[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: I would find sports much more entertaining if the competitors lived a "stock" lifestyle. They all get the same diet, live in the same conditions, etc. I think then we'd see games based on skill, and not on the better gear.

That was going to be one of my counter arguments....

Next, will we see socialist styled sports here? Huge camps of specialized atheletes confined to an arena, so they can be assured equality in lifestyle, food, treatment and information?

I don't like the idea, unless of course it is of free-will, and other options exist.

Milton said: I have to say, that shoe argument is solid. There can be no debate about the fact that modern footwear plays a part in increased performance. Kind of turns the whole premeise of banned substances on it's head if you ask me.

I fully agree, especially if done in the name of "protecting the sanctity of the records, the recording body, the history of sports, and the nature of competition."

Running shoes, training equipment, braces and belts.... it is all performance enhancing gear that affects the results put in by the athelete for the positive.

Drugs, are an individual choice. A strength athelete is a strength athelete to MAKE THE MOST of their biological ability, to become fit, to master their body and mind in the sport on which they focus.

If an athelete can eat whatever they want, why may they not take sports enhancing drugs?

What logic is used, and is it even REMOTELY solid? I don't think so.

I am pleased of what has come of powerlifting, bodybuilding, and fitness sports. They have made "pure versions" where all atheletes are tested because that is "THEIR" choice, to compete drug free.

There are also non-clean versions of the sport, where some drug use is, has been and always will be part of the sport as long as there are individuals who believe in modern pharmacology to better the human structure, as opposed to the claims of "degradation" which have plagued the sport thanks to foolish abusers.

I wish all things in life took this avenue of choice, as opposed to the police state, nanny-state mentality that "gubbmint" knows best, because as time and history have shown, they obviously don't know best, lie a lot, and can't be trusted or efficient with tax payer monies.

Pockets said: Osborne you stole what as going to be my first thread starter. This is a great one. I have a friend that loves to talk about todsys teams being better than yesterdays and therefore players more dominant.

Didn't mean to steal your thunder.....

I saw Colbert cover it on his show last night, and he brought up some points in humor that are very valid arguments.

Pockets said: If you took their playing weights and left the comparison art that he would be right. I contend if football players at the dawn of the sport had access to the training techniques of todays athletes you would not see the huge gap. I mean look at speed. Deion Sanders still holds the draft combine 40 yd record time at like 4.28. He came through in 1989. In Track and Field, hold a record for one decade and you're a man among men. Holding a speed record for two decades? Almost unheard of. My point is it is slowing down. We are reaching our physical limit and everyone has the techniques.

I agree, we are nearing natural physical perfection without stepping up our control over drug processes in our bodies. This is exactly why I believe there is room for both classes, clean and non-clean.

No pressure, simply pick a field of your choice.

Pockets said: Sports having two divisions: Juiced and clean? No. I thnk it would be immoral to dangle a carrot in front of someone to entice them to put their health at risk.

I know you are going to cringe.... but what does moral have to do with individual rights among equals?

We own our bodies, we have charge over what is put in, and what is not.
Regardless of what is chosen, we should be able to pioneer and provide a need if a market is there, and let the market and the individuals choose.

Pockets said: I definitely think there needs to be some education with regards to what is a steroid and what is not. Protein drinks, creatine, glutamine and many of the like are not steroids. Have Mark McGuire on tv with a bottle of Androstenadione and he becomes a cheater. That stuff was marketed as a precursor to steroids. The stuff was worthless. Unfortunately people started looking at all supplements as cheating.

As usual, the press reports what it can use to put across the message its corporate advertisers want to spin in that direction.

I have used many legal forms of "supposed" steroids, and some when used properly provided better than average results.

Muscletech put out a combination of Andro, and Nortest which when coupled together on a high-protein diet provided fantastic results in lean muscle mass for me. I also used their product Hydroxycut, which was fantastic before it was changed because of all the dumbasses who abused it as "weight loss pill" thinking the more they took, the faster they lost...... what morons.

Point being, I personally have used and independently studied some of these myself, and I know for a fact some work, and some don't, on me.

I am rigorously anal in my testing to, so, yes, I do know it was a controlled study.

I know people who have used old style, REAL steroids, like anabol and others, but I never have, nor would. Why? Not because they are illegal, but because I know the facts about how they work, why they work, and their dangers, which are very real if abused.

Just because something is dangerous, does that mean it should be illegal?
I don't think so, for obvious reasons.