Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

steriods!!


remdan

7-Jun-2004
8:06:51 PM

how would you veiw an FA of the Australian first 35 if the FA was taking steriods.
would it be still been seen as freeclimbed or could it be debated to be an aid climb.


Damietta

7-Jun-2004
8:16:33 PM

I laboured the argument of having a better defined, more descriptive grading system in another thread and most people shouted it down because they don't want too many regulations and rules in climbing. Everyone seems to crap on about how they love climbing for the freedom, and isolation from the 'rules of the game' that come with organized competitive sport.

Therefore, if people want to take drugs to help their climbing, and endure the serious side effects on their body (ie Florence Griffth Joyner olympic sprinter dead in her 30's), good for them, and leave the dope testing for the olympics. I personally don't care if someone wants to take it that seriously that they're on the juice.

Ron Clarke (past Australian running great) argues that all steroids and performance enhancing drugs like EPO (EPO acts as a signal for the bone marrow to increase the rate at which red blood cells are made and released into the circulation - leading to an increased oxygen supply to the tissues throughout the body) should be legal in the Olympics for endurance events because it is impossible to compete with athletes born and bred at altitude (ie Kenya with average altitude of 2000m, and warm climate).

In climbing, I mount the parallel argument, how to you compete with the French given their abundant limestone cliffs and their abandonment of ethics and good style.


rodw

7-Jun-2004
8:34:28 PM

Yeah wouldnt worry me, just another kind of commitment and a persons choice, (am Im sure it been done to)


mousey

7-Jun-2004
10:24:41 PM

i would view such a claim with a certain pang of distaste, but hell who cares let them have it....(as long as though dont steal any of MY 35+ projects that is...)


nmonteith

8-Jun-2004
9:09:18 AM

I don't have a problem with steriods - i have never heard of someone doing them for climbing though - but i am sure it must happen somewhere in the world.


Tel

8-Jun-2004
9:23:15 AM

I heard a vague report that Chris Sharma was disqualified from a comp for having a banned substance in his system, marijuana. I think it was on RC.com, but the full details weren't clear, so don't know if it was rumour or fact. Some of the respones expressed dissappointment that he was a drug cheat, others expressed disappointment that even when stoned he was still doing V10- 11 problems... as I said it was a somewhat vague thread so it may just be a rumour.

deadpoint

8-Jun-2004
9:32:49 AM

Just poping some steroids is not going to make a huge difference in you climbing ability by themselves.
Steroids in in general allow faster recovery from excercise.
Faster recovery --> more training -> more intense training -> Stronger -> Faster.
You get nothing for free, you must increase you work load dramatically to get the most benefit.
Looking at the good climbers it seems that core strength, muscle and motor neuron control along with dedicated/directed training will get talented climbers to 34+.


vwills

8-Jun-2004
10:22:01 AM

I don't think steroids would help improve climbing. They certainly increase muscle bulk but this is not necessarily an advantage. Maybe they would help people aiming to achieve the worlds biggest dyno, but that doesnt really qualify as "climbing".


Damietta

8-Jun-2004
11:07:19 AM

It would help with climbing as it does in sprinting - but we know that stronger and faster usually means injury. The bigger and stronger you get the the stronger tendons must be to hold muscles onto joints and bone - snap!

Goodvibes

8-Jun-2004
12:03:57 PM

Yes after winning a bouldering comp in Europe a few years ago Sharma was later disqualified for having marijuana in his system. Not because it is a performance enhancing drug but because it is a drug that is illegal in most/all of the participating countries so it too is banned. I used to frequently and still do occaisionally smoke dope before climbing and for me any way there is no way it helps my performance.

I'm sure there were plenty of climbers who have experimented with performance enhancing drugs, I'm pretty sure that years ago Alex Huber caused a stir when he admitted to using some. There are always people who are desperate to get to the top, some unfortunately desperate enough to risk serious health concerns in to get there.

I think it would piss me off a little, not alot but a little to find out that such and such, one of the worlds best climbers was using steroids when they put up all their hardest climbs but really it is more likely to piss off their peers who are themselves pushing the limit of difficulty and trying to scrape a living from what is at present not the most lurcative of activities. Myself on the other hand will just continue to struggle up routes that were hardly cutting edge when they were put up 20 or 30 years ago.


nmonteith

8-Jun-2004
12:18:18 PM

I think sticky shoe rubber and chalk are far more dubious as 'aids' for climbing then using steriods.


Damietta

8-Jun-2004
12:37:26 PM

By taking steroids you are adapting your body to meet the demands of the rock, not the other way around (chipping)

deadpoint

8-Jun-2004
2:08:31 PM

On 8/06/2004 Damietta wrote:
>It would help with climbing as it does in sprinting - but we know that
>stronger and faster usually means injury. The bigger and stronger you get
>the the stronger tendons must be to hold muscles onto joints and bone -
>snap!

Some runners have experienced bone detachment where the attachment points break free from the bone - ouch

(removed)

9-Jun-2004
12:19:29 PM

In normal climbing, let them be, it's not a competition.

In competition climbing it should be banned. Reason ? Same as any other competitive sport and also why Ron Clarke is SOOO wrong: No general punter should be forced to compromise their health in order to compete on a level playing field.

I race triathlons, and I listen to all the fat bastards in our office say, "Let 'em go, dope 'em all up and let 'em go," I get furious, because I'm trying to compete with these people, but refuse to risk my own health to do so. I shouldn't have to.


nmonteith

9-Jun-2004
12:31:19 PM

Some would say you are risking your health by competing in triathlons with or without drugs! Its all relative... i think there shoudl be a drug free and a pro-drug olympics. In the end it is still a human being that does run/jump/swim. Drugs are just a another version of nurtrition - a super version but still the same concept.


shaggy

9-Jun-2004
12:36:40 PM

Why not let them take it; more steroids = small balls, same concept as 'little dick, big car'; so steroids, small nuts, big grades.
In the end it provides us with natural selection, sterile humans cant breed, therefore it culls idiots from our society


Damietta

9-Jun-2004
12:53:44 PM

On 9/06/2004 FatBoy wrote:
>In normal climbing, let them be, it's not a competition.
>
>In competition climbing it should be banned. Reason ? Same as any other
>competitive sport and also why Ron Clarke is SOOO wrong: No general punter
>should be forced to compromise their health in order to compete on a level
>playing field.
>
>I race triathlons, and I listen to all the fat bastards in our office
>say, "Let 'em go, dope 'em all up and let 'em go," I get furious, because
>I'm trying to compete with these people, but refuse to risk my own health
>to do so. I shouldn't have to.

Yep I agree. On the rock anything goes, but in the organised competition environment the rules should definitely extend to the use of performance enhancing drugs - be it legal or illegal as long as everyone is treated fairly.

(removed)

9-Jun-2004
2:37:05 PM

On 9/06/2004 nmonteith wrote:
>i think there shoudl be a drug free
>and a pro-drug olympics. In the end it is still a human being that does
>run/jump/swim. Drugs are just a another version of nurtrition - a super
>version but still the same concept.
Neil, this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say or write.

It's not all relative, there's a pretty clear line, and thickening your blood with EPO to potential fatal proprtions (as happened with a number of Dutch cyclists in the 70's) is well and truly over that line.

Who's going to race the drug free Olympics ? Who's going to sponsor them ? I just can't begin to describe in how many ways this argument is flawed.

You're yanking my chain, aren't you ?


climbau

9-Jun-2004
2:44:58 PM

It seems to me that drugs in sport is mainly due to the value we put on sportspeople. While ever we put sports people up on a pedestal within our society you are going to have drugs in sport. Solution = take away the pedestal. Yes, it is amazing what some people can physically do, but is it really more important than the scientific breakthroughs and the people out there doing volunteer work to help those less fortunate? I say that as long as we throw money at sporting personalities the worse the problem will get. I really feel sorry for those who are trying to compete clean, it must really murder their motivation.


nmonteith

9-Jun-2004
2:46:58 PM

nope - no yanking here.

Compare EPO cyclists to top end mountaineers. Both push themselves to the limits of human ability with possiblity of death being the end result. If you un-restrict performance enhancing drugs then perhaps the infracstructe supporting the athletes 'performance enhancment' would be better. If doctors are legally allowed to do research and look after their athletes properly then maybe more people wouldn't die. Steriods ect exist and people use them to get stronger. Some people are obviusly willing to push their bodies using these drugs for exceptional results. What i woudln't want to see is kids put on performance drugs. It needs to be the athletes own decision.

There are 44 messages in this topic.