cannavaro and the bee sting 
- - - Updated - - -
serena is a man though. doesn't count in my books.
- - - Updated - - -
serena is a man though. doesn't count in my books.
Buy on AliExpress.com
Calciopoli or Morattopoli.. inter fake orgasm (64 Viewers)
- Thread starter gsol
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
Assuming the description of the facts is accurate, the article raises one legitimate point though. Using these drugs was legal so nothing should come of it.
But if we knew they enhance performance and used such drugs to enhance performance (rather than for their standard medical purpose) when every body else did not then it is unethical practice. This is where the analogy with Sharapova might stand. Both Juve and Sharapova used a legal drugs for performance enhancing purposes to gain an unfair advantage over competition.
If she knew that there is a legal drug for heart conditions that is not on the list of banned materials and can improve her performance the she is gaining an unfair advantage over her colleagues. She should not deserve any punishment for it because after all the heart pills were legal until Jan 2016 but that doesn't mean her behaviour was ethical. It would be ethical behaviour only if she knew everyone else was doing the same with similar legal drugs and so her doping doesnt give her an advantage.
But if we knew they enhance performance and used such drugs to enhance performance (rather than for their standard medical purpose) when every body else did not then it is unethical practice. This is where the analogy with Sharapova might stand. Both Juve and Sharapova used a legal drugs for performance enhancing purposes to gain an unfair advantage over competition.
If she knew that there is a legal drug for heart conditions that is not on the list of banned materials and can improve her performance the she is gaining an unfair advantage over her colleagues. She should not deserve any punishment for it because after all the heart pills were legal until Jan 2016 but that doesn't mean her behaviour was ethical. It would be ethical behaviour only if she knew everyone else was doing the same with similar legal drugs and so her doping doesnt give her an advantage.
What? Now you're just playing stupid.
Obviously everyone knows anti-inflams help with recovery post-game, post-training session, post-everything. The article even talks about a Parma playing using one of these legal drugs.
Anyone who doesn't take advantage of every legal avenue to performance enhancement is stupid and deserves to lose. This wasn't a case of Juve having exclusive rights and knowledge about legal performance-enhancing supplements and drugs. The information and studies are out there for everyone. Why do you think every single team hires consultants and experts with regard to all these things. To determine every single legal method to enhance performance and gain a competitive edge.
It's not unethical at all. That's a retarded argument. FFS. Suggesting people don't know anti-inflams and painkillers help with performance.
And if a heart condition drug is not a banned substance and aids performance in other ways, it's not at all unethical to use it as such. It's the same as using any performance enhancing substance that has other uses as well. It's the same as early adherents to training at high altitude because of the performance enhancing aspects of training with thinner air, or hyperbaric chambers, etc. I guess it's unethical to use these advantages if your opponents don't have them.
I guess it's unethical to spend more money on players than your opponents because that provides a competitive advantage they don't have access to.
Legal drug use, as in not banned as a performance enhancing substance, is not unethical in the slightest. Suggesting otherwise is just plain stupid and flies in the face of all high-performance sport training and supplementation methods for the last 30 years. All top-level sports teams use these methods, all successful olympic programs use these methods, and so on.
Obviously everyone knows anti-inflams help with recovery post-game, post-training session, post-everything. The article even talks about a Parma playing using one of these legal drugs.
Anyone who doesn't take advantage of every legal avenue to performance enhancement is stupid and deserves to lose. This wasn't a case of Juve having exclusive rights and knowledge about legal performance-enhancing supplements and drugs. The information and studies are out there for everyone. Why do you think every single team hires consultants and experts with regard to all these things. To determine every single legal method to enhance performance and gain a competitive edge.
It's not unethical at all. That's a retarded argument. FFS. Suggesting people don't know anti-inflams and painkillers help with performance.
And if a heart condition drug is not a banned substance and aids performance in other ways, it's not at all unethical to use it as such. It's the same as using any performance enhancing substance that has other uses as well. It's the same as early adherents to training at high altitude because of the performance enhancing aspects of training with thinner air, or hyperbaric chambers, etc. I guess it's unethical to use these advantages if your opponents don't have them.
I guess it's unethical to spend more money on players than your opponents because that provides a competitive advantage they don't have access to.
Legal drug use, as in not banned as a performance enhancing substance, is not unethical in the slightest. Suggesting otherwise is just plain stupid and flies in the face of all high-performance sport training and supplementation methods for the last 30 years. All top-level sports teams use these methods, all successful olympic programs use these methods, and so on.
What? Now you're just playing stupid.
Obviously everyone knows anti-inflams help with recovery post-game, post-training session, post-everything. The article even talks about a Parma playing using one of these legal drugs.
Anyone who doesn't take advantage of every legal avenue to performance enhancement is stupid and deserves to lose. This wasn't a case of Juve having exclusive rights and knowledge about legal performance-enhancing supplements and drugs. The information and studies are out there for everyone. Why do you think every single team hires consultants and experts with regard to all these things. To determine every single legal method to enhance performance and gain a competitive edge.
It's not unethical at all. That's a retarded argument. FFS. Suggesting people don't know anti-inflams and painkillers help with performance.
And if a heart condition drug is not a banned substance and aids performance in other ways, it's not at all unethical to use it as such. It's the same as using any performance enhancing substance that has other uses as well. It's the same as early adherents to training at high altitude because of the performance enhancing aspects of training with thinner air, or hyperbaric chambers, etc. I guess it's unethical to use these advantages if your opponents don't have them.
I guess it's unethical to spend more money on players than your opponents because that provides a competitive advantage they don't have access to.
Legal drug use, as in not banned as a performance enhancing substance, is not unethical in the slightest. Suggesting otherwise is just stupid.
Obviously everyone knows anti-inflams help with recovery post-game, post-training session, post-everything. The article even talks about a Parma playing using one of these legal drugs.
Anyone who doesn't take advantage of every legal avenue to performance enhancement is stupid and deserves to lose. This wasn't a case of Juve having exclusive rights and knowledge about legal performance-enhancing supplements and drugs. The information and studies are out there for everyone. Why do you think every single team hires consultants and experts with regard to all these things. To determine every single legal method to enhance performance and gain a competitive edge.
It's not unethical at all. That's a retarded argument. FFS. Suggesting people don't know anti-inflams and painkillers help with performance.
And if a heart condition drug is not a banned substance and aids performance in other ways, it's not at all unethical to use it as such. It's the same as using any performance enhancing substance that has other uses as well. It's the same as early adherents to training at high altitude because of the performance enhancing aspects of training with thinner air, or hyperbaric chambers, etc. I guess it's unethical to use these advantages if your opponents don't have them.
I guess it's unethical to spend more money on players than your opponents because that provides a competitive advantage they don't have access to.
Legal drug use, as in not banned as a performance enhancing substance, is not unethical in the slightest. Suggesting otherwise is just stupid.
I also knew that you'd engage in a rant rather than read what I wrote. My first sentence was "Assuming the description of the facts is accurate". I'll write it again "Assuming the description of the facts is accurate"
"Assuming the description of the facts is accurate". "Assuming the description of the facts is accurate". The article clearly suggests that we were the only ones doing this at this level. Whether this really is the case or not I do not know. But if we were exclusively engaged in this then it is unethical the same way what Sharapova did (before the 2016 ban) is unethical.
If you don't think what she did was unethical then that is a separate issue. We would be disagreeing on the ethics question not the facts of the case. However, few people would agree with you on that in the sporting world. There is legal but unethical business, legal, political and sports practices. Most people's intuitions will be that it is unethical.
I knew that this will pull you leg I also knew that you'd engage in a rant rather than read what I wrote.
My first sentence was "Assuming the description of the facts is accurate". I'll write it again "Assuming the description of the facts is accurate"
"Assuming the description of the facts is accurate". "Assuming the description of the facts is accurate". The article clearly suggests that we were the only ones doing this at this level. Whether this really is the case or not I do not know. But if we were exclusively engaged in this then it is unethical the same way what Sharapova did (before the 2016 ban) is unethical.
If you don't think what she did was unethical then that is a separate issue. We would be disagreeing on the ethics question not the facts of the case. However, few people would agree with you on that in the sporting world. There is legal but unethical business, legal, political and sports practices.
I also knew that you'd engage in a rant rather than read what I wrote. My first sentence was "Assuming the description of the facts is accurate". I'll write it again "Assuming the description of the facts is accurate"
"Assuming the description of the facts is accurate". "Assuming the description of the facts is accurate". The article clearly suggests that we were the only ones doing this at this level. Whether this really is the case or not I do not know. But if we were exclusively engaged in this then it is unethical the same way what Sharapova did (before the 2016 ban) is unethical.
If you don't think what she did was unethical then that is a separate issue. We would be disagreeing on the ethics question not the facts of the case. However, few people would agree with you on that in the sporting world. There is legal but unethical business, legal, political and sports practices.
The article clearly states an example of a Parma player using these legal drugs. But yes, we were the only ones doing it.
The entire history of sporting performance is about finding whatever LEGAL ways one can to gain a sporting advantage. So i guess all sporting practice is unethical. Outspending your opponents is unethical, because in some sports they institute a salary cap so you can't do this. I guess all sports that don't have salary caps are promoting unethical practices.
I guess they should set a spending cap on Olympic programs as well, because wouldn't want that big 'ol mean USA gaining a competitive advantage on athletes from Burkina Faso. Nope. If Americans are going to take legal supplements and drugs to help enhance performance, they need to send those same supplements and drugs to athletes around the world to make things ethical.
Your nonsense is ridiculous. Ignore from now on.
- - - Updated - - -
And to be clear. Neoton is a form of creatine phosphate used in Cardiac surgery.
Creatine. An over-the-counter supplement/drug not banned to this day by WADA.
Samyr is sold over the counter in the United States and Canada as a nutritional supplement (called SAM) and is also not banned as a performance enhancer to this day by WADA.
Voltaren (diclofenac) is a NON-STEROIDAL anti-inflam also not banned by WADA to this day. It is available as an over-the-counter, non-prescription anti-inflam in many countries.
SO all 3 "drugs" mentioned in the article are legal to this day.
The article clearly states an example of a Parma player using these legal drugs. But yes, we were the only ones doing it.
The entire history of sporting performance is about finding whatever LEGAL ways one can to gain a sporting advantage. So i guess all sporting practice is unethical. Outspending your opponents is unethical, because in some sports they institute a salary cap so you can't do this. I guess all sports that don't have salary caps are promoting unethical practices.
I guess they should set a spending cap on Olympic programs as well, because wouldn't want that big 'ol mean USA gaining a competitive advantage on athletes from Burkina Faso. Nope. If Americans are going to take legal supplements and drugs to help enhance performance, they need to send those same supplements and drugs to athletes around the world to make things ethical.
Your nonsense is ridiculous. Ignore from now on.
So if Construction companies use the legal forced labor in the Qatar world cup that is ethical? the entire football world will tell you it is not even though they are exploiting LEGAL means to maximize profit. BUT THEY ARE USING LEGAL MEANS TO GAIN A COMPETITIVE EDGE!!
If a corporate uses ships production to poor countries to pay peanuts for labor that is ethical? Every Sanders fan in the world will tell you how unethical this is and how new laws should be drafted to ban it.
What is legal and what is ethical are not the same thing. We wouldnt change our laws if that was the case. You can legally beat your wife where I come from but I'd hardly say its ethical. Using every legal means to gain a competitive edge is not always ethical. Most Legal means are ethical but some are not. This goes in business as well as in sports. You comparing it with having more money to spend is a false analogy. Not all legal means are ethically equivalent.
Taking anti-depressants and heart medication to boost performance in sports is not ethical. The article says we had so much of these drugs we had a mini-hospital. We did it at a much higher level than anyone else. Cannavaro is wrong in using it too. The doctor was banned and for good reason. He went against the ethical standards of medicinal practice. Giruado committed sporting fraud and was saved by the statute of limitations. Your bias is blinding.
You're the biggest idiot on the forum. You know absolutely nothing about sporting performance, or supplementation, or WADA, or performance enhancing. I just showed exactly what each drug mentioned in the article is, that NOT ONE of them is a banned performance enhancer according to WADA, and all three are sold over-the-counter in many countries. Meaning anyone can go buy them and use them for whatever purposes they see fit. Meaning, they are not even considered as illegal performance enhancers. Athletes take all sorts of supplements and anti-inflams that WADA says they are allowed to take, so as to increase sporting performance and speed up recovery time. Anything not banned is fair game, and even better is that most of these are still not banned to this day, 20 years later, which means this case has absolutely no relation to Sharapova.
The fact you can't seem to understand this is your problem. Idiocy apparently has no cure.
As I said, ignore from now on.
The fact you can't seem to understand this is your problem. Idiocy apparently has no cure.
As I said, ignore from now on.
BTW Zeman had nothing to go on other than the fact Del Piero got more muscular. A physique that is easily attained by anyone who goes to the gym I might add. This was also when he was 23. Many men develop a much stronger body in their early twenties. Nothing about any of this was remotely suspect. It was pure bullshit.
To add insult to injury Zeman was also insinuating Juventus used steroids. They clearly did not.
To add insult to injury Zeman was also insinuating Juventus used steroids. They clearly did not.
I'll not respond to the personal attacks.
once again you are assuming that what is legal and what is ethical is identical which is obviously false. You should seriously revise your ethics if to you all legal behaviour is ethically equal.
The reason these medicines are legal is because players need them to combat inflammation, which is very different from taking them to enhance performance without suffering from the condition the drug is made for.
- - - Updated - - -
The investigation (according to the article) revealed that a lot more was happening. We had an unusually massive inventory of these drugs and our players were found to be using them at substantial amounts. Zeman was a sore loser I don't care what he thinks. Our players could have been amputated and we'd have still destroyed his hilarious defense.
once again you are assuming that what is legal and what is ethical is identical which is obviously false. You should seriously revise your ethics if to you all legal behaviour is ethically equal.
The reason these medicines are legal is because players need them to combat inflammation, which is very different from taking them to enhance performance without suffering from the condition the drug is made for.
- - - Updated - - -
The investigation (according to the article) revealed that a lot more was happening. We had an unusually massive inventory of these drugs and our players were found to be using them at substantial amounts. Zeman was a sore loser I don't care what he thinks. Our players could have been amputated and we'd have still destroyed his hilarious defense.
They don't need them to combat inflammation. In normal circumstances the body does just that. Inflammation is a part of the healing process too. They use it to bounce back quicker than they normally would. Btw painkillers also improve performance. You play better without pain. And yet you'd also be using it for a condition. Your argument makes little sense.
Oh FFS. No one can be this stupid. The performance enhancing aspect of Anti-Inflams is their anti-inflammatory nature. They were taking them to reduce inflammation that athletes get from training and playing games. It allows them to train harder, recover faster. Every single time you play a football match, or work out, your muscles, tendons, ligaments are inflamed to some extent, feel pain to some extent.
They were not taking anti-inflams for some magical, performance enhancing aspect that anti-inflams are not meant for. They were taking them for exactly what they are meant for, inflammation and pain relief.
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are not banned, not illegal, and have not been considered unethical to use as part of sports-supplementation ever.
They're not even considered to be effective according to most very recent research that says that even if they remove inflammation and pain it's likely they inhibit the healing process to some extent.
FFS. What exactly do you think they were taking Anti-Inflams for? Some magical imaginary benefit?
They were not taking anti-inflams for some magical, performance enhancing aspect that anti-inflams are not meant for. They were taking them for exactly what they are meant for, inflammation and pain relief.
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are not banned, not illegal, and have not been considered unethical to use as part of sports-supplementation ever.
They're not even considered to be effective according to most very recent research that says that even if they remove inflammation and pain it's likely they inhibit the healing process to some extent.
FFS. What exactly do you think they were taking Anti-Inflams for? Some magical imaginary benefit?
Oh FFS. No one can be this stupid. The performance enhancing aspect of Anti-Inflams is their anti-inflammatory nature. They were taking them to reduce inflammation that athletes get from training and playing games. It allows them to train harder, recover faster. Every single time you play a football match, or work out, your muscles, tendons, ligaments are inflamed to some extent, feel pain to some extent.
They were not taking anti-inflams for some magical, performance enhancing aspect that anti-inflams are not meant for. They were taking them for exactly what they are meant for, inflammation and pain relief.
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are not banned, not illegal, and have not been considered unethical to use as part of sports-supplementation ever.
They're not even considered to be effective according to most very recent research that says that even if they remove inflammation and pain it's likely they inhibit the healing process to some extent.
FFS.
They were not taking anti-inflams for some magical, performance enhancing aspect that anti-inflams are not meant for. They were taking them for exactly what they are meant for, inflammation and pain relief.
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are not banned, not illegal, and have not been considered unethical to use as part of sports-supplementation ever.
They're not even considered to be effective according to most very recent research that says that even if they remove inflammation and pain it's likely they inhibit the healing process to some extent.
FFS.
It was also the era, early to mid-90s, that sports performance programs in the west first started using real scientific training methods, and actual physical fitness programs in the gym. The fall of the Berlin Wall meant a huge amount of Soviet sport science research was made available to the west, and professional sports in the west finally moved into the modern era of performance training.
- - - Updated - - -
Exactly this. They help with pain and inflammation but they reduce the efficacy of the body's natural healing process and are abused to the point they do damage. The NFL is one of the worst offenders for this.
There is some sense that any single medicine will improve performance so you are correct in saying that they would improve performance. However its one thing to say that I am taking an anti-depressant because I am depressed and another to say that I am taking an anti-depressant even though I am not depressed. Its just that one the side effects of those pills is that I have higher adrenaline than normal people and that gives me an edge in a football match.
No one (not even the article here) is saying that Sharapova or Juve should not have used anti-inflammatory or anti depressents or any drugs at all. The whole problem is using a drug for a purpose different from what it is designed for to gain an advantage. Using an antiinlammatory drug to counter inflamation is the right use for it. Using it to boost adrenaline or improve stamina because of some other performance enhancing side effect is not.
I am not alone in having this intuition. The Doctor was banned and Giruado was found guilty of sporting fraud. This is when the agnelli family was well and strong its not another conspiracy.
Andy Murray said:
"Meldonium may not have been illegal until this year but its benefits nonetheless still gave athletes a sporting advantage, as another tennis star - outspoken doping critic Andy Murray - stated following Sharapova's televised mea culpa.
“I think taking a prescription drug that you don’t necessarily need, but just because it’s legal, that’s wrong, clearly,” the two-time Grand Slam winner said this week.
“If you’re taking a prescription drug and you’re not using it for what that drug was meant for, then you don’t need it, so you’re just using it for the performance-enhancing benefits that drug is giving you. And I don’t think that that’s right."
Its a very common moral intuition.
No one (not even the article here) is saying that Sharapova or Juve should not have used anti-inflammatory or anti depressents or any drugs at all. The whole problem is using a drug for a purpose different from what it is designed for to gain an advantage. Using an antiinlammatory drug to counter inflamation is the right use for it. Using it to boost adrenaline or improve stamina because of some other performance enhancing side effect is not.
I am not alone in having this intuition. The Doctor was banned and Giruado was found guilty of sporting fraud. This is when the agnelli family was well and strong its not another conspiracy.
Andy Murray said:
"Meldonium may not have been illegal until this year but its benefits nonetheless still gave athletes a sporting advantage, as another tennis star - outspoken doping critic Andy Murray - stated following Sharapova's televised mea culpa.
“I think taking a prescription drug that you don’t necessarily need, but just because it’s legal, that’s wrong, clearly,” the two-time Grand Slam winner said this week.
“If you’re taking a prescription drug and you’re not using it for what that drug was meant for, then you don’t need it, so you’re just using it for the performance-enhancing benefits that drug is giving you. And I don’t think that that’s right."
Its a very common moral intuition.
Oh FFS. No one can be this stupid. The performance enhancing aspect of Anti-Inflams is their anti-inflammatory nature. They were taking them to reduce inflammation that athletes get from training and playing games. It allows them to train harder, recover faster. Every single time you play a football match, or work out, your muscles, tendons, ligaments are inflamed to some extent, feel pain to some extent.
They were not taking anti-inflams for some magical, performance enhancing aspect that anti-inflams are not meant for. They were taking them for exactly what they are meant for, inflammation and pain relief.
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are not banned, not illegal, and have not been considered unethical to use as part of sports-supplementation ever.
They're not even considered to be effective according to most very recent research that says that even if they remove inflammation and pain it's likely they inhibit the healing process to some extent.
FFS. What exactly do you think they were taking Anti-Inflams for? Some magical imaginary benefit?
They were not taking anti-inflams for some magical, performance enhancing aspect that anti-inflams are not meant for. They were taking them for exactly what they are meant for, inflammation and pain relief.
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are not banned, not illegal, and have not been considered unethical to use as part of sports-supplementation ever.
They're not even considered to be effective according to most very recent research that says that even if they remove inflammation and pain it's likely they inhibit the healing process to some extent.
FFS. What exactly do you think they were taking Anti-Inflams for? Some magical imaginary benefit?
"Maria Sharapova's defence for using the banned drug Meldonium is that she was prescribed it for magnesium deficiencies, a heart murmur and a family history of diabetes."
"By happy coincidence the drug prescribed by Sharapova's family physician has plenty of 'off label’ uses for athletes, thanks to its ability to help oxygen uptake and quicken recovery from fatigue and injury. The scores of sportsmen and women with no proven heart problems who have tested positive since its banning by Wada goes a long way to confirming that suspicion."
I take them on occasion too. So did most performance athletes that I trained with in University.
And the heart drug Neoton was just a creatine phosphate that was available before it really became available as a supplement, before a lot of the studies that made it so popular today had been done.
One of the big early users of creatine phosphate was the 1992 Olympic British track and field team that had such good results.
I take them on occasion too. So did most performance athletes that I trained with in University.
And the heart drug Neoton was just a creatine phosphate that was available before it really became available as a supplement, before a lot of the studies that made it so popular today had been done.
One of the big early users of creatine phosphate was the 1992 Olympic British track and field team that had such good results.
As soon as I read voltaren as one of the examples of performance enhancing drugs is when I decided to take that aricle 0% seriously. Most drugs you dont know nor use so you can assume they are worse and more benificial "cheating" even if legal, but the fact I know how common low level Voltaren is and use it myself, seeing it listed as big illicit advantage just made me lol.