Dara just one the national title in the 100M Freestyle in 54.4 at the ripe old age of 40. Simply Incredible. :applaud: :woot:
If that's not inspiring I don't know what is.
Aren't you the one who believes everything Big Mac says. I think he would love to train you at no charge. Don't let him get behind you he may tell you it is Vitamin B. I think you would believe him like some of the congressmen.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Big Mac is Mark McGwire but I think you mean Brian McNamee, Roger Clemen's personal trainer, who you have accused of hearsay by saying he personally injected Roger with the juice.
Clemens admitted he gave himself shots of B12, at his mother's urging.
Did you watch or read the testimony?
So, JMiller, how do you explain any athlete doping?
I don't think my comment was out of context at all. You would think that people would do things in their lives to stay healthy, but the fact is many do not. Athletes are not necessarily an exception to this.
Caring about your sport is one thing, but how can a person spend their whole life training, being healthy, just to ignore the risks of substance abuse?
Beats me, ask Floyd.
As an athlete you care about your body, and your long-term health.
You also care about winning. The balance between the two is what leads some to cheat, and others not to.
I have no proof, it seems highly suspect for 40 year old woman to be that strong cut and fast, we all know that many dopers have found ways to slip around testing positive.
I have no proof, it seems highly suspect for 40 year old woman to be that strong cut and fast, we all know that many dopers have found ways to slip around testing positive.
I suspect that Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens doped, the fact that I don't like either of them makes them more suspect in my mind, but just because I suspect them does not make them guilty.
Shouldn't these athletes be presumed innocent until they are proven guilty? That requires a leap of faith :angel:(or naivete in some people's eyes). I am mostly playing devil's advocate because in the NSR thread about Clemens, I chided George for defending Clemens. I like Dara, so it is easier for me to believe she is innocent than it is for me to believe Clemens is innocent (only because he abandoned the RedSox for the maney in Toronto)!
Are we back to this loophole quagmire? Why not give the girl some credit, she's training appropriately for her events.
The point is that a negative test means nothing. I posted an article from the Sporting News (August 19,2002) on another thread. The author lists the following possibilities when a test is negative:
1) The athlete doesn't use steroids.
2) He uses steroids daily but with a masking agent.
3) He uses steroids, but all traces are flushed out of his system within two or three days.
4) He uses a steroid recipe fashioned by a designer famous for undetectable potions.
5) He used steroids as training aids two years ago, bulked up, kept buff with madman workouts and now needs a juice refill only every January.
6) He uses human growth hormone, or insulin-like growth factor I. These replicate steroid enhancement, but no test exists for them.
Gull,
You're dead on.
Testing negative only means you've weeded out certain potential scenarios of drug use. It doesn't mean a lot these days.
Also, until there is blood testing at all US nationals and FINA events the results will remain less than accurate. Even with blood testing, there will be cheaters that remain a few years ahead of the game.
Mr. Geochuck,
Your logic is ostrich like in its approach. You would not even question the biceps on a woman like Rebecca Gusmoa until she failed her drug test. That's pathetic.......
images.google.com/imgres
John Smith
