If Steroids were safe, would they be ok?

[Thermo]

There is alot of press on steroids lately. Is the primary problem with them that they are harmful?

[ApeTheDog]

I think so, yes. They also kill the sport by forcing people to take them in order to compete, but you could argue that this is always happening in sport anyway. (for example, the invention of the new sharkskin swimsuit which every swimmer now must use in order to compete)

[Shai Gar]

testosterone increase, erectile problems... that is all i can think of.

and yeah, that sharkskin thing, another great aussie invention

[kruT]

I think the more important question would be to the sports stars:
If steroids were safe, would you take more of them?

[PonderBee]

I'd wager that were no harmful consequence to taking steroids they'd be touted by the medicos for nutritive value. Taking multivitamins is not "natural" per se - however, when used as directed you'd be hardpressed to find an argument against an athlete taking multivitamins.

[kruT]

but the general argument behind steroids is that it gives an unfair competitive edge. Take Neil Armstrong, for example. It's not really about health as it really is about a level playing field.

[Helios]

nevermind....

[aether]

no.

[Miss Anthropic]

Either every athlete should take them, or no athletes should take them. Its like cheating on exams....its not fair for some to have an advantage that others don't.

[Architectonic]

Where does the fact that some people have an inherent genetic advantage come into this idea of fairness and a level playing field?

[Thermo]

Either every athlete should take them, or no athletes should take them. Its like cheating on exams....its not fair for some to have an advantage that others don't.

How is it cheating if they are available to all athletes? Is an athlete cheating if they come up with a new way to train that is better and he doesn't share it with anyone else?

[mgb]

A better analogy might be someone adding a jet engine to a sailboat. Steroids create an unfair playing field. Not in the way a new training regiment does, or hull type in this case, in the way a sailing competition isn't the same when someone has an engine and someone else is running on the whims of wind power.

In that way they bastardize the true meaning of sport and turn it into a competition of winning at all costs.

[Thermo]

A better analogy might be someone adding a jet engine to a sailboat. Steroids create an unfair playing field. Not in the way a new training regiment does, or hull type in this case, in the way a sailing competition isn't the same when someone has an engine and someone else is running on the whims of wind power.
I disagree. You can see huge advantages in changing your training regime or diet and it happens all the time in sports. Boxing is a good example

1.) Whey, L-Glutamine, etc. Training suppliments make a HUGE difference in training.

2.) Evander Holyfield
http://www.sportsci.org/news/news9709/hatfield.html

3.) Of course there is the fanatical trainer Rocky Marciano, my avatar, that had a grueling training regime that gave him stamina and strength that destroyed the competition with an unbeaten record and one of the highest knockout rates.



In that way they bastardize the true meaning of sport and turn it into a competition of winning at all costs.
Steroids are just another tool. What exactly is the difference between slegal suppliments and training methods as opposed to steroids other than harmful side effects?

[SensEye]

It is fair if everybody is allowed to do it. But I think it would detract from sports overall. Take it a step further and suppose you could genetically enhance your athletes. Then take it a step further and consider cybernetically augmenting them. Finally, replace them with machines altogether.

Of course this could not be done anytime soon, but the point is would anybody be interested in watching "athletes" that have nothing in common with regular human beings? I think competitive sports would lose a lot of their appeal. A large aspect of sports and fandom is tribalistic, but another aspect is the appreciation of the quality of the athlete. This is based on the fact that many fans participate in the sports they follow recreationally. This gives them a comparative base. Sports that are not integrated into the common culture usually do not have a big following. I think that artificially enhancing athletes away from the average man would have the effect of distancing athletics from the common culture. It's possible they would lose their following.

Heck, it's bad enough that money dictates which team will have the best athletes and hence the most success these days. I think this alone is detracting from the fan base. What's the point of being a baseball fan in Milwaukee?

[Thermo]

It is fair if everybody is allowed to do it. But I think it would detract from sports overall. Take it a step further and suppose you could genetically enhance your athletes. Then take it a step further and consider cybernetically augmenting them. Finally, replace them with machines altogether.

Of course this could not be done anytime soon, but the point is would anybody be interested in watching "athletes" that have nothing in common with regular human beings? I think competitive sports would lose a lot of their appeal. A large aspect of sports and fandom is tribalistic, but another aspect is the appreciation of the quality of the athlete. This is based on the fact that many fans participate in the sports they follow recreationally. This gives them a comparative base. Sports that are not integrated into the common culture usually do not have a big following. I think that artificially enhancing athletes away from the average man would have the effect of distancing athletics from the common culture. It's possible they would lose their following.

Heck, it's bad enough that money dictates which team will have the best athletes and hence the most success these days. I think this alone is detracting from the fan base. What's the point of being a baseball fan in Milwaukee?
The athletes are already jacked up on steroids and peopke still watch it.

[PonderBee]

If a substance is legal, does not have harmful effects (long-term or short-term), but in fact serves to increase strength, stamina and endurance my guess is we'd all be "shooting up" to some degree.

[coffeezombie]

The only reason for athletes not to take steroids is because they cause early death. I'm sure most athletes would take steroids despite the "shrinkage" effects, and that most groupies wouldn't care. I've always told people I'd genetically modify myself if it boosted my intelligence and there were no harmful effects. The only reason I wouldn't do steroids if they were safe is because I'm a crappy athlete to begin with so it would be a waste of money.

[SensEye]

The athletes are already jacked up on steroids and peopke still watch it.True, but this being common knowledge is a relatively recent phenomenon. Are sports as popular (not measured in $$$ but in width of fan base) today as they were even 5 years ago? 20 years ago? Doesn't seem that way to me, but I admit that could be because I have become cynical and lost much interest myself. The average "dawg" is probably too dumb to care.

[Thermo]

True, but this being common knowledge is a relatively recent phenomenon. Are sports as popular (not measured in $$$ but in width of fan base) today as they were even 5 years ago? 20 years ago? Doesn't seem that way to me, but I admit that could be because I have become cynical and lost much interest myself. The average "dawg" is probably too dumb to care.
I have always thought they were all juiced up even before the scandals.

You are saying there is a decline in popularity and widespread steroid use has only recently become common knowledge. What makes you think the two are linked?

[ppc]

The only reason for athletes not to take steroids is because they cause early death. I'm sure most athletes would take steroids despite the "shrinkage" effects, and that most groupies wouldn't care. I've always told people I'd genetically modify myself if it boosted my intelligence and there were no harmful effects. The only reason I wouldn't do steroids if they were safe is because I'm a crappy athlete to begin with so it would be a waste of money.

What you are talking about is steroids abuse, not steroid use. I think they are perfectly fine if administered by a doctor and monitored, just like anything.

[SensEye]

I have always thought they were all juiced up even before the scandals.

You are saying there is a decline in popularity and widespread steroid use has only recently become common knowledge. What makes you think the two are linked?Well I don't necessarily, I think any decline in sports thus far is a result of good old fashioned greed. But my theory is, things that distance athletes from the blue collar fan, like mega millions, or labratory enhanced muscles, will make sport less popular.

[Thermo]

Well I don't necessarily, I think any decline in sports thus far is a result of good old fashioned greed. But my theory is, things that distance athletes from the blue collar fan, like mega millions, or labratory enhanced muscles, will make sport less popular.
I agree that those can be contributing factors. I would add new extreme sports take some of the audience and a lack of interest take away others.

[Edmond Zedo]

If steroids were 100% safe, which almost nothing is, I think about half of all men would be on them, so very normal, and non-controversial. They're not; It's irrelevant.

[Hypnos]

Where does the fact that some people have an inherent genetic advantage come into this idea of fairness and a level playing field?
Hey, that's given by God, so it's okay -- you better shut up before you go to Hell.

[ppc]

Marijuana is safer than alcohol by far and way more people drink alcohol in the US over smoking marijuana.

[Thermo]

Marijuana is safer than alcohol by far and way more people drink alcohol in the US over smoking marijuana.
lol Articles in High Times don't count as scientific data. All jokes aside, I doubt you can find any credible scientific research to support this.

[Hypnos]

lol Articles in High Times don't count as scientific data. All jokes aside, I doubt you can find any credible scientific research to support this.
Yes, but you won't find much credible scientific data that marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol, either.

[ppc]

I don't read High Times so I wouldn't know but tell me how many people do you know have smoked themself to death, or how about smoking marijuana and wrecked their car, or got some disease that shut down some organ in their body from smoking marijuana?

There has never been a recorded case of someone dying from marijuana as far as I have heard.

How on earth could you possibly think alcohol is safer than marijuana??

[booyalab]

I was just thinking this morning how I could really use some facial hair, monstrously bad acne,red puffy face, and disgustingly unattractive muscular bulkiness

[Thermo]

Yes, but you won't find much credible scientific data that marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol, either.
Then were is the logical basis to make the statement in the first place?

[Thermo]

I don't read High Times so I wouldn't know but tell me how many people do you know have smoked themself to death, or how about smoking marijuana and wrecked their car, or got some disease that shut down some organ in their body from smoking marijuana?

There has never been a recorded case of someone dying from marijuana as far as I have heard.

How on earth could you possibly think alcohol is safer than marijuana??
You started this by saying "Marijuana is safer than alcohol by far and way more people drink alcohol in the US over smoking marijuana." I don't really care either way, but I get tired of potheads trying to justify themselves with that statement and having nothing to back it up. I guess thats why they are potheads. ;)

[Hypnos]

Then were is the logical basis to make the statement in the first place?
Equal protection under the law -- potheads want the same rights as alcoholics. :)

[ppc]

You started this by saying "Marijuana is safer than alcohol by far and way more people drink alcohol in the US over smoking marijuana." I don't really care either way, but I get tired of potheads trying to justify themselves with that statement and having nothing to back it up. I guess thats why they are potheads. ;)


Well you didn't flat out call me a pothead but let me just say I don't smoke marijuana at all. I have years ago and I don't like it. What "theory" do you have now? I just like to throw out crazy off the wall shit just to see what kind of response I can get? How about it's actually true and there is no angle to this at all?

Nothing to back it up?

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm

They list all their sources. Still think I am wrong then call up your family doctor and see what they say.

[Thermo]

Equal protection under the law -- potheads want the same rights as alcoholics. :)
I don't have a problem with that statement, but that isn't what we were talking about.

[Thermo]

Well you didn't flat out call me a pothead but let me just say I don't smoke marijuana at all. I have years ago and I don't like it. What "theory" do you have now? I just like to throw out crazy off the wall shit just to see what kind of response I can get? How about it's actually true and there is no angle to this at all?

Nothing to back it up?

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm

They list all their sources. Still think I am wrong then call up your family doctor and see what they say.

I never made a "theory", I said if you are going to make a factual statement, it is your job to prove it. How is that "crazy" and "off the wall"? I also don't need to back anything up, because I didn't claim anything, but you did.

As for my family doctor, are you a doctor? How do you know my family doctor? Where did you go to medical school?

[ppc]

Notice the quotation marks around the word theory? Of course it wasn't a theory it was an ignorant statement that made no sense at all because you don't know me and to top it off it just isn't true. It being that I am a pothead which is what you certainly imply. I did give you information, I notice you don't say one word about that but you want to talk about what you obviously know was a joke about a "theory" and you want to talk about if I am a doctor, do I know your family doctor, and where did I go to medical school but nothing about the actual topic - in fact everything except that you want to talk about.

Looks to me like you know you are wrong.
No I don't know your doctor, no I am not a doctor, and no I don't know your family doctor but I doubt that you would find most doctors claiming that alcohol was at all safer than marijuana.

[Thermo]

Notice the quotation marks around the word theory? Of course it wasn't a theory it was an ignorant statement that made no sense at all because you don't know me and to top it off it just isn't true. It being that I am a pothead which is what you certainly imply.

Well you didn't flat out call me a pothead...
I never said you were a pothead as you pointed out. Where are you going with this?



Looks to me like you know you are wrong.
No I don't know your doctor, no I am not a doctor, and no I don't know your family doctor but I doubt that you would find most doctors claiming that alcohol was at all safer than marijuana.
I am prepared to discuss all your points. I just chose the order I wanted to discuss them in. If you can prove I am wrong about anything, I would be more than happy to admit it.



Still think I am wrong then call up your family doctor and see what they say.
This has everything to do with the topic. You are claiming medical experts will agree with your position. Furthermore, you are implying MY family doctor will agree with you. Since you don't know him or her, how do you know he or she will agree with you? Do you have any proof any credible doctor will agree with your position?


This entire discussion has nothing to do with what I believe. It has everything to do with you making statements and then supporting them with actual proof.

[Tlalocone]

There is alot of press on steroids lately. Is the primary problem with them that they are harmful?No. absolutely(:)), definitely not. I think it so.
Steroids are REALLY harmfull.

[ppc]

I never said you were a pothead as you pointed out. Where are you going with this?



I am prepared to discuss all your points. I just chose the order I wanted to discuss them in. If you can prove I am wrong about anything, I would be more than happy to admit it.



This has everything to do with the topic. You are claiming medical experts will agree with your position. Furthermore, you are implying MY family doctor will agree with you. Since you don't know him or her, how do you know he or she will agree with you? Do you have any proof any credible doctor will agree with your position?


This entire discussion has nothing to do with what I believe. It has everything to do with you making statements and then supporting them with actual proof.


Then why ever bring up anything about potheads trying to justify their drug use? No one at all talked about that except you for no apparent reason. Do you just randomly come up with random shit to talk about in a thread for no obvious reason? Either you wanted to imply I was a pothead justifying my use of drugs or you like to ramble on about things that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I already gave you a reference and you still have nothing to say about that. I suppose the SAMHSA people aren't a good enough reference? That is my credible "proof"

No I don't know your family doctor, I am betting on the fact that most medical professionals would agree with what I am saying hence I am telling you to ask a totally random medical professional that I have nothing to do with. You could call it common sense even.

[ppc]

No. absolutely(:)), definitely not. I think it so.
Steroids are REALLY harmfull.

I think that steroids are REALLY harmful when they are abused, just like any drug.

I don't know why people find that shocking. They seem to think that some guy with no medical training at all who decides to shoot himself full of all kinds of drugs that he has no training or knowledge of is perfectly able to know what is and is not safe. Well newsflash people - typical laymen DONT know enough to be able to inject themselves with all kinds of performance enhancing drugs such as steroids or any other drug for that matter.

I believe when monitored by a medical professional there is no reason people shouldn't be able to use steroids.

[Thermo]

Then why ever bring up anything about potheads trying to justify their drug use? No one at all talked about that except you for no apparent reason. Do you just randomly come up with random shit to talk about in a thread for no obvious reason? Either you wanted to imply I was a pothead justifying my use of drugs or you like to ramble on about things that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I said potheads use it to justify using pot. If you want to read more into it, that is your perogative.



I already gave you a reference and you still have nothing to say about that. I suppose the SAMHSA people aren't a good enough reference? That is my credible "proof"

I already addressed this in my last post.



No I don't know your family doctor, I am betting on the fact that most medical professionals would agree with what I am saying hence I am telling you to ask a totally random medical professional that I have nothing to do with. You could call it common sense even.

I already addressed this in my last post.

[ppc]

I said potheads use it to justify using pot. If you want to read more into it, that is your perogative.




I already addressed this in my last post.




I already addressed this in my last post.

Then why bring up why you are tired of potheads using it to justify their use? Who was talking about anyone justifying the use of pot by saying anything? Your argument makes no sense.

You didn't address anything - you quite possibly have the worst argumentative skills I have ever came acrossed.

[Thermo]

You didn't address anything - you quite possibly have the worst argumentative skills I have ever came acrossed.
1.) Pothead
You: You seem to be caught up with the idea, I implied you are a pot head. You seem to be implying you can read my mind in several of your posts and interprete things I did not say.
Me: You admited I didn't call you a pothead.
Point: Me

2.) My Family Doctor
You: "Still think I am wrong then call up your family doctor and see what they say."
Me: We have established that you don't know my family doctor. Yet you still insist you not only can read his mind, but also know his medical opinion.
Point: Me

3.) 3 out of 4 Doctors support marijuana <- sarcasm
You: Doctors in general would claim marijuana is safer than alcohol. You claim to know a medical opinion of doctors.
Me: Where is the proof?
Point: Me.

4.) Dodging the issues
You: I am dodging the single piece of evidence that you claim supports your case.
Me: I will discuss it when you address points 1, 2 and 3.

Your argument is just a collection of speculation and attempted mind reading at this point, aside from # 4.

[ppc]

1.) Pothead
You: You seem to be caught up with the idea, I implied you are a pot head. You seem to be implying you can read my mind in several of your posts and interprete things I did not say.
Me: You admited I didn't call you a pothead.
Point: Me

2.) My Family Doctor
You: "Still think I am wrong then call up your family doctor and see what they say."
Me: We have established that you don't know my family doctor. Yet you still insist you not only can read his mind, but also know his medical opinion.
Point: Me

3.) 3 out of 4 Doctors support marijuana <- sarcasm
You: Doctors in general would claim marijuana is safer than alcohol. You claim to know a medical opinion of doctors.
Me: Where is the proof?
Point: Me.

4.) Dodging the issues
You: I am dodging the single piece of evidence that you claim supports your case.
Me: I will discuss it when you address points 1, 2 and 3.

Your argument is just a collection of speculation and attempted mind reading at this point, aside from # 4.


Why were you talking about potheads justifying their use of drugs at all? We will settle this one point at a time since you like to rant about shit that has nothing to do with anything being discussed and pretend like you make sense.

Now I know why you were voted second fucking crappiest member ever.

[Thermo]

You didn't address anything - you quite possibly have the worst argumentative skills I have ever came acrossed.

you like to rant about shit that has nothing to do with anything being discussed and pretend like you make sense.

Now I know why you were voted second fucking crappiest member ever.
I think you are getting a little to emotional to rationally discuss the topic at hand. You are also commiting the personal attack fallacy. I think you owe me an apology, but I will settle for you being civil. Let me know if you think, you can handle that.

[Hypnos]

Hey, take it to the BP! :cheers:

[Thermo]

I just wanted to point out that the steroid probe is widening. They are looking at all pro and semi-pro sports.

[ppc]

Yeah - and it they can widen all they want but at the end of the day we like people who can hit/kick/run the ball better/faster and one day people will not care about using steroids. It can't come soon enough if you ask me.

[Spartan26]

Yeah - and it they can widen all they want but at the end of the day we like people who can hit/kick/run the ball better/faster and one day people will not care about using steroids. It can't come soon enough if you ask me.
Yeah, I gotta agree. The allure of watching the 100 meters in the Olympics is the chance to see the fastest human on the planet. I'm sure these athletes could hit these speeds on four square meals a day alone but it still shows the natural potential of the human body through diet and exercise.

The introduction of chemicals is like adding jokers to blackjack. Even if it's available to everyone it takes away from realm of expected possibility. I want to see the limits of human potential. A feat isn't that great if a person couldn't do it without an artificial aid.

[Mat]

steroids wouldnt be okay if they were safe. just from the ethical standpoint, its cheating. also, with pro sports betting legal, one could argue that performance enhancers void the integrity of the sports.

[Spartan26]

also, with pro sports betting legal, one could argue that performance enhancers void the integrity of the sports.
Don't think that isn't a huge concern for the NFL et al. Even though they're adamant in insisting there's no correlation or connection with gambling, the NFL takes extreme issue with injury reporting by coaches because of the potential threat insider info could have on wagering.

The NFL and NCAA Basketball seem to understand how a preceived lack of integrity to the game will erode their sports from within. [read:loss of audience, therefore revenue] Baseball's too arrogant to care. Hockey's too insular to know the difference.

I know it's not the thread but I pretty much checked out of boxing following the Sweet Pea/Chavez fight. If I'm going to watch something as rigged as wrestling I'll watch wrestling. 12 years later look at the sport. ESPN is doing ppv fights based on its brand name for licensing agreements. Like their name alone is supposed to mean more than the fighters on the bill.

Kinda ironic that they're getting into the pay per world of fighting when back in '86 they had the chance to lock up Tyson for five or six fights and passed because they didn't think he'd amount to that much.