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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Why ban them? I want to see them compete in their own games. 9.58 seconds to do the 100m? Meh, what about 5?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    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.
    Yeah I agree.

    Nah i'm just saying if everyone cheats then you're still a winner, because everyone has cheated. That's all
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elmosandy)
    Yeah I agree.

    Nah i'm just saying if everyone cheats then you're still a winner, because everyone has cheated. That's all
    Yeah. But not everyone cheats, so the point is moot.

    And the anti doping agencies are getting better (and getting better funding) so the numbers who will cheat will reduce and get found out sooner.

    There's also a far greater stigma now. The court of public opinion damns them forever.

    Hell, even people who miss tests (despite passing tests the very next day) are given a hard time - just ask Lizzie Armitstead.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Yeah. But not everyone cheats, so the point is moot.

    And the anti doping agencies are getting better (and getting better funding) so the numbers who will cheat will reduce and get found out sooner.

    There's also a far greater stigma now. The court of public opinion damns them forever.

    Hell, even people who miss tests (despite passing tests the very next day) are given a hard time - just ask Lizzie Armitstead.
    I didn't say everyone cheats, I'm just saying if the whole field was to cheat, like Lance Armstrong, who admitted, if there were 40 cyclists only about 5% of them weren't cheating, in tour de france. So he really is actually the winner. ( despite the 5% who didn't cheat.)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Yeah. But not everyone cheats, so the point is moot.

    And the anti doping agencies are getting better (and getting better funding) so the numbers who will cheat will reduce and get found out sooner.

    There's also a far greater stigma now. The court of public opinion damns them forever.

    Hell, even people who miss tests (despite passing tests the very next day) are given a hard time - just ask Lizzie Armitstead.
    Ask her what?

    Why the **** did you miss three doping tests? You are a professional athlete, it's part of the deal, you surely want to stand for a clean sport, and yet after missing the first, and then the second, you don't do everything possible not to miss one again?

    Not saying she did or does dope, but that that is all on her.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elmosandy)
    I didn't say everyone cheats, I'm just saying if the whole field was to cheat, like Lance Armstrong, who admitted, if there were 40 cyclists only about 5% of them weren't cheating, in tour de france. So he really is actually the winner. ( despite the 5% who didn't cheat.)
    Not true.

    He may have a better doping programme, he may use more, he may use it throughout the year including at the tour and the others just for some parts of training, etc.

    Just not a true statement.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Once a cheat always a cheat in my eyes. Russia shouldn't have been allowed an appeal as well.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Ask her what?

    Why the **** did you miss three doping tests? You are a professional athlete, it's part of the deal, you surely want to stand for a clean sport, and yet after missing the first, and then the second, you don't do everything possible not to miss one again?

    Not saying she did or does dope, but that that is all on her.
    Given that one of them was written off due to extenuating circumstances, clearly the officials didn't agree.

    Yes, she shouldn't have missed them, but she also shouldn't be treated as a doper, especially given that she passed a test the day after one of those missed tests.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    To clarify, I never stated that I thought every single competitor was on drugs and I don't know where you got that from. However, given the highly competitive nature of the sports industry and the vast array of methods to bypass drug screenings, I would be surprised if the majority of them weren't.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Not true.

    He may have a better doping programme, he may use more, he may use it throughout the year including at the tour and the others just for some parts of training, etc.

    Just not a true statement.
    Hmm, i've already answered this above, bye

    (Original post by Bananapeeler)
    To clarify, I never stated that I thought every single competitor was on drugs and I don't know where you got that from. However, given the highly competitive nature of the sports industry and the vast array of methods to bypass drug screenings, I would be surprised if the majority of them weren't.
    But you think every single medal winner is on drugs. Its unfair to categorise everyone based on the actions of dopers.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elmosandy)


    But you think every single medal winner is on drugs. Its unfair to categorise everyone based on the actions of dopers.
    I don't think my opinion matters much to those medal winners, lol. What's your point? The actions of dopers have opened up the entire pack to scepticism regardless of what I think...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elmosandy)
    Hmm, i've already answered this above, bye
    .
    Thanks, doesn't happen often someone on here admits they are wrong.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Thanks, doesn't happen often someone on here admits they are wrong.
    I haven't admitted i'm wrong it's just i've said my point above as someone said the same thing to me before on this thread above..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Given that one of them was written off due to extenuating circumstances, clearly the officials didn't agree.

    Yes, she shouldn't have missed them, but she also shouldn't be treated as a doper, especially given that she passed a test the day after one of those missed tests.
    She only had that one challenged after she missed a third one and suddenly had three missed ones.

    Again, not saying she doped, but she was very stupid.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elmosandy)
    I haven't admitted i'm wrong it's just i've said my point above as someone said the same thing to me before on this thread above..
    No. You just repeatedly said "he doped, others dopes, so he was the best as all doped".

    That is not an answer to my point, so you not adequately replying shows you have nothing to reply with.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    No. You just repeatedly said "he doped, others dopes, so he was the best as all doped".

    That is not an answer to my point, so you not adequately replying shows you have nothing to reply with.
    ^ and when someone replied with what you said I said, hmm I agree, but whether, better or worse, drugs are drugs, so I will think Lance is the winner out of all the people who doped '/
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elmosandy)
    ^ and when someone replied with what you said I said, hmm I agree, but whether, better or worse, drugs are drugs, so I will think Lance is the winner out of all the people who doped '/
    Except they are not. Drugs are not just drugs. And shows how little you actually know about the subject.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Except they are not. Drugs are not just drugs. And shows how little you actually know about the subject.
    i've already said my point on this issue, someone argued the same case, not arguing further, although I agree somewhat.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bananapeeler)
    I don't think my opinion matters much to those medal winners, lol. What's your point? The actions of dopers have opened up the entire pack to scepticism regardless of what I think...
    That it's a bit broad to say medal winners are doping, seriously. But enough of your negativity, seriously ignore the Olympics if you're so goddamn certain the olympics is corrupt refusing to believe medal winners are only capable of achieving 'unattainable standards' .
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elmosandy)
    That it's a bit broad to say medal winners are doping, seriously. But enough of your negativity, seriously ignore the Olympics if you're so goddamn certain the olympics is corrupt refusing to believe medal winners are only capable of achieving 'unattainable standards' .
    Chill out, I don't get how you can be emotionally invested in this. I just said what was on my mind, don't cut me down for it
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 17, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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