Garamundege Mugabe Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 I think he implies they are allowed too as long as he doesn't find out....Yes. More practical & realistic to allow all competitors to use whatever they like. Some will kill themselves doing it - like Simpson did. But I suspect genetics & appropriate training will still prevail over any chemical advantage - we don't know, because we're still bickering about moral issues
intern Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 The pros are nailed for test all the time , increased test will aid in recovery and lean muscle gain which helps, also the short estered testosterones are believed to retain less water and could also easily be stopped a few short weeks before competition and not be picked up. Test also increases red blood cell count, which is great for endurance.Doesn't the cortisone come in to help with the testosterone, too? Like addressing the water retention issue?
intern Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 lol - this "junk" is the cutting edge of medical science mate.. you'd be mad if I gave it to your kid - even if it made him 1st team rugby captain? and got him a nice fat varsity bursary with juicy supplements endorsements? yeah..  I often ask my wife if the old world values we teach our kids equip them for the future... You don't understand what is important in becoming a person of value, rather than a person of success. BigDL, Captain Fastbastard Mayhem, V12man and 3 others 6
intern Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 you could be quite correct - but if you had to choose, with brutal honesty, would you really choose an honest second over first? Â I don't know..Thanks for the chat gentlemen, apologies if I raised anyone's blood pressure with my devil's advocacy!Yes. An honest second means I can look at myself in the mirror - and it is something I have done and been happy with many times in my life. scotty, Captain Fastbastard Mayhem and Mntboy 3
intern Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Ok jeez, forget that I said Strava... It has long been agreed by scientist that using times up climbs is not a relevant measurement of comparative capability.Consensus does not equate to truth (global warming fallacy, I think they call it these days). nathrix 1
intern Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 ah, there's always a Mother Grundy.. have you heard of Darwin? What if your descendants curse you for denying them their head-start in the (human) race - which takes no account of artificial constructs like morals.. will your safe, rigid view of what's 'right' enable them to compete, in a world of enhanced super-athletes? Â but never mind, they'll be comforted by the notion that you did what you thought was 'right', in your little world view...It is his 'little world view' and those of thousands of good citizens like him, that make for a healthy society, friend. Kapenschtaten and Captain Fastbastard Mayhem 2
Patchelicious Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) Consensus does not equate to truth (global warming fallacy, I think they call it these days).Consensus can also equate truth, and please let's not compare saying that people's efforts uphill can be comparable to global warming conspiracy theories. Not all comparisons are relevant. Again, instead of just point out that my statement could be wrong, please offer an alternative.  Are you saying that the best way to compare people's performances/suspicions is to look at their best times up a hill? Climbers like Greipel must sleep well at night! Edited January 20, 2016 by Patchelicious
intern Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Yes. More practical & realistic to allow all competitors to use whatever they like. Some will kill themselves doing it - like Simpson did. But I suspect genetics & appropriate training will still prevail over any chemical advantage - we don't know, because we're still bickering about moral issuesBickering over moral issues? Morals make society. That's how important morals are. Captain Fastbastard Mayhem 1
intern Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Consensus can also equate truth, and please let's not compare saying that people's efforts uphill can be correlated to global warming theories. Not all comparisons are relevant. Again, instead of just point out that my statement could be wrong, please offer an alternative. Are you saying that the best way to compare people's performances is to look at their best times up a hill? Slow poke climbers like Greipel must sleep well at night!No, what I am saying is that consensus DOES NOT and never has equated to truth. At one point, Copernicus was in a lot of trouble for suggesting, against the consensus, that the sun was at the centre of the universe (look, he was still wrong) rather than the earth.People 'agreeing' something is true never, ever makes it true. The scientific method requires curiosity, not consensus.The only thing I am doing, as I am not interested in determining the truth or otherwise of something with so many variables as a rider going up a hill, is pointing out the logical fallacy of 'the science is settled'.Calling it the 'global warming fallacy' was intended as a joke, evidently a pretty poor one!
Patchelicious Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) No, what I am saying is that consensus DOES NOT and never has equated to truth. At one point, Copernicus was in a lot of trouble for suggesting, against the consensus, that the sun was at the centre of the universe (look, he was still wrong) rather than the earth.People 'agreeing' something is true never, ever makes it true. The scientific method requires curiosity, not consensus.The only thing I am doing, as I am not interested in determining the truth or otherwise of something with so many variables as a rider going up a hill, is pointing out the logical fallacy of 'the science is settled'.Calling it the 'global warming fallacy' was intended as a joke, evidently a pretty poor one!Ag FFS dude, you are now just being argumentative. I am not saying that because Jeroen and Ross agree on something that them agreeing on it is what makes its true.  Perhaps they both agree with it because it is the truth to begin with. You and I will both agree that 2 + 2 = 4, 2+2 does not equal 4 because we agree it does, 2+ 2 = 4 because it just does, it's the truth and therefore we agree on it. Edited January 20, 2016 by Patchelicious
intern Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Ag FFS dude, you are now just being argumentative. I am not saying that because Jeroen and Ross agree on something that them agreeing on it is what makes its true. Perhaps they both agree with it because it is the truth to begin with.Am I being argumentative, or are you?Again, all I am doing is noting that your statement that 'it has long been agreed' is logically incorrect. That's it. That is all. And I am doing so in what I thought was good spirit. I'm genuinely sorry if that annoys you. And also sorry that we've drifted rather far from the topic at hand... raptor-22 1
Patchelicious Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) Am I being argumentative, or are you?Again, all I am doing is noting that your statement that 'it has long been agreed' is logically incorrect. That's it. That is all. And I am doing so in what I thought was good spirit. I'm genuinely sorry if that annoys you. And also sorry that we've drifted rather far from the topic at hand...You are arguing with my statement and not the point I was trying to make. Read edited post.... "It has long been agreed that 2 + 2 = 4" is not logically wrong if you see it for the point I'm trying to make. Edited January 20, 2016 by Patchelicious
intern Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 You are arguing with my statement and not the point I was trying to make. Read edited post.... "It has long been agreed that 2 + 2 = 4" is not logically wrong if you see it for the point I'm trying to make.OK mate, my apologies, I am sorry I have riled you up, it was not intended. SwissVan and Patchelicious 2
SwissVan Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 You are arguing with my statement and not the point I was trying to make. Read edited post.... "It has long been agreed that 2 + 2 = 4" is not logically wrong if you see it for the point I'm trying to make. Qué? i think Intern surrendered because he's as confused as i am Meezo, Patchelicious and NelAndre 3
Patchelicious Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) OK mate, my apologies, I am sorry I have riled you up, it was not intended.No, I'm not asking you to stop, we should interrogate people's arguments it's what's makes for constructive debate, I truly am not worked up Well I wouldn't be if we interrogated my statement that "people's times up hills is a bad measurement of comparable performance" but instead we focused on me saying "it's accepted.....".  I stand by my statement that "individual isolated times up hills is not an accurate way to determine performance capabilities between athletes because of all the variables that can influence the end result", and I'm not saying this because it the general consensus  Maybe we should start a new thread about it if we want to interrogate that method further Edited January 20, 2016 by Patchelicious
T-Bob Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 I think with this many replies  and this subject matter it's time to turn the clock back and get ready for a for a good, honest, old fashioned, friday hub special... come on, those pitch forks and lanterns have been hiding away for far too long.  http://coolerinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/angry-mob.jpeg Patchelicious 1
Recommended Posts