Drugs rear their ugly head again......
Peter Profiris
Well, after having watched the farce that is the Alastair Lynch drug
saga, I have to make my own opinion known, in case the following points
are missed.
Taking of substances which are on the banned AFL substance list is
illegal, and should be punished as such. No exterior reasons are valid,
nor should they be.
Alastair Lynch's battle with CFS has been well documented, and many
people are placing the defence that he was only taking the drug to
return to a normal level of life, not for performance enhancing. So can
anyone tell me where the line is? I hear reports of Lynch breaking all
sorts of pre-season records at Brisbane for bench-press and other
strength tests, were these aided by drugs?
The line of thought that I take is that no-one is disputing that Lynch
or any other take drugs to enhance their standard of living. The
dispute is that they can not do this and play AFL football. If poor
health prevents them from attaining that level, sorry but tough luck!
------
Signed
The Professor
Port Power - Proud of the past, confident of the future
------
Pigdog
Peter Profiris wrote in message <35552E41...@planet.net.au>...
>i heard on the news that the drugs only recently became outlawed and so he
stopped as soon as he became aware of it
beckert
Fact: DEHA was not a banned drug until Jan 31, 1998.
Fact: A Lynch has NEVER tested positive for it or any banned drug.
FACT: the whole AFL investigation of this issue stinks.
Peter Profiris <pr...@planet.net.au> wrote in article
David J Richardson
In article <35552E41...@planet.net.au>, Peter Profiris
<pr...@planet.net.au> wrote:
>people are placing the defence that he was only taking the drug to
>return to a normal level of life, not for performance enhancing. So can
>anyone tell me where the line is?
On a related issue many players take pain-killers which enable them to
play (notable example to come to my mind because he was my fave player:
Mark Harvey so he could cope with his injured ankle in the 93 Grand
Final).
These are "just getting the player back to normal" too. But no one
complains there...
--
David J Richardson bo...@crafti.com.au http://www.crafti.com.au/~borad/
Buffy: This is not gonna' be pretty. We're talkin' violence, strong language,
adult content. "Welcome to the Hellmouth"
Herbie
>Well, after having watched the farce that is the Alastair Lynch drug
>saga, I have to make my own opinion known, in case the following points
>are missed.
>
>Taking of substances which are on the banned AFL substance list is
>illegal, and should be punished as such. No exterior reasons are valid,
>nor should they be.
>
>Alastair Lynch's battle with CFS has been well documented, and many
>people are placing the defence that he was only taking the drug to
>return to a normal level of life, not for performance enhancing. So can
>anyone tell me where the line is? I hear reports of Lynch breaking all
>sorts of pre-season records at Brisbane for bench-press and other
>strength tests, were these aided by drugs?
What he took AFAIK DEHA is not a performance enhancing drug. It's used
because it increases the effectivenss of antibiotics. Antibotics taken
over a long period of time, such as a person with CFS may do, lose
effectiveness. To combat that loss of effectiveness, the AB's are changed
frequently, and, in some cases an agent that increases the immune system's
response to them is used.
The only dilemma here is that the particular drug that Lynch was *legally*
prescribed *may* be used as a masking agent for steroids.
Lynch has not tested positive to either DEHA or any other performance
enhancing drug.
Many atheletes are asthmatic. Most take steroids so they can lead a
normal life and compete at the highest level possible. So why aren't they
'caught out'? Because it is recognised that there are conditions that
require medications for sports men and women. The particular steriods
used in this example *don't* increase performance in non-asthmatic. In
fact all sorts of steroids are used in sports medicine, but they aren't
banned because they don't actually increase performance in a normal,
healthy, fit person.
>
>The line of thought that I take is that no-one is disputing that Lynch
>or any other take drugs to enhance their standard of living. The
>dispute is that they can not do this and play AFL football. If poor
>health prevents them from attaining that level, sorry but tough luck!
So next time someone does a knee they shoudn't have a reconstrustion. Or
if a player has a migrain they shouln't take an aspirin? Or inflammed
tendons cortisone? Or a cork Hyaluronidase or humble ice? Where do you
draw the line?
Leave the decisions up to the experts.
>
>------
>Signed
>The Professor
>
>Port Power - Proud of the past, confident of the future
>------
Herbie
"They put a hotwire to my head 'cause of the things I did and said and made these feelings go away, model citizen in every way." - J Lydon
To reply via email, replace "spamoff" with "newton"
Dettol
Herbie wrote:
>
> What he took AFAIK DEHA is not a performance enhancing drug. It's used
> because it increases the effectivenss of antibiotics.
AFAIK CFS is not a bacterial disease it is viral (or psychosomatic
[spelling]) which makes you wonder what the fuck he was doing taking
antibiotics.
Antibotics taken
> over a long period of time, such as a person with CFS may do, lose
> effectiveness. To combat that loss of effectiveness, the AB's are changed
> frequently, and, in some cases an agent that increases the immune system's
> response to them is used.
>
> The only dilemma here is that the particular drug that Lynch was *legally*
> prescribed *may* be used as a masking agent for steroids.
>
> Lynch has not tested positive to either DEHA or any other performance
> enhancing drug.
>
> Many atheletes are asthmatic. Most take steroids so they can lead a
> normal life and compete at the highest level possible. So why aren't they
> 'caught out'? Because it is recognised that there are conditions that
> require medications for sports men and women. The particular steriods
> used in this example *don't* increase performance in non-asthmatic. In
> fact all sorts of steroids are used in sports medicine, but they aren't
> banned because they don't actually increase performance in a normal,
> healthy, fit person.
Yep, its becasue they are corticosteriods not anabolic steriods. It is
anabolic steriods which build you up and make you look like a neandethal
after prolonged use (they alter the bone density in you fuckin cranium
to make you look like a fuckin caveman) not to mention fuck up your
liver. Corticosteriods eg. cortizone (spelling) injections, which are
routine in sport, and asmatic drugs don't do this.
Mike
--
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Shores/9569/blues.html
Jenny Bourke
Add to that the point [Lynch's banned drug was not performance enhancing,
but enabling him to return to normal fitness level] that Justin Charles
took his particular brand of steroid to assist in recuperating from a
debilitating knee injury, can this then be taken as a player taking drugs
to get him to full fitness, rather than enhance?
The initials of the drug (which I cannot recall at present) when fleshed
out reveal a telling "...sterone" ending. Surely this is a giveaway for
any steroid product, or did he just not read the fine print?
Don't get me wrong, I'm neither condoning Justin Charles' action, nor
crying for Alistair Lynch's head.
Just thoughts.
Kathryn Linge
Jenny Bourke wrote:
: Add to that the point [Lynch's banned drug was not performance enhancing,
: but enabling him to return to normal fitness level] that Justin Charles
: took his particular brand of steroid to assist in recuperating from a
: debilitating knee injury, can this then be taken as a player taking drugs
: to get him to full fitness, rather than enhance?
: The initials of the drug (which I cannot recall at present) when fleshed
: out reveal a telling "...sterone" ending. Surely this is a giveaway for
: any steroid product, or did he just not read the fine print?
: Don't get me wrong, I'm neither condoning Justin Charles' action, nor
: crying for Alistair Lynch's head.
BUT
When Alistair Lynch started taking his drug it was not banned. It
did't become banned (AFAIK) untill a year after. As soon as he did know,
he informed the AFL and was tested - giving a negative result.
Justin Charles, OTOH, was completely aware that what he was doing was
illegal and had to be found out through random testing.
--
GOCF
Kathryn
"Rick, rick, rick, rickety. Dick, Dick, Dick, housla! Whoo! Whoo!"
-Magpie warcry from just before the turn of the century
John Chua
"beckert"
<bec...@gpo.pa.uq.edu.au><01bd7c84$46313840$7b08...@jersey.pc.pa.uq.edu.au>
wrote:
>Fact: DEHA was not a banned drug until Jan 31, 1998.
Fact: DHEA was banned before Jan 31, 1998 because it's classified as
an anabolic (and ALL anabolic steriods are banned)...It was only
*specifically* banned on Jan 31 1998...
>Fact: A Lynch has NEVER tested positive for it or any banned drug.
But he has admitted to using it (which means he's a real truthful
bloke or just a plain idiot! (= )....
I'm not saying he should be suspended or reprimanded or anything, but
you have to keep these facts in mind...
John Chua!
Crows Back-To-Back Premiers '97 '98!
.,-~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
ATTENTION: To reply via e-mail, remove the X's
from the start and end of my e-mail address!
John Chua
john...@melbpc.org.au
ATTENTION: To reply via e-mail, remove the X's
from the start and end of my e-mail address!
.,-~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
Herbie
In article <3556F0...@GO.TIGES.chem.ox.ac.uk>, Dettol
<mike.hon...@GO.TIGES.chem.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>Herbie wrote:
>>
>
>> What he took AFAIK DEHA is not a performance enhancing drug. It's used
>> because it increases the effectivenss of antibiotics.
>
>AFAIK CFS is not a bacterial disease it is viral (or psychosomatic
>[spelling]) which makes you wonder what the fuck he was doing taking
>antibiotics.
Antibiotics are often prescribed when the risk of bacterial infection is
high. I know of three persons (one dec.) that are (were) on antibiotics
for this reason.
No-one is sure what causes CFS. No concrete evidence supports that it is
caused by a virus or viral infection, although it seems to happen after
certain viral infections (AFAIK, I'm no expert in this field)
Peter Profiris
Herbie wrote:
> In article <35552E41...@planet.net.au>, Peter Profiris
> <pr...@planet.net.au> wrote:
>
> >Well, after having watched the farce that is the Alastair Lynch drug
> >saga, I have to make my own opinion known, in case the following points
> >are missed.
> >
> >Taking of substances which are on the banned AFL substance list is
> >illegal, and should be punished as such. No exterior reasons are valid,
> >nor should they be.
> >
> >Alastair Lynch's battle with CFS has been well documented, and many
> >people are placing the defence that he was only taking the drug to
> >return to a normal level of life, not for performance enhancing. So can
> >anyone tell me where the line is? I hear reports of Lynch breaking all
> >sorts of pre-season records at Brisbane for bench-press and other
> >strength tests, were these aided by drugs?
>
> What he took AFAIK DEHA is not a performance enhancing drug. It's used
> because it increases the effectivenss of antibiotics. Antibotics taken
> over a long period of time, such as a person with CFS may do, lose
> effectiveness. To combat that loss of effectiveness, the AB's are changed
> frequently, and, in some cases an agent that increases the immune system's
> response to them is used.
>
> The only dilemma here is that the particular drug that Lynch was *legally*
> prescribed *may* be used as a masking agent for steroids.
>
> Lynch has not tested positive to either DEHA or any other performance
> enhancing drug.
>
Is this the defence that should be used for the four Chinese swimmers who were here for the world championships?
> Many atheletes are asthmatic. Most take steroids so they can lead a
> normal life and compete at the highest level possible. So why aren't they
> 'caught out'? Because it is recognised that there are conditions that
> require medications for sports men and women. The particular steriods
> used in this example *don't* increase performance in non-asthmatic. In
> fact all sorts of steroids are used in sports medicine, but they aren't
> banned because they don't actually increase performance in a normal,
> healthy, fit person.
>
> >
> >The line of thought that I take is that no-one is disputing that Lynch
> >or any other take drugs to enhance their standard of living. The
> >dispute is that they can not do this and play AFL football. If poor
> >health prevents them from attaining that level, sorry but tough luck!
>
> So next time someone does a knee they shoudn't have a reconstrustion. Or
> if a player has a migrain they shouln't take an aspirin? Or inflammed
> tendons cortisone? Or a cork Hyaluronidase or humble ice? Where do you
> draw the line?
>
The one difference between your examples and the issue of performance enhancing drugs in sport is that normal healthy people do not have a
reconstruction, an aspirin, a cortisone injection or ice to enhance their performance.
Now I will admit that you have taught me a lot more about the situation than I had, but the reason still stands that if a drug is banned for a
reason, and a player is caught *or admits* to taking the banned substance, then there really is no choice, is there?
> Leave the decisions up to the experts.
> >
> >------
> >Signed
> >The Professor
> >
> >Port Power - Proud of the past, confident of the future
> >------
>
> Herbie
>
> "They put a hotwire to my head 'cause of the things I did and said and made these feelings go away, model citizen in every way." - J Lydon
>
> To reply via email, replace "spamoff" with "newton"
Thanks for the info, though!
Kathryn Linge
Peter Profiris wrote:
: Herbie wrote:
: > Lynch has not tested positive to either DEHA or any other performance
: > enhancing drug.
: >
: Is this the defence that should be used for the four Chinese swimmers
: who were here for the world championships?
I thought the whole thing about the chinese swimmers and the human growth
hormone (or whatever) that was found in their bags is that there is no
reliable test to determine whether someone has taken it or not.
I'm assuming there is for the drug in Alistair Lynch's case
Dettol
Herbie wrote:
>
> In article <3556F0...@GO.TIGES.chem.ox.ac.uk>, Dettol
> <mike.hon...@GO.TIGES.chem.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >Herbie wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> because it increases the effectivenss of antibiotics.
> >
> >[spelling]) which makes you wonder what the fuck he was doing taking
> >antibiotics.
>
> Antibiotics are often prescribed when the risk of bacterial infection is
> high. I know of three persons (one dec.) that are (were) on antibiotics
> for this reason.
I don't want to turn this into alt.medicine but prescribing antibiotics
because of a perseved risk is ridiculous. If someone has a bacterial
infection a doctor can give antibiotics. If the infection is resistant
they can do some microbiology and actually identify the bug rather than
guess based on the disease symptoms then presribe the appropriate drug.
To give antibiotics as a preventitive measure is actually counter
productive.
> No-one is sure what causes CFS. No concrete evidence supports that it is
> caused by a virus or viral infection, although it seems to happen after
> certain viral infections (AFAIK, I'm no expert in this field)
>
Neither am I but I do know that it is easy enough to rule out bacterial
infections as being a cause though because you can do tests for the
bugs.
Mike
--
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Shores/9569/blues.html
Dettol
>
> > Lynch has not tested positive to either DEHA or any other performance
> > enhancing drug.
> >
>
> Is this the defence that should be used for the four Chinese swimmers who were here for the world championships?
>
No. they never tested positive to performance enhancing drugs but a
coach and one swimmer got nailed for bringing in HGH. The other four
swimmers that got caught were nailed for testing positive to a steriod
masking agent.
Mike
--
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Shores/9569/blues.html
Michael McGrath
In article <355993...@GO.TIGES.chem.ox.ac.uk>, Dettol <mike.hon...@GO.TIGES.chem.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Antibiotics are often prescribed when the risk of bacterial infection is
>> high. I know of three persons (one dec.) that are (were) on antibiotics
>> for this reason.
>
>I don't want to turn this into alt.medicine but prescribing antibiotics
>because of a perseved risk is ridiculous. If someone has a bacterial
>infection a doctor can give antibiotics. If the infection is resistant
>they can do some microbiology and actually identify the bug rather than
>guess based on the disease symptoms then presribe the appropriate drug.
>To give antibiotics as a preventitive measure is actually counter
>productive.
People with CFS are forced to try anything they can to get there health back.
>>> No-one is sure what causes CFS. No concrete evidence supports that it is
>> caused by a virus or viral infection, although it seems to happen after
>> certain viral infections (AFAIK, I'm no expert in this field)
>>
>Neither am I but I do know that it is easy enough to rule out bacterial
>infections as being a cause though because you can do tests for the
>bugs.
Some of the recent research (Newcastle) suggests that there may be a
bacterial component to CFS. But I'm not an expert either - I just know that
CFS is not easily treated; and that there are a million different theories on
it.
Cheers,
Michael
Stevie DejaToobNaziMiŠ
Dettol <mike.hon...@GO.TIGES.chem.ox.ac.uk>, far, far away from here,
appears to have written:
[snips]
>Yep, its becasue they are corticosteriods not anabolic steriods. It is
>anabolic steriods which build you up and make you look like a neandethal
You using Jako as an example here? The description fits......
cheers,
Mic. Yellow & Black!!!
Peter Profiris
David J Richardson wrote:
> In article <35552E41...@planet.net.au>, Peter Profiris
> <pr...@planet.net.au> wrote:
>
> >people are placing the defence that he was only taking the drug to
> >return to a normal level of life, not for performance enhancing. So can
> >anyone tell me where the line is?
>
> On a related issue many players take pain-killers which enable them to
> play (notable example to come to my mind because he was my fave player:
> Mark Harvey so he could cope with his injured ankle in the 93 Grand
> Final).
>
> These are "just getting the player back to normal" too. But no one
> complains there...
>
But the question is that taking performancing enhancing drugs to recover, rather
than a healing aid.I'm definitely far from an expert on the subject, but do
painkillers help if you're not injured?
I know steroids do!
Student
>
>Now I will admit that you have taught me a lot more about the situation than I had, but the reason still stands that if a drug is banned for a
>reason, and a player is caught *or admits* to taking the banned substance, then there really is no choice, is there?
>
correction. Lynch started taking DHEA before it was made illegal
Dettol
Michael McGrath wrote:
>
> In article <355993...@GO.TIGES.chem.ox.ac.uk>, Dettol <mike.hon...@GO.TIGES.chem.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> Antibiotics are often prescribed when the risk of bacterial infection is
> >> high. I know of three persons (one dec.) that are (were) on antibiotics
> >> for this reason.
> >
> >I don't want to turn this into alt.medicine but prescribing antibiotics
> >because of a perseved risk is ridiculous. If someone has a bacterial
> >infection a doctor can give antibiotics. If the infection is resistant
> >they can do some microbiology and actually identify the bug rather than
> >guess based on the disease symptoms then presribe the appropriate drug.
> >To give antibiotics as a preventitive measure is actually counter
> >productive.
>
> People with CFS are forced to try anything they can to get there health back.
...but it should have some basis in common sense. "try anything", what
arsenic, faith healing...?
>
> >>> No-one is sure what causes CFS. No concrete evidence supports that it is
> >> caused by a virus or viral infection, although it seems to happen after
> >> certain viral infections (AFAIK, I'm no expert in this field)
> >>
> >Neither am I but I do know that it is easy enough to rule out bacterial
> >infections as being a cause though because you can do tests for the
> >bugs.
>
> Some of the recent research (Newcastle) suggests that there may be a
> bacterial component to CFS. But I'm not an expert either - I just know that
> CFS is not easily treated; and that there are a million different theories on
> it.
you can sometimes get secondary bacterial infections after a virus but I
repeat antibiotics don't work like immunizations. If you take them
without having established that a bacterial infections exists they are
counterproductive. Its relatively straightforward to test for bacterial
infections...not so for viruses.
Mike
--
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Shores/9569/blues.html