Ya, there is more to it. Very little of which has anything to do with pure body strength.
Swing and a miss.
should they allow steriods in sports ?
- Thread starter bunmanchi
- Start date
Ya, there is more to it. Very little of which has anything to do with pure body strength.
Swing and a miss.
So all these baseball "haters" have played in the MLB? How many times have you heard someone wonder what's so physically demanding about MX, because the bike does all the work? I have played both sports for fun and they are both hard, or easy, for different reasons.
Holy **** guys I never said baseball players are amazing athletes. Buddy said they only stand in a field. I said they do more than that.
Then buddy compares football to baseball. They both have a **** load of standing around. They are all athletes.
? Oh, so you're working on the premise that they took steroids to build a bunch of muscle? You do know there are more reasons than to build muscle mass right? Like helping you recover faster from injuries?
Roomie
Banned
The average football player would burn more in one quarter than a rod would going to his dealers 200 times
daught
Well-known member
Organized sports... yawn.
Check this out. Tanner hall. Broke both his ankles in 2005. Came back in 2006 to win gold at both the US Freeskiing Open and the Winter X-Games.
In 2009 he had tibial plateau fractures and ACL tears in both knees. A year later he was training again. In 2012 he was competing again. Nevermind the half pipe stuff, the big mountain lines he skis are unreal.
I always wondered how the **** he recovered. Most people never walk properly after tibial plateau fractures. This guy is back. I always thought he did some roids or something to recover. Does it matter? To me not one bit. His balls are the size of McKinley regardless.
To go from
[video=youtube;sSeUqpPk6IA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSeUqpPk6IA[/video]
Check this out. Tanner hall. Broke both his ankles in 2005. Came back in 2006 to win gold at both the US Freeskiing Open and the Winter X-Games.
In 2009 he had tibial plateau fractures and ACL tears in both knees. A year later he was training again. In 2012 he was competing again. Nevermind the half pipe stuff, the big mountain lines he skis are unreal.
I always wondered how the **** he recovered. Most people never walk properly after tibial plateau fractures. This guy is back. I always thought he did some roids or something to recover. Does it matter? To me not one bit. His balls are the size of McKinley regardless.
To go from
[video=youtube;sSeUqpPk6IA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSeUqpPk6IA[/video]
Roomie
Banned
Like I said to the original post. No they shouldn't allow them in because not everyone can afford or have access to all the "good stuff" There are also a lot of things about doing performance enhancing drugs that get to you long after the media cares and that's why you never hear about them. The complications later in life can be brutal. Not worth it to me. I always found the extra effort rewarding as much as the work sucked to do sometimes.
My point with the baseball players like a rod was that they're a waste of skin. He just blew his career and helped ruin a sport for which he's paid millions to take 3-4 at bats a game and catch a couple of balls (in the chin or not) or make a few plays. There's nothing else you can do for a living to make what those jokers do. So what does he do? Why be a role model. Let's do dope, then try to cover it up, pay people off to lie for him and then play looking all smug while he's waiting for appeal. He's a real hero.
As for I don't get baseball rob, I was a pitcher very competitively until I was almost 20. I know what they go through. No it's not easy but out of all the 4 major north american sports, they're on the bottom of the physically demanding list which is why most people don't understand why one would want to use steroids. The risk isn't worth the penalty in any way. Is that better or should I type slower?
My point with the baseball players like a rod was that they're a waste of skin. He just blew his career and helped ruin a sport for which he's paid millions to take 3-4 at bats a game and catch a couple of balls (in the chin or not) or make a few plays. There's nothing else you can do for a living to make what those jokers do. So what does he do? Why be a role model. Let's do dope, then try to cover it up, pay people off to lie for him and then play looking all smug while he's waiting for appeal. He's a real hero.
As for I don't get baseball rob, I was a pitcher very competitively until I was almost 20. I know what they go through. No it's not easy but out of all the 4 major north american sports, they're on the bottom of the physically demanding list which is why most people don't understand why one would want to use steroids. The risk isn't worth the penalty in any way. Is that better or should I type slower?
daught
Well-known member
To become good at many sports you need a lot of money. Not everyone can afford or have access to all the "good stuff" when it comes to equipment, training and support.
Roomie
Banned
Exactly which is why they all can't afford roids either. I'd much rather see clean competition anyways. Ten times more rewarding as the athlete when you know your best was better than the other guy.
vrus
Well-known member
mexico, china, russia
Need something more local.
Roomie
Banned
Kri$han
Well-known member
Your response is confusing here, Roomie LOL. Also, we get that you hate baseball (which is also inconsistent with someone who claims to have played it).. tone down the hate just a bit.
On topic: I say they allow it. Who cares? The ENTIRE purpose of sport (ANY sport) is to entertain the masses. With performance enhancing drugs, all these athletes can reach a higher level of performance and break through the limited barriers of our current genealogy.
How come we're allowed to make COUNTLESS improvements to develop better sports equipment, like the $15,000+ bicycles these guys are riding in cycling... F1 cars? Moto GP bikes? Golf clubs? I could gDrugs just offer a different form of "technological improvement".
The only trouble I see with allowing one drug, is where to draw the line when it comes to other performance enhancing drugs... it just easier to ban them all.
Roomie
Banned
I don't think they should be allowed at all. IF they do the line between right and wrong would be almost non existent. Equipment is one thing but I can tell you from experience. I own a couple of those kind of road bikes. Spending 16k on one didn't make me faster. I did. The equipment is only as good as the person using it. It's the same concept with motorcycles. A 600ss is more than enough for 99 percent of people out there. The majority can't even come close to pushing it to it's limits. I believe a rod and all the others could have records etc without roids, it just requires work and society is lazy.
Kri$han
Well-known member
Okay, so what your saying is that if I take the 2013 winner of the Tour De France, and put him on a Supercycle from Crappy Tire, he'll still be competitive? Or Rossi will still win races on my SV650? oooooooookay then.
What does "right & wrong" have to do with anything? Are you Mr. Garrison? "Drugs are bad, mmm'kay?"
I really like what the Baseball Hall Of Fame did: they put Asterisk's next to any player that achieved a record with performance enhancing drugs... perfect solution! It doesn't take away from the player's "non-drug related" talents & training, but it does distinguish him as someone who had an advantage over those that set records and weren't caught using drugs to do so.
Last edited:
Roomie
Banned
If you took Chris Froome and put him on a lesser bike yes he'd hand you, me or most people our *****. Drugs are bad when they're being used by few in a competition because they don't have what it takes to beat the best out there. I'd invite anyone to put years into a sport, training, diet etc and then get beat by someone who slacked through it and used steroids. I don't think anyone would be happy with outcome, do you?
Kri$han
Well-known member
This debate is NOT about how a professional, full-time competitive athlete would fare against a 9-5 weekend warrior who has trouble cycling 100kms at 30km/h.
This debate is how professional, full-time athletes would compete against each other based on two scenarios:
1) If performance enhancing drugs are NOT allowed, therefore leading to unfair competition when some of them are caught using them, and others who lost are assumingly not using them, OR
2) If performance enhancing drugs ARE all allowed, therefore they would ALL probably use them, and the "competitive advantage" afforded by them would be lost - which could arguably have us witnessing athletes that win based on only their skill, dedication, training & fitness levels, compared to each other (as it's supposed to be)
Last edited:
Roomie
Banned
In theory you're right, but if they were allowed I don't believe it would still be an even playing field. There's too many variants involved. Better drugs, different compositions of types of drugs etc. Do I still believe Chris won the tour this year because of his machine? No. He was the better rider and I think he could have done it on a lesser bike just the same was what I was getting at. I don't think it would have mattered who he was racing. I've never seen anyone do a double trip up the alpe d'huez like that. Most can barely make it once.
