VDB admits doping...?

"Clovis Lark" wrote in message
...

Did you read the article? Here's the url again:

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/athletic...609912,00.html


Yea, I read the article. However, it didn't provide any of the science
upon which it supposedly was based.


The "Schwarzenegger mice" study was widely reported.


Why don't we?

Did we ever finish that dicussion of the french foundations of functional
tonality? No?

I figured out what was wrong with the "Joplin introduced rhythm" take. It
should have been "Joplin merged African syncopation with the Western
tonal
system"

As did Tango composers of the same era...




Ragtime was the ancestor of jazz and all its offshoots, blues, rock, R&B et
al. It was the start of the 20th century change that saw the rhythm section
become the focal point of the music.

I'm not exactly sure what is the point of contesting that. The difference
between the emphasis in rhythm in 20th century popular music (jazz, blues,
rock) and pre-20th century classical is very apparent.

"Clovis Lark" wrote in message
...
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

"Clovis Lark" wrote in message
...
TritonRider wrote:
From: "Nick Burns"

No, but I think it may take that long to get results.



If you are talking about safe positive controlable results I think
your
may be
right, but the curve is almost a geometric progression. The negative
stuff is
going to be immediate.
Bill C

Including --- DEATH.


Dumbass -

http://www.mastervault.com/leflawnet.../newspage6.htm

"We believe that it's better to provide information rather than use scare
tactics such as testing," Bledsoe said. "But many people will do anything
to
get ahead. There was a survey taken a few years ago that asked
professional,
Olympic, and high-end college athletes whether they would take a drug
that
would guarantee a championship or gold medal but also take 10 years off
their
life. Over 50 percent of the players responded that they would take the
drug."

And who is the dumbass?


Dumbass -

Straw man.

My contention is that gene therapy will rear its ugly head in athletics.
Every url I've posted supports that speculation.

"Shayne Wissler" wrote in message
news:PRpfb.679310$uu5.110866@sccrnsc04...

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in
message t...

I wasn't talking about super-athletic flies, persay, just that it will be
possible to morph humans into beings that most of us may consider to be
non-human.

You watch too many movies and read too few books.



Dumbass -

I've gone to 3 movies in the past year. I don't own a TV. My main source of
entertainment is reading.


If you're so paranoid
about microbiology why don't you go check out a book on the subject and
read
it instead of these ridiculous articles. Then you can see what a Dumbass
you've been in this thread.



Dumbass -

Where am I paranoid? My only contention is that gene therapy will be used as
a performance enhancer and that there could be some strange unwanted side
effects since we don't yet have a complete understanding of the workings of
the human body. In some ways it will be similar to drug therapy, in other
ways it won't. When one considers that we are only 2% different from a
chimpanzee, it's logical that there could be some strangeness in the works.

Some of the unforeseen changes may even be positive. Others may not.

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 23:11:27 GMT, Davey Crockett wrote:
a Francophone, Jacques Rogge, even though he's a Walloon from
Belgium.

A Fleming actually, from Ghent.

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 01:58:31 GMT, Steve
wrote:


Damn............you talk too much!!
This abuse of the most unheralded unfriendliness. Cease it today!

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in
message t...
.. My main source of
entertainment is reading.

But not for comprehension. Plonk (with Tango music playing).

"Nick Burns" wrote in message
m...

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message

What this and the Museeuw situation illustrate is the truth of what
Dickey V. said when he finally came clean. I think the operative
assumption
has to be that everyone at the top level is using dope and probably a
whole
lot of wannabes.
It's time for WADA, the UCI and IOC to admit defeat (and in Hein's
case
malfeasance, IMO) in the drug wars and let the competitors use anything
they
want. Just make certain the riders sign informed consents and set up at
fund for the widows/widowers and orphans.
Think how much fun it will be to see Tammy back in action. I'll bet
she
could beat Merckx's Hour Record. ;-)
Gotta go for my ride and swing by the druggist for some caffeine
suppositories. Later.......

I think the reason the war was lost was that the definition of victory was
unrealistic. I think that the list of banned substances is far too big. I
should be able to take any drugs as a cyclist that I can take as a
patient.
The problem with that is there is a lot of opportunity for corrupt MDs to
supply patient\athletes on the basis of exaggerated or false diagnosis.
Therefore along with the relaxed rules I would like to see more oversight
by
neutral MDs. IOW, they can take prescribed drugs but all medical files
have
to be made available.

The list of banned drugs also has the undesirable effect of creating the
impression that many of these drugs to enhance performance. Most of them
don't.


Chris, I don't think the problem is that the list is too long. The real
"problem" preparations would still be on a shortened list. I've simply come
to see it as a never ending chase to keep up with the abusers who, IMO, will
always be a step ahead.

So, let them dope. It will be interesting to see competitor morphs in 2103.
Brian

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

"Clovis Lark" wrote in message
...

Did you read the article? Here's the url again:

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/athletic...609912,00.html


Yea, I read the article. However, it didn't provide any of the science
upon which it supposedly was based.


The "Schwarzenegger mice" study was widely reported.

As I said, the science wasn't provided, so without that there is no
coherent way to make the assumptions you are making. You do know what is
meant by "providing the science", eh?

Why don't we?

Did we ever finish that dicussion of the french foundations of functional
tonality? No?

I figured out what was wrong with the "Joplin introduced rhythm" take. It
should have been "Joplin merged African syncopation with the Western
tonal
system"

As did Tango composers of the same era...


Ragtime was the ancestor of jazz and all its offshoots, blues, rock, R&B et
al. It was the start of the 20th century change that saw the rhythm section
become the focal point of the music.

*A* focal point of music, not *the* Were that the case, Harry Connick
would only need a trap set and a couple of congas...

I'm not exactly sure what is the point of contesting that. The difference
between the emphasis in rhythm in 20th century popular music (jazz, blues,
rock) and pre-20th century classical is very apparent.

I'm not sure what your point is, either. But I am glad you read up on it
and I hope you get out and listen as well.

GWB wrote:

"Clovis Lark" wrote in message
...

No, YOU are gullable. My family has been involved in molecular gnetics
for over 50 years. Wanna play? YOU said
"deer mitochondria" I believe. When was the last time a deer ran full
out
for 4-5 hours? Other errors all over the place, but, we could go back to
music....


You are the idiot. Genetic engineering is one of the most evil forms of
pollution dumped on the earth yet.

Care to 'splain your irrelevant rant? Where did I EVER say genetic
engineering was ever anything good? In fact, my family stayed as from
that frankenstein science as possible.

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

"Clovis Lark" wrote in message
...
Some of the other posters actually have direct contact with researchers
doing the work.


Those researchers think that athletes won't take risks? Or is that you
that
thinks that?

I think that you can pump your veins with strychnine and think you have an
edge...

As far as gene therapy goes, they can induce certain inhibitors but they
are going to have one hell of a time introducing any ungulate genes that
will change human muscle function.


Dumbass -

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...11/muscle.html

Gene Boosts Muscle Strength
Mighty Mice Raise Hopes For A Stronger Life

Nadia Rosenthal is raising mighty mice whose muscles don't deteriorate with
age. The Harvard Medical School researcher inserts a particular gene into
mouse embryos, and the pups grow bigger and stronger than normal mice.
At the age of four weeks, the rodents begin to show progressive strengthening
of almost every muscle in their bodies. Laboratory technicians call them
"Arnold Schwarzenegger mice." At the age of 20 months -- equivalent to
senior-citizen age in humans -- the animals show none of the muscle
degeneration typical of old age.

That is from inserting a gene that inhibits aging by producing protein
IGF-1. You can't inject it randomly. I fail to see the Deer Mitochondria
comment or that you read the article in its entirety.

snipend