Bulgaria withdraws weightlifters from Olympics

[takeahnase]

A few things:
1. There are a few key differences between murder/pedophilia and steroid/drugs: murder and pedophilia are not profitable, nor are they victimless. Drugs and steroids are at worst self destructive, at best harmless, they do not deserve to be classified along with violent crimes. The driving factors are completely different and thus should be regulated differently by the government.

2. Many drugs should be legal as well, it makes sense fiscally, logically, and ethically. Drug trafficking is a direct and very important factor in the crime rate. If you use the prohibition as an example, we could expect to see a HUGE decrease in crime based on legalization of many types of drugs, as well as a huge net profit to our government from the reduction in costs (DEA, Prisons, etc) and increase in tax revenue. I could write a dissertation on the negative effects of the drug war.

If you could not tell, I am pretty staunchly against laws designed to "protect people from themselves." We don't need a nanny state thank you, how bout people man up and take some responsibility for their own actions?

You misunderstood me. My point was that many people apparently cite the fact that it is difficult to enforce anti-drugs laws as a reason why drug laws should be withdrawn. To me, this makes little sense. I don't agree with most drugs being illegal and I have no issues with drugs in sports being allowed. However, this is because I believe in the freedoms you discuss. I do disagree with legalizing anything on the basis of it being too expensive to enforce the respective laws, if we would like to uphold the law in principle.

 

[takeahnase]

edit

 

[Chaos Mitten**]

I like to engage in arguments over petty details, especially when I agree on a fundamental level with my opponent's position.

 

[takeahnase]

Working on my brown belt...

 

[Donut62]

From this it does not follow that one should allow drugs. Either you think that performance enhancing drugs are fine and should be allowed, or not, you shouldn't allow them just because tests will never be perfect. By that logic, you could allow anything, you will never catch all murderes or pedophiles, catch all drug dealers etc.

I do agree with allowing all drugs; my point was merely in counter to the level playing field argument. Testing does not create a level playing field, it creates a field in which those nations/teams/players with the resources to develop new drugs and new methods of performance enhancement an advantage over others. That advantage would exist either with or without testing. The drugs themselves are not necessarily better than one another, it's just a matter of modifying existing compounds in such a manner that they don't show up in testing. Throw away the testing, and we have 12 badass Bulgarians throwing up big weights. That's the only difference.

 

[Donut62]

My point above doesn't refute Tak's point at all. So in short, Tak sucks.

 

[stewy37]

Why bother when the vast majority of the athletes are doing it?

Bigger Faster Stronger was a great film. Go see it.

I'd like to, but I have to wait for the DVD.

 

[Mark Limbaga]

When medals and millions of dollars are at stake, people will do whatever it takes to win.

I just feel bad that the Bu;garians are taking the blow since they're a poor country.

Hopefully things can be fixed so that olympians either

a) are alowed to use certain drugs

b) improve the doping test so that the latest drugs can be detected.

but then, b is harder to achieve since the guys making these drugs move pretty fast

 

[Dirty Holt]

i dont think you guys understand how WADA conducts and interprets testing involving anabolic agents. they test for specific compounds, but leave themselves open to anything. it states directly in the athlete pamphlet that
WADA and USADA distribute to all athletes that any compound that raises testosterone past a certain level will net you a failed test. the CSAC setting a level og 6ng of test in a body is around 8 times the limit that WADA allows. Designer steroids are something for american pro sports. they get nailed in amateur international competition.

 

[Donut62]

i dont think you guys understand how WADA conducts and interprets testing involving anabolic agents. they test for specific compounds, but leave themselves open to anything. it states directly in the athlete pamphlet that
WADA and USADA distribute to all athletes that any compound that raises testosterone past a certain level will net you a failed test. the CSAC setting a level og 6ng of test in a body is around 8 times the limit that WADA allows. Designer steroids are something for american pro sports. they get nailed in amateur international competition.

Jesus Christ, if you have no idea what the hell you are talking about, why even say anything? a) Not all compounds raise testosterone. b) They test for a ratio of test to epitest, not for a rise in test or free test. c) CSAC has a limit of 6ng/ml of nandrolone ****bolites in urine, which indicates the use of nandrolone. That is 3 times higher than the WADA limit of 2ng/ml. d) Are you fucking serious? Did you ever hear of BALCO? The would never have got caught if Victor Conte paid his bills.

 

[Chas]

I like the idea of a level playing field. One where everyone has the same advantages.

Communist.

 

[Gary Peters]

It's easy to keep steroids banned from sports. You simply ban the person from participating for life if they are caught. If you train your entire life I doubt you are going to risk getting caught and never being able to compete again. But the world wants bigger, faster, stronger, athletes so it never happens. Look at Sean Sherk he got a slap on the wrist and a 1 year suspension. All that did was help him narrow down what we shouldnt take.

 

[IronMaidenfan#1]

What a disgrace. I still think that they should have sent some clean lifters over to compete though, afterall it's not fair to punish the innocent because of the guilty, it's every athletes dream to compete in the Olympics. It's a shame that controversy has been created yet again.

 

[oxcart]

Even if you allowed everything, it wouldn't be a level playing field. Taking drugs and providing athletes with medical care and monitoring isn't cheap. Some countries would spend big, some wouldn't.

This olympic gold was brought to you by [insert big pharma company].

 

[Cactot]

Even if you allowed everything, it wouldn't be a level playing field. Taking drugs and providing athletes with medical care and monitoring isn't cheap. Some countries would spend big, some wouldn't.

This olympic gold was brought to you by [insert big pharma company].

Not really a good argument, athletes from pretty much every competitive nation in any major event are pretty much constantly under medical supervision, that would not change in the slightest. The drugs that are currently illegal (aka easy to detect, like Dianabol and Winztrol) work extremely well and are quite cheap to manufacture, their downside as far as athletic competition is their ease of detection. The high dollar substances are typically not any more powerful as performance enhancers, they are just hard/impossible to detect through traditional means. Any country worth its salt will be doing everything else anyhow, and there is no way you could convince me that $200 worth of anabolics per athlete is going to bankrupt any nation.

 

[Cactot]

double post... damnit

 

[oxcart]

Not really a good argument, athletes from pretty much every competitive nation in any major event are pretty much constantly under medical supervision, that would not change in the slightest. The drugs that are currently illegal (aka easy to detect, like Dianabol and Winztrol) work extremely well and are quite cheap to manufacture, their downside as far as athletic competition is their ease of detection. The high dollar substances are typically not any more powerful as performance enhancers, they are just hard/impossible to detect through traditional means. Any country worth its salt will be doing everything else anyhow, and there is no way you could convince me that $200 worth of anabolics per athlete is going to bankrupt any nation.

If you were allowed to take anything you wish, there would be more money pumped into pharma research and actively trying to develop better and better drugs. Gene therapy is another one. And I know that there's already money in it, but if it was legal the money spent would rise immesurably. Not every country will invest the same time and money into it.

 

[JinKazama]

that sucks

 

[B3rserk3R]

2. Many drugs should be legal as well, it makes sense fiscally, logically, and ethically. Drug trafficking is a direct and very important factor in the crime rate. If you use the prohibition as an example, we could expect to see a HUGE decrease in crime based on legalization of many types of drugs, as well as a huge net profit to our government from the reduction in costs (DEA, Prisons, etc) and increase in tax revenue. I could write a dissertation on the negative effects of the drug war.


If you could not tell, I am pretty staunchly against laws designed to "protect people from themselves." We don't need a nanny state thank you, how bout people man up and take some responsibility for their own actions?

I agree completely, but as someone who lives in a state where EVERYONE has to wear a seatbelt by law (not that I don't think people should, but I don' think it should be law), we seem to be always heading in the opposite direction.

 

[JPC]

A few things:
1. There are a few key differences between murder/pedophilia and steroid/drugs: murder and pedophilia are not profitable, nor are they victimless. Drugs and steroids are at worst self destructive, at best harmless, they do not deserve to be classified along with violent crimes. The driving factors are completely different and thus should be regulated differently by the government.

2. Many drugs should be legal as well, it makes sense fiscally, logically, and ethically. Drug trafficking is a direct and very important factor in the crime rate. If you use the prohibition as an example, we could expect to see a HUGE decrease in crime based on legalization of many types of drugs, as well as a huge net profit to our government from the reduction in costs (DEA, Prisons, etc) and increase in tax revenue. I could write a dissertation on the negative effects of the drug war.


If you could not tell, I am pretty staunchly against laws designed to "protect people from themselves." We don't need a nanny state thank you, how bout people man up and take some responsibility for their own actions?

I endorse this statement. I think people should be allowed to do what they want to themselves as long as it does not effect the rights of others. No driving while high I would support. No being high in public. But do what you want in your own home. The ONLY reason some drugs are illegal, are because they are cheaply grown/made and if they were easy to obtain the big legal drug companies (who run this country) would have no buyers for their even more dangerous "legal" drugs. I'm no user either. I've never even tried marijuana.