Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

should multiple doping athletes be allowed? watch

    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drandy76)
    A fair few amount of athletes dope tbh, low chance of getting caught and can one medal can set them up for life financially so it makes sense from their perspectives, I like to adopt a clean until proven otherwise philosophy but in reality I think if we truly cleaned up the Olympics it would look rather empty


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    My solution would be to allow doping, but that declarations must be made. If a drugs athlete comes 1st, 2nd.3rd, then another medal is awarded to the first non-drugs athlete as well. Anyone claiming to be clean, but is actually doping is given a life ban from all sports, no exceptions.

    There's then no incentive to not declare, as you can openly dope and still win a medal. Equally, if you aren't taking drugs, you can win on a fair playing field - plus, you have the opportunity to beat doping athletes.
    I agree, but I think if Lance Armstrong and Micheal Phelps are doping, then they're still the winners, because if everyone was doping, then Micheal Phelps would still be the winners, because everyone has doped and he still won out of everyone who doped.

    (Original post by Trinculo)
    There's then no incentive to not declare, as you can openly dope and still win a medal. Equally, if you aren't taking drugs, you can win on a fair playing field - plus, you have the opportunity to beat doping athletes.
    Nice little ___________ ( but I can't remember the word you would use to describe this) but this wouldn't ( & really could not ) work in reality 9 I would hate it if it did come to this ).
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elmosandy)
    [/b]
    No hun it's what you're saying.

    Like I said, Lance Armstrong did fail a test but dodged the consequences as he said it was a chemical in his saddle sore cream.
    Why am I arguing with someone who believes eery single athlete has doped otherwise lying. * besides, lance armstrong, one test did get caught, but said it was a chemical used for saddle sores in his cream or some other ******** lie, *

    You're basically saying all the athletes are doping. This is what you are clinging on to believe. You will accept no argument. End of.

    There you go, you want to argue against it, you won't accept no for an answer you want to believe they all are taking drugs. You've just said it okay/.

    If all the athletes are doping, then Micheal Phelps and Lance Armstrong are the winners, because all the athletes are doping, so they're all taking the same performance enhancing drugs, but Lance, world class number one champions have won out of everyone who is taking the same drug, so he is the winner, even though he's a fraud,
    Uhm, okay - overlooking how naive and closed minded you are real quick. Let's imagine I thought EVERY SINGLE athlete was on some kind of PED. There's still a problem here, in that those at the top can afford a better supplier/drug/informant to stay ahead of detection techniques. This still leads to unfair practice, comprende?

    Ideally, as already mentioned, we could make steroids legal and just let the freaks of nature battle it out in a free for all - but a major drawback is that this sets a terrible example for kids who idolise many of the competitors. This is why I disagree with the whole point of this thread, because you're excluding some who are just trying to keep up with the competition, whereas others reap the rewards of a reduced playing field.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elmosandy)
    I agree, but I think if Lance Armstrong and Micheal Phelps are doping, then they're still the winners, because if everyone was doping, then Micheal Phelps would still be the winners, because everyone has doped and he still won out of everyone who doped.



    Nice little ___________ ( but I can't remember the word you would use to describe this) but this wouldn't ( & really could not ) work in reality 9 I would hate it if it did come to this ).
    Not necessarily, as with all things, some people will reap more rewards from the amounts of PEDs taken, especially since drug testing regulates how much can actually be taken if the athlete feasibly wants to pass a test. That being said, they were obviously supremely talented athletes anyway without(possibly) having doped so that shouldn't be taken away from them, the same is true for those have been caught


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drandy76)
    Not necessarily, as with all things, some people will reap more rewards from the amounts of PEDs taken, especially since drug testing regulates how much can actually be taken if the athlete feasibly wants to pass a test. That being said, they were obviously supremely talented athletes anyway without(possibly) having doped so that shouldn't be taken away from them, the same is true for those have been caught


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't get you tbh.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bananapeeler)
    Uhm, okay - overlooking how naive and closed minded you are real quick. Let's imagine I thought EVERY SINGLE athlete was on some kind of PED. There's still a problem here, in that those at the top can afford a better supplier/drug/informant to stay ahead of detection techniques. This still leads to unfair practice, comprende?

    Ideally, as already mentioned, we could make steroids legal and just let the freaks of nature battle it out in a free for all - but a major drawback is that this sets a terrible example for kids who idolise many of the competitors. This is why I disagree with the whole point of this thread, because you're excluding some who are just trying to keep up with the competition, whereas others reap the rewards of a reduced playing field.
    Everything is always about setting an example for the impressionable kids

    I agree with that,you have a point that makes sense. And my point was to you: But the problem is like someone said, you can't accuse someone of doping because someone broke a record set by someone who doped 23 years ago. This is why i mentioned Lance Armstrong failing a test, because according to you, if someone doesn't fail a test they haven't been caught yet, "well , lance armstrong passed tests, but it's wistleblowers and news who expose the cheats, not tests, so you can't say usain bolt is clean because lance armstrong passed all the tests*" lol no. It doesn't work like that, you can't accuse of everyone doping because, if you reach this standard you can't get there without doping, which is obviously what you are saying. This is the message I get from your posts on this thread. You're accusing of everyone getting to a certain standard is doping. My argument to you is that you just want to believe and cling on to the fact that they are, you will refuse to believe any proof of someone getting to a height and is staying clean.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elmosandy)
    Everything is always about setting an example for the impressionable kids

    I agree with that,you have a point that makes sense. And my point was to you: But the problem is like someone said, you can't accuse someone of doping because someone broke a record set by someone who doped 23 years ago. This is why i mentioned Lance Armstrong failing a test, because according to you, if someone doesn't fail a test they haven't been caught yet, "well , lance armstrong passed tests, but it's wistleblowers and news who expose the cheats, not tests, so you can't say usain bolt is clean because lance armstrong passed all the tests*" lol no. It doesn't work like that, you can't accuse of everyone doping because, if you reach this standard you can't get there without doping, which is obviously what you are saying. This is the message I get from your posts on this thread. You're accusing of everyone getting to a certain standard is doping
    It's really hard to follow what you're trying to say tbh, I'm really tired and I've had enough of this thread. Go research if you're interested, the prevalance of doping in all realms of sports has been well known for a long time.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elmosandy)
    I don't get you tbh.
    How so?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bananapeeler)
    It's really hard to follow what you're trying to say tbh, I'm really tired and I've had enough of this thread. Go research if you're interested, the prevalance of doping in all realms of sports has been well known for a long time.
    I don't care, why am I arguing with someone who believes everyone is doping, / it's impossible to be number one without doping.

    No-one denied prevalence of doping, but you just want to believe everyone is and nor can comprehend someone being a certain standard without doping. I believe, if someone doped once, came clean, said sorry and served their time, they should be allowed back into the sport. Your point is true, but whether they're better drugs or drugs that can be detected easily they're still both drugs, so really to me I would class Lance Armstrong as a winner, because he won out of everyone who doped, regardless of what drug they took.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    QUOTE=drandy76;66925388]How so?Posted from TSR Mobile[/QUOTE]

    (Original post by drandy76)
    Not necessarily, as with all things, some people will reap more rewards from the amounts of PEDs taken, especially since drug testing regulates how much can actually be taken if the athlete feasibly wants to pass a test.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This bit.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bananapeeler)
    I'm talking about at the time... an example of something 'too good to be true'. It's not like each case is ambiguous, just yesterday Almaz Ayana absolutely smashed the 10k record - set by a chinese steroid abuser 23 years ago. She set a 5km record (easily) with her SECOND 5k. The single greatest performance at the current olympics by a mile, and obviously juiced to the max. So is Michael Phelps and other top athletes where doping makes sense. Obviously I can't say with certainty, and I hope they aren't - but when you have lots of high probability cases, it's inevitable that many of them are on something. For someone claiming I'm ignorant, you have to be insane to pretend like this hasn't been commonplace for decades now..
    Sorry for sounding like "we don't dope but they do", but it is true to an extent. Testing in Africa is abhorrent, officials make money by making tests disappear, by getting paid to tell athletes when tests are. Same is true in Eastern European countries (i.e. Katinka Hosszu).

    How good a country's anti-doping agency is, does matter a lot. And in richer countries, they tend to be better. So yes, the Kenyan lady has doped for sure. But to make a blanket statement saying all are, is a bit too suspicious and naive.

    You mentioned Bolt earlier - several Jamaican sprinters including Fraser-Pryce have tested positive. Why do they test positive and he doesn't? Does the Jamaican federation treat him better? I mean he became a star, yes, but he only got there by doing well. If he needed drugs for that, why did they let him pass then but Fraser-Pryce or Powell not?

    There need to be some groundbreaking changes in the way doping is handled. First and foremost one offence = life ban. Maybe even prison (I am serious, make them sign a paper committing to not doping and accepting prison if they do, this does not hurt clean athletes, they have nothing to fear). Second would be much more stringent testing. Create centers and athletes that perform at the highest level have to train near there so that they can be tested. Not that testers have to travel to the middle of nowhere, easily announced so measures can be taken. Have testers wear cameras from the moment they get the sample to the moment it gets in the lab and the analysis uploaded to the cloud (i.e. no manipulating of data after the fact).

    These are far-reaching points, but they are all possible if you want them enough.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bananapeeler)
    How could I possibly argue against such a watertight argument.
    Well given that your argument is nothing more than "I think he is", it's pretty damn reasonable.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Sorry for sounding like "we don't dope but they do", but it is true to an extent. Testing in Africa is abhorrent, officials make money by making tests disappear, by getting paid to tell athletes when tests are. Same is true in Eastern European countries (i.e. Katinka Hosszu).

    How good a country's anti-doping agency is, does matter a lot. And in richer countries, they tend to be better. So yes, the Kenyan lady has doped for sure. But to make a blanket statement saying all are, is a bit too suspicious and naive.
    .
    This was my point to you Bananapeeler, yes doping is prevalent and it does happen, but your point is that everyone is doping, which is simply untrue. You're saying, well Lance Armstrong passed a test, so to say Usain Bolt isn't doping because hasn't been tested positive is ridiculous, because Lance Armstrong passed all test, but he was tested positive
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elmosandy)
    QUOTE=drandy76;66925388]How so?Posted from TSR Mobile


    This bit.[/QUOTE]

    In order to pass a drug test, athletes can't have too much of a PED in their systems otherwise they'll flag as positive. This is even more likely due to the use of random testing, which is why micro doping is such a used method. However some people will be a lot more sensitive to the affects of said drugs and will therefore benefit more from doping than another person, who can't just take more in the hopes of feeling a greater effect as they run the risk of failing their tests


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Yeah, people look the other way with Armstrong, that's why he's had all his wins removed, has had multi million dollar lawsuits...

    You can't simply say that because someone wins something against someone who once doped that they then, by default, must also be doping. To do so reeks of ignorance and stupidity.
    Totally agree!
    Spoiler:
    Show
    .. - / .-- .- ... / .- .-.. .-.. / .--. .-.. .- -. -. . -..
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drandy76)
    This bit.
    In order to pass a drug test, athletes can't have too much of a PED in their systems otherwise they'll flag as positive. This is even more likely due to the use of random testing, which is why micro doping is such a used method. However some people will be a lot more sensitive to the affects of said drugs and will therefore benefit more from doping than another person, who can't just take more in the hopes of feeling a greater effect as they run the risk of failing their tests


    Pos
    [/QUOTE]

    you know how or has this been proven?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elmosandy)
    In order to pass a drug test, athletes can't have too much of a PED in their systems otherwise they'll flag as positive. This is even more likely due to the use of random testing, which is why micro doping is such a used method. However some people will be a lot more sensitive to the affects of said drugs and will therefore benefit more from doping than another person, who can't just take more in the hopes of feeling a greater effect as they run the risk of failing their tests


    Pos
    you know how or has this been proven?[/QUOTE]

    Mixture of friends etc taking steroids and documentaries on people knowledgeable/experienced in the field


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drandy76)
    you know how or has this been proven?
    Mixture of friends etc taking steroids and documentaries on people knowledgeable/experienced in the field


    Posted from TSR Mobile[/QUOTE]

    I still kinda think if you have taken drugs, and won and the rest of the field are doping then you're still a winner, sorry
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elmosandy)
    I still kinda think if you have taken drugs, and won and the rest of the field are doping then you're still a winner, sorry
    You are.

    But you're also still cheating.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    You are.

    But you're also still cheating.
    Everyone will be a cheat in that case
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elmosandy)
    Everyone will be a cheat in that case
    Except for all those who don't cheat.

    Even in the bad old days of cycling there was still a good proportion of the peloton who didn't do drugs. And it's been the same for athletics, for swimming, etc.

    There will always be cheats, but there will always be honest athletes too.
    It doesn't matter when the cheats are caught, just so long as they are caught.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.