Re: Am I the only person sick of Lance Armstrong?
 

As an example, high altitude training benefits endurance atheletes. Those atheletes that are not able to obtain such training (for whatever reason) are clearly at a disadvantage when compared to those that do have access. Is this "cheating" and, if not, why not? How is it that any form of non-natural training is not cheating?

But that is the same as arguing that those with access to the best coaches obtain an unfair advantage as their "technique" can be improved to a point far beyond what they would have obtained "naturally".

What about supplements? Shouldn't any form of supplement be banned and competitors should be forced to consume only "natural" products?

The substances simply enhance the training the competitor is already doing. The belief that injecting steroids will turn Joe Bloggs into a Mr. Olympia no matter how he trains is complete BS. Sport ceased being a measure of natural ability a long time ago. I say, let them take whatever they wish to and if that means that the 100 m world record will be reduced to just over a second so be it.

Re: Am I the only person sick of Lance Armstrong?
 

No, there's no problem with at altitude training or better coaching. Admittedly advantages can be gained, but that is not the same thing as cheating (unless you insist on the semantics). If you push the level playing field argument to the extreme, you'd be having a race of clones being trained by the same person in the same place at the same time. Not exactly sport.

On substances, not all are the same, not all have the same impact. Nobody saying that Joe Bloggs can become a champion by injecting steroids, but if you have two sprinters that are separated by tenths of a second, steroids can shift the balance. Just because you can't ban everything doesn't mean you can't ban some things. That levels the playing field.

Re: Am I the only person sick of Lance Armstrong?
 

The trouble is that the testers are usually some way behing the competitors. Testers ban a substance, so the competitors look for an alternative. One is found and, eventually, the testers become aware of it and ban it. During the time between it becoming available and the testers banning it, all those using it obtain a "fair" but definite advantage.

If sportsmen/women wish to kill themselves to be the best, I have no issue with this, I say let them do it.

Re: Am I the only person sick of Lance Armstrong?
 

.

Re: Am I the only person sick of Lance Armstrong?
 

So true.

Kill themselves? I doubt it unless you're messing with it yourself on a rookie level. I do agree - let them do it.

Re: Am I the only person sick of Lance Armstrong?
 

I disagree!

What message does it send out to young people who want to take up professional sports, if taking performance-enhancing drugs are not only allowed but also encouraged? Surely we should be penalising those who do this instead of penalising those who want to remain clean but who then have less chance of making it to the top tier of athletes.

In Armstrong's case, he deliberately cheated, lied about cheating, sued others who tried to expose his lies, and now wants to come clean to allow his return to competitive sports. I think he should fade away from the spotlight and let clean sportspersons rebuild cycling's credibility.

Re: Am I the only person sick of Lance Armstrong?
 

It sends the message that, to be the best, one has to be the best. Whether this is as a result of genes, hard work, access to superior equipment, drugs, etc is, IMO, irrelevant.

Your ideology would work if the testers didn't start the race 100m behind the cheaters. I don't believe that this will ever happen so one is left with the impression that a sport is "clean" when in fact it isn't.

I believe that it is worse to allow someone to believe that it is possible to win when clean, when clearly it isn't, than it is to say, "If you want to win, you will have to take X, if you don't want to win, you don't have to take anything" The choice is then for the individual to make.

I agree, he's a jerk but who really cares about cycling's "credibility"?

Re: Am I the only person sick of Lance Armstrong?
 

The dopers will always be ahead of the testers with so much money at stake. If someone wants to "dope up" to be a better athlete, that's up to them.

And cycling's credibility? Seriously? They lost that along time ago - they have always been a bunch of dopers and it will never change, they'll just get better at it.

Re: Am I the only person sick of Lance Armstrong?
 

Well, that's the nature of sport; drugs, cheating, bad clothes, men you don't want to sit near at work because they niff a bit. It's all rather distasteful.
If we want to promote fairness and a healthy society we need to get away from it.

However, as long as people participate, any effort to reduce the inherent drug taking is useful as a harm reduction measure.

Re: Am I the only person sick of Lance Armstrong?
 

Really? Competition is unfair and unhealthy?

Re: Am I the only person sick of Lance Armstrong?
 

Sport, not competition, I've no issue with Mathletes nor with spelling bees.

I'm in Canada so I'm only really exposed to ice hockey, baseball and equestrian events. I'd say that ice hockey certainly is, the violence and child abuse put me off. Baseball isn't so directly associated with those sins but that Barry Bonds looks to me as if he's familiar with a syringe. I don't think foxhunting is similarly corrosive, perhaps because there are no prizes involved and the participants aren't in direct competition with one another, so I'll moderate a bit and say "most sport".

Re: Am I the only person sick of Lance Armstrong?
 

Perhaps a bit of bear-baiting would suit, as foxes are thin on the ground in Canada. ;)

Re: Am I the only person sick of Lance Armstrong?
 

Coyotes. When there are no foxes the hunts either drag or go after coyotes.

Re: Am I the only person sick of Lance Armstrong?
 

So who thinks world champion 16 x times Phil Taylor (Darts) is taking enhancing performance drugs :lol:

Re: Am I the only person sick of Lance Armstrong?
 

Old, but still amusing...