Doesn't get any richer than this: "She remembers the meat in the burrito being finely chopped and that grease pooled in the foil. She said it seemed more rich than the burritos she had eaten there before, so much so that she was unable to finish it despite being very hungry after eating little else that day." Are you serious? Wow!
I'm saying the entire PED concept is based on superstitious belief rather than real Science.
Ask an exercise physiologist to explain their PED beliefs in terms of Newtonian Physics. They can't. They wouldn't know where to begin.
^Before you give us all a lecture on science and Newtonian physics, maybe you should go back and review the basic capitalization rules you learned in second grade.
I'll answer your question though. In terms of Newtonian physics, PEDs allow you to exert more force and/or allow you to do it for a longer time. That's it. The real relevant science as far as PEDs is biology, but I'm sure you knew that.
Hey HRE, Kinda still around (lol)… I’ll go for months without visiting, and then for whatever reason, I’ll LR binge for a weekend (mostly lurking). I typically think that even “clear minded thinkers” are really driven more by emotion than logic, but dang if I don’t always appreciate your contributions/perspectives! As an aside, one of your stories (the one where it was 20 below and you tried explaining to the motorist that it wasn’t so bad… hahaha) is one that I tell pretty often about a friend of mine! Lotsa parallels can be drawn with that one. Anyway, I just tried to search your address, but I’m not finding it… hmmm…
I'll give you my "secret" e-mail address, the one I use where lots of people can see it, then if you write to it I'll respond from the one I've had forever that all my friends use. It's Engstock@netzero.com.
I did want to quickly reply to ???…., If I’m understanding correctly, you (and others) don’t really think that PEDs are a thinf, or if they are, they should just be accepted like any other substance that the body can handle. And, SH is being “shay upon”, so that her defiance of the rules are akin to a conscientious objection (like Rosa Parks). Is that correct?
If so, I would recommend that she fully own it and say “yeah, I took the Nandrolene (and maybe others), and these rules are BS!” While her cost would likely be higher, I think she would move the ball further for the argument you’re presenting.
I highly doubt you could find a person more for the “little guy”, or more for “let’s take a second look at these rules” or more for “let’s see what athletes can do!” than me. If you’ve lost me, then at the very least politically speaking, I think you may want to recallibrate your approach.
So, before moving on to your arguments, are you conceding that HRE is correct that SH should abide by the established rules / consequences?
Ask rekrunner. He addressed this in his summary.
I wish her well. I think she has been shat upon. So do some of her BTC team mates.
FWIW, on this point, whether it is right or wrong, just or unjust, sensical or non-sensical, athletes are bound by contract to the Code as a mandatory condition for participating, so I wouldn't ever condone or endorse any rule violations. I would rather support rule changes/reforms.
According to this and previous articles, they did seek legal advice beforehand, so maybe her "private" training in close proximity with BTC athletes is within the rules. Or maybe not. Either way, it is certainly not a good look in the court of public opinion.
I did want to quickly reply to ???…., If I’m understanding correctly, you (and others) don’t really think that PEDs are a thinf, or if they are, they should just be accepted like any other substance that the body can handle. And, SH is being “shay upon”, so that her defiance of the rules are akin to a conscientious objection (like Rosa Parks). Is that correct?
If so, I would recommend that she fully own it and say “yeah, I took the Nandrolene (and maybe others), and these rules are BS!” While her cost would likely be higher, I think she would move the ball further for the argument you’re presenting.
I highly doubt you could find a person more for the “little guy”, or more for “let’s take a second look at these rules” or more for “let’s see what athletes can do!” than me. If you’ve lost me, then at the very least politically speaking, I think you may want to recallibrate your approach.
I'm asking you to be more reasonable and understand that this constant abuse of young athletes by old men who should know better has to stop.
^Before you give us all a lecture on science and Newtonian physics, maybe you should go back and review the basic capitalization rules you learned in second grade.
I'll answer your question though. In terms of Newtonian physics, PEDs allow you to exert more force and/or allow you to do it for a longer time. That's it. The real relevant science as far as PEDs is biology, but I'm sure you knew that.
I wish her well. I think she has been shat upon. So do some of her BTC team mates.
FWIW, on this point, whether it is right or wrong, just or unjust, sensical or non-sensical, athletes are bound by contract to the Code as a mandatory condition for participating, so I wouldn't ever condone or endorse any rule violations. I would rather support rule changes/reforms.
According to this and previous articles, they did seek legal advice beforehand, so maybe her "private" training in close proximity with BTC athletes is within the rules. Or maybe not. Either way, it is certainly not a good look in the court of public opinion.
After reading the entire article, I am now MORE in support of Ms. Houlihan and respect her and Elise Cranny even MORE. Elise has my utmost respect in sticking by a friend, regardless of all the shiite that the hypocritical, snide a$$es that reside on LR and elsewhere.