Steroids in sports-Who cares?

[Quartermaster]

If a baseball, football or soccer player (or any sport I'm not mentioning) maintained a scientifically-proven-for-success diet of vitamins and just the right amount of nutrients, or even those "GET RIPPED!ARR!GGH!" powdered energy drinks, would anybody care? All they're doing is taking advantage of knowledge, initiative and money to upkeep a lifestyle.

So why does anybody care when people take steroids? Is it because of the fear of damaged livers or small testicles or is it a want for "sportsmanship"?

Would the demand for effective steroids (those that don't have major problems associated with them) provoke the market to eventually supply effective steroids?

[stillbornsinger]

I think the main concern is that children who idolize these players are influenced by their actions and believe that since their "_______" does it they should too.

Well, there's the reasoning... I don't agree with it so much as I think anyone who is influenced to do stupid things to themselves based on the actions of a sports figure... well, has it coming to them...

I'm all in favor of people having the freedom to mess themselves up in any way the want. So long as they don't expect the government & taxpayers to pick up the tab for their stupidity.

[Roxie]

I'm aganist it because (not in order of importance):
1. It's bad sportsmanship--foul play
2. It's really not good for you
3. They get paid too much as it is to try and cheat.

[Soli]

It doesn't matter to me if they take steriods, but then again I don't watch sports.

[Monkey]

Sport is all about the competition, fair competition. In athletics it is one person training hard to beat the other person. When the other person takes drugs to enhance his performance unnaturally it destroys the entire purpose of the sport.

If you didn't care about steroids in competition, after a few years (decades maybe) all that the sport would have degenerated into would be a competition between pharmeceutical companies. it would no longer be about the blood, sweat and tears that each individual athlete puts into his game, it would just be a case of which company has developed the most innovative drug that year.

That is not sport it is just a sham. English people use the phrase " It's not cricket" when referring to such base ploys. How would you like to work all your life to be the best at your sport, just to find that someone beat you because they were on drugs? It really isn't fair.

Sure it could be made fair by allowing everyone to take drugs, but then it would be just a competition between drug companies not a sport.

[Quartermaster]

I'm aganist it because (not in order of importance):
1. It's bad sportsmanship--foul play
2. It's really not good for you
3. They get paid too much as it is to try and cheat.

But it's not really cheating if they don't put the effort in to work out, otherwise the "juice" turns to flab, as is my understanding. It'd be like that beefcake episode of South Park when Cartman gets "ripped". Other than a more base, chemical composition, what is the difference between adhering to a special diet and taking steroids once in a while along with exercise? Think of the possibilities that could come from an open and understanding treatment of performance enhancing drugs.

[Zslash]

Im a firm believer that performance enhancing drugs belong only in the hands of super soldiers

[stillbornsinger]

Im a firm believer that performance enhancing drugs belong only in the hands of super soldiers

That is an interesting topic in itself. There have been many stories of pilots especially taking aphetamines or even being issued them before long missions.

[Roxie]

Other than a more base, chemical composition, what is the difference between adhering to a special diet and taking steroids once in a while along with exercise?
The base and chemical composition are the POINT.

[Zavyyn]

Sports are supposed to be about people competing. Not "people who have been juiced up on extract of dog nuts".

Also, turning into a short-tempered, acne-ridden, mood-swinging semi-mutant isn't exactly the pinnacle of biological success, despite any amount of money acrued as a result of doing so.

I, personally, put steroid users into a category fairly close to rabid animals. When they cross the line into attacking people (say, beating their girlfriend), it's time to dispassionately put them down.

[akitaka]

Yep. Competition is the key; and when a person tips the scales to have favorable outcomes, that key is broken. This "who cares" attitude is what drove them to take the drugs in the first place; instead of actually asking, and assessing the risks and morals that have been presented through hard evidence, they make an empty excuse to play "better".

This is more of a status-quo choice; athletes are already paid generously as it is. Boosting one's ego is something that not enough people frown upon; and that's exactly what athletes take steroids for.

[Anders]

I don't really know nor appreciate how big of a deal steroid in professional sports is to some people. I understand and agree that steroid use creates an unfair advantage over others who may be more deserving. Is it something that needs to be banned from professional sports? Definately. But we should leave it to the organizations that govern professional sports. Should it really be an issue that draws national media coverage? Heck no. America is a country at war in Iraq.

Over 2100 of our friends and family members have given their lives for our country. Yet for all the sacrifices they made for us, the issue of steroid use in baseball is such a huge issue that it needs to be brought up in the 2004 "State of the Union" address by President bush jr.

I don't know what everyone else feels about this but when I see so much attention being drawn to nonsense issues like this, I can't help but feel that we're being distracted from what's really going on. Every time the media seems to focus on one nonsense issue like steroid use or gay marriage I can see bush jr. sitting at the President's desk signing yet another bill that promises to destroy the America we love for future generations.

[Jay]

The main concern is that steroids (usually) enhance INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE, giving that athlete who's on them an edge over the others. End of discussion.

[Quartermaster]

Allow the free, open use of steroids and you will not be running into the problems associated with the boosting of individual performance (and ego also), because everybody would be doing it. This would also mean that the goal posts can be moved to a higher standard, which is what humanity should be moving towards anyway.

I've heard a story somewhere (might've been here actually) of a study that found women in the 50's spent as much time cleaning and doing chores as did the women of the 1900's. Now, why would they be spending as much time as they did before, especially with all their new time-saving appliances? The answer was that they cleaned deeper, because their expectations of cleanliness changed to a level basically unknown in the 1900's. I'm sure that's what would happen here: everybody would be performing better, but standards would be higher and an effort would still be required to perform at the same relative rate as others.

[dzee]

i'm alittle afraid we may mutate should steroids be allowed for free, open use.

[D-pad]

Why not just give all athlete's steriods. It would ake the game more interesting. "Super athlete's!"

[dzee]

an equal amount, or do we let them take as much as they want?

as i said before, they may mutate. and not necessarily in the X-men way, i'm afraid.

[Zslash]

an equal amount, or do we let them take as much as they want?

as i said before, they may mutate. and not necessarily in the X-men way, i'm afraid.

Hey we might not get cyclopses, wolverines or gambits, but we can probably make a blob or two.

You know "Nothing can move the blob" save heart attacks

[Anders]

Making steroids legal isn't going to level the playing field for anybody. The only thing it will do would be to push out anyone who refuses to take steroids. I'm not going to bore you to death with a list of the risks associated with steroid use, but I would encourage you to take a look for yourself.

On a different note, think of how boring professional games would be. Every person at bat would hit a home run. Every play in football would result in a touchdown. Every striker will successfully endevour to score a run on every ball the bowler delivers.

[CNagy]

Let me clear up a few misconceptions.

--Steroids are legal pretty much everywhere except the United States. In alot of places, they are even available over the counter.

--Steroids do not enhance performance, they enhance the user. A person using dianabol is not going to lift more weight in a competition because of the d-bol, but they will gain more muscle from the same workout than they would without the d-bol. While it does indirectly affect a competition (it makes them stronger, faster) they still have to put in the same amount (or more) effort.

--When taken correctly, there is little to no dangerous side effects from most steroids. The reason that they are not taken correctly is because doing steroids the smart way (no more than 3 weeks at a time, with at least a 3 week break between cycles) is that doing so slows down muscle gains, even though those gains are more likely to be permanent. Shrunken testicles come back in a matter of a few months, but they can be restored without harm in a matter of weeks with an over-the-counter (even in the US) testosterone restorer.

--The best steroid on the market, human growth hormone, is completely indetectable. The best athletes tend to use the best steroids, and this one is the king. If authorities can't locate it in the blood, what ends up happening is that those lesser athletes who can't afford a couple grand for month's supply get caught with less potent steroids. In other words, the richest athletes are free to juice while the less able ones run the risk of getting caught.

[Anders]

CNagy, I understand and appreciate your opinion regarding steroids, but your post left me with a couple questions. Hopefully you can help me out. First I noticed that in your second statement, you may have contradicted yourself. You mentioned that dianabol users gain more muscle out of the same workout than someone who doesn't use steroids at all. From that I would assume that to compete at the same level, a steroid user would have to train much less than the non-steroid user. You said that they may actually have to work harder. I just don't see how that follows.

Secondly, I'm skeptical of your statements about the safety of most steroids. Could you post some sources so we can see where you're coming from? Information I found on the drug in fitness type magazines provided positive reviews but quoted some really hokey "studies".

[CNagy]

Alright, the Catch 22 of steroid use is this: when you go off of the steroids, you tend to lose muscle mass. With dianabol, for example, it greatly increases your testosterone while you are on it,but it inhibits your natural testosterone after you get off of it. With so much excess testosterone in your system, your body doesn't see the need to produce its own. Eventually, your system will return to normal, or you can jumpstart it with a testosterone restorer. Without a natural supply of testosterone, you need to work several times harder just to keep what you have gained while on the steroids, otherwise it will turn to mush. Furthermore, dianabol is a pretty strong anabolic steroid and aromatizes into estrogen. Estrogen will make it easier to gain body fat, as well as develop gynocomastia (bitch tits.) Avoiding all of this requires a great deal of extra work (and some anti-estrogen pills could help.) Thus, the idea that steroids are the quick and easy way is incorrect. Steroids are quick, but it is like a crash diet; great results, but alot of maintainance to keep those results and do so healthily.

Basically, steroids allow a person to work twice as hard to achieve twice the results (twice being an example,) results that would be obtainable by a normal athlete but not in the same time frame. With the exception of HGH (which causes muscle cells to divide and multiple,) no steroid actually changes the users muscles in any way that normal exercise could not. It merely cuts down on time.

As for steroid safety, because of the fact that steroids are illegal in the United States (though nearly all can be gotten with a perscription,) there aren't alot of studies to show healthy dosages versus unhealthy dosages. Keep in mind that no steroid was ever made to be a human steroid, at least none of the ones I am aware of. All of them were create originally to address some other concern.

That said, because of the rampant use of steroids amongst the bodybuilding community (in particular,) we have what amounts to a giant pool of human test subjects. We know quite a bit about the long term dangerous effects of steroids from those who went overboard (and likely perished.) To keep with my example from earlier, dianabol is highly liver toxic. After one month, the toxicity of the liver is several times what it should be, and prolonged use could cause liver disease or failure. The liver, however, is also a regenerative organ. Dianabol used over the course of three weeks to a month will make the liver highly toxic, but the liver will also repair itself in the same amount of time with no ill effect (assuming you don't already have some sort of liver condition.)

Steroidtips.com has alot of the information on safe doses and at what dosage the negative side effects normally appear. Just ignore the fact that the guy is trying to sell you his book and scroll down to the list of steroids.