steroids and sport

[Rjkd12]

Ok. I think many athletes juice. Why not? The negative side effects are very overstated and with a good doctor to help you out they are almost non existent. I think that if a top athlete didn't juice the 2nd best would supplant them very soon. Not because of the 2nd place athletes amazing genetics or insane desire to win, but because the 2nd had those qualities and juiced. You need both parts of the equation to win. Steroids will overcome any talent/performance difference between first and second place.

Also, an athletes job is to train. Without juice they would not be able to spend all day in the gym perfecting every movement and going over them a million times. Plus an athlete normally doesn't become world class without huge desire, and that huge desire means they would do anything to win, including taking a dumb pill/shot that will increase performance. That one famous statistic said it perfectly. Athletes were asked if they could take a drug that would guarantee that they would in the gold, but they would die in 5 years or something, more than 50% said they would do it.

Now, for myself. I have never juiced and will most likely never. I am not apposed to it, except I am nowhere near an elite athlete. I was a state gymnast and somewhat of a powerlifter, can close a CoC3 and bend a red, and have done some MMA. I just am a bit of a jack of all trades. I miss workouts, eat like shit sometimes, drink often and whatnot. For me steroids would not be a way for me to go beyond regular training, it would be a way to take a short cut. Also I do not pride myself on my athletic ability as much as I do on other things. If for some reason I did become an elite athlete (which is not going to happen) I would have no problem taking steroids. I'm much more of a student than an athlete, if they had smart drugs I'd be all for them, but I haven't seen any with real promise yet. When people are really driven they know they have to get from point A to point B and will do almost anything to get there.

Sean, your turn, what is your point of view?

 

[MPCOA]

Not to give any ideas, but if one could limit themselve to one cycle per year and always stayed with training. They would have more gains then without and probably no more sideffects then carry the extra mass would cause anyway.

Now the problem is they are a drug and most people like what they see and can't stop.

 

[OpethDrums]

Then why does the IWF mandate two year bans? I'd honestly be interested to find out how much gains you keep long after a cycle, I can't imagine it would be that much, especially in the case of the lifter I was talking about, who hasn't competed seriously in almost 10 years.

i know a guy that got huge and strong on roids and he hasn't been on them for long while.. he is smaller in size but stronger than ever before just because he kept training and eating

 

[Ted-P]

Ok. I think many athletes juice. Why not? The negative side effects are very overstated and with a good doctor to help you out they are almost non existent. I think that if a top athlete didn't juice the 2nd best would supplant them very soon. Not because of the 2nd place athletes amazing genetics or insane desire to win, but because the 2nd had those qualities and juiced. You need both parts of the equation to win. Steroids will overcome any talent/performance difference between first and second place.

Also, an athletes job is to train. Without juice they would not be able to spend all day in the gym perfecting every movement and going over them a million times. Plus an athlete normally doesn't become world class without huge desire, and that huge desire means they would do anything to win, including taking a dumb pill/shot that will increase performance. That one famous statistic said it perfectly. Athletes were asked if they could take a drug that would guarantee that they would in the gold, but they would die in 5 years or something, more than 50% said they would do it.

Now, for myself. I have never juiced and will most likely never. I am not apposed to it, except I am nowhere near an elite athlete. I was a state gymnast and somewhat of a powerlifter, can close a CoC3 and bend a red, and have done some MMA. I just am a bit of a jack of all trades. I miss workouts, eat like shit sometimes, drink often and whatnot. For me steroids would not be a way for me to go beyond regular training, it would be a way to take a short cut. Also I do not pride myself on my athletic ability as much as I do on other things. If for some reason I did become an elite athlete (which is not going to happen) I would have no problem taking steroids. I'm much more of a student than an athlete, if they had smart drugs I'd be all for them, but I haven't seen any with real promise yet. When people are really driven they know they have to get from point A to point B and will do almost anything to get there.

Sean, your turn, what is your point of view?

I don't know much about Steroids.

But aren't some illegal enhancing supplements undetectable?

 

[Sean S]

Ok. I think many athletes juice. Why not? The negative side effects are very overstated and with a good doctor to help you out they are almost non existent. I think that if a top athlete didn't juice the 2nd best would supplant them very soon. Not because of the 2nd place athletes amazing genetics or insane desire to win, but because the 2nd had those qualities and juiced. You need both parts of the equation to win. Steroids will overcome any talent/performance difference between first and second place.

Also, an athletes job is to train. Without juice they would not be able to spend all day in the gym perfecting every movement and going over them a million times. Plus an athlete normally doesn't become world class without huge desire, and that huge desire means they would do anything to win, including taking a dumb pill/shot that will increase performance. That one famous statistic said it perfectly. Athletes were asked if they could take a drug that would guarantee that they would in the gold, but they would die in 5 years or something, more than 50% said they would do it.


Sean, your turn, what is your point of view?

Bleh I don't know anymore really. I do want to believe that most great accomplishments were due to hard work. Not saying that a person who does steroids doesn't work hard. In fact, thats usually far from the truth. I have no doubt that someone using steroids works much harder because he/she can. However, that's not natural. I would like to believe that someone is capable of deadlifting that much due to hard work and hard work only.

It's just sad really. Any great accomplishment from here on in will always have an asterix by it saying "Probably used steroids". How can any record or number mean anything anymore? Being a huge fan of baseball, it annoys me to no end that players use steroids to get ahead. After all, many people before them accomplished great things well before steroid use was rampant. Hank Aaron comes to mind. What would people say if he hit number 755 last year? What about DiMaggio? Williams? Greenburg? Young? I could go on and on with names of great players that would now be accused of steroid use. Steroids haven't ruined the game as far as they have ruined what baseball once had in spades: Legends.

On the other hand, can you blame a person for using? Hard to say. If 70% of the people are using, wild guess in baseball, that other 30% is screwed. They will eventually fall off or be replaced by someone ready to use the needle. So what choice does the 30% have? Be strong and lose your job, or give in and make a living. For that reason I can't fault a person completely for giving in.

The truth is, there is no right answer in all of this. However, if I were to give a "yes or no" answer it would be: I would like it if everyone was clean, even if it meant less spectacular numbers. At least it would mean something.

 

[Sean S]

I don't know much about Steroids.

But aren't some illegal enhancing supplements undetectable?

Eh well far as I know, steroids are like computer viruses. You can't protect against ones you don't know about. Sure you can catch a lot of copy cat ones, but someone is going to come up with a better virus that gets past everything. Eventually those are found and stopped, but by the time that happens someone has invented a better one.

 

[cockysprinter]

new steroids are one way athletes dont get caught.

as for the rest, steroids were only banned because of their danger, not because they were a form of cheating. now that steroid knowledge and quality is better, it would make sense to legalize them under supervision. i dont know for sure about how common they are, most accounts ive heard are way too old for me to consider reliable.

 

[Poseidon]

Here's a sport that's not commonly affiliated with drugs....GYMNASTICS. I read a well evidenced piece on male Gymnasts taking GH.

 

[Rjkd12]

Two things.

First, yes. There are drugs that cannot be tested for, and there are plenty of ways to get around the tests. Most huge athletic corporations have the drug testing equipment themselves so they can routinely check their athletes to see how long it takes for a particular drug to pass through their system. This is the most common way to pass a test, know how long a drug takes to be so low in your system it cannot be detected or it is legal, and then stop taking that drug x days before. Also some tests like the old testosterone test they could only measure amount of test in ratio to estrogen. Guys would then just supplement test and estrogen so they had a lot more of both, and therefore pass the test. For the most part an athlete either has to be dumb to get caught or have the organization choose them to be the scapegoat to make it look like they are doing their job.

Second thing, to Sean, is why is it bad/cheating? I think why I don't mind it at all is I don't consider it some sort of cheating or way around. Its no different to me than using a special lightweight shoe, or using creatine. For a dumb kid steroids are a cornerstone of their routine. For an elite athlete I think that it is a supplement similar to many other things they have like equipment, good diet supplements, and even drugs like anti-inflammatories that help them continue training. Advancements in endocrinology will help athletes the same way advancements in nutrition and sport equipment helps athletes. You like baseball, I don't know the year but one year they had many more home runs than the previous one because they had a new baseball that was wound tighter and allowed more home runs. That technology helped athletes the same way a new drug that helps in recovery helps them. A untrained individual uses steroids as a shortcut, but an advanced athlete uses steroids as a mean to train harder and longer. I respect any individual who spends hours in the gym training to be the best there is at their sport, and I think that is why I have such an open opinion to it.

 

[Sean S]

Second thing, to Sean, is why is it bad/cheating? I think why I don't mind it at all is I don't consider it some sort of cheating or way around. Its no different to me than using a special lightweight shoe, or using creatine. For a dumb kid steroids are a cornerstone of their routine. For an elite athlete I think that it is a supplement similar to many other things they have like equipment, good diet supplements, and even drugs like anti-inflammatories that help them continue training. Advancements in endocrinology will help athletes the same way advancements in nutrition and sport equipment helps athletes. You like baseball, I don't know the year but one year they had many more home runs than the previous one because they had a new baseball that was wound tighter and allowed more home runs. That technology helped athletes the same way a new drug that helps in recovery helps them. A untrained individual uses steroids as a shortcut, but an advanced athlete uses steroids as a mean to train harder and longer. I respect any individual who spends hours in the gym training to be the best there is at their sport, and I think that is why I have such an open opinion to it.

But this almost brings us back to equipment vs. steroids. With baseball, you can make a lot of arguments why things may be easy or harder now. Hell, things like lowering the mound height had a pretty big impact on pitching. But the thing is, I don't think anything has has as big of an effect as steroids. People say things like, "Well steroids don't make you see the ball better" and that is true, but they sure allow for better core strength which leads to being able to turn on much harder thrown balls. They allow you to power out of what might have been a jam. They allow for what might have been a half step out to turn into a single. A double that went the extra 10 feet to make it a home run. I can go on and on. Bad equipment like corked bats can be seen and easily tested for. Steroids can not.

Cocky might have an idea going as to allow steroids under some sort of control. At least at that point the playing field can become a bit more even. However, there would have to be some way to seperate any accomplisment post legal steroid from things pre legal steroid.
No way should anyone using steroids be able to break any already set record.

Beyond my rambling, I guess what it comes down to is the inability to prove steroid use. Because of that, it is far less respectable then even a 4 ply bench suit. At least you can see and test the suit.

With that said, I understand that people using steroids are:

1) Usually working much harder
2) Usually trying to push out more then possible
3) Have already accended to an upper echelon of their sport before using.

So no, steroids do not a superstar make.

 

[eljamaiquino]

Bleh I don't know anymore really. I do want to believe that most great accomplishments were due to hard work. Not saying that a person who does steroids doesn't work hard. In fact, thats usually far from the truth. I have no doubt that someone using steroids works much harder because he/she can. However, that's not natural. I would like to believe that someone is capable of deadlifting that much due to hard work and hard work only.

It's just sad really. Any great accomplishment from here on in will always have an asterix by it saying "Probably used steroids". How can any record or number mean anything anymore? Being a huge fan of baseball, it annoys me to no end that players use steroids to get ahead. After all, many people before them accomplished great things well before steroid use was rampant. Hank Aaron comes to mind. What would people say if he hit number 755 last year? What about DiMaggio? Williams? Greenburg? Young? I could go on and on with names of great players that would now be accused of steroid use. Steroids haven't ruined the game as far as they have ruined what baseball once had in spades: Legends.

On the other hand, can you blame a person for using? Hard to say. If 70% of the people are using, wild guess in baseball, that other 30% is screwed. They will eventually fall off or be replaced by someone ready to use the needle. So what choice does the 30% have? Be strong and lose your job, or give in and make a living. For that reason I can't fault a person completely for giving in.

The truth is, there is no right answer in all of this. However, if I were to give a "yes or no" answer it would be: I would like it if everyone was clean, even if it meant less spectacular numbers. At least it would mean something.

That's just hypocritical. Baseball players used to live off amphetamines, and no-one puts an asterix beside their name. Older players talk about the "red juice" all the time. The increased reaction time sure helped them out, andno-one is putting a disclaimer on their records.

The bottom line is that you can't compare athletes across time periods. That's like saying Ali wasn't as good as Jack Johnson because he never went past 15 rounds. Baseball still has legends. Barry Bonds is one. Its just jealousy why people arehaing now. Everyone has access to the juice and he's still untouchable.

As to the idea that people would still watch. that's proven to be false. After Balco, the iOC stepped up testing and produced its worst olympics in televised history. The sponsors lost their ass. Baseball's most watched period was when Sosa and McGuire were head to head. Drugs produced that and the sport benefited. They step up testing thanks to Congress and viewership tanks.This was the worst rated World Series ever. Co-incidence?

People want to see records boken. No-one wants to see a slower Roy Jones or Shane Mosley (both clients of Balco), and their careers tanked after Blaco was exposed. The viewers want drama and outstanding performances, and drugs hep to proide that, no matter what the nitwits in Congress who couldn't make a little league team think....

 

[Sean S]

That's just hypocritical. Baseball players used to live off amphetamines, and no-one puts an asterix beside their name. Older players talk about the "red juice" all the time. The increased reaction time sure helped them out, andno-one is putting a disclaimer on their records.

The bottom line is that you can't compare athletes across time periods. That's like saying Ali wasn't as good as Jack Johnson because he never went past 15 rounds. Baseball still has legends. Barry Bonds is one. Its just jealousy why people arehaing now. Everyone has access to the juice and he's still untouchable.

As to the idea that people would still watch. that's proven to be false. After Balco, the iOC stepped up testing and produced its worst olympics in televised history. The sponsors lost their ass. Baseball's most watched period was when Sosa and McGuire were head to head. Drugs produced that and the sport benefited. They step up testing thanks to Congress and viewership tanks.This was the worst rated World Series ever. Co-incidence?

People want to see records boken. No-one wants to see a slower Roy Jones or Shane Mosley (both clients of Balco), and their careers tanked after Blaco was exposed. The viewers want drama and outstanding performances, and drugs hep to proide that, no matter what the nitwits in Congress who couldn't make a little league team think....

Well for one, yeah there are asterixes by their names. There are quite a few people in the hall of fame that had later been found out to be cheating in some way or another. Every time they are mentioned, that part is also mentioned. Corked bats, sandpaper, ect.

As for comparing people from different eras, you sure can. They do it all the time. There is a big difference between rules that change the game and a substance that has changed how well people can play. Rules don't produce two consecutive years of 70+ homeruns by two seperate people. No rule has changed the face of baseball as much as steroids. At least not in the last 60-70 years.

People do watch. In fact, the numbers more people attending baseball were on the rise this year. And actually, the numbers have been rising since the last strike. Lost viewership as a whole has more to do with that strike then anything. People are just now starting to come back to baseball. Did the homerun race help? Sure. But it has been quite a few years since then and the numbers have not dropped off.

The reason why the world series numbers were down was because neither the Red Sox or the Yankees weren't playing. The series was being played by two teams that the average Joe is not interested in seeing. Hell, I remember a poll saying that people would be more inclined to watch if the Tigers played. Being from Michigan and a Tigers fan, I can tell you that is a sad state of affairs when people would rather watch a team that hasn't had a winning season in 15 years play in the world series. The White Sox and the Astros are not household names. Had it been the Cubs instead of the Sox, I guarentee you then numbers would have been different. So no, steroids have very little reason for the low numbers.

Black and white summary: If you are using something that is deemed illegal by the sport you play in, then you are cheating.

The grey is the people pressured to use because other people are using and getting ahead.

 

[eljamaiquino]

Black and white summary: If you are using something that is deemed illegal by the sport you play in, then you are cheating.

The grey is the people pressured to use because other people are using and getting ahead.

Well if the steroid that I'm using is not on the list of banned substances, I guess I'm not cheating then, huh? :icon_twis

LOL, but that is the way that these guys think. Until Adro was banned, it was totally ethical to use. Any substance that is not on the list is fair game, so I guess many guys aren't cheating after all. Steroids weren't even banned in basebal until this past year anyways...

 

[Poseidon]

Ok. I think many athletes juice. Why not? The negative side effects are very overstated and with a good doctor to help you out they are almost non existent. I think that if a top athlete didn't juice the 2nd best would supplant them very soon. Not because of the 2nd place athletes amazing genetics or insane desire to win, but because the 2nd had those qualities and juiced. You need both parts of the equation to win. Steroids will overcome any talent/performance difference between first and second place.

Also, an athletes job is to train. Without juice they would not be able to spend all day in the gym perfecting every movement and going over them a million times. Plus an athlete normally doesn't become world class without huge desire, and that huge desire means they would do anything to win, including taking a dumb pill/shot that will increase performance. That one famous statistic said it perfectly. Athletes were asked if they could take a drug that would guarantee that they would in the gold, but they would die in 5 years or something, more than 50% said they would do it.

Now, for myself. I have never juiced and will most likely never. I am not apposed to it, except I am nowhere near an elite athlete. I was a state gymnast and somewhat of a powerlifter, can close a CoC3 and bend a red, and have done some MMA. I just am a bit of a jack of all trades. I miss workouts, eat like shit sometimes, drink often and whatnot. For me steroids would not be a way for me to go beyond regular training, it would be a way to take a short cut. Also I do not pride myself on my athletic ability as much as I do on other things. If for some reason I did become an elite athlete (which is not going to happen) I would have no problem taking steroids. I'm much more of a student than an athlete, if they had smart drugs I'd be all for them, but I haven't seen any with real promise yet. When people are really driven they know they have to get from point A to point B and will do almost anything to get there.

Sean, your turn, what is your point of view?

At last, a man that speaks the truth.

 

[Poseidon]

I've changed my outlook on drugs in Sport over the last few years. I say let them e.g. If 8 guys line up for the 100m sprint and all of them are taking shit then they're not cheating are they? The most ridiculous part about it is for kids wanting to get into Sport, in that, if they want to reach top level, it aint gonna happen unless they're taking shit. That is sad! and the most unacceptable part about it in my eyes.

 

[ENTROPY]

Masking techniques, cycle times and undetectable designer steroids are ahead of detection techniques resulting in relatively minimal busts compared to actual use.

The fact remains that 99.999% of professional athletes have used, or are currently using a type of chemical enhancement method to assist in their training.

Hypothetical question:

In 50 years from now, if the athletic benefits of supplements outweigh those of steroids, would you suggest that supplements be considered illegal despite them being good for your health?

The implications of the question are obvious!!!

FACT: Steroids do not have massive side effects when used by an intelligent, educated user!!!

FACT: OTC aspirin and properly prescribed drugs account for FAAAAAAAAARRRRR more deaths than those that are steroid related.

Americans consume 15 tons of aspirin a day, or 19 billion tablets per year. Although assumed harmless, a single aspirin will:

* Be responsible for 1500-2000 deaths per year.

* Be the leading cause of kidney disease.

* Cause stomach ulcers and children

 

[Sean S]

Well if the steroid that I'm using is not on the list of banned substances, I guess I'm not cheating then, huh? :icon_twis

LOL, but that is the way that these guys think. Until Adro was banned, it was totally ethical to use. Any substance that is not on the list is fair game, so I guess many guys aren't cheating after all. Steroids weren't even banned in basebal until this past year anyways...

Oh you are completely right about that. I can't deny that there are and always be loop holes. And actually, steroids have been banned since... I want to say 1993. It's just that enforcment has been nothing but ridiculous. You know like telling someone months in advance of a test.

 

[Sean S]

Your implication that steroids is equal to cheating is not an entirely fair statement. Could you provide me a philosophical defense as to why steroids automatically constitutes cheating?

Point blank: If your employer prohibits a certain substance and you continue to use it, you are in violation of that employment agreement. How is taking steroids in, again for example, in baseball any different? Why are sport considered the exception to the rule? If you use something that is banned in your sport to get ahead, you are cheating. There is no real logical argument against this. Now if you want to talk about right or wrong in a philosophical sense, then yes the argument isn't as strong. However, rules are rules. It doesn't matter if you feel it's right to prohibit use or not.

With that being said, if they were to lift the ban on steroids, would I object? No. Quite simply because they can be used to great benefit with little side effect. In fact it might almost make sense to allow them to be legal so that people who are affraid of using them, don't use them because they see it as cheating, ect can legally play on the same level as the ones that do.

As for the danger of steroids, the reason this comes up is because of poor use of them. There are a lot of people out there that don't know how to use them correctly. Beyond that, at what point does it become legal to use them? How old must a person be? Would there be a way to make sure that they aren't used before a certain age? Its very possible that there are a lot of people under say 20 that use them, so how many more will if it becomes legal? Will there be standards set for steroids? These questions are things that have to be considered before making such a large jump. It's just not as easy as just letting people do what they want to.

 

[Foulsmeller**]

Wow. Good post Entropy.

A former classmate of mine worked in an intensive care facility for people with kidney failure. The vast majority of patients? Poor people who drank and took OTC painkillers...like asprin.

Anywhooooo...I'm all for steriod use. I dont think anyone has the right to tell another person what he can or cannot put in his body, so long as the person taking steriods does not become a burden to society. It is sort of the same argument I use when talking about bikers wearing helmets..it should be your choice, but if your brain bag is damaged then you pay for it.

I would say however that the NFL has a vested interest in limiting roid use. Players have gotten so large and strong that injuries are becoming an ever bigger part of the game.

 

[Foulsmeller**]

You ever meet a classy woman that you could tell right away, just loved to fuck dirty?