HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Nazarov: 99% of enforcers use steroids

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-18-2006, 10:00 AM
  #51
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Your lucky it is a slow day at work .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
What does every NHL player do during the offseason? They train to get stronger, more durable and to have less fat. All of these can be helped by using banned substances. If you seriously claim that only enforcers benefit from either stereoids or banned substances in general, you might consider getting your education fees back. Taking stereoids to help getting rid of extra weight while keeping muscle mass is only going to help you, there's nothing to 'balance'.

It's so easy to claim that only enforcers benefit from banned substances, well it's total BS.
Again, I have taken courses specifically on this subject and have done a research project on this subject. If you have a background in the are (which, judging by your responses you don`t) then you would already know most of the things I have explained. There is a balance in hockey. Hockey is not just about brute strength. Steroids will help you gain strength, this is true, but they are not miracle drugs. There is a ton of negative side effects (such as heart problems and decrease in fine and gross motor skills) that would be extremely detrimental to hockey players. There is a reason that steroids are illegal (even outside of sports). They are dangerous substances and are not the miracle drug everyone makes them out to be.


Quote:
In my opinion you're wrong here. You can do craploads of different banned substances 2 months before test and not get caught. There are stuff that will leave traces in the samples but only an idiot would do that stuff.
Well your just wrong. It does take up to 2 months for what most people think of as "steroids" to get out of your system. The World Championships take place much less than 2 months after the end of the season. Am I missing something here? Seems pretty simple.



Quote:
Well I suggest you don't try to be a lawyer anytime during your professional career.

If you can't see the difference between saying "I believe UP to 1/3 of players are using banned substances" and "I think you TOOK steroids", we might as well drop this argument right now.

Seriously, think for a second how ridiculous your analogy is. Direct personal accusation which needs to be proven vs. a general guess about very vague group which can't be pointed in any way.

Please, try again.
A lawyer? Ever here of innocent until proven guilty? As far as the difference between the two statements you mentioned, they are both statements with absolutely no concrete facts to back them up. That is where the analogy came from.

Chelios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 10:08 AM
  #52
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PuckNut View Post
It can be converted to estrogen, but it isn't always. Some men have that happen, and this is caused by aromatase in fatty tissue, which not all men produce. But this is all off topic, and really doesn't matter to the context of this thread.
Now we are getting down into an individuals biochemistry. I was talking in general terms. I agree, it is off topic.

Chelios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 10:09 AM
  #53
PuckNut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
Your lucky it is a slow day at work .
Don't you love slow work days? Let's you do stuff that really matters.

PuckNut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 10:13 AM
  #54
GuloGulo
Registered User
 
GuloGulo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: trunkofacamaro
Country: Bahrain
Posts: 3,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
A lawyer? Ever here of innocent until proven guilty? As far as the difference between the two statements you mentioned, they are both statements with absolutely no concrete facts to back them up. That is where the analogy came from.
Now think about this statement - again.

So since everyone's innocent, there's no need to sort out if there indeed is some substance use going on? How are you supposing you'll find the doped players, if there are such?

If you don't like the word "guilty" use the word "suspect". EVERYONE's a suspect until dismissed from investigation. And this is were the NHL isn't doing the proper thing. Until they've shown me, and the other critics, that players are clean, all players remain suspects.

GuloGulo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 10:18 AM
  #55
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuloGulo View Post
Now think about this statement - again.

So since everyone's innocent, there's no need to sort out if there indeed is some substance use going on? How are you supposing you'll find the doped players, if there are such?

If you don't like the word "guilty" use the word "suspect". EVERYONE's a suspect until dismissed from investigation. And this is were the NHL isn't doing the proper thing. Until they've shown me, and the other critics, that players are clean, all players remain suspects.
I`m not saying every NHL player is innocent, in fact I highly doubt it. What I am saying is that until there is some hard evidence (such as numerous positive tests at the Olympics and World Championships) it is hard to make a case that there is a significant steroid problem in the NHL. Again, I`m not saying that the NHL`s testing procedures are perfect, they are far from it and I think they need to be improved. But there have been thousands of NHL player tests done over the last few years by the WADA and I can only recall Theodore and Berard testing positive. That is all I am saying.

Chelios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 10:24 AM
  #56
Brad*
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 13,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
Again, I have taken courses specifically on this subject and have done a research project on this subject. If you have a background in the are (which, judging by your responses you don`t) then you would already know most of the things I have explained. There is a balance in hockey. Hockey is not just about brute strength. Steroids will help you gain strength, this is true, but they are not miracle drugs. There is a ton of negative side effects (such as heart problems and decrease in fine and gross motor skills) that would be extremely detrimental to hockey players. There is a reason that steroids are illegal (even outside of sports). They are dangerous substances and are not the miracle drug everyone makes them out to be.
This is getting pretty ridiculous. To say that there would not be some benefit from adding more muscle mass and reducing fat, is asinine. Period. More muscle in your legs = faster skater? More muscle in your arms = harder shot? More muscles in your upper body = harder checks? Perhaps. But it's blatantly obvious that adding muscle and losing fat would be beneficial to anyone in sports, especially someone in a multi-million dollar professional league, where getting that extra edge on the next guy could be the difference between winning and losing or getting that next contract. By the way, no one ever said that a theoretical steroid NHL steroid user would bulk themselves up to body builder size. But the benefits of adding muscle should be fairly obvious to anyone who's ever watched a sporting event, or played a sport themselves.

And beyond that, the issue is broader than just "steroids." This specific article mentioned steroids, but those are far from the only drug that can be abused for the sake of becoming a better athlete. I'm sure you're aware of this. In fact, I'm guessing these drugs are more of a problem in a leauge like the NHL than steroids.

Quote:
Well your just wrong. It does take up to 2 months for what most people think of as "steroids" to get out of your system. The World Championships take place much less than 2 months after the end of the season. Am I missing something here? Seems pretty simple.
Are there not steroid masking agents? Because there are for almost every other drug in the world; I doubt steroids would be different. If someone is willing to take steroids in the first place, I imagine they're also willing to take the next step and try and cover it up.

Quote:
A lawyer? Ever here of innocent until proven guilty? As far as the difference between the two statements you mentioned, they are both statements with absolutely no concrete facts to back them up. That is where the analogy came from.
No one is saying "LINDROS, you friggin hopped-up roid user, GET OUT OF OUR LEAGUE! BAN HIM FOR LIFE!!!!11" Rather, people are trying to raise awareness about the situation as a whole. The NHL's testing policy is completely archaic when compared to some other leagues, and even without the benefit of comparison to it's peers, on it's own it looks anemic and weak. When almost every other professional sport in the world has at one time, or currently, has a performance enhancing drug problem, it's only common sense to assume that the NHL does too. Maybe they don't, and we're just being paranoid. But I'm pretty sure it's the NHL's duty to find out. If not, they'll continue to appear like the bush-league organization that they do now, and we'll never really know if our beloved goals and big hits are from hard work, or guys taking shortcuts.

Brad* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 10:28 AM
  #57
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
Again, I have taken courses specifically on this subject and have done a research project on this subject. If you have a background in the are (which, judging by your responses you don`t) then you would already know most of the things I have explained. There is a balance in hockey. Hockey is not just about brute strength. Steroids will help you gain strength, this is true, but they are not miracle drugs. There is a ton of negative side effects (such as heart problems and decrease in fine and gross motor skills) that would be extremely detrimental to hockey players. There is a reason that steroids are illegal (even outside of sports). They are dangerous substances and are not the miracle drug everyone makes them out to be.
I already gave you an example where banned stuff helps tremendously with very little to no side effects and that's fat burning while minimizing catabolic musclemass loss.

And having done 15 years of weight/gym training, I know enough about steroids (fortunately I've been smart enough to stay away from them).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
Well your just wrong. It does take up to 2 months for what most people think of as "steroids" to get out of your system. The World Championships take place much less than 2 months after the end of the season. Am I missing something here? Seems pretty simple.
You don't have to do drugs until the very end of the season, in fact it would be downright stupid (and inefficient) to do so. I thought you had studied this stuff, how can you make ignorant comments like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
A lawyer? Ever here of innocent until proven guilty? As far as the difference between the two statements you mentioned, they are both statements with absolutely no concrete facts to back them up. That is where the analogy came from.
You still don't get it. Your example was a statement which HAS to be proven correct or face libel/slander charges in court, what Pound said was not since he didn't implicate any single player and he didn't give any concrete number of players.

It shouldn't be this hard.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 10:44 AM
  #58
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad View Post
This is getting pretty ridiculous. To say that there would not be some benefit from adding more muscle mass and reducing fat, is asinine. Period. More muscle in your legs = faster skater? More muscle in your arms = harder shot? More muscles in your upper body = harder checks? Perhaps. But it's blatantly obvious that adding muscle and losing fat would be beneficial to anyone in sports, especially someone in a multi-million dollar professional league, where getting that extra edge on the next guy could be the difference between winning and losing or getting that next contract. By the way, no one ever said that a theoretical steroid NHL steroid user would bulk themselves up to body builder size. But the benefits of adding muscle should be fairly obvious to anyone who's ever watched a sporting event, or played a sport themselves.
I never said adding muscle would not help hockey players, I think that is pretty obvious that increased muscle mass would help a hockey player (up to a point). And you right, hockey players don`t bulk up to body builder size, which is exactly why it wouldn`t be likely they would use steroids. Considering the health risks associated with it, there is really no reason (other than being lazy) a hockey player would take steroids to do what he could do without steroids over the course of the summer.

Quote:
And beyond that, the issue is broader than just "steroids." This specific article mentioned steroids, but those are far from the only drug that can be abused for the sake of becoming a better athlete. I'm sure you're aware of this. In fact, I'm guessing these drugs are more of a problem in a leauge like the NHL than steroids.
I agree that things such as amphetamines are a much bigger problem in the NHL, which is really why I am arguing about steroids specifically.



Quote:
Are there not steroid masking agents? Because there are for almost every other drug in the world; I doubt steroids would be different. If someone is willing to take steroids in the first place, I imagine they're also willing to take the next step and try and cover it up.
They test for the masking agents too. If i`m not mistaken, the substance found in
Theodore`s sample was a masking agent.

Chelios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 10:50 AM
  #59
PuckNut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
I never said adding muscle would not help hockey players, I think that is pretty obvious that increased muscle mass would help a hockey player (up to a point). And you right, hockey players don`t bulk up to body builder size, which is exactly why it wouldn`t be likely they would use steroids. Considering the health risks associated with it, there is really no reason (other than being lazy) a hockey player would take steroids to do what he could do without steroids over the course of the summer.

They test for the masking agents too. If i`m not mistaken, the substance found in
Theodore`s sample was a masking agent.
You're right about the masking agent. Theodore tested positive for a masking agent, which is also found in Propecia. However, you point out that bulking up isn't necessarily the best for hockey players, which is why steroids wouldn't be ideal. You seem to be forgetting that there are steroids that are designed to increase muscle endurance and shed fat rather than add muscle mass. One of my roommates was on one of those in university. Didn't get huge, but the man was cut.

PuckNut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 10:57 AM
  #60
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
I already gave you an example where banned stuff helps tremendously with very little to no side effects and that's fat burning while minimizing catabolic musclemass loss.

And having done 15 years of weight/gym training, I know enough about steroids (fortunately I've been smart enough to stay away from them).
Smart enough to stay away from them? Why exactly? Don`t you think NHLers would stay away from them for the same reason? Yes there are substances that will do exactly as you said, but that can be done with regular workouts and proper diet in the offseason. The only real reason to take steroids would be to add a ton of mass in a short time. This simply isn`t needed for hockey players. They have 3-4 months to train and don`t need a quick fix.



Quote:
You don't have to do drugs until the very end of the season, in fact it would be downright stupid (and inefficient) to do so. I thought you had studied this stuff, how can you make ignorant comments like that.
Actually you don`t have to do drugs at all. As far as when it would be best to take them, I would argue that it is when the season is winding down that would be most beneficial to take them. This is when the players muscles are really broken down. If they were ever going to take them it would be at the end of the season to repair damaged muscles and finish strong. These would show up in WC tests, they do not.



Quote:
You still don't get it. Your example was a statement which HAS to be proven correct or face libel/slander charges in court, what Pound said was not since he didn't implicate any single player and he didn't give any concrete number of players.

It shouldn't be this hard.
Alright, let me try this slowly. I understand what you are saying. I understand the difference between the two statements. What I am trying to explain to you is that there is also a similarity, and it is this similarity that I had in mind when making the statement. The similarity being that they are both statements with no real insight into the situation and no facts to back them up.

Chelios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 12:56 PM
  #61
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
Smart enough to stay away from them? Why exactly? Don`t you think NHLers would stay away from them for the same reason? Yes there are substances that will do exactly as you said, but that can be done with regular workouts and proper diet in the offseason. The only real reason to take steroids would be to add a ton of mass in a short time. This simply isn`t needed for hockey players. They have 3-4 months to train and don`t need a quick fix.
I don't think you have the slightest clue about training, dieting and stereoids. Sorry but you obviously don't have the knowledge about the problems bodybuilders (I'm not one of those mind you) face.

The biggest problem is that unless you have craploads of fat (i.e. doesn't apply to anyone not named Tkachuk), it's practically impossible to increase lean muscle mass while dropping fat-%, it's always a choice between the two you have to make. That is if you don't take banned substances.

So if hockey players want to both increase their muscle mass while also getting leaner, banned substances are VERY useful. See the problem here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
If they were ever going to take them it would be at the end of the season to repair damaged muscles and finish strong. These would show up in WC tests, they do not..
If you take the right stuff at the right time, you get the results without getting the positive samples.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
The similarity being that they are both statements with no real insight into the situation and no facts to back them up.
Well I'd say Pound does hear things, he's not stupid enough to just invent a number from the top of his head unless he had some knowledge (something like what Nazarov said) he has heard from former players etc. We're talking about a very sharp guy here. Yes, he has no facts to back them up but he can't be proven wrong either.

Why is that NHL doesn't take this opportunity and put every single player through a surprise doping-test under full WADA surveillance and then publish the results? They could take the results and shove them up Pound's *** if he was proven wrong. Now they got nothing except those ridiculously crappy test results from their own 'anti-doping system' which is about as effective as trying to stop a flood with a fishnet.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 01:18 PM
  #62
Sammy*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
Smart enough to stay away from them? Why exactly? Don`t you think NHLers would stay away from them for the same reason? Yes there are substances that will do exactly as you said, but that can be done with regular workouts and proper diet in the offseason. The only real reason to take steroids would be to add a ton of mass in a short time. This simply isn`t needed for hockey players. They have 3-4 months to train and don`t need a quick fix.
.


Absolutly ridiculous, wrong, incredibly ill informed & naive.

Sammy* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 01:28 PM
  #63
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy View Post

Absolutly ridiculous, wrong, incredibly ill informed & naive.
Brilliant post. Honestly, it adds a whole lot to this argument. And I can absolutely guarentee that I know a whole lot more on this subject than you do.

Chelios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 01:44 PM
  #64
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
I don't think you have the slightest clue about training, dieting and stereoids. Sorry but you obviously don't have the knowledge about the problems bodybuilders (I'm not one of those mind you) face.

The biggest problem is that unless you have craploads of fat (i.e. doesn't apply to anyone not named Tkachuk), it's practically impossible to increase lean muscle mass while dropping fat-%, it's always a choice between the two you have to make. That is if you don't take banned substances.
We aren`t talking about body builders, we are talking about hockey players. Hockey players arent parading around in a thong in front of judges who are judging how defined every single muscle is. There is not this obsession with body fat among hockey players that you will find among bodybuilders. It is simply about performance. To say I don`t have the slightest clue about training is just magnifying your ignorance. I can tell you exactly how training affects every system of the body, how muscle develops from training and what happens to the carbs, fats and protein we take in. But this simply isn`t the place nor the time for that. I have taken courses from some of the top researchers in this area in Canada and I can tell you that you are simply wrong. What your gym buddies say at the gym and what is scientifically proven isn`t always the same.

Quote:
If you take the right stuff at the right time, you get the results without getting the positive samples.
You keep saying this and it simply isn`t true. Name one steroid that does not stay in the system for less than the time between the end of the season and the world championships.



Quote:
Well I'd say Pound does hear things, he's not stupid enough to just invent a number from the top of his head unless he had some knowledge (something like what Nazarov said) he has heard from former players etc. We're talking about a very sharp guy here. Yes, he has no facts to back them up but he can't be proven wrong either.

Why is that NHL doesn't take this opportunity and put every single player through a surprise doping-test under full WADA surveillance and then publish the results? They could take the results and shove them up Pound's *** if he was proven wrong. Now they got nothing except those ridiculously crappy test results from their own 'anti-doping system' which is about as effective as trying to stop a flood with a fishnet.
Pound made those accusations for no other reason than to garner attention for his cause in the media. There was absolutely no facts behind it.

Chelios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 01:52 PM
  #65
Sammy*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
Brilliant post. Honestly, it adds a whole lot to this argument. And I can absolutely guarentee that I know a whole lot more on this subject than you do.
The fact you made that statement proves you dont know much on this subject.
I'd be interested on your take as to why sprinters take steroids?

Sammy* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 01:54 PM
  #66
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy View Post
The fact you made that statement proves you dont know much on this subject.
How does that post have anything at all to do with how much I know on the subject?

Chelios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 02:17 PM
  #67
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
We aren`t talking about body builders, we are talking about hockey players. Hockey players arent parading around in a thong in front of judges who are judging how defined every single muscle is. There is not this obsession with body fat among hockey players that you will find among bodybuilders. It is simply about performance. To say I don`t have the slightest clue about training is just magnifying your ignorance. I can tell you exactly how training affects every system of the body, how muscle develops from training and what happens to the carbs, fats and protein we take in. But this simply isn`t the place nor the time for that. I have taken courses from some of the top researchers in this area in Canada and I can tell you that you are simply wrong. What your gym buddies say at the gym and what is scientifically proven isn`t always the same.
Honestly - this is without any personal attack against you but I have to say that you really should get a refund from those courses or you have been sleeping on them, there's really no other explanation.

The objective of every hockey player with minimal exceptions is to have as little bodyfat as possible while maximizing the strength of your body. Every % of body fat causes extra weight which in turn decreases your performance on ice.

So what players want to do in the off-season is to get as lean as possible but without sacrificing musclemass. That's MUCH harder if you do it 'natural' way compared to using banned substances.

If you claim anything else you have no credibility left here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
You keep saying this and it simply isn`t true. Name one steroid that does not stay in the system for less than the time between the end of the season and the world championships.
Like I said, you don't have to take drugs until the very last day of the season to get the benefits. Again you just prove that you're not all that informed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
Pound made those accusations for no other reason than to garner attention for his cause in the media. There was absolutely no facts behind it.
If say 10 different former players tell him off-the-record that there's lots of stuff being taken in the lockerroom, can you say Pound has no facts behind his claims?

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 02:25 PM
  #68
Lowball Norm
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
If say 10 different former players tell him off-the-record that there's lots of stuff being taken in the lockerroom, can you say Pound has no facts behind his claims?
You could actually, as all he'd have is heresay.

Lowball Norm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 02:26 PM
  #69
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowball Norm View Post
You could actually, as all he'd have is heresay.
Well you have a point, he wouldn't have facts but solid evidence anyway.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 02:29 PM
  #70
Douggy
Registered User
 
Douggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,834
vCash: 500
The one common misconception I've seen in this thread is that Steroids give you more muscle mass.

That's not exactly true. Steroids decrease the amount of recovery time your muscles need between workouts alowing one to work out harder and more often.

Saying there are no performance enhancing drugs that would help NHLers is flat out stupid.

Douggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 02:35 PM
  #71
Dempsey
Registered User
 
Dempsey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,098
vCash: 50
I could care less if players take steroids.

Dempsey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 02:46 PM
  #72
The Pens Are Back*
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,068
vCash: 500
remembering tony twist's biceps, i wouldn't be suprised if he was juicing

The Pens Are Back* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 03:08 PM
  #73
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Honestly - this is without any personal attack against you but I have to say that you really should get a refund from those courses or you have been sleeping on them, there's really no other explanation.

The objective of every hockey player with minimal exceptions is to have as little bodyfat as possible while maximizing the strength of your body. Every % of body fat causes extra weight which in turn decreases your performance on ice.

So what players want to do in the off-season is to get as lean as possible but without sacrificing musclemass. That's MUCH harder if you do it 'natural' way compared to using banned substances.

If you claim anything else you have no credibility left here.
That is just flat out wrong. I don`t know if you think you are being funny by continually suggesting I should get my tuition refunded, but you have said nothing that discounts anything I have said. I am talking from a scientific perspective as a person who has a degree in the area, and you are talking about what you have heard from body builders in a gym. And you are saying I have no credibility left? There are plenty of things that are much more important to a hockey player (and are more important objectives during training) then percent body fat. VO2 max and lactic acid threshold, for example, are two areas which are much more important to a hockey player than their percent body fat. And, as I have said in previously (though I`m not sure you are even reading my posts anymore, just regurgitating the same things over and over) I am in no way saying that there is no steroids that wouldn`t help a hockey player, nor am I saying that there are no players that take them. What I am saying is that considering a) In the 3-4 months between hockey seasons there is ample time to get into great shape "naturally" , b) the damaging effects steroids can have on your health (not to mention your game), and c) the lack of positive tests not only during NHL testing, but in WADA testing for the olympics and World Championships, it is difficult for me to believe that there is a steroid problem among professional hockey players. That is all I am saying. Pretty strait forward.



Quote:
Like I said, you don't have to take drugs until the very last day of the season to get the benefits. Again you just prove that you're not all that informed.
It really is hard not to laugh at some of these comments. Alright, lets say (as you just did) a player takes drugs on the very last day of the season. THAT WOULD SHOW UP IN THE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP TESTING.


Quote:
If say 10 different former players tell him off-the-record that there's lots of stuff being taken in the lockerroom, can you say Pound has no facts behind his claims?
Yes, because he still doesn`t. Hearsay is far from facts.

Chelios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 03:11 PM
  #74
Jussi
I am siege face
 
Jussi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Finland
Posts: 43,437
vCash: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
The time between the end of the season and the start of the WCs is simply not enough time to get any serious steroid out of the system. Its really pretty simple.
Ever heard of "clear"?

And talking about steroids is kind of pointless since Nazarov implied that enforcers used them mostly. And how many enforcers have played at Worlds or Olympics?

Jussi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2006, 03:22 PM
  #75
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
That is just flat out wrong. I don`t know if you think you are being funny by continually suggesting I should get my tuition refunded, but you have said nothing that discounts anything I have said. I am talking from a scientific perspective as a person who has a degree in the area, and you are talking about what you have heard from body builders in a gym.
No, I'm talking about what I spoken with people who have written books about this issue, not just your average bodybuilder. People with massive scientific & practical experience in this issue.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
And you are saying I have no credibility left? There are plenty of things that are much more important to a hockey player (and are more important objectives during training) then percent body fat. VO2 max and lactic acid threshold, for example, are two areas which are much more important to a hockey player than their percent body fat.
Jesus christ, this can't be happening!! Where on EARTH have I said that those are NOT part of their training program??

All I said is that having as little bodyfat as possible is important to players because it means you're carrying less 'useless' weight on the ice. Best way to decrease the amount of bodyfat WITHOUT eating musclemass is by using banned substances.

Do you NOW understand my point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
I am in no way saying that there is no steroids that wouldn`t help a hockey player, nor am I saying that there are no players that take them. What I am saying is that considering a) In the 3-4 months between hockey seasons there is ample time to get into great shape "naturally"
You're missing the point. There's no such thing as 'optimal shape' that can be achieved during the off-season, you can ALWAYS be in better shape. And therein lies the point; with banned substances you get better results than without. A FACT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
It really is hard not to laugh at some of these comments. Alright, lets say (as you just did) a player takes drugs on the very last day of the season. THAT WOULD SHOW UP IN THE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP TESTING.
Did you read anything I said?? I just said in my previous post that there is NO NEED to take stuff last day of the season, you get the benefits even if you stop taking them earlier. How much earlier depends what stuff you're using.

Got it now?

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:44 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.