Order Prevacid Online No Prescription

13 responses so far ↓

• 

  The Devil Drink // Oct 17, 2006 at 2:39 pm

  Ahhh, lookin forward to it already.
  My five cents are that Australian sports codes are cracking down excessively on coke, ecstasy and grass to the expense of the ‘roids and anything that might actually be useful.
  Every time a footballer gets suspended because he spent a night grinding his teeth and chucking glow-sticks about is one more defeat for a fair, transparent drugs-in-sport policy.
  Boooo!

• 

  Phil // Oct 17, 2006 at 7:11 pm

  Can’t say I disagree DD, however it’s also important to understand that ASADA is taking a different approach to the older entity it replaced.

  It now works in conjunction with customs and the feds and targets specific athletes based on information gleaned through the investigations of all the bodies combined.

  Interesting days ahead.

• 

  David Jackmanson // Oct 17, 2006 at 8:21 pm

  Oh, I am so bored with the drugs in sport issue.

  It’s hypocritical, its control-freakery and it’s dull dull dull.

  A simple solution – stop drug testing athletes. If Wendell Sailor wants a toot of blow, that’s his business. And if athletes want to take drugs to perform better – well, isn’t that what they are paid for?

  Let human ingenuity bloom!

• 

  Phil // Oct 17, 2006 at 8:48 pm

  I appreciate you boredom David, but I do not agree. To do as you say indicates that you do not love sport but competition, which is fair enough, but what kind of competition?

  To pretend that allowing doping would induce an equal playing field is not simply absurd; it is morally wrong and irresponsible. To accept doping would allow the use of economic resources and scientific expertise to decide competition, and only those with access to those resources and expertise would win. Can one imagine a wider inequity in this world than that of scientific knowledge and availability of medicines? Certainly not. It would mean the end of merit for athletes. It would mean that prizes and medals would no longer be awarded to athletes but to pharmaceutical companies and research teams.

  That quote came from Dr Alain Garnier Medical Director of World Anti-Doping Agency.

  I think he’s right.

• 

  Nexus 6 // Oct 17, 2006 at 9:11 pm

  Benny J sure ain’t the sharpest tool in the shed.

  The old fella who had taken amphetamines when competing in his younger days was the most honest amongst all the audience IMO. He wasn’t saying what people wanted to hear but I mostly couldn’t really argue against his views. Drugs are in sport and the here to stay.

• 

  wpd // Oct 17, 2006 at 10:16 pm

  Why in the world was Ben J on? Was he paid? Probably not. There seemed absolutely no advantage for him. Pathetic really.

• 

  David Jackmanson // Oct 17, 2006 at 10:16 pm

  Phil,

  Dr Garnier has a vested interest in keeping drugs out of sport. It’s his job. He’s hardly likely to subscribe to a view that would make his work meaningless.

  The idea that athletes win on merit alone is, IMAO, wrong.

  In terms of that argument, I don’t see a big difference between athletes who take performance enhanching drugs, and athletes who benefit from other very expensive sports science, sports academies and so on.

  Would Australian cricketers, for instance, be the champions of today without an enormous commitment of public money? I doubt it.

  “Some of these countries don’t even _have_ swimming pools”

• 

  Phil // Oct 17, 2006 at 10:24 pm

  David, why the assumption of vested interest? Is it not possible that the good doctor has a valid ethical position?

  Here is another from the good doctor.

  Always and without exception, a medical doctor should follow the principles of medical practice and defend the health of the athlete, independent of the level of competition or the potential economic consequences. In turn, sport organizations should always ensure this right to physicians, guaranteeing physicians independence in their medical decisions and protecting them from conflicts of interest. When faced with a situation that poses a threat to the athlete’s health, a physician should neither accept the situation, nor act to render it bearable. Not following these basic principles of medical ethics leads to very serious consequences. Should a physician confronted with torture propose medical support in order to make it less detrimentalto the individual? Certainly not, but those who propose medical supervision for doping are following exactly the same distorted logic.

• 

  David Jackmanson // Oct 17, 2006 at 11:44 pm

  He has, by definition, a vested interest because his pay comes from keeping drugs out of sport. Therefore he is unlikely to support my position, whatever its merits (or otherwise).

  While that does not, in itself, invalidate _his_ ethical position, it does suggest that the weight of his opinion should be discounted, to some degree.

  I’d also suggest that doctors do not have the final right to say what athletes do with or to their bodies.

  Dr Garnier has no right, except to withdraw his services from athletes whose drug-taking he disagrees with.

• 

  Phil // Oct 18, 2006 at 6:07 am

  At some point, and similar to range of societal issues someone somewhere has a final say on what you do in the sporting arena, there is always an umpire at a game, this is no different.

• 

  David Jackmanson // Oct 18, 2006 at 7:42 am

  That’s not really an argument one way or the other…I would say that we don’t need any authority to decide what drugs athletes do or don’t use, despite what happens now.

  I don’t see why Dr Garnier thinks he needs to protect professional sportspeople from themselves. I _certainly_ don’t get the intrusive testing for drugs that have nothing to do with enhancing performance.

  Sportspeople have the right to make these decisions for themselves. They are the ones putting on the show for the audience, and yet they are treated like children with no rights at all.

  Personally, I think if Shoab Akhtar can get an extra yard of pace from whatever it looks like he took, good on him. If he chooses to take that risk, I see no need for an outside umpire to have anything to say at all.

  It’s hypocritical to set up these massive sporting competitions which teach people that victory is what matters, and then be surprised or shocked when people do whatever it takes to win.

• 

  Phil // Oct 18, 2006 at 7:56 am

  No it’s not an argument David, just a fact of life when it comes to organising orderly societies.

  Can’t say I disagree with your lst statement though.

  The reality in life is that we cede some aspect of personal freedom to do as we please to a higher authority, sport reflects that.

  And as a social democrat I see nothing wrong with good umpiring in order to facilitate a certain degree of fairness.

• 

  tigtog // Oct 18, 2006 at 11:12 am

  There’s an argument to be made against undue exploitation of athletes through having a playing field where one cannot win without taking drugs with short-term benefits and long-term detriments.

  There will always be people desperate enough to take the short-term benefits without regrad to the long-term risks, and to ask athletes to ruin their bodies purely so that we can be entertained does not seem fair either competitively or in terms of social order.