Papabear Says
Drug enhancements may be wrong but I believe some sports players don't really care. Especially when it means more millions in their pockets and the difference in making or not making the team or fighting to be a top ten player. The NBA will fight this to the very end because they know that there are lots of users in the NBA. All that Sterns want to do is have test similar to baseball. If the NBA players continues to say no sooner or later something will break and someone will start talking and the sh!$ will hit the fan. All we need is a few of the top players to get rated out and the house of cards will come falling down. LeBron ??? I really don't know so I can't accuse him but that won't stop me from suspecting him as a user.
i mean,
it's not about it being legal or anything,
it's just, it's about us accepting it as normal
we accept it in wrestling, we accept it in strength sports, why not basketball?
IronWillGiroud wrote:i mean,it's not about it being legal or anything,
it's just, it's about us accepting it as normal
we accept it in wrestling, we accept it in strength sports, why not basketball?
Papabear Says
Come on IronWillGiroud are you comparing wrestling with Basketball?? We all know wrestling is fixed!! It ain't a real sport. The day when basketball becomes like wrestling it will be the end of the NBA and the begining of fake B ball.
I really don't see a good argument against ped use.
The ONLY question is how to transition
IronWillGiroud wrote:I really don't see a good argument against ped use.The ONLY question is how to transition
i look at pro athletes as guys who are doing things far above what many of us who played organized sports could achieve. throw in peds and that starts to change things in my view.
this article captures some of my views...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/wr...
in articular this part
Elite spectator sports are supposed to be about the very best that humans can do, not the best drugs we can create. One of the problems with the Mark McGwire/Sammy Sosa home run races, in retrospect, is that they didn't even seem real then. They seemed like something George Lucas created.
At the time, that made McGwire and Sosa compelling. But if you knew then what you know now, would there be any thrill in watching them break Roger Maris' record? Or would it all seem artificial -- which, of course, it probably was?
Dunking from the foul line was mind-boggling when Julius Erving did it, but it's only mildly entertaining when the Phoenix Suns' Gorilla does it, because the Gorilla uses a trampoline. Do we really want our best athletes to use pharmaceutical trampolines? Would that make this more fun?
For all the talk about steroids in sports, the fact is that we never, ever absolutely KNOW that an athlete is on drugs when we watch live. Sometimes we guess and sometimes we're right. But I think this would be a very different experience if we knew they were all juicing.
sidsanders wrote:IronWillGiroud wrote:I really don't see a good argument against ped use.The ONLY question is how to transition
i look at pro athletes as guys who are doing things far above what many of us who played organized sports could achieve. throw in peds and that starts to change things in my view.
this article captures some of my views...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/wr...
in articular this part
Elite spectator sports are supposed to be about the very best that humans can do, not the best drugs we can create. One of the problems with the Mark McGwire/Sammy Sosa home run races, in retrospect, is that they didn't even seem real then. They seemed like something George Lucas created.
At the time, that made McGwire and Sosa compelling. But if you knew then what you know now, would there be any thrill in watching them break Roger Maris' record? Or would it all seem artificial -- which, of course, it probably was?
Dunking from the foul line was mind-boggling when Julius Erving did it, but it's only mildly entertaining when the Phoenix Suns' Gorilla does it, because the Gorilla uses a trampoline. Do we really want our best athletes to use pharmaceutical trampolines? Would that make this more fun?
For all the talk about steroids in sports, the fact is that we never, ever absolutely KNOW that an athlete is on drugs when we watch live. Sometimes we guess and sometimes we're right. But I think this would be a very different experience if we knew they were all juicing.
I'm with you. I want to see guys stretch the limits of human ability and endurance.
sidsanders wrote:IronWillGiroud wrote:I really don't see a good argument against ped use.The ONLY question is how to transition
i look at pro athletes as guys who are doing things far above what many of us who played organized sports could achieve. throw in peds and that starts to change things in my view.
this article captures some of my views...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/wr...
in articular this part
Elite spectator sports are supposed to be about the very best that humans can do, not the best drugs we can create. One of the problems with the Mark McGwire/Sammy Sosa home run races, in retrospect, is that they didn't even seem real then. They seemed like something George Lucas created.
At the time, that made McGwire and Sosa compelling. But if you knew then what you know now, would there be any thrill in watching them break Roger Maris' record? Or would it all seem artificial -- which, of course, it probably was?
Dunking from the foul line was mind-boggling when Julius Erving did it, but it's only mildly entertaining when the Phoenix Suns' Gorilla does it, because the Gorilla uses a trampoline. Do we really want our best athletes to use pharmaceutical trampolines? Would that make this more fun?
For all the talk about steroids in sports, the fact is that we never, ever absolutely KNOW that an athlete is on drugs when we watch live. Sometimes we guess and sometimes we're right. But I think this would be a very different experience if we knew they were all juicing.
Completely agree Sid...
But IWG is hilarious though. Next stop... ROBOTS
sid durzo skeng,
the drugs, they can't make a lebron out of a chris dudley,
the man still has to go out there and drop buckets, and drugs only enhance his innate ability they do not create ability out of thin air!
IronWillGiroud wrote:sid durzo skeng,the drugs, they can't make a lebron out of a chris dudley,
the man still has to go out there and drop buckets, and drugs only enhance his innate ability they do not create ability out of thin air!
I think Sids quote answers/counters all arguments advocating drugs in sports..
IronWillGiroud wrote:Dagger wrote:IronWillGiroud wrote:you're clueless on steroids or performance enhancing drugs, and you're clueless on drug use in general,
there is a time and place for everything,
for example: your time to discuss stuff you don't know anything about is not in this thread.
Unsurprisingly, you have misinterpreted my point. I do not care whether...harmful to players or not, I am saying that the league does not want to be legally connected with any problems steroid use may create
i already addressed that in op,
the bag of cats that comes with something being against the rules is that a lot of people have to lie to make it happen,it's these lies that we have to untangle first before we can move on, and these negotiations are a part of that process,
you were so eager to jump on the simplicity of the little blue and green lines while the bag of cats was too complex,
i put that chart there for people like you
Haha, I've seen graphs like that before- way back on my kindergarten benchmark exam. You may have addressed what I was saying about this opening up a "can of worms" when you reaponded to the OP, but you didn't specifically mention how this might hypothetically hurt the league, as I have. Saying the steroid prohibition needs for "all the lies to unravel" in order to disappear is different than making any sort of specific claim. The way you articulate your beliefs it seems your thoughts are all over the place sometimes. Fact of the matter is, I insulted your graph and you got pissy. I wasn't in a good mood when I wrote that and I admit it was snarky, don't take it so personally. It seems you at least partially agree with me on the topic, so I don't see why you were so taken aback by my opinion.
