I see we have another 3 T de F cyclists found by retrospective tests to
have been illicitly taking the latest EPO booster, CERA.

And the IOC are instituting retrospective sample testing.

And there is growing concern within Italian professional football over:
1. An exceptionally high incidence (5 or 6x normal) of Lou Gehrig's disease
2. Abnormal rates of certain cancers, especially WRT Fiorentina players.

Re (1) above, questions are being asked about such things as pesticides,
as well as head injury & possible drug use. Re (2) above, questions
being asked seem to be majoring on past doping regimes. Investigations
are, of course, ongoing & shouldn't be prejudged.

We know that nothing you ingest is without consequences, some of which
may not be beneficial. Few if any of the drugs being routinely taken to
cheat in sport have been rigorously tested for safety as a continuous
part of a fit person's diet, & some things that are ingested or absorbed
have been shown (tobacco smoke, chewing tobacco, asbestos, aromatic
solvents, lead in road fuel, etc.) have been shown to have long
latencies before their harmful effects become apparent & irreversible.

Athletes start as athletic kids, who cannot legally make decisions about
their adult futures but increasingly find themselves under peer & other
unsubtle pressures to enhance their performance by doping. What they
take will, as indicated above, be untested & unapproved for safety in
such use. Yet still "experts" & others advocate or excuse athletes
competing with whatever they fancy inside themselves, presuming informed
consent (or everyone's right to be stupid?). I would suggest that these
advocates are displaying an absolute disregard for the harm they may be
doing to a future generation.

We've already seen a bit more of the doping scene in international
rowing than we'd want, & a gross excess in certain other sports. In
other sports we have seen vast wealth pouring into the hands of a few
top performers while the grass roots are impoverished as well as mislead
by the antics of the stars. My question is whether sport, with its
increasingly narrow focus & increasing obsession with records, stars,
etc., has lost its prime purpose & lost its way?

Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: carl@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

On 8 Oct, 14:10, Carl Douglas <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
> I see we have another 3 T de F cyclists found by retrospective tests to
> have been illicitly taking the latest EPO booster, CERA.
>
> And the IOC are instituting retrospective sample testing.
>
> And there is growing concern within Italian professional football over:
> 1. An exceptionally high incidence (5 or 6x normal) of Lou Gehrig's disease
> 2. Abnormal rates of certain cancers, especially WRT Fiorentina players.
>
> Re (1) above, questions are being asked about such things as pesticides,
> as well as head injury & possible drug use.  Re (2) above, questions
> being asked seem to be majoring on past doping regimes.  Investigations
> are, of course, ongoing & shouldn't be prejudged.
>
> We know that nothing you ingest is without consequences, some of which
> may not be beneficial.  Few if any of the drugs being routinely taken to
> cheat in sport have been rigorously tested for safety as a continuous
> part of a fit person's diet, & some things that are ingested or absorbed
> have been shown (tobacco smoke, chewing tobacco, asbestos, aromatic
> solvents, lead in road fuel, etc.) have been shown to have long
> latencies before their harmful effects become apparent & irreversible.
>
> Athletes start as athletic kids, who cannot legally make decisions about
> their adult futures but increasingly find themselves under peer & other
> unsubtle pressures to enhance their performance by doping.  What they
> take will, as indicated above, be untested & unapproved for safety in
> such use.  Yet still "experts" & others advocate or excuse athletes
> competing with whatever they fancy inside themselves, presuming informed
> consent (or everyone's right to be stupid?).  I would suggest that these
> advocates are displaying an absolute disregard for the harm they may be
> doing to a future generation.
>
> We've already seen a bit more of the doping scene in international
> rowing than we'd want, & a gross excess in certain other sports.  In
> other sports we have seen vast wealth pouring into the hands of a few
> top performers while the grass roots are impoverished as well as mislead
> by the antics of the stars.  My question is whether sport, with its
> increasingly narrow focus & increasing obsession with records, stars,
> etc., has lost its prime purpose & lost its way?
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
> --
> Carl Douglas Racing Shells        -
>      Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> Write:   Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
> Find:    http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
> Email: c...@carldouglas.co.uk  Tel: +44(0)1932-570946  Fax: -563682
> URLs:  www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)

I would postulate that as soon as you can prefix the word sport with
'professional', it has lost its way.
Professional means a full time, win at any cost mentality.
Professional means a paymaster who does not have the athlete's best
long term interests at heart.
Professional means pandering to TV.
Professional means changing the rules to make it more exciting to
watch, not neccessarily more enjoyable or safer to participate in.
Professional means excluding part-timers or amateurs.
Professional means pouring money into the top end of the sport whilst
neglecting the bottom.
Professional means seedy agents and managers (OK maybe not in rowing,
mind you....)
Professional means betting scandals and fixed results.
Professional means cheating is OK as long as you don't get caught.

On Oct 9, 4:43 am, JY <j...@cvd.co.uk> wrote:
> On 8 Oct, 14:10, Carl Douglas <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I see we have another 3 T de F cyclists found by retrospective tests to
> > have been illicitly taking the latest EPO booster, CERA.
>
> > And the IOC are instituting retrospective sample testing.
>
> > And there is growing concern within Italian professional football over:
> > 1. An exceptionally high incidence (5 or 6x normal) of Lou Gehrig's disease
> > 2. Abnormal rates of certain cancers, especially WRT Fiorentina players..
>
> > Re (1) above, questions are being asked about such things as pesticides,
> > as well as head injury & possible drug use.  Re (2) above, questions
> > being asked seem to be majoring on past doping regimes.  Investigations
> > are, of course, ongoing & shouldn't be prejudged.
>
> > We know that nothing you ingest is without consequences, some of which
> > may not be beneficial.  Few if any of the drugs being routinely takento
> > cheat in sport have been rigorously tested for safety as a continuous
> > part of a fit person's diet, & some things that are ingested or absorbed
> > have been shown (tobacco smoke, chewing tobacco, asbestos, aromatic
> > solvents, lead in road fuel, etc.) have been shown to have long
> > latencies before their harmful effects become apparent & irreversible.
>
> > Athletes start as athletic kids, who cannot legally make decisions about
> > their adult futures but increasingly find themselves under peer & other
> > unsubtle pressures to enhance their performance by doping.  What they
> > take will, as indicated above, be untested & unapproved for safety in
> > such use.  Yet still "experts" & others advocate or excuse athletes
> > competing with whatever they fancy inside themselves, presuming informed
> > consent (or everyone's right to be stupid?).  I would suggest that these
> > advocates are displaying an absolute disregard for the harm they may be
> > doing to a future generation.
>
> > We've already seen a bit more of the doping scene in international
> > rowing than we'd want, & a gross excess in certain other sports.  In
> > other sports we have seen vast wealth pouring into the hands of a few
> > top performers while the grass roots are impoverished as well as mislead
> > by the antics of the stars.  My question is whether sport, with its
> > increasingly narrow focus & increasing obsession with records, stars,
> > etc., has lost its prime purpose & lost its way?
>
> > Cheers -
> > Carl
> > --
> > Carl Douglas Racing Shells        -
> >      Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> > Write:   Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
> > Find:    http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
> > Email: c...@carldouglas.co.uk  Tel: +44(0)1932-570946  Fax: -563682
> > URLs:  www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)
>
> I would postulate that as soon as you can prefix the word sport with
> 'professional', it has lost its way.
> Professional means a full time, win at any cost mentality.
> Professional means a paymaster who does not have the athlete's best
> long term interests at heart.
> Professional means pandering to TV.
> Professional means changing the rules to make it more exciting to
> watch, not neccessarily more enjoyable or safer to participate in.
> Professional means excluding part-timers or amateurs.
> Professional means pouring money into the top end of the sport whilst
> neglecting the bottom.
> Professional means seedy agents and managers (OK maybe not in rowing,
> mind you....)
> Professional means betting scandals and fixed results.
> Professional means cheating is OK as long as you don't get caught.

Wow...
I prefer the other view of professional - something more like "P.Eng."
or "professional engineer" - an engineer who has been proven worthy by
the quality of their work and ethical standards of not permitting
either substandard or unethical work to take place, to dissociate from
and report unethical, illegal, or substandard work/material, etc, to a
professional body. In Canada some of us earn "Chartered Professional
Coach" status with Coaches of Canada - this implies that: We're full
time coaches for a number of years, we have a certain level of
qualifications (in my case a Master of Phys Ed and a "Level 4"
coaching certificate), I have no criminal record, and have signed both
a code of conduct and a code of ethics - which are renewable each
year...
The difference between that, and what you've described above, may be
the difference between "paid" and "Professional". With this, you can
be an amateur and behave in a professional manner - ensuring athletes
have the best facilities/equipment/programmes/safety, etc., ensuring
high standards of behaviour, etc.
That's all I've got time for. Clearly these "paid" cyclists are not
"professional" if they're cheating.
W

On 9 Oct, 04:36, wmart...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 9, 4:43 am, JY <j...@cvd.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8 Oct, 14:10, Carl Douglas <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > I see we have another 3 T de F cyclists found by retrospective tests to
> > > have been illicitly taking the latest EPO booster, CERA.
>
> > > And the IOC are instituting retrospective sample testing.
>
> > > And there is growing concern within Italian professional football over:
> > > 1. An exceptionally high incidence (5 or 6x normal) of Lou Gehrig's disease
> > > 2. Abnormal rates of certain cancers, especially WRT Fiorentina players.
>
> > > Re (1) above, questions are being asked about such things as pesticides,
> > > as well as head injury & possible drug use.  Re (2) above, questions
> > > being asked seem to be majoring on past doping regimes.  Investigations
> > > are, of course, ongoing & shouldn't be prejudged.
>
> > > We know that nothing you ingest is without consequences, some of which
> > > may not be beneficial.  Few if any of the drugs being routinely taken to
> > > cheat in sport have been rigorously tested for safety as a continuous
> > > part of a fit person's diet, & some things that are ingested or absorbed
> > > have been shown (tobacco smoke, chewing tobacco, asbestos, aromatic
> > > solvents, lead in road fuel, etc.) have been shown to have long
> > > latencies before their harmful effects become apparent & irreversible..
>
> > > Athletes start as athletic kids, who cannot legally make decisions about
> > > their adult futures but increasingly find themselves under peer & other
> > > unsubtle pressures to enhance their performance by doping.  What they
> > > take will, as indicated above, be untested & unapproved for safety in
> > > such use.  Yet still "experts" & others advocate or excuse athletes
> > > competing with whatever they fancy inside themselves, presuming informed
> > > consent (or everyone's right to be stupid?).  I would suggest that these
> > > advocates are displaying an absolute disregard for the harm they may be
> > > doing to a future generation.
>
> > > We've already seen a bit more of the doping scene in international
> > > rowing than we'd want, & a gross excess in certain other sports.  In
> > > other sports we have seen vast wealth pouring into the hands of a few
> > > top performers while the grass roots are impoverished as well as mislead
> > > by the antics of the stars.  My question is whether sport, with its
> > > increasingly narrow focus & increasing obsession with records, stars,
> > > etc., has lost its prime purpose & lost its way?
>
> > > Cheers -
> > > Carl
> > > --
> > > Carl Douglas Racing Shells        -
> > >      Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> > > Write:   Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
> > > Find:    http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
> > > Email: c...@carldouglas.co.uk  Tel: +44(0)1932-570946  Fax: -563682
> > > URLs:  www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)
>
> > I would postulate that as soon as you can prefix the word sport with
> > 'professional', it has lost its way.
> > Professional means a full time, win at any cost mentality.
> > Professional means a paymaster who does not have the athlete's best
> > long term interests at heart.
> > Professional means pandering to TV.
> > Professional means changing the rules to make it more exciting to
> > watch, not neccessarily more enjoyable or safer to participate in.
> > Professional means excluding part-timers or amateurs.
> > Professional means pouring money into the top end of the sport whilst
> > neglecting the bottom.
> > Professional means seedy agents and managers (OK maybe not in rowing,
> > mind you....)
> > Professional means betting scandals and fixed results.
> > Professional means cheating is OK as long as you don't get caught.
>
> Wow...
> I prefer the other view of professional - something more like "P.Eng."
> or "professional engineer" - an engineer who has been proven worthy by
> the quality of their work and ethical standards of not permitting
> either substandard or unethical work to take place, to dissociate from
> and report unethical, illegal, or substandard work/material, etc, to a
> professional body.  In Canada some of us earn "Chartered Professional
> Coach" status with Coaches of Canada - this implies that: We're full
> time coaches for a number of years, we have a certain level of
> qualifications (in my case a Master of Phys Ed and a "Level 4"
> coaching certificate), I have no criminal record, and have signed both
> a code of conduct and a code of ethics - which are renewable each
> year...
> The difference between that, and what you've described above, may be
> the difference between "paid" and "Professional".  With this, you can
> be an amateur and behave in a professional manner - ensuring athletes
> have the best facilities/equipment/programmes/safety, etc., ensuring
> high standards of behaviour, etc.
> That's all I've got time for.  Clearly these "paid" cyclists are not
> "professional" if they're cheating.
> W- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

My freind, both you and I would love 'professional' or 'pro' to mean
that but when suffixed by the word 'sport', I am afraid that in common
parlance, it means anything but. e.g. Pro (American) Football, Pro
Baseball, Pro Soccer, Pro (Ice) Hockey and of course Pro cycling. I
would postulate that the only reason why cycling has got such bad
press wrt to these other pro sports that I have mentioned is that it
is trying to rid itself of the drugs culture, whereas the others are
still ignoring the elephant in the room.

JY wrote:
> would postulate that the only reason why cycling has got such bad
> press wrt to these other pro sports that I have mentioned is that it
> is trying to rid itself of the drugs culture, whereas the others are
> still ignoring the elephant in the room.

I agree. Also because perception has been coloured by press coverage.
Athletics has at least as many doping cases but I think much less of an
image problem. And: cycling is especially easy to dope for, so lots more
stupid people are inclined to try it.

JY wrote:

>> - Show quoted text -
>
> My freind, both you and I would love 'professional' or 'pro' to mean
> that but when suffixed by the word 'sport', I am afraid that in common
> parlance, it means anything but. e.g. Pro (American) Football, Pro
> Baseball, Pro Soccer, Pro (Ice) Hockey and of course Pro cycling.

I don't think you really need the "(American)" there - professional
Association Football players aren't exactly angels either.

In article <6l3pqmFa57qoU1@mid.individual.net>,
Carl Douglas <carl@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:

> I see we have another 3 T de F cyclists found by retrospective tests to
> have been illicitly taking the latest EPO booster, CERA.
>
> And the IOC are instituting retrospective sample testing.
>
> And there is growing concern within Italian professional football over:
> 1. An exceptionally high incidence (5 or 6x normal) of Lou Gehrig's disease
> 2. Abnormal rates of certain cancers, especially WRT Fiorentina players.
>
> Re (1) above, questions are being asked about such things as pesticides,
> as well as head injury & possible drug use. Re (2) above, questions
> being asked seem to be majoring on past doping regimes. Investigations
> are, of course, ongoing & shouldn't be prejudged.
>
> We know that nothing you ingest is without consequences, some of which
> may not be beneficial. Few if any of the drugs being routinely taken to
> cheat in sport have been rigorously tested for safety as a continuous
> part of a fit person's diet, & some things that are ingested or absorbed
> have been shown (tobacco smoke, chewing tobacco, asbestos, aromatic
> solvents, lead in road fuel, etc.) have been shown to have long
> latencies before their harmful effects become apparent & irreversible.
>
> Athletes start as athletic kids, who cannot legally make decisions about
> their adult futures but increasingly find themselves under peer & other
> unsubtle pressures to enhance their performance by doping. What they
> take will, as indicated above, be untested & unapproved for safety in
> such use. Yet still "experts" & others advocate or excuse athletes
> competing with whatever they fancy inside themselves, presuming informed
> consent (or everyone's right to be stupid?). I would suggest that these
> advocates are displaying an absolute disregard for the harm they may be
> doing to a future generation.
>
> We've already seen a bit more of the doping scene in international
> rowing than we'd want, & a gross excess in certain other sports. In
> other sports we have seen vast wealth pouring into the hands of a few
> top performers while the grass roots are impoverished as well as mislead
> by the antics of the stars. My question is whether sport, with its
> increasingly narrow focus & increasing obsession with records, stars,
> etc., has lost its prime purpose & lost its way?
>
> Cheers -
> Carl

There were a couple of clusters of Lou Gehrig's disease in the US some
years ago. One was among former players for the NFL's San Francisco
49ers, and there were similar questions raised there about fertilizers,
particularly Milorganite, but nothing has been proved. Researchers
continue to investigate a variety of neurotoxins, especially in
locations (such as Guam) where clusters of ALS appear.

On Oct 9, 8:54 pm, JY <j...@cvd.co.uk> wrote:
> On 9 Oct, 04:36, wmart...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 9, 4:43 am, JY <j...@cvd.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 8 Oct, 14:10, Carl Douglas <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > I see we have another 3 T de F cyclists found by retrospective tests to
> > > > have been illicitly taking the latest EPO booster, CERA.
>
> > > > And the IOC are instituting retrospective sample testing.
>
> > > > And there is growing concern within Italian professional football over:
> > > > 1. An exceptionally high incidence (5 or 6x normal) of Lou Gehrig'sdisease
> > > > 2. Abnormal rates of certain cancers, especially WRT Fiorentina players.
>
> > > > Re (1) above, questions are being asked about such things as pesticides,
> > > > as well as head injury & possible drug use.  Re (2) above, questions
> > > > being asked seem to be majoring on past doping regimes.  Investigations
> > > > are, of course, ongoing & shouldn't be prejudged.
>
> > > > We know that nothing you ingest is without consequences, some of which
> > > > may not be beneficial.  Few if any of the drugs being routinely taken to
> > > > cheat in sport have been rigorously tested for safety as a continuous
> > > > part of a fit person's diet, & some things that are ingested or absorbed
> > > > have been shown (tobacco smoke, chewing tobacco, asbestos, aromatic
> > > > solvents, lead in road fuel, etc.) have been shown to have long
> > > > latencies before their harmful effects become apparent & irreversible.
>
> > > > Athletes start as athletic kids, who cannot legally make decisions about
> > > > their adult futures but increasingly find themselves under peer & other
> > > > unsubtle pressures to enhance their performance by doping.  What they
> > > > take will, as indicated above, be untested & unapproved for safety in
> > > > such use.  Yet still "experts" & others advocate or excuse athletes
> > > > competing with whatever they fancy inside themselves, presuming informed
> > > > consent (or everyone's right to be stupid?).  I would suggest that these
> > > > advocates are displaying an absolute disregard for the harm they may be
> > > > doing to a future generation.
>
> > > > We've already seen a bit more of the doping scene in international
> > > > rowing than we'd want, & a gross excess in certain other sports.  In
> > > > other sports we have seen vast wealth pouring into the hands of a few
> > > > top performers while the grass roots are impoverished as well as mislead
> > > > by the antics of the stars.  My question is whether sport, with its
> > > > increasingly narrow focus & increasing obsession with records, stars,
> > > > etc., has lost its prime purpose & lost its way?
>
> > > > Cheers -
> > > > Carl
> > > > --
> > > > Carl Douglas Racing Shells        -
> > > >      Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> > > > Write:   Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
> > > > Find:    http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
> > > > Email: c...@carldouglas.co.uk  Tel: +44(0)1932-570946  Fax: -563682
> > > > URLs:  www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)
>
> > > I would postulate that as soon as you can prefix the word sport with
> > > 'professional', it has lost its way.
> > > Professional means a full time, win at any cost mentality.
> > > Professional means a paymaster who does not have the athlete's best
> > > long term interests at heart.
> > > Professional means pandering to TV.
> > > Professional means changing the rules to make it more exciting to
> > > watch, not neccessarily more enjoyable or safer to participate in.
> > > Professional means excluding part-timers or amateurs.
> > > Professional means pouring money into the top end of the sport whilst
> > > neglecting the bottom.
> > > Professional means seedy agents and managers (OK maybe not in rowing,
> > > mind you....)
> > > Professional means betting scandals and fixed results.
> > > Professional means cheating is OK as long as you don't get caught.
>
> > Wow...
> > I prefer the other view of professional - something more like "P.Eng."
> > or "professional engineer" - an engineer who has been proven worthy by
> > the quality of their work and ethical standards of not permitting
> > either substandard or unethical work to take place, to dissociate from
> > and report unethical, illegal, or substandard work/material, etc, to a
> > professional body.  In Canada some of us earn "Chartered Professional
> > Coach" status with Coaches of Canada - this implies that: We're full
> > time coaches for a number of years, we have a certain level of
> > qualifications (in my case a Master of Phys Ed and a "Level 4"
> > coaching certificate), I have no criminal record, and have signed both
> > a code of conduct and a code of ethics - which are renewable each
> > year...
> > The difference between that, and what you've described above, may be
> > the difference between "paid" and "Professional".  With this, you can
> > be an amateur and behave in a professional manner - ensuring athletes
> > have the best facilities/equipment/programmes/safety, etc., ensuring
> > high standards of behaviour, etc.
> > That's all I've got time for.  Clearly these "paid" cyclists are not
> > "professional" if they're cheating.
> > W- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> My freind, both you and I would love 'professional' or 'pro' to mean
> that but when suffixed by the word 'sport', I am afraid that in common
> parlance, it means anything but. e.g. Pro (American) Football, Pro
> Baseball, Pro Soccer, Pro (Ice) Hockey and of course Pro cycling. I
> would postulate that the only reason why cycling has got such bad
> press wrt to these other pro sports that I have mentioned is that it
> is trying to rid itself of the drugs culture, whereas the others are
> still ignoring the elephant in the room.

I understand where you're coming from and agree but I still prefer to
take the high road - certainly I'm in an amateur sport, but amateurs
want to win, too, and the difference between 'win at all costs' and
'do what it takes within the rules and within the spirit of the rules'
depends on your ethical standards.

Yes, cycling is trying to clean up, "the show" (big league baseball)
has had some show trials but who knows what's going on beneath the
surface.
One former employer (Saskatchewan Rowing) had the idea that even if
the directors, coaches, and club administrators did their business as
volunteers, they should behave professionally. The person voicing
this opinion is an architect who rebuilt a defunct rowing club in a
small Prairie city, developed a provincial rowing association, and was
largely responsible for the introduction of professional (as in paid
and held up to a standard) coaching.
I worry about the athletes who join a fitness club, start following a
training program, and get influenced to take "supplements". It's
stupid that they'd actually take the supplements without knowing
what's in them, but it happens, and they fail doping tests. Most
doping violations these days, though, are deliberately done.
W

"JY" <jy@cvd.co.uk> wrote in message
news:407ed68f-a003-4c7a-bb98-c36283a2e6d4@h60g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On 9 Oct, 04:36, wmart...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 9, 4:43 am, JY <j...@cvd.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8 Oct, 14:10, Carl Douglas <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > I see we have another 3 T de F cyclists found by retrospective tests
> > > to
> > > have been illicitly taking the latest EPO booster, CERA.
>
> > > And the IOC are instituting retrospective sample testing.
>
> > > And there is growing concern within Italian professional football
> > > over:
> > > 1. An exceptionally high incidence (5 or 6x normal) of Lou Gehrig's
> > > disease
> > > 2. Abnormal rates of certain cancers, especially WRT Fiorentina
> > > players.
>
> > > Re (1) above, questions are being asked about such things as
> > > pesticides,
> > > as well as head injury & possible drug use. Re (2) above, questions
> > > being asked seem to be majoring on past doping regimes. Investigations
> > > are, of course, ongoing & shouldn't be prejudged.
>
> > > We know that nothing you ingest is without consequences, some of which
> > > may not be beneficial. Few if any of the drugs being routinely taken
> > > to
> > > cheat in sport have been rigorously tested for safety as a continuous
> > > part of a fit person's diet, & some things that are ingested or
> > > absorbed
> > > have been shown (tobacco smoke, chewing tobacco, asbestos, aromatic
> > > solvents, lead in road fuel, etc.) have been shown to have long
> > > latencies before their harmful effects become apparent & irreversible.
>
> > > Athletes start as athletic kids, who cannot legally make decisions
> > > about
> > > their adult futures but increasingly find themselves under peer &
> > > other
> > > unsubtle pressures to enhance their performance by doping. What they
> > > take will, as indicated above, be untested & unapproved for safety in
> > > such use. Yet still "experts" & others advocate or excuse athletes
> > > competing with whatever they fancy inside themselves, presuming
> > > informed
> > > consent (or everyone's right to be stupid?). I would suggest that
> > > these
> > > advocates are displaying an absolute disregard for the harm they may
> > > be
> > > doing to a future generation.
>
> > > We've already seen a bit more of the doping scene in international
> > > rowing than we'd want, & a gross excess in certain other sports. In
> > > other sports we have seen vast wealth pouring into the hands of a few
> > > top performers while the grass roots are impoverished as well as
> > > mislead
> > > by the antics of the stars. My question is whether sport, with its
> > > increasingly narrow focus & increasing obsession with records, stars,
> > > etc., has lost its prime purpose & lost its way?
>
> > > Cheers -
> > > Carl
> > > --
> > > Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
> > > Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> > > Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
> > > Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
> > > Email: c...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
> > > URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)
>
> > I would postulate that as soon as you can prefix the word sport with
> > 'professional', it has lost its way.
> > Professional means a full time, win at any cost mentality.
> > Professional means a paymaster who does not have the athlete's best
> > long term interests at heart.
> > Professional means pandering to TV.
> > Professional means changing the rules to make it more exciting to
> > watch, not neccessarily more enjoyable or safer to participate in.
> > Professional means excluding part-timers or amateurs.
> > Professional means pouring money into the top end of the sport whilst
> > neglecting the bottom.
> > Professional means seedy agents and managers (OK maybe not in rowing,
> > mind you....)
> > Professional means betting scandals and fixed results.
> > Professional means cheating is OK as long as you don't get caught.
>
> Wow...
> I prefer the other view of professional - something more like "P.Eng."
> or "professional engineer" - an engineer who has been proven worthy by
> the quality of their work and ethical standards of not permitting
> either substandard or unethical work to take place, to dissociate from
> and report unethical, illegal, or substandard work/material, etc, to a
> professional body. In Canada some of us earn "Chartered Professional
> Coach" status with Coaches of Canada - this implies that: We're full
> time coaches for a number of years, we have a certain level of
> qualifications (in my case a Master of Phys Ed and a "Level 4"
> coaching certificate), I have no criminal record, and have signed both
> a code of conduct and a code of ethics - which are renewable each
> year...
> The difference between that, and what you've described above, may be
> the difference between "paid" and "Professional". With this, you can
> be an amateur and behave in a professional manner - ensuring athletes
> have the best facilities/equipment/programmes/safety, etc., ensuring
> high standards of behaviour, etc.
> That's all I've got time for. Clearly these "paid" cyclists are not
> "professional" if they're cheating.
> W- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

My freind, both you and I would love 'professional' or 'pro' to mean
that but when suffixed by the word 'sport', I am afraid that in common
parlance, it means anything but. e.g. Pro (American) Football, Pro
Baseball, Pro Soccer, Pro (Ice) Hockey and of course Pro cycling. I
would postulate that the only reason why cycling has got such bad
press wrt to these other pro sports that I have mentioned is that it
is trying to rid itself of the drugs culture, whereas the others are
still ignoring the elephant in the room.



I am old and was brought up in an age when international sport was amateur.
I have almost given up boring my sons with my views on "professional sport".
Now I can bore you.

To me, "sport" is something, preferably energetic, that one DOES because one
ENJOYS doing it. From this emerged, slowly, the ideas of "sportsmanship",
"sporting behaviour", being a good sport", etc..., and the despicable nature
of cheating. And particularly the idea that it's the sporting activity, not
winning, which is of value. De Coubertin agreed.

My view is that the moment you add "professional" or indeed "spectator" to
the word, you get a contradiction.

"Spectator sports" are done for the benefit of those not playing, and
necessarily different rules and attitudes apply.

As for "professional sport", I really do not believe it exists. If it's
sport it cannot be professional; if it's professional it is not "sport".
You cannot expect people doing their job to take a "sporting" attitude to
their livelihood. Some may do so, but to be surprised if they don't is just
perverse. I can admire the achievements of our professionals, but they are
not in the same activity as we are in our sport. Why should I care who is
the best professional oarsmen (etc, etc.) more than I care who is the best
professional plumber? I competed in international competitions long ago. I
don't think I would care to now. Whereas non international rowing (school,
university, club and veteran) rowing thankfully remains strictly profitless
and therefore amateur and is good fun. At the club level, how different
from football.

The fundamental problem, I think, is that we need a new word meaning "the
activity of being paid to go through the motions of taking part in a
sporting activity". We could then distinguish between two very largely
incompatible sets of ideas. Any suggestions? "Professional sport" just
won't do. If we stopped implying that the professionals were "sportsmen" or
taking part in a "sport", much confusion and agonising would be avoided.

I know, from experience, that I will be accused of being out of touch with
the modern world, living in an ivory tower, being an idealist, being "high
minded" in a critical sense, etc, etc. So feel free to say it all again.

Alexander Lindsay

atlindsayatbtinternetdotcom

Alexander Lindsay wrote:
> The fundamental problem, I think, is that we need a new word meaning "the
> activity of being paid to go through the motions of taking part in a
> sporting activity". We could then distinguish between two very largely
> incompatible sets of ideas. Any suggestions? "Professional sport" just
> won't do. If we stopped implying that the professionals were "sportsmen" or
> taking part in a "sport", much confusion and agonising would be avoided.

Entertainment, as provided by professional athletes.

On 10 Oct, 11:42, "Alexander Lindsay" <atlind...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> "JY" <j...@cvd.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:407ed68f-a003-4c7a-bb98-c36283a2e6d4@h60g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 9 Oct, 04:36, wmart...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 9, 4:43 am, JY <j...@cvd.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 8 Oct, 14:10, Carl Douglas <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > I see we have another 3 T de F cyclists found by retrospective tests
> > > > to
> > > > have been illicitly taking the latest EPO booster, CERA.
>
> > > > And the IOC are instituting retrospective sample testing.
>
> > > > And there is growing concern within Italian professional football
> > > > over:
> > > > 1. An exceptionally high incidence (5 or 6x normal) of Lou Gehrig's
> > > > disease
> > > > 2. Abnormal rates of certain cancers, especially WRT Fiorentina
> > > > players.
>
> > > > Re (1) above, questions are being asked about such things as
> > > > pesticides,
> > > > as well as head injury & possible drug use. Re (2) above, questions
> > > > being asked seem to be majoring on past doping regimes. Investigations
> > > > are, of course, ongoing & shouldn't be prejudged.
>
> > > > We know that nothing you ingest is without consequences, some of which
> > > > may not be beneficial. Few if any of the drugs being routinely taken
> > > > to
> > > > cheat in sport have been rigorously tested for safety as a continuous
> > > > part of a fit person's diet, & some things that are ingested or
> > > > absorbed
> > > > have been shown (tobacco smoke, chewing tobacco, asbestos, aromatic
> > > > solvents, lead in road fuel, etc.) have been shown to have long
> > > > latencies before their harmful effects become apparent & irreversible.
>
> > > > Athletes start as athletic kids, who cannot legally make decisions
> > > > about
> > > > their adult futures but increasingly find themselves under peer &
> > > > other
> > > > unsubtle pressures to enhance their performance by doping. What they
> > > > take will, as indicated above, be untested & unapproved for safety in
> > > > such use. Yet still "experts" & others advocate or excuse athletes
> > > > competing with whatever they fancy inside themselves, presuming
> > > > informed
> > > > consent (or everyone's right to be stupid?). I would suggest that
> > > > these
> > > > advocates are displaying an absolute disregard for the harm they may
> > > > be
> > > > doing to a future generation.
>
> > > > We've already seen a bit more of the doping scene in international
> > > > rowing than we'd want, & a gross excess in certain other sports. In
> > > > other sports we have seen vast wealth pouring into the hands of a few
> > > > top performers while the grass roots are impoverished as well as
> > > > mislead
> > > > by the antics of the stars. My question is whether sport, with its
> > > > increasingly narrow focus & increasing obsession with records, stars,
> > > > etc., has lost its prime purpose & lost its way?
>
> > > > Cheers -
> > > > Carl
> > > > --
> > > > Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
> > > > Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> > > > Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
> > > > Find:http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
> > > > Email: c...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
> > > > URLs:www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)
>
> > > I would postulate that as soon as you can prefix the word sport with
> > > 'professional', it has lost its way.
> > > Professional means a full time, win at any cost mentality.
> > > Professional means a paymaster who does not have the athlete's best
> > > long term interests at heart.
> > > Professional means pandering to TV.
> > > Professional means changing the rules to make it more exciting to
> > > watch, not neccessarily more enjoyable or safer to participate in.
> > > Professional means excluding part-timers or amateurs.
> > > Professional means pouring money into the top end of the sport whilst
> > > neglecting the bottom.
> > > Professional means seedy agents and managers (OK maybe not in rowing,
> > > mind you....)
> > > Professional means betting scandals and fixed results.
> > > Professional means cheating is OK as long as you don't get caught.
>
> > Wow...
> > I prefer the other view of professional - something more like "P.Eng."
> > or "professional engineer" - an engineer who has been proven worthy by
> > the quality of their work and ethical standards of not permitting
> > either substandard or unethical work to take place, to dissociate from
> > and report unethical, illegal, or substandard work/material, etc, to a
> > professional body. In Canada some of us earn "Chartered Professional
> > Coach" status with Coaches of Canada - this implies that: We're full
> > time coaches for a number of years, we have a certain level of
> > qualifications (in my case a Master of Phys Ed and a "Level 4"
> > coaching certificate), I have no criminal record, and have signed both
> > a code of conduct and a code of ethics - which are renewable each
> > year...
> > The difference between that, and what you've described above, may be
> > the difference between "paid" and "Professional". With this, you can
> > be an amateur and behave in a professional manner - ensuring athletes
> > have the best facilities/equipment/programmes/safety, etc., ensuring
> > high standards of behaviour, etc.
> > That's all I've got time for. Clearly these "paid" cyclists are not
> > "professional" if they're cheating.
> > W- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> My freind, both you and I would love 'professional' or 'pro' to mean
> that but when suffixed by the word 'sport', I am afraid that in common
> parlance, it means anything but. e.g. Pro (American) Football, Pro
> Baseball, Pro Soccer, Pro (Ice) Hockey and of course Pro cycling. I
> would postulate that the only reason why cycling has got such bad
> press wrt to these other pro sports that I have mentioned is that it
> is trying to rid itself of the drugs culture, whereas the others are
> still ignoring the elephant in the room.
>
> I am old and was brought up in an age when international sport was amateur.
> I have almost given up boring my sons with my views on "professional sport".
> Now I can bore you.
>
> To me, "sport" is something, preferably energetic, that one DOES because one
> ENJOYS doing it. From this emerged, slowly, the ideas of "sportsmanship",
> "sporting behaviour", being a good sport", etc..., and the despicable nature
> of cheating.  And particularly the idea that it's the sporting activity, not
> winning, which is of value.  De Coubertin agreed.
>
> My view is that the moment you add "professional" or indeed "spectator" to
> the word, you get a contradiction.
>
> "Spectator sports" are done for the benefit of those not playing, and
> necessarily different rules and  attitudes apply.
>
> As for "professional sport", I really do not believe it exists.  If it's
> sport it cannot be professional; if it's professional it is not "sport".
> You cannot expect people doing their job to take a "sporting" attitude to
> their livelihood. Some may do so, but to be surprised if they don't is just
> perverse. I can admire the achievements of our professionals, but they are
> not in the same activity as we are in our sport.  Why should I care whois
> the best professional oarsmen (etc, etc.) more than I care who is the best
> professional plumber?  I competed in international competitions long ago.  I
> don't think I would care to now.  Whereas non international rowing (school,
> university, club and veteran) rowing thankfully remains strictly profitless
> and therefore amateur and is good fun.  At the club level, how different
> from football.
>
> The fundamental problem, I think, is that we need a new word meaning  "the
> activity of being paid to go through the motions of taking part in a
> sporting activity".  We could then distinguish between two very largely
> incompatible sets of ideas.  Any suggestions?  "Professional sport" just
> won't do.  If we stopped implying that the professionals were "sportsmen" or
> taking part in a "sport", much confusion and agonising would be avoided.
>
> I know, from experience, that I will be accused of being out of touch with
> the modern world, living in an ivory tower, being an idealist, being "high
> minded" in a critical sense, etc, etc.  So feel free to say it all again.
>
> Alexander Lindsay
>
> atlindsayatbtinternetdotcom- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Totally agree with you.
In short 'pro-sport' had redefined both the words 'professional' and
'sport' in a negative way.

On 8 Oct, 14:10, Carl Douglas <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:

> And there is growing concern within Italian professional football over:
> 1. An exceptionally high incidence (5 or 6x normal) of Lou Gehrig's disease
> 2. Abnormal rates of certain cancers, especially WRT Fiorentina players.

Could anybody fill us in with a bit more background on these?

Alexander Lindsay wrote:
>
> As for "professional sport", I really do not believe it exists. If
> it's sport it cannot be professional; if it's professional it is not
> "sport". You cannot expect people doing their job to take a
> "sporting" attitude to their livelihood. Some may do so, but to be
> surprised if they don't is just perverse. I can admire the
> achievements of our professionals, but they are not in the same
> activity as we are in our sport. Why should I care who is the best
> professional oarsmen (etc, etc.) more than I care who is the best
> professional plumber? I competed in international competitions long
> ago. I don't think I would care to now. Whereas non international
> rowing (school, university, club and veteran) rowing thankfully
> remains strictly profitless and therefore amateur and is good fun. At the
> club level, how different from football.
> The fundamental problem, I think, is that we need a new word meaning "the
> activity of being paid to go through the motions of taking part
> in a sporting activity". We could then distinguish between two very
> largely incompatible sets of ideas. Any suggestions? "Professional
> sport" just won't do. If we stopped implying that the professionals
> were "sportsmen" or taking part in a "sport", much confusion and
> agonising would be avoided.

Why not just say it how it is? "Paid (or waged, or - if you want more
syllables - remunerated) rowing/ football/cycling etc." performed by "Paid
Rowers etc". Then, what amateurs do is called the "Sport of rowing/football
etc" performed by "Sportsmen or Sportswomen".

I agree with all you say.

Jane

Lance Armstrong announced his return to racing in TdF.
Media give it quite a coverage. There:
http://www.time.com/time/10questions
you can watch a mini-interview from this week's issue of Time magazine
(take a note this link will change in a few days.)
About half of a four minute video clip he is asked about performace
enhancing drugs, the question states explictly that it is not about legal
side, it is about moral aspects of using such a drugs at all.

Well, you better see it yourselves. Cause otherwise you wouldn't believe...
I am devastated.
I dont think i will watch TdF anymore.
BTW, who won this year?

Luckily, there's another side to the story. There is a project to prove that
it IS indeed possible to be top athlete and be totally clean at the same
time, it is called PROJECT BELIEVE.
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_Anti_Doping_Agency_details_Proje_04252008.html

Now, look up the biography of Dara Torres.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dara_Torres
She took part in '84 Olympics in swimming, one year before Michael Phelps
was born. This year she took part in Olympic games for a fifth time and won
three silver medals.
Dara Torres is also participating in PROJECT BELIEVE.
http://www.wsmv.com/sports/16809361/detail.html?rss=nash&psp=news#-

I can see light in a tunnel...

--
Yours Virtually, Zibi

On 10 Oct, 11:42, "Alexander Lindsay" <atlind...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> "JY" <j...@cvd.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:407ed68f-a003-4c7a-bb98-c36283a2e6d4@h60g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 9 Oct, 04:36, wmart...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 9, 4:43 am, JY <j...@cvd.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 8 Oct, 14:10, Carl Douglas <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > I see we have another 3 T de F cyclists found by retrospective tests
> > > > to
> > > > have been illicitly taking the latest EPO booster, CERA.
>
> > > > And the IOC are instituting retrospective sample testing.
>
> > > > And there is growing concern within Italian professional football
> > > > over:
> > > > 1. An exceptionally high incidence (5 or 6x normal) of Lou Gehrig's
> > > > disease
> > > > 2. Abnormal rates of certain cancers, especially WRT Fiorentina
> > > > players.
>
> > > > Re (1) above, questions are being asked about such things as
> > > > pesticides,
> > > > as well as head injury & possible drug use. Re (2) above, questions
> > > > being asked seem to be majoring on past doping regimes. Investigations
> > > > are, of course, ongoing & shouldn't be prejudged.
>
> > > > We know that nothing you ingest is without consequences, some of which
> > > > may not be beneficial. Few if any of the drugs being routinely taken
> > > > to
> > > > cheat in sport have been rigorously tested for safety as a continuous
> > > > part of a fit person's diet, & some things that are ingested or
> > > > absorbed
> > > > have been shown (tobacco smoke, chewing tobacco, asbestos, aromatic
> > > > solvents, lead in road fuel, etc.) have been shown to have long
> > > > latencies before their harmful effects become apparent & irreversible.
>
> > > > Athletes start as athletic kids, who cannot legally make decisions
> > > > about
> > > > their adult futures but increasingly find themselves under peer &
> > > > other
> > > > unsubtle pressures to enhance their performance by doping. What they
> > > > take will, as indicated above, be untested & unapproved for safety in
> > > > such use. Yet still "experts" & others advocate or excuse athletes
> > > > competing with whatever they fancy inside themselves, presuming
> > > > informed
> > > > consent (or everyone's right to be stupid?). I would suggest that
> > > > these
> > > > advocates are displaying an absolute disregard for the harm they may
> > > > be
> > > > doing to a future generation.
>
> > > > We've already seen a bit more of the doping scene in international
> > > > rowing than we'd want, & a gross excess in certain other sports. In
> > > > other sports we have seen vast wealth pouring into the hands of a few
> > > > top performers while the grass roots are impoverished as well as
> > > > mislead
> > > > by the antics of the stars. My question is whether sport, with its
> > > > increasingly narrow focus & increasing obsession with records, stars,
> > > > etc., has lost its prime purpose & lost its way?
>
> > > > Cheers -
> > > > Carl
> > > > --
> > > > Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
> > > > Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> > > > Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
> > > > Find:http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
> > > > Email: c...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
> > > > URLs:www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)
>
> > > I would postulate that as soon as you can prefix the word sport with
> > > 'professional', it has lost its way.
> > > Professional means a full time, win at any cost mentality.
> > > Professional means a paymaster who does not have the athlete's best
> > > long term interests at heart.
> > > Professional means pandering to TV.
> > > Professional means changing the rules to make it more exciting to
> > > watch, not neccessarily more enjoyable or safer to participate in.
> > > Professional means excluding part-timers or amateurs.
> > > Professional means pouring money into the top end of the sport whilst
> > > neglecting the bottom.
> > > Professional means seedy agents and managers (OK maybe not in rowing,
> > > mind you....)
> > > Professional means betting scandals and fixed results.
> > > Professional means cheating is OK as long as you don't get caught.
>
> > Wow...
> > I prefer the other view of professional - something more like "P.Eng."
> > or "professional engineer" - an engineer who has been proven worthy by
> > the quality of their work and ethical standards of not permitting
> > either substandard or unethical work to take place, to dissociate from
> > and report unethical, illegal, or substandard work/material, etc, to a
> > professional body. In Canada some of us earn "Chartered Professional
> > Coach" status with Coaches of Canada - this implies that: We're full
> > time coaches for a number of years, we have a certain level of
> > qualifications (in my case a Master of Phys Ed and a "Level 4"
> > coaching certificate), I have no criminal record, and have signed both
> > a code of conduct and a code of ethics - which are renewable each
> > year...
> > The difference between that, and what you've described above, may be
> > the difference between "paid" and "Professional". With this, you can
> > be an amateur and behave in a professional manner - ensuring athletes
> > have the best facilities/equipment/programmes/safety, etc., ensuring
> > high standards of behaviour, etc.
> > That's all I've got time for. Clearly these "paid" cyclists are not
> > "professional" if they're cheating.
> > W- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> My freind, both you and I would love 'professional' or 'pro' to mean
> that but when suffixed by the word 'sport', I am afraid that in common
> parlance, it means anything but. e.g. Pro (American) Football, Pro
> Baseball, Pro Soccer, Pro (Ice) Hockey and of course Pro cycling. I
> would postulate that the only reason why cycling has got such bad
> press wrt to these other pro sports that I have mentioned is that it
> is trying to rid itself of the drugs culture, whereas the others are
> still ignoring the elephant in the room.
>
> I am old and was brought up in an age when international sport was amateur.
> I have almost given up boring my sons with my views on "professional sport".
> Now I can bore you.
>
> To me, "sport" is something, preferably energetic, that one DOES because one
> ENJOYS doing it. From this emerged, slowly, the ideas of "sportsmanship",
> "sporting behaviour", being a good sport", etc..., and the despicable nature
> of cheating.  And particularly the idea that it's the sporting activity, not
> winning, which is of value.  De Coubertin agreed.
>
> My view is that the moment you add "professional" or indeed "spectator" to
> the word, you get a contradiction.
>
> "Spectator sports" are done for the benefit of those not playing, and
> necessarily different rules and  attitudes apply.
>
> As for "professional sport", I really do not believe it exists.  If it's
> sport it cannot be professional; if it's professional it is not "sport".
> You cannot expect people doing their job to take a "sporting" attitude to
> their livelihood. Some may do so, but to be surprised if they don't is just
> perverse. I can admire the achievements of our professionals, but they are
> not in the same activity as we are in our sport.  Why should I care whois
> the best professional oarsmen (etc, etc.) more than I care who is the best
> professional plumber?  I competed in international competitions long ago.  I
> don't think I would care to now.  Whereas non international rowing (school,
> university, club and veteran) rowing thankfully remains strictly profitless
> and therefore amateur and is good fun.  At the club level, how different
> from football.
>
> The fundamental problem, I think, is that we need a new word meaning  "the
> activity of being paid to go through the motions of taking part in a
> sporting activity".  We could then distinguish between two very largely
> incompatible sets of ideas.  Any suggestions?  "Professional sport" just
> won't do.  If we stopped implying that the professionals were "sportsmen" or
> taking part in a "sport", much confusion and agonising would be avoided.
>
> I know, from experience, that I will be accused of being out of touch with
> the modern world, living in an ivory tower, being an idealist, being "high
> minded" in a critical sense, etc, etc.  So feel free to say it all again.
>
> Alexander Lindsay
>
> atlindsayatbtinternetdotcom

Your sentiments are worthy but amateurs were as responsible for
"gamesmanship" as they were for "sportsmanship" and TBH I don't mind
that. Coping with psychological pressure makes the victory is sweeter.
Kit

Zbigniew A. wrote:
> Lance Armstrong announced his return to racing in TdF.
> Media give it quite a coverage. There:
> http://www.time.com/time/10questions
> you can watch a mini-interview from this week's issue of Time magazine
> (take a note this link will change in a few days.)
> About half of a four minute video clip he is asked about performace
> enhancing drugs, the question states explictly that it is not about legal
> side, it is about moral aspects of using such a drugs at all.
>
> Well, you better see it yourselves. Cause otherwise you wouldn't believe...
> I am devastated.

Just seen it. Armstrong was utterly evasive on the morality of the
drugs issue. He gave a strong indication of supporting the use of any
as-yet unbanned performance enhancing substances (= doping) by saying
that you couldn't do the Tour on bread & water & that cyclists should
work only to a list of what you couldn't use. Which neatly excludes any
new performance enhancers (as with THG) that are currently unknown to
the testers.

AIUI, 6 of Armstrong's closest former colleagues have now been exposed
as dopers.

Pass the sick bag -

Carl

--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: carl@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

When I get involved in discussions of this nature, I often play
Devil's Advocate by arguing that if you want to know who is doping in
high-financial-reward performance-endurance sports (such as pro
cycling or international athletics), you only need to look on the
podium. It usually creates fierce debate.

In these arguments, my reasoning is usually this:
Assumption 1: Doping confers an advantage of a similar order of
magnitude as that of being a male in a female field;
Assumption 2: Within the pro racing population, a significant
proportion of competitors are doping;
Argument: In a well-populated top-level field of male competitors it
is inconceivable that a female would win. By extension therefore it
must be similarly inconceivable that a non-doper will win.

However, as far as our own sport goes, I have been involved in rowing
for 20 years, at one time not quite at international level but close
to it, and I know and have known personally many members of the GB
team. I have never once heard or seen any evidence or rumour of
evidence whatsoever of doping in British rowing. Obviously not enough
money in it.

On 13 Oct, 14:27, MagnusBurbanks <magn...@f2s.com> wrote:
> When I get involved in discussions of this nature, I often play
> Devil's Advocate by arguing that if you want to know who is doping in
> high-financial-reward performance-endurance sports (such as pro
> cycling or international athletics), you only need to look on the
> podium. It usually creates fierce debate.
>
> In these arguments, my reasoning is usually this:
> Assumption 1: Doping confers an advantage of a similar order of
> magnitude as that of being a male in a female field;
> Assumption 2: Within the pro racing population, a significant
> proportion of competitors are doping;
> Argument: In a well-populated top-level field of male competitors it
> is inconceivable that a female would win. By extension therefore it
> must be similarly inconceivable that a non-doper will win.
>
> However, as far as our own sport goes, I have been involved in rowing
> for 20 years, at one time not quite at international level but close
> to it, and I know and have known personally many members of the GB
> team. I have never once heard or seen any evidence or rumour of
> evidence whatsoever of doping in British rowing. Obviously not enough
> money in it.

Not sure I agree with assumption 1. That would be a MASSIVE boost.

Anyway I was most disturbed to read in the last paragraph of this
article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/drugsinsport/3190595/IOC-chairman-Jacques-Rogge-warns-Olympic-cheats-they-risk-detection-up-to-eight-years-after-event-Drugs-In-Sport.html

"A report by independent observers for the World Anti-Doping Agency
highlighted the fact that nearly half the countries that participated
in the Beijing Games failed to tell organisers where their athletes
were so they could be drug tested outside of competition".

Coupled with the fact that some counties don't even have national
doping agencies, this means that a large proportion of the competitors
at Beijing had no fear whatsoever of being tested out of competition!
With some drugs being flushed out of the system in a day or so (aided
by diuretics), they would have been free to dope to their heart's
content. It seems you can only hope to catch the stupid, uninformed or
foolhardy.

JY wrote:
> On 13 Oct, 14:27, MagnusBurbanks <magn...@f2s.com> wrote:
>> When I get involved in discussions of this nature, I often play
>> Devil's Advocate by arguing that if you want to know who is doping in
>> high-financial-reward performance-endurance sports (such as pro
>> cycling or international athletics), you only need to look on the
>> podium. It usually creates fierce debate.
>>
>> In these arguments, my reasoning is usually this:
>> Assumption 1: Doping confers an advantage of a similar order of
>> magnitude as that of being a male in a female field;
>> Assumption 2: Within the pro racing population, a significant
>> proportion of competitors are doping;
>> Argument: In a well-populated top-level field of male competitors it
>> is inconceivable that a female would win. By extension therefore it
>> must be similarly inconceivable that a non-doper will win.
>>
>> However, as far as our own sport goes, I have been involved in rowing
>> for 20 years, at one time not quite at international level but close
>> to it, and I know and have known personally many members of the GB
>> team. I have never once heard or seen any evidence or rumour of
>> evidence whatsoever of doping in British rowing. Obviously not enough
>> money in it.
>
> Not sure I agree with assumption 1. That would be a MASSIVE boost.
>
> Anyway I was most disturbed to read in the last paragraph of this
> article:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/drugsinsport/3190595/IOC-chairman-Jacques-Rogge-warns-Olympic-cheats-they-risk-detection-up-to-eight-years-after-event-Drugs-In-Sport.html
>
> "A report by independent observers for the World Anti-Doping Agency
> highlighted the fact that nearly half the countries that participated
> in the Beijing Games failed to tell organisers where their athletes
> were so they could be drug tested outside of competition".
>
> Coupled with the fact that some counties don't even have national
> doping agencies, this means that a large proportion of the competitors
> at Beijing had no fear whatsoever of being tested out of competition!
> With some drugs being flushed out of the system in a day or so (aided
> by diuretics), they would have been free to dope to their heart's
> content. It seems you can only hope to catch the stupid, uninformed or
> foolhardy.

That is, of course, a scandal. IIRC, Usain Bolt comes from one of those
countries with no national testing scheme. I really do assume he's
clean & massively gifted, but cynics may suppose he dopes &,
accordingly, that they should use existing loopholes to dope themselves.

For folk who don't see how pernicious is the fog of encouragement to
take supplements, shading into near drugs & then sliding into drugs,
consider the following advert, sat next to a discussion of the UCI's
decision to waive its own supposedly strict drug-test rules for the
benefit of Lance Armstrong:
"Hgh Plus, Human Growth Hormone Releaser
"Hgh Plus is a unique blend of homeopathics, amino acids, herbs and
other all natural ingredients - stimulates Hgh, human growth hormone
release and allows for rebuilding the pituitary gland."

That's probably total bullshit, but the stuff will be bought & taken by
those who hope it isn't, hope for a "cleanish" chemical advantage (see
the homeopathics suggestion) & want a quasi-legal HGH boost (which may
be injurious over time). When that stuff proves inadequate, well, we're
already on the slippery slope so let's try something a bit
stronger...... Kids do read that crap. Kids do buy & take that crap.

Some, upset by questioning of Armstrong's record on doping, seek to
defend him by quoting the good done by his cancer campaign. I think his
work for cancer research funding is wonderful. But doing good gives no
licence to bend rules, nor excuses doping if that happened.

Cheers -
Carl

--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: carl@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

Carl Douglas wrote:

> "Hgh Plus, Human Growth Hormone Releaser
> "Hgh Plus is a unique blend of homeopathics

Homeopathics, eh? Now those _have_ to be the answer to dopers' worries.
Something whose active principles are present in solution at the
single-molecule level, and only then as the result of statistical
variation, ain't going to be easy to detect.

--

Henry Law Manchester, England

Henry Law wrote:
> Carl Douglas wrote:
>
>> "Hgh Plus, Human Growth Hormone Releaser
>> "Hgh Plus is a unique blend of homeopathics
>
> Homeopathics, eh? Now those _have_ to be the answer to dopers' worries.
> Something whose active principles are present in solution at the
> single-molecule level, and only then as the result of statistical
> variation, ain't going to be easy to detect.
>

And, since it supposedly causes the magical release of "natural" HGH,
naive types will presume that, allegedly being homeopathically induced,
it should be "clean" (= undetectable, except by a dangled crystal).
They may not twig the infinitely diluted bit.

So it sounds like a candidate for the Hitch-hiker's Guide's "mostly
harmless" rating. But those who buy it will certainly hope it works.
If it is utterly bogus, they may then sample stronger stuff. If it aint
they may harm themselves &/or get caught doping. To us it's pure snake
oil, or a subtle inducement to suckers to start doping. Many who are
looking for a boost after a bad week or season may not see that. For
them it could be the first stumble of a big fall.

Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: carl@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)