Ibuprofen before forum visits? Anyone?

[jsirabella]

Maybe it is because I have taken many supps including multi-vitamin...... while never getting into roids as I never had the monies when I was young that the common person really believes it is like a "superpill"!!

No need to train! Just take this pill and you will suddenly be able to jump over buildings...

Sorry but from my experience and the guys I know who have even taken roids, they are worthless without the training, time and hate to say genetics.

When you get into the pro levels where guys are so evenly matched a substance that can even enhance your performance by 1% can be the difference maker but not in this world of cycling.

I have seen guys take roids for months and go absolutely no where in weight lifting. There are no "superpills".

On your statement though, draw the line? Tell me when it is ok and not ok. Please do not tell me though what some board of people tell us. I would like to know for you and what you believe should be for others.

-js

Originally Posted by frenchyge

Not to turn this joke thread into a serious discussion, but I don't see it as cycling paranoia. Rather I see it as a very, very fine (and somewhat arbitrary) line between "supplement" and "dope" which also exists in society as a whole, and that is the line is one of legality rather than anything inherent different between molecule X and molecule Y.

[frenchyge]

Originally Posted by jsirabella

On your statement though, draw the line? Tell me when it is ok and not ok. Please do not tell me though what some board of people tell us. I would like to know for you and what you believe should be for others.

For me personally? I don't smoke, drink, or do drugs because I don't like the taste/effects, but I wouldn't give up Big Macs, Cheetos, or ice cream for a performance boost even though I know they're unhealthy. I'm probably not the best one to draw the line, because I personally don't really care what folks put in their body or refuse to put in their body. It really wouldn't bother me to find out that some of the guys that I race against are using chemicals in their training, and I wouldn't feel the need to do the same to keep up -- I just don't have that much invested in being able to ride my bike faster than someone else.

If I had to draw the line, it would be one of competitive fairness rather than right vs. wrong (as society seems to portray it lately). In those terms, things should be allowed for level-specific competitive use if they are not harmful to the competitors and are either widely available to the competitors of that level, or not generally thought to provide an advantage. So, for example, if pro-level teams across the board have the funds and resources to safely administer testosterone supplementation to their athletes, then there's no competitive advantage there (assuming T-use is safe, which I know nothing about) since they are all doing it. At the club level, funds and access aren't there across the board so it would provide an advantage to those that could get it. So, I would disallow it at the club level as an unfair advantage. The same could really be said for $5000 bikes, but no one's going to go for that because the bike stores want to sell bikes (although.... if it were generally thought that those bikes provided no advantage then I guess my rule is still safe ). If EPO, or whatever, is a health-risk to athletes then it's banned because I don't want to expose athletes across the board to the risk, just like aero bars in mass-start events.

I just don't see "performance enhancements" as an issue of right vs. wrong. Cheating definitely is, but again that's about enforcing rules for fairness of competition across the board, not deciding what those rules should be. For grand juries to be convened to ask baseball players what pills they take -- c'mon, they're baseball players, who gives a crap? Is Roger Marris' homerun record really that important that Congressional oversight committees are needed to protect it?

That's it, I'm putting myself on my own ignore list after this rant. I'm obviously talking over my head, so.... no more!

[Crankyfeet]

Originally Posted by tonyzackery

You're fairly inexpeienced in posting here, so better than taking Ibuprofen to dull the pain of the forum you should just pack a gun to deter the future threats to your manhood...By the way, by your own admission you may not be a troll, but you sure act like one...

It's funny that you were quick to judge and you're the one who's usually railing against discrimination and negative pigeon-holing.

[Felt_Rider]

Originally Posted by frenchyge

For me personally? I don't smoke, drink, or do drugs because I don't like the taste/effects, but I wouldn't give up Big Macs, Cheetos, or ice cream for a performance boost even though I know they're unhealthy. I'm probably not the best one to draw the line, because I personally don't really care what folks put in their body or refuse to put in their body. It really wouldn't bother me to find out that some of the guys that I race against are using chemicals in their training, and I wouldn't feel the need to do the same to keep up -- I just don't have that much invested in being able to ride my bike faster than someone else.

Really?
What about time, persistence, dedication, sacrifice?
Those are the best kind of investments. I bet you have made some of those.

[Pendejo]

Originally Posted by jsirabella

Maybe it is because I have taken many supps including multi-vitamin... while never getting into roids as I never had the monies when I was young ... -js

How the hell can hemorrhoids make you faster on a bike? I would think they would slow you down.

[frenchyge]

Originally Posted by Felt_Rider

Really?
What about time, persistence, dedication, sacrifice?
Those are the best kind of investments. I bet you have made some of those.

Absolutely, but those are just for me (ie, my health, my enjoyment, my satisfaction).... not so I can beat the other guys. Inflection in that sentence should have been on faster than someone else.

Thanks for keeping me honest, though.

[jsirabella]

Frenchy,

Ironically me and you are on the same page when it comes to this issue so unfortunately this will not turn into an SOT or Tony type thread. I also think most people if they understood what these supps and drugs do are not as magical as they make them. I see them no different than paying for a 5,000 bike. It makes you think how they can compare stats anyway when technology changes so fast on a biological and mechanical levels so fast. I mean how could you compare the bikes of 50 years ago with the bikes of today. It reminds me of Phelps and comparing his feats to past record holders. The issue of the new swim suit which was adding more speed than ever before. Is that fair? Not even sure if it played an issue at all actually. Does it take away from Phelps and his achievements anyway, to me, no but hard to compare the results to past record holders if it did play into his medals.

In the end as long as the information is available to everyone that it should not be an issue. You have a choice to use it or not. I see all the stuff they have done clean cycling as silly. They all took it. They all knew each other were doing it so what is the big deal! Take away their fancy bikes and put them all on the exact same bike to make it fair. Just as silly as a congressional session on steroids in baseball...oh and by the way there are no steroids in football or any other sport....

How can you expect a person who makes his living at a sport not to try and use it. On the club level if I see all the guys popping either oxydrene, optygen, race day boost, no-epo and all the other widely available crap they can find. If you choose not to that is your choice but you should know it exists and widely available so your choice but I do not see it as cheating.

-js

Originally Posted by frenchyge

The same could really be said for $5000 bikes, but no one's going to go for that because the bike stores want to sell bikes (although.... if it were generally thought that those bikes provided no advantage then I guess my rule is still safe ). If EPO, or whatever, is a health-risk to athletes then it's banned because I don't want to expose athletes across the board to the risk, just like aero bars in mass-start events.

I just don't see "performance enhancements" as an issue of right vs. wrong. Cheating definitely is, but again that's about enforcing rules for fairness of competition across the board, not deciding what those rules should be. For grand juries to be convened to ask baseball players what pills they take -- c'mon, they're baseball players, who gives a crap? Is Roger Marris' homerun record really that important that Congressional oversight committees are needed to protect it?

That's it, I'm putting myself on my own ignore list after this rant. I'm obviously talking over my head, so.... no more!

[jsirabella]

Excuse the pun but a bit of a sensitive issue for me...I have gone though quite a few tubes of butt-r!

-js

Originally Posted by Pendejo

How the hell can hemorrhoids make you faster on a bike? I would think they would slow you down.

[swampy1970]

Originally Posted by Pendejo

How the hell can hemorrhoids make you faster on a bike? I would think they would slow you down.

Dude, no.

Steroids.

Now lets not dwell on jsirabella's greased up pants and continue on with this thread before it turns into a "Bring out the gimp before forum visits?" thread.