OK, what was she on? (Marion Jones)

[Bouncer]

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.

[Scrumhalf]

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.

[Bouncer]

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]

She cheated....

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

[NYCmitch25]

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.

[Bouncer]

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.

[Bouncer]

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

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

[Scrumhalf]

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]

well is he right or is it his opinion? :P 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]

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

[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]

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.

I feel that it is a black and white issue (there are clearly documented rules and if you break them you are cheating) while NYCMitch seems to feel that there are gray areas . That's the basic disagreement, I think. :)

I agree that athletes would continue to push the boundary to seek an advantage and I have no problem with that, as long as one is not cheating. I would too if I were in their shoes.

[NewbieChris]

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?

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.

I found it interesting that you brought up the idea of genetics Bouncer. To me that would seem to be exactly what the Olympics are supposed to do. They should find the best athletes in the world and have them compete. If you're naturally bigger or have higher test levels then you win that competition. What is so wrong with that? The idea is the same in almost every competition. If you look at the scientific community you don't really find too many people with low IQ's. You find extremely intelligent people, who were born that way naturally.

If they want to find the best athletes who are natural, that is their choice. I'm not arguing against as because I don't believe they're bad, but that just isn't what the holds of the Olympics believe.