But what on earth is the group targeted for protection ?
Does this no mean the 100’s of millions who are subject to Wada?
To say that there is a group that is targeted means that there is a group not targeted; so please clarify the latter. Is this group the billions who do not do sport?
Yes. WADA protects "athletes", and not the rest of the non-athlete population.
If it helps, you can to go WADA's "Who We Are" web page.
But which are the targeted group.Targeted from what?
Krieger; a non binary that got compo from the State.
Hamilton ; bad batch of blood cos it was all underworld supply.
Russians… high levels of what… reportedly.
Is that the best you can come up with after 70 yrs of sports doping?
Tommy Simpson died of a heart attack due to the amphetamines he was on while climbing the famous Mont Vontoux stage during the 1967 TDF.
For decades, amphetamines & synthetic testosterone were the PEDs of choice in cycling up to around the early 90s when EPO became center stage. The great Eddy Merckx even tested positive for amphetamines.
Amphetamines & test was primarily used by the cyclists to fight fatigue & improve recovery from the grueling 3 week Grand Tours that were basically survival events during the last week of the GT.
There were other cyclists over the decades of this era that had medical problems from the amphetamine use but no others that died in-competetion.
Armstrong has said that he suspects the HGH he started using in 1996 was the cause of his testicular cancer. However, he admits to doping as early as 21 when first signed on with Motorola (primarily testosterone use I believe). Recall Armstrong has said testosterone & HGH were just "1 percenters" in terms of performance improvement while claiming EPO was a 10% boost in his performance.
I thought that he died of de hydration.
So searching back over 70 yrs we still have the most limited and hearsay evidence of the illeffects of drugs in sport.
Yet every day we read of athletes having surgery and then the 80% of ex athletes that have to have major medical intervention in later years.
And then we have the deaths directly due to sport accidents.
This depth of avoidance make me think that you must be Armstronglies
I answered your question several times, gave you quotes from WADA's web site and answered "yes" when you yourself guessed the answers right. This doesn't seem like "Armstronglies" level depth of avoidance.
Let's not forget that it is you who started all this talk about abolishing anti-doping, so any burden is really on you to explain why anti-doping is doing more harm than good. Repeatedly asking who WADA tries to protect just seems like a game you are playing to avoid your own burden.
This depth of avoidance make me think that you must be Armstronglies
I answered your question several times, gave you quotes from WADA's web site and answered "yes" when you yourself guessed the answers right. This doesn't seem like "Armstronglies" level depth of avoidance.
Let's not forget that it is you who started all this talk about abolishing anti-doping, so any burden is really on you to explain why anti-doping is doing more harm than good. Repeatedly asking who WADA tries to protect just seems like a game you are playing to avoid your own burden.
You are getting nowhere. You almost have my sympathy.
This depth of avoidance make me think that you must be Armstronglies
I answered your question several times, gave you quotes from WADA's web site and answered "yes" when you yourself guessed the answers right. This doesn't seem like "Armstronglies" level depth of avoidance.
Let's not forget that it is you who started all this talk about abolishing anti-doping, so any burden is really on you to explain why anti-doping is doing more harm than good. Repeatedly asking who WADA tries to protect just seems like a game you are playing to avoid your own burden.
Wada does harm because it pushes sports drugs underground and is one of the few performance enhancing practices that is banned.
It has created a billion dollar industry that in itself created the most uneven playing field in sports history. This was only matched by the state eastern bloc employees competing against western amateurs.
By concentrating on the downside of sports drugs and creating its own moral panic it has dragged attention from the use of them to make healthy those damaged by elite sport.
I'm not really sure what "PED concept" actually means.
But I believe too much of many drugs can harm your health.
It's a rhetorical question.
Why do you believe in the concept of a 'perfomance enhancing drug'?
Do you know what metabolism is? Do you believe it can be enhanced by drugs to be improved in any way?
It doesn't sound rhetorical.
Metabolism is just one of several factors and not always the limiting factor in performance.
For example steroids for women serve to make them stronger than would be possible naturally, without bumping into any metabolic constraints.
Any intelligent conversation about "PEDs" must take into account which drug, which event, which athlete, and what is their initial state, and the level of inherent and trainable talent, and what is limiting them.
I answered your question several times, gave you quotes from WADA's web site and answered "yes" when you yourself guessed the answers right. This doesn't seem like "Armstronglies" level depth of avoidance.
Let's not forget that it is you who started all this talk about abolishing anti-doping, so any burden is really on you to explain why anti-doping is doing more harm than good. Repeatedly asking who WADA tries to protect just seems like a game you are playing to avoid your own burden.
Wada does harm because it pushes sports drugs underground and is one of the few performance enhancing practices that is banned.
It has created a billion dollar industry that in itself created the most uneven playing field in sports history. This was only matched by the state eastern bloc employees competing against western amateurs.
By concentrating on the downside of sports drugs and creating its own moral panic it has dragged attention from the use of them to make healthy those damaged by elite sport.
I don't know -- seems like these things were all firmly in place before WADA was formed in 1999, and also present in non-WADA sports, like US football and baseball.
Wada does harm because it pushes sports drugs underground and is one of the few performance enhancing practices that is banned.
It has created a billion dollar industry that in itself created the most uneven playing field in sports history. This was only matched by the state eastern bloc employees competing against western amateurs.
By concentrating on the downside of sports drugs and creating its own moral panic it has dragged attention from the use of them to make healthy those damaged by elite sport.
I don't know -- seems like these things were all firmly in place before WADA was formed in 1999, and also present in non-WADA sports, like US football and baseball.
Yes:there was drug testing in place before Wada and thus I embrace such when I use the term Wada.So now deal with my arguments you have asked for.
And one wonders at the function of drug testing pre actual Wada in US Football and baseball.
I don't know -- seems like these things were all firmly in place before WADA was formed in 1999, and also present in non-WADA sports, like US football and baseball.
Yes:there was drug testing in place before Wada and thus I embrace such when I use the term Wada.So now deal with my arguments you have asked for.
And one wonders at the function of drug testing pre actual Wada in US Football and baseball.
I didn't ask for your arguments per se, but just think this is your fight and your burden, and your fight is with WADA, not with me, and the "group" that should lobby for change are the athletes themselves.
Maybe you are right and there is what I'll call a "prohibition effect" with a lot of unintended (or maybe intended?) side-effects. In the USA, the "prohibition" didn't work and the "war on drugs" didn't work, especially for "minorities" due to disproportionate enforcement (hmmm ...). I think there is also some truth that banning a substance will increase the likelihood that some athletes will take it, simply rationalizing that if WADA bans it, it must work.
Regarding sport harming athletes, all athletes want to compete, so if they are harmed by the traditional cycle of training and competing to their physical limit, that is a risk I think all athletes are willing to accept.
If your top concern is health I just think that having doctors supervise health as their top priority is better than abolishing all regulations.
