Return to Dope Talk (locked)

Marion to plead guilty to doping!

This Forum was created to divert traffic from Current Events at the height of the BALCO scandal. It comes and goes as "needed";

Postby eldrick » Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:07 am

Mats Nilsson wrote:Take a look at Calvin's body...T.I.N.Y. Add his persona to the mix and the likelihood of him using anabolic steroids are slim next to nothing. It would be like accusing Carolina Kluft of roiding.


you know well enough that appearance is no basis of deciding drug-use : the ddr women sprinters weren't big - the philosophy behind their regime was to strengthen up with drugs, but not add bulk up

a "tiny" athlete coud be just applying same principles - get 10 - 20% stronger with drugs, but restrict protein intake to keep weight constant
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby paddyb » Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:10 am

eldrick wrote:
Mats Nilsson wrote:Take a look at Calvin's body...T.I.N.Y. Add his persona to the mix and the likelihood of him using anabolic steroids are slim next to nothing. It would be like accusing Carolina Kluft of roiding.


you know well enough that appearance is no basis of deciding drug-use : the ddr women sprinters weren't big - the philosophy behind their regime was to strengthen up with drugs, but not add bulk up

a "tiny" athlete coud be just applying same principles - get 10 - 20% stronger with drugs, but restrict protein intake to keep weight constant


Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks eldrick.
paddyb
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Mats Nilsson » Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:42 am

paddyb wrote:
eldrick wrote:
Mats Nilsson wrote:Take a look at Calvin's body...T.I.N.Y. Add his persona to the mix and the likelihood of him using anabolic steroids are slim next to nothing. It would be like accusing Carolina Kluft of roiding.


you know well enough that appearance is no basis of deciding drug-use : the ddr women sprinters weren't big - the philosophy behind their regime was to strengthen up with drugs, but not add bulk up

a "tiny" athlete coud be just applying same principles - get 10 - 20% stronger with drugs, but restrict protein intake to keep weight constant


Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks eldrick.


Eldrick, you are playing devil's advocate. On one hand you are arguing that steroids don't "really work" [THG in other threads for example] on the other hand you say that you get 10-20% stronger. A strong lean sprinter will always be faster than his twin brother [who decided not to use roids] and is relatively weak but just as lean. Make up your mind will you.

Either way...in general people that use roids are bigger, stronger, and faster. Only vegetarians and people who want to reduce their acid/base ratio [renal stone prone people for example] cut protein intake. If you don't have the amino acids mate...you cannot build either strength or muscle [they are kind of dependent upon another for long-term adaptations wouldn't you think :wink: ).
Mats Nilsson
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:20 am

Postby eldrick » Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:18 am

mats

i said nothing about steroids not working, but them having different efficacy :

a) stanzolol/turinabol/etc - dynamite anabolic effect ( i'm sure you'll get your 20% strength improvement there with no added bulk ) - full agonists

b) THG - moderate anabolic effect ( iirc, gestrinone is a partial agonist & hydrogenating it was to make it undetectable - it won't make it a full agonist ( the hydrogenation occurs at the other end of the molecule from the "anabolic receptor insertion" part ) ) - no matter what dose you take of a partial agonist, you won't get the anabolic effect of a decent dose of the above

c) growth hormone is not an anabolic steroid - it's not a steroid, but an anabolic polypeptide with no steroid structure - it has anabolic effects, but not anywhere as effective as a) ( imo )

anecdotally from reading on the web, i'd rate their anabolic effect of a) far greater than the other 2 ( which of the other 2 has better anabolic effects, i have no idea - little data to go on )

as for your protein-restriction, i assume you mean it has to be restricted in chronic renal failure in order to reduce urea production
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Since my thread with the end of the story was deleted from

Postby MattMarriott » Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:49 pm

Since my thread with the end of the story was deleted from trackandfieldnews.com, here a link to other sites where you still can read it:
http://www.goldismoney.info/forums/show ... p?t=185209
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3449
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=72214
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.ph ... did=204163
MattMarriott
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Since my thread with the end of the story was deleted fr

Postby tafnut » Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:35 pm

MattMarriott wrote:here a link to other sites where you still can read it:


This is too good to pass up - from one of the links MattM provides:
IAAF to Consider Investigating Sprinter Jones (campaign to destroy natural sport continues) Washington Post, Page D10 ^ | December 4, 2004


[bolding and underlining provided by me to emphasize the terrible unfairness of the Illuminati hounding poor Marion. ]
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Previous

Return to Dope Talk (locked)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests