Talk:Boldenone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page needs references.[edit]

The research is out there. Off the top of my head, some of this may be borderline theory, rather than known facts.

Stating boldenone makes a good replacement for nandrolone doesn't sound neutral, it sounds like bodybuilder giving advice.

--October red 20:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]




Use of the word "doping" is VERY POV[edit]

"Doping" is the favouite word of the IOC witch-hunters, and equates steroid use with "dope", i.e. being stupid, and being a junkie. While some of the medical community have gone along with this very subjective, and very negative term, it is nonetheless a propaganda/newspeak word and is not appropriate. "Use in sports and training" is more like it; the tone in this article, as in the Nandrolone one I also looked at, is also implicitly USA-centric in that it buys into the War on Drugs/Steroids, a distinct bias which likes to presume itself the only truth. The tone of both these pages is POV and I'd come back here to try and work on that: but this is notice that "doping" is an offensive term to the user community, and is only a term used by the witch-hunt teams of the IOC and the DEA.Skookum1 17:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a banned substance. If you're caught with it, it means you have been caught cheating. It's offensive to the "user community"? Good. DarkAudit (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what? It's still POV. Not all users are in competitive sport where "cheating" occurs; prejudidicial language is prejudicial language; and the association between "dope" (stupidity, stupid person, & also heroin) is entirely pejorative in nature. Get over your self-righteousness and realize not all users of steroids are in competitive sports, i.e. trying to give the public the records they so slavishly crave.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skookum1, doping is used in a much wider sense to mean inserting impurities, see for example Doping (semiconductor). Its use in relation to drugs derives from the nineteenth century or earlier and in fact it's very likely that dopy (meaning stupified) derives from this use, and that and dope meaning a stupid person is an even later derivation from dopy, see Doping in sport#Origin of the term "doping". Whatever the origins of the term, it is so widely and commonly used to refer to adulteration in general and drug use in particular that I can't agree that its use is either perjoritive per se or synonymous with stupidity. Nevertheless, the heading "Use in doping" followed by several other sections withheadings of the form "Use in (insert sport)" doesn't make any sense. I'd suggest that based on the content of the section a more approriate heading would be "Effects on humans"-- Timberframe (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The court is so far out in terms of the provenance of the term; its negative use - the negative tone in which it has been used - draw on the "stupid" connection, also the "heroin" connection. Do they talk about compound-substance materials for bicycles or the additions of materials and fibres to bathing suits and ski suits and such as also being "doping of materials used in sport?" No. And it's because of the ass-covering bluster of hte IOC that the original phrase "used performance-enhancing drugs" now has been substituted with a word with decidedly negative overtones. That's known as newspeak. Note also Use of performance enhancing drugs in sport, which had been Doping in sport, ditto for "association football" so far - I just haven't gotten to proposing/arguing all the othrer subecategories, but they should all be changed. "Doping" only becxme a buzzword in drug testing in less than the last 15 years (I know, because I was well over 35 when it started); it doesn't matter its origins. it's its tone and the intent of using it; the judgemental condemnation of its use, whether in competitive sport or in recreational training use; taking it to feel better is not "doping". Doping has associations of horse and dog racing, and of gambling, and as before of dope-using humans and dopes. Pretending otherwise means the newspeakers have won, and the connotations are to be an everyday part of the language. Not my language, perhaps, but certainly that of those trying to impose their particular POV on "drug use in sport" (gee, isn't htat an easy phrase?).Skookum1 (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, this is horse medicine. There are no approved human uses for this drug. Any use by humans at all is unauthorized. The people using it illegally don't like it when people stigmatize that use? Too bad. They're breaking the rules, and probably breaking the law. They deserve no sympathy or respect if their feelings are hurt. DarkAudit (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL ALL drugs on the market were originally used only on animals. That goes for your ibuprofen and valium, so get over it. Boldenone works on humans, it also works on chimpanzees, ocelots and your father's moustache. So do percosets. I have no sympathy or respect for your lack of sympathy and respect, which is entirely and totally POV in nature and also based in US biases/policies; Boldenone is not inherently illegal or criminal in the same way as murder or rape or embezzlement of accepting bribes (like IOC officials do) it's illegal because of a questionable political agenda organized and coordinated by one specific country and its efforts to proselytize its biases between its borders; not all countries have subscribed to the US agenda of the so-called "War on Drugs", which was even more of a failure than the War on Terror continues to be. Boldenone arguably has effects on humans because it has effects on nearly any animal, and if all those effects were negatives athletes and non-athlete users would have no reason to use it. It's used for the same reason low-friction swimsuits and skating suits and polycarbonate bikeframes and nanofibre ski surfaces are used - it helps win competitions. The only difference is that one has been declared heresy, the others embraced with open arms even though being just as ethnically questionable. In fact, at the ancient Olympics athletes competed naked partly to prove they had no kind of artificial advantage (didn't stop them from putting glass in hand-wrappings, or using natural variations on what now are prohomormones/steroidal effects). it's a slippery slope ,the argument that something is "cheating" jsut because the law has made on thing legal and other not. The point remains, and is the only wiki-point that counts, taht one country's policies are not those of the entire world, and subjective/prejudicial language towards steroid users is just and only part of a particular political viewpoint, and nothing more; there is no inherent evil in humans using boldenone for whatever reason they do it is; the issue is the control over personal choice, over how one uses their own body. Pionting to alleged side effects when the jury is still far out on rendering a proper scientific verdict is just part of the same old War on Drugs sham. And the difference ot a casusl observer of language is easy enough to point to - "performance enhancing drugs/substances" vs "doping" is not synonymy; the latter has a specifically and intentionally negative connotation which the former does not have; the former is factual in nature, the latter is entirely political as a usage. And therefore POV. And decidedly, also, USPOV....Skookum1 (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skookum, while I have some sympathy with your stance on the terminology, your tirade above hasn't actually proposed any improvement in the article, either by commenting on my suggestion or by proposing another. That's what the article talk page is for - improving the article. It's not the place to let off steam - however rightly you are offended. What comes across is, to use your phrase, VERY POV and a violation of WP:soap. I'll change the offending heading and hopefully that will be an end to it. -- Timberframe (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issues[edit]

We really can't say that particular individuals tested positive for an illegal substance without having a reference for them. Please add the citation quickly. --Selket Talk 21:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boldenone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change ok. DferDaisy (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boldenone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change ok. DferDaisy (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boldenone&oldid=1206359357"