There's a thing called Google. And it will take you to a place called Wikipedia...

uh, that was prime of my hockey life. tweens to teens. i was an addict.


you dont think i googled that first? where is the source that he admitted, or was found using steriods? then it makes your list suspect. we knew lance took steroids.

Read my post. It's beautifully written, and I clearly stated that those were people who had cancer. Dumb bunny.

A rhetorical question. I thought T and AS were different things thus the question. Don't need it anyhow - even when I was a meathead in college I didn't join in when my friends cycled - just not something I wanted to do. I see aging clinic ads everywhere though.

I am OK with the ravages of time. Can't plus the hourglass and the alternative is worse.

Testosterone is in the class of anabolic steroids.

FWIW from someone under 30 w/ low T, I choose not to take it for personal reasons, but wouldn't knock anybody for choosing to elevate test levels to normal ranges. If they're benefiting from athletics financially, then the should rules apply.

I wholly agree with SBR. Pinning a causal relationship from cancer to any one source is damn near impossible. You can't point the finger to one thing because it fits your narrative (spoken w/ disdain for congressional committees)

---

just your average age grouper . no one special . no scientific knowledge . just having fun.

Clarification here. The rules should always apply. If someone doesn't like how the rules apply to an amateur event, then they should lobby to have the rule changed to what they want. Deciding a particular rule shouldn't apply to you because you "know better," and racing anyway is cheating. Not claiming you were suggesting that it was OK, just clarifying the implications of your one sentence above. Rules should always apply.

I do think it's a valid argument that older people on otherwise banned drugs being able to participate in what, for them, are purely recreational amateur athletics. As a bike racer I think the current system is reasonable for that. They can do gran fondos, "sportives," unsanctioned time trials and mass start races. But I'm OK with the current policy for sanctioned USAC or UCI racing. Even masters categories. Because as a masters cyclist myself I don't want pharmaceutical help to become a required condition to maintain a basic level of competency in the sport. Though I'm "only" 44, I'm proud of the fact that I'm on exactly zero prescription drugs, well below the U.S. average for my age (or any age, really). I don't want my participation in amateur bike racing to be the thing that initiates my entry into the U.S. culture of pharmaceutical dependence.

I do believe there are also a good number of unsanctioned triathlons, etc. But perhaps an explicit "recreational geezer wave" could be added to even sanctioned triathlons. With no placing recognition beyond the usual finisher SWAG.




Certainly not near impossible. There are plenty of known carcinogens. Some female hormone replacement therapy has recently been discovered to have significant carcinogenic properties, and that's changed medical doctrine for post-menopausal women. I'm not making any claim here with respect to testosterone, just the general claim.

No one has claimed causality. But ruling it out as a contributing factor to some cancers and their growth would be foolish at this point.

Edited to add that the different forms of delivery have shown to have different risks associated with them. That shouldn't be a surprise. Some oral forms are linked to liver cancer. Once again, do research on the issue and you'll find there is far more to this than you might suspect, but dismissing this stuff as little more than vitamins in a syringe is goofy. The jury is out on this stuff, and it looks like it will come back with a mixed verdict.

x2. It's essentially for these reasons (lack of good safety data) that testosterone is not yet approved (at least in the U.S.) as a treatment for lower testosterone due to aging. So any prescription for that purpose is going "off label," and entering a gray area of medical practice.

most oral med school damage the liver, thanks to methylation and what not. A method to get the drug into the system which of taken in pure form the liver would easily reject. That's why I hate these stations that are being over prescribed out there... they decrease heart issues but increase chance of death from liver damage, muscle denigration

Clearly some posters here on the forum take any supplement available to man (legal or illegal), and probably race with it in their system, going to childish mental gymnastics to justify it.

I just think that is more sad than anything and my condolences go out to their tiny little crumb of self-esteem.

But it is their body and their shortened life, and with the broken healthcare that may be a good thing or not my problem at all. I'd just ask that they don't keel over in front of me.

On a day to day basis, I'd appreciate if these bald eagles covered up their pimples and didn't dry their pea-sized testicles with the wall-mounted hair drier at the gym.
Getting a grip on the 'roid rage' would be good too, but I guess that would be asking too much.

 

Okay, this is funny on so many levels.

trail wrote:

way2sloow wrote:

If they're benefiting from athletics financially, then the should rules apply.

Clarification here. The rules should always apply. If someone doesn't like how the rules apply to an amateur event, then they should lobby to have the rule changed to what they want. Deciding a particular rule shouldn't apply to you because you "know better," and racing anyway is cheating. Not claiming you were suggesting that it was OK, just clarifying the implications of your one sentence above. Rules should always apply.

I do think it's a valid argument that older people on otherwise banned drugs being able to participate in what, for them, are purely recreational amateur athletics. As a bike racer I think the current system is reasonable for that. They can do gran fondos, "sportives," unsanctioned time trials and mass start races. But I'm OK with the current policy for sanctioned USAC or UCI racing. Even masters categories. Because as a masters cyclist myself I don't want pharmaceutical help to become a required condition to maintain a basic level of competency in the sport. Though I'm "only" 44, I'm proud of the fact that I'm on exactly zero prescription drugs, well below the U.S. average for my age (or any age, really). I don't want my participation in amateur bike racing to be the thing that initiates my entry into the U.S. culture of pharmaceutical dependence.

I do believe there are also a good number of unsanctioned triathlons, etc. But perhaps an explicit "recreational geezer wave" could be added to even sanctioned triathlons. With no placing recognition beyond the usual finisher SWAG.

Quote:

Pinning a causal relationship from cancer to any one source is damn near impossible.

Certainly not near impossible. There are plenty of known carcinogens. Some female hormone replacement therapy has recently been discovered to have significant carcinogenic properties, and that's changed medical doctrine for post-menopausal women. I'm not making any claim here with respect to testosterone, just the general claim.

My point is, and I think SBR's, with 50 years of data, the mixed research concludes there is no solid evidence against the appropriate levels of therapy. I agree with you, there are instances when products directly cause this or that disease, those are usually removed from therapies. And others are shown to have different associated risks, which then leaves the cause open to the issue that fits a specific narrative--to some, the cause is animal products, to others, it's steroids or antibiotics in meat, or sugar, or pesticides, or additives, or whatever.

I wasn't trying to say a rule change is needed. The rules are in place for a reason. My comments are not directed to those AGers jacked up on who knows what. Dopers like Balogh should be banned.

---

just your average age grouper . no one special . no scientific knowledge . just having fun.

Not sure about others, but I thought I was pretty clear that I support anti-doping. I'm a MOP'er and have no desire to put something into my body just to save a few minutes in an ironman. I was, again, pretty clear that when I'm older, -if- I felt like there was something that would make me feel younger, was no evidence of danger, was not illegal, and I was not competing in a sport whwere it was banned, then I wouldn't see a problem.
You are just repeating old school assumptions.... Yeah, we really see lots of old guys on TRT covered in pimples and raging out, right? Get a grip.

You doth protest too much! :)

I don't think anyone was accusing you of being a doper. We're just countering the assertion of safety.

I'm in my early 40's and am still participating in sports. When I am older, if I am done competing, and there is medication that can make me feel younger again, I won't feel bad about taking it. .02

You get to this "junction" before your triathlon competition days are over. It is called Viagra.

Speak for yourself. :)

Fuk that... I 'm judging anyone who toes the line or steps up to the blocks without a TUE

---

___________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/...eoesophageal_fistula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy
2020 National Masters Champion - M40-44 - 400m IM
Canadian Record Holder 35-39M & 40-44M - 200 m Butterfly (LCM)

Perhaps I'm wrong. but I think the disagreement here comes down to the simple point highlighted in bold above.
Your requirement is that there be no concrete evidence of danger. Most here, myself included, think the bar needs to be higher. i.e. a strong case that it is in fact safe. A lack of proof of danger does not prove of safety.
Presumption of innocence until proven guilty does not apply.

Most men will die with prostate CA not of it. T supplementation can cause it to grow.

I've a good friend who's a renowned endocrinologist, has conducted independent doping enquiries and he - in his early 60's with a young-ish wife said there is no way he would be taking T supplementation.

It works in all the ways described, you get all the benefits in your 40's and 50's but what it looks like beyond that is not well understood and it does not come without risks