Vice Sports article advocating ending ban on PEDs

[DrBdan]

People who think that "superior genetics" are unfair are simply retards, plain and simple.
If I don't have the genetics to be an engineer or a mathematician, that doesn't give me right the right to cheat on all my tests during my whole life to become one.

I think a better comparison would be students who take Adderall/Ritalin so they can study extra long in order to get good marks. The drugs don't take the test for them and they aren't cheating off of their fellow students but it does allow them to study and learn more than they "naturally" would.

But that begs the question of when does a substance become a PED and when is it just a "normal" supplement. Coffee is usually considered okay. What about energy drinks? Ritalin? Focusyn?

 

[phoenixikki]

I think a better comparison would be students who take Adderall/Ritalin so they can study extra long in order to get good marks. The drugs don't take the test for them and they aren't cheating off of their fellow students but it does allow them to study and learn more than they "naturally" would.

But that begs the question of when does a substance become a PED and when is it just a "normal" supplement. Coffee is usually considered okay. What about energy drinks? Ritalin? Focusyn?

Nah. Taking PED's in professional sports is illegal and it's punished with hard consequences; same as cheating in school or college.

 

[JauntyAngle]

I think a better comparison would be students who take Adderall/Ritalin so they can study extra long in order to get good marks. The drugs don't take the test for them and they aren't cheating off of their fellow students but it does allow them to study and learn more than they "naturally" would.

But that begs the question of when does a substance become a PED and when is it just a "normal" supplement. Coffee is usually considered okay. What about energy drinks? Ritalin? Focusyn?

I think this is one of the key points.

You have your genetic endowment, then the things you can do to it over your lifetime in order to enhance performance. It's going to be incredibly hard to draw a line and and say some things you can put in your body are fair game, and others are cheating. In a way that is clearly principled.

 

[ROcknrollracing]

People that want quick fixes are dilluting themselves. Even if you gain success what have you actually gained to your character by taking the "easy" way.

Whatch that movie with Mark Bell and see what the realities of obscen drug use does to your life.

And i am somebody that actually did take steroids.(winstrol)and it did in fact blow me up real quick but the person I had become was not a person I desired to be. Granted at the time i wasnt a competitor in anything so it was more or less an expriment to gain an experience which lucky for me I was quickly able to get off when I realized it was not something i should dabble in.

The problm with even regulating steroids for competitors is that there are crooked doctors that will not follow it and athletes will just get away with using more than the reccommended prescribed dosage. The cheaters have more to gain the proctors do then catching cheaters.

It is a sad fact to be honest.

 

[Oblivian]

Not necessarily that many. They legalized pretty much all drugs in Portugal 25 years ago, the result was a very small increase overall, decrease in some groups. Adolescent drug use has actually decreased:

https://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA_Fact_Sheet_Portugal_Decriminalization_Feb2015.pdf

That supply and demand stuff is high school economics, it does contain fundamentally important insights but in actual practice it is more complicated.

Just making this point with respect to general drug policy though. The performance/economic incentive in sports makes things rather different, IMO.

The link you posted isn't the legalization of drugs; it's decriminalizing, which is a big difference. You still have infractions and administrative issues, plus, that only deals with low level possession. It doesn't change the availability on the supply side who still face penalties.

Also, it's completely silly to assume results like Portugal are going to be similar to a place like the United States. It's obvious by the data that drug usage and drug culture in Portugal is drastically different than the United States anyhow. The #'s aren't even in the same ballpark.

 

[JauntyAngle]

The link you posted isn't the legalization of drugs; it's decriminalizing, which is a big difference. You still have infractions and administrative issues, plus, that only deals with low level possession. It doesn't change the availability on the supply side who still face penalties.

Also, it's completely silly to assume results like Portugal are going to be similar to a place like the United States. It's obvious by the data that drug usage and drug culture in Portugal is drastically different than the United States anyhow. The #'s aren't even in the same ballpark.

Yes, but it is **exactly** the dynamic you talked about: reduction in sanctions/risk, which theoretically increases both supply and demand. And in that situation, increase of supply and demand did not happen. The effect you stated must take place did not take place. The precise mechanism by which risk is reduced is by-the-by.

I stand by the broader point: this is pretty much the only time in the world where we have actually put these claims to the test, and we ought to be very, very cogniscent of them.

Yes, it is silly to assume the US will be like Portugal. You know what is even sillier?

1) To dismiss the most important empirical information that exists on the subject

2) To assume that instead of being like another country, what the US will actuallt be like is an elementary economics model (when it has been proven more times than I care to remember that such models are only rough approximations, and that reality frequently diverges from what they say)

 

[Oblivian]

Yes, but it is **exactly** the dynamic you talked about: reduction in sanctions/risk, which theoretically increases both supply and demand. And in that situation, increase of supply and demand did not happen. The effect you stated must take place did not take place. The precise mechanism by which risk is reduced is by-the-by.

I stand by the broader point: this is pretty much the only time in the world where we have actually put these claims to the test, and we ought to be very, very cogniscent of them.

Yes, it is silly to assume the US will be like Portugal. You know what is even sillier?

1) To dismiss the most important empirical information that exists on the subject

2) To assume that instead of being like another country, what the US will actuallt be like is an elementary economics model (when it has been proven more times than I care to remember that such models are only rough approximations, and that reality frequently diverges from what they say)

No, it is not exactly what we are talking about. Legalization and decriminalization have a completely different affect on supply and demand. The effect on supply and factors such as ease of access is drastically different with legalization. You are starting off your entire argument on a strawman. You need to pay attention to details a bit better since you are the one who said Portugal legalized recreation drugs 25 years ago. The fact is they decriminalized 15 years ago. What I specifically said is that legalization will definitely result in more users - your Portugal link doesn't have anything to do with legalization.

Is this really a difficult concept to understand? Look at the results from Colorado with legalization of marijuana. http://www.rmhidta.org/html/FINAL NSDUH Results- Jan 2016 Release.pdf

The study compared usage to the two year prior to legalization to the two years after legalization. -Youth 12-17 years old past month usage increased 20% and Colorado jumped from #4 to #1 in use at that age bracket.
-College age past month usage increased 17% and Colorado jumped from #3 to #1
-Age 26+ years old past month usage increased 63% and Colorado jumped from #7 to #1

All of this aligns with exactly what I said and what logically makes sense. It's especially important in age 26+ who give a shit about getting in trouble and the social implications of getting caught. I'm not surprised at all to see the biggest increase there. The kids age 12-17 are going to get in trouble regardless, so you aren't seeing it as much there.

 

[ripskater]

I can tell you absolutely without a doubt steroids are rampant in high school and have been since at least 2000 when I was in high school. I grew up in west Texas. We had a dominant football team. Most of us on the football team took steroids. So did many players on just about every team we played. It was no secret. Back then the UIL tested no athletes, now they test a few hundred per year out of tens of thousands of athletes.

I very much don't advocate teens taking steroids. They have enough testosterone to get all the strength they need at that age. I do think steroids shouldn't be illegal though. The american medical association and other national health orgs oppposed steroids being illegal back when it happened in 1990. The reason is that when not abused and taken smartly and correctly they pose relatively little risk. There are many legal substances that harm you much worse.

Make them legal, but also make athletes get blood work every few months as well to make sure they are staying healthy while doing so. Keep them banned for under 18 though.

I hear you.

I remember some football players at my school taking them also. I knew a few very good athletes and it turned them into supermen. One running back and another track sprinter who also played football. Those guys were freaks. The running back died in his 30's of a heart attack. He took way too many. He was the man in high school though.

My brother's good friend, really nice guy took steriods. He got huge. I think he got into other drugs and died in his sleep at about age 30. It was pretty sad cause he was friendly with everyone. Great athlete before. But after steriods he could run up the side of a wall like a ninja. I'm not kidding. And could jump up and grab the rim two handed like a freaking gorilla. It was unreal.

 

[groo]

If anything. I think that the UFC should force their less manly fighters to top up with pure testosterone to TRT-Vitor levels at all times...even out of competition.

 

[Oblivian]

My oldest nephew just won the state of Florida in baseball ages 13-15. They went on to play the Southeast regionals in Tennessee and lost in the semifinals. I have pictures from the games and some of the players are gigantic. He said he knows for a fact that one kid on his team is on roids. This is an area that has produced quite a few MLB players, so it's not shocking.

 

[DrBdan]

Nah. Taking PED's in professional sports is illegal and it's punished with hard consequences; same as cheating in school or college.

Yes but you are looking at how society views PEDs and academic cheating and the consequences assigned to them rather than PEDs and academic cheating themselves.

Cheating on a test would be more akin to paying off judges to give you perfect scores regardless of what ability you have and how you actually do. PEDs (whether it's anabolic steroids or Adderall) enhance what you can do but you still have to do it. And as I said there is a big grey area of PEDs ranging from generally accepted to illegal.

 

[ripskater]

My oldest nephew just won the state of Florida in baseball ages 13-15. They went on to play the Southeast regionals in Tennessee and lost in the semifinals. I have pictures from the games and some of the players are gigantic. He said he knows for a fact that one kid on his team is on roids. This is an area that has produced quite a few MLB players, so it's not shocking.

Taking PED's for 13-15 yr old baseball. That's insane. I'd rather my kid sit on the bench than teach him how to cheat in life. Let alone possibly screw up his body for life.

 

[Oblivian]

Taking PED's for 13-15 yr old baseball. That's insane. I'd rather my kid sit on the bench than teach him how to cheat in life. Let alone possibly screw up his body for life.

My nephew is 15 and he's 6'3" which looks hilarious. He only weights 160 lbs. Most of the kids on the team are really large for their age. The kid he's talking about in particular is around 6'0" and 220 lbs. Pretty jacked, especially for a 15 year old.

 

[DoomPatrol]

They should absolutely allow them to use whatever drugs they want to. The lines right now are so arbitrary and people are cheating it anyways. I say allow them to use whatever they want. That puts everyone on the same playing field finally. Once they are all on the same drugs, we can start seeing who has the best skills, not who managed to cheat the test.

All the steroids in the world wont make you more talented at a sport. It'll just increase your physical capabilities.

 

[Kiwi Tricker]

My oldest nephew just won the state of Florida in baseball ages 13-15. They went on to play the Southeast regionals in Tennessee and lost in the semifinals. I have pictures from the games and some of the players are gigantic. He said he knows for a fact that one kid on his team is on roids. This is an area that has produced quite a few MLB players, so it's not shocking.

 

[ripskater]

They should absolutely allow them to use whatever drugs they want to. The lines right now are so arbitrary and people are cheating it anyways. I say allow them to use whatever they want. That puts everyone on the same playing field finally. Once they are all on the same drugs, we can start seeing who has the best skills, not who managed to cheat the test.

All the steroids in the world wont make you more talented at a sport. It'll just increase your physical capabilities.

Look at this though. Barry Bonds hit 46 homeruns in 1993, but as an old man he hit 73 homeruns in 2001. Steroids can make an incredible difference in performance.

Barry was a great hitter before all the roids. Extremely talented. An eye doctor examined him and said he tested higher than anyone he'd ever seen when he was just coming into the pros.

 

[DoomPatrol]

Look at this though. Barry Bonds hit 46 homeruns in 1993, but as an old man he hit 73 homeruns in 2001. Steroids can make an incredible difference in performance.

Barry was a great hitter before all the roids. Extremely talented. An eye doctor examined him and said he tested higher than anyone he'd ever seen when he was just coming into the pros.

The line is too arbitrary for me. The way they determine what is or isn't legal is retarded. I mean we are at the point where an athlete can't have a coffee too close to a match because they could fail for caffeine.

I want to see the true limits of human performance. We're paying them sick amounts of money. Fuck their bodies. I don't care what they take. Of course they help performance. That's why cheating is state sponsored in Russia.

 

[Kiwi Tricker]

I'm somewhat on the fence on this one. I don't support full legalisation of performance-enhancing drugs for some of the reasons that others have stated- such as it being potentially dangerous for people taking them, especially younger people. But, in professional sports, drug use is pretty rampant, and it's my belief that it's only going to slowly increase in future. Records keep getting pushed just that little bit further, the playing field becomes that much harder, athletes are going to feel more pressure to aim for that one thing to help give them that extra bit of edge in competition. You've also got that there are more and more substances constantly being added to the banned list, and retroactive bans happening as well- my asthma inhaler contains something on the banned list, for instance. Even aspirin can be banned in certain sports.

I'm not interested in drug use myself- but at the top level, I don't see much of an issue with it.

 

[selfcritical]

I especially don't have a problem for masters old ladies. Give all the postmenapausal women Anavar on demand, marvel at their non-broken hips.