19 Apr 06
Originally posted by dottewellThen what is the fundamental difference with surgery that improves performance over the norm to steroid use?
Yes, as I said before, I probably would.
BTW your continued assertion in your posts that somehow the act of simply taking steroids will improve performance is so far off the mark I would love to know why you come to that conclusion
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by dottewellThis is a perfect example of your unreasonable, unthinking stubbornness. YOU'VE put it into your head that the reason people prefer not to play engines on a CC site is because it's "not fair". So, therefore, everyone MUST agree with your rationale. And anyone who says anything different is lying.
You completely fail to understand that it's not allowed precisely because it's not fair. Which is odd, because everything you have said and in the past suggests you understand that perfectly well.
Obviously if this was a site for computer or computer-aided chess, using engines would be fair. But it isn't. The question is whether engine use is fair at a ...[text shortened]... e here don't want to allow _any_ engine use? Just because it's not that kind of site?
For the last time, allowing engine use would not give "an unfair advantage"; anybody could buy an engine or even download one of the numerous ones on the net for free. But then people wouldn't be playing people which is what most customers here want. You may continue to parrot your "not fair" crap, but it remains untrue and far off the mark.
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by dottewellContrary to your opinion, the mere use of anabolic steroids does not increase muscle mass. It merely increases the levels of certain substances in the body. To increase your muscle mass, you still have to put in the hard work. Just like having better eyesight doesn't mean you're going to start hitting 95 MPH fastballs or sliders that are breaking a foot. Your ignorance of human anatomy in general and the sport of baseball in particular is appalling.
Once again you fail to address the point. I'll try to make it clear: you improve your performance by hard work. That's what makes it valuable.
I've been as clear as possible on why corrective eye surgery - providing it only restores "normal" (read: 20/20) eyesight - is not cheating. Once more, just for you: a normal person does not have to do anything to have normal eyesight. The same is not true of huge muscle-bulk, aerobic capacity, etc.
19 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by kmax87Are you suggesting that steroids should be legal because they don't actually do anything of use to an athlete? Thought not.
Then what is the fundamental difference with surgery that improves performance over the norm to steroid use?
BTW your continued assertion in your posts that somehow the act of simply taking steroids will improve performance is so far off the mark I would love to know why you come to that conclusion
Steroids, as I have said, give an unfair advantage by allowing unnatural building of muscle bulk that would otherwise require more work on the part of the steroid taker (if indeed it would be possible at all).
I have not "repeatedly" said simply taking steroids will improve performance. I specifically said it was not a sufficient condition. That does not mean it does not help improve performance.
The essentially difference between this and corrective eye surgery is that normal eyesight is NOT something that a person has to work to achieve. Why is that difficult to understand?
Ask yourself what factors the IAAF, for example, consider before deciding whether a substance should be banned. Is it a legitimate medicinal use, and does it give an unfair advantage. This is a good starting point.
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by dottewellWhy do you insist on comparing apples with oranges. You continue to juxtapose corrective eye surgery to return eyes to a normal condition, against the use of steroids, when the point being made is about surgery performed to improve vision above the normal, which surely constitutes an advantage.
Are you suggesting that steroids should be legal because they don't actually do anything of use to an athlete? Thought not.
The essentially difference between this and corrective eye surgery is that normal eyesight is NOT something that a person has to work to achieve. Why is that difficult to understand?.
From my understanding of it steroids help you bulk up only because you need less recovery time between workouts. The reality of steroid use is that its effects lead to a positive feedback loop where the athlete seeing their muscle mass improving trains harder and more often. Presenting steroids as some form of magic potion gives an entirely incorrect picture of how people get gains from its use.
Blame Arnie and Pumping Iron way back in the 70’s for starting a trend. Sure those guys took roid’s but I would love to see you achieve their muscle mass and size without their workout schedules.
There is no free lunch.
BTW they should be legal as this will lead to harm minimisation as the liver damage and other health concerns associated with steroid use are usually as a result of black market unregulated produce.
19 Apr 06
drug & steroid use is rampant in our great country. Its the norm. I have had discussions with NFL officials who see it going down all the time. But if they helped instigate a "witch hunt" they'd be the first to go! The cleanest game in the world according to WST is ki-o-rahi. Maybe we should see how they run their game, and its a tough brutal full contact sport too! and put some of their proceedures in place, worth a try.
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThe question you should be asking yourself is (in your terms): WHY do the majority of people here want to play engine-free games?
This is a perfect example of your unreasonable, unthinking stubbornness. YOU'VE put it into your head that the reason people prefer not to play engines on a CC site is because it's "not fair". So, therefore, everyone MUST agree with your rationale. And anyone who says anything different is lying.
For the last time, allowing engine use would n ...[text shortened]... ay continue to parrot your "not fair" crap, but it remains untrue and far off the mark.
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by kmax87(a) It wasn't my comparison (I am saying it is a bad comparison); and (b) yes it does contribute an advantage, which I have said (three times now) is unfair
Why do you insist on comparing apples with oranges. You continue to juxtapose corrective eye surgery to return eyes to a normal condition, against the use of steroids, when the point being made is about surgery performed to improve vision above the normal, which surely constitutes an advantage.
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThis is irrelevant. If you and I do the same amount of physical work, but you have taken steroids and I have not, you will get better results.
Contrary to your opinion, the mere use of anabolic steroids does not increase muscle mass. It merely increases the levels of certain substances in the body. To increase your muscle mass, you still have to put in the hard work. Just like having better eyesight doesn't mean you're going to start hitting 95 MPH fastballs or sliders that are breaking a foot. ...[text shortened]... ur ignorance of human anatomy in general and the sport of baseball in particular is appalling.
In other words, just by sticking a needle in yourself, you have gained a competitive advantage. Just as having better eyesight doesn't allow you to hit a 95MPH fastball, but it helps.
This is something else I have already said several times. Steroids are not a sufficient condition for athletic ability, but they HELP. And taking them requires no effort.
19 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSo a course of steroids has no more effect than eating a few steaks? You should get on to Balco. They missed a trick.
The human body naturally produces anabolic steroids. Introducing more of them into the body is no more "unnatural" than eating a steak.
Incidentally, your full sentence should perhaps have been: The human body naturally produces anabolic steroids within certain normal limits.
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by dottewellI'll write my own sentences, thank you. I've pointed out several times that professional athletes are not "normal" as regards their physical attributes. Being 7 foot tall is not "normal" and requires no effort, but is certainly an advantage in a basketball player. Should people who are 7 foot tall be banned from basketball because it's "not fair"?
So a course of steroids has no more effect than eating a few steaks? You should get on to Balco. They missed a trick.
Incidentally, your full sentence should perhaps have been: The human body naturally produces anabolic steroids within certain normal limits.
Again you keep parroting the same nonsense without a truly intellectually coherent rationale. A steak does the same thing as an injection of a steroid; it introduces substances into the body that can be used to increase muscle mass. That's the point; have someone explain it to ya.
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by dottewellSo does a good, balanced but high protein diet. Should that be banned?
This is irrelevant. If you and I do the same amount of physical work, but you have taken steroids and I have not, you will get better results.
In other words, just by sticking a needle in yourself, you have gained a competitive advantage. Just as having better eyesight doesn't allow you to hit a 95MPH fastball, but it helps.
This is something else I ...[text shortened]... a sufficient condition for athletic ability, but they HELP. And taking them requires no effort.
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by dottewellWhy should I be asking a question when I don't care about the answer? I know my own reasons and I know that this site bans engine use. The only thing I then need to concern myself with is whether that ban is effectively enforced so that I'm able to accomplish what I'm paying for at RHP. Go ahead and take a poll if you're so curious.
The question you should be asking yourself is (in your terms): WHY do the majority of people here want to play engine-free games?