Yep, the fact that these guys can go years in the NHL without getting caught and then play in one international tournament and fail is more reason to believe that the NHL just turns a blind eye to this stuff. I also think it's hilarious that someone would discount cocaine use as if railing a line before a game isn't going to give you an aggressive edge.
It's enough to catch it if it was anywhere close to as rampant as people claim.
The NHL doesn't. It was an international ban.
Backstrom had used the same allergy medication in 3 prior World Championships and 2 Olympics.
You do understand that the "over the counter" drug you're talking is actually a behind the counter drug in the US, has a limit on how much you can buy, and requires everyone to go the the pharmacist and provide an ID before being allowed purchase it because it's one of the main ingredients in Meth, right?
It's almost like it's much easier to build muscle when you have the best facilities, personal trainers, medical staff, etc., being used by the most naturally athletic individuals, when millions of potential dollars are reliant on being in the best shape possible.
Just because the NHL doesn't test for certain drugs doesn't mean they aren't performance enhancing drugs. Also, this thread isn't asking for people to discuss only drugs the NHL tests for but rather discuss how often players are using drugs to enhance their performance. If you don't think cocaine will enhance a players performance then we're very obviously not going to see eye to eye on this issue and I'll just leave it at that.
Not everyone can beef up and become an actual beast just with training and the best care possible. It's a genetic thing and I doubt the NHL goes deep into genetic advantages on its players. It's not physically possible. More and more of these guys are most likely being told what to eat, drink, train, and take advantage of.
I don't know if the process you are describing is true, and I wouldn't exactly trust the U.S. medical system to do anything right, but did you ever think that maybe it's monitored because of it being an ingredient in the production of meth, and not because this pretty basic over-the-counter allergy medication is some Hulk-mania super-drug?
Similarly, just because the IIHF does test for something, it doesn't mean they are performance enhancing drugs, and it doesn't necessarily mean that player has seen much of an impact, if any at all, for something that in pretty much all cases, has been negligible and unintentional.
No, but the athletic beasts that are the top 1% of the 1% of the 1% of players, who make it to the NHL, often can. These aren't your average guys walking down the street.
Ok, well I do know it's true and it's common knowledge. The idea that you think you know better than the "US medical system" or whatever is kind of laughable especially considering you don't even sound like you know why pseudo ephedrine is banned by the IOC. And yes, I do think it's monitored because it's used in the production of Meth, I pretty clearly said that. I also think it's pretty convenient that Backstrom was using that specific allergy medicine instead of one that doesn't include a stimulant in it. Just because something isn't a "Hulk-mania super-drug" doesn't mean it won't enhance your performance which is the literal name of PEDs. You sound like you think the only PEDs we should be worried about are anabolic steroids that increase testosterone which is pretty funny to be honest.
I agree. The bulking of athletes in their late teens/early 20's isn't the problem and it's certainly not something eye raising. I don't think players are shooting roids in their ass to get huge because that's not where the advantage is in a sport like Hockey. The PEDs the league should be looking into is the recovery drugs and other stuff similar to blood doping that Lance Armstrong and other cyclists have been caught doing as well as stimulants like cocaine which will very obviously give you a game day boost.
Actually, I didn't say I knew better than the U.S. medical system, but many countries do. Regardless, you have admitted that the reason for it being monitored has absolutely nothing to do with the drug itself, so not sure why you represented it as anything other than the pretty basic over-the-counter allergy medication that it is.
The IOC literally said there was "no indication that Mr. Backstrom intended to enhance his sport performance by taking a prohibited substance".
This is you applying intent/motive with zero evidence.
Just because something is on the list, it doesn't mean that it's going to provide any real impact at the threshold.
I didn't say that at all, but you make it sound like people who use those smelling salts on the bench may as well be juicing up into steroid monsters.
Yeah because hockey media isn't known for covering up stories for years to protect their buddies.
