running and doping
View Full Version : running and doping
the paula radcliffe thread got me thinking. how and where do we draw the lines at doping? should be
a solid line, a dotted line, an ad hoc line or what? what constitutes doping? i'm not talking about
IAAF/IOC/etc rules here.
e.g., if some natural substance (turtle's blood or rhino's horn, or elephant's tail) is used to
achieve the same effect as some artificial chemicals, should that be considered doping?
tomorrow if, say, runfaster.com comes up with a pill based on any of the above natural substances,
would that be considered doping?
or the nike high altitude simulation project somewhere in oregon which is aiming to reach great
heights. the athletes live in a controlled environment; oxygen levels in the house can be adjusted
to simulate 10000+ ft altitude with a click of a mouse or a flick of a switch.
the end objective is the same - trying to change the constitution of the human body so as to make
the subject of the experiment faster. so, what is "doping?"
what do others think?
jobs
To address one of your examples... I have no problem with altitude training, simulated or otherwise.
I mean... if you want to take it that far, then why not require everyone to live at the same
altitude, eat the same food, wear the same shoes... etc. :)
--
David Nova Scotia, Canada.
Well taken to its very extreme you could argue that any form of training and any form of packaged
food is "doping".
To see who is the best natural athlete, tell everyone not to train for a month before a race then
see who wins.
As a guide I heard that the 84 Olympic Champs Cruz ran 1:59 for 800 off no training when
about 15 or so.
Cheers Tim <jobin@REMOVE-THESE-WORDS.cs.ucr.edu> wrote in message news:b7f9d0$gj2$1@glue.ucr.edu...
>
> the paula radcliffe thread got me thinking. how and where do we draw the lines at doping? should
> be a solid line, a dotted line, an ad hoc line or what? what constitutes doping? i'm not talking
> about IAAF/IOC/etc rules here.
>
> e.g., if some natural substance (turtle's blood or rhino's horn, or elephant's tail) is used to
> achieve the same effect as some artificial chemicals, should that be considered doping?
>
> tomorrow if, say, runfaster.com comes up with a pill based on any of the above natural substances,
> would that be considered doping?
>
> or the nike high altitude simulation project somewhere in oregon which is aiming to reach great
> heights. the athletes live in a controlled environment; oxygen levels in the house can be adjusted
> to simulate 10000+ ft altitude with a click of a mouse or a flick of a switch.
>
> the end objective is the same - trying to change the constitution of the human body so as to make
> the subject of the experiment faster. so, what is "doping?"
>
> what do others think?
>
> jobs
they ahve 02 tents that can do high alttitude
jobin@REMOVE-THESE-WORDS.cs.ucr.edu wrote:
>
> the paula radcliffe thread got me thinking. how and where do we draw the lines at doping? should
> be a solid line, a dotted line, an ad hoc line or what? what constitutes doping? i'm not talking
> about IAAF/IOC/etc rules here.
>
> e.g., if some natural substance (turtle's blood or rhino's horn, or elephant's tail) is used to
> achieve the same effect as some artificial chemicals, should that be considered doping?
>
> tomorrow if, say, runfaster.com comes up with a pill based on any of the above natural substances,
> would that be considered doping?
>
> or the nike high altitude simulation project somewhere in oregon which is aiming to reach great
> heights. the athletes live in a controlled environment; oxygen levels in the house can be adjusted
> to simulate 10000+ ft altitude with a click of a mouse or a flick of a switch.
>
> the end objective is the same - trying to change the constitution of the human body so as to make
> the subject of the experiment faster. so, what is "doping?"
>
> what do others think?
>
> jobs
>Well taken to its very extreme you could argue that any form of training and any form of packaged
>food is "doping".
This asinine. Food is sunstance, not dope. Idiot.
Bill R.
=============> - -- - (_!_)
OO
>the paula radcliffe thread got me thinking. how and where do we draw the lines at doping? should be
>a solid line, a dotted line, an ad hoc line or what? what constitutes doping? i'm not talking about
>IAAF/IOC/etc rules here.
>
>e.g., if some natural substance (turtle's blood or rhino's horn, or elephant's tail) is used to
> achieve the same effect as some artificial chemicals, should that be considered doping?
>
>tomorrow if, say, runfaster.com comes up with a pill based on any of the above natural substances,
>would that be considered doping?
>
>or the nike high altitude simulation project somewhere in oregon which is aiming to reach great
>heights. the athletes live in a controlled environment; oxygen levels in the house can be adjusted
>to simulate 10000+ ft altitude with a click of a mouse or a flick of a switch.
>
>the end objective is the same - trying to change the constitution of the human body so as to make
>the subject of the experiment faster. so, what is "doping?"
>
>what do others think?
>
>jobs
>
The "competitive" view is that anything not specifically banned by the rules is fair game. This does
not mean that it's ok to use something like HGH just because there isn't a test for it (until
recently).
There are some things that you cannot restrict as a practical matter. Creatine does improve sprint
performance, but it is also a naturally-occurring compound (a food ingredient), so it is not banned,
but just abount everybody racing 100 meters uses it. Caffeine is a naturally occurring compound in
foods, so it is not banned, but restricted in dosage; It just happens that the legal dose gives a
1-2% boost in 1500 meters.
There is presently a dispute about altitude houses/rooms. Khannouchi has one of these, and it seems
to me that these level the playing field somewhat in distance events. If they try to ban these,
maybe they should also ban growing up in East Africa :(
Lyndon "Speed Kills...It kills those that don't have it!" --US Olympic Track Coach Brooks Johnson
Tim Grose wrote:
> Well taken to its very extreme you could argue that any form of training and any form of packaged
> food is "doping".
Let's include water also.
>
> To see who is the best natural athlete, tell everyone not to train for a month before a race then
> see who wins.
A month is too short and only slows speed, try 6 months or more and see who can finish.
--
Caveat Lector "the further you go outside, the further you go inside" - B. McKibben Doug "my tongue
is caught in my cheek" Freese dfreese@hvc.rr.com
>This asinine. Food is sunstance, not dope.
Let me re-spell that. This IS asinine. Food is SUBSTANCE .
(Geez, this new Maui Wowie is some great ****!)
Bill R.
=============> - -- - (_!_)
OO
Willie mumbled:
>>This asinine. Food is sunstance, not dope.
>
>
> Let me re-spell that. This IS asinine. Food is SUBSTANCE .
I think you were struggling to use sustenance (FOOD, PROVISIONS, NOURISHMENT). Dope and food are a
substance.
> (Geez, this new Maui Wowie is some great ****!)
Not that is a trip down memory lane.....but many, many years ago. No wonder your vocabulary is
a flutter.
--
Caveat Lector "the further you go outside, the further you go inside" - B. McKibben Doug Freese
dfreese@hvc.rr.com
we call it mexican Green Bud=)) plodzilla
Bill-always hard-Rodgers wrote:
>
> >This asinine. Food is sunstance, not dope.
>
> Let me re-spell that. This IS asinine. Food is SUBSTANCE .
>
> (Geez, this new Maui Wowie is some great ****!)
>
> Bill R.
>
> =============> - -- - (_!_)
> OO
Doping, huh? Finally, a subject I'm an expert on.
<jobin@REMOVE-THESE-WORDS.cs.ucr.edu> wrote in message news:b7f9d0$gj2$1@glue.ucr.edu...
>
> the paula radcliffe thread got me thinking. how and where do we draw the lines at doping?
Here's a thought: no amount of doping will make me competitive at the highest levels, nor less
injury prone for that matter. So who am I to speak up on this topic?
--
ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º Eduardo Suastegui "Test everything.
Hold on to the good." (remove '701' when replying via e-mail)
ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
Eduardo Suastegui <eswrite701@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <jobin@REMOVE-THESE-WORDS.cs.ucr.edu> wrote in message news:b7f9d0$gj2$1@glue.ucr.edu...
>>
>> the paula radcliffe thread got me thinking. how and where do we draw the lines at doping?
> Here's a thought: no amount of doping will make me competitive at the highest levels, nor less
> injury prone for that matter. So who am I to speak up on this topic?
you are vox populi.
in a true democracy, everyone's voice should count. just because you can't be competitive at the
highest level doesn't mean that you can't have opinions.
if we were to go by your line of thinking, we would not have film critics, to give an example. or
news analysts or coaches or teachers or...
jobs
<jobin@REMOVE-THESE-WORDS.cs.ucr.edu> wrote in message news:b7i372$k5n$1@glue.ucr.edu...
> Eduardo Suastegui <eswrite701@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > <jobin@REMOVE-THESE-WORDS.cs.ucr.edu> wrote in message news:b7f9d0$gj2$1@glue.ucr.edu...
> >>
> >> the paula radcliffe thread got me thinking. how and where do we draw the lines at doping?
>
> > Here's a thought: no amount of doping will make me competitive at the highest levels, nor less
> > injury prone for that matter. So who am I to
speak
> > up on this topic?
>
> you are vox populi.
>
> in a true democracy, everyone's voice should count. just because you can't be competitive at the
> highest level doesn't mean that you can't have opinions.
In a true democracy mob rules and the minority just has to suck it up. Do you really
want that?
>
> if we were to go by your line of thinking, we would not have film critics, to give an example. or
> news analysts or coaches or teachers or...
>
> jobs
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
