Why are you against steroids?

**Dark Horse** · 03-30-06, 01:43 PM

I'm against steroids for one simple reason: it puts honest athletes at a dishonest disadvantage.

If you want to have separate competitions for steroid users, fine. Just don't let them steal the glory that belongs to others.

**presley177** · 03-30-06, 01:56 PM

"Your average college baseball player is waaay better than maris and all of those other guys that played before Christ came."

In short..there's noway to test this..but personally I think this statement is insane.

"But I digress, if I was a professional athlete, I'd do it. Why wouldn't you. You are getting paid millions and millions of dollars to perform a physical skill not many can do." Health reasons. I see your point about trying to maximize your own value but honestly I think I have a pretty strong integrity of the game and I've just heard too many horror stories from steroid users. Although not even close to the same competition..there were 4 kids on my high school team who were juicing and one that I know of on of my college teams. I was just never even close to being interested in having a huge gauged needled stuck in me or pill popping every 2 hours.

"I'm sure there are some of you here that think it is taking the easy way out. You are dead wrong. You have to train harder and eat right to get the full effect."

That's half true and half wrong. You don't have to work out NEARLY *as* much as you would normally need to.

This is unfair to the game, the history, the fans, fans(kids mostly) of the game and the clean players. Obviously you don't want to send a bad message like..well..if you shoot yourself up with this thick oil using this big ass needle...and do your routine workouts..you'll be better than your friends. It's cheating. Same reason why the Olympics doesn't allow steroids...it's a true test of natural talent...not some created bio-chemical supplemented once human turned monster contest.

**Ganchrow** · 03-30-06, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by presley177

It's cheating. Same reason why the Olympics doesn't allow steroids...it's a true test of natural talent...not some created bio-chemical supplemented once human turned monster contest.

(I posted the following some 5 or 6 months ago.)

If our goal were to permit only the most “natural” players to compete, then I just as well might argue why stop with banning steroids? Why not ban all performance enhancements, such as, oh I don't know, say creatine, protein powder, vitamin supplements, carbohydrates, caffeine, aspirin, LASIK eye surgery, contact lenses, eye glasses, arthroscopic knee surgery, weight training, antibiotics or well I could go on and on.

I think this slippery slope no more specious than that advanced by many anti-steroid crusaders.

The fact is that we in the western world have all somewhat arbitrarily agreed that ingesting certain types of chemicals (even some of those which occur naturally in our bodies like adrenaline, testosterones, or growth and thyroid hormones) is strictly verboten, while ingesting others or engaging in other performance enhancing activities is A-OK.

Certainly, some might argue that allowing athletes to ingest steroids, forces those who choose not to put their bodies at risk into a disadvantaged position. But this smacks of hypocrisy. To be a successful athlete one needs to put one's body at risk every time one plays the game: from the boxer who refuses to throw in the towel even when he's clearly been beat (the borderline retarded heroics of Rocky Balboa immediately springs to mind), to the outfielder who dives headfirst into the left field wall to make a daring catch, to the defensive tackle who plays into his sixth concussion, to the right wing who undergoes risky knee surgery for the sake of but a 75% shot of ever taking to the ice again, to the power forward who virtually guarantees long-term joint injury by over-exerting himself in the weight room, to the tennis player who risks permanent blindness through radial keratomy surgery; those who do risk their health for the sake of "the game" (but only in those certain pre-prescribed manners which don’t involve “dangerous” drugs, heaven forbid!) are actively considered heroes.

Personally, I think it's the United States' infatuation with the anti-particular drug culture that leads us down this double-standard-laden path. I think the only reason why it may be true as InSpades states that "Fans would rather see players that are clean and not cheating instead of balls flying out of the park," is because we've been conditioned into a very programmed aversion to steroids. And regardless of this pre-programming, fans of "professional" wrestling and bodybuilding have certainly come to accept and even appreciate the rampant steroid use.

Steroids are not drugs with which I'd care to endanger myself. But just because I choose to abstain does not mean I should have the right to force others' hands. Steroids are doubtlessly quite effective at supplementing an athlete's training regimen, but there is still no substitute for grit, determination, training and hard-work. That is, of course until the United States Handicapper General decides to ban those as well. I know, I for one don’t want Diana Moon Glampers coming after me for spending too much time in the gym (I direct all those who missed those last two references to read Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s classic short story Harrison Bergeron.)

**Ganchrow** · 03-30-06, 03:25 PM

I'll also direct the reader to an article I recently linked to (from Slate.com) on why Olympic doping rules make little sense:

Turin Sample -- The nonsense of Olympic doping rules.

A snippet:

Originally posted by William Saletan @ Slate.com

Every athlete knows how to exceed perfection. A steroid here, a hormone there, and you've got the speed, power, or stamina to get the gold. The International Olympic Committee knows it, too; hence the 1,200 drug tests being conducted at the Turin Games. Thanks to pharmacological data on the Internet and a blossoming generation of chemical hackers, athletes are finding new ways every day to alter their bodies for advantage. It's a multiplying mess of techniques and designer drugs, with varying degrees of risk, artificiality, and manipulation. And the dope cops have done a lousy job of sorting it out.

The bible of Olympic drug testing is the World Anti-Doping Code, written and enforced by the World Anti-Doping Agency. The code bans a substance or procedure if it meets any two of these criteria: 1) it endangers the athlete's health; 2) it "enhances sport performance"; or 3) it "violates the spirit of sport." Things that pose clear health risks—very high hemoglobin levels, for instance—are easy calls. But what about things that don't? If all enhancements were forbidden, the code points out, we'd have to ban training, red meat, and carbohydrate loading. That would be preposterous. But in the next breath, the code says enhancement through gene transfer "should be prohibited as contrary to the spirit of sport even if it is not harmful."

How, exactly, does the spirit of sport forbid gene transfer but not carbo-loading? The code doesn't say. It defines the spirit of sport as "ethics," "fair play," "character," and a bunch of other words that clarify nothing. In fact, the definition includes "courage" and "dedication." Doesn't it take more courage and dedication to alter your genes than to snarf a potato? Human-growth hormone appears on WADA's "Prohibited List" of substances and methods, even though the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists have vouched, to varying degrees, for its safety. Evidently growth hormone violates the spirit of sport, but stuffing yourself with steaks doesn't.

**presley177** · 03-30-06, 03:45 PM

"fans of "professional" wrestling and bodybuilding have certainly come to accept and even appreciate the rampant steroid use."

I seriously doubt there's proof of this. Steroids are illegal even in the soap opera they call professional wrestling. Fact is it's an illegal drug. I'd test for crack in the majors as well.

You seem as if you'd want to give a pass to someone like Barry Bonds for the simple fact that you feel the system is faulty? Personally your examples of athletes playing/continuing to participate in their respective sport fan hardly be compared to that of ingesting steroids...for numerous reasons. Some players use them and some don't...to get an even playing field every player would have to inject themselves with steroids in order to continue being able to compete with the supplemented players. Then what...college players do it, high school, babe ruth league...

Baseball needs to put a stop to steroids, amphitamines and other supplements that put someone's health at risk. Baseball has already banned numerous supplements including Andro(the stuff Mcgwire claimed to have used)

Saying steroids should be treated less harshly and being in comparison to carb loading is ridiculous. Noone with a straight face could honestly entertain any of that nonsense.

my .02 cents

health, young people's health, health again and the idealistic dream of some athletes playing an old past time game and succeeding at a high level through hard work and determination rather than drugs and a 4,000 dollar a week trainer.

**Dark Horse** · 03-30-06, 03:50 PM

Ganchrow, intellect is a double-edged sword. It can justify anything. "Scripture can be quoted to serve any purpose".

Just because it may not be entirely clear where exactly the line should be drawn, that doesn't mean it is better not to draw a line at all, nor does it make it hypocritical to try to identify that area. Bottom line is that athletes are told what they can and can't use, because that makes the playing field equal, or as equal as possible.

As to dangers, you may want to look into the East German women swimmers from the seventies. Or should we say guinee pigs? They didn't know what cocktail they were served. Only were told to take it... If you give chemicals free reign, chemists and doctors are in charge and the door is wide open to athletes not knowing what they are given! Another reason to have clear boundaries.

**presley177** · 03-30-06, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

Ganchrow, intellect is a double-edged sword. It can justify anything. "Scripture can be quoted to serve any purpose".

Just because it may not be entirely clear where exactly the line should be drawn, that doesn't mean it is better not to draw a line at all, nor does it make it hypocritical to try to identify that area. Bottom line is that athletes are told what they can and can't use, because that makes the playing field equal, or as equal as possible.

As to dangers, you may want to look into the East German women swimmers from the seventies. Or should we say guinee pigs? They didn't know what cocktail they were served. Only were told to take it... If you give chemicals free reign, chemists and doctors are in charge and the door is wide open to athletes not knowing what they are given! Another reason to have clear boundaries.

well said

**Hugo Whacket** · 03-30-06, 05:28 PM

This thread is a great read! Differing views, presented logically and without name-calling. My only take on steriod use is this: If it is against the rules, then you cheat when you use them. Whether they should in fact be against the rules is a different debate. BTW, ganchrow, thanks for reminding me of the Vonnegut story!

**bostonceltics13** · 03-31-06, 12:41 AM

Great question Great One!!!
Has anyone seen photos of those German Olympians who used steriods 15-20 years back? Men have chesticals and women have the Morrisson stach. To me, it's a matter of health. How many high school athletes will use trying to make it pro and fail? They will have to live with the long term effects of a choice they made at age 15 or 16.
History and records are not comparable because of new technology, new parks and new LEGAL supplements availabe to players today.
If any sport officially accepts steriods, I fear the long term effects on the health of kids. Not only short term but long term as well. If no athlete uses, it's an even playing field just as if everyone did use. Why risk the potential health of all those kids?

**freebie** · 03-31-06, 02:21 AM

Hate to see high school kids look up to big athletes using roids thinking it's okay with them so it's okay with me.

**slacker00** · 03-31-06, 03:00 AM

I respectfully disagree with ganchrow. There's gotta be a line drawn somewhere.

There has to be some protection for those that choose not to juice. Even if steroids were legalized tomorrow in every sport on every level, there would be certain athletes that would choose not to juice. Why should these athletes be punished for their choice? On the top professional level, it would become chemical hormone warfare: basically a competition to invent the next "super-juice". There's no telling what longer term affects there might be when pushing these kinds of limits.

Say what you may, but professional sports owes a certain social responsiblity to their audience. Juicing sends a clear message to kids that you've gotta find a needle if you want to reach the top.

**Ganchrow** · 03-31-06, 09:54 AM

As a libertarian I'm quite accustomed to finding myself standing alone in opposition to well-established cultural memes. But when the dust settles, it often becomes apparent that these memes are artificial constructs, whipped up by an hysterical either government or media to the unenviable end of limiting personal liberty for the sake of perceived societal security.

Now you're certainly not going to find me arguing that a private company shouldn't be permitted to set its own restrictions on an employee's on-the-job conduct (a viewpoint that is admittedly somewhat vitiated by the conference upon professional sports of a de facto monopoly status). But what I find exceedingly troublesome is when a figure of authority (be it an employer or governmental agent) unilaterally extends the reach of its strictures into individuals' private lives.

I hope people here having read this will nod to themselves in at least tacit agreement. The parallels to the world of online sports wagering are immediately apparent. We all know that gambling can be harmful to those who do so; but solely based on this potentiality, to which none of us necessarily need be disposed, should we unquestioningly accept governmental fiat to enjoin us from an activity from which we derive pleasure and pecuniary gain? What right does the government have to stick its giant fist through our front doors and bludgeon us into smiling acceptance of its own ill formed moral code of behavior? And what about employers? I fully grant an employer has a right to keep hos employees from gambling while on the job, but what about when we leave the office? Should their sphere of influence also extend in to our living rooms, bedrooms, and bathrooms? Frankly, at the age of 32, I think I've well since outgrown the need for that level of paternalism.

The orgy of government and media endorsed hysteria that has enveloped any discussion of the steroid issue tends to obfuscate the fact that it’s largely moral panic over societal drug use that has fueled the fires of anti-steroid indignation. I find it suspect that such a stalwart of individual achievement as our own President Bush has spoken out so vocally against the supposed shortcuts created by steroid use. In the 2004 State of the Union address the President said that "[using performance-enhancing drugs] sends the wrong message: that there are shortcuts to accomplishment, and that performance is more important than character."

As Jacob Sullum of Reason Magazine wrote in response,

A man who owes so much to inherited wealth and his family's political connections probably should not broach the topic of "shortcuts to accomplishment." Not all shortcuts come in pills or capsules.

An athlete who uses the latest exercise equipment, fitness knowledge, and nutritional expertise to get into shape is using shortcuts that were unavailable to his predecessors 30 or 40 years ago. More fundamentally, all professional athletes benefit from the shortcut known as talent: Because of their genetic endowments, they are stronger, faster, or more agile than most people.

Athletes, like everyone else, are rightly judged by what they do with the advantages they had at birth. But if their innate abilities do not negate their accomplishments, why would their use of artificial enhancements that are available to everyone?

If all athletes were allowed to use chemical aids, those who chose to do so would not have an unfair advantage any more than an actress with breast implants does. And just as it is possible to enjoy an actress's performance despite her artificial enhancements, it should be possible to enjoy a football or baseball game despite the use of steroids or stimulants—and obviously it is, since fan interest in these sports has not exactly evaporated in recent years, despite periodic doping scandals.

So if isn't the supposedly unfair advantage brought on by use of steroids, et. al., that permits us to accept the otherwise repugnant notion of the government, as self-appointed guardian of our moral virtue, involving itself in our private and victimless activities, then what is it? Some have attempted to argue that the prevalence of steroid use in professional sports has created an "international health crisis" and as such our governments should be permitted to use any means necessary to curtail it.

But there’s a wealth of evidence to suggest that governmental concern over the health risks of steroids is vastly overblown. Quoting the sports journalist Dayn Perry:

Originally posted by Dayn Perry

Anecdotal accounts of harrowing side effects are not hard to find -- everything from "’roid rage" to sketchy rumors of a female East German swimmer forced to undergo a sex change operation because of the irreversible effects of excess testosterone. But there are problems with the research that undergirds many of these claims. The media give the impression that there’s something inevitably Faustian about taking anabolics -- that gains in the present will undoubtedly exact a price in the future. Christopher Caldwell, writing recently in The Wall Street Journal, proclaimed, "Doctors are unanimous that [anabolic steroids] increase the risk of heart disease, and of liver, kidney, prostate and testicular cancer."

But this is false. "We know steroids can be used with a reasonable measure of safety," says Charles Yesalis, a Penn State epidemiologist, steroid researcher for more than 25 years, and author of the 1998 book The Steroids Game. "We know this because they’re used in medicine all the time, just not to enhance body image or improve athletic performance." Yesalis notes that steroids were first used for medical purposes in the 1930s, some three decades before the current exacting standards of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were in place.

Even so, anabolic steroids or their derivatives are commonly used to treat breast cancer and androgen deficiencies and to promote red blood cell production. They are also used in emerging anti-aging therapies and to treat surgical or cancer patients with damaged muscle tissue.

When examining the health concerns of steroid we mustn’t overlook the fact that much of the danger of steroid use comes from their current black market status. Because human-quality medical steroids are so heavily regulated in the United States, many domestic users resort to injecting themselves with chemicals either originally intended for veterinary use, or even worse with steroids created from so-called “bathtub batches” that are notable for the distinct lack of sterility standards with which they’re created

Quoting Perrty once again, “Athletes who acquire steroids on the black market are loath to consult with their physician after they begin using regularly. If they do disclose their habit and ask for guidance, the physician, for fear of professional discipline or even criminal charges, may refuse to continue seeing the patient. For professional athletes, another deterrent to proper use is that all responsible doctors keep rigorously accurate records of their dealings with patients. The fear that those records might be leaked or even subpoenaed makes pro athletes even less likely to seek medical guidance.”

So we have what amounts to a tragicomical Catch-22. Because steroids are illegal, they become more dangerous. And the more dangerous steroids become, the more the government is able to justify their illegality.

I’ll just make one more reference to my earlier post:

Originally posted by ganchrow

Certainly, some might argue that allowing athletes to ingest steroids forces those who choose not to put their bodies at risk into a disadvantaged position. But this smacks of hypocrisy. To be a successful athlete one needs to put one's body at risk every time one plays the game: from the boxer who refuses to throw in the towel even when he's clearly been beat (the borderline retarded heroics of fictional Rocky Balboa immediately springs to mind), to the outfielder who dives headfirst into the left field wall to make a daring catch, to the defensive tackle who plays into his sixth concussion, to the right wing who undergoes risky knee surgery for the sake of but a 75% shot of ever taking to the ice again, to the power forward who virtually guarantees long-term joint injury by over-exerting himself in the weight room, to the tennis player who risks permanent blindness through radial keratomy surgery; those who do risk their health for the sake of "the game" (but only in those certain pre-prescribed manners which don’t involve “dangerous” drugs, heaven forbid!) are actively considered heroes.

(Furthermore, what about performance enhancing drugs such as human growth hormone which have never been shown to present any great danger to healthy and responsible adult users? If the issue isn’t safety, then what is it other than an irrational Luddite fear of scientific enhancement through chemical means? As Sullum notes, “Two decades ago, in their book Drug Control in a Free Society, James B. Bakalar and Lester Grinspoon noted that ‘it seems almost self-evident to most people today that using drugs in athletic competition is wrong,’ but ‘it is curiously difficult and complicated to justify that position.’)

So allow me to pose one question. In the past week we’ve seen more evidence that driving at breakneck speeds around a narrow cement track can be, to put it mildly, hazardous to one’s health. So in the interest of protecting our children from having to put their bodies at risk were they to choose to undertake racecar driving as a career, should the government decree that henceforth professional auto racing need take place at no more than 65 mph?

Anyway, there’s much more I’d like to write, but in the interest of eventually completing a full day's work, I'll have to continue this anon...

**Dark Horse** · 03-31-06, 12:29 PM

-

**The Great One** · 03-31-06, 12:56 PM

I read one of ganchow's posts, I think i'm getting a dissotation at the root of the subject going back to the 1930's when the nazi army invented them or something to that effect.

Come on Ganchow, just admit, in your spare time you go to the NYU library and copy and paste material from there in here and pass it off as yours. Haha

Kidding. i like your open view points. It makes for an interesting read. Would you share your age in here or is your feeling that age is "in the eye of the beholder" type of thinking?

**gamblingman** · 03-31-06, 03:44 PM

Well i'll say this maris was a winner when he left ny for stlouis, stlouis won a couple of pennants and a world series. Lets compare bonds to hank arron or babe ruth, those two players did the feat ( overall homerun record ) without steroids while bonds did, you tell me who the better athletes are?

Records are tainted and there is a health issue, where is sammy sousa today and many more. Take the drug away and their not the same player....bonds still looks like he is getting his steroid shot.

**The Great One** · 03-31-06, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by gamblingman

Well i'll say this maris was a winner when he left ny for stlouis, stlouis won a couple of pennants and a world series. Lets compare bonds to hank arron or babe ruth, those two players did the feat ( overall homerun record ) without steroids while bonds did, you tell me who the better athletes are?

Records are tainted and there is a health issue, where is sammy sousa today and many more. Take the drug away and their not the same player....bonds still looks like he is getting his steroid shot.

You're not serious are you. Don't compare a player from the Before Christ Era to now. Back then, it wasn't even competitve. Look how these "athletes" were built. How many pitches do you think the pitchers have in the two eras. Could an average pitcher in the 60's throw 94mph?

Most will think I'm insane when I say this, but I'm a better athlete than Maris ior Ruth. I'm in better shape, I'm stronger and I'm bigger. That is simply FACT. But, I can't even touch the surface in professional athletics today.

I've watched old tape of all the old time sports. These guys are a joke from yesteryear. From the NBA player in 1978 that can't dribble beghind his back. Who was the best player in the NBAin 1978? How do you think he could handle Dirk Nowitski of today. How about a guy like Tyrus Thomas who is 19 and not even in the NBA, but is 6'9", can jump out of the buidling and take the ball coast to coast.

I could go on and on about examples just like that. Not to mention, who's to say guys back in that era disn't juice. During that time period, there was alot more out there that was completely legal compared to today? Does that make it right? Legaility is BS anyway.

GHB was legal unitil 1990. If they took that now, people would be raising all kinds of shi t. Steroids were legal when Maris played. So if he took them, it was stioll OK then right because they were legal.

Bottom line, watch a professional sporting event from 1960 and watch anything in college from today and tell me the overall athletic ability in skill is not better.

I can buy some of the arguments above about the overall balace of the game. Just let everyone juice. There is nothing wrong with it. If used responsibly, it's a lot healthier than the 2 cases of beer you guys drink a day combined with all the weed this board smokes.

What really just makes me shake my head is when someone can actually act like someone like Babe Ruth or Roger maris is even in the same breath as Bonds or for that matter, anyone that is the MLB today.

**presley177** · 03-31-06, 04:29 PM

" Back then, it wasn't even competitve. Look how these "athletes" were built. How many pitches do you think the pitchers have in the two eras. Could an average pitcher in the 60's throw 94mph?" Pitchers back then threw that hard. In fact quite a few probably did. As many pitches? yes..maybe more in fact. Babe Ruth played during a dead ball period...it was like hitting a waterlog 400 feet. You aren't giving credit at all to player's neither you or I have ever seen. It's impossible to compare.

"Most will think I'm insane when I say this, but I'm a better athlete than Maris ior Ruth. I'm in better shape, I'm stronger and I'm bigger. That is simply FACT. "

no. just...no.

"What really just makes me shake my head is when someone can actually act like someone like Babe Ruth or Roger maris is even in the same breath as Bonds or for that matter, anyone that is the MLB today." Mickey Mantle would be a more fair comparison to Barry Bonds. and with a straight face..before Bonds got on the juice...they were comparable.(except Bonds strikes out less and walks more)

Barry's godfather Willie Mays..probably a better comparison.

**gamblingman** · 03-31-06, 04:51 PM

lol from what i know steroids rots your liver, have you seen someone with liver diease, why not let ball players do coke then, like larwrence taylor was so he can snap someones leg in half. There is a problem with illegel substances they ban it for a reason.....as far as ruth as a athlete he was stomg as a ox, not only did he play with hangovers all the time but was suspended alot he should of hit 1000 and there was the dead ball issue.

**The Great One** · 03-31-06, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by gamblingman

lol from what i know steroids rots your liver, have you seen someone with liver diease, why not let ball players do coke then, like larwrence taylor was so he can snap someones leg in half. There is a problem with illegel substances they ban it for a reason.....as far as ruth as a athlete he was stomg as a ox, not only did he play with hangovers all the time but was suspended alot he should of hit 1000 and there was the dead ball issue.

I can tell you just know absolutely nothing about anabolic steroids. First, only a few are harsh on the liver and people generally only take them for 3 weeks at a time. Do you think it is worse to drink 4 out of 7 days a week? They are illeagal because the governemt is a bunch of panzies who don't even beleive in working out, but instead smoking a pack a day and drinking a case a day because after all that is healthier, right?

Most steroids are injected and harmless. Yeah, sure you will name a couple people that went overboard like lyle Alzado or something. More people die from liver cancer every year more from drinking than they do from steroids. And that is not even taking into consideration auto accidents caused by alcohol.

Babe Ruth was a slow fat piece of sh it. You can't call fat people strong. All their fat can't fit into theitr stomach so it spills over to their arms and people think they are strong. I guess David Wells was in great shape too. If Wells had the talent he has now and played back then, he could hit 400 and have some ridiculously low ERA because no one in that era had the bat speed they have today.

Why do you people think these guys arer so special. Look at the opposition they faced. It would be the same thing if I at 29 years old went down to the Little League diamond and joined a team. I's lead the league in every thing including hit batsman because no punk will crowd the plate on me.

You and the rest of the country need to come around to my way of thinking. My ideas and I are the way of tyhe future. I will see to that.

I bet he went to the gym everyday too. As if that fatass ever touched a weight. No, he just drank everyday. But he was probably healthier than barry bonds wasn't he?

**The Great One** · 03-31-06, 05:19 PM

Hahahaha. I can't help it. I'm supposed to think Babe Ruth is better than todays players because he was always drunk. I've heard it all now. Yeah,what an athlete.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ahaahahahaahahahaahahahhaahahhaahahahahh aahahaahahhahaahahahahhaahahahahahaahhaa hahahaahahhaahhaaahhaahahahahahahahahaah hahaahaahaahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha h