Steve Cram is wrong

Totally agree and those in the know will tell you that Steve Cram often gets it wrong.

its not about the chemist. the chemist doesnt provide the incentive to use the stuff. its the sponsors and powers that be that provide the incentive. if you can get a 1mill nike deal with a one year drug cycle as a sprinter, its worth the risk. youre not going to go to jail, provided you dont lie to a court or government official about it. the upside is incredibly high. and nike (for instance) is totally free of this? the injury they suffer when one of their sponsored athletes tests positive isnt a penalty--its merely a reduction in income. these are enablers, incentivizers, and, lets face it, without the financial incentive, far fewer elites would resort to drugs.

You are living in a fools paradise if you think that getting rid of the current crop of cheaters will in turn get rid of the people behind the pharmacology of cheating.

All who are in on it should suffer consequences. As long as there are large sums of money involved, there will be those who will seek to circumvent the system. We need to make it so that the money just isn't worth it to anyone involved in the activity and yes, Crammy is right, that involves the entire circle.

Cobblers wrote:

In my opinion, Victor Conte did not violate any sporting code, he didn't cheat or steal from anyone. He invented a steroid that turned out to be invisible to testers and he sold it to any coach or athlete who wanted it. He didn't lie to anyone, cheat anyone or defraud anyone.

Cobblers, just to clarify the above statement, are you saying that - in your opinion - it is ok for one to use his or her chemical expertise to invent and market a substance that has no legitimate medical purpose, but will instead be used expressly for the purpose of cheating? And in your opinion, do you feel a chemist who has invented a steroid or altered an older steroid if you will - and marketed this product to "clients" not knowing what the adverse health benefits to the end users of this product might be - are you stating that, in your way of thinking, there is no accountability for this person? Finally, I would be interested in what you might think the legal ramifications - say in the eyes of the Drug Enforcement Agenct (DEA) might be for a chemist who creates a product that has no purposeful medical benefits for the public, bypasses the normal drug testing process, and now ends up in human bodies with no clear idea of what the long term health benefits might be.

Thanks man

Steve Cram is correct!

If you do away with the source cheating is no longer an option. If you leave the source unchecked and go after the user, you will not only have to go after users over and over again till the end of time, you will encourage others to cheat. The only way to end the problem is to block the source.

Steve Cram is NEVER wrong! He is one with God.

I would agree with Cram on this one. Conte definitely was cheating. The simplest check on that is that he hid his activities and initially lied about them - until he was found out. An honest man would have nothing to lie about or hide.

"Chemist" is sometimes used to describe a pharmacist in England.

Of course Conte broke numerous laws. But the man is not an athlete, he didn't cheat anyone out of a medal or a check. Marion Jones et al did that. As an athlete..or athletic supporter these days, I would prefer we spend our limited resourses catching the cheats in our own ranks.

Let law enforcement do its thing and take care of people manufacturing illicit substances, its not the business of athletics to go after the Contes of the world...we can't even catch a fraction of the doping athletes.

I have a question for you. Do you think its right that Victor Conte went to jail and all Marion Jones got was a 2 year suspension from running?

You're not very bright are you Cobblers? I'm sorry.

Cobblers, Ok, fair enough. Taken in that context, I can see where you are coming from and agree with what you have most recently stated. I would have to say I agree also with Cram's thinking in that Conte got off easy given his original role in creating the Clear and what it meant for those using it. I would also have to say that he - Conte - appears to have been real cooperative since getting caught and no doubt that factored in when the sentences came down. We humans are highly incentive motivated - at least that's what the folks in the field of economics have observed and told us. There is clearly incentive to cheat in sport, seems like everyone agrees with that one, but the threats of serious jail time can also be an incentive in the form of a deterrent for would be Victor Conte's.

Regarding your question, I think Marion should be held just as accountable and should go to jail.

does the word "accomplice" mean anything to anybody?

Fact is most substances in use have a relevant medical use, particularly in the case of endurance runners, HGH etc... it would be impossible to seperate the two. Some drugs ahve side effects which may be beneficial! Crams articles are not wellw riten, last week he was questioning the ethical nature of hypoxic tent training as Goucehr had beaten Radcliffe, his mate! Radcliffe has used the same bleedin system!

I admire cram as an athlete - he was incredible but I find his articles to be just plain dumbhe comes off sounding like a knee jerk reaction blowhardpaula lost - well damn it, it must be those hypoxic tents that goucher and the americans usego over the chemists - they make this stuff, blah blahgive me a break, let's not direct the blame away from anyone but marionthe chemists will always be there, and there will always be the DEA chasing them - just like with recreational drugsbut the spotlight should not be directed towards them when athletes get caughtthe athlete chose to take drugs - plain and simple - they are at fault, no one forced them to do anything

about it wrote:

Fact is most substances in use have a relevant medical use, particularly in the case of endurance runners, HGH etc... it would be impossible to seperate the two. Some drugs ahve side effects which may be beneficial! Crams articles are not wellw riten, last week he was questioning the ethical nature of hypoxic tent training as Goucehr had beaten Radcliffe, his mate! Radcliffe has used the same bleedin system!

Economist, you so right, the queston is not for adults but for young adults and children and their parents.Meaning, just to cite one example: how difficult is it for parents to educate their children not to smoke for health reasons, if the sale of cigarettes is allowed and regulated, and their consumption promoted in several and effective ways?Same for PEDs?Just debating

I can see what you are saying which why I guess I believe what I do about where the fault liesyes cigarettes are legal and I think they should remain legal - it is the parents duty to educate their childreni guess I am just not a big fan of restricting choices - which doesn't mean that you won't pay the consequences when you make a bad choiceyou choose to smoke - you run the risk of cancer, it is not the tobacco companies fault (although i do agree that they should let you know the risks)with the ped's i would guess the athletes know the consequences but they choose to risk it

the point could be wrote:

Economist, you so right, the queston is not for adults but for young adults and children and their parents.

Meaning, just to cite one example: how difficult is it for parents to educate their children not to smoke for health reasons, if the sale of cigarettes is allowed and regulated, and their consumption promoted in several and effective ways?

Same for PEDs?

Just debating

quote]

[/quote]

The coaches and athletes create the market, Victor Conte wouldn't make a dime if there were no cheaters. Ban the cheats for life, reduce the allure of cheating.