interesting editorials re. WADA
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
R
RicodJour
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
>
> http://www.slate.com/id/2136485/?nav=tap3
That's an interesting read. I didn't know about the alcohol regs.
Really idiotic.
R
>
> http://www.slate.com/id/2136485/?nav=tap3
That's an interesting read. I didn't know about the alcohol regs.
Really idiotic.
R
M
mtb Dad
Guest
Just scanned the articles, but they sounded a little hysterical to me,
and ignoring the problem WADA has to deal with.
EG. Slate The alcohol amounts are set by different jurisdictions, not
covered by WADA. Why is that idiotic? As for why the difference,
maybe with 2/10's you don't get an advantage (eg calming of nerves) in
billiards, while 3/10's in boating corresponds to impairment.
Different problems, different amounts. Weak thinking and writing.
As for Rushall and colleague, it sounds like grandstanding on details
to me. Steroids don't work? Maye for some untrained people, but how
is that relevant to our problem? The label for steroids in the WADA
list is a big issue?
and ignoring the problem WADA has to deal with.
EG. Slate The alcohol amounts are set by different jurisdictions, not
covered by WADA. Why is that idiotic? As for why the difference,
maybe with 2/10's you don't get an advantage (eg calming of nerves) in
billiards, while 3/10's in boating corresponds to impairment.
Different problems, different amounts. Weak thinking and writing.
As for Rushall and colleague, it sounds like grandstanding on details
to me. Steroids don't work? Maye for some untrained people, but how
is that relevant to our problem? The label for steroids in the WADA
list is a big issue?
R
RicodJour
Guest
mtb Dad wrote:
> Just scanned the articles, but they sounded a little hysterical to me,
> and ignoring the problem WADA has to deal with.
>
> EG. Slate The alcohol amounts are set by different jurisdictions, not
> covered by WADA. Why is that idiotic? As for why the difference,
> maybe with 2/10's you don't get an advantage (eg calming of nerves) in
> billiards, while 3/10's in boating corresponds to impairment.
> Different problems, different amounts. Weak thinking and writing.
Interesting. I hadn't thought about it that way. I don't normally
think of alcohol as a performance enhancing product. Although I have
been known to _think_ my performance has been better while under the
influence.
R
> Just scanned the articles, but they sounded a little hysterical to me,
> and ignoring the problem WADA has to deal with.
>
> EG. Slate The alcohol amounts are set by different jurisdictions, not
> covered by WADA. Why is that idiotic? As for why the difference,
> maybe with 2/10's you don't get an advantage (eg calming of nerves) in
> billiards, while 3/10's in boating corresponds to impairment.
> Different problems, different amounts. Weak thinking and writing.
Interesting. I hadn't thought about it that way. I don't normally
think of alcohol as a performance enhancing product. Although I have
been known to _think_ my performance has been better while under the
influence.
R
P
Patricio Carlos
Guest
M
mtb Dad
Guest
P
Phil Holman
Guest
>>Looks like somebody has a barrow to push.
"mtb Dad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Not sure what you mean.
>
Probably "someone with a mission" (to keep WADA honest maybe).
Phil H
"mtb Dad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Not sure what you mean.
>
Probably "someone with a mission" (to keep WADA honest maybe).
Phil H
M
mtb Dad
Guest
Phil Holman wrote:
> >>Looks like somebody has a barrow to push.
>
> "mtb Dad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Not sure what you mean.
> >
>
> Probably "someone with a mission" (to keep WADA honest maybe).
>
> Phil H
If so, I suggest bad criticism is worse than none. I generally like
what WADA is doing, but believe all institutions need checks and
balances. Such as some real probing into the false positives like
Betke?
> >>Looks like somebody has a barrow to push.
>
> "mtb Dad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Not sure what you mean.
> >
>
> Probably "someone with a mission" (to keep WADA honest maybe).
>
> Phil H
If so, I suggest bad criticism is worse than none. I generally like
what WADA is doing, but believe all institutions need checks and
balances. Such as some real probing into the false positives like
Betke?
Similar threads
