- Jul 10, 2010
- 2,906
- 1
- 0
BTW - Gregg - I am very glad that you have told us your story. I've said as much in other threads, but not in this one. I think it has become obvious that ppl are more willing to come forward and speak up than they were even a couple of years ago. Doesn't mean that Ashendon is wrong about omerta being alive and well - but I do note we now have a considerable number of ppl speaking more openly.LauraLyn said:. . .
2. Sure, adding sugar to your bidon or sipping Coca-cola is giving you "a performance enhancing advantage." What is most important is that these things are done in broad daylight and they are open to discussion and debate.
As to LL's response to what I was trying to present - I guess I didn't say it too well. However, being "done in broad daylight" is probably a good way to look at the issue. You see, what I was trying to point out was that the dividing line between doping and not doping is very thin. Sometimes it is grey, sometimes what is currently legal maybe should not be. EPO, bennies, meth - those are pretty easy to judge. When you have to pay somebody cash on a street corner - either virtual or real - that makes it pretty easy. But consider the young runner in another post in this thread, who had been using creatine for years. That's a food supplement today. Ok, so tomorrow she finds a food supplement that cleverly combines telmisarten and creatine. Still all legal today. But is she now doping? She is doing all she LEGALLY can to keep her weight down. Isn't this a bit like doing everything you can to hit the WADA limits?
Maybe not, maybe I'm just showing an anti-supplement bias. It worries me when ppl recommend supplements, in part, I suppose, because I think it encourages the basic "take a pill" attitude that I think leads many ppl to accept using synthetic testosterone or EPO-like stuff.
But, LL has a point - you don't have to hide it if you are legally obtaining telmisarten today. If they make it illegal, the story changes, eh?