JV1973 said:The other night Ashenden told me I'd never win any of these debates, but the best solution was for the enforcement of anti-doping rules to be seen as credible, and if that happened then I'd stop having these debates. He's absolutely right.
Is the issue in the enforcement of the rules or the rules themselves? Being a complete non-expert I've never understood how the current anti-doping approach is supposed to work. You have a set of rules that is really strict and invasive to the athletes combined with a testing system that is expensive and ineffective at best. How is that ever going to be seen as credible if the science for effective testing doesn't exist? It's basically making promises you can't keep. Is the goal to actively prevent doping and the negative health effects it might cause or just to make the random fan think the sport is 'clean'? Maybe I'm just a doper saved by the lack of athletic talent, but it always seems to me like the discussion that should be had is about doping in general rather than credibly enforcing anything. The current climate of pretty much everyone asking for more and better testing and longer bans with very little talk about if any of it really makes much sense, seems pretty bad.
To me it has always felt like people in general are very open to the medical marvels of the world. If it's something that helps you with your personal training, studies, work, sleep, weight loss, mood or whatever it's all okay, when it comes to competitive sports it's a sure sign of moral corruption. Then again, when you get to systematic steroid abuse and blood transfusions it does seem like some lines have been crossed. Just more reason to revise the rules when people get the similar bans for blood doping than they do for stimulants that random gym goers use just train after work. For me all of this is just amusingly absurd but I would imagine that for the athletes and people involved in sports would find things like these rather annoying.
Would be nice to know how the people actually competing and working in sports would rewrite the anti-doping rules if they were given the chance. As it is the whole discussion looks toxic to me. Doping is bad and to maintain credibility people involved in sports seem to be pretty much forced towards all sorts of zero tolerance nonsense. Maybe I just don't get it, but when thinking of sports like cycling, where we know at times the majority of the professionals have made the choice to dope, I find it really hard to believe it isn't more about rules conflicting with reality than moral corruption. There's plenty of real legal issues with the shady doctors and drug trade but somehow the focus seems to be on banning athletes. I know which issue I'd focus on.
martinvickers said:I have an anti-bull**** agenda. and by extension an anti-bull****ter agenda. Which sucks for you, and your ilk. Where the clinic does Good, i imbrace it - but people like you are a poison in it, rendering what might be a useful forum for sharing information and clamping down on cheats into a laughable w***fest.
As for intelligence...bring your A-Game anytime you like, Mrs.
Seriously, any time. Because, all false modesty aside, if it ever came to it, I'd ****ing eat you.
This looks like the perfect way to promote quality discussion over 'laughable w***fest'. If you haven't figured it out yet, no amount of intelligence is going to win you any of these debates. If you actually see the clinic as doing some good, it might be worth it just to let the madness go on and focus on the bits and pieces that make sense. Just a thought, if you feel like using your intelligence to ****ing eat me too, then go ahead. Might actually be a better option for you to be honest, you'll have no trouble getting the last word in that discussion. I'm afraid the clinic regulars have shown to be quite resilient over the last decade or so. Where ever the discussions have been. You'll get nowhere trying to fight it, and considering the history of the sport, maybe it's better that way.