Maria Sharapova Tested Positive For A Drug Ray Peat Talked About

[Xisca]

Ho sorry the joke was not obvious enough!

I meant that they try to make people believe that meldonium is common in Russia, and you reveal the truth because you live there.
So I reversed the paradoxe of the way Sharapova tried to made herself innocent!

 

[Pompadour]

It's o'k , i've almost understood

 

[Kyle M]

I do see a problem, even 2, I have read many times about the health issues some athletes can develop after, and what if it becomes unfair and impossible to compete for non dopped athletes? I do not like sport for competition in general. And then I agree to let people free of the use, only if they have access to information, so they can decide.

If the state wasn't involved, athletes and organizations could choose what they use or allow to be used. If an athlete doesn't want to use a drug that they need to use to compete, too bad they can do something else for a living. No one has a right to a successful athletic career. There are many many many many many jobs more dangerous than being an athlete, who is telling those men they cannot or should not do those jobs because of their health? It's because athletics is high profile, whereas coal mining and under-boat dredging are not.

 

[Xisca]

They might forbid the same as the state! I din't know it was the state business...
But organisations should ban what is unhealthy. Sport is not vital, though the romans said to give game and bred to the people... countries fight through their sport teams!
Well, many things in food bring the same problem... Do they sell it because people use it, or do people use it because they sell it? Why do they sell unhelathy products?
And yes, I know enough health issues for people who work at dangerous places, and I have health problems because my mother did not know that she should not work in a lab while pregnant.
She and I were breathing solvents and ethanol...
Do you thing she could do another job? No, and she was not informed anyway.
If the state impose it to the compagnies, and forbid pregnant women to work in some jobs, then she would have been able to quit her job and get it back after my birth. There are things that are better imposed at state level, but I do not know if this is the case for high competition.... I have been on a podium without wanting the title, and it was national. Just have fun.

 

[Kyle M]

They might forbid the same as the state! I din't know it was the state business...

Private organizations cannot ban things like the state, they can only discriminate (no shirt no service kind of thing). There's a big difference between 1) if you want to play tennis in my league, you have to get tested for drugs 4 times per year and will be cut from the organization if you test positive and 2) you will go to prison and/or have to pay a fine to a state athletic commission if you test positive for a drug we decided you cannot use regardless of whether you want to use it, the fans care if you use it, and the league cares if you use it. One is voluntary and the other is centralized and coercive.

But organisations should ban what is unhealthy. Sport is not vital, though the romans said to give game and bred to the people... countries fight through their sport teams!

Who decides what is healthy and unhealthy? Who decides what is vital or not? Is your computer vital, and if not should I be allowed to confiscate it from you?

 

[Kyle M]

Either way though I want to try this myself and see what it's about.

 

[Xisca]

Thanks for factual information like this.

Still, sport is not vital as having food, I meant no more. if they refuse to stay clean from what they believe to be bad for them, they are not free either, if they HAVE to take something they don't want. I just see there is no way out.

We would have to push the scenari, and see the consecuencial effects.

I mean things can be banned like the Eternit/amiant/asbesto, or bisphenol when they have been proven to cause big issues. But those things are also useful... But the best is not to ban, it is to say what it does. We could free all drugs, people do what they want and why be conceerned about other's health? The problem is when you cannot chose, or are ot informed, because then where is the freedom? Or when it goes to the neighbourhood, like say cigarette smoke. But car smoke is no better, we know it, and still use cars, because the advantage outcome the drawback... Nothing is perfect, and we have the advantages coming from the disadvantages....

Yes, I think that maybe the problem is wanting to prohibit for people's good, but in the end it is controling and giving people no responsibility ever. If you apply that they can go out of the job, then we can let industry and pharmacy promote many unhealthy stuff, and we can go out of it if we want!!!!! Except that we will end up starving or having to eat junk, having more and more MQS, multiple chemical sensitivity.
It is still not normal that it was imposed this work to my mother when she was pregnant, she should have been proposed another post for work during this time.
...Where was her freedom and mine?

 

[Kyle M]

Still, sport is not vital as having food, I meant no more. if they refuse to stay clean from what they believe to be bad for them, they are not free either, if they HAVE to take something they don't want. I just see there is no way out.

They don't have to, they only have to if they want the effects of the drugs. People choose to take things all of the time that aren't good for them. Every member of this forum does it from time to time. That is freedom, having the choice. You either own your body or someone else does, and I find it an impossible case to make that someone else should have a prior claim to an individuals physical body than that individual.

 

[jitsmonkey]

The only people being punished by the ban on doping (aside from those caught and penalized) are the athletes not doping.
At the highest competitive levels the demands are impossible to keep up with. To deny them the ability to recover properly
by any means is absurd, dangerous and deplorable

 

[Xisca]

They don't have to, they only have to if they want the effects of the drugs. People choose to take things all of the time that aren't good for them. Every member of this forum does it from time to time. That is freedom, having the choice. You either own your body or someone else does, and I find it an impossible case to make that someone else should have a prior claim to an individuals physical body than that individual.

Yes, I told you it was impossible anyway... What you say leads to what you do not want to me!

Yes, you cannot have a prior claim to some one else's body... So you cannot induce a situation where someone will put in her body what she does not totally want, or is misled. Athletes will have to take drugs, if others do and if they do not want to leave their job....
People in the forum you mention who take something that is not good for them, did not know it, they are misled. or are too fast, but lack informations.
This is choice.
This is not freedom.

Any way freedom is a lure in many cases. And you will always reach an "impossible case" as you say. We all have to stand things that are not good for our bodies.
Just enquire more about MCS, I have a neighbour like this, and we have an impossible case: I have to see her with no smell on me, with a baking soda full shower/shampu but I have to stop taking things that are good for me, for my skin to not smell it! And even with lemon juice, my hair does not like it!

Who own her body when people think it is in her head, and make her ill? Even in her familly people can't stop using some chemicals, and I can tell you many stories of a lack of respect.
If I have to chose between two forms of freedom, speaking about chemical products, the best is that people are free to NOT take it, and that people are not forced to TAKE it.

In the sport profesional system, what is better then, a way to avoid taking drugs, or a way that people will have to take drugs or leave?
I just agree that it should not be about law, not about prison and fines.

With this sort of freedom, what I see is that in the fruit thread, people were concerned about chemicals on grapes, and I would about apples too and more, and we do not know what has and what has not, and we are not free.

I have the problem to find good eggs, as people give corn, and all spanish corn is GM... Where is my freedom? The freedom to not take is more than the obligation to take. You can go out of professional sport, you cannot go out of life. I have in a way, gone out of town and pollution, but not that much...

For my freedom to not take chemicals, I need a filter for water, because above me is one of the biggest telescope, and they clean it with nasty things. Then the water pipes are old and still have lead.

Then, even more. DDT has been forbidden. Some people bought the stocks, and they still use it... According to my understanding of your point of view, it seems that this dangerous product should not have been forbidden? And if you do not want to take it, well, buy organic! You can also say that producers who do not want to use it, can use something else. Famers have already told me about their want to change, but the impossiblity, for many reason, and the main is the narrow range of benefit, and they cannot afford to reduce their production by 10% for example. Same as for athletes and many more life fields, there is no real choice sometimes, unless there is a global agreement, and respected...

 

[Xisca]

The only people being punished by the ban on doping (aside from those caught and penalized) are the athletes not doping.

They would be more punished if doping was not banned...

 

[Kyle M]

Then, even more. DDT has been forbidden. Some people bought the stocks, and they still use it... According to my understanding of your point of view, it seems that this dangerous product should not have been forbidden? And if you do not want to take it, well, buy organic! You can also say that producers who do not want to use it, can use something else. Famers have already told me about their want to change, but the impossiblity, for many reason, and the main is the narrow range of benefit, and they cannot afford to reduce their production by 10% for example. Same as for athletes and many more life fields, there is no real choice sometimes, unless there is a global agreement, and respected...

1) Putting drugs like testosterone, HGH, EPO, or any other the other popular doping agents professional athletes use into an individuals body bears no comparison to spraying a chemical into the open atmosphere at an industrial scale.

2) DDT isn't as damaging to the environment as the environmentalist campaign made it seem. It's much more dangerous to live in the world of, say, 1700 without the option of those kinds of chemicals than it is to live in a world where they are being used. And when I say dangerous I mean danger of death, disease, and starvation, not some nebulous concept of "toxins" that can hardly be measured or observed.

 

[Xisca]

The only point I was comparing is the forbid or not forbid. For me, the scale is always another subject.
For athletes, I do not mind if they use enhancing products, except if there is toxicity and if there is some nearly obligation. But anyway for this, the problem for me is about competition, I do not think it has interest. After all, it increases serotonine when your social status increases. I know what is a winning effect, and I did not want to go on competing for this reason, I did not want to fall into addiction to the highly GOOD feeling from it. I have won, I have been on podium when I was no more expected than this mexican woman running in sandals and winning marathon.

And then I wanted to point on the fact that forbiding enhances some bad attitudes, as happened with DDT. And well, I know a person who got a flare-up of symptoms after coming among banana trees here, and she gave herself death one year after, as she could not come out of it. It was not only about DDT but chemicals in general, but she was triggered here during holidays. Toxins is not something nebulous. It is just too large to be resumed with one word. Of course we used chemicals as a solution, until we saw drawbacks as well. No coin has a side of different size from the other... And DDT here is also used to kill your neighbours dog, it kills very fast, but hope no child will be around one day. 7 dogs and cats last year at the same time, and they had even no time to swallow the meat.

Anyway, I am triggered on 2 personal points, and I do not know yours... This will always make our rationality find the right arguments!
1st I received chemicals I should not have, and I cannot accept that chemicals issues be dismissed, no matter about the excess of environmentalists. The other point is I know what is competition and the serotonin effect, appart from endorphin or dopamin. When you compete, I guess oxytocin is reduced, because you cannot relate to others, you fight them. Oxytocin is the best neurotransmitter, if we can say so, same as we can say serotonine is the worse! They are not only about food, they are in behaviour. I am 1st a behaviourist and things are systemic for me.

 

[Kyle M]

I understand the points against DDT, and in a free society with property rights no one would be allowed to legally spray a dangerous chemical into the air that could get on other people's property without a tort. An individual taking a drug is not that way, in the same way that an individual who chooses to drink raw milk (against the advice and legal, police action taken by the USDA etc.) is forcing anything dangerous on anyone else.

The plastics in your computer are dangerous chemicals if they get into the body in a certain form, should I be allowed to take your computer away?

 

[Xisca]

As in DDT, it is all about comparing the danger with the benefit.

An individual taking a drug is not that way, ... is forcing anything dangerous on anyone else.

YES: It forces others to take the same or leave their jobs. It is unfair.
It does forces something dangerous into somebody else in a certain way, and this is just this that is the problem.
But many things are unfair anyway...
And if I want to have vaccine against ONE thing, I am forced to take others that go with it when they suppress the separate vaccines, and I am forced to take with it some stuff I do not want... Same with bisphenol, people had no choice but take it... At the same time you are not forced, or you do not know the problem, or not all consumers have the problem...

should I be allowed to take your computer away?

If you take everybody's, yes. And propose something else that is not dangerous, as in fibrocement... You cannot compare this. Cars are dangerous too, but so useful that we accept the danger. Same with computers, nobody will want to separate from this tool, in our society. Why do you think I told you that sport is not vital?
I had argued what I had to, and will not respond more on the same. I have personal experience from paying the price, on the side of someone who was not forced but had to put something bad in her body, and many workers in the world are "forced" to put things in their bodies. There are some posts about a member working with rubber tires and health issues and he could not let the job like this... Too easy to say that they can leave the job. So, that is all about the kind of freedom one looses, and I told you which one was mine. Do you have a personal story of lost freedom agaist bigg authority, or not letting you make your own experiences or not stay in the carreer you wanted and special pressure, or leave your passion alone, so that you find it is more important that people can dope and trigger others, more important to let people so free that it kicks out the ones who want another kind of freedom, from drugs? Is it more important than to respect the athletes who want stay in their job and passion, and be clean, and have life after retiring? I also hate big authorities, but sometimes authorities exist because people are not responsable enough, so there is a circle and not only the authority has responsability in the problem...

 

[Kyle M]

As in DDT, it is all about comparing the danger with the benefit.

YES: It forces others to take the same or leave their jobs. It is unfair.
It does forces something dangerous into somebody else in a certain way, and this is just this that is the problem.

We have different definitions of the word "force." I am "forced" to get to work on time, do a competent job, etc. or else lose my job. That isn't force as I see it. Force is when someone puts a gun to your head and says "give me your money."

It makes as much sense to say that professional athletes are "forced" to exercise and practice all of the time.

One might say I was forced to work with dangerous chemicals in the lab, or else lose my job. Is that really an effective use of the word force, when I made the choice to do the job? Are any of these people slaves, who have no choice in the matter of their work?

You're right, cars are dangerous, much more dangerous than almost anything else in modern life. You could say that modern life "forces" you to use them. But again, not much usefulness in that word when you can use it to identify your oppressor. When a mugger forces you to give up your money, the mugger is your oppressor. When a slave master captures and forces a slave to work, the master is the oppressor. When the competitive nature of professional sports "forces" you to use steroids, who is the oppressor that can be removed to end the oppression? The rest of the players? The owners of the league? The fans? Society in general?

 

[Jsaute21]

What do we believe is an appropriate cycle period for mildronate? I have been taking it 2x a week for about a month. I really enjoy it pre workout.

 

[nikkmm]

What do we believe is an appropriate cycle period for mildronate? I have been taking it 2x a week for about a month. I really enjoy it pre workout.

What has been your experience so far? Positives and negatives?

 

[Jsaute21]

What has been your experience so far? Positives and negatives?

Can't name a negative and I am pretty aware. Positives are endless for those serious about increasing athletic performance. It's very favorable for getting your body to utilize glucose. Easier to breathe and workouts aren't as strenuous.

 

[Jsaute21]

I have some extra boxes of this if anyone needs more DM me.
I'll use it up but its a bit of a pain to get because it all comes from eastern europe
so I'm happy to ship some of my stash in the US if it helps out.

Do you think grindex or any of these companies use fillers or the ingredients are pure? I used it a couple of months ago and was impressed.