|
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Multimedia Central Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities Work in Sports
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE |  |
Reactions: Steroid testing Users spilt if athletes knew of nandrolone use
Posted: Thursday March 02, 2000 09:56 AM
After Linford Christie, Merlene Ottey and Mark Richardson tested positive for nandrolone in the past year, many questions arose if athletes actually knew they were taking anabolic steroids. CNNSI.com users were split on the issue and what the IAAF should do about the problem.
I guess the IAAF should ban these athletes for one year and then allow them to take part. This is only if they regret.
The recent cases emphasize the doubt of not only the drug testing procedure but also the knowledge of the substances. Some of the cases need individual assessment because they are not so 'black and white' as they initially seem. It's a shame that innocent athletes could be banned out of their sport because not enough knowledge on substances is known. It makes the situation worse to think drug cases could have been swept under the carpet to avoid scandal.
The IAAF should conduct an in-depth study into the widespread use of the drug, taking into consideration age, food and other factors. Athletes in the meantime should be allowed to compete. It should be noted that aging could contribute to the higher level of detection; therefore, all possibilities should be exhaust before banning athletes.
I believe that the athletes take the drug unknowingly. As Richardson explained in a TV interview that he has a dietitian who checks everything that he eats and he was sure that he wouldn't have a problem with doping. I believe he didn't ingest this drug on purpose because he is one of the best athletes and doesn't need to take drugs to finish in first place. Why would he risk taking nandrolone a couple of months before the Olympics? The IAAF should make a new foolproof test that would leave no shadow of doubt that an athlete is doping. In legal supplements that athletes take there might be traces of nandrolone and the IAAF should have a list of supplements that athletes can take and not risk suspension. One more thing, why would such great stars as Christie and Ottey take drugs when ending there great careers? Now they will be know for their problems with drugs and not for their great athletic success!
I don't believe all these athletes were taking the same steroid. I might be convinced a number of athletes were taking steroids, but I do not believe all of them would be taking the same drug. Therefore, I think there must be a supplement that registers as nandrolone. The question is, which supplement
There is no coincidence that these "elite" athletes are all testing positive for the same banned substance (I use the term "elite" only in reference to their performances). They all had it in their systems. Where did it come from? Why was it in their systems? It was there because they took it (or something containing it) in order to enhance their performances. Why? Ego. Insecurity. The need to gain every advantage they can over their competition. The mistaken belief that everyone else is doing it. Who is to blame? Themselves. What is to blame? Don't blame the food or supplements they've been taking. It's their willful blindness and lack of intelligence in not knowing exactly what was in the performance enhances they were taking. They all knew they worked. Did any of them ask why? Of course not, because they were achieving the results they wanted. And when they're caught, every one of them refuses to take any personal responsibility for the test results. I am tired of hearing these babies whine when they're caught with their fingers in the cookie jar. It's always someone else's fault. How refreshing it would be to hear one of them say, just once, yes I willingly took the performance enhancer because of the results I was able to achieve with it. I may not have known exactly what I was taking, but I really didn't care. AND I AM WILLING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MY ACTIONS! No, instead they'll launch some multi-million dollar lawsuit for the damage done to their reputation and hope that's enough to deter the investigation. If the Olympic dream is the money to be made (by the IOC, the broadcasters, the advertisers, the sponsors, the host nations, the judges, etc.) who can blame the athletes for trying to cash in, too?
I think that the current rules should stay in place. Athletes are smart enough to not eat things that may be questionable.
No matter how an ergonomic aid or performance enhancing drug gets into ones system, the athlete benefits from its presence. It's like the old saying... "You can't be a little dead". One either has or does not have the drug in their system and therefore must be guilty. There can be no gray area. A positive test must be punishable by banned competition.
I believe that any competitive track athlete has the potential to take a performance enhancing drug, but I can't believe that Linford Christie would knowingly take anabolic steroids. He has been a staunch anti-drug supporter and he is retired. He is not trying to stay at the top of the world sprinting stage or attempting to break the world record. It just doesn't make sense! As a long time athletics fan, I have learned to not believe athletes who claim that they are clean. But because Linford Christie is on this list, I believe the IAAF should look for an alternate source. Then again, I have been fooled in the past by an athlete that I respected.
Recently, British scientists have proven that several dietary supplements can fool standard drug tests for anabolic steroids, and cause erroneous results to be reached. If this is the case, why does the IAAF continue to suspend reputable athletes without giving these individuals a fair investigation into their case? Many of these athletes have worked long and hard and have dedicated their lives toward the pursuit of excellence in the field of athletics. It is unfortunate that the organization whose main purpose is to enhance and promote athletics would embarrass, frustrate and discourage athletes by such accusations.
I believe that performance-enhancing drugs should be banned from all amateur and professional sports. These drugs give their users unfair advantages when performing. Artificial ingredients in athletes?
There is something strange about the nandrolone cases -- Why have the most recent cases involved British athletes only? There can only be 3 possible reasons. 1. There is a conspiracy against British Athletes in the run up to the 2000 Olympics. 2. Dietary and/or vitamin supplements being taken by the British athletes are reacting in some way to food and drinks to produce the drug nandrolone or something else similar in signature to produce the positive reaction. 3. OR they are in fact cheating. Until real and independent tests are done on the drug nandrolone, including possible near-products, with the results being made public we should not assume No. 3. At the start of each Olympics both officials and competitors give an oath of fair play before live television, the press and the attending public. So why is it that the IAAF treating athletes as being guilty of doping offences when they have no firm and solid evidence before the event starts? The IAAF should be called to account for their actions.
Alas! Ben Johnson is not the only drug endorsed athlete. It is my suspicion many other individuals past and present have utilize steroids for athletic prestige.
| ||||||||||||||||
