That's a very timely article. Doesn't do much about the overall drug
situation, but at least it alleviates a few obvious inconsistencies (if it
passes).
> "We cannot look retroactively at what has happened in the past,"
> Ljungqvist said. "The list in existence is the one you have to
> observe.
--- edndana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> VERY few average people consume enough caffeine to
> reach the banned level on a regular basis.
5 cups a coffee a day? I know quite a few people that consume that much
regularly, and I don't exactly hang out in coffee drinking circles.
> And certainly peo
thats strange, in the 1500 the B is 3:43.00, hardly a tough standard. In 2000 it was 3:40.5, a much harder time to hit. Also in 2000, if you hit the B you were automatically excepted which is different than normal USATF meets where the B is more of a provisional thing. What will they do next yea
Perhaps I'm behind the times on this one, but has anyone used the drug
records from the East Germans to do a real, scientific study (not the
anecdotal stuff) of the efffects of long term use on the athletes? It would
be interesting to see the real health problems, and how frequent the
problems
> Probably not, but if it were shown to be safe, would we be any worse off
> than we are now? Just throwing ideas out there. Some may work, some may
> not, but we've already got a system that's as close to a disaster as
> possible. Hard not to improve on it with wholesale changes.
You have to s
Steroids are used throughout the medical profession. They
obviously aren't all bad, so if health were the only reason behind drug
rules, why not regulate steroid protocols that could make healthier
athletes?
Like all drugs, steroids are partly good and partly bad. They have
therapeutic effects
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>Steroids are used throughout the medical profession. They
> >>obviously aren't all bad,
>
> Did you read my post completely? Just wondering...
Yes. Which part are you thinking I missed? If it was the political
analogy, I didn't respond to it because I couldn't
Sudafed-that amazes me. I was talking to a reasonably good masters age group
swimmer and he told me he was on the stuff for a cold and was doing repeat 100s
about 5 seconds faster than normal and wasn't getting tired. His doctor is in
the same club and he said to him how great he felt and why woul
VERY few average people consume enough caffeine to reach the banned level on
a regular basis. And certainly people who do consume that much have
potential health effects.
And doctors using steriods are aware of the potential side effects - it's a
question of whether the risks of taking outweigh t
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I'm sorry - is there a question over whether this is a health issue?
>>Steroids are used throughout the medical profession. They
>>obviously aren't all bad,
Did you read my post completely? Just wondering...
>>so if health were the only reason behind drug
>
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I'm sorry - is there a question over whether this is a health issue?
Dan replied:
>Yes, most definitely. There is a health component to it, of course, but
>that seems to be more of a justification for some underlying moral
>objection. Take caffeine, for exa
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm sorry - is there a question over whether this is a health issue?
Yes, most definitely. There is a health component to it, of course, but
that seems to be more of a justification for some underlying moral
objection. Take caffeine, for example. Who's health is b
Following the thread:
>> Is there in fact general agreement that it's not a health issue
>> and it's not a moral issue? What kind of an issue is it?
>That's just it, there's no clear definition of what sort of issue it is.
>"It's wrong" seems the best attempt made thus far.
I'm sorry - is
Getting WAY off topic here but if there would have been no disagreement
about slavery, there likely would have been no war. To the politicians,
it was all about slavery but there is no way they would have been able
to convince the citizenry to fight on that basis. There is no question
however that
Check your revisionist history books. Slavery was
ended in the south because it was economically
advantageous to the North. The civil war had as much
to do with slavery as Michael Jordan's Nikes did with
winning 5 rings.
The only way to end drug use would be if it were
economically advantageous
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Slavery was pretty "embedded" as a fact of life in the South before
> the Civil War, and the "feasability" of changing it was low--very
> low--nearly impossible (most would have said)--but it was finally
> changed because a small group of passionate people felt commit
That depends on whose ox is being gored. I'd say it is either a moral or legal issue
depending on that.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Is there in fact general agreement that it's not a health issue and it's not a moral
> issue? What kind of an issue is it?
>
> Mitch
>
>
Slavery was pretty "embedded" as a fact of life in the South before the Civil War, and
the "feasability" of changing it was low--very low--nearly impossible (most would have
said)--but it was finally changed because a small group of passionate people felt
committed to what they believed was righ
18 matches
Mail list logo
