Doping Life Bans

nic_77

rayjay wrote:

Loads of untested and risky drugs on the market. Look at other sports not just cycling . its going on everywhere.

Not picking on rayjay here but this something I see stated a lot in these doping discussion.

I'd like to know where anyone thinks these random drugs are being developed and produced? In someone's back bedroom? Novel drug research is closely guarded and testing and licensing are both highly regulated. Rarely will dopers be taking anything that isn't already pretty widely available in conventional medicine.

rayjay

nic_77 wrote:

rayjay wrote:

Loads of untested and risky drugs on the market. Look at other sports not just cycling . its going on everywhere.

Not picking on rayjay here but this something I see stated a lot in these doping discussion.

I'd like to know where anyone thinks these random drugs are being developed and produced? In someone's back bedroom? Novel drug research is closely guarded and testing and licensing are both highly regulated. Rarely will dopers be taking anything that isn't already pretty widely available in conventional medicine.

Most of the drugs athletes use to cheat are not made for purpose

Athletes take risk with drugs not tried and tested for purpose.

Body builders have taken this to the extreme and have used drugs developed for Animals.

The banned doping list gets bigger. Because athletes find new drugs that are risky and are not tested for purpose.

I apologise . it did come across a certain way but you now have clarity on the point.

Mccaria

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/f ... ency-sochi

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 98541.html

I am sure the odd cyclist or 2 could find a use for this. No current test, builds lean muscle, Nirvana. Available from your friendly Russian scientist at a suitable price, may have side affects.

rayjay

briantrumpet wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Can anyone work out how he got that from what I posted?

Only two possibilities here: he doesn't understand how to extrapolate meaning from written language in the way that most of us do; or he does but just wants to keep argument going by deliberate misinterpretation. In either case, I've no idea why people keep on responding. And though the game might be entertaining for a while, the novelty wears off pretty soon and it just becomes tiresome.

The fact is I debate my points well . You are entitled to disagree with them but show me something I have said that is wrong?

I am giving my opinion and view.

Because it does not fall in line with you and your mates, you cannot prove anything I have said is wrong or will not work if tried.

If for instance if PED's were made a legal and it was a disaster I would accept it and acknowledge it was a bad idea and admit I was wrong. But it's just a view to discuss. Its a very complex issue.

Some of the posters then resort to making jokes and sometimes quite angry responses and go into a rant.

I respond to the points made.

For instance. look at some of the posts, I have had to correct posters who have been putting words in my mouth.

Do they apologise for that ?

I think some of he posters need too open their minds up a bit. They are so stuck in their ways, they cannot and refuse to see another's view.


They respond in a patronising manner and their only objective is to make themselves feel superior to someone with a different view.

I'm off for a ride now . 53 x 23 up Muswell hill ....that's me

disgruntledgoat

rayjay wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Can anyone work out how he got that from what I posted?

Only two possibilities here: he doesn't understand how to extrapolate meaning from written language in the way that most of us do; or he does but just wants to keep argument going by deliberate misinterpretation. In either case, I've no idea why people keep on responding. And though the game might be entertaining for a while, the novelty wears off pretty soon and it just becomes tiresome.

The fact is I debate my points well . You are entitled to disagree with them but show me something I have said that is wrong?

I am giving my opinion and view.

Because it does not fall in line with you and your mates, you cannot prove anything I have said is wrong or will not work if tried.

If for instance if PED's were made a legal and it was a disaster I would accept it and acknowledge it was a bad idea and admit I was wrong. But it's just a view to discuss. Its a very complex issue.

Some of the posters then resort to making jokes and sometimes quite angry responses and go into a rant.

I respond to the points made.

For instance. look at some of the posts, I have had to correct posters who have been putting words in my mouth.

Do they apologise for that ?

I think some of he posters need too open their minds up a bit. They are so stuck in their ways, they cannot and refuse to see another's view.


They respond in a patronising manner and their only objective is to make themselves feel superior to someone with a different view.

I'm off for a ride now . 53 x 23 up Muswell hill ....that's me

I know I said I was out of this, but I can't let that pass. I have tried to engage with your ideas, question your assumptions and work out exactly what your position is. You responded by doing about 12 rolly eyes smileys and calling me a tw@t.

bompington

rayjay wrote:

The fact is I debate my points well .

Two points here:

1. A classic illustration of the internet truism that the meaning of the word "fact" has now become entirely inverted

2. When you say "I debate my points well" you are confusing quantity for quality.

rayjay

bompington wrote:

rayjay wrote:

The fact is I debate my points well .

Two points here:

1. A classic illustration of the internet truism that the meaning of the word "fact" has now become entirely inverted

2. When you say "I debate my points well" you are confusing quantity for quality.[/quote



Look at the post Above by Nic77 .

He has made a lot of presumptions and again trying to put words in my mouth.

Look at my reply...its clear and factual . Then the following post back's up my response and my point .


are you going to acknowledge that? or are you ignorant.

Richmond Racer

DG, Bomp etc - seriously, its not worth the ar$e ache

rayjay

disgruntledgoat wrote:

rayjay wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Can anyone work out how he got that from what I posted?

Only two possibilities here: he doesn't understand how to extrapolate meaning from written language in the way that most of us do; or he does but just wants to keep argument going by deliberate misinterpretation. In either case, I've no idea why people keep on responding. And though the game might be entertaining for a while, the novelty wears off pretty soon and it just becomes tiresome.

The fact is I debate my points well . You are entitled to disagree with them but show me something I have said that is wrong?

I am giving my opinion and view.

Because it does not fall in line with you and your mates, you cannot prove anything I have said is wrong or will not work if tried.

If for instance if PED's were made a legal and it was a disaster I would accept it and acknowledge it was a bad idea and admit I was wrong. But it's just a view to discuss. Its a very complex issue.

Some of the posters then resort to making jokes and sometimes quite angry responses and go into a rant.

I respond to the points made.

For instance. look at some of the posts, I have had to correct posters who have been putting words in my mouth.

Do they apologise for that ?

I think some of he posters need too open their minds up a bit. They are so stuck in their ways, they cannot and refuse to see another's view.


They respond in a patronising manner and their only objective is to make themselves feel superior to someone with a different view.

I'm off for a ride now . 53 x 23 up Muswell hill ....that's me

I know I said I was out of this, but I can't let that pass. I have tried to engage with your ideas, question your assumptions and work out exactly what your position is. You responded by doing about 12 rolly eyes smileys and calling me a tw@t.

You kept on and on with the same question. The only reason you kept repeating the question was because you wanted me to give a wrong response.

I told you I knew the answer as well but you would not acknowledge that.

That is not debate that is just bullying.

disgruntledgoat

Richmond Racer wrote:

DG, Bomp etc - seriously, its not worth the ar$e ache

I've given up. I'm not standing for benig told I can't discuss things properly by one who resorted to name calling, however.

rayjay

Richmond Racer wrote:

DG, Bomp etc - seriously, its not worth the ar$e ache

So why did you post then, as usual.....I am I still keeping you awake at nights

ddraver

rayjay wrote:

bompington wrote:

rayjay wrote:

The fact is I debate my points well .

Two points here:

1. A classic illustration of the internet truism that the meaning of the word "fact" has now become entirely inverted

2. When you say "I debate my points well" you are confusing quantity for quality.[/quote



Look at the post Above by Nic77 .

He has made a lot of presumptions and again trying to put words in my mouth.

Look at my reply...its clear and factual . Then the following post back's up my response and my point .


are you going to acknowledge that? or are you ignorant.

Can YOU explain how got "no cyclists dope" from "legalising all drugs would be bad"?

No one else can, which means you clearly did not debate well

rayjay

ddraver wrote:

rayjay wrote:

bompington wrote:

rayjay wrote:

The fact is I debate my points well .

Two points here:

1. A classic illustration of the internet truism that the meaning of the word "fact" has now become entirely inverted

2. When you say "I debate my points well" you are confusing quantity for quality.[/quote



Look at the post Above by Nic77 .

He has made a lot of presumptions and again trying to put words in my mouth.

Look at my reply...its clear and factual . Then the following post back's up my response and my point .


are you going to acknowledge that? or are you ignorant.

Can YOU explain how got "no cyclists dope" from "legalising all drugs would be bad"?

No one else can, which means you clearly did not debate well

Exactly what is your point ? Your comment makes no sense and it looks like you have some words missing.

ddraver

Rubbish - read it again

salsiccia1

Coo, that weather's terrible isn't it?

Richmond Racer

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Coo, that weather's terrible isn't it?

Its this bloody weather front, it just wont move on

above_the_cows

This thread:

rayjay

ddraver wrote:

Rubbish - read it again

Can YOU explain how got "no cyclists dope" from "legalising all drugs would be bad"?

That makes no sense.

You need to explain or I cannot reply.

Richmond Racer

Above The Cows wrote:

This thread:

^Dawlish - > Dawlish Warren ->warren - > somewhere where you can get lost easily

Shall we sent down a stoat?

nic_77

rayjay wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

rayjay wrote:

Loads of untested and risky drugs on the market. Look at other sports not just cycling . its going on everywhere.

Not picking on rayjay here but this something I see stated a lot in these doping discussion.

I'd like to know where anyone thinks these random drugs are being developed and produced? In someone's back bedroom? Novel drug research is closely guarded and testing and licensing are both highly regulated. Rarely will dopers be taking anything that isn't already pretty widely available in conventional medicine.

rayjay wrote:

Most of the drugs athletes use to cheat are not made for purpose

Athletes take risk with drugs not tried and tested for purpose.

If by that you mean they weren't developed to improve athletic performance then yes of course. The products were however developed to improve blood cell count or help tissue recovery or alter hormonal balance or improve respiratory function etc. The dopers are looking to take advantage of these proven (and highly studied) effects. In some cases the dopers are looking to benefit from known side-effects, such as a thermogenic action.

rayjay wrote:

Body builders have taken this to the extreme and have used drugs developed for Animals.

You may be surprised to learn that very very very few drugs are developed specifically for animals. There are some products licensed solely for use in animals but these are almost all initially developed with human medicine in mind. There is a vast chasm in difference between the R&D budgets of pharma companies (and most of the veterinary pharma industry is owned by human pharma business). More often the anticipated effects are very well known.

rayjay wrote:

The banned doping list gets bigger. Because athletes find new drugs that are risky and are not tested for purpose.

Where are they finding these mystical products? Dopers are generally using pretty conventional substances.

Paulie W

nic_77 wrote:

rayjay wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

rayjay wrote:

Loads of untested and risky drugs on the market. Look at other sports not just cycling . its going on everywhere.

Not picking on rayjay here but this something I see stated a lot in these doping discussion.

I'd like to know where anyone thinks these random drugs are being developed and produced? In someone's back bedroom? Novel drug research is closely guarded and testing and licensing are both highly regulated. Rarely will dopers be taking anything that isn't already pretty widely available in conventional medicine.

rayjay wrote:

Most of the drugs athletes use to cheat are not made for purpose

Athletes take risk with drugs not tried and tested for purpose.

If by that you mean they weren't developed to improve athletic performance then yes of course. The products were however developed to improve blood cell count or help tissue recovery or alter hormonal balance or improve respiratory function etc. The dopers are looking to take advantage of these proven (and highly studied) effects. In some cases the dopers are looking to benefit from known side-effects, such as a thermogenic action.

rayjay wrote:

Body builders have taken this to the extreme and have used drugs developed for Animals.

You may be surprised to learn that very very very few drugs are developed specifically for animals. There are some products licensed solely for use in animals but these are almost all initially developed with human medicine in mind. There is a vast chasm in difference between the R&D budgets of pharma companies (and most of the veterinary pharma industry is owned by human pharma business). More often the anticipated effects are very well known.

rayjay wrote:

The banned doping list gets bigger. Because athletes find new drugs that are risky and are not tested for purpose.

Where are they finding these mystical products? Dopers are generally using pretty conventional substances.

Surely you're not suggesting that Rayjay has no idea what he's talking about and is just throwing out a series of lame unsupportable statements!

blazing_saddles

Anybody got a job for an unemployed (wind instrument) musician?

salsiccia1

Richmond Racer wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

This thread:

^Dawlish - > Dawlish Warren ->warren - > somewhere where you can get lost easily

Shall we sent down a stoat?

That would be weasily done but stoatally pointless.

rayjay

Nic-77

First off I never mentioned mythical drugs. show me where I said that. Stop putting words into my mouth AGAIN.

Your post does nothing but only confirm what I said .

Athletes are always looking for new ways to cheat.

Your post is actually patronising and maybe it boosts you ego . But nothing I said was not fact.


Paulie W
"you're not suggesting that Rayjay has no idea what he's talking about and is just throwing out a series of lame unsupportable statements!"

Like what exactly.... BACK THAT UP OR KEEP QUIET

RichN95.

rayjay wrote:

Nic-77

First off I never mentioned mythical drugs. show me where I said that. Stop putting words into my mouth.

Your post does nothing but only confirm what I said .

Athletes are always looking for new ways to cheat.

Paulie W
"you're not suggesting that Rayjay has no idea what he's talking about and is just throwing out a series of lame unsupportable statements!"

Like what exactly.... BACK THAT UP OR KEEP QUIET

Your problem is that you have argued two positions in this thread:

1. That there should be life bans for a first offence
2. Doping should be made legal.

These are two extreme and polar opposite views. We can therefore only surmise that you really don't know what you think - you just like arguing.

salsiccia1

Paulie W

rayjay wrote:

Nic-77

First off I never mentioned mythical drugs. show me where I said that. Stop putting words into my mouth AGAIN.

Your post does nothing but only confirm what I said .

Athletes are always looking for new ways to cheat.

Your post is actually patronising and maybe it boosts you ego . But nothing I said was not fact.


Paulie W
"you're not suggesting that Rayjay has no idea what he's talking about and is just throwing out a series of lame unsupportable statements!"

Like what exactly.... BACK THAT UP OR KEEP QUIET

EVERY SINGLE STATEMENT THAT NIC RESPONDED TO!

ARE YOU REALLY AS STUPID AS YOU ARE MAKING OUT?!

rayjay

RichN95 wrote:

rayjay wrote:

Nic-77

First off I never mentioned mythical drugs. show me where I said that. Stop putting words into my mouth.

Your post does nothing but only confirm what I said .

Athletes are always looking for new ways to cheat.

Paulie W
"you're not suggesting that Rayjay has no idea what he's talking about and is just throwing out a series of lame unsupportable statements!"

Like what exactly.... BACK THAT UP OR KEEP QUIET

Your problem is that you have argued two positions in this thread:

1. That there should be life bans for a first offence
2. Doping should be made legal.

These are two extreme and polar opposite views. We can therefore only surmise that you really don't know what you think - you just like arguing.

I do not make the rules in cycling.

If doping was made legal I do not have a problem with that. The UCI are not going to do that.

So then you have the question of bans. which is what the system we have in place now, so I am giving a view on that system and as things stand IMO the bans are unfair and inconsistent.

I am making a comment on each issue . Which I am allowed to do.

ddraver

Richmond Racer wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

This thread:

^Dawlish - > Dawlish Warren ->warren - > somewhere where you can get lost easily

Shall we sent down a stoat?

There's some damn fine geology ruined there!

Plus it's made it much harder to get home!

salsiccia1