Drugs in other sports and the media.

joelsim

He simply said he'd been tested twice this year.

gweeds

Seems obvious that athletes have been taking this in droves purely because it wasn't banned previously and therefore 'legal'.

For me it's simple. If you're taking something that requires a prescription purely for performance enhancing reasons and not for any medical reason, because it's not yet banned, then you're a cheat.

You might be legal, for now, but to my mind you're still a cheat.

gsk82

Legal or not it shows the attitude towards drug use in sport.

rick_chasey

Gweeds wrote:

Seems obvious that athletes have been taking this in droves purely because it wasn't banned previously and therefore 'legal'.

For me it's simple. If you're taking something that requires a prescription purely for performance enhancing reasons and not for any medical reason, because it's not yet banned, then you're a cheat.

You might be legal, for now, but to my mind you're still a cheat.

Good job the police don't take that view.

gweeds

PC Chasey reporting in.

rick_chasey

joelsim

Gweeds wrote:

Seems obvious that athletes have been taking this in droves purely because it wasn't banned previously and therefore 'legal'.

For me it's simple. If you're taking something that requires a prescription purely for performance enhancing reasons and not for any medical reason, because it's not yet banned, then you're a cheat.

You might be legal, for now, but to my mind you're still a cheat.

I think you're naive if you think that isn't the case with the majority of athletes.

When you read into it and watch countless interviews with various sportspeople including I may add Wiggo, it's pretty clear that all and sundry including British Cycling will happily take whatever isn't on the banned list at that moment in time.

There are of course plenty who also take stuff that's on the banned list too.

gweeds

I think you've confused naivety with an opinion.

joelsim

Gweeds wrote:

I think you've confused naivety with an opinion.

OK, but it appears that anything which isn't on the banned list is fair game. Rightly or wrongly, ethical or not.

Whilst I don't believe Sky are a 'doping' team, it seems pretty obvious from past events and extensive interviews/articles that they push as close to the line as possible, legally.

The issue with Meldonium is that loads of people tested positive for it when it was under review last year and IMO WADA have targeted those athletes in January 2016 (who hadn't perhaps known they had been tested in 2015 specifically for it) and unsurprisingly some of them (60+ currently) have been busted.

joelsim

What this all boils down to is, if it's not on the banned list and a large number of your direct competitors are getting a benefit then you have a choice. Go with it, or lose out.

I personally don't blame the athletes, it's just how it is.

RichN95.

I'm currently on my phone but I notice that someone is wrong on the internet. This cannot stand and I will correct them tomorrow.

joelsim

RichN95 wrote:

I'm currently on my phone but I notice that someone is wrong on the internet. This cannot stand and I will correct them tomorrow.

I look forward to it Rich, it's just not cricket is it.

slim_boy_fat

Joelsim wrote:

What this all boils down to is, if it's not on the banned list and a large number of your direct competitors are getting a benefit then you have a choice. Go with it, or lose out.

I personally don't blame the athletes, it's just how it is.

Murrays comments on meldonium would suggest that you're wide of the mark at least in his case. He's done alright for himself and it would appear he doesn't take it to that level. So he certainly did have a choice and it would appear made the right one. So let's not make blanket statements without blanket proof eh? You're getting all a bit tin foil hat again Joel after a good run of reasonable.

shinyhelmut

David Walsh talking some sense;

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/sport/athletics/article1677462.ece

joelsim

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

What this all boils down to is, if it's not on the banned list and a large number of your direct competitors are getting a benefit then you have a choice. Go with it, or lose out.

I personally don't blame the athletes, it's just how it is.

Murrays comments on meldonium would suggest that you're wide of the mark at least in his case. He's done alright for himself and it would appear he doesn't take it to that level. So he certainly did have a choice and it would appear made the right one. So let's not make blanket statements without blanket proof eh? You're getting all a bit tin foil hat again Joel after a good run of reasonable.

I agree with you on Murray. Everything he has said has been right on doping.

slim_boy_fat

Joelsim wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

What this all boils down to is, if it's not on the banned list and a large number of your direct competitors are getting a benefit then you have a choice. Go with it, or lose out.

I personally don't blame the athletes, it's just how it is.

Murrays comments on meldonium would suggest that you're wide of the mark at least in his case. He's done alright for himself and it would appear he doesn't take it to that level. So he certainly did have a choice and it would appear made the right one. So let's not make blanket statements without blanket proof eh? You're getting all a bit tin foil hat again Joel after a good run of reasonable.

I agree with you on Murray. Everything he has said has been right on doping.

And I'm willing to believe that there are plenty more like him just as I'm willing to believe there are many who push everything to the absolute limit of legality and many who are prepared to go well past the limit also.

joelsim

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

What this all boils down to is, if it's not on the banned list and a large number of your direct competitors are getting a benefit then you have a choice. Go with it, or lose out.

I personally don't blame the athletes, it's just how it is.

Murrays comments on meldonium would suggest that you're wide of the mark at least in his case. He's done alright for himself and it would appear he doesn't take it to that level. So he certainly did have a choice and it would appear made the right one. So let's not make blanket statements without blanket proof eh? You're getting all a bit tin foil hat again Joel after a good run of reasonable.

I agree with you on Murray. Everything he has said has been right on doping.

And I'm willing to believe that there are plenty more like him just as I'm willing to believe there are many who push everything to the absolute limit of legality and many who are prepared to go well past the limit also.

Agreed.

Mad_Malx

I accept Murray looks to have has changed his position, but a while back he was very critical about out invasive out of competition testing and having to log whereabouts. At a time when there were even less tests going on than now.

Richmond Racer 2

Mad_Malx wrote:

I accept Murray looks to have has changed his position, but a while back he was very critical about out invasive out of competition testing and having to log whereabouts. At a time when there were even less tests going on than now.

I give you two events that changed things for Murray: Lance/USADA; and the Fuentes trial.

There were and are a lot of murmurings that after the Eufe Fuentes trial, with the talk of athletes - especially Spanish athletes including tennis players - having been clients of dear Eufe, Murray started paying a lot more attention to the whole business. The start of Murray becoming the most outspoken on the AD front of all the top players, can be traced back to this time. Basically, and coming so soon after Lance and USADA, Murray started to wise up somewhat.

Mad_Malx

Yes, Very possible he didn't realise the extent of the problem and what it could be costing him.

ManOfKent

Mad_Malx wrote:

Yes, Very possible he didn't realise the extent of the problem and what it could be costing him.

At least we know Nadal was above Murray in the rankings, on merit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35800550

Dorset_Boy

ManOfKent wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

Yes, Very possible he didn't realise the extent of the problem and what it could be costing him.

At least we know Nadal was above Murray in the rankings, on merit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35800550

Now where have we heard those sort of statements from a doper before?

It's time the Spanish house of cards collapsed around all their doped up sportsmen.

gsk82

Dorset Boy wrote:

ManOfKent wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

Yes, Very possible he didn't realise the extent of the problem and what it could be costing him.

At least we know Nadal was above Murray in the rankings, on merit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35800550

Now where have we heard those sort of statements from a doper before?

It's time the Spanish house of cards collapsed around all their doped up sportsmen.

I don't like it when legal action is used to suggest someone must be guilty. that attitude results in dickheads feeling able to say what like about innocent people. if this does become a case all he has to do is prove he wasn't banned for that particular period, not that he hasn't doped.

No_Ta_Doctor

Things not going too well in Kenya

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/m ... its-doping

joelsim

You can bet your bottom dollar that Kenya and Russia will both be in Rio. If either of them aren't I'll let RichN95 off buying me a hidden motor for my bike.


(I'd feel a bit sorry for him if he was PoorN95).

dish_dash

Well I never...

Drugs in Boxing apparently! http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/35880726

And Swimming according to the Times today.

sherer

This one is even better

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/35871375

Claims he doesn't know what Clembuterol is nor what it would benefit him either. Seeing as he would have bulked up to make the weight I can see it having several good uses for a boxer.

bigmat

sherer wrote:

This one is even better

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/35871375

Claims he doesn't know what Clembuterol is nor what it would benefit him either. Seeing as he would have bulked up to make the weight I can see it having several good uses for a boxer.

How do you bulk up to "make the weight"?! There is no weight limit for heavyweights, although obviously the more bulked up the better. I have to say, of all the sob stories and excuses for failing a drugs test, his has a ring of truth about it although as always the most likely explanation is he's a cheat.

sherer

note to self don't post with jet lag.

More for other weight divisions but boxers are usually heavier than the weight they need to be and so slim down to make the weight for a fight and then bulk up after the weigh in.

The_Boy

Weigh-ins in boxing take place the day before the fight. I'd like to find a drug that allows one to gain significant amounts of lean muscle in 24 hours.