Yeah, I agree. A far worse crime, though, was this cardigan:Isn't that the same argument as people saying "drugs don't make you better at football" though? In virtually any sport it's advantage to be faster, stronger and have more endurance especially as you get older. That's why I'm definitely suspicious of people who carry on at world beating level for ten years after most have retired eg Maldini and Federer - but definitely not St Ryan of Giggs obviously.
Yeah, Federer is an interesting one because he plays on this suave old school tennis player cliche. Dare i mention Andy Murray as well?Also Federer though, 87 years old and still up there.
Yeah sounds right to me. If you take a drug that helps you train while you're a kid you might reach a better than you would otherwise at a given age. A kind of built in advantage but if you stop taking it and win Wimbledon ten years later how can they detect it?Yeah, Federer is an interesting one because he plays on this suave old school tennis player cliche. Dare i mention Andy Murray as well?
Something one guy was writing about was allowing the discussion to be about things like HGH and EPO while the doping was elsewhere - one suggestion was drugs that are given to school kids to help with concentration etc - having unswerving focus is a classic hall mark of the very best athletes so it makes sense if you can find a drug that can help with that.
Isn't that exactly what Adderall and Ritalin are designed to do? I mean, not specifically for dissensus (as far as I know) but for concentration.I really want an unswerving concentration drug. Just to try it out and go on 12 hour dissensus shift