1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Golf and PEDs

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by LongTimeListener, Nov 7, 2013.

  1. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Of course passed drug tests aren't conclusive. But you do understand the difference between a Type I and a Type II error here, don't you? Surely you would be OK with erring on the side of the athlete. So, given that, you can't simply blow off a passed test as irrelevant.
     
  2. da man

    da man Well-Known Member

    Of course you can.

    Lance Armstrong never tested positive. Marion Jones never tested positive. Barry Bonds never tested positive. I can add many more names here.

    All a negative test means is that the athlete had not used the drug being tested for within the time frame it can be caught on the test. That is all. As far as determining whether an athlete is enhancing his or her performance with PEDs, a negative test is irrelevant.

    A drug test can prove use. But it cannot prove that someone hasn't used (or isn't still using another drug or at a different pioint in the cycle).
     
  3. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    A passed test means the athlete is not subject to sanctions under whatever system their sport uses. Therefore, you can either accept that, or just bitch that whoever you don't like is on drugs. Some are, some aren't. That doctor Woods saw got popped some time ago. I have to assume that if he could have done himself any good by diming Tiger, he would've. So maybe he can't.
     
  4. da man

    da man Well-Known Member

    Accept what? That he didn't get busted for something? I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't said Tiger is using. But you or anyone else can't say a passed drug test is any evidence at all that he (or Lance or anyone else) isn't using.

    Also, assuming is never a good idea.
     
  5. hondo

    hondo Well-Known Member

    You can't lie about the number of times you've been tested on the Tour and not have it come out. The testing is done independently and randomly. I don't know what was involved with Armstrong but the Tour safeguards seem to be tougher to beat, or lie about.
    PS: Just because Lance Armstrong lied doesn't mean everyone has or will.
     
  6. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    Oh Hondo, your naïveté is cute.

    I have no idea if he has or hasn't. Passed "random" drug tests don't mean a thing. If I had to bet, I'd be more than comfortable laying a lot of money that he has.

    He's a specimen, his character and his Doctor leave me feeling comfortable in my speculation. Hi OOP.
     
  7. H.L. Mencken

    H.L. Mencken Member

    Jesus Christ. I love Tiger, but you are a head-in-the-sand PR machine for the man. Golf, which has been testing for PEDs since 2009, has tougher safeguards than cycling. Gotcha.
     
  8. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member

    You didn't know that all PGA Tour members have to check in daily on a secured PGA Website to announce where they will be at all times 24 hours in advance? Oh, wait, that's right...that's cycling.
     
  9. Mark2010

    Mark2010 Active Member

    I'm not sure how much drugs will improve a golfer's performance. It's more of a hand-eye coordination sport. Might make someone a bit stronger. But I've watched guys bomb a drive 300+ yards and bogey a par-4 because they couldn't chip or putt well.

    Speed doesn't matter in golf, so I'm thinking a little extra strength might be the only advantage. And even that's questionable.
     
  10. Stoney

    Stoney Well-Known Member

    This is the same mularkey that was once being said about steroids in baseball. Until, of course, it was proven to be a buncha bullshit.

    Any sport where distance hitting a ball matters is a sport where PEDs can provide an advantage. That includes golf.
     
  11. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    I do suspect -- and I have no evidence to support this, but I suspect -- that there are diminishing returns -- perhaps even negative returns beyond a certain point -- to muscle mass in golf. Thus, I qualified my skepticism earlier by specifying "garden variety PEDs". If indeed PEDs are in golf, I would imagine they are of the calming/concentrating variety. Beta blockers, as I understand it, are very good if you want to control your heart rate.
     
  12. Mark2010

    Mark2010 Active Member

    So shall we drop the rules and say "it's your body. Take whatever the hell you want and deal with the consequences."? I don't give a damn about their health anymore than I give a damn about football players getting concussions. They knew (or should know) what they are signing up for. No one forced them to do it.

    What I do care about is whether taking a certain substance gives one an unfair competitive advantage over the next guy? No one bitches about eating their Wheaties cause it's available to everyone.

    Baseball, weightlifting, cycling and other sports became a sham when so many guys started cheating that it was impossible to tell who was and who wasn't playing fair. To me, that's the issue.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page