Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Now that the tone of the discourse is a bit more repectfull, I would like to point out that most broncodilators have effects other than the widening of the airways. This includes stmulation of smooth and striated muscle - THUS it does alter the rest of the physiology in the rest of the cardiovascular system. This true of nearly all medications. If your medical condition warrants treatment with drugs that are restricted, you should be allowed to do so BUT not to win. HGH can also be used to suppliment to normal levels,but clearly shouldnt be allowed to take winnings

 

You have a valid point.

  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

This whole debate could be widened to overall natural vs fake. People are so vane. Should a girl with fake boobs be allowed to win Miss Universe ? Be able to get huge modelling contracts ? etc, etc

Posted

I think you are over reaching a bit here ... Gravity is not grey. Science works with a lot of absolutes

Newton's three laws are actually relative...

Things we "knew" 50/100/500 years ago are patently false today. What "we" knew then was science/fact/gospel...

Today we do not know the mechanism behind gravity. So it might be true that it works the way we experience/observe it only for a given (narrow) range of limiters. We just do not know.. so it is grey

Posted (edited)

If your medical condition warrants treatment with drugs that are restricted, you should be allowed to do so BUT not to win. HGH can also be used to suppliment to normal levels,but clearly shouldnt be allowed to take winnings

 

So, there are cyclists at protour level that are diabetics and take insulin and stuff, and your reasoned solution to them is (with respect) "****you jack, you can't win, and ****you for trying to overcome your illness and live a normal life, and double ****you if you dare win a race"?

 

Have I got the salient points nailed down, or am I not interpreting your argument correctly?

 

****it, why stop at medicine? What about the oke that wears glasses or contact lenses? Special olympics for you chum.

 

Edit, because I swear a lot, doesn't mean (in this case at least) that I was swearing at you.

Edited by TNT1
Posted

So, there are cyclists at protour level that are diabetics and take insulin and stuff, and your reasoned solution to them is (with respect) "****you jack, you can't win, and ****you for trying to overcome your illness and live a normal life, and double ****you if you dare win a race"?

 

Have I got the salient points nailed down, or am I not interpreting your argument correctly?

 

****it, why stop at medicine? What about the oke that wears glasses or contact lenses? Special olympics for you chum.

 

I think you've summed it up about right

Posted

Newton's three laws are actually relative...

Things we "knew" 50/100/500 years ago are patently false today. What "we" knew then was science/fact/gospel...

Today we do not know the mechanism behind gravity. So it might be true that it works the way we experience/observe it only for a given (narrow) range of limiters. We just do not know.. so it is grey

 

you like to make things complicated and introduce other variables. Are you saying that gravity is NOT a constant ?

Posted

Now that the tone of the discourse is a bit more repectfull, I would like to point out that most broncodilators have effects other than the widening of the airways. This includes stmulation of smooth and striated muscle - THUS it does alter the rest of the physiology in the rest of the cardiovascular system. This true of nearly all medications. If your medical condition warrants treatment with drugs that are restricted, you should be allowed to do so BUT not to win. HGH can also be used to suppliment to normal levels,but clearly shouldnt be allowed to take winnings

Respectful he says.... be the change you want to see and check your spelling please?

 

No medication works in isolation in the body: true. Hence different delivery methods for different medicines to get them to where they are needed and to limit the effect they have on the rest of the body.

 

Some medications just do not play ball though. Take the beta-blocker type eye medications you use for Glaucoma... horrible side effects on the heart for cardio based training... Never want to go down that route again!

 

I've asked the question regarding competition types and HGH/definition of normal/expectations of a 'normal populace on their sport stars etc a few days ago... Did not receive any real answers on that, and I asked it twice...

Posted

 

 

So, there are cyclists at protour level that are diabetics and take insulin and stuff, and your reasoned solution to them is (with respect) "****you jack, you can't win, and ****you for trying to overcome your illness and live a normal life, and double ****you if you dare win a race"?

 

Have I got the salient points nailed down, or am I not interpreting your argument correctly?

 

****it, why stop at medicine? What about the oke that wears glasses or contact lenses? Special olympics for you chum.

 

Edit, because I swear a lot, doesn't mean (in this case at least) that I was swearing at you.

I see your point but I think it is different with insulin in that an overdose (supraphysiological) will kill you stat! Non -treatment the same. The point about glasses is a bit harsh since there are actually athletes with limited sight at the special olympics. What about a boy with low testosterone levels - should we boost him so that he can ride competitively?
Posted

you like to make things complicated and introduce other variables. Are you saying that gravity is NOT a constant ?

Are you saying it is? :P

 

I'm saying we do not know. You are basing science on what we currently know, nothing wrong with that (science is the definition of what we know) - but do remember things might(WILL - I hope) change.Today we know the earth is a planet, and it is round(ish), 500 years it was flat and the centre of everything.

 

I'm merely of the opinion that we do not know enough to make definitive and conclusive answers/statements about most, if not all of what we 'know'

Posted

What about a boy with low testosterone levels - should we boost him so that he can ride competitively?

Sure, as long as he doesn't win, if I follow your logic? Or is that WIN?

 

Does that mean it's ok to win small races, but bad to WIN BIG ONES?

Posted

Are you saying it is? tongue.png

 

I'm saying we do not know. You are basing science on what we currently know, nothing wrong with that (science is the definition of what we know) - but do remember things might(WILL - I hope) change.Today we know the earth is a planet, and it is round(ish), 500 years it was flat and the centre of everything.

 

I'm merely of the opinion that we do not know enough to make definitive and conclusive answers/statements about most, if not all of what we 'know'

 

Yes, go jump off a cliff and Hope gravity will change. oops.gif

 

I say it is, and live my life by it. You can't live your life by hoping something like gravity will change to shades of grey.

Posted

This whole debate could be widened to overall natural vs fake. People are so vane. Should a girl with fake boobs be allowed to win Miss Universe ? Be able to get huge modelling contracts ? etc, etc

what about that guy that won a beauty pageant somewhere? Booting 'her' but allowing fake boobs / cosmetic surgery / veneered teeth/fake lashes...

Little bit fake vs totally fake? what is the difference....

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout