|
 Where Your Dreams Become Reality |
|
You are reporting the following post to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum Poster: Sprintgeezer Subject: RE: Article for SprintGeezer Body: d-- That's an interesting article. Although I've got too many things on my plate these days to investigate the research protocol and findings, it does at least suggest that there are some permanent, or at least long-term relative to an athletic career, structural changes in the body that are enabled by 'roids. I have always believed this to be true. Take another PED, HGH--if administered at the right time in life, the effects are permanent, even if use is discontinued. I also believe that males don't physiologically, or biochemically, mature until they are around 30 or so, give or take a few years, and that any roid use prior to that time is somewhat analogous to giving HGH to a child, in that it can permanently alter structures and pathways that are still developing. If true, it's not surprising. If the adverse side-effects can persist, and manifest later in life, I would suspect no reason that the same thing wouldn't apply to the "athletically positive", or anabolic effects. Right now, reconciling the possibility of permanent advantages with temporary sanctions requires 1 of 2 things: either you decide that there ARE no permanent advantages and that hence the temporary sanctions are appropriate, or you just accept the wisdom of the policies underpinning the current sanctions. I have done the latter. I don't want to stop watching worlds or OG's or nationals just because Gatlin or Chambers or whomever is competing, and to just declare all of track B.S. because of a potentially large deficiency in the protocol. When I see a roided-up guy run incredibly fast, first and foremost what I see is an incredible athletic performance...only afterwards do I consider that it was bogus...but the performance stands. Heck, people still use videos of Koch, Johnson, etc. for training purposes. So when I see a doper run, I see first and foremost an athletic performance--like Gatlin's sprint to win worlds--and using that metric, a sort of "addiction" to track, accepting the wisdom of the policies underpinning the current sanctions becomes not too difficult. I think I'd feel differently if I were a competitor, however. Yeah, I competed against guys I knew were doping, massively. They were usually a bit older than me, the Johnson/McKoy/Issajenko era, so when I was young, I just assumed that they were intrinsically better than I was, because they were, say, 6, 7, or 8 years older...a big difference, even when you're 18, 19, or 20 (well, unless you're really great when really young like Lemaitre or Blake or Bolt, which I wasn't)--so even though there were issues, I didn't really care. But if I were competitive with the very best, I'd probably be complaining like a bltch, like Lewis did about Johnson. I'd do everything possible within the rules to make his life crap, to try to take away some of the permanent advantage. I feel for the clean competitors today. "Like who?", you ask? Well, there have got to be some...and if not, then even temporary sanctions are too long. Hit the submit button below if you want us to review the post. If you feel this is urgent or want a reply, email us at letsrun@letsrun.com about the post and please include a link to the thread the post is on and what page number/post on that page it is
|
