In 1988, after Carl Lewis was awarded the gold medal in the 100M dash when Ben Johnson tested positive for steroids, (I believe it was) Lewis stated that he was not really that surprised because he just didn't think that it was humanly possible to run the 100m in 9.79 (Johnson's winning time).
In the past 3 years, 2 american’s have euqaled or surpassed that time.
In today’s Houston Chronicle there is a tiny article (which is a true disappointment considering the magnitude of the accusations) that reads as follows:
According to Terry Madden, the chief executive of the US anti-doping agency: "What we have unconverted appears to be intentional doping of the worst sort (...) this is a conspiracy involving chemists, coaches and certain athletes using what they developed to be undetectable designer steroids to defraud their fellow competitors and the American and world public"
The drug in question is known as THG and though no athletes were named, it appears that several prominent athletes are a party to this.
I also know for a FACT, that some elite swimmers know of the drug, and believe it is undetectable.
*** This is in no way intimating that any specific athlete has or is using the substance.
Is there really a difference in the patent law between drugs that are prescribed and OTC. I thought they would be the same. If there is a difference is may be because of all the testing (and money for those tests) that has to be done before the drug can be released
This is part of my point about the FDA regulations. It is the ridiculous regulations that supposedly jack up the cost of prescription drugs. Yet, the same drugs are available outside of the US for much less and... Other countries' regulations are not as 'strigentent.' The safety and effocasy of the drugs are proven more quickly, and therefore new & cheaper drugs are getting into the hands of doctors and patients who need them.
Why then must the US have the regulations that they do? Monetary and political reasons, thats all! When those type of things factor into decisions such as approving a drug, then the decision its self is questionable. All decisions made under the same regulations are questionable because no one knows exactly what factors influenced the decision. It might have been good solid scientific research, on the other hand, it might not have been.
Extend that to the current discussion of performance enhancing drugs and you have to ask yourself what is the motivation behind this substance or that substance being labeled as dangerous or performance enhancing.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that there should be regulations concerning the marketing and use of drugs and other substances. What I am saying is, the argument that the FDA has labeled this substance or that substance as 'dangerous' is useless because the regulations under which it operates are political in nature.
"Maybe you haven't travelled as well as alleged if you think it's worse elsewhere." I have, and it is MUCH WORSE in other places!
Maybe you should do your homework a bit better before making fact statements like, "" then please explain why the pharmaceutical lobby is the largest lobby in DC."
Statements like, "your wrong" or "Again, you are incorrect" are pretty one sided and leave little or no room for decent, interactive dialog. This is especially true when the poster gets and F in homework…..
Again, your slam with hero worship is out of line and untrue. I have a profound RESPECT for Doctors....Nothing less and nothing more, and my posts have indicated nothing remotely close to "HERO WORSHIP".
Lastly, my post was anything but, RANTING.
Well, this discussion is out of hand. Anyway, wealth doesn't always have to do with using recreatonal drugs. Probably some of you forgot that China had an opium problem in the 19th century and the Chinamen that came to work on the railroads use the stuff. Now China is the biggest market for smoking tobacco, so times change and people use different drugs.
kailonj - I didn't just make this up, I really didn't. I wasn't trying to make a point for the sake of making a point. There is a sentence that reads:
That said, the drug industry – as defined by Public Citizen – still appeared to have spent more on lobbying in 2001 than any other industry, based on available data.
It's about halfway down.
Aquageek,
Thanks for the help - I did find the section, the arguement comes down to semantics. Based upon the writing it is hard to say that the drug companies are the biggest lobbiers in DC - if that was the case then why didn't the Public Citizen come out and say that, that is a much stronger message than the 'still appeared to have spent more on lobbying in 2001 than any other industry' . The reason for their statement rather than a 'They are the biggest' is because the public citizen is using their criteria ('as defined by Public Citizen ' - which could be just about anything) and of course the 'based on available data.'
Not sure what Lobbying and the Drug industry has to do with original question for this thread - but would appear to have been totally sidetracked into a politically based debate (which I thought were discouraged, oh well).
Great article on this subject from last Sunday's NY Times:
www.nytimes.com/2004/01/18/magazine/18SPORTS.html?pagewanted=1
The bottom line, according to a University of Pennsylvania geneticist: "There will come a day when just have to give up. It's maybe twenty years away, but it's coming."
