OK, what was she on? (Marion Jones)

[rado]

Originally Posted by THE BOUNCER

don't post if you are going to reply with 2 word and 3 word posts or definitions. answer my question to scrum and put some effort into it, otherwise shut the hell up.

I did answer you...Stop deleting my post then...you asked to define cheating and I did....here...

Cheating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cheating is -- as an act of lying, deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition.

[rado]

She took AS, she lied, she got busted and sentenced to prison...You do something wrong, you pay the consequences...Simple as that...

[THE BOUNCER]

your not answering my question. your giving me the definition of the word cheating and then throwing in obvious crap. when i say, "define cheating" i don't mean the definition from Websters you idiot. i am talking about what we as people see as cheating and the hypocrisy of the media and the public.

[rado]

Originally Posted by THE BOUNCER

i am talking about what we as people see as cheating and the hypocrisy of the media and the public.

Well you're excluded from this "We as people" shit...We as people don't seem to "see" or "view" the way you do it

[THE BOUNCER]

so you dont think there is any media hype and BS involving steroids? you dont see the irony of someone calling someone else a cheater or putting them down as they go smoke a cigarette or pop a pill to escape from stress?

why is having a nutrition/supplement guru, cocktails of supplements, naturally higher test and GH levels over someone who dosen't have those things not seen as an advantage and steroids is?

you see my point rado, i am not trying to argue with you, just trying to make people see the irony and BS with all of this.

[rado]

Originally Posted by THE BOUNCER

you see my point rado, i am not trying to argue with you, just trying to make people see the irony and BS with all of this.

I do see your point...But you can not win over media bro...

[THE BOUNCER]

Originally Posted by rado

I do see your point...But you can not win over media bro...

so do you agree with what i am saying or disagree? seems like you are going both ways. lol.

[rado]

Originally Posted by THE BOUNCER

so do you agree with what i am saying or disagree? seems like you are going both ways. lol.

I agree to disagree

[Scrumhalf]

Originally Posted by THE BOUNCER

i brought this up with YJ but i think i should bring it up here to. scrum, please define cheating for me. are the athletes that are running a special cocktail of supplements designed by nutrition/supplement gurus cheating? those people would have an advantage over those who aren't on those supplements. how about the athletes that have their own nutritionist? are they cheating over athletes who don't have one? how about athletes that have higher natural test or gh levels? they have an advantage, are they cheating? nothing is ever fair and nothing is ever equal. where do you draw the line on what is and isnt cheating.

Bouncer, the IAAF/IOC/WADA had already defined what cheating is. They have a long list of chemicals that if detected in your body through their tests, will result in punitive action. The corollary is that as long as you discover that chemical XYZ aids your training or recovery, you are free to take it as long as it is not on the list. One may not like their rules, or may think they are arbitrary or capricious or whatever. Regardless, they are the rules. And they are defined in black and white.

I hear what you are saying, that the playing field is not level already because some athletes have better genetics, or better access to allowed nutritional aids, or live in first-world countries with better access to training or whatever. Those are all legitimate points. However, that is tangential to the issue at hand - there are rules in place that are very clear and anyone who breaks those rules is cheating.

[THE BOUNCER]

Originally Posted by Scrumhalf

Bouncer, the IAAF/IOC/WADA had already defined what cheating is. They have a long list of chemicals that if detected in your body through their tests, will result in punitive action. The corollary is that as long as you discover that chemical XYZ aids your training or recovery, you are free to take it as long as it is not on the list. One may not like their rules, or may think they are arbitrary or capricious or whatever. Regardless, they are the rules. And they are defined in black and white.

I hear what you are saying, that the playing field is not level already because some athletes have better genetics, or better access to allowed nutritional aids, or live in first-world countries with better access to training or whatever. Those are all legitimate points. However, that is tangential to the issue at hand - there are rules in place that are very clear and anyone who breaks those rules is cheating.

i hear what you are saying and I guess i cant really argue with that. i guess my problem isn't really with the set rules. my problem is more with the media and the general view.

[NYCmitch25]

Originally Posted by rado

She cheated....

Lets face it he has a problem with it cuz she is black.

[NYCmitch25]

Originally Posted by Scrumhalf

Bouncer, the IAAF/IOC/WADA had already defined what cheating is. They have a long list of chemicals that if detected in your body through their tests, will result in punitive action. The corollary is that as long as you discover that chemical XYZ aids your training or recovery, you are free to take it as long as it is not on the list. One may not like their rules, or may think they are arbitrary or capricious or whatever. Regardless, they are the rules. And they are defined in black and white.

I hear what you are saying, that the playing field is not level already because some athletes have better genetics, or better access to allowed nutritional aids, or live in first-world countries with better access to training or whatever. Those are all legitimate points. However, that is tangential to the issue at hand - there are rules in place that are very clear and anyone who breaks those rules is cheating.

you sound like every other talking head on radio or news. you forgot to mention "what about the children"; it sends a negative message to the children.

[THE BOUNCER]

Originally Posted by NYCmitch25

you sound like every other talking head on radio or news. you forgot to mention "what about the children"; it sends a negative message to the children.

i agree with him actually. i look at it differently but you cant argue the facts. the media dosent report facts though. they report hyped shit. if they would report on a story like scrum posted, i wouldn't have a problem with it.

[NYCmitch25]

i guess he is right...hes entitled to his opinion.

[THE BOUNCER]

Originally Posted by NYCmitch25

i guess he is right...hes entitled to his opinion.

well is he right or is it his opinion? what he posted in response to me were just facts. he understands the media hype and public irony.

[Scrumhalf]

Originally Posted by NYCmitch25

you sound like every other talking head on radio or news. you forgot to mention "what about the children"; it sends a negative message to the children.

It has nothing to do with the talking heads on the radio or the news.

It may seem quaint to you but I believe in playing by the rules. If you don't like the rules, change them. But don't flout the rules just because you don't like them. And don't turn into martyrs the drug cheats who knew full well the rules and yet got caught.

[NYCmitch25]

Originally Posted by THE BOUNCER

well is he right or is it his opinion? what he posted in response to me were just facts. he understands the media hype and public irony.

its his opinion. the rules say no drugs and cheating is wrong. thats fine.
he wants to make a black and white issue when i think there are some gray area's thats all.

[Scrumhalf]

Originally Posted by NYCmitch25

its his opinion. the rules say no drugs and cheating is wrong. thats fine.
he wants to make a black and white issue when i think there are some gray area's thats all.

I guess this is where we must agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[NYCmitch25]

yeah, its not personal

[THE BOUNCER]

i dont understand what you are disagreeing on. lol. it is pretty black and white if a certain substance is banned then it is banned. thats it. there is no gray area there.

i think what you guys are disagreeing on is what is really an advantage. scrum i am sure you know but advantages have been sought out an used since the beginning of sport itself. no matter what you want to try and believe, sport is just as much about getting the advantage to win over the next guy as it is about competition.

[Scrumhalf]

Originally Posted by THE BOUNCER

i dont understand what you are disagreeing on. lol. it is pretty black and white if a certain substance is banned then it is banned. thats it. there is no gray area there.

i think what you guys are disagreeing on is what is really an advantage. scrum i am sure you know but advantages have been sought out an used since