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.
So it is ok to take risks with training and those who choose to take the risks will be taking unfair advantage over those who do not want to take the risk.
So it is ok to take risks with training and those who choose to take the risks will be taking unfair advantage over those who do not want to take the risk.
Yes it's OK to take risks with training. Every athlete trains, and understands it is a necessary risk. No elite athlete has ever not trained.
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.
So you have limited understanding of metabolism is, yet you want to inform me on the subject?
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.
So you have limited understanding of metabolism is, yet you want to inform me on the subject?
I agree; if you try and follow his thinking then you would have to conclude that the whole of the pharmaceutical industry has been wasting its time and for ever.
So it is ok to take risks with training and those who choose to take the risks will be taking unfair advantage over those who do not want to take the risk.
Yes it's OK to take risks with training. Every athlete trains, and understands it is a necessary risk. No elite athlete has ever not trained.
Why is it ok to take risks with training because it is necessary but not with drugs ?
So you have limited understanding of metabolism is, yet you want to inform me on the subject?
I agree; if you try and follow his thinking then you would have to conclude that the whole of the pharmaceutical industry has been wasting its time and for ever.
I don't follow anyone's line of thinking here. It would be nice to see someone who has even a basic grasp of Biology.
People make fantastic claims about supposed drug efficacy that make no sense bioenergetically.
I agree; if you try and follow his thinking then you would have to conclude that the whole of the pharmaceutical industry has been wasting its time and for ever.
I don't follow anyone's line of thinking here. It would be nice to see someone who has even a basic grasp of Biology.
People make fantastic claims about supposed drug efficacy that make no sense bioenergetically.
I think you better explain yourself as you seem to be running counter to the whole of medical evidence and practice. They could be all wrong and you right.
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.
So you have limited understanding of metabolism is, yet you want to inform me on the subject?
Still rhetorical? I just don't think metabolism is the only subject.
Yes it's OK to take risks with training. Every athlete trains, and understands it is a necessary risk. No elite athlete has ever not trained.
Why is it ok to take risks with training because it is necessary but not with drugs ?
Because training is not optional, while drugs are.
It's OK to take drugs under the supervision of doctors, when the primary goal is health. WADA has mechanisms which permit that to a degree for health reasons.
Why is it ok to take risks with training because it is necessary but not with drugs ?
Because training is not optional, while drugs are.
It's OK to take drugs under the supervision of doctors, when the primary goal is health. WADA has mechanisms which permit that to a degree for health reasons.
Should training be monitored by a Wada medical type body like is now is in Rugby.?
And if drugs are necessary would that make it ok because they are necessary?
Because training is not optional, while drugs are.
It's OK to take drugs under the supervision of doctors, when the primary goal is health. WADA has mechanisms which permit that to a degree for health reasons.
Should training be monitored by a Wada medical type body like is now is in Rugby.?
And if drugs are necessary would that make it ok because they are necessary?
I think that would be a question for the group of athletes. But as far as I know, no single athlete in history has complained about competing against other athletes due to an unfair advantage because their competitors trained more.
Maybe you have some examples from the last 70 years?
If the necessity of drugs had a universal consensus among the athletes like training does, then it would be OK because no one would be arguing against it.
Should training be monitored by a Wada medical type body like is now is in Rugby.?
And if drugs are necessary would that make it ok because they are necessary?
I think that would be a question for the group of athletes. But as far as I know, no single athlete in history has complained about competing against other athletes due to an unfair advantage because their competitors trained more.
Maybe you have some examples from the last 70 years?
If the necessity of drugs had a universal consensus among the athletes like training does, then it would be OK because no one would be arguing against it.
Go back to the pre professional era when the Eastern Bloc had full time state athletes with full medical back up with full time coaches and the West has full time jobs.
But the use of drugs did have universal consensus prior to drug controls in many sports and in many sub events.
I think that would be a question for the group of athletes. But as far as I know, no single athlete in history has complained about competing against other athletes due to an unfair advantage because their competitors trained more.
Maybe you have some examples from the last 70 years?
If the necessity of drugs had a universal consensus among the athletes like training does, then it would be OK because no one would be arguing against it.
Go back to the pre professional era when the Eastern Bloc had full time state athletes with full medical back up with full time coaches and the West has full time jobs.
But the use of drugs did have universal consensus prior to drug controls in many sports and in many sub events.
I still defer to the athletes to decide what their issues are and how they want their competitors to be controlled and by whom.
If 100% of athletes buy into the necessity of drugs, none are complaining, who am I to judge?
Eventually the West lobbied for change, making running a full time job.
Go back to the pre professional era when the Eastern Bloc had full time state athletes with full medical back up with full time coaches and the West has full time jobs.
But the use of drugs did have universal consensus prior to drug controls in many sports and in many sub events.
I still defer to the athletes to decide what their issues are and how they want their competitors to be controlled and by whom.
If 100% of athletes buy into the necessity of drugs, none are complaining, who am I to judge?
Eventually the West lobbied for change, making running a full time job.
Well done on saying that the athletes should have the power to decide.