Re: t-and-f: What are we really saying?
Hydrogen dioxide overdose caused the death of a runner in the Chicago Marathon so maybe it needs to be regulated so we can have a perfect world. TD I hope you are not against ergogenics. After all hydrogen dioxide is the world's most prevalent ergogenic aid. John the crazy alaskan runner
Re: t-and-f: What are we really saying?
Yes, it was water poisoning. It was this novice female runner's first marathon. She stopped at just about every water table and drank a liter or more at who knows how many water stations along the course, which depleted (diluted) her system of electrolytes. Basically the same thing that happens from alcohol poisoning (and, similarly - though physiologically different - if you wrapped your lips around the tail pipe of a car while the engine was running.) Because of this, some may want to call for the ban of alcohol and fossil fuel-burning combustion engines. But, I think this is a little different than from advocating drugs with the intent of improving athletic performance. Tom Derderian wrote: Hydrogen dioxide overdose caused the death of a runner in the Chicago Marathon so maybe it needs to be regulated so we can have a perfect world. TD I hope you are not against ergogenics. After all hydrogen dioxide is the world's most prevalent ergogenic aid. John the crazy alaskan runner
t-and-f: What are we really saying?
My Runner's World, January 2002, tells me how to perform better with drugs. So, I'm wondering what we really believe about the use of performance enhancing drugs. Are we telling our youth to take drugs, just not too much?If caffeine is OK, what about ephedrine? If these two are OK, what about using both at the same time? I read in the news that Floyd Heard tested positive for ephedrine and said that he should have read the label of the package of tea that he drank. Ato tested positive for ephedrine from an OTC cold medication, according to the news. We lost an 800 woman runner in the national indoor meet because of a positive test due to a cold medication. Inger Miller lost her bronze medal at the World Championships for a positive of caffeine from a soft drink. So, what is the message? Some is good(Runner's World), more is bad(USADA)? Do we send the message that female athletes should know their testosterone/epitestosterone limits and take enough supplements to touch the limit but not go over the line? What do we really believe? Harold _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: What are we really saying?
I think the first questions is, why do you still have a subscription to Runner's World? Harold Richards wrote: My Runner's World, January 2002, tells me how to perform better with drugs. So, I'm wondering what we really believe about the use of performance enhancing drugs. Are we telling our youth to take drugs, just not too much?If caffeine is OK, what about ephedrine? If these two are OK, what about using both at the same time? I read in the news that Floyd Heard tested positive for ephedrine and said that he should have read the label of the package of tea that he drank. Ato tested positive for ephedrine from an OTC cold medication, according to the news. We lost an 800 woman runner in the national indoor meet because of a positive test due to a cold medication. Inger Miller lost her bronze medal at the World Championships for a positive of caffeine from a soft drink. So, what is the message? Some is good(Runner's World), more is bad(USADA)? Do we send the message that female athletes should know their testosterone/epitestosterone limits and take enough supplements to touch the limit but not go over the line? What do we really believe? Harold _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: What are we really saying?
Maybe read the fruit cake and eat the subscription. I've had this issue for some time. My kids (11, 9, 7) see these ads for supplements and read that there is a quick and easy way to the top. So why not take a little pill that will make me better? There is a great story in yesterday's Chicago Tribune about being nice to your pharmacists because the reason it takes a while to fill a prescription is because he/she is so busy. Aren't we a society that believes that everything can be made better by taking a pill? To Mr. Dunaway: I think most of the content of Runner's World preys on the unsophisticated level of its readers. Maybe some of the editorial content is slanted to appease all the diet supplement advertising. Harold Richards wrote: Easy! The subscription comes each year at Christmas in the same package as the fruit cake. The question to you remains the same, What are we saying?. Harold From: Mike Prizy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harold Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: What are we really saying? Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 14:14:39 -0600 I think the first questions is, why do you still have a subscription to Runner's World? Harold Richards wrote: My Runner's World, January 2002, tells me how to perform better with drugs. So, I'm wondering what we really believe about the use of performance enhancing drugs. Are we telling our youth to take drugs, just not too much?If caffeine is OK, what about ephedrine? If these two are OK, what about using both at the same time? I read in the news that Floyd Heard tested positive for ephedrine and said that he should have read the label of the package of tea that he drank. Ato tested positive for ephedrine from an OTC cold medication, according to the news. We lost an 800 woman runner in the national indoor meet because of a positive test due to a cold medication. Inger Miller lost her bronze medal at the World Championships for a positive of caffeine from a soft drink. So, what is the message? Some is good(Runner's World), more is bad(USADA)? Do we send the message that female athletes should know their testosterone/epitestosterone limits and take enough supplements to touch the limit but not go over the line? What do we really believe? Harold _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Re: t-and-f: What are we really saying?
Something is missing here. I am not talking about ads in a magazine. I am talking about an article which is featured on the front page. Yellow letters. Run Farther With Caffiene ( I think that they meant to say Faster.) What about another article featured on the front page, Sniff This, Run Better? Harold BTW You jumped me for reading Runner's World and you admit to having this issue for some time. What's this? From: Mike Prizy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Mike Prizy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harold Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: What are we really saying? Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 15:01:20 -0600 Maybe read the fruit cake and eat the subscription. I've had this issue for some time. My kids (11, 9, 7) see these ads for supplements and read that there is a quick and easy way to the top. So why not take a little pill that will make me better? There is a great story in yesterday's Chicago Tribune about being nice to your pharmacists because the reason it takes a while to fill a prescription is because he/she is so busy. Aren't we a society that believes that everything can be made better by taking a pill? To Mr. Dunaway: I think most of the content of Runner's World preys on the unsophisticated level of its readers. Maybe some of the editorial content is slanted to appease all the diet supplement advertising. Harold Richards wrote: Easy! The subscription comes each year at Christmas in the same package as the fruit cake. The question to you remains the same, What are we saying?. Harold From: Mike Prizy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harold Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: What are we really saying? Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 14:14:39 -0600 I think the first questions is, why do you still have a subscription to Runner's World? Harold Richards wrote: My Runner's World, January 2002, tells me how to perform better with drugs. So, I'm wondering what we really believe about the use of performance enhancing drugs. Are we telling our youth to take drugs, just not too much?If caffeine is OK, what about ephedrine? If these two are OK, what about using both at the same time? I read in the news that Floyd Heard tested positive for ephedrine and said that he should have read the label of the package of tea that he drank. Ato tested positive for ephedrine from an OTC cold medication, according to the news. We lost an 800 woman runner in the national indoor meet because of a positive test due to a cold medication. Inger Miller lost her bronze medal at the World Championships for a positive of caffeine from a soft drink. So, what is the message? Some is good(Runner's World), more is bad(USADA)? Do we send the message that female athletes should know their testosterone/epitestosterone limits and take enough supplements to touch the limit but not go over the line? What do we really believe? Harold _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
Re: t-and-f: What are we really saying?
On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 13:29:04 -0700, you wrote: Easy! The subscription comes each year at Christmas in the same package as the fruit cake. The question to you remains the same, What are we saying?. Harold We aren't saying anything. Values and advice published by Runner's World is good only for wrapping fish or kitty litter box liner. But the root of your question goes back to earlier threads on this list regarding statements by the IOC and IAAF medical people, which boil down to 'if you can't be certain what's in a supplement, why are you still taking supplements, knowingly risking penalties? Take a supplement and you're on your own buddy.' People like the HSI team (listmember coach Darrel Smith) say that in this age you can't compete at world-class (uh-oh, another list-devil definition) levels WITHOUT supplements. Others say maybe you can't compete at 9.79 levels, but if nobody in the world took supplements (to assure no doping), the world-class standard would be 9.90-9.95 instead of 9.79-9.85 and you'd still be world-class. Maybe 9.87 for Malmo's super-star class. The assumption by HSI and others seems to be that the world is not willing to live with hundredth-of-a-second nibbling at world records once a decade, they want 3 or 4 hundredths off the record every other year, and that kind of advancement can't be done without killer training that demands supplements to survive. My personal take on it?- give ten world-class sprinters the workouts to get them to superstar class. Give them supplements and 8 out of 10 will stay injury free, with a couple pushing the world record. Don't give ANY of them supplements and 8 out of 10 will get bad injuries, but at least one of the two injury-free (mostly luck who it is) will still push the world record. Then the following year it'll be THEIR turn to get hurt. Therefore, supplement-taking is just a way of loading the injury avoidance dice, but it also can come with high risk of doping allegations. Does that pretty much summarize the arguments? RT
Re: t-and-f: What are we really saying?
We have local Sports Talk radio stations in our area with advertisers selling: HGH Additives to raise testosterone levels Creatine Any other performance enhancing supplement you can name!! Dan Deyo Grosse Pointe, MI - Original Message - From: Mike Prizy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harold Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 4:01 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: What are we really saying? Maybe read the fruit cake and eat the subscription. I've had this issue for some time. My kids (11, 9, 7) see these ads for supplements and read that there is a quick and easy way to the top. So why not take a little pill that will make me better? There is a great story in yesterday's Chicago Tribune about being nice to your pharmacists because the reason it takes a while to fill a prescription is because he/she is so busy. Aren't we a society that believes that everything can be made better by taking a pill? To Mr. Dunaway: I think most of the content of Runner's World preys on the unsophisticated level of its readers. Maybe some of the editorial content is slanted to appease all the diet supplement advertising. Harold Richards wrote: Easy! The subscription comes each year at Christmas in the same package as the fruit cake. The question to you remains the same, What are we saying?. Harold From: Mike Prizy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harold Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: What are we really saying? Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 14:14:39 -0600 I think the first questions is, why do you still have a subscription to Runner's World? Harold Richards wrote: My Runner's World, January 2002, tells me how to perform better with drugs. So, I'm wondering what we really believe about the use of performance enhancing drugs. Are we telling our youth to take drugs, just not too much?If caffeine is OK, what about ephedrine? If these two are OK, what about using both at the same time? I read in the news that Floyd Heard tested positive for ephedrine and said that he should have read the label of the package of tea that he drank. Ato tested positive for ephedrine from an OTC cold medication, according to the news. We lost an 800 woman runner in the national indoor meet because of a positive test due to a cold medication. Inger Miller lost her bronze medal at the World Championships for a positive of caffeine from a soft drink. So, what is the message? Some is good(Runner's World), more is bad(USADA)? Do we send the message that female athletes should know their testosterone/epitestosterone limits and take enough supplements to touch the limit but not go over the line? What do we really believe? Harold _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Re: t-and-f: What are we really saying?
BIG difference here. Most sports talk radio shows care only about pro sports. Pro sports don't give a dam about performance enhancing drugs, with the exception that they'll bust someone every rare now and then to project the public image that says they care. It's bullshit! The only drugs they care about are the drugs that will sully their image, the recreational drugs that are readily available on the street. Keep the pro athletes clean of those drugs and the image stays clean and the public continues to plunk down the dollars to go to their games. On the other hand, RW, by advertising supplements (and I'm taking this on hearsay) is promoting their use to a reading public that ostensibly subscribes to drug-free athletics, and to a sport that is harsher and more persistent than any other sport in its outing of major stars as performance-enhancing drug users. As I said, there's a big difference between RW and all-sports radio. = At 6:27 PM -0500 31.12.2001, DANIEL DEYO wrote: We have local Sports Talk radio stations in our area with advertisers selling: HGH Additives to raise testosterone levels Creatine Any other performance enhancing supplement you can name!! Dan Deyo Grosse Pointe, MI - Original Message - From: Mike Prizy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harold Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 4:01 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: What are we really saying? Maybe read the fruit cake and eat the subscription. I've had this issue for some time. My kids (11, 9, 7) see these ads for supplements and read that there is a quick and easy way to the top. So why not take a little pill that will make me better? There is a great story in yesterday's Chicago Tribune about being nice to your pharmacists because the reason it takes a while to fill a prescription is because he/she is so busy. Aren't we a society that believes that everything can be made better by taking a pill? To Mr. Dunaway: I think most of the content of Runner's World preys on the unsophisticated level of its readers. Maybe some of the editorial content is slanted to appease all the diet supplement advertising. Harold Richards wrote: Easy! The subscription comes each year at Christmas in the same package as the fruit cake. The question to you remains the same, What are we saying?. Harold From: Mike Prizy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harold Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: What are we really saying? Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 14:14:39 -0600 I think the first questions is, why do you still have a subscription to Runner's World? Harold Richards wrote: My Runner's World, January 2002, tells me how to perform better with drugs. So, I'm wondering what we really believe about the use of performance enhancing drugs. Are we telling our youth to take drugs, just not too much?If caffeine is OK, what about ephedrine? If these two are OK, what about using both at the same time? I read in the news that Floyd Heard tested positive for ephedrine and said that he should have read the label of the package of tea that he drank. Ato tested positive for ephedrine from an OTC cold medication, according to the news. We lost an 800 woman runner in the national indoor meet because of a positive test due to a cold medication. Inger Miller lost her bronze medal at the World Championships for a positive of caffeine from a soft drink. So, what is the message? Some is good(Runner's World), more is bad(USADA)? Do we send the message that female athletes should know their testosterone/epitestosterone limits and take enough supplements to touch the limit but not go over the line? What do we really believe? Harold _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx Dave Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: What are we really saying?
I hope you are not against ergogenics. After all hydrogen dioxide is the world's most prevalent ergogenic aid. John the crazy alaskan runner
Re: t-and-f: What are we really saying?
I don't know. Does RW take ad dollars from ergogenics producers and than run their press releases as cover stories? Johntherunner wrote: I hope you are not against ergogenics. After all hydrogen dioxide is the world's most prevalent ergogenic aid. John the crazy alaskan runner
Re: t-and-f: What are we really saying?
RW would take advertising money from RJ Reynolds if they thought they could get away with it. RW is the scourge of developing runners in the U.S. and the bible of gallow-walkers and penguins and other such latent-couch potatoes of the world. John the crazy alaskan runner Mike Prizy wrote: I don't know. Does RW take ad dollars from ergogenics producers and than run their press releases as cover stories?
