Doping Myths 101

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:59:37 -0500, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/nov06/nov21news2

LeMond, like most people, confuse doping with all sorts of tragedies
that never pan out.

Myth #1: Doping is bad for your health.

FACT: Considering that most all the Euro-pros doped, few seemed to have
suffered serious health complications. Many more have bcome mllionaires
and have closets full of trophies, medals, and posters. Doping pays
handsomely in pro cycling.

Myth #2: Doping is morally wrong.

FACT: Using an altitude tent is just as artificial and morally wrong as
using EPO. Many people have built careers on winning gold medals when
blood doping was legal. Power gels and electrolyte drinks are also
performance enhancing, but since they are multi-billon dollar
industries, they are permitted under the (arbitrary) rules.

The bans against artificial performance-enhancement substances and
methods are arbitrary, meaningless, and have their own ulterior
motivations and origins of existence.

Myth #3: Cycling is going to implode and disappear unless doping is
eradicated.

FACT: Cycling has become more and more popular and the scandals are
meaningless. There has never been more sponsors in cycling than right
now which coincides with the peak of doping.

Can others add to this list?

Thanks,

Magilla

Good post.

Myth #4: The ruling bodies in cycling are really trying to eradicate
doping.

Haha. Yeah, right. Years of looking the other way as late as pre-1998. Guys
in charge who had doped, Directors Sportif who were doping as racers.
Targeting riders for punishment and bans and not team management.

Myth #5: The doping problem is due to the naughty athletes.

It's due to the pressure from the DS and the teams, not the athletes.

Myth #6: The Grand Tours are too difficult.

They are difficult, but it's probably the average speed, not the
difficulty. Fans don't want to see top riders going up mountains at
18km/hr.

nobody said:

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:59:37 -0500, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/nov06/nov21news2

LeMond, like most people, confuse doping with all sorts of tragedies
that never pan out.

Myth #1: Doping is bad for your health.

FACT: Considering that most all the Euro-pros doped, few seemed to have
suffered serious health complications. Many more have bcome mllionaires
and have closets full of trophies, medals, and posters. Doping pays
handsomely in pro cycling.

Myth #2: Doping is morally wrong.

FACT: Using an altitude tent is just as artificial and morally wrong as
using EPO. Many people have built careers on winning gold medals when
blood doping was legal. Power gels and electrolyte drinks are also
performance enhancing, but since they are multi-billon dollar
industries, they are permitted under the (arbitrary) rules.

The bans against artificial performance-enhancement substances and
methods are arbitrary, meaningless, and have their own ulterior
motivations and origins of existence.

Myth #3: Cycling is going to implode and disappear unless doping is
eradicated.

FACT: Cycling has become more and more popular and the scandals are
meaningless. There has never been more sponsors in cycling than right
now which coincides with the peak of doping.

Good post.

Myth #4: The ruling bodies in cycling are really trying to eradicate
doping.

Haha. Yeah, right. Years of looking the other way as late as pre-1998. Guys
in charge who had doped, Directors Sportif who were doping as racers.
Targeting riders for punishment and bans and not team management.

Myth #5: The doping problem is due to the naughty athletes.

It's due to the pressure from the DS and the teams, not the athletes.

Myth #6: The Grand Tours are too difficult.

They are difficult, but it's probably the average speed, not the
difficulty. Fans don't want to see top riders going up mountains at
18km/hr.

Myth #7: (Lemond believes) EPO gives you a performance boost of 30%.

Even Lafferty's arguments about the improvement in times
up Alpe d'Huez don't support such a large number.

MagillaGorilla said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/nov06/nov21news2

LeMond, like most people, confuse doping with all sorts of tragedies
that never pan out.

Myth #1: Doping is bad for your health.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f00/web2/naimzadeh2.html

Quoted message said:

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Quoted message said:

nobody said:

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:59:37 -0500, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/nov06/nov21news2

LeMond, like most people, confuse doping with all sorts of tragedies
that never pan out.

Myth #1: Doping is bad for your health.

FACT: Considering that most all the Euro-pros doped, few seemed to have
suffered serious health complications. Many more have bcome mllionaires
and have closets full of trophies, medals, and posters. Doping pays
handsomely in pro cycling.

Myth #2: Doping is morally wrong.

FACT: Using an altitude tent is just as artificial and morally wrong as
using EPO. Many people have built careers on winning gold medals when
blood doping was legal. Power gels and electrolyte drinks are also
performance enhancing, but since they are multi-billon dollar
industries, they are permitted under the (arbitrary) rules.

The bans against artificial performance-enhancement substances and
methods are arbitrary, meaningless, and have their own ulterior
motivations and origins of existence.

Myth #3: Cycling is going to implode and disappear unless doping is
eradicated.

FACT: Cycling has become more and more popular and the scandals are
meaningless. There has never been more sponsors in cycling than right
now which coincides with the peak of doping.

Good post.

Myth #4: The ruling bodies in cycling are really trying to eradicate
doping.

Haha. Yeah, right. Years of looking the other way as late as pre-1998. Guys
in charge who had doped, Directors Sportif who were doping as racers.
Targeting riders for punishment and bans and not team management.

Myth #5: The doping problem is due to the naughty athletes.

It's due to the pressure from the DS and the teams, not the athletes.

Myth #6: The Grand Tours are too difficult.

They are difficult, but it's probably the average speed, not the
difficulty. Fans don't want to see top riders going up mountains at
18km/hr.

Myth #7: (Lemond believes) EPO gives you a performance boost of 30%.

Even Lafferty's arguments about the improvement in times
up Alpe d'Huez don't support such a large number.

I know, I saw that 30% figure....LeMond is not lucid. If you searched
him, you'd probably find a crack pipe in his pocket.

Magilla

MagillaGorilla said:

I know, I saw that 30% figure....LeMond is not lucid.

Agreed. But, close enough for Pound and WADA.

It's just that old Green-Eyed Monster, IRT Armstrong winning a bunch
more Tours and having a better "back from death" story, too.

Quoted message said:

If you searched
him, you'd probably find a crack pipe in his pocket.

Flask. --D-y

MagillaGorilla said:

Mark & Steven Bornfeld said:

MagillaGorilla said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/nov06/nov21news2

LeMond, like most people, confuse doping with all sorts of tragedies
that never pan out.

Myth #1: Doping is bad for your health.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f00/web2/naimzadeh2.html

Quoted message said:

First of all, I want to preface this by saying I like the Bornfeld twins
even though I think they both have affairs with their hygenists and they
still never came clean about the fact that male dentists, as a
profession, hire their female hygenists based on their suitability to be
a desirable paramour. But this secret in the dental profession doesn't
make the Bornfeld brothers bad people by any means.

It's really no secret. However, the price of pulchritude has risen
faster than my ability to pay for it.

Quoted message said:

Now we turn our attention to the ciitation provided that discusses the
Eastern bloc steroid [censored].

From a scientific standpoint, its problematic because it's anecdotal
and there is no control group. The steroids these athletes took were
probably harmful because they were overdosed and not weaned off them,
and bears no similarity to those who might take steroids in more
moderate amounts and taper their dosage before stopping their use
(tapering a dosage of steroids before quitting is thhe most important
thing to know). Arnold Schwarzenegger wouldn't have had a movie career
or be Governor unless hs used steroids. Many athletes and cyclists
wouldn't have won races unless they took steroids (i.e. Tylenol
Hamilton, Oscar Camendzind, David Millar, Pedro Deldopa, Johann Museuuw,
the entire Gewiss team, etc.).

Steroids are great for improving results, careers, performance, bank
accounts, and celebrity status. They help you get a hot wife. Those
who don't use drugs lack the will and determination to do what it takes
to be the best. In a sense, they are quitters. To say otherwise is
really just Doping Myth #8. The solution to doping is to seek more
sophisticated methods to beat the tests such as contaminating the urine
sample with laundry detergent to break down r-EPO proteins.

What do others think?

Thanks,

Magilla

You've convinced me. It is the American way (as well as the European way).

Steve

Quoted message said:

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:16:38 -0500, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Mark & Steven Bornfeld said:

MagillaGorilla said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/nov06/nov21news2

LeMond, like most people, confuse doping with all sorts of tragedies
that never pan out.

Myth #1: Doping is bad for your health.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f00/web2/naimzadeh2.html

Quoted message said:

First of all, I want to preface this by saying I like the Bornfeld twins
even though I think they both have affairs with their hygenists and they
still never came clean about the fact that male dentists, as a
profession, hire their female hygenists based on their suitability to be
a desirable paramour. But this secret in the dental profession doesn't
make the Bornfeld brothers bad people by any means.

Now we turn our attention to the ciitation provided that discusses the
Eastern bloc steroid [censored].

From a scientific standpoint, its problematic because it's anecdotal
and there is no control group. The steroids these athletes took were
probably harmful because they were overdosed and not weaned off them,
and bears no similarity to those who might take steroids in more
moderate amounts and taper their dosage before stopping their use
(tapering a dosage of steroids before quitting is thhe most important
thing to know). Arnold Schwarzenegger wouldn't have had a movie career
or be Governor unless hs used steroids. Many athletes and cyclists
wouldn't have won races unless they took steroids (i.e. Tylenol
Hamilton, Oscar Camendzind, David Millar, Pedro Deldopa, Johann Museuuw,
the entire Gewiss team, etc.).

Steroids are great for improving results, careers, performance, bank
accounts, and celebrity status. They help you get a hot wife. Those
who don't use drugs lack the will and determination to do what it takes
to be the best. In a sense, they are quitters. To say otherwise is
really just Doping Myth #8. The solution to doping is to seek more
sophisticated methods to beat the tests such as contaminating the urine
sample with laundry detergent to break down r-EPO proteins.

What do others think?

Thanks,

Magilla

They were taking oral steroids which make a first pass through the liver.
Bad mojo.

Nobody takes oral steroids today. Morons maybe.

The only tumor that has been associated with Testosterone is that it
exacerbates prostate tumors. It's not been shown to cause them.

The other thing, and what these girls and that article isn't telling you is
that they did -not- just take that one steroid. They took several drugs.

That can be

Myth #9: Cyclists are only taking some EPO, Cortisone, Testosterone and
hGH. Truth is the public, fans, even guys in the know would be horribly
shocked at the freakin' pharmacy of durgs these guys are taking. Modest
doses of a few things do not lead to bad health.

(Heck, it's not just the cyclists. The mechanics and support crew are
taking durgs, too, just to stay with the tour. Wouldn't be surprised if the
DS were doing uppers just to stay awake and drive the car.) It would be a
hoot to have them test those guys at the end of a stage in week two, LOL.

MagillaGorilla said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/nov06/nov21news2

LeMond, like most people, confuse doping with all sorts of tragedies
that never pan out.

Myth #1: Doping is bad for your health.

FACT: Considering that most all the Euro-pros doped, few seemed to have
suffered serious health complications. Many more have bcome mllionaires
and have closets full of trophies, medals, and posters. Doping pays
handsomely in pro cycling.

Myth #2: Doping is morally wrong.

FACT: Using an altitude tent is just as artificial and morally wrong as
using EPO. Many people have built careers on winning gold medals when
blood doping was legal. Power gels and electrolyte drinks are also
performance enhancing, but since they are multi-billon dollar
industries, they are permitted under the (arbitrary) rules.

The bans against artificial performance-enhancement substances and
methods are arbitrary, meaningless, and have their own ulterior
motivations and origins of existence.

Myth #3: Cycling is going to implode and disappear unless doping is
eradicated.

FACT: Cycling has become more and more popular and the scandals are
meaningless. There has never been more sponsors in cycling than right
now which coincides with the peak of doping.

Can others add to this list?

Or fix it. Opinions are not facts.

Quoted message said:

MagillaGorilla said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/nov06/nov21news2

LeMond, like most people, confuse doping with all sorts of tragedies
that never pan out.

Myth #1: Doping is bad for your health.

FACT: Considering that most all the Euro-pros doped, few seemed to have
suffered serious health complications. Many more have bcome mllionaires
and have closets full of trophies, medals, and posters. Doping pays
handsomely in pro cycling.

Myth #2: Doping is morally wrong.

FACT: Using an altitude tent is just as artificial and morally wrong as
using EPO. Many people have built careers on winning gold medals when
blood doping was legal. Power gels and electrolyte drinks are also
performance enhancing, but since they are multi-billon dollar
industries, they are permitted under the (arbitrary) rules.

The bans against artificial performance-enhancement substances and
methods are arbitrary, meaningless, and have their own ulterior
motivations and origins of existence.

Myth #3: Cycling is going to implode and disappear unless doping is
eradicated.

FACT: Cycling has become more and more popular and the scandals are
meaningless. There has never been more sponsors in cycling than right
now which coincides with the peak of doping.

Can others add to this list?

Or fix it. Opinions are not facts.

The Gorilla guy is right on. It's no opinion - it's morays.

Look, if EPO was just something that you could smear on your skin, or
drink, it would NOT be illegal. If there was some juice from some Brazilian
jungle plant discovered tomorrow that gave a clear documented 10%
performance boost, everyone would be drinking it. It would be declared a
'food' and thus be immune from current FDA perview.

But it IS (would be) performance enhancing. So the gorilla is right. The
rule is arbitrary. If that hypothetical were true they'd have to totally
redefine 'illegal performance enhancing' as anything consumed, or applied
that gave more than a certain small percentage enhancement. They're not
going to do that since the multi-billion dollar sponsors would all pull
out.

Why haven't they made skin suits illegal? What about using wind-tunnel
testing. THAT should surely be made illegal since it makes the playing
field imbalanced - only the richest teams and their top guys can afford to
use them. Carbon fibre? Illegal. Aero-bars? Illegal.

Imagine a guy (from the future) entering the 1970 TdF wearing a skinsuit
and carbon fibre shoes, and an aero-helmet, getting passed Gu bars, riding
a 15lb bike. He'd be run out of town on a rail, lol. It's an arbitrary
ruling based on what is/was acceptable by the current morays.

In 30 years they'll be consuming nano-meds, gene doping, who knows what
else, many things that are not illegal right now. Technically if someone
stays ahead of the rules, uses designer durgs, things not banned yet, is
that cheating? Maybe. Maybe not.

So, don't be retarded. ;-)

Mark & Steven Bornfeld said:

Quoted message said:

pulchritude

Congrats on first use in rbr.

nobody said:

It's an arbitrary ruling based on what is/was acceptable by the
current morays.

This is a common misconception. Morays do not have any current at all
as they are not electic eels. In fact, electric eels are a type of
knifefish, not an eel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moray_eel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_eel

On the other hand, I suspect if one put either one just behind you on
the bike, they would have a performance enhancing effect; either would
motivate me to go faster....

-alan

--
Alan Hoyle - [email hidden] - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
"I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG
Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate.

Alan Hoyle said:

nobody said:

It's an arbitrary ruling based on what is/was acceptable by the
current morays.

This is a common misconception. Morays do not have any current at all
as they are not electic eels. In fact, electric eels are a type of
knifefish, not an eel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moray_eel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_eel

On the other hand, I suspect if one put either one just behind you on
the bike, they would have a performance enhancing effect; either would
motivate me to go faster....

-alan

I know you've been waiting years just to make that post. 'Mores' power to
ye.

(fires contextspellchecker)

In article <[email hidden]>,

MagillaGorilla said:

Quoted message said:

nobody said:

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:59:37 -0500, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/nov06/nov21news2
>
>LeMond, like most people, confuse doping with all sorts of tragedies
>that never pan out.
>
>Myth #1: Doping is bad for your health.
>
>FACT: Considering that most all the Euro-pros doped, few seemed to have
>suffered serious health complications. Many more have bcome mllionaires
>and have closets full of trophies, medals, and posters. Doping pays
>handsomely in pro cycling.
>
>
>
>Myth #2: Doping is morally wrong.
>
>FACT: Using an altitude tent is just as artificial and morally wrong as
>using EPO. Many people have built careers on winning gold medals when
>blood doping was legal. Power gels and electrolyte drinks are also
>performance enhancing, but since they are multi-billon dollar
>industries, they are permitted under the (arbitrary) rules.
>
>The bans against artificial performance-enhancement substances and
>methods are arbitrary, meaningless, and have their own ulterior
>motivations and origins of existence.
>
>
>
>Myth #3: Cycling is going to implode and disappear unless doping is
>eradicated.
>
>FACT: Cycling has become more and more popular and the scandals are
>meaningless. There has never been more sponsors in cycling than right
>now which coincides with the peak of doping.
>

Good post.

Myth #4: The ruling bodies in cycling are really trying to eradicate
doping.

Haha. Yeah, right. Years of looking the other way as late as pre-1998. Guys
in charge who had doped, Directors Sportif who were doping as racers.
Targeting riders for punishment and bans and not team management.

Myth #5: The doping problem is due to the naughty athletes.

It's due to the pressure from the DS and the teams, not the athletes.

Myth #6: The Grand Tours are too difficult.

They are difficult, but it's probably the average speed, not the
difficulty. Fans don't want to see top riders going up mountains at
18km/hr.

Myth #7: (Lemond believes) EPO gives you a performance boost of 30%.

Even Lafferty's arguments about the improvement in times
up Alpe d'Huez don't support such a large number.

I know, I saw that 30% figure....LeMond is not lucid. If you searched
him, you'd probably find a crack pipe in his pocket.

Is LeMond the only cyclist ever to have cracked back on
Eddie Merckx? I refer to `The older you get, the faster
you were.' LeMond won the TdF and the World Chamionship
and deserves respect; but sheeesh.

--
Michael Press

In article <[email hidden]>,

MagillaGorilla said:

Mark & Steven Bornfeld said:

MagillaGorilla said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/nov06/nov21news2

LeMond, like most people, confuse doping with all sorts of tragedies
that never pan out.

Myth #1: Doping is bad for your health.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f00/web2/naimzadeh2.html

Quoted message said:

First of all, I want to preface this by saying I like the Bornfeld twins
even though I think they both have affairs with their hygenists and they
still never came clean about the fact that male dentists, as a
profession, hire their female hygenists based on their suitability to be
a desirable paramour. But this secret in the dental profession doesn't
make the Bornfeld brothers bad people by any means.

Now we turn our attention to the ciitation provided that discusses the
Eastern bloc steroid [censored].

From a scientific standpoint, its problematic because it's anecdotal
and there is no control group. The steroids these athletes took were
probably harmful because they were overdosed and not weaned off them,
and bears no similarity to those who might take steroids in more
moderate amounts and taper their dosage before stopping their use
(tapering a dosage of steroids before quitting is thhe most important
thing to know). Arnold Schwarzenegger wouldn't have had a movie career
or be Governor unless hs used steroids. Many athletes and cyclists
wouldn't have won races unless they took steroids (i.e. Tylenol
Hamilton, Oscar Camendzind, David Millar, Pedro Deldopa, Johann Museuuw,
the entire Gewiss team, etc.).

Steroids are great for improving results, careers, performance, bank
accounts, and celebrity status. They help you get a hot wife. Those
who don't use drugs lack the will and determination to do what it takes
to be the best. In a sense, they are quitters. To say otherwise is
really just Doping Myth #8. The solution to doping is to seek more
sophisticated methods to beat the tests such as contaminating the urine
sample with laundry detergent to break down r-EPO proteins.

What do others think?

Doping myth n+1: Dope will make you a great athlete.
Watch the movie Pumping_Iron. Arnold Schwarzenegger
tears up the competition just talking to them. He
smiles and talks, and laughs, and talks, and the
competition shrinks. It is a slaughter.

--
Michael Press

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

Doping myth n+1: Dope will make you a great athlete.
Watch the movie Pumping_Iron. Arnold Schwarzenegger
tears up the competition just talking to them. He
smiles and talks, and laughs, and talks, and the
competition shrinks. It is a slaughter.

--
Michael Press

as in "[censored] [dumb blonde competitor] sees me as a sort of older brother
and comes to me for advice and sometimes [big smile] I give him bad
advice". Just too funny.

jyh.

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

MagillaGorilla said:

Mark & Steven Bornfeld said:

MagillaGorilla wrote:

>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/nov06/nov21news2
>
>LeMond, like most people, confuse doping with all sorts of tragedies
>that never pan out.
>
>Myth #1: Doping is bad for your health.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f00/web2/naimzadeh2.html

First of all, I want to preface this by saying I like the Bornfeld twins
even though I think they both have affairs with their hygenists and they
still never came clean about the fact that male dentists, as a
profession, hire their female hygenists based on their suitability to be
a desirable paramour. But this secret in the dental profession doesn't
make the Bornfeld brothers bad people by any means.

Now we turn our attention to the ciitation provided that discusses the
Eastern bloc steroid [censored].

From a scientific standpoint, its problematic because it's anecdotal
and there is no control group. The steroids these athletes took were
probably harmful because they were overdosed and not weaned off them,
and bears no similarity to those who might take steroids in more
moderate amounts and taper their dosage before stopping their use
(tapering a dosage of steroids before quitting is thhe most important
thing to know). Arnold Schwarzenegger wouldn't have had a movie career
or be Governor unless hs used steroids. Many athletes and cyclists
wouldn't have won races unless they took steroids (i.e. Tylenol
Hamilton, Oscar Camendzind, David Millar, Pedro Deldopa, Johann Museuuw,
the entire Gewiss team, etc.).

Steroids are great for improving results, careers, performance, bank
accounts, and celebrity status. They help you get a hot wife. Those
who don't use drugs lack the will and determination to do what it takes
to be the best. In a sense, they are quitters. To say otherwise is
really just Doping Myth #8. The solution to doping is to seek more
sophisticated methods to beat the tests such as contaminating the urine
sample with laundry detergent to break down r-EPO proteins.

What do others think?

Doping myth n+1: Dope will make you a great athlete.
Watch the movie Pumping_Iron. Arnold Schwarzenegger
tears up the competition just talking to them. He
smiles and talks, and laughs, and talks, and the
competition shrinks. It is a slaughter.

Actually doping will make you a great athlete, so it's not a myth but a
FACT. The MYTH is: Doping will not make you a great athlete.

Magilla

MagillaGorilla said:

Quoted message said:

Myth #7: (Lemond believes) EPO gives you a performance boost of 30%.

Even Lafferty's arguments about the improvement in times
up Alpe d'Huez don't support such a large number.

I know, I saw that 30% figure....LeMond is not lucid. If you searched
him, you'd probably find a crack pipe in his pocket.

What's the percentage performance boost from crack?

If it's negative, maybe we finally know why he fell off so badly
and suddenly in the early 90s.

(Seriously, I respect Lemond's accomplishments and I think
he might have a real complaint that he couldn't keep up with
people doing more dope in the early 90s, although I think
Hampsten probably has a more legitimate claim on that.
But he is unable to let it go and be satisfied with his career,
which was already pretty brilliant, and now he seems to be
into the making-[censored]-up territory.)

Ben

Kyle Legate said:

Mark & Steven Bornfeld said:

Quoted message said:

pulchritude

Congrats on first use in rbr.

I had to look it up after Jackie Mason used it in Steve Martin's "The
Jerk".

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

In article <[email hidden]>,

MagillaGorilla said:

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

MagillaGorilla said:

Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:

>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/nov06/nov21news2
>>
>>LeMond, like most people, confuse doping with all sorts of tragedies
>>that never pan out.
>>
>>Myth #1: Doping is bad for your health.
>
>
>http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f00/web2/naimzadeh2.html
>
>

First of all, I want to preface this by saying I like the Bornfeld twins
even though I think they both have affairs with their hygenists and they
still never came clean about the fact that male dentists, as a
profession, hire their female hygenists based on their suitability to be
a desirable paramour. But this secret in the dental profession doesn't
make the Bornfeld brothers bad people by any means.

Now we turn our attention to the ciitation provided that discusses the
Eastern bloc steroid [censored].

From a scientific standpoint, its problematic because it's anecdotal
and there is no control group. The steroids these athletes took were
probably harmful because they were overdosed and not weaned off them,
and bears no similarity to those who might take steroids in more
moderate amounts and taper their dosage before stopping their use
(tapering a dosage of steroids before quitting is thhe most important
thing to know). Arnold Schwarzenegger wouldn't have had a movie career
or be Governor unless hs used steroids. Many athletes and cyclists
wouldn't have won races unless they took steroids (i.e. Tylenol
Hamilton, Oscar Camendzind, David Millar, Pedro Deldopa, Johann Museuuw,
the entire Gewiss team, etc.).

Steroids are great for improving results, careers, performance, bank
accounts, and celebrity status. They help you get a hot wife. Those
who don't use drugs lack the will and determination to do what it takes
to be the best. In a sense, they are quitters. To say otherwise is
really just Doping Myth #8. The solution to doping is to seek more
sophisticated methods to beat the tests such as contaminating the urine
sample with laundry detergent to break down r-EPO proteins.

What do others think?

Doping myth n+1: Dope will make you a great athlete.
Watch the movie Pumping_Iron. Arnold Schwarzenegger
tears up the competition just talking to them. He
smiles and talks, and laughs, and talks, and the
competition shrinks. It is a slaughter.

Actually doping will make you a great athlete, so it's not a myth but a
FACT. The MYTH is: Doping will not make you a great athlete.

This is a subtle rhetorical device the essence of which
escapes me, or you are raving.

--
Michael Press