whats gives us the right to decide what athletes put in their bodies

Please point out what part of what you quoted is wrong. I won't hold my breath.

xcguy0988 wrote:

?????????? wrote:

EPO isn't banned?

Anyways, I thought the OP was referring to competition. Why else would we care if people who ran for fun took drugs?

Besides, the question is what gives us the right to ban certain PEDs. I think it is part safety but also because sport would just become more about who has the best doctors and more money. At some point, we need a cuttoff. Everybody can afford protein shakes and multivitamins, and they won't kill you, so that is a good balance IMO.

Nothing better then an athlete on banned substances going 9.76 in the 100 at your local summer series track meet lol, or a sub 13 5k at your local fun run......... but it would be funny

Anyways, I agree therw has to be a cut off at some point.

That would be fun to do once or twice, a lot of people go to the same road races and know which ones they will be competitive at. Then you go and drop 14:00, win by a minute and be a total j@ckass at the finish and pump up the crowd, maybe even Tebow before you cross the line.

Polly P wrote:

They can put whatever the hell they want in their bodies. No one is stopping that. But they can't compete, if they use certain substances. Pretty simple really.

Now, you are wrong here for a few reasons, and I'd like to point them out:

First, people cannot "put whatever the hell" they want in their bodies. If I wanted to put the Empire State Building in my body, I could not, because the volume of my body is much smaller. Correct.

Second, if somebody uses certain substances, they certainly can compete. We know this because people take drugs and compete. It is later shown that they used drugs. In those cases, people may try to sanction them in some way, but it doesn't change the fact that they competed.

Third, you say that "no one is stopping that." Well, I can stop that. A man with a gun can stop that. You see, if somebody takes a substance that belongs to another person, such as cocaine, and attempts to put it in their body, the person who owns that valuable substance CAN stop it by shooting them in the face. So you are wrong again.

These are only a couple of reasons why you assumed far too much, and why you are so very wrong. I will of course not add to the discussion by actually answering WHY there are rules preventing use of drugs in any scenario. Rather, I will simply repeat that it is illegal to use drugs in some situations.

It is pretty simple really. Try to keep up.

First, one could indeed put the Empire State Building in one's body given enough time (small bites).

Second, if one uses certain substances, like arsenic, they cannot compete because they will be dead.

Third, you cannot stop that because you are not a man with a gun.

0/3

Try to keep up.

Touche.

Let me expand on why Polly P was wrong for assuming far too much in his analysis while simultaneously addressing the worthwhile points you brought up.

1. First, you may attempt to eat the sun, but will not be able to finish it. It is not only large, but the core temperature would likely turn your body into hydrogen and or helium atoms. This may be "whatever the hell" quite literally.

2. Second, notice that Polly P said that you cannot take substances and compete. While you are correct that taking some substances may kill you, it does not mean that all substances will kill you, and therefore you CAN compete with a certain substance in your system. Moreover, you could take arsenic seconds before the race begin and still run at least 1 meter, meaning you did in fact compete.

3. I do not have a gun. I have rifles, pistols, and shotguns in my possession as a legal owner but do not "have" one on me at this moment as I am taking a dump while demonstrating why Polly P is such an idiot. Once I have finished my dump, I may decide to polish one of my weapons. In any event, if you attempted to eat my bag of cheetos, I am someone who COULD stop you. I would actually offer you some and ask you why you are in my house naked. If you weren't my type, then I might shoot you.

Polly P, I hope you weren't serious about holding your breath. If you were, I hope you've waken up by now.

Idiot.

Polly P wrote:

Please point out what part of what you quoted is wrong. I won't hold my breath.

pwned.

unruly wafer wrote:

Also it is for safety. Out of control drug use will eventually lead to people sometimes dying on the track because of some effects of PEDs. Of course many will say " let the idiots kill themselves for their foolish ways!" BUT it looks terrible for a sport as a whole to have people dying. So this must be avoided

Death, expensive illness (see Armstrong), chronic health issues (see Salazar, cycling's Tammy Thomas) and doping children. (see USA Cycling's Thom Wiesel and Chris Carmichael and Nike's Al Salazar) Organizations like the IOC and NCAA certainly don't care about protecting athletes from coach/predators.

The broader reason that's far more important is it turns out viewers typically stop watching a game promised as being fairly played that turns out to be rigged. The IOC's sports events are headed into a steep decline because no one is protecting the integrity of the most popular sports.

My observations. ... people love watching juiced runners, football players, cyclists

But not as much as they would hate seeing one drop dead every other game or race.

This thread is fifteen years of this message board in microcosm.

xcguy0988 wrote:

linky thing wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/19/us/stamina-building-drug-linked-to-athletes-deaths.html

course I understand what the down side of drug use is, I was just looking to see other people's input on it, as I am gonna write an article about peoples view point's

I am scared of a world where my employer can demand me taking drugs "because the gladiators do it".

I give it carefull consideration and make REASONED JUDGMENT. Then I issue EDICT. This edict is what you call FINAL ANSWER. Truth/Justice do not answer to COMMITEE.

I was taught to always try to say something nice about someone, so I will commend you for having the courage to sign your name to your post.

it is much simplier wrote:

Polly P wrote:

They can put whatever the hell they want in their bodies. No one is stopping that. But they can't compete, if they use certain substances. Pretty simple really.

Now, you are wrong here for a few reasons, and I'd like to point them out:

First, people cannot "put whatever the hell" they want in their bodies. If I wanted to put the Empire State Building in my body, I could not, because the volume of my body is much smaller. Correct.

Anything is a dildo of you are brave enough.

So you got nothing.

so simple mmmm wrote:

I think this goes without saying.

The OP may have been asking what give others the right to prevent doping in competition.

Simple enough?

Who exactly are "others"?

xcguy0988 wrote:

linky thing wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/19/us/stamina-building-drug-linked-to-athletes-deaths.html

as I am gonna write an article about peoples view point's

Better brush up on the plural / possessive distinction if you're writing an article.

Kill me wrote:

This thread is fifteen years of this message board in microcosm.

Yes, it is lilliputian

This poster has it absolutely right. The OP's question incorrectly assumes governing bodies can prevent athletes from using PEDs. They can't. All they can say is if the athlete doesn't comply, the athlete will not be permitted to compete in competitions put on by the governing bodies.

The same is true in any number of other arenas. For example, an employer is within its rights to discharge an employee who shows up for work drunk or under the influence of marijuana. The question then doesn't become what right the employer has to determine what substances the employee can put in his body, but rather what right the employee has to work at the employer's work place.

Te

If you've responded to this with anything other than a response to why/if we should ban PEDs, you're an annoying d*** who likely thinks you're way smarter and more clever than you are.