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

Polly P wrote:

You are correct that EPO is not banned. And the OP did not mention competition. If you taken the time to read this brief thread, you'd know both of those.

Everyone can answer however they choose. You didn't ask the question, so stop throwing a hissy fit.

You're being an a**. Does Polly P stand for Polyps? Because that would make a lot of sense.

Please point out where I was wrong. Otherwise, STFU. THANKS.

Polly P wrote:

Please point out where I was wrong. Otherwise, STFU. THANKS.

wow that escalated quickly

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

Grammatical tips for you, the budding writer:

1) I am gonna - it is better to write "I am going to".

2) You forgot the apostrophe in peoples.

3) The apostrophe you forgot in peoples you added to point's. It is points, not point's.

4) Viewpoint is one word, not two.

5) Sentences begin with a capital letter. Also, 'course' would not be a proper commencement of a sentence.

6) Sentences end with a punctuation mark. I would recommend a period for your sentence.

Typically journal articles have hundreds of sentences. In your one sentence, you have 6 problematic portions. Keep at it, utilize these tips, and your work should improve in quality.

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.

In the 400m, you are not allowed to just cut across the middle to shorten the race. It is a rule that governs the way the event is conducted. If there were no rules, there would be no sport. It is just one of the rules. If you never want to run in a race with rules, you are not bound by race rules and can do what you like (until it runs into the government's rules.)

Polly P wrote:

Please point out where I was wrong. Otherwise, STFU. THANKS.

What gives you the right to be this obtuse?