Tri Talk HomepageTri Talk EventsTri Talk ForumsBlogsTri Talk TrainingTri TradeTriPlayerWikiTeam Tri Talk
No Sh1t sherlock...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TriTalk.co.uk Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Jorgan




Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Posts: 16408
Location: alles was ich bin, alles was ich war

PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm sorry, but anything you can buy off a supermarket shelf in the UK is not shady or a grey area. Prescription medicines, they are a different discussion; particularly opiates & asthma drugs.
_________________
25 Years since it all began....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pedro Peru




Joined: 19 Apr 2010
Posts: 922
Location: Leeds

PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jorgan wrote:
I'm sorry, but anything you can buy off a supermarket shelf in the UK is not shady or a grey area.

Except broad brimmed hats (but yes I agree).

For the too far is when people are taking medicines when they're not really ill enough to be doing so, if ill at all. For example, Salazar sending his runners to 'his' endocrinologist and surprisingly he fins out they have under active thyroids and need medication. Or Froome being so ill with a chest infection that he needs corticosteroids but yet manages to win the race he is ill in. None of this is against the rules if you do the correct admin but I don't think it's right and certainly against the bullsh1t Brailsford gave when he set up the team.

As for Wiggins, IMO if this was innocent then nothing would have been lost, stolen or forgotten.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
explorerJC




Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 14788
Location: Farthingstone

PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stenard wrote:
explorerJC wrote:
my personal moral standpoint is that i wouldn't want my kids pumped full of drugs legal or otherwise...

the old caffeine argument has been pretty lame for a while and just supports the worst aspects of the pro teams...

I dont think it is lame. It's an extreme example of different viewpoints of what's ok. TinPot for example would appear of the view of nothing being allowed. Hammerer on the other hand considers caffeine, protein shakes etc to not be artificial aids, but I know people who consider them to be. If you want the protein, eat more protein based foods. Whey protein powder is artificially extracted from other food products, so it isn't "natural".

It's no different from the tax avoidance argument. An ISA is the coffee in this sense. Noone would argue using an ISA is morally wrong tax avoidance, but it is tax avoidance nonetheless. So saying "tax avoidance is morally reprehensible" is just diluting a very complex and grey area, where large swathes of the population have different moral viewpoints.

Hence, what is defined to be legal and illegal, as potentially decided by the courts, is the only way an athlete can be fundamentally criticised as far as I am concerned.


on this point at least, I would not only prefer to keep the moral high ground, but also wouldn't like anyone's child to be submitted to any medication because some dodgy doctor was willlng to write a prescription but keep no records...

the grown ups can, of course, do what they like but must expect someone to put a spoke in their wheel when it becomes public.....
_________________
www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching

www.naturalrunningform.co.uk Natural Running Form Coach

2018 Training Camps http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jorgan




Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Posts: 16408
Location: alles was ich bin, alles was ich war

PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pedro Peru wrote:

For the too far is when people are taking medicines when they're not really ill enough to be doing so, if ill at all. For example, Salazar sending his runners to 'his' endocrinologist and surprisingly he fins out they have under active thyroids and need medication. Or Froome being so ill with a chest infection that he needs corticosteroids but yet manages to win the race he is ill in. None of this is against the rules if you do the correct admin but I don't think it's right and certainly against the bullsh1t Brailsford gave when he set up the team.

As for Wiggins, IMO if this was innocent then nothing would have been lost, stolen or forgotten.


I always thought Brailsford's mindset was if it's not on the WADA list or we can manufacture a TUE, it's fair game

I don't see how any of the instances you cite aren't the same as a 55 yr old male claiming he needs to go to an ageing clinic to bring his supressed Testosterone levels back uo to 'normal'....when there is no set level for 'normal'.
_________________
25 Years since it all began....


Last edited by Jorgan on Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
explorerJC




Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 14788
Location: Farthingstone

PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jorgan wrote:
I'm sorry, but anything you can buy off a supermarket shelf in the UK is not shady or a grey area. Prescription medicines, they are a different discussion; particularly opiates & asthma drugs.


On the first point, that isn't strictly correct due to the level of contamination of supplements in particular...

On the second point watch out for the next big thing...
_________________
www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching

www.naturalrunningform.co.uk Natural Running Form Coach

2018 Training Camps http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jorgan




Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Posts: 16408
Location: alles was ich bin, alles was ich war

PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

explorerJC wrote:

On the first point, that isn't strictly correct due to the level of contamination of supplements in particular...

On the second point watch out for the next big thing...


Contamination is an error by the manufacturer; it's a faulty good. If people buy supplements hoping they are contaminated, then that is a bit strange and rather haphazard.
_________________
25 Years since it all began....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pedro Peru




Joined: 19 Apr 2010
Posts: 922
Location: Leeds

PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jorgan wrote:
Pedro Peru wrote:

For the too far is when people are taking medicines when they're not really ill enough to be doing so, if ill at all. For example, Salazar sending his runners to 'his' endocrinologist and surprisingly he fins out they have under active thyroids and need medication. Or Froome being so ill with a chest infection that he needs corticosteroids but yet manages to win the race he is ill in. None of this is against the rules if you do the correct admin but I don't think it's right and certainly against the bullsh1t Brailsford gave when he set up the team.

As for Wiggins, IMO if this was innocent then nothing would have been lost, stolen or forgotten.


I always thought Brailsford's mindset was if it's not on the WADA list or we can manufacture a TUE, it's fair game

I don't see how any of the instances you cite aren't the same as a 55 yr old male claiming he needs to go to an ageing clinic to bring his supressed Testosterone levels back uo to 'normal'....when there is no set level for 'normal'.

Re: the 55 year old male, I totally agree.

I can't find the exact quote but Brailsford talked about setting up a clean team to win the TdF with a British rider , to be transparent and IMO gave the impression of being clean, be seen to be clean and above suspicion. They've won the TdF but failed to be transparent and seem to be medicating riders that aren't really ill.

ETA: I think you're right with regard to his mindset but I don't think that's the values he suggested.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stenard




Joined: 04 Sep 2013
Posts: 1321

PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

explorerJC wrote:
stenard wrote:
explorerJC wrote:
my personal moral standpoint is that i wouldn't want my kids pumped full of drugs legal or otherwise...

the old caffeine argument has been pretty lame for a while and just supports the worst aspects of the pro teams...

I dont think it is lame. It's an extreme example of different viewpoints of what's ok. TinPot for example would appear of the view of nothing being allowed. Hammerer on the other hand considers caffeine, protein shakes etc to not be artificial aids, but I know people who consider them to be. If you want the protein, eat more protein based foods. Whey protein powder is artificially extracted from other food products, so it isn't "natural".

It's no different from the tax avoidance argument. An ISA is the coffee in this sense. Noone would argue using an ISA is morally wrong tax avoidance, but it is tax avoidance nonetheless. So saying "tax avoidance is morally reprehensible" is just diluting a very complex and grey area, where large swathes of the population have different moral viewpoints.

Hence, what is defined to be legal and illegal, as potentially decided by the courts, is the only way an athlete can be fundamentally criticised as far as I am concerned.


on this point at least, I would not only prefer to keep the moral high ground, but also wouldn't like anyone's child to be submitted to any medication because some dodgy doctor was willlng to write a prescription but keep no records...

the grown ups can, of course, do what they like but must expect someone to put a spoke in their wheel when it becomes public.....

I don't disagree in terms of what I'd do. But at the top level, when 's are being invested into kit, equipment etc, for marginal gains, I can see how the lines become blurry when something not on the banned list has a perceived benefit. And this is where I come back to my coffee example ... how many people "swear by" an espresso before a long ride? I know a lot. Why do they swear by them? Because they feel it makes them ride better. Ergo, it's a performance benefit.

Clearly, when you get into practices that involve, for example, extracting your own blood to put it back in again at a later date, all and sundry know from the outset that that's never going to be ok. Yet, just to muddy things further, blood spinning is considered fine for rehabbing injuries faster...

Jorgan wrote:
explorerJC wrote:

On the first point, that isn't strictly correct due to the level of contamination of supplements in particular...

On the second point watch out for the next big thing...


Contamination is an error by the manufacturer; it's a faulty good. If people buy supplements hoping they are contaminated, then that is a bit strange and rather haphazard.

It's not necessarily contamination by error. Who was that GB mogul skier who got done for using an olbas oil style sniff stick whilst at the Winter Olympics? ... the same stick was fine in the UK, but wherever he was used a different list of ingredients and it contained something banned.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
explorerJC




Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 14788
Location: Farthingstone

PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jorgan wrote:
explorerJC wrote:

On the first point, that isn't strictly correct due to the level of contamination of supplements in particular...

On the second point watch out for the next big thing...


Contamination is an error by the manufacturer; it's a faulty good. If people buy supplements hoping they are contaminated, then that is a bit strange and rather haphazard.


so, the three options in the grey area are: 1. take it and hope it is ok, 2. take it and hope you don't get caught, 3. take it and hope it works like a dream

the three options for the clean athlete are: 1. don' take it, 2. don't take it, 3. don't take it
_________________
www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching

www.naturalrunningform.co.uk Natural Running Form Coach

2018 Training Camps http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
stenard




Joined: 04 Sep 2013
Posts: 1321

PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

explorerJC wrote:
Jorgan wrote:
explorerJC wrote:

On the first point, that isn't strictly correct due to the level of contamination of supplements in particular...

On the second point watch out for the next big thing...


Contamination is an error by the manufacturer; it's a faulty good. If people buy supplements hoping they are contaminated, then that is a bit strange and rather haphazard.


so, the three options in the grey area are: 1. take it and hope it is ok, 2. take it and hope you don't get caught, 3. take it and hope it works like a dream

the three options for the clean athlete are: 1. don' take it, 2. don't take it, 3. don't take it

That's just so overly simplistic.
The point of all my points thus far are that this is quite a complex area, and the significant differences in opinion mean such a blanket "dont take it" statement is worthless. Unless you advocate only ever eating unprocessed basic foods, and drinking only water*.

*which is a fair enough viewpoint btw, but then my coffee analogy wouldnt be considered "lame". It would be part of the "don't drink it" category
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
doug




Joined: 07 Jan 2004
Posts: 15011
Location: Harrow (Doonhamer in exile)

PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stenard wrote:
explorerJC wrote:
Jorgan wrote:
explorerJC wrote:

On the first point, that isn't strictly correct due to the level of contamination of supplements in particular...

On the second point watch out for the next big thing...


Contamination is an error by the manufacturer; it's a faulty good. If people buy supplements hoping they are contaminated, then that is a bit strange and rather haphazard.


so, the three options in the grey area are: 1. take it and hope it is ok, 2. take it and hope you don't get caught, 3. take it and hope it works like a dream

the three options for the clean athlete are: 1. don' take it, 2. don't take it, 3. don't take it

That's just so overly simplistic.
The point of all my points thus far are that this is quite a complex area, and the significant differences in opinion mean such a blanket "dont take it" statement is worthless. Unless you advocate only ever eating unprocessed basic foods, and drinking only water*.

*which is a fair enough viewpoint btw, but then my coffee analogy wouldnt be considered "lame". It would be part of the "don't drink it" category


And even if you stick to unprocessed basic food, are you really sure your spanish steak isn't laced with clenbuterol Wink

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/alberto-contador-the-clenbuterol-the-beef-excuse-and-the-traces-of-plastic-56988

The only way to be totally certain would be to only eat food you had personally grown yourself. Otherwise at some point you have to place your trust in someone else who may be fallible even if you are not.
_________________
A bear, however hard he tries, grows tubby without exercise. ~A.A. Milne
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jorgan




Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Posts: 16408
Location: alles was ich bin, alles was ich war

PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

explorerJC wrote:

the three options for the clean athlete are: 1. don' take it, 2. don't take it, 3. don't take it


As expressed by posters above, I'm afraid your dogmatic approach wouldn't survive contact with the realities of 21st century living.
_________________
25 Years since it all began....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
explorerJC




Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 14788
Location: Farthingstone

PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jorgan wrote:
explorerJC wrote:

the three options for the clean athlete are: 1. don' take it, 2. don't take it, 3. don't take it


As expressed by posters above, I'm afraid your dogmatic approach wouldn't survive contact with the realities of 21st century living.


That's a misuse of the term dogma

The realities of 21C living are that if you buy some food off the supermarket shelf and it turns out to be contaminated we can assume that you are unlucky, but still responsible. You should be treated leniently.

If you buy some muscle growth shake from the local gym and it turns out to be contaminated we can assume that you may be unlucky, and may be foolish, but you are responsible. You should be treated less leniently.

If you mail order some product with unlisted content and it turns out to be contaminated we can assume that you were foolish at best, but are still responsible. You should be banned.
_________________
www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching

www.naturalrunningform.co.uk Natural Running Form Coach

2018 Training Camps http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jorgan




Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Posts: 16408
Location: alles was ich bin, alles was ich war

PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

explorerJC wrote:

That's a misuse of the term dogma


It's legitimate; albeit not the main use which is usually religous fervour.

a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle:
the classic dogma of objectivity in scientific observation.
Synonyms: conviction, certainty
.

Nana
_________________
25 Years since it all began....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
explorerJC




Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 14788
Location: Farthingstone

PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jorgan wrote:
explorerJC wrote:

That's a misuse of the term dogma


It's legitimate; albeit not the main use which is usually religous fervour.

a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle:
the classic dogma of objectivity in scientific observation.
Synonyms: conviction, certainty
.

Nana


Who said my opinion was settled?

In reality, it means belief without evidence, which, in this case, is incorrect....



blah blah
_________________
www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching

www.naturalrunningform.co.uk Natural Running Form Coach

2018 Training Camps http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TriTalk.co.uk Forum Index -> General All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 2 of 7
  Share
 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum





Home | About TT | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Advertising | Contact TT
Copyright ©2003-2015 TriTalk®.co.uk. All rights reserved.