casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
So you are trying to make the point with "no compelling arguments"? Just suspicions and concerns?
No. Demonstrated suspicions and concerns from a number of experts, btw., and
In 2017, at the WADA accredited antidoping laboratory of Rome, the athletes declaring to consume this kind of substances, was ten times higher compared to the prevalence of hypothyroidism in Italy.
and flying to corrupt doctors to get this special diagnosis to take hormone treatment despite being healthy, hoping to get faster.
All of that is very different from taking "multi-vitamins" and "diet-pills", though you pretend it's not.
But I fully understand that you claim to see nothing wrong there. That's your modus operandi after all.
You are the one who just showed us that these "experts" with "suspicions" and "concerns" had "no compelling arguments".
While arguing it wasn't debunked, you simply made my point:
"The LiEG still considered that they were not performance enhancing"
"it was concluded that there were no compelling arguments to add these substances to the prohibited list."
The experts at UKAD and USADA haven't done their homework, so they get no credit.
I did not claim anything, but asked a simple question:
If it is not performance enhancing, and not banned, what exactly is the ethical issue?
How is it different than say, iron supplements or multi-vitamins?
Arguing Salazar and Dr. Brown are unethical, while that may be true, does not answer the question.
Would it be ethical with a different coach and a different doctor?
Arguing that it really is performance enhancing is both uncompelling, as you have shown, and irrelevant, and does not answer the question.
Performance enhancement per se is not an issue if the substance is not banned by WADA.
Attacking me also does not answer the question, but just shows me you have no answer.
If it is indeed "very different" as you say -- why is no one able to articulate what the differences are?