I'm sorry ...
but how does increasing one's "stimulation of growth" not affect their performances? Its all well and good if you claim it doesn't, but please post a link or resource to us less educated on the subject. Otherwise, common sense makes you think Messi would have been a little whimp without GH.
That is according to the law which I said was hypocritical to begin with. Again, you didn't answer me ...
do you think a child taking HG under Barca Almighty's watch would have less of an effect on the child's performances on the pitch than a 31 year old taking sibutramine? That's what I've talked about from the start ... a hypocrisy in
judging what medication is acceptable and what is not.
Hmmm ...
but I guess Barca injecting teens and pre-teens with substances is clearly in the "spirit of sport" ... nice lecture, but I think its more in the spirit of child abuse.
This is a bull argument. I was a killer footballer when I was young.
Also, his opponents that day would have grown while he wouldn't have. GH helped his football career ... FACT.
This is a more reasonable explanation of what took place. He was a talented kid, but without the medication (GH) would've been no where close to being a professional footballer. Barca stepped in as his supplier (
) and saved the day!
My point wasn't whether that was right or wrong. My point was whether an older established footballer taking sibutramine would be considered as doping while accepting a player who used GH as a kid. You see, maybe Mutu taking sibutramine affected his performances ON THE PITCH ... but certainly not as much as Messi using GH. THATS MY POINT.