It's much simpler:

1. Lifetime ban across all sports. A convicted cyclist can't go become a triathlete. A convicted triathlete can't go become baseball player. You're finished.

---

---------------------------
''Sweeney - you can both crush your AG *and* cruise in dead last!! 😂 '' Murphy's Law

I thought this thread was about LA taking the ice bucket challenge.

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

This is gold!

  Better yet, figure out how to get Major Professional Sports to ban doping (Football, Soccer, Tennis, Baseball). At this point the best they do is pay lip service to it. Cycling and Triathlons are obscure little sports in comparison to the biggies. But, there is SOOOO much money in the biggies, they won't go after them. From my perspective, this makes the feeble little attempts at doping control in cycling and triathlon seem laughable. Different Rules for different sports? Its OK to dope in the really big sports but not in the smaller ones? THAT is what people are being shown.

---

BC Don
Pain is temporary, not giving it your all lasts all Winter.

Soccer is filthy with dopers. You know it's bad when die-hard fans acknowledge it :/

diehard 1, 2 or 3.... Or with a vengeance...
Cos I like 1,2 and the last one but inbetween that I don't... So I dunno if I am therefore a fan.... And that being the case will anyone ask me?
Confusing...

I'm always curious why people get all up in arms about drug use in Pro sports. Pro sports is about entertainment, nothing more. Do you care if your favorite singer / musician uses drugs ?

They are both entertaining us. Why does one set seem to get a free pass by society outrage and one does not? You could argue drug use helps both in their craft and makes it unfair to those that don't make that choice.

It's hard for me to judge people that I have zero chance of walking a day in their shoes. I have no idea what that feels like trying to compete at a level that my livelyhood and those I care about depends on how I perform athletically.

Offen thought the same, nobody complains when (well almost nobody) an actress gets a boob job.

If they are using a "drug" that makes them a better singer/musician than they really are, yes.

Actually more than I would ever care about an athlete, and I barely care about the musician.

I'm positive my singing is waaaaaaaaay better the more drugs and alcohol I consume. Ask anyone who knows me.

Each sport has a set of rules and drug use falls within those rules (at least for a lot of sports). If someone goal-tends in basketball, there's outrage. Was it an entertaining play? Maybe, but it's against the rules. Disregard the rules and the sport disintegrates.

So breaking the rules of a game gets your outrage but breaking the law gets none? Not to surprising.

There's only outrage if the goaltending isn't called on a buzzer beater.

Did you miss the pink font? As a logical human being, I can't possibly imagine somebody actually feeling this way.

Never taken an illegal drug in my life and can literally count on one hand how many legal pharmaceuticals I've ingested since I was an adult, but I could not care less what substances professional athletes take to improve their performance.

Yes. And I'm still missing it, because it's still not in pink, and it's not a tongue-in-cheek comment. I'm watching to enjoy a fair competition under a common set of rules. You really want to see who the best cheater is, as opposed to the best athlete?

Maybe with doping... what goes around comes around at some point. Antonia Colom appeared to have DNF'd early on the bike Sat.. It would be an incredible irony if he crashed out... since cyclists talk about how terrible triathletes bike handling skills are. Curious to hear what happened.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

Jesus, maybe I'm just jaded from my experiences in bodybuilding, boxing and other sports.

Pros dope, that is what they do. There are the incentives, the doctors and the science to always be ahead of testing.

Great, you catch one. There will just be thousands who haven't been caught.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

I wasn't even saying anything about athlete's and PEDs. This is your direct quote:" If they are using a "drug" that makes them a better singer/musician than they really are, yes. ". If you truly meant that, I hope you completely refrain from listening to any music, ever. If that isn't what you meant, I'd edit that post. The chances of you listening to an artist who has never written or performed a song while high/drunk are extremely slim.

I could not care less if an athlete is taking PEDs, but I can see how some might. Your statement though, was ridiculous.

We need more testing, not more punishment.

I'm going to go the other way on this. I think one of the big problems with doping enforcement is that there is only one penalty - a harsh long term ban, usually 2 years for a first offence. This means that the only doping control going on is the super expensive, highly complex testing that can justify a 2 year ban for a professional athlete. The tests have to be ready in every instance to stand up to a serious court fight. Testing is very limited until you get to the top athletes and they are, because of money, the best equipped to beat any testing regime.

I think doping control would actually be more effective is we used simpler, cheaper tests (along with the current tests) and less severe initial punishments for first time positives and then super amped up testing regimes if you failed the basic simple tests multiple times. Test a lot of people at all levels of sport, suspend a lot of people for one race, one stage, etc, track the positive folks over time and then really crack down on the repeat offenders. You'd end up testing way more people under my plan and thus sweep up more real dopers and also catch the real cheats earlier in their careers.

"I wasn't even saying anything about athlete's and PEDs."

The whole thread is about athletes and PEDs

This is your direct quote:" If they are using a "drug" that makes them a better singer/musician than they really are, yes. "

That you for cleverly pointing out what I typed. I would have never known what I typed without your assistance.

"If you truly meant that, I hope you completely refrain from listening to any music, ever."

Why? No music was ever made without the assistance of a magic non-existent drug that makes people better singer/musicians than they really are?

"If that isn't what you meant, I'd edit that post."

I meant that the earlier comparison of athletes using PEDs to cheat to recreational drug use by singers/musicians was not valid. I still mean that.

"The chances of you listening to an artist who has never written or performed a song while high/drunk are extremely slim."

OK. So what? It's still recreational drug use. Well, OK, with the exception of Reggae, where it is an actual job requirement. :-)

"I could not care less if an athlete is taking PEDs, but I can see how some might."

Great!

"Your statement though, was ridiculous."

Whatever. Ridiculous is in the eye of the beholder.