Nadal out for another 2 months

SR wrote:@ VJ, "I aked him to name me some of the performance enhancing drugs he was comparing to the subject of steriods...he came back with Viagra!!! "

What do you expect? He doesn’t understand the word “performance” refers to different things
in different contexts. The PED in the specific sports context in question is not his area,
that’s why he keeps getting out of the context, from sports to sex. What’s more
he keeps attacking your “sentences and paragraphs” as an excuse to avoid the core issues and to save face. Then comes the
best part: he declared himself the victor out of thin air. What a total farce.

SR sad when you have to lie relentlessly in order to make a point. The total farce is people badgering me online for answer they have received half dozen ways and then like the relentless liars and smear merchants the two of you are pretending like I am ducking the question.

 

See my response to the veej, for the list I provided. All drugs not for pleasure are used to enhance the bodies natural functions and responses are PEDs, not in a legal definitional sense but in a factul sense. This like argueing with a couple of brain dead Republicans from Alabama. No matter how many times you answer their question they just pretend like you are ducking their moronic line of reasoning.

 

For the one thousand time, when I said APPROVED PED my definition was broad definition of many household and prescription drugs that people use to ENHANCE THEIR PERFORMANCE EVERY DAY LIFE. But you don't care about that because like the known liar you are i answered your question so quit your badgering. Obviously you have a problem understanding both analogies and formulating sentences. Although good work this was your least mind numbing post in regards to sentence structure probably in history, keep up the good work and one day you may be qualified enough to take a high school equivalency test.

What does this have to do with tennis or sport?
Since when was the discussion about every day life rather then tennis,Nadal or poor sportsmanship

PEDs that everyday people use either via prescription or otherwise: caffeine, antihistamines, pain killers, asthma inhalers, antibiotics, boner medication, sleep medication, growth hormones, and sterioids. So there is you list now stick it in between the two human pin cushions you call your ass cheeks and twirl.

Thats not exactly a list of medication,youve just given me 7 motives for using drugs,not the actual drugs and 2 types of banned substances
You claimed you knew of dozens of medications,so what are the medications that
people would want to use for the above reasons?
I asked you to list then cause you claimed you knew of dozens so why dont you?It really shouldnt be so hard
We know growth hormones and steroids are banned in sport so why are we talking about them being used in day to day life?
What does that have to do with sport?
As I said before none of the above is performance enhancing anyway cause you can achieve most if not all naturally without the drugs,

"Boner medication"
How is Boner medication performance enhancing?
Youve mentioned Viagra before,what you fail to understand is that taking Viagra is not performance enhancing,it doesnt make you better in bed,it doesnt make a man who many women would say is crap in bed some kind of stallion..all it does is helps those who suffer from impotence.Impotence could be down to smoking or alcohol abuse,so there is a natural way to avoid suffering from it so that you dont have to end up having to use Viagra
This is just a prime example of how much crap you type all the time
Im not the only one who says this so I can be imaging it

SR wrote:@ VJ, "I aked him to name me some of the performance enhancing drugs he was comparing to the subject of steriods...he came back with Viagra!!! "

What do you expect? He doesn’t understand the word “performance” refers to different things
in different contexts. The PED in the specific sports context in question is not his area,
that’s why he keeps getting out of the context, from sports to sex. What’s more
he keeps attacking your “sentences and paragraphs” as an excuse to avoid the core issues and to save face. Then comes the
best part: he declared himself the victor out of thin air. What a total farce.

Veejay wrote:

For the one thousand time, when I said APPROVED PED my definition was broad definition of many household and prescription drugs that people use to ENHANCE THEIR PERFORMANCE EVERY DAY LIFE. But you don't care about that because like the known liar you are i answered your question so quit your badgering. Obviously you have a problem understanding both analogies and formulating sentences. Although good work this was your least mind numbing post in regards to sentence structure probably in history, keep up the good work and one day you may be qualified enough to take a high school equivalency test.

What does this have to do with tennis or sport?
Since when was the discussion about every day life rather then tennis,Nadal or poor sportsmanship

PEDs that everyday people use either via prescription or otherwise: caffeine, antihistamines, pain killers, asthma inhalers, antibiotics, boner medication, sleep medication, growth hormones, and sterioids. So there is you list now stick it in between the two human pin cushions you call your ass cheeks and twirl.

Thats not exactly a list of medication,youve just given me 7 motives for using drugs,not the actual drugs and 2 types of banned substances
You claimed you knew of dozens of medications,so what are the medications that
people would want to use for the above reasons?
I asked you to list then cause you claimed you knew of dozens so why dont you?It really shouldnt be so hard
We know growth hormones and steroids are banned in sport so why are we talking about them being used in day to day life?
What does that have to do with sport?
As I said before none of the above is performance enhancing anyway cause you can achieve most if not all naturally without the drugs,

"Boner medication"
How is Boner medication performance enhancing?
Youve mentioned Viagra before,what you fail to understand is that taking Viagra is not performance enhancing,it doesnt make you better in bed,it doesnt make a man who many women would say is crap in bed some kind of stallion..all it does is helps those who suffer from impotence.Impotence could be down to smoking or alcohol abuse,so there is a natural way to avoid suffering from it so that you dont have to end up having to use Viagra
This is just a prime example of how much crap you type all the time
Im not the only one who says this so I can be imaging it

 

You don't get it do you *****, that is why I will cut it out. Everyday people use drugs to enhance their performance in a hundred and one ways. Athletes are not divorced from the drug culture we all live in you can't separate the two. If you don't want to accept an answer that is fine I can't make you.

 

Ok lets focus on growth hormones and steroids which normal people for certain conditions under a doctor's care can use but that are banned in sports. I am only going to do this once so try to muster all 65 of your iq points Veej. If these drugs that are legal peds under a doctor's care have such terrible long term effects they wouldn't use them for regular people and their everyday problems. So the principal concern for these drugs is that they enhance performance and are therefore not fair in sports. Well if they can be used safely, under the right circumstances for regular people why exactly ban them for athletes. It isn't cheating if it is not against the rules. And that is precisely what I am argueing the rules need to be changed. If regular people can take drugs to solve their problems or help them why not athletes?

By the way you really like talking about boners don't you veejay, are you thinking of all those veiny guys down at your gym in their mankinis again? Try not to get so excited you become very inarticulate when that happens.

 

You don't get it do you moron, that is why I will cut it out. Everyday people use drugs to enhance their performance in a hundred and one ways. Athletes are not divorced from the drug culture we all live in you can't separate the two. If you don't want to accept an answer that is fine I can't make you

Its you that doesnt get it,after all this time you still cant answer and back what youve been saying up.Where is this infamous list of medication? Why can you name it?
Who ever said athletes were divorced from drug culture? I never said that,so why the hell you would even say that? What does that mean when so many people on this forum believe that there is a serious problem with PED's in the pro sports world So why the hell would you even say that?
We know pro athletes use the other normal drugs that the average person does too,but how does that help enhance their performance?
Of course we can separate the two because you still cant understand the difference between performance enhancing and what can be achieved naturally.How many times do I have to explain this to you
Performance enhancing cannot be achieved naturally,without the drugs you cant achieve the same thing naturally,that makes a very big difference
Everything youve been talking about can be achieved naturally,so theres no need to take the drugs,plus the motives you gave doesnt prove anything is performance enhancing anyway

Ok lets focus on growth hormones and steroids which normal people for certain conditions under a doctor's care can use but that are banned in sports. I am only going to do this once so try to muster all 65 of your iq points Veej. If these drugs that are legal peds under a doctor's care have such terrible long term effects they wouldn't use them for regular people and their everyday problems. So the principal concern for these drugs is that they enhance performance and are therefore not fair in sports. Well if they can be used safely, under the right circumstances for regular people why exactly ban them for athletes. It isn't cheating if it is not against the rules. And that is precisely what I am argueing the rules need to be changed.

I find this absolutely hilarious considering this what what you said about me using steroids:
"Apparently, past steroid use damages long term memory skills."
"Haven't you admitted to substance abuse yourself?"
"Wow veej, i think you are on a roid rage right now buddy"
"How are the raisenettes doing Veej, have you injected any of your veiny buddies lately?"

While at the same time you make excuses for pro athletes by saying things like:

"Is it not a bit hypoctritical for us to point the finger at the athlete and say look at you, "you terrible druggie!".
"Let us see Veejay who used or uses steroids criticizes pro athletes for the same thing he does."
But yet you do the EXACT same thing to me

Now you're claiming in the above paragraph that you think just because the drugs
are prescribed by doctors in certain cases that it means they aren't as dangerous as many make them to to be.Going by your above comments Id say the only persons on this forum who really made a big case for steroids being bad would be you and Amritia.I have only ever being against drug ABUSE and cheating
People who use them personally are not using them to cheat,can you not understand that?
There is a very big difference between using steriods to look good or for heath reasons and using them for the anabolic reason to cheat in sport by getting ahead of the pack
In noraml life there are no titles being stolen and no prize money being stolen by using them.I believe I have said this at least 10 times to you on this thread.But Im not surprised you cant figure this out cause one minute you slam me for using steriods and then the next minute youre saying,dont pont the finger at anyone using steriods

It isn't cheating if it is not against the rules.

But it is against the rules so why the hell say that? We are not talking about "what ifs"here ...it results in too many variables.The rules state its against the rules so there no point in arguing that it isnt cheating if its not against the rules
The reason why its against the rules is because like I pointed out several times before,it doesnt create an even playing field if the drugs were legalised
Even of its legal it would still be classified as cheating because youre using drugs to achieve something you would never be able to achieve naturally,i.e you're cheating yourself,without the drugs you wouldnt be remotely the same athlete.Its dishonest

I am going to post this again cause it clearly hasnt settled in your brain yet


Interesting extract from Tyler Hamilton's interview (TH wrote a book recently uncovering how doping worked in his days of TDF supporting LA)

VN: Tyler, you said Armstrong was one of the best athletes in the world. But given how much you write about what a brilliant doctor Michele Ferrari was, and that he was forbidden from working with Tour de France contenders other than Armstrong, could an argument be made that he won because, at least in part, he had the best doping doctor in the world?

DC: I’d like to take that on, because you’re getting into the question of a level playing field — that if everyone is doping, then it’s a level playing field. I think this book explodes that myth. And it is a myth. When everyone can dope, it becomes a contest of who has the best information, who has the best access, who has the best doctor, and who has the most money. That’s what this contest is — it’s a chess game of information, connections and money. And whoever wins chess game has the better chance of winning the Tour. What happens when you have a situation when there aren’t strong regulations, and people can dope, it’s the opposite of a level field, it’s a hugely distorted playing field, and it’s tilted toward people with access, with information and with money. And that’s the game you want to avoid playing. The level playing field of doping is a total myth.

If regular people can take drugs to solve their problems or help them why not athletes?

Who ever said there is a problem to be solved that the drugs should be legalised?
Sure theres the cheating problem,but regular people take drugs like medication because they are sick etc,pro athletes dont need steroids,athletes were competing without the drugs way before they even invented so they clearly dont need them to compete,there is a very very big difference between needing something like chemo therapy to beat cancer and not needing something steroids but still using something as an athlete.One is needed/mandatory the other sint

By the way you really like talking about boners don't you veejay, are you thinking of all those veiny guys down at your gym in their mankinis again? Try not to get so excited you become very inarticulate when that happens.

Im the one who likes talking abot boners?
Youre the one who couldnt name me any drugs apart from Viagra and Cialis,youre the one who brought the subject up,youre the one who brought boner medication up and youre the one who keeps talkign about it
All I did was proved what an idiot you are and what a load of crap youre talking
The fact the you think Viagra is performance enhancing either proves you live complete sexless life,because if you didnt you would know Viagra doesnt make you better in bed,or that youre so deluded,that every time you take Viagra to help with your impotance problem,you think you turn into some kind of stallion ( who lied to you )
Im going to go wih you having a sexless life cause as the saying goes those who talk about sex the most arent getting any

Same nonsense repeated over and over again and written in the now famous Smearjay single run-on style. Keep rambling on about sex while you tell me those that talk about sex live a sexless life. Did some longterm damage to the raisnettes, eh Veej.

As I said Veej, if your posts are boring and require a team of codebreakers to get to he end of a neverending sentence I just am not going to read it.

Enjoy talking to yourself, because that is the only person fool enough to read that ridiculous pile of vomit that encompasses your last post. Did some high school graduate you with this type of writing?

socal1976 wrote:

SR wrote:@ VJ, "I aked him to name me some of the performance enhancing drugs he was comparing to the subject of steriods...he came back with Viagra!!! "

What do you expect? He doesn’t understand the word “performance” refers to different things
in different contexts. The PED in the specific sports context in question is not his area,
that’s why he keeps getting out of the context, from sports to sex. What’s more
he keeps attacking your “sentences and paragraphs” as an excuse to avoid the core issues and to save face. Then comes the
best part: he declared himself the victor out of thin air. What a total farce.

 All drugs not for pleasure are used to enhance the bodies natural functions and responses are PEDs, not in a legal definitional sense but in a factul sense. This like argueing with a couple of brain dead Republicans from Alabama. No matter how many times you answer their question they just pretend like you are ducking their moronic line of reasoning.

 

No, you’re confused. This
is a tennis forum. We’re taking only in the strict sense of sports. Performance-enhancing
drugs are primarily used in only one context, THE SPORTS. Sometimes it
also refers to drugs used by military personnel to enhance combat
performance. This term typically means anabolic
steroid use in sports by professional and amateur athletes. This
is common knowledge. You don’t even need a source for it. You must be the only
sports fan on this planet who doesn’t or pretend not to know this.

But since you reallyneed a proper reference, here is the link: http://www.drugfreesport.com/drug-resources/performance-enhancing-drugs-steroids.asp

Wow, name calling already? Uh-oh, I feel the temperature rising, RISING…….You’re losing it socal.
Not a good sign. OTF don’t want members having stuff like heart-attacks reading
simple facts on PEDs they just don’t get. Then tenez will get in trouble.
God-forbid!

Ok, here’s what you do, socal. You close your eyes. Then take a deep breath, count, 1,2,3,4,5….. Then
slowing exhale, keep counting, 1,2,3,4,5…. Repeat this procedure a few times as
slowly and calmly as you can. Its call RINSE AND REPEAT to get  all the toxins you now have out of your system.

So there, a psycho-therapy session for you, free of charge. Feel better now?

SR, putting a lot of smileys and lame unfunny jokes in your post isn't going to make people think you are funny or have anything to say. By the way you both are so dense you don't get the point. I understand that those commonly used drugs are not defined as PEDs, but my position is for changing of the rule. So whether drug A is defined by Smearjay as a PEd or not is irrelevant. As long as drug A is safe and has been tested I would let it be used in consultation with a doctor. Changing the definition and rules around PEDs is what I am advocating. So your entire line of reasoning is irrelevant and you keep harping on it because both of you are Alabama Republican stupid and there is not two ways around it.

So why do you keep reading and answering?

Yeah, calling people morons gives you a lot of credibility.

Sorry, you're just too funny. I can't help it.

socal1976 wrote:Same nonsense repeated over and over again and written in the now famous Smearjay single run-on style. Keep rambling on about sex while you tell me those that talk about sex live a sexless life. Did some longterm damage to the raisnettes, eh Veej.

As I said Veej, if your posts are boring and require a team of codebreakers to get to he end of a neverending sentence I just am not going to read it.

Enjoy talking to yourself, because that is the only person fool enough to read that ridiculous pile of vomit that encompasses your last post. Did some high school graduate you with this type of writing?

Doing a runner?
Thats ok,running away and avoiding the subject/debate seems to be all youre good at....

socal1976 wrote:SR, putting a lot of smileys and lame unfunny jokes in your post isn't going to make people think you are funny or have anything to say. By the way you both are so dense you don't get the point. I understand that those commonly used drugs are not defined as PEDs, but my position is for changing of the rule. So whether drug A is defined by Smearjay as a PEd or not is irrelevant. As long as drug A is safe and has been tested I would let it be used in consultation with a doctor. Changing the definition and rules around PEDs is what I am advocating. So your entire line of reasoning is irrelevant and you keep harping on it because both of you are Alabama Republican stupid and there is not two ways around it.

Allowing known banned drugs doesnt stop people from using unknown drugs that would be banned under normal circumstances
It doesnt stop the problem of cheating at all,your whole argument has a massive flaw in it
Im only saying this cause all other medications whether over the counter or prescription are allowed,otherwise they woudnt be used
So lets focus on what happens when the banned drugs are made legal.

Tetrahydrogestrinone is a prime example of unknown drugs,used by Marion Jones prior to the 2000 Sydney Olympics,but it wasnt till 2003 that U.S. sprint coach Trevor Graham delivered a syringe containing traces of THG to USADA
This helped Don Catlin, MD, the founder and then-director of the UCLA Olympic Analytical Lab, to identify and develop a test for THG
So for at least 3 years athletes could use it and get away with it because no one even knew it existed,this proves that even if you legalised the banned drugs and tried to control it it still wouldn't be an even playing field

How does making the banned drugs in sport legal make it an even playing field?
Can you explain that to me please

VJ, I won't ask him to explain anything. Any idiot knows that you can't legalize PEds in sports. Where are you going to put dignity and natural talents?

He's only pro-peds in sports bc his guy's suspect. I think he just doesn't want nadal ending up like LA, that's his hidden agenda, no?.

Hurray it only took VJ and SR 150 posts to actually figure out what I have told them over and over again that their stupid what is or isn't PED line of attack is not directly relevant to my proposals. PEDs are drugs, and at one time pretty much any drug was legal, cocaine for example is the reason Coca Cola has the word Coca in it. In my father's generation they used to sell opium in grocery stories in Iran. Drugs are banned and unbanned based on societal norms within a given country or society or culture. So what I am proposing is neither novel or particularly radical in a historical context.

Now you at least get that your silly how many PEDS can you list off the top of your head Gotcha game is irrelevant and you at the least ask your first smart question instead of getting your needle punctured ass handed to you in an insult contest with the mother =f--ing natural.




How does this insure an even playing field?

Excellent question, but the wrong question. How has the current prohibition created an equal playing field? Are you not the man who says Nadal cheats, so is what we have today an even playing field?

Here are the three playing fields we currently have:

1. Clean players

2. Doped players stupid enough to get caught

3. Doped players who get lucky enough to find the best test beater out there


How many multimillion dollar investigations, scandals, and black eyes for sports will result in the fight for the mythcial even playing field. Please keep your response short and address exactly these points, and if your writing interests me I will read your whole post like I did this time and actually answer you. If you hit me with the encyclopedia of garbled text I will just skim through and not really address you.

SR wrote:VJ, I won't ask him to explain anything. Any idiot knows that you can't legalize PEds in sports. Where are you going to put dignity and natural talents?

He's only pro-peds in sports bc his guy's suspect. I think he just doesn't want nadal ending up like LA, that's his hidden agenda, no?.

If you are inferring Nadal he is not my favorite player by a long shot it is Djokovic. I do defend Nadal as I would defend any player subjected to the unfounded rumors and inneundos he has had to put up with. You may not believe me but if you people subjected Juergen Melzer or Isner or Tsonga or anybody to this level of online hatred that to me seems completely unjustified, I would fight you tooth and nail just the same. I readily admit a PED problem in sports and probably in tennis. But none of us knows the exact number and once you start naming names in my mind you better have a dirty test. That is it, I don't like the scandal and inneundo mill and no matter who you people would target with these attacks, with this level of non evidence and inneundo I would argue with you fiercely.





Sad all of this because Rafa routinely makes your hero cry at the end of grandslam matches and has provided the critics with fodder to question fed's goathood through his domination of the Head to head.

@Veejay...

THG was developed by Patrick Arnold for the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative (BALCO), an American nutritional supplement company.[11] The company manufactured the drug through palladium-charcoal catalyzed hydrogenation from gestrinone, a substance used in gynecology for treatment of endometriosis (Australian Medicines handbook 2011).

Notice the fact that the source is a medicine used for treatment of patients who suffer from a medical condition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrogestrinone#Side_effects

The side effects are pretty nasty and very obvious

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33774-2004Dec3?language=printer

Performance enhancement in sport is a subset of general performance enhancement. Separating the two in medical terms is very ambiguous.

Broncho-dilatory medication can help an asthma patient or a professional athlete.

Cortisone injections are an example. Pain killers in general are another example. Ephedrine is another example that is the basis of Crystal Meth.

Chemical synthesis of complex hydrocarbons and additions can produce general compounds which can provide performance enhancements.

Even Sugar, Caffeine, etc, can provide some performance enhancements. Where does one draw a line on what is an acceptable vs an unacceptable (or legal vs illegal) substance?

Moral and technical debates can start to split hairs between professional sport vs ordinary day-to-day non-athletic pursuits.

laverfan wrote:
Even Sugar, Caffeine, etc, can provide some performance enhancements. Where does one draw a line on what is an acceptable vs an unacceptable (or legal vs illegal) substance?

I disagree with those 2 sentences.

Is Lettuce a PED? We have got to be serious here. If you do not eat or drink you die...so from this principle food and water are physically enhancing according to you.

The line is very easy to draw actually. One can make 0, 1, 10 or 20 chemical formula (drug) legal. But that is not the approach of WADA and other anti-doping agencies. They try to create a list of illegal drugs giving labs and athletes way too much room for manoeuvre.

We shoudl have a very simple and fixed list....non extendable of drugs that can be used...available to all athletes. That woudl solve the problem once and for all....at least for the traceable drugs.

@ socal: "I would argue with you fiercely."

No thanks. You need credibility to win an argument, not more fierceness, foul language or bluff.

I stand by every word I wrote.

@ socal: "you at the least ask your first smart question instead of getting your needle punctured ass handed to you in an insult contest with the mother =f--ing natural."

Stop barking. Abusive language only further exposes your lack of control and
incoherence. You sound way too disturbed and unstable. OTF is about tennis. Fans
with emotional issues should get help elsewhere. Capito?

How is teh weather in Figueras SR? It's sunny here in London but a mere 7c.

Where did you get Figueres?

Thank goodness I don’t live here. It’s Dali’s territory and one
of the ugliest and most uninteresting towns there is. I wonder if that’ why Dali
had to invent surrealism to make life more interesting and liveable.

Wow, that's really cold for London for early NOv. 18 or so here. But grey and wintry-looking like LOndon. I think Northern France, Spain and UK share the same weather pattern.

Excellent question, but the wrong question. How has the current prohibition created an equal playing field? Are you not the man who says Nadal cheats, so is what we have today an even playing field?

No its not an even playing field cause all athletes are using something to compete with,whether it be legal or illegal,no one is competing on pure adrenaline alone
It would be more of an even playing field if all the athletes were just using whatever is legal,cause the difference between the drugs that are banned and what isnt is enormous.It is impossible to achieve what the benefits of banned drugs like steroids can give you naturally.

I asked the wrong question?

No I didnt cause firstly I asked the question,so you cant tell me Im wrong and secondly,you fail to understand that the current system in theory creates more of an even playing field then your proposition

Simply because the aim is and has always been to try and create as close to an even playing field as possible by banning those drugs and enforcing a strict drug tests policy.Its a work in progress,its a never ending battle,whether you think itsnt being won or not doesnt mean we should just give up
While I agree that they could do a far better job with regards to drug testing,its not this losing battle youve trying to make out that it is,because its not something that can ever be stopped or "won"
Its like crime,something you have to fight every day.There will always be someone trying to cheat,just like there will always be someone trying to steal,its something you have to try and prevent all the time.Changing the rules to stop someone from being a cheat,wont stop them from cheating,they will just find another way to cheat.

You think that legalising the drugs will create a more even playing field,I disagree because lets go back to using crime as an example.If we legalise crime because muppets like you think its a losing battle so we should just give up and throw in the towel,how does that create a better or safer environment for us to live in?
The same principle applies to doping,how will legalising the drugs make it a more even playing field then it is right now?
You have no guarantee that it will,youre just assuming it will,and the biggest flaw in your whole argument is that everyone will believe that because the drugs are legal that it automatically creates an even playing field
That is a dangerous assumption to make because once the drugs are made legal and the general opinion is that sport is now a lot more even and fair,not much will be done to make sure it continues to be even playing field.The natural next step after legalising the drugs would be to significantly cut back on the amount of drug tests-why test people if the drugs are legal and they arent committing a crime or cheating?
So you see there is a massive flaw in your theory,because such a move would ensure that the playing field is not even.
Not much will be done to remain up to date with whatever state of the art doping technology bursts on the scene,cause if theres no war on drugs then no one is doing anything wrong and no one is looking for the "criminal"
Those in the know,with connections,or money will once again have an unfair advantage over someone else who is just using the steroids which was made legal.An athlete who endorses labels like Nike and is respresneted by a company like IMG will have access to the best drugs money cant buy,while the lower ranked athlete chasing $10 000 pay cheques will be at a huge disadvantage and the repercussions of that will lead to the lower ranked athlete abusing the drugs beyond recommendation to try and keep up with someone who is using a far more superior drug

So you're back to square one again.Legalising the drugs didnt get you anywhere cause youre still still stuck in the same position as we are right now,you only made things worse for sport and yourself cause theres no war on the drugs.

Now I know youre going to tell me we should legalise the drugs and still do drugs tests and try to monitor it,I know that was part of your proposal,but if thats the case and you still wish control it in such a way where its legal within a certain limit and illegal over a certain limit,or monitored in some way ( otherwise how will you control it,there has to be a right and a wrong) then what the hell are you legalising the drugs for in the first place?

What is the point?
Its absolutely no different then our current situation where some drugs are allowed and others aren't and you use drugs tests done to try to expose and try to prevent players from cheating and breaking the rules.

So the real question is why do you want the drugs legal?
It cant be because you think it will create an even playing field,legalising the drugs wont do that,it won even change the current situation in any way.All youll be doing is legalising the drugs that are currently banned and replacing them by banning the
the newly discovered unknown drugs until you legalise those just to then ban the next generation of PED"s...how does this circular cycle create an even playing field?

The athletes dont need the drugs,the sport was there way before the drugs was,they are only taking it cause they are trying to compete with those who are taking it.If no one is talking the banned drugs then there would be no need for anyone to take them to try and keep up.Yes people take the drugs to cheat and win titles and win money but thats why we have a war on drugs


Its far more logical to not legalise the drugs at all and continue to fight the war,rather then legalise them and then still try to somehow control athletes using them.Youre more likely to have a better grip on the abuse of the drug when its illegal because when it becomes legal it opens up a whole grey area.New drug tests will have to be invented to try and control and monitor legal drugs.But even then drug tests will and can still be beaten the same way they can be now,so youll still be in the exact same position as we are right now,only now you made it much harder for yourself by making the drugs legal which abolished the current drug tests so how are you now going to control it in a way which is right or wrong?
Are you then going to create new rules or invent a whole new system in which the athletes must co-operate in ?
Would have been so much easier to just leave the drugs banned eh?


The more I read your comment the more its becoming obvious to me that you want the drugs legalised not because you believe it will create an even playing field,but because you believe its not dangerous and you dont understand why they are banned to begin with
The nature of sport of competitive and the drive to want to excel and achieve greatness is all part of the core reason why theres even this problem to begin with
You need to understand that the dangers that comes with the drugs is very real,just because it may be prescribed to people for certain reasons doesnt eliminate the risk involved
Further more,theres not really a lot of honour in achieving something which many consider as great,if you would never have been able to do it without the drugs-just my opinion
What disturbs me the most about you is that you simply cannot seem to grasp the concept of "cheating" I mean seriously,do you not understand what cheating is and why it is wrong? The drugs are banned for a reason,that reason being that its cheating,not so much for the fact that it creates an un even playing field,but more so because its actually cheating.Using the drugs even if they were legal would still be cheating,even if everyone was using them,that would mean everyone is cheating,because the drugs enable you to do things you simply cannot do naturally or with the drugs thats allowed legally.Its a complete farce cause youre not the athlete youre portraying yourself to be.Youre fooling yourself and everyone around you

How many multimillion dollar investigations, scandals, and black eyes for sports will result in the fight for the mythcial even playing field. Please keep your response short and address exactly these points, and if your writing interests me I will read your whole post like I did this time and actually answer you. If you hit me with the encyclopedia of garbled text I will just skim through and not really address you.

Not enough I think,but its not like sport cant afford it.I guess going by your logic the money thats spent of fighting crime and enforcing the law in our cities is a total waste eh? ( this logic coming from a so called lawyer who apparently passed the highest bar exam on the country)
If you think its a waste of time and money thats your opinion,but even if you made the drugs legal,that wont stop anyone from trying to cheat.A cheater will just find another way to cheat
I think I have made quite a credible case for how you'll still be stuck in the exact same situation with much less of an even playing field under your proposal

laverfan wrote:@Veejay...

THG was developed by Patrick Arnold for the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative (BALCO), an American nutritional supplement company.[11] The company manufactured the drug through palladium-charcoal catalyzed hydrogenation from gestrinone, a substance used in gynecology for treatment of endometriosis (Australian Medicines handbook 2011).

Notice the fact that the source is a medicine used for treatment of patients who suffer from a medical condition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrogestrinone#Side_effects

The side effects are pretty nasty and very obvious

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33774-2004Dec3?language=printer

Performance enhancement in sport is a subset of general performance enhancement. Separating the two in medical terms is very ambiguous.

Broncho-dilatory medication can help an asthma patient or a professional athlete.

Cortisone injections are an example. Pain killers in general are another example. Ephedrine is another example that is the basis of Crystal Meth.

Chemical synthesis of complex hydrocarbons and additions can produce general compounds which can provide performance enhancements.

Even Sugar, Caffeine, etc, can provide some performance enhancements. Where does one draw a line on what is an acceptable vs an unacceptable (or legal vs illegal) substance?

Moral and technical debates can start to split hairs between professional sport vs ordinary day-to-day non-athletic pursuits.

It seems to me that the line is drawn between what can be achieved by using the drugs naturally and what can be unnaturally achieved by using the drugs,hence the reason why steroids would be banned and not sugar
Does something really enhance you when you can achieve the same thing through a natural way?
The whole essence of PED's is artificially enhanced.
I totally understand your argument as I know caffein,sugar and various other things we use daily can have an impact on us,but so can alcohol.We cant bunch every single drug that has the ability to up or down us in the same category and say-performance enhancing drug.
You have to differentiate,the "enhancement" you get from caffein isnt performance enhancing enough that you cannot achieve the same things you do on it naturally.
With regards to banned PEDs how it enhances you simply cannot be achieved naturally
Sugar may give you a quick buzz or burst of energy but how does it enhance you enough to actually achieve something unnatural?


THG does contains the synthetic hormone Gestrinone which does have some performance enhancing factors so its banned by the IOC. Gestrinone is used to treat Endometriosis but many other banned drugs are used for alternative reasons then its performance enhancing factors
People with a serious strains of HIV benefit greatly from steroids,especially those with growth hormones,it helps keep them healthy
The argument was never that banned drugs are only limited to how it can enhance your performance
My argument with Socal was to list the so called dozens of approved medications that are performance enhancing,THG and the hormone Gestrinone is banned in sport,just like steroids are banned from sport but prescribed for medical purposes under certain circumstances
Socal is just trying to make excuses so that the drugs should be legalised,he is comparing steroids with Viagra so that it doesnt "look so bad"
What he fails to understand is that legalising the drugs wont stop anyone from cheating,a cheater will still find another way to cheat on top being given the privilege to use banned PED's

@ Socal
The other thing I completely forgot to mention,which I think is very important is the question of how legalising the drugs will impact the sport itself
If the drugs are made legal it will take some of the challenge from the sport away because the players will be able to achieve far more by putting in a significantly less amount of hard work effort and time
The drugs offer a sort of "short cut" but its actually a lot more like opening a golden gateway to a world where anyone can have magical powers
What then separates a pro athlete from the average Jo walking on the street?


How this will really damage the sport is the fact that youve opened the door to "short cuts"
Youve enabled the players to achieve unrealistic results simply by putting in far less hard work and effort,so the challenge becomes easier while the benefits you gain over exceed anything you have ever achieved through sheer hard work

Stop and think about the ripple effect that would have as drugs and doping technology continues to advance.The next generation of PED's will make it even easier to achieve superhuman abilities and the following generation of PED's will take an even bigger slice out of the challenge then the previous PED's

Looking at such a downward spiral,what will happen to the sport if we one day end up living in a world where talent is irrelevant because the drugs are so advanced that almost every tom dick and harry has a shot at being an athlete?
We have already seen how much Nadal has changed the sport,today its possible to make it as a pro tennis player with little talent as long as its substituted with an unrealistic and unnatural ability of athleticism
And it doesnt just stop there,its been proven that you can even go on to dominate the sport under such circumstances

How many players would you reckon are doping?
Lets hypothetically speculate and say half of the mens draw dopes,so thats 100 players out of 200
If you legalise drugs,it will "force" the other 100 athletes who are clean to start using the PED's
But we dont know how many are doping,it could be as much as 80% or only as little 5%
Legalising the drugs just because 5% are cheating to try and create an even playing field doesnt make logical sense to me cause you've just gone and pushed 80% of the draw to start using PED's
On the flip side it could be as much as 80% who are doping,but is it really worth it to push 20% of the draw to start using PED's when you have absolutely no guarantee that legalising the drugs will create an even playing field anyway?
I would have thought that pushing someone to dope would automatically create a more corrupt playing field regardless of the drugs being legal,cause your kinda sending the message out that its ok to cheat and that its not cheating if the drugs are legal

Someone told me you were having the same debate over on v2.....quelle surprise!!
Youre yet again the only muppet there who doesnt comprehend the word "cheating", 2 different forums,2 similar threads and interacting with at least 10 different people later and you still dont get it....
You can slam me all you want for not giving into the demands you make which you use to mask your cut and run excuses,I would much rather be accused of that then have the comprehension IQ of a plant

oh you mean Smearjay, I find it amusing when a guy who has yet to learn basic sentence structure and paragraph composition has such an inflated opinion of his ability to win every argument.

Thats pretty much a guaranteed when interacting with you Socal,but joke is really on you cause you simply cannot resist falling straight into it.I don't even have to fish with the right bait,with you anything bites
Sorry to disappoint you but exposing all the double standards in your ignorant opinions and insignificant comments doesnt stroke my ego whatsoever ,but if the thought that you matter enough for my ego to even care about your opinion of me helps validate your self worth,I hope it also comes with a prescription for that "performance enhancing Viagra" losing debates at your rate can only be down to incompetence

By the way can you please send my love to Lydian,tell her that I'm really flattered to discover how shes been secretly spying on me
She couldnt wait to be rid of me over on v2...somehow a warning from Gav kept miraculously appearing every time she couldnt handle my comments...but here she is actively seeking it out...!!
It must mean a lot to her,tell her I appreciate that

I did warn him you won't disappoint.

Veejay wrote:It seems to me that the line is drawn between what can be achieved by using the drugs naturally and what can be unnaturally achieved by using the drugs,hence the reason why steroids would be banned and not sugar

Synthetic steroids and GH mimic body's natural processes. Genetic differences can produce variations.

Veejay wrote:Does something really enhance you when you can achieve the same thing through a natural way? The whole essence of PED's is artificially enhanced.

Blood enrichment and re-injection is taking what you have and putting it back. We can argue about the semantics of artificial. What is done in a lab is variations of what Nature already does inside the body. Think of stem cells.

Veejay wrote:I totally understand your argument as I know caffein,sugar and various other things we use daily can have an impact on us,but so can alcohol.We cant bunch every single drug that has the ability to up or down us in the same category and say-performance enhancing drug.
You have to differentiate,the "enhancement" you get from caffein isnt performance enhancing enough that you cannot achieve the same things you do on it naturally.

There is a 5-hour Energy drink in the US, which is essentially caffeine. It is available OTC. http://www.5hourenergy.com/index.asp

Veejay wrote:With regards to banned PEDs how it enhances you simply cannot be achieved naturally
Sugar may give you a quick buzz or burst of energy but how does it enhance you enough to actually achieve something unnatural?

Testosterone is a naturally occurring substance in the body. the T/Epi ratio being fixed artificially at 6:1 is an IOC decision, but there are natural variants outside that range. Caster Semenaya is a case in point.

Veejay wrote:THG does contains the synthetic hormone Gestrinone which does have some performance enhancing factors so its banned by the IOC. Gestrinone is used to treat Endometriosis but many other banned drugs are used for alternative reasons then its performance enhancing factors
People with a serious strains of HIV benefit greatly from steroids,especially those with growth hormones,it helps keep them healthy
The argument was never that banned drugs are only limited to how it can enhance your performance

Abuse of any drug from it's intended purpose is human creativity. http://science.howstuffworks.com/meth4.htm

Veejay wrote:My argument with Socal was to list the so called dozens of approved medications that are performance enhancing,THG and the hormone Gestrinone is banned in sport,just like steroids are banned from sport but prescribed for medical purposes under certain circumstances
Socal is just trying to make excuses so that the drugs should be legalised,he is comparing steroids with Viagra so that it doesnt "look so bad"
What he fails to understand is that legalising the drugs wont stop anyone from cheating,a cheater will still find another way to cheat on top being given the privilege to use banned PED's

This is the same argument US NRA uses for gun ownership. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. If you can address the need to cheat, then you address the demand side of the equation, The supply side will automatically die, if there is no demand. Maybe a bit too simplistic though? In some cases, it is not the athletes themselves, but the governing bodies (the Chinese and German Swim teams and their coaches) or USOC, who turn a blind eye.
The references to systemic corruption because of such instances is stretching the truth a bit too far.


I keep thinking of Ludovico's Technique (Clockwork Orange) and see some of it being applied to address cheating.

LF,
you are beating around the bush too much as usual, dope is dope - Seville or Clockwork orange - there's no way around it!
You don't enrich your body with blood or take extra testosterone to do your job, do you?

noleisthebest wrote:LF,
you are beating around the bush too much as usual, dope is dope - Seville or Clockwork orange - there's no way around it!
You don't enrich your body with blood or take extra testosterone to do your job, do you?

Your body does it automatically for you. Blood cells are produced every day as are hormones. Are you going to shut these down too, just to get to a theoretical 'zero' tolerance?

You do not need to take these directly, but indirect stimulation can also make the body's chemical factories start producing these under stimulation. Have you ever been pregnant, NITB? There are enough banned substances produced in a normal pregnancy, which are good enough for a lifetime of supply of so called banned substances. Just look for HGH produced during pregnancy.

Dope is dope when taken one way, but is medicine when taken another. There is a very fine line in some cases.

For example, livestock practices, in many countries feed steroids to meat producing animals, which then can end up in human food chain, and I am not talking about Contador's excuse.

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:LF,
you are beating around the bush too much as usual, dope is dope - Seville or Clockwork orange - there's no way around it!
You don't enrich your body with blood or take extra testosterone to do your job, do you?

Your body does it automatically for you. Blood cells are produced every day as are hormones. Are you going to shut these down too, just to get to a theoretical 'zero' tolerance?

You do not need to take these directly, but indirect stimulation can also make the body's chemical factories start producing these under stimulation. Have you ever been pregnant, NITB? There are enough banned substances produced in a normal pregnancy, which are good enough for a lifetime of supply of so called banned substances. Just look for HGH produced during pregnancy.

Dope is dope when taken one way, but is medicine when taken another. There is a very fine line in some cases.

For example, livestock practices, in many countries feed steroids to meat producing animals, which then can end up in human food chain, and I am not talking about Contador's excuse.

What's me being pregnant got to do with tennis players doping? Next thing you'll be telling me is that Nadal is expecting and is giving birth in 3 months ...

Synthetic steroids and GH mimic body's natural processes. Genetic differences can produce variations.

Exactly they mimic the bodies natural processes,they dont replicate and reproduce it in natural sense hence the reason why its called synthetic

Blood enrichment and re-injection is taking what you have and putting it back. We can argue about the semantics of artificial. What is done in a lab is variations of what Nature already does inside the body. Think of stem cells.

Blood enrichment with regards to re-injecting is not a natural process.Its not something your body does on its own naturally,you can only achieve this through medical science and the medical technology
What is done is labs,like stem cell research is generally creating or producing something thats scientifically modified out of something thats natural
We already know this Laverfan,its not something new.We covered this before when talking about Nandrolone,the synthetic drug is created out of natural hormones in your body
The above comment you gave doesnt answer this question:
"Does something really enhance you when you can achieve the same thing through a natural way?"
No need to argue about the semantics of artificial,its a fact that steriods enhance your performance unnaturally and beyond natural ability

"There is a 5-hour Energy drink in the US, which is essentially caffeine. It is available OTC."

And?
Whats the difference between drinking that and an expresso every hour for 5 consecutive hours?
How would both instances result in an ability that cannot be achieved naturally?
As far as I know,humans are naturally able to stay awake,be alert and be active for at least 5 straight hours a day so whats the point of needing caffein for 5 hours?
Does it generate more energy and alertness? Perhaps but that can easily be achieved through a healthy diet.

Testosterone is a naturally occurring substance in the body. the T/Epi ratio being fixed artificially at 6:1 is an IOC decision, but there are natural variants outside that range. Caster Semenaya is a case in point.

Yes I know that,many synthetic steroids are derivatives of various hormones,primarily Testosterone for anabolic steriods.I believe we already covered this argument when we discussed Nandrolone

Abuse of any drug from it's intended purpose is human creativity

Is that "intended purpose" you're referring to the reason why the drug was created or the reason why youre using it? Because theres quite a big difference
Yes humans are very creative,they visioned a drug that arguably solves a problem,then they developed it,and then they discovered all the other benefits that can be gained by using the drug

This is the same argument US NRA uses for gun ownership. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. If you can address the need to cheat, then you address the demand side of the equation, The supply side will automatically die, if there is no demand. Maybe a bit too simplistic though? In some cases, it is not the athletes themselves, but the governing bodies (the Chinese and German Swim teams and their coaches) or USOC, who turn a blind eye.
The references to systemic corruption because of such instances is stretching the truth a bit too far.

The need to want to cheat comes from wanting to be the best,wanting to win titles,wanting to win prize money,wanting to get ahead of the pack,wanting to achieve an unnatural athletic ability
I would say before the PED's existed the main motive for cheating in sport stemmed from the theory that if you could somehow get ahead of the field in any way or means,it would give you an advantage over the field and a far better change to win or beat them
That would naturally lead to looking at plausible ways that could possibly help achieve that which eventually resulted in performance enhancing drugs
I think the motive to create these drugs stemmed from cheating,from wanting to try to get ahead of the pack to such a degree that it almost ensures you will win and how the drugs enhances your performance is merely a byproduct of using them.
If the motive was to merely improve or enhance your performance to make you a better athlete,then the by product of that wouldnt necessarily be cheating.
So the motive to use banned PED"s is purely to cheat
Trying to stop people from cheating is a never ending battle,its not something that can ever be won,only something we can try to prevent from happening
If someones motive is to cheat,preventing cheating from happening in one way wont prevent someone from finding another way to cheat
Legalising banned drugs wont eliminate the motive's core problem which is to cheat

Laverfan said:

Dope is dope when taken one way, but is medicine when taken another. There is a very fine line in some cases.

All boils down to the motive for taking the drugs,hence the reasons why its banned in certain circumstances and allowed in others
A pro athlete would not take a drug thats banned because its helps cure some kind of decease,their motive is purely to cheat
Is it possible for an athlete to use a drug thats illegal in sport for medical reasons rather then to cheat?
Absolutely but the burden to be educated about the drugs thats being taken lies purely on the professional athlete.You have to make sure that the medical drugs arent banned in sport for performance enhancement,otherwise you could be accused of using the drugs for cheating rather then medical reasons

SR wrote:

I did warn him you won't disappoint.

Glad to hear I lived up to expectation

Can having glasses be considered as "Physically Enhancing"?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/#ooid=BzczFuNjqN2aTNtxj8QAnL2AcRQyk4OU

Tenez wrote:Can having glasses be considered as "Physically Enhancing"?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/#ooid=BzczFuNjqN2aTNtxj8QAnL2AcRQyk4OU

Depends on whether the person responsible for such a faux pas wears glasses or not

No seriously,youve made a very good point Tenez, I wish I could prove my point in such a short,simple but yet very powerful way

I think sport shoudl be about healthy athletes and any athlete that has a physical problem, be it athsma, kron desease, or should not be allowed to compete if treated.

That's why I think we should restrict drug to very basic ones: aspirin, anti-inflam, antibiotics, and maybe a couple more. But they should be very clearly listed and delivered by the sport's organisation doctors. Not private ones.

Part of Novak's problem in 2010 was that he couldn't treat his pollen allergy as he is a mild asthmatic.As a result of a particularly high pollen count that spring, he suffered so baldy he lost in the first round of Belgrade, and had to pull out of Madrid.
He had strong hayfever symptoms that messed up with him as he wasn't allowed to used strong antihistamines.
This is when Cetojevic offered to help and diagnosed his gluten intolerance.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/08/us-tennis-men-madrid-djokovic-idUSTRE64714D20100508

I agree about all players being serviced and looked after by tournament doctors exclusively, however, it's difficult to enter the grey area of treating injuries, ant that's where Nadal and his team rule.

To me this is a typical case of where medecine should not be used. Going gluten free fine....but if that was all I wonder why he split from that doctor.

Tenez wrote:To me this is a typical case of where medecine should not be used. Going gluten free fine....but if that was all I wonder why he split from that doctor.

I wondered the same in the beginning as well. Novak said that basically the guy helped and did all he could so there was no need to have him on board any more (i,e, he diagnosed his gluten intolerance so there was nothing else for him to do in terms of doctor's services), which does make sense, his entourage is big enough without having to basically pay for someone's traveling costs just so they can cheer for you form your box.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:To me this is a typical case of where medecine should not be used. Going gluten free fine....but if that was all I wonder why he split from that doctor.

I wondered the same in the beginning as well. Novak said that basically the guy helped and did all he could so there was no need to have him on board any more

Should the same be said of the alleged link between other players and doctors? Needing a doctor in the first place is against the nature of human body, which heals itself under normal circumstances.

@Tenez... was there any sport before glasses or contact lenses were invented? Nature does not make contact lenses, does it, all contact lenses are synthetic except what one was born with?

No it shouldn't .

laverfan wrote:@Tenez... was there any sport before glasses or contact lenses were invented? Nature does not make contact lenses, does it, all contact lenses are synthetic except what one was born with?

But seriously, to me good sight is a very important condition of being a tennis athlete. The fact that Federer could even see the strings of his racquet being distorted by the ball while hitting the ball shows how much naturally talented he is ...if we are to believe what he says. It's like he is producing his own meth with eagle eye sight. He woudl not be quite the same player if he needed glasses to see the ball naturally. Same applies to O'sullivan, he is no Denis Taylor!

SR wrote:@ socal: "you at the least ask your first smart question instead of getting your needle punctured ass handed to you in an insult contest with the mother =f--ing natural."

Stop barking. Abusive language only further exposes your lack of control and
incoherence. You sound way too disturbed and unstable. OTF is about tennis. Fans
with emotional issues should get help elsewhere. Capito?

SR your first post to me was laced with sarcasm, if people want to take a run at me they will get their abusive conduct returned to them and in spades. You crticism would be so much more on point if you weren't the first person to start the ridicule dont get upset that I am just better and funnier at it than you are.

Veejay wrote:@ Socal
The other thing I completely forgot to mention,which I think is very important is the question of how legalising the drugs will impact the sport itself
If the drugs are made legal it will take some of the challenge from the sport away because the players will be able to achieve far more by putting in a significantly less amount of hard work effort and time
The drugs offer a sort of "short cut" but its actually a lot more like opening a golden gateway to a world where anyone can have magical powers
What then separates a pro athlete from the average Jo walking on the street?


How this will really damage the sport is the fact that youve opened the door to "short cuts"
Youve enabled the players to achieve unrealistic results simply by putting in far less hard work and effort,so the challenge becomes easier while the benefits you gain over exceed anything you have ever achieved through sheer hard work

Stop and think about the ripple effect that would have as drugs and doping technology continues to advance.The next generation of PED's will make it even easier to achieve superhuman abilities and the following generation of PED's will take an even bigger slice out of the challenge then the previous PED's

Looking at such a downward spiral,what will happen to the sport if we one day end up living in a world where talent is irrelevant because the drugs are so advanced that almost every tom dick and harry has a shot at being an athlete?
We have already seen how much Nadal has changed the sport,today its possible to make it as a pro tennis player with little talent as long as its substituted with an unrealistic and unnatural ability of athleticism
And it doesnt just stop there,its been proven that you can even go on to dominate the sport under such circumstances

How many players would you reckon are doping?
Lets hypothetically speculate and say half of the mens draw dopes,so thats 100 players out of 200
If you legalise drugs,it will "force" the other 100 athletes who are clean to start using the PED's
But we dont know how many are doping,it could be as much as 80% or only as little 5%
Legalising the drugs just because 5% are cheating to try and create an even playing field doesnt make logical sense to me cause you've just gone and pushed 80% of the draw to start using PED's
On the flip side it could be as much as 80% who are doping,but is it really worth it to push 20% of the draw to start using PED's when you have absolutely no guarantee that legalising the drugs will create an even playing field anyway?
I would have thought that pushing someone to dope would automatically create a more corrupt playing field regardless of the drugs being legal,cause your kinda sending the message out that its ok to cheat and that its not cheating if the drugs are legal

Someone told me you were having the same debate over on v2.....quelle surprise!!
Youre yet again the only muppet there who doesnt comprehend the word "cheating", 2 different forums,2 similar threads and interacting with at least 10 different people later and you still dont get it....
You can slam me all you want for not giving into the demands you make which you use to mask your cut and run excuses,I would much rather be accused of that then have the comprehension IQ of a plant

oh you mean Smearjay, I find it amusing when a guy who has yet to learn basic sentence structure and paragraph composition has such an inflated opinion of his ability to win every argument.

Thats pretty much a guaranteed when interacting with you Socal,but joke is really on you cause you simply cannot resist falling straight into it.I don't even have to fish with the right bait,with you anything bites
Sorry to disappoint you but exposing all the double standards in your ignorant opinions and insignificant comments doesnt stroke my ego whatsoever ,but if the thought that you matter enough for my ego to even care about your opinion of me helps validate your self worth,I hope it also comes with a prescription for that "performance enhancing Viagra" losing debates at your rate can only be down to incompetence

By the way can you please send my love to Lydian,tell her that I'm really flattered to discover how shes been secretly spying on me
She couldnt wait to be rid of me over on v2...somehow a warning from Gav kept miraculously appearing every time she couldnt handle my comments...but here she is actively seeking it out...!!
It must mean a lot to her,tell her I appreciate that

 

Are you kidding me you must be on something performance enhancing to write a post like this. Can you seriously think I would read your last few posts. VJ I will no longer ridicule for your writing style but i am not required to read what i consider poor and boring five mile long posts. I insist if you want to talk to me about anything keep it short and sweet. I just am too busy and don't have the patience. If you consider victory the ability to wear your oppoent down with hundreds of words of mind numbing text than you are the Julius Caesar of the battlefield. Please summarize so I respond.

socal1976 wrote:

SR wrote:@ socal: "you at the least ask your first smart question instead of getting your needle punctured ass handed to you in an insult contest with the mother =f--ing natural."

Stop barking. Abusive language only further exposes your lack of control and
incoherence. You sound way too disturbed and unstable. OTF is about tennis. Fans
with emotional issues should get help elsewhere. Capito?

SR your first post to me was laced with sarcasm, if people want to take a run at me they will get their abusive conduct returned to them and in spades. You crticism would be so much more on point if you weren't the first person to start the ridicule dont get upset that I am just better and funnier at it than you are.

Absolutely socal, it's obvious. Everyone can see that, so much so that even your friend amri is staying away from you here.
YOu're absolutely the funniest and the king in name-calling and cursing when losing ground.

I stand by every word I wrote.

Socal

Why so vague?

Why not make yourself more useful Ms. Self-righteous? Didn’t you harp on and on about
raiders apologizing to LF? But you remain silent re your friend calling me and
vj morons?

Wow, speak of hypocrisy, shame on you, amri.

@SR... Name calling on posters is equally bad, no matter who does it.

It is even worse when players get names stuck on them.

Posters can at least defend themselves, unlike the players who typically choose not to get mired in such debates.

Apologies SR

If its any consolation you are my favourite poster out of you and Veejay.

laverfan wrote:@SR... Name calling on posters is equally bad, no matter who does it.

It is even worse when players get names stuck on them.

Posters can at least defend themselves, unlike the players who typically choose not to get mired in such debates.

Its highly unlikely any of the players being talked about are actually reading it here . So it doesn't even matter what names are they being called with. Its like some random person on the street having an opinion about my shoes. How does it even matter to me unless he expresses it to me (perhaps it still may not matter).So this point about them being defenseless is invalid. And how can they be defenseless when you are around all ready to charge? If you think this is worse, then you keep thinking whatever you want to.

But people who post here are actually reading it. They actually take part in debates. DO we have any players taking part in debates? So unless they do, it doesn't even matter what names they are being stuck with.

socal1976 wrote:

Veejay wrote:@ Socal
The other thing I completely forgot to mention,which I think is very important is the question of how legalising the drugs will impact the sport itself
If the drugs are made legal it will take some of the challenge from the sport away because the players will be able to achieve far more by putting in a significantly less amount of hard work effort and time
The drugs offer a sort of "short cut" but its actually a lot more like opening a golden gateway to a world where anyone can have magical powers
What then separates a pro athlete from the average Jo walking on the street?


How this will really damage the sport is the fact that youve opened the door to "short cuts"
Youve enabled the players to achieve unrealistic results simply by putting in far less hard work and effort,so the challenge becomes easier while the benefits you gain over exceed anything you have ever achieved through sheer hard work

Stop and think about the ripple effect that would have as drugs and doping technology continues to advance.The next generation of PED's will make it even easier to achieve superhuman abilities and the following generation of PED's will take an even bigger slice out of the challenge then the previous PED's

Looking at such a downward spiral,what will happen to the sport if we one day end up living in a world where talent is irrelevant because the drugs are so advanced that almost every tom dick and harry has a shot at being an athlete?
We have already seen how much Nadal has changed the sport,today its possible to make it as a pro tennis player with little talent as long as its substituted with an unrealistic and unnatural ability of athleticism
And it doesnt just stop there,its been proven that you can even go on to dominate the sport under such circumstances

How many players would you reckon are doping?
Lets hypothetically speculate and say half of the mens draw dopes,so thats 100 players out of 200
If you legalise drugs,it will "force" the other 100 athletes who are clean to start using the PED's
But we dont know how many are doping,it could be as much as 80% or only as little 5%
Legalising the drugs just because 5% are cheating to try and create an even playing field doesnt make logical sense to me cause you've just gone and pushed 80% of the draw to start using PED's
On the flip side it could be as much as 80% who are doping,but is it really worth it to push 20% of the draw to start using PED's when you have absolutely no guarantee that legalising the drugs will create an even playing field anyway?
I would have thought that pushing someone to dope would automatically create a more corrupt playing field regardless of the drugs being legal,cause your kinda sending the message out that its ok to cheat and that its not cheating if the drugs are legal

Someone told me you were having the same debate over on v2.....quelle surprise!!
Youre yet again the only muppet there who doesnt comprehend the word "cheating", 2 different forums,2 similar threads and interacting with at least 10 different people later and you still dont get it....
You can slam me all you want for not giving into the demands you make which you use to mask your cut and run excuses,I would much rather be accused of that then have the comprehension IQ of a plant

oh you mean Smearjay, I find it amusing when a guy who has yet to learn basic sentence structure and paragraph composition has such an inflated opinion of his ability to win every argument.

Thats pretty much a guaranteed when interacting with you Socal,but joke is really on you cause you simply cannot resist falling straight into it.I don't even have to fish with the right bait,with you anything bites
Sorry to disappoint you but exposing all the double standards in your ignorant opinions and insignificant comments doesnt stroke my ego whatsoever ,but if the thought that you matter enough for my ego to even care about your opinion of me helps validate your self worth,I hope it also comes with a prescription for that "performance enhancing Viagra" losing debates at your rate can only be down to incompetence

By the way can you please send my love to Lydian,tell her that I'm really flattered to discover how shes been secretly spying on me
She couldnt wait to be rid of me over on v2...somehow a warning from Gav kept miraculously appearing every time she couldnt handle my comments...but here she is actively seeking it out...!!
It must mean a lot to her,tell her I appreciate that

 

Are you kidding me you must be on something performance enhancing to write a post like this. Can you seriously think I would read your last few posts. VJ I will no longer ridicule for your writing style but i am not required to read what i consider poor and boring five mile long posts. I insist if you want to talk to me about anything keep it short and sweet. I just am too busy and don't have the patience. If you consider victory the ability to wear your oppoent down with hundreds of words of mind numbing text than you are the Julius Caesar of the battlefield. Please summarize so I respond.

Rubbish,knowing you,your ego and big mouth,if you could argue anything I write and rip me to shreds in the process you would be jumping at the opportunity.The fact that youre not speaks volumes

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote:@SR... Name calling on posters is equally bad, no matter who does it.

It is even worse when players get names stuck on them.

Posters can at least defend themselves, unlike the players who typically choose not to get mired in such debates.

Its highly unlikely any of the players being talked about are actually reading it here . So it doesn't even matter what names are they being called with. Its like some random person on the street having an opinion about my shoes. How does it even matter to me unless he expresses it to me (perhaps it still may not matter).So this point about them being defenseless is invalid. And how can they be defenseless when you are around all ready to charge? If you think this is worse, then you keep thinking whatever you want to.

But people who post here are actually reading it. They actually take part in debates. DO we have any players taking part in debates? So unless they do, it doesn't even matter what names they are being stuck with.

I may be wrong, so if so i apologise, but I think LF was being a little sarcastic?