Olympics Thread

There must be more to life than football?
User avatar
Darth Rover
Ageing international
Posts: 4097
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 6:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Olympics Thread

Post by Darth Rover » Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:33 pm

Savory wrote:add to the fact she's hidden it between her legs...
Image
C'mon big boy come and get it :D

User avatar
Joe
Ageing international
Posts: 3579
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:04 pm

Re: Olympics Thread

Post by Joe » Tue Aug 14, 2012 3:14 am

Savory wrote:add to the fact she's hidden it between her legs...
Was going to say...must be a positive for endocrine disruptors.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27165
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Olympics Thread

Post by Rover the Top » Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:46 am

I got the BBC's highlights box set of the Olympics as a Christmas present. There are five discs inside. Disc 1 is devoted entirely to the opening ceremony. Part of Disc 2 features more of the opening ceremony. Disc 5 is just the closing ceremony. And the other 2 discs also include "extras". So over two weeks of sport is split between 3 discs, but could probably fit onto 2 if they dropped the rest. Which I think is a bit shit really.

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17958
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: Olympics Thread

Post by Gibbon » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:03 am

And you could bin disc 5. :D

User avatar
Ethiaa
Site Admin
Posts: 13612
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Preston
Contact:

Re: Olympics Thread

Post by Ethiaa » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:05 am

Gibbon wrote:And you could bin disc 5. :D
I preferred pull bin. It was more enigmatic.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27165
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Olympics Thread

Post by Rover the Top » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:07 am

Is anyone else puzzled by the coverage of the hackers exposing athletes' medical records? I'm sure every rational person can understand that there's a huge difference between taking a prescribed drug for the medical condition it's designed to treat, and secretly taking the drug when it's not required for a medical reason but will aid performance in sport. After the first leak, it made sense to have reports explaining that athletes could get permission to use a "banned" substance. But then the subsequent leaks are non-stories, there should be no need for athletes to defend their reputations. The way the media are perpetuating the story is giving the hackers credibility.

User avatar
theadore
Inexperienced manager
Posts: 9728
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:25 pm

Re: Olympics Thread

Post by theadore » Tue Sep 20, 2016 10:12 am

I agree... but I guess it is news because it's a new name each time. It would possibly be better for WADA to disclose the leaked information through trusted publications to get it all out in one go, assuming they know the extent of the leak.

Although there is a huge difference, it is interesting information in the right hands.... also handily demonstrates the problems of giving amateurs direct access to raw data.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27165
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Olympics Thread

Post by Rover the Top » Tue Sep 20, 2016 10:27 am

Could WADA disclose the information though? Wouldn't there be confidentiality issues?

User avatar
theadore
Inexperienced manager
Posts: 9728
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:25 pm

Re: Olympics Thread

Post by theadore » Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:22 am

Probably.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14773
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Olympics Thread

Post by mrblackbat » Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:29 am

They can ask the athletes permission to publish it. Also, depending on how they collect the data, the athletes may sign over the rights for it to published.

Though, I've said for a long time, that the rules around doping in sport is weird anyway; if drugs like paracetemol, caffeine and ibuprofen weren't performance enhancing, then athletes wouldn't be taking them. Likewise, how is it "fair" to allow an asthmatic to compete whilst using drugs to prevent them suffering an asthma attack, but it's not fair to allow other athletes to take drugs that would compensate for other physical differences that mean their performance is reduced. Perhaps all the sprinters should complain that it's not fair that Usain Bolt is taller than them and has a longer stride, making him faster.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27165
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Olympics Thread

Post by Rover the Top » Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:10 pm

mrblackbat wrote:They can ask the athletes permission to publish it. Also, depending on how they collect the data, the athletes may sign over the rights for it to published.

Though, I've said for a long time, that the rules around doping in sport is weird anyway; if drugs like paracetemol, caffeine and ibuprofen weren't performance enhancing, then athletes wouldn't be taking them. Likewise, how is it "fair" to allow an asthmatic to compete whilst using drugs to prevent them suffering an asthma attack, but it's not fair to allow other athletes to take drugs that would compensate for other physical differences that mean their performance is reduced. Perhaps all the sprinters should complain that it's not fair that Usain Bolt is taller than them and has a longer stride, making him faster.
Sure, if athletes aren't prepared to risk a highly likely death without medication, why are they even competing? :yeahright: It's 'fair' to let athletes take drugs that manage health issues that affect their daily lives in general, not just when they're competing. That's the difference.

As an aside, being taller is usually a disadvantage in sprinting.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14773
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Olympics Thread

Post by mrblackbat » Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:47 am

Rover the Top wrote: Sure, if athletes aren't prepared to risk a highly likely death without medication, why are they even competing? :yeahright: It's 'fair' to let athletes take drugs that manage health issues that affect their daily lives in general, not just when they're competing. That's the difference.

As an aside, being taller is usually a disadvantage in sprinting.
Its exactly my point that they would be risking a highly likely death by competing without the drugs. Without asthma medication, Wiggins would not be the hour record hilder or the Tour de France winner. Without access to the relatively expensive drugs. So, an asthmatic from Africa could well outperform him, but doesn't have access to that medication and so doesn't. Fair? No.

The rules say this pile of drugs are fine, yet this pile aren't, the difference, for the most part, being fairly ambiguous. They're all performance enhancing. If you want truly fair sport, you shouldn't be allowed to take any, period. If that means you can't compete because of illness or a condition, tough. Same rules applied to all.

Or, we could realise that sport just isn't fair, and remove the restrictions on drugs. There are those that risked opposite situation to an asthmatic and voluntarily took drugs likely to cause long term problems and death; their choice, in my opinion.

It'll be an even more interesting debate with the advances of gene therapies that are being developed. Want your muscles to lroduce less lactic acid? Easy, we can tweak that. Obviously only if you're rich, though.

And yes, I'm aware of being shorter normally being an advantage in sprinting; that's the point - Bolt is the unusual case who's had the temerity to learn to sprint AND have the physical advantages a longer stride provide. The cheek of it.

Michael Phelps would be an even better example, not only does he have the arm span of a man four inches taller than him, he naturally holds more oxygen in his blood (to the levels other athletes would reach taking EPO) AND produces a third of the lactic acid a "normal" person does. The cheek of it!

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27165
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Olympics Thread

Post by Rover the Top » Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:38 am

mrblackbat wrote:
Rover the Top wrote: Sure, if athletes aren't prepared to risk a highly likely death without medication, why are they even competing? :yeahright: It's 'fair' to let athletes take drugs that manage health issues that affect their daily lives in general, not just when they're competing. That's the difference.

As an aside, being taller is usually a disadvantage in sprinting.
Its exactly my point that they would be risking a highly likely death by competing without the drugs. Without asthma medication, Wiggins would not be the hour record hilder or the Tour de France winner. Without access to the relatively expensive drugs. So, an asthmatic from Africa could well outperform him, but doesn't have access to that medication and so doesn't. Fair? No.
Cry me a river. The athlete from Africa may not have the access to technology, training facilities, funding, etc. too. The world isn't fair, what are you going to do, ban all economic and geographic differences too?

The point you don't seem to be grasping is that people with illnesses don't take medicine to improve their sporting performance. They need the medicine whether they compete or not, just to live their lives. If you want to pick apart the science about which medicines should be included, feel free. I suspect better qualified people than you or I have made the decisions. But it's absurd to suggest any athlete who has a short term illness should suffer untreated if they want to resume their career when they get better. It's absurd to say anyone with a more chronic condition should effectively be banned from all sport because they can't live a normal life without medication. If you take an elitist attitude that sport is only for those with perfect health, you'll find you don't have any competitors. It's logical and common sense to have exemptions.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14773
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Olympics Thread

Post by mrblackbat » Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:19 pm

Rover the Top wrote:
mrblackbat wrote:
Rover the Top wrote: Sure, if athletes aren't prepared to risk a highly likely death without medication, why are they even competing? :yeahright: It's 'fair' to let athletes take drugs that manage health issues that affect their daily lives in general, not just when they're competing. That's the difference.

As an aside, being taller is usually a disadvantage in sprinting.
Its exactly my point that they would be risking a highly likely death by competing without the drugs. Without asthma medication, Wiggins would not be the hour record hilder or the Tour de France winner. Without access to the relatively expensive drugs. So, an asthmatic from Africa could well outperform him, but doesn't have access to that medication and so doesn't. Fair? No.
Cry me a river. The athlete from Africa may not have the access to technology, training facilities, funding, etc. too. The world isn't fair, what are you going to do, ban all economic and geographic differences too?

The point you don't seem to be grasping is that people with illnesses don't take medicine to improve their sporting performance. They need the medicine whether they compete or not, just to live their lives. If you want to pick apart the science about which medicines should be included, feel free. I suspect better qualified people than you or I have made the decisions. But it's absurd to suggest any athlete who has a short term illness should suffer untreated if they want to resume their career when they get better. It's absurd to say anyone with a more chronic condition should effectively be banned from all sport because they can't live a normal life without medication. If you take an elitist attitude that sport is only for those with perfect health, you'll find you don't have any competitors. It's logical and common sense to have exemptions.
Yes, the world isn't fair; that's my point: why is it ok for someone ill to do something to enable them to compete, when other problems are left being unresolved. So what if they're ill; we're after fairness.

And without the medicine, they wouldn't be able to compete. Much like most cyclist would be unable to complete a three week tour without painkillers.

But you seem to be thinking that I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to; which I'm not. I'm simply saying that the same rules should be applied: if they can take that medication, then so should any athlete.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27165
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Olympics Thread

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Sep 22, 2016 8:43 am

So your idea of fairness is not solving a solvable issue until all other unsolved issues are sorted? Curious.

The same rules are being applied to all athletes. If they need a specific medicine for a condition, they can ask permission to take it. They don't have permission to abuse drugs they don't need. As it generally works in every day life. Unless you've got some weird notion that the consequences of taking a drug to combat the medical condition it was designed for are identical to taking that drug when you don't have the symptoms it treats, then there's no issue.

Post Reply