Fastest over EVER bowled in test cricket history

[Richard]

I think you perhaps slightly mis-estimate my stance on how much runs after a let-off count, but I can see the similarity in the two.

As for Asif, precisely when he begun taking illegal substances and precisely whether this was before or after he begun to improve his game can never, ever be known, so thus I'm still happy to credit him with some right-doing in going from an utterly nothing bowler to a damn superb one.

(And yes, he was a damn superb bowler, even if he had to cheat to make himself one - which he may or may not have done.)

 

[GIMH]

Well I don't expect everyone or anyone to share my exact stance on it, it's just the way I see it

 

[Richard]

It's a fair enough stance to take, IMO, but I'd go so far as to say I wouldn't myself. My less-than-impressed attitude towards the marginalisation of anything which enhances performance probably impacts on that.

As I've said multiple times, if something enhances performance, makes a player play better, I can't possibly be against it. I always want to see the best play possible, and I don't care how it's achieved as I don't see any reasonable way to define between what's "fair" and "unfair" - if, obviously, everyone is allowed to use\do it.

The only things I'm happy to see discouraged are those which do long-term damage - and there is evidence that some perfectly legal actions do indeed do such a thing.

 

[rivera213]

As I've said multiple times, if something enhances performance, makes a player play better, I can't possibly be against it. I always want to see the best play possible, and I don't care how it's achieved as I don't see any reasonable way to define between what's "fair" and "unfair" - if, obviously, everyone is allowed to use\do it.

I'd like to see the best possible play, but not as the result of cheating. If you allow currently illegal substances (well, it's more the percentage of a particular substance in your blood which is deemed legal/illegal) then you're punishing the players who don't want to use performance-ehnancing drugs (and every steroid is dangerous after just a single cycle of use btw, so there are more reasons NOT to juice). Past the moral issues, there are health issues and I couldn't see those who aren't complete morons using any form of PHS.

I view people who use performance-enhancing drugs as cheaters, and so do the huge majority of people involved in any way with sport (fans, players, associations, trainers/coaches...).

The majority of the baseball players outted as juicers wont get into the Hall of Fame even if their stats are good enough (McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro definitely and possibly even Bonds- though he has pissed the media off in more than 1 way. Lol) and that attitude should be shared by everyone who watches sport IMO.

You can't honestly say you'd feel a bit let down if you found out guys you liked were only as good as they were (well, as consistent as they were- since PHS do not make you better. Most of the time they're used as training aids, not to build muscle- apart from the sluggers in baseball) because they had help.

Kids would be crushed, current supporters who pay money would feel cheated so allowing such substances would have a deeply detrimental effect on cricket as a sport.

 

[Richard]

As I say - if such means which are currently viewed as cheating were to be available to all then there'd be no advantage gained by them.

I'm well aware that any form of steroid use has its potential dangers, it's why I'm never touching the things myself, but if they were as dangerous as, for example, heroin and cocaine they'd not be legal.

But the reasoning most often used tends to be "it's cheating because it's cheating", which just doesn't make sense.

People get as good as they are by taking any number of supplements - it's completely impossible to come close to being the best you can without doing so. I can't say the definition between what's legal and what's illegal has ever really satisfied me.

 

[rivera213]

As I say - if such means which are currently viewed as cheating were to be available to all then there'd be no advantage gained by them.

But every player would HAVE to take steroids for statistics and performance to be level. Imagine we found out that say Wasim Akram or someone used steroids all their career. We wouldn't view him as quite so great as we currently do.

I'm well aware that any form of steroid use has its potential dangers, it's why I'm never touching the things myself, but if they were as dangerous as, for example, heroin and cocaine they'd not be legal.

Well both those drugs were used in a medicinal capacity until people realized how dangerous and addictive they were.

Hopefully the same will happen in the future with steroids, though since they are still used medicinally it wont be for a long time.

Also, the difference bewteen the heroin boom in the 60's and steroids is that heroin was potentially used by everyone. There isn't a reason for people who aren't sportsmen/women to take steroids recreational way. Steroids don't give you a life so for junkies, they aren't a possibility.

Plus, the government makes money via tax from performance-enhancing drugs and I'm sure it's big business (particularly in the US amongst NFL players. Ha ha).

But the reasoning most often used tends to be "it's cheating because it's cheating", which just doesn't make sense.

I agree that is a useless reason.

I'd say something like "Using steroids is a form of cheating because they both un-naturally enhance power and allow you to train beyond what is possible without the use of said substance".

People get as good as they are by taking any number of supplements - it's completely impossible to come close to being the best you can without doing so. I can't say the definition between what's legal and what's illegal has ever really satisfied me.

Well, yeah but the majority of supplements are really placebos. I'd go as far as saying they are cons.

It's all in the head.

I think all steroids should be illegalised (not just in sport, but the production of and use of in a medicinal capacity) because of their potentially fatal side-effects from use (short or long term).

I don't really know the side effects or how dangerous a substance is for PHS which aren't steroids, but any with even a possible link to health problems should be banned.

I agree that anything which is legal in life should theoretically be legal in sport, but I think roids should be illegal full stop.

 

[zaremba]

I think all steroids should be illegalised (not just in sport, but the production of and use of in a medicinal capacity) because of their potentially fatal side-effects from use (short or long term).

Pchah. Steroids are extremely important drugs in a medical context. For example, babies born prematurely often have terrible problems due to their lungs not being ready to breathe properly, so doctors treat them with steroids to help their lungs develop, which can save their lives. To take another example, anabolic steroids are used to treat leukemia (by stimulating bone marrow growth).

I cannot think of a single reason why anyone in their right mind would want to ban these kinds of medical uses of steroids.