List of 15 Track Athletes Victor Conte Gave Steroids To

this post is disgusting

You wrote;

I certainly am clever as it happens TW.

............................................................

I tend to agree with you about the stupidity of saying all aficans,but if we see the point that the Balco thing is the tip of a universal situation then we may make progress.

Can you ans the Q I asked ,please.

No I didn't write any such thing you Pompous oaf

Apparently, crap & originality are in the eye of the beholder. You certainly know more than most who post on the board, but you repeat yourself a fair amount as well("I would not have a child strip and have their urination watched by a stranger in a closed room.").

I guess I've gotten the idea of your stance, which basically focuses on being anti-WADA/IAAF/USADA/testers because:

#1 They aren't backing their methods with proper science.

#2 They aren't concerned enough about individual privacy & human rights.

#3 Their list of enhancers is not consistent.

#4 They are only concerned with public relations.

#5 They are only concerned with their own power.

My issues:

#1 The integrity of the sport, it's records, and it's championships. I realize that athletes have been enhancing their performances for as long as athletes have been performing. I agree on a lot of points with you that there are scientific issues with the testing, and that much of the drug fight is about PR and power. But ultimately, the sport's integrity is what pisses me off about the use of performance enhancing drugs.

#2 They have to draw the line somewhere with "enhancers." Food and water both enhance someone who has none. Specially designed sports drinks and foods may enhance someone compared to eating normal food. Ibuprofen enhances someone who has inflammation. So unless they don't allow anything that will help an athlete, they must draw lines to seperate the good from the bad. And I'll argue all day long that anabolic steroids, human growth hormone, and EPO are bad, while ibuprofen and vitamins are good.

#3 Which additional "enhancers" would you allow, and why?

#4 I don't see why I should be concerned with the health of athletes who choose to cheat by injecting foreign substances into their bodies. Obviously, I'm somewhat sympathetic to kids who are trying to emulate the pro athletes. And I'm concerned that athletes feel they need to cheat just to keep up with their fellow cheating competitors. But ultimatley, they are all making the same decision to cheat and to experiment with foreign substances.

#5 While I'm vocally opposed to invasions of civil rights, I can't get myself worked up over athletic drug testing. As competitive athletes, we sign up to compete in events, join leagues, and attempt to set records. My only issue with athletic drug testing is in regards to non-enhancing recreational drugs (from my knowledge, marijuana is non-enhancing, while cocaine is an enhancing stimulant). It would be an invasion of privacy to use an athletic drug test to bust someone for smoking pot. An athlete SHOULD give up some privacy in order for their performance to be validated - I do not see this as an invasion of human rights.

You mention that "In taking sides of the underdog I hope to bring WADA to its senses and realise it is impossible to do what they have in mind." Other than discussions on this board, what efforts are you making to accomplish your goals?

BDG

Thanks for your response.I will deal will this in a few hours.

At this point I am not fully happy with the summary of my points but I think I can work with them.

I haven't read the whole thread and this is a response to something from the first page, but the John Smith connection is that, of course, John Smith was dating Angela Taylor (one of Charlie Francis' athletes) and was her first steroid source when they were both competitive athletes. Read her book. It is very enlightening. Smith was a guru of steroid use at that time. I don't know that Smith has ever denied anything Taylor (now Taylor-Issajenko) says in her book.

trackhead wrote:

I'm not really suprised with anyone on this list. The only one that I'm disappointed to see on the list is Jones. It's sad enough to discredit her amazing 2000 performances but atheltics aside, what effect can those drugs have on her pregnancy last year?

If she'd been taking those drugs she wouldn't have got pregnant! Also gestrinone and its derivatives are known to cause problems if taken while pregnant, 'ambiguous genitalia' being one of them!

the best (or worst, really) part of Francis' book Speed Trap, which talks at great length about Issajenko and refers to John Smith more than tangentally, is when he bemoans (well, that isn't quite the right word, but bear with) the fact that athletes have been using hGH and that there wouldn't be a test for it in quite awhile - copyright 1987!

Lonac wrote:

...she seemed very calm when asked to comment on the issue of that $7500 check by that NBC reporter.

of course she's calm...they always are...i'm talking about those who would cheat to get to the top of their game. do you really think they would suddenly admit to their guilt just because someone (the press or the public) accuses them of wrong-doing? that would totally be out of character. they will fight this accusation to the end and probably die with the lie. most, if not all, of the cheaters will continue to deny charges even when the evidence is stacked against them. hey, they're cheaters...and liers, and some of them (marion jones) are incredibly good liers. she's very smart...and apparently she's been associating herself with the steroid culture since high school (a la missing a testing date)...it's too bad; i remember seeing her at rio mesa high school when she was a freshman (incredible talent)...that was probably her last clean year. i hope i'm wrong but the question-dodging she's demonstrated thus far has me rethinking innocence...

You wrote;

No I didn't write any such thing.

............................................................

Indeed you did not ,have just noticed it was Tank.Sorry,can a mistake not be made without you insulting me.

Again ,sorry.

Just two questions:

1. If Marion was offered steriods for free to do advertising, then why would she need to send in a 7k plus check?

2. Marion was world class as a teenager, so it is really suprising that she is still world class - unlike other sprinters who just showed up one year shattering records and disappeared. Or would you say that she has been using since high school - but 1. she just had a healthy baby and 2. she is still alive.

You wrote.

#1 The integrity of the sport, it's records, and it's championships. I realize that athletes have been enhancing their performances for as long as athletes have been performing. I agree on a lot of points with you that there are scientific issues with the testing, and that much of the drug fight is about PR and power. But ultimately, the sport's integrity is what pisses me off about the use of performance enhancing drugs.

I reply.

You could change the rules to have a new integrity,they have done this by ,allowing the workers to take part ,allowed training ,allowed coaching,allowed to earn money.We are too far down the line for an old definition of integrity,unfortunately.

You said,

#2 They have to draw the line somewhere with "enhancers." Food and water both enhance someone who has none. Specially designed sports drinks and foods may enhance someone compared to eating normal food. Ibuprofen enhances someone who has inflammation. So unless they don't allow anything that will help an athlete, they must draw lines to seperate the good from the bad. And I'll argue all day long that anabolic steroids, human growth hormone, and EPO are bad, while ibuprofen and vitamins are good.

I reply,

Once you realise that some enhances are allowed the Q becomes which and why.I would only deal with controling health effects.This was the original reason for controls.

All that you mention in the last sentance are both good and bad.The some are not as bad as has been argued, some worse.

You said.

#3 Which additional "enhancers" would you allow, and why.

I reply.

Nandralone,would be the key one.

Reasons.You cant stop the use of drugs of this nature and more and more THG back roon shit will appear(the use of HGH was due to banning Nandralone ).Better to allow a relatively safe known drug.It would be easy to have made a case out for the benefits of such esp in relation to the high training loads and injuries.It is harder to convice the public now but thats what is needed.If we were to be able to go back 30 yrs that would have been a good way to go.

It is all relative,if you recover from injuries and dont need surgery and dont walk with a stick in old age,then I say on balence allow Nandralone.

I have big probs with EPO,but wonder if there is a substitute which could be used.

If we could wave a wand and not have the drugs or could control them then that would be wonderful,but we can't.

You said.

#4 I don't see why I should be concerned with the health of athletes who choose to cheat by injecting foreign substances into their bodies. Obviously, I'm somewhat sympathetic to kids who are trying to emulate the pro athletes. And I'm concerned that athletes feel they need to cheat just to keep up with their fellow cheating competitors. But ultimatley, they are all making the same decision to cheat and to experiment with foreign substances.

I reply.

If you change the rules you dont have cheating.The rules have been changed several times already to suit the times.Smith and Carlos were hated ,now they are heroes.

The purpose of drug control was health of the athlete not enhancement control.We need ,as the previous head of the IOC said,to return to this.

Independant of drug control we need to look to the health of the athlete.

You said.

#5 While I'm vocally opposed to invasions of civil rights, I can't get myself worked up over athletic drug testing. As competitive athletes, we sign up to compete in events, join leagues, and attempt to set records. My only issue with athletic drug testing is in regards to non-enhancing recreational drugs (from my knowledge, marijuana is non-enhancing, while cocaine is an enhancing stimulant). It would be an invasion of privacy to use an athletic drug test to bust someone for smoking pot. An athlete SHOULD give up some privacy in order for their performance to be validated - I do not see this as an invasion of human rights.

I reply.

In all other forms of life there are obligations,benefits and rights.Why should sport have to oblige those who get benefit to abandon their normal rights.

To have to urinate in view(esp a child),to have to provide whereabouts forms and contact info,to be drug tested at your childs church, are, and are recognised by WADA, to be invasions of human rights.Pedofiles on release dont have these infringements.Why should only sportspeople have to accept this.There are hundreds of occupations that you could say there performance needs to be validated.Politicians for one ,but know one asks what they are on when they fly around the world non stop and take testo.What would they do if a tester arrived when they are in bed somewhere, see it as a necessary violation;don't think so.

Drug testing may be seen as one of the great experiments in social control.The social scientists will soon be trying to find out how they managed it.

#1 I'm not concerned with integrity as it relates to some old fashioned views of amateurism. I'm concerned with integrity of records/championships when comparing those who did take drugs with those who didn't. Our sport is an individual one where records (world, national, meet, personal, school, etc.) are of high importance.

#2 I don't think health should be the only reason one drug is considered OK and one drug is considered bad. If I want to be competitive, I shouldn't have to take HgH or EPO (or spend the money to obtain them).

#3 So we should just allow all athletes to use nandralone? By that same reasoning, I don't see any reason why HgH shouldn't be allowed. It's widely used in medicine and seen as a pretty safe and very effective treatment. The problem is, they both enhance performance - and the bottom line with drugs in sport are that they create an unlevel playing field. And no, we shouldn't allow all drugs to create a level playing field. Then, those who can afford to genetically manipulate their bodies or buy the latest and greatest designer drugs would be the best.

#4 Nice - change the rules to make cheating not cheating. How exactly did Smith and Carlos cheat in their races? They were hated because they were black and they had the nerve to speak out. And while many now see them as heroes, if the exact same thing happened today a lot of people would still hate them. Amateurism rules were changed for the betterment of the sport. If more or all drugs were allowed, the sport would not change for the better.

#5 This is not a human rights issue! An example for you: One can masturbate all day in the privacy of their own house. If one decides to work at a day care center, one can no longer masturbate all day there! That's not a rights issue, and neither is submitting to performance enhancing drug tests in a sport where performance enhancing drugs affect performance! I don't think an employee in a retail job should have to submit to drug testing. If job performance is suffering from drug use, it doesn't matter whether you know the employee is on drugs - you can fire them for poor performance, period. But certain employees should face drug testing for safety purposes - pilots, bus drivers, truck drivers, etc. How would a politician's performance benefit from drug use, and why would that matter? If taking stimulants allows them to work more, great!

What is with this constant anecdotal discussions of children urinating in front of others? Did this happen to you or your child? Is that what drives your passion in this issue? I go to public restrooms all the time and people see me urinating into the trough. Is this an invasion of my rights? No, a bunch of people have to piss, so we piss. No big deal.

I'd rather be involved in this great experiment in social control (related to athletics) then give up and change the rules to allow cheaters to continue cheating (but not call it cheating anymore).

While I don't completely understand your motivations, I respect your thoughts on this issue - I just disagree with you.

BDG

my only concern is that this is happening in other parts of the country and world, and this is the only one exposed. In my estimation for every person to get caught there are 5 that are not caught. I would not be surprised to find other BALCO type places in this country.

Your last notes.

............................................................

It is a Q of balence and compromise.If you changed the rules they would no longer cheat.We change rules all the time.We now allow caffiene ,does this mean that those who inject such are cheats?

I never said that Carlos and Smith cheated only that the way they are now viewed shows social change. I could have used those who gained advantage by getting paid and then got banned.

UKS does test 12 year olds.This does not mean being in the same toilet but directly viewing urination.UK Sport has published pictures of a tester on her knees watching a very young lady urinate.Somewhat different from the usual urinal where you are not required to strip.There is plenty of evidence of testing those under 16.A nine year old swimmer is required to sign a form saying that they agree to the testing methodology.I make these points as I cant think of a better example of the way values become inverted in the quest for a particular definition of a clean sport.

The example in the mall is covered by normal law and all are equally encompassed.I seem to recall the declaration of human rights saying "unless the freedom is restricted by constitutional law "

Politicians;how do they manage to fly around the world and give press conferences after long flights,look youthful and vigourous etc.Do they not decieve?.Or is enhanced performance to be admired?

In many many ways I hope you are correct and that we can control matters in the general way that you support.This was the way I started my sporting quests only to be brought up short by reality.Perhaps we can return to those days but if we cant then lets have a managed alternative.

My view is that is the the field is now so uneven that the West will lose interest and achievment sport will die or is dying in front of us.The IOC has made a PR rod for its back and will die under it.

I hope others reflect on the substance of our contributions.

((i will probably start a new thread with this but hopefully it will get seen))

i have to chime in and say that i wholeheartedly agree with the fellow's comments about the fact that the imaginary line between what are consisdered 'good' performance enhancing substances and what are 'bad' substances, is just that... imaginary. some people say its the fact that the substances are synthetic that makes it bad. take a look at your own diet and check the ingredients. a whole lot of what we all ingest is synthetic. even all the various legal supplements and protein-jacked drinks are quite synthetic. i do NOT understand why people flip out once they hear someone is taking some kind of substance that has a chemical name. being adequately hydrated is one of the primary performance enhancing factors.. look out for the doping reign of dihydrogen monoxide!

i have another thing to mention. if this is in fact about 'fairness' above all else, i ask you this: why is it FAIR that Person A is born with 10 times the number of fast twitch fibers as Person B, and Person B could never be as fast as person A, regardless of training or discipline. is it FAIR that someone from kenya is predetermined to have almost no body fat and an insanely high vo2max without much training at all? it seems to be that the ideal way to test performances in athletics would be to come up with performance time/distance ranges that are based on each individual's physical characteristics which are genetically predetermined. how far above and beyond those ranges a person goes should be the most impressive result. no, it's not sexy, but i'm trying to make a point.

i just think there are all kinds of imaginary lines drawn here by the people shouting out 'ban them' and 'disgusting', etc -- i tell you this, if there is ever a T&F organization that comes about which accepts the fact that doping and performance boosts are an inescapable reality, especially as we move into the future where so many more bioenhancements will be possible, they will make a killing realizing that this 'dirty' twin with the fastest, furthest performances is what captures the public's imagination. the triumph of training and science!

A key Q remains.

What reasons are there for banning enhancers.There has never been a debate on this..This does NOT mean that there are not reasons for banning some but if they were banned it would not just be because they are enhancers.

As you say,perhaps a new thread.I get accused of repeating the samev point but the issue has not yet been debated.

I do not advocate a free for all for the future,though that is what we actually have in the non tested countries.

100

You will have no problem starting with a few reasons then.