Talk:Doping in sport/Archive 1

Walter Mayer
The sentence "At the 2006 Winter Olympics, Walter Mayer fled from the police when, acting on a tip, the Italian authorities conducted a surprise raid to search for evidence of doping." is simply wrong: It was not a secret that Walter Mayer visited the (his) Austrian athletes (it was covered by media) so the police were not "acting on a tip". Walter Mayer did not flee from the (Italian) police, he had simply left Italy the day before. He did flee from Austrian police a day later, because he was driving his car drunken. If nobody changes the sentence, I'll simply remove it. CE 80.108.89.202 23:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sports ethics
I think it would be great if someone could add an account (or multiple accounts) of why doping is unethical. There is no real reference to sportsmanship in this article, nor any real discussion of why, for instance, some drugs are legal while others are not. What characteristics make use of a substance unsportsmanly? How has opinion on doping changed over the years (aside from the history of who caught on to the criminalization trend given in the article, which is a good section).

It seems most of this article is written under the premise that doping is bad, which i agree with, without giving an adequate explanation of why. This may pose an NPOV issue, although i doubt anyone is going to argue it. Regardless, I think a section elaborating on why doping is commonly percieved as an immoral practice would be a good addition to the article. Shaggorama 08:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Another good addition to article would be also thoughts about legalizing doping, they do it anyway. Everybody. Something like this link http://www.slate.com/id/89786  will help. Cthulhoid 14:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree 209.10.89.3 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Another angle would be to explore why drug tests are selectively enforced. For example, Ben Johnson was disqualified from the 1988 Olympics after testing positive for anabolic steroids. Yet Carl Lewis also received an IOC disqualification for testing positive for another banned substance, and nothing was done. The inconsistency and hypocrisy in the anti-doping side of things is considerable, and it should be noted. DarkHorse220 (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think to correct the situation in sports leagues are on the right track. First, rules need to be established. Then they need to be enforced. It is amazing how quick Major League Baseball has implemented a system to eliminate performance-enhancing drugs. They tested players anonymously, noticed there was a problem and acted on it with rules and enforced the rules with drug tests. The only area that I believe to be tarnished is the records broken during the this performance-enhancement era. Is it fair for players who have not been proven guilty to have a negative image in history? I believe those that admitted or were proven guilty will forever be known as a cheater. But what about those that were only accused?Mnollett (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

History of performance-enhancing drugs
This article would benefit from a brief section narrating the history of doping in sports. soverman 02:54 10 Jan 06 (UTC)

Definition of Doping
A proper definition of doping is missing in the article. A philosophical discussion> What is doping? When is it doping?

The ambivalence of many drugs & measures w.r.t. doping has not been discussed. Depending on the intentions of the user something might become doping, it might also unintentionally become doping, and only subsequently it might become legally sanctioned 'Doping' by certain, hopefully previously announced, rules.

Some examples: Coffee is almost like any other beverage, consumed by many and in some countries in huge amounts. Still it was on the WADA-list until 2004. A philosophical investigation had been needed whether it is unethical (morally not accepted) that a sportsperson (athlete, chess player), drinks coffee for any other than usual reasons (e.g. to become fully 'awake').

Similarly with many medicaments.

Some treatments, not involving any external (chemicals, medicaments) or body-internal drug (more own red bloodcells) are also considered as 'doping'. Example: hight stages, oxygen tent, leading to body-own, more red blood cells. The examples that you give here are not considered doping by any organization, even the IOC. Oxygen tents are perfectly acceptable and used by many professional cyclists as part of a "Live high, train low" training program that allows the athlete to benefit from decreased oxygen during sleep while still providing the opportunity to train at full intensity at sea level (recovery is compromised at high-altitude). Pbcstar23 (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

How about other treatments?:

Is Meditation an unethical self-treatment? Most probably not. But actually why not? It is after all intended to enhance performance. Is meditation allowed, hence not doping, if the person is telling everyone (including his/her competitors), that s/he is meditating?

How about getting good sleep & living a healthy life (whatever that might include for now).

The discussion why these should not be considered as doping should follow the same lines why others (treatments, drugs) are (already) considered drugs - and vice versa). Can everyone sleep? Do meditation? Drink coffee? Use drugs ...? How bad are coffee, medicaments, drugs, top athletic sport (meniscus, ligaments ...) for your health in short & long term perspective.
 * Fairness is most probably a very important argument in the course of that discussion.
 * Health affection is another important topic:

Most probably it turns out that some decisions are taken arbitrarily at some green table and without consensus of all users of the system (athletes).

Transparency in decision making and clarity of the rules, beyond simply stating concentrations & milli grams are certainly wished in sports. Tommie 10:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for soapboxing, but to answer some of your concerns... As far as I'm aware, coffee was never banned. Perhaps caffeine but I doubt coffee was ever banned. Caffeine is a psychoactive drug and if used by an athlete to stay awake, it is in effect using it for performance enhancing reasons. Also, perhaps you're a little to concentrated on wikipedia. In reality, most systems work without the consensus of all users. Nil Einne 08:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A possible reference
Info-en recived a suggestion for a reference to be added to the the article: Claudio M. Tamburrini and Torbjorn Tannsjo (eds.) Genetic Technology and Sport (London and New York: Routledge, 2005). The suggestion also noted that they currently run a research project on the subject. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

--

The first performance enhancing attempt was in 776 BC Ancient Greek Olympics by eating ingested sheep´s testicles, which the Ancient Greeks knew to be a source of testosterone production. The second attempt was by the big winner in the 480 B.C. Olympics, who ate meat (which we now know to be high in B vitamins and creatine) for 10 months before the games. Meat is not doping food is not doping, next thing you will write is that athletes that train are doping themselves with excersice.

Landis testosterone
I suggest deleting the following from the paragraph on the Landis testosterone test: "(with normal levels of testosterone and deficient levels of epitestosterone)"

The reason is firstly that the evidence for the statement as far as I know is only from a statement by Landis himself. Secondly, it is irrelevant. The test is of a ratio T:E and this is what is used to denote an abnormal reading. The actual concentration of T or E has no meaning by itself. In any case, exogenous T was detected. (If the epitestosterone was low this is only relative to the dilution in the urine sample and it was probably diluted because of all the water he was drinking.)

Note: this is my first contribution so I hope this suggestion is in keeping with wikipedia rules.

Major League Baseball Players Accused of Doping
I think that this catagory is not needed and is flawed. One I could just say that any random player used steroids and thus that is an accusation and needs to be put into this list. I think that if this list is to stay than it should be changed and moved to the game of shadows section to be included as a list of players accused in that particular book. Metsman 18:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible source
I had copied over some material from Anabolic steroid, but then I discovered it was a copyvio. However, the source is good, so here it is:

Alcohol and caffeine
I suppose it's true that caffeine is a performance-enhancing substance (though this should have a citation supporting it), but how in the world is alcohol performance-enhancing? eae 00:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Etymology
Do you think an etymological sourse of the word is in order? i think it can add to the article... is it because of dopimines (orwhatever) in the brain? or that the people are dopes? Boomshanka 01:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the discussion here I think an etymology/usage addition would be useful. Doping is something of a loaded term and it would be good to have some reference to the evolution of the word; and for the record, as much as I agree with you, I don't believe it's because users are dopes! Dick G 04:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Subtitles
I think a lot of the subtitle headlines in this article are unencyclopedic. Titles like "A Miracle Muscle Pill" don't give the reader a straightforward idea of what the section is about. Perhaps the titles should be changed so they are more direct. What do you think?
 * I was thinking that as well, they sound like they have been copied from an article or documentary. cyclosarin (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They do sound like out of a "60 minute" program. I think, generally, the subject is to large and needs to be broken up in sub-articles and different sports. The article needs a rewrite, begining with the titles!EA210269 (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

ripped?
it looks like this whole article has been ripped from somewhere considering the titles either someone is trying to make wikipedia sound cool and trendy, or this is copy-paste! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.59.34 (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I found the entire article here: http://www.tutorgig.com/ed/Doping_(sport). Not sure who has ripped it off whom though.Tight Nut (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that this page is the original article, and the other is ripped, as the Chicago Honey Bears article that I wrote from scratch was also on another page.  Zappa  O  Mati   22:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Lack of Definition
Hi there, I've always wondered what makes some substance a banned substance in sport, and I wonder what the criteria is.

For example, I can buy amino acid pills in my local chemist, and they're legal. It's just pure protein made from milk, and a very healthy suppliment. Meanwhile, anabolic steroids cause heart disease, male breast enlargement, etc. Is it that banned substances are things that are unhealthy? Why could I take an amino acid pill, but not a nandralone pill?

I can see why someone would ban something on health grounds, but if we're talking chemically, all foods - things you ingest and contain chemicals - are sort of drug. Is there an explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.21.65 (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You're one up on the anti-doping authorities. They don't seem to have any criteria, either.

Contrary to popular belief, no one can actually produce any real medical evidence that steroids have any long-term health effects. The media makes it sound otherwise, but a search of any peer-reviewed medical literature on www.pubmed.gov won't turn up anything that positively links steroids to any health issues once the user stops taking them.

So the default answer becomes "cheating". But that doesn't explain why they'll allow new sports technology in the game.

In short, it's an entirely arbitrary decision that has no actual scientific basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.190.70 (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap!
This article is a mess! I just came from the German Wikipedia, and I have to say thier article is way better. Maybe you guys could translate some of the ther articel or at least use the structure as a guideline? 83.77.50.9 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Title
I think the article should be moved from "Doping (sport)" to "Doping in sport". Otherwise the title alone might convey the idea that doping is a sport. Compare with Skeleton (sport) or Rowing (sport). — Adi  Japan  06:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A less POV title would be "Use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport" as "doping" was coined to derogate users (because of the original meaning of "dope" re opiates, and stupidity). That it's in wide use is a sign of the effectiveness of newspeak....but it doesn't mean it's NPOV...Skookum1 (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Don Catlin promo?
Why is there a whole section featuring one researcher's work - Don Catlin and Anti-Doping Research?? Prorhomones have been around a lot longer than his clinic, and newer designer steroids were come up with in Belgium, France and elsewhere as a result of the lack of research into newer materials in the US, where research has focussed on trying to find side effects to justify criminalization.....Masteron is one of these. To me the Don Catlin section comes off like spam for that doctor, and for his clinic...Skookum1 (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm working on removing excessive detail from this article, which is covered elsewhere on the wiki. There's more than one section that needs trimming. Xasodfuih (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Drug testing section is terrible. Hardly any scientific info, only some names that have often been vehiculated in the press are thrown in for good measure, and there's a copy&paste of Don_Catlin. You'd think doping tests started and ended with him. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Religious doping?
I am concerned by the rise of 'religious doping' - sportspeople praying for and (in their eyes receiving) supernatural assistance against other competitors. Is this fair? Does it constitute the potentially illegal stimulation in the body of (otherwise natural) performance-enhancing substances? Should prayer before competition by prohibited? Should religious signs and statements after successful competition be deprecated or even lead to disqualification due to the use of performance enhancement not available to others? This is becoming a serious issue in all sports. Recently the Pakistani cricketer Afridi thanked Allah (may His Name be praised - just to be on the safe side!) for His help in his side's reaching the World Twenty-20 Cricket Championship final (which they went on to win, defeating Sri Lanka!). Is this cricket (i.e. fair)? Does Pakistan's victory prove Allah's (m.H.N.b.p.) might compared with the different Deities available to the Sri Lankan team? Should there be different competitions for atheists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc, or a system of handicaps based on the number of members of each religion (based on the assumption that Roman Catholics will pray for Roman Catholics, Muslims for Muslims etc)? Should all competitors sign a statement prior to competition, confirming that they have not prayed for (unfair) assistance from their deity/deities/saints etc? Where will it end?
 * It would certainly be interesting to know if higher endorphin, adrenalin and testosterone/nandrolone levels that may become raised during religious ecstasy (and its milder form, prayer) were testable, and certainly so far there is no blood test for self-hypnosis, or even for hypnosis and other pscyhological techniques used to enhance athletic ability. I can't remember which comic said it but someone said "Jesus is better than crack" (in reply to a slogan "Jesus is more powerful than drugs")....there are empirical tests, mostly neurological, for brain states and related body functions resultin from meditation; but so far the IOC haven't made meditation/prayer/religious ecstasy contraband practices.  I agree that invoking the name of the deity to help you beat the crap out of the other side is a bit weird, and not slightly blasphemous/impious when you really think about it...."Lord, help me smite mine enemy" and such seem like ideolgoical contraband; if proof of divine intervention becomes evident, then that suggests a certain kind of cheat; you'd think the Almight would be a bit more impartial though.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

genetic dopping
what about people who are born with better genes!? unfair advantage lmao

East Germany
The section on East Germany seems to be a complete cut-and-paste of the main article it mentions. Would it be better just to summarise the main points on GDR here and leave the link to the specific article on the GDR? Beantrees (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving back to Doping in sport
The current title does not reflect the topic. Doping =/= Use of performance-enhancing drugs, as doping also includes such activities as blood doping. This is mentioned in the fourth sentence and is a significant aspect of doping, but blood is not a performance-enhancing drug. The topic is widely referred to as "doping" in media, literature, and documentation, as well as being used by the relevant sporting organisations (WADA is but one prime example).

The term "doping" has negative connotations in sport for a good reasons, this is because it is widely condemned by the vast majority of humanity. This negativity is no reason for the move to Use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport, just as it is no reason to move Theft to Acquisition of property without consent. User Skookum1, who moved the page, cited newspeak and NPOV as reasons for this title. It is NPOV to have this topic at a name which is not used by the majority of people when discussing the subject. I talk not solely of daily gutter press, but also of historians worldwide, organisations created to address the matter, and all the major sporting governing bodies. Wikipedia is first and foremost a way of projecting the ideas of mainstream society regarding a topic. It is not about a crusade to censor a widely used negative term about people who use substances to gain an illegal advantage. Move back to Doping in sport. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) Join WikiProject Athletics!  18:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Stick to current title. I prefer the current title because it is more descriptive.  'Doping' seems to me to be an odd word to use in this context. It carries the the suggestion that the drugs are administered by a third party, as in horse or dog racing.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On reflection I think that 'performance enhancing substances' might be better. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems like the best title idea so far to me. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) Join WikiProject Athletics!  10:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Stick to current title I prefer the current title because I think "performance enhancing drugs" is more descriptive than "doping". As someone who does not follow sports, I find the current title to be a better and more understandable description.  Looking around on the web, the two terms seem about equally prevalent when discussing the term ("doping" is slightly more common).  I think the more technical term is more NPOV and not out of line with current usage. Quantumelfmage (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Stick to current title. I was the one who made the change, and was of the opinion/agenda that all "doping" articles be changed to "use of performance-enchancing drugs".  "Doping" is pejorative and propagandistic and is a slight to those who do use, it is i.e. highly POV and part of a "campaign".  Claiming that blood doping is a reason to change the title is very shallow; other performance-enhancement methods not using drugs also exist, i.e. speed suits (which are now under interdiction).  What should happen here is not that this article gets changed back, but all the other articles get changed from their current POV titles to something less reflect of the witchhunt surrounding the use of performance-enhancement drugs/methods.Skookum1 (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A "Witchhunt"?! For the vast majority, use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports is akin to fraud. Indeed, some athletes who contravened the rules in this way must pay back their winnings by law. Needless to say, people will not consider Bernard Madoff to be a victim of a "witchhunt" either, but I digress. The World Anti-Doping Agency is supported by the IOC and virtually all other major sporting governing bodies, as well as having the financial backing of governments of the United Nations. You're right, it is a campaign, but it is a campaign that has worldwide support as much as human rights. Not one major sporting governing body or national government supports the use of performance enhancing drugs. The term doping is not controversial - it is the term used by all the relevant bodies, a term used by the overwhelmingly majority of people. This is not a POV issue. If you take steroids and don't think there's anything wrong with using them in competitive sport, then fine. Just understand that your view is very much a minority one. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) Join WikiProject Athletics!  01:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a witch hunt and you're a willing participant. Using "doping" is advancing the POV of WADA and the IOC, which includes campaigns of disinformation and smearing of reputations.  You can be self-righteous as you want about it, all that does is prove that it's POV, and very much so; it's ironic that you would compare it to human rights, as it's in violation of many human rights and is nothing of the same moral order; it is a sop to the War on Drugs; and calling mine an minority opinion does not make it a wrong opinion, it simply demonstrates the effectiveness of the propaganda campaign and the millions of dollars thrown at it (partly to induce media fanfare to avoid public awareness of Olympic organizational and bribery scandals).  The NPOV is simple -  "performance-enhancing drugs" is a neutral term ,"doping " is not due to its association with stupidity and also with heroin use; if you wish to compare steroid use with heroin use then you're simply participating further in the smear-campaign rhetoric of the witchhunt.  Performance enhancing drugs include ephedrine and pseudoephedrine and other cold medicines, and all kinds of things - including caffeine - which have nothing to do with steroids; your invocation of them is your typical whitchhunt-kneejerk response.  And I'd wager publci opinion polls about the use or drugs in sport would not turn up a huge majority as you claim they would; everybody loves to take down a sports hero, but nobody wants to watch a bunch of skinny football players hobbling around between games on crutches.  Wikipedia's job is not to be a platform for the War on Drugs, simply put, and POV language is POV, and "doping" is POV language.  Re-tooling language is the work of propagandists, not encyclopedists....Skookum1 (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Performance-enhancing substances" is fine, but note it it would include speed suits/fabrics, carbon-fibre/composite bicycle frames, specialty skis etc etc....which are also'  ethically questionable, though only lately has any action really been taken to deal with them. As for "doping" being used the "overwhelming majority of people", that's an utterly laughable claim; "drug use in sport" is by far more common, unless you only read WADA and IOC publications.wn argument make highly subjective statement ""doping" has negative connotations", which is clearly POV and self-justifyingly so.Skookum1 (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not mention heroin, you did. You are inventing a false position for me in an attempt to discredit my argument. I agree that the Olympic movement is not free of corruption or poor organisation, but very little in this world is: this has no bearing on the argument. You cite imaginary opinion polls as your proof that people are tolerant to use of banned substances, I'd like to see just one source that suggests this. The prominent case of Ben Johnson and the reaction to institutionalised doping in East Germany are just the most obvious examples of how the majority people treat the issue of performance enhancing drugs. There are countless articles in the world's press which reflected this.
 * Many of these drugs have medical applications, and they are not controversial in this capacity. See information about the Masters Games, for example. However, they are controversial when applied for non-medical/performance enhancement related use. Scientists actively discourage their use in this way on health grounds. We should reflect the prevailing view
 * The case for their ergogenic use does have its proponents, but Wikipedia articles are about reflecting wider public and scientific opinion over minority views (See WP:UNDUE). I feel this article is giving too much weight to those who believe that there is nothing wrong with using banned substances in sport. We are not here to advocate minority views for the purpose of righting great wrongs.
 * I don't believe that the term "Performance-enhancing substances" includes speedsuits and use of technology, purely because speedsuits and techonology are not substances! I'd like you to show me one citation that classifies speed suits and skis as performance enhancing substances. I mentioned steroids because, as a bodybuilder, I presume that you take/have taken steroids. I don't think I'm way off in suggesting that you have a vested interest in overstating positives of performance enhancing substances. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) Join WikiProject Athletics!  12:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral, but suggested title inappropriate: I don't care if this stays at the current, rather long-winded, title. However, the suggested target, Doping in sport, is inappropriate.  I'm sure someone will shout that this is a WP:ENGVAR issue, but it isn't.  It needs to be Doping in sports if moved, because a) it covers all sports, not just one, and more to the point, there is no universal rule across all of sport - that is, no rule in sport as an overarching field and concept - that can be brought to bear on the issue. Every sport that addresses the issue at all (many do not) does so differently. Doping in sport should simply be a redirect. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 20:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)  PS: What's this about speed suits?  I'm having a hard time following how wearing a cut-off leotard is a "performance enhancement". —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 20:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There's actually a current court case or procedural motion within the IOC and/or other sports feds to do with swimmers', skaters', lugers' and others bodysuits, which are substances (textiles "are" "substances"), and I beileve also mounting controversy within the cycling world over the use of composite-technology/materials frames.  Using technology to gain an unfair advantage in competitive sport is the same, the argument goes, whether it's drug technology or materials technology or design technology.  There's inbuilt genetic disadvantage to start with - which is what the genetic modification controversy is about - and that's the essence, in fact, of what "pure" athletic competition is inherently about.  but when your suit lets you go .01% faster than the person next to you, it's not athletics that are at stake but technology, as in race car driving/racing (which is all about technology).  I don't have an immediate cite for the controversy over speed suits, I know I've seen it in the press and around the web....Skookum1 (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Football/Soccer section misleading
The football/soccer section seems to imply that Soccer has a more notable problem with recreational drug use than other sports...and I find the likelihood of that low. It's more likely that since performance enhancing drug use is not as prominent in soccer, that recreational drug abuse would be considered bigger news in the sport. Whereas for something like Baseball, someone caught using performance enhancing drugs is considered scandalous and not at all uncommon, and a detail like recreational drug abuse doesn't really count as "cheating" so people don't care as much. But of course that's just an opinion.

Misleading Claims
Under the section titled 'Benzedrine', a line states "the problem was that amphetamine leads to a lack of judgement and a willingness to take risks". This is a very exaggerated statement, if not completely untrue. More generalizations and exaggerations are made as the paragraph continues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.94.7 (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The overall tone of the article also seems to be favoring the use of performance enhancing drugs. BeardedScholar (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Move article to plural form
I suggest moving this article to its plural form (sports). What do you think about that? / Hey Mid  (contributions) 23:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Motorsports
It should be mentioned somewhere in the article that competitors in motorsports (F1, Moto GP etc.) also go through mandatory drug testing. --TheHande (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In Norway
Where can we place info about Use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport in Norway


 * "Bodybuilder sold performance-enhancing drugs for Norwegian kroner 3.2 million under the counter"--Aksstar (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)