of morality and unnatural advantaged. So ethics clearly does come into it. It's just a little easier for us to pretend it doesn't if we find the line too difficult to draw.0 -
jawooga wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:I think we need to understand that most professional athletes will go right to the wire in terms of what they use to aid performance - be it weight loss, recovery, whatever.
ethically right? Whose ethics? It's totally subjective. Dolan Driver, you might find something ethically questionable, whereas I might be fine about it. That not a question of ethics, but individuals' opinions on something.
I agree with all that. But... another argument is that the AD authorities ban substances on the grounds of morality and unnatural advantaged. So ethics clearly does come into it. It's just a little easier for us to pretend it doesn't if we find the line too difficult to draw.
And I'm ok with WADA saying don't take this substance now / without a TUE, and from that point onwards, that athlete gets done if they still take it
When caffeine was on the list for a while, I didn't go searching for old photos of athletes clearly enjoying a few cups of coffee, and labelling them cheats. Perhaps others whiled away a few hours doing that0 -
I agree. But niche designer drugs taken en masse, to me, smacks of an industry of deceit. There's a reason that Sharapova laboured the medical history line, and that's because it's more acceptable than taking a designer drug for performance enhancing, legal or not.Richmond Racer 2 wrote:jawooga wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:I think we need to understand that most professional athletes will go right to the wire in terms of what they use to aid performance - be it weight loss, recovery, whatever.
ethically right? Whose ethics? It's totally subjective. Dolan Driver, you might find something ethically questionable, whereas I might be fine about it. That not a question of ethics, but individuals' opinions on something.
I agree with all that. But... another argument is that the AD authorities ban substances on the grounds of morality and unnatural advantaged. So ethics clearly does come into it. It's just a little easier for us to pretend it doesn't if we find the line too difficult to draw.
And I'm ok with WADA saying don't take this substance now / without a TUE, and from that point onwards, that athlete gets done if they still take it
When caffeine was on the list for a while, I didn't go searching for old photos of athletes clearly enjoying a few cups of coffee, and labelling them cheats. Perhaps others whiled away a few hours doing that
Edit. My point is, everyone knows there is an ethical line. It's just difficult to pin down.0 -
But everyone has their own ethics (while societies have laws). So they have their own individual perceptions of where that line is. And thus we must rely on the only truly objective line - the WADA code.jawooga wrote:Edit. My point is, everyone knows there is an ethical line. It's just difficult to pin down.Twitter: @RichN950 -
I'm an infrequent poster here but suspect this is old ground.RichN95 wrote:
But everyone has their own ethics. So they have their own individual perceptions of where that line is. And thus we must rely on the only truly objective line - the WADA code.jawooga wrote:Edit. My point is, everyone knows there is an ethical line. It's just difficult to pin down. For what it's worth, I agree, the only standard anyone can be held to is a legally binding one. But it's naive to think that the entire continuum up to that point of crossing the legal line doesn't matter to a lot sports fans - for the same reasons sportsmanship is important to observers and participants of most sports (kicking the ball out in football, walking in cricket, the code of the peloton, calling a foul in snooker etc) 0 -
Athletes have, broadly speaking, three possible approaches to their chosen sport, I reckon.
1. Ethical - I will compete cleanly at all times - pane e acqua.
2. Questionable ethics - I will use whatever substances I can that will enhance my performance but don't result in a positive dope test.
3. Unethical - I will knowingly take anything, including banned performance enhancing drugs, to improve my sporting performance.
Some might argue that No.2 is still an ethical approach but it seems that particular approach has landed Sharapova in the sh!t (if she is not using Meldonium for a genuine medical condition), given that the status of the drug changed.
Nike seem to have a reasonable idea about what is going on as they have dropped her like a hot spud.
DD.0 -
No, I think it's naive to think that it does. These things matter to the supporter or the participant generally only when they go against them, their team or their favourite.jawooga wrote:But it's naive to think that the entire continuum up to that point of crossing the legal line doesn't matter to a lot sports fans - for the same reasons sportsmanship is important to observers and participants of most sports (kicking the ball out in football, walking in cricket, the code of the peloton, calling a foul in snooker etc)
You'll always get a few (usually very vocal) people getting on their high horse, but generally people will adhere to 'the rules are the rules'. After all, what is sport but a contest played out according to arbitrary set of rules - there's no inherent morality to it.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Yeah, been around for a few years, and some of the vigilante stuff based on rumour is a disgrace. In fact I'm not putting forward a solution in any way, so probably not helping the debate. We can only enjoy the sport and the minute we don't believe our eyes, stop. I'm not in the legalise everything brigade just because it's simple.0
-
Dolan Driver wrote:Athletes have, broadly speaking, three possible approaches to their chosen sport, I reckon.
1. Ethical - I will compete cleanly at all times - pane e acqua.
2. Questionable ethics - I will use whatever substances I can that will enhance my performance but don't result in a positive dope test.
3. Unethical - I will knowingly take anything, including banned performance enhancing drugs, to improve my sporting performance.
Some might argue that No.2 is still an ethical approach but it seems that particular approach has landed Sharapova in the sh!t (if she is not using Meldonium for a genuine medical condition), given that the status of the drug changed.
Nike seem to have a reasonable idea about what is going on as they have dropped her like a hot spud.
DD.
Judging by the interviews I've seen today of other sports personalities commenting on Sharapova, it appears the only question that needs to be debated is whether a substance is on the banned list now or not. If it isn't then it is perfectly ok. One rugby team have a meeting every two weeks about the banned list, Wiggo said British Cycling have a guru who says 'Don't take that any more, it's now banned'.
I would imagine there are very very few people in professional sport who are in category 1. If it's not banned you consider yourself in category 1 even if some think you are in category 2.0
