MLK: Anti-Rights Leader

Ed:

You and I have discussed steroids before. I think most of the scorn being heaped on Armstrong is from people who barely understand what these drugs do. I think they think they are magic SuperMan pills. Armstrong still needed to do the training; the steroids allowed his body to tolerate the advanced training levels, no more cheating than 'vitamins.'

As we've discussed, the biggest problem with steroids is that they've been made illegal, thus pushing licensed doctors out of the arena, and opening it up for widespread abuse-- the very opposite of our intent, which is the case with most failed prohibitions based on emotion and not reason.

And, here's comes the latest. The Tribe is nuts.

They weren't illegal in the early 70's when I took them, though they were 'controlled' as in, prescribed under a licensed doctor's care. And, that last bit is all we've eliminated by banning them.

regards,
Fred

Post 21

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 - 6:06pm

Fred,

Of course, I agree. The libertarian position on drugs would be safer for us all. There's also that thing about national and international champions. It's kind of naive to think they don't dabble in performance enhancing agents. Think about it for a minute. If something was the most important thing in your life ... would you explore avenues that improve your chances of reaching it? In an old survey of Olympic athletes, somewhere around 20% of them said that they would willingly take a substance that was so toxic that it would guarantee their own death in 5 years -- if it also guaranteed them a Gold Medal.

Things are different at the top. But like you said, drugs don't make champions, perserverance (along with genetics) does. Drugs just help you cope with the extremely rare level of strain which these athletes subject themselves to -- because that much strain is required to become that good at something. You could even make a case that training for some sports is actually more dangerous when performed without performance enhancers! When marathoners were tested before and after marathons, for example, the marathon was found to be extremely harmful to their bodies. Contrasted against those who trained for it but backed out at the last minute, marathoners get more than 6 times as many infections in the 2 weeks following a marathon.

It would probably be safer for these marathoners to take a prescription drug (e.g., Interferon), in order to keep their immune system strong throughout the imposed strain that they put on their bodies. The best way to do that is, like you say, under a doctor's care.

Ed

Post 22

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 - 11:03pm

It would be interesting to have a world competition were everything goes, just to see what people are capable of.

Post 23

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 - 11:59pm

Well, we've certainly hijacked this thread, haven't we?! So I'll add to it. Serious professional athletes were asked, if they could take a drug which would guarantee them a world record but lead to their death in five years, would they take it? Eighty percent said they would take it! That's how fanatical these people were.

So it's not too surprising that you see people like Lance Strongarm defrauding their sport and threatening, intimidating and maliciously slandering anyone who dares to expose them. These athletes are classic OCD cases, and but for the fame and fortune their fans shower upon them would be recognized for the irrational and dysfunctional personalities they are.

Post 24

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 4:44am

Bill,

Lance Strongarm

By the established mood of your post, I take it that that is not a misprint.

:-)

Ed

Post 25

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 5:04am

Ed:

Have you noticed? When you and I agree on something, which is often, it is sure bet that the world is sprinting(well, in this case, slouching)in the opposite direction?

Same thing with most of us around here. We are like the kiss of death for ideas that will ever actually fly in the world.

Armstrong 'cheated' the sport ... by elevating his training to a level far beyond anyone else. The bastard! I'll bet he even took vitamins, the cheater.

I can't help but see a huge steaming pile of 'revenge of the couch riders' in what is going on, long supressed hurt feelings over playground defeats from decades ago. finally finding their voice..

The Holy Intent of the ban on steroids was to eliminate the Lyle Alzedo abuse. The factual result has been to encourage the Lyle Alzedo abuse, by taking doctors out of the arena. Why does the tribe cling to this model?

Because there are far fewer Armstrongs in the world than there are couch riders. Armstrong's hostility at an ignorant tribe that wasn't with him during all those years of training is totally understandable. He's fighting for his freedom from disinterested others holding dominion over his life.

It's analogous to banning abortion; the tribe is saying "Go to those back allies and get your abortion illegally. Use a coat hanger if you must." Because we didn't ban abortion, we banned abortion via doctors in hospitals.

Ditto athletes taking informed risks with -their own lives-.

What part of -their own lives- do the supposed objectivists around here not understand?

regards,
Fred

Post 26

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 5:18am

What is behind Armstrong's latest mea culpa to The Tribe?

I mean, other than fighting for his life? What is he going to do-- be a spokesman for Juice?

It's been hypothesized that he wants to freshly compete in Iron Man/Triathalon competitions. If he was some Joe SixPack doing it on alark, nobody would care, nobody would check his blood after the event, he could juice all he wants. But he's Lance Armstrong, he's already elevated himself into the spotlight, and the tribe will be all over him, like maggots.

Please, Tribe, let me torture -myself- like few others. You've caught me breaking your dumbass rule, taking informed risks with -my own life- by using vitamins readily available in the 50's to elevate my training schedule, which I still had to actually -do- to achieve what I achieved, even though your dumbass rules kept me from access to a doctor while doing so.

The horror of this? The sad pukes that this guy is begging to live -his- life. He's begging the maggots to be the meat they live on, which is par for this tribe of naked sweaty apes.

Take him away from the sport for the last several years, and its "The Tour de What?" The words that field of sport are looking for but can't seem to find are "Thank you Lance Armtrong sorry about our dumass wrongheaded rule going nowhere fast, the Tribe's latest puddingheaded ban."

regards,
Fred

Post 27

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 6:46am

I could not agree with you more Fred.
When Ben Johnson broke world records for the 100m I was overjoyed, I knew he was juicing and I DID not CARE?! Just watching him run was incredible! I of course had this dialog going on in my head "I hope he gets away with it" such was not to be..

Post 28

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 8:49am

Jules:

Someone needs to run this experiment(though it would be dangerous and pointless)

1] Take an average runner.
2] Time him in the 100.
3] Give him steroids.
4] Make sure he sits on a couch for six months, doing nothing.
5] Time him in the 100.

The difference is what is due to steroids. Assuming he makes it to the finish line.

What uninformed people actually believe:

1] Take an average runner.
2] Time him in the 100.
3] Give him steroids.
4] He doesn't alter his training regimen at all.
5] Time him in the 100.

He's dropped a full second, just by taking the Magic Go Fast Pill.

Complete and utter uninformed nonsense.

regards,
Fred

Post 29

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 6:13pm

Fred,

What uninformed people actually believe:

1] Take an average runner.
2] Time him in the 100.
3] Give him steroids.
4] He doesn't alter his training regimen at all.
5] Time him in the 100.

Hah! Once again, you are right. We sound like a couple of sounding boards over here. Wait a minute, there's Jules, too! That's 3 sounding boards, or ... more like an echo chamber.

:-)

The fact of the matter is that the person in the example above would indeed be slower on steroids, assuming that they had been performing the same training regimen for at least 6 months before juicing up (assuming their body had fully adapted to the regimen beforehand). The reason this is so is because of around 10-lbs of water retention that steroids give you. If you take a guy and time him, and then put a 10-lb weight-belt on him, and time him again -- he will be slower with the 10-belt on. It's simple physics, really. The reason that steroids wouldn't help here is because of how steroids help in general: shorter recovery time (SRT) and greater capacity for supercompensation from overreach (GCFSFOR). If you don't change your training, recovery and supercompensation don't get a chance to work for you.

Hence the slower time on the steroids in the example above. Even with all of this confidence of mine in the outcome, I'd still like to see the experiment performed. Hey Dean, you're a runner, aren't you? ...

:-)

Ed

Post 30

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 8:53pm

I myself never used them but I have friends who have. One thing they all had in common was that when they stopped they all said it felt like they got hit by a truck! This is most likely due to all the microtears that were masked as well as joint inflammation from the heavy loads previously used in the workouts. Technically even if you retained 90% of strength gains you would have to back off about 30% of your "regular max workload" to prevent hurting yourself and increase your time between workouts.

Post 31

Friday, January 25, 2013 - 4:24am