Richard-
Wanted to add that I don’t have the experience of being a competitor in that time period (so I will definitely defer to you in that regard…especially with regard to PLing) but I have been in a handful of administrative meetings where the issue of making doping lists readily available and eliminating any reason for the ‘I didn’t know’ excuses were major causes for concern. This was 15 years after the time period we’re talking about.
[Mike, thinking that part of your response was to my post, let me rebutt. First, let me state again that I don’t think PED’s should be allowed in competition, period, and stricter detection, enforcement and penalties should be enacted. Also, full disclosure by any for-profit organization such as the MLB, NBA etc. Second, I don’t think anyone should use PED’s for any reason without doctor supervision. But, there are many PED’s, such as HGH, which taken in proper dosage under a doctors supervision may bea able to do far more good than bad for some patients. My argument is that most people take very polar opposite stances on most issues, such as this one. If they decide they don’t want to, or should not, take PED’s even in non-competitive situations, then they are vehemently opposed to anyone doing it. Do a pub med search on a few over the counter drugs such as asprin, advil, etc. Also do a few on some over prescribed, but perfectly acceptable drugs such as Ritalin. Then do a search on HGH. Compare HGH to the mix, and then justify why it is verboten to even discuss the use of HGH without be labeled a doper. Taken properly, the dangers of irreversible side effects with HGH are not much greater, if greater at all, than these other medications.
I’m not suggesting everyone run out and get some HGH. Rather, I’m just pointing out the inconsitency, and the hippocracy, associated with the use of PED’s in the non-competitve arena. In fact, I’ll bet since a number of your forum members are college age, many use cannabis, and might defend its use more than they would the use of HGH.
It actually wasn’t adddressed to any one poster in particular….just to the general line of thinking. You’ve just stated (using HGH as the example) what Winnesota argued (using AS). I already addressed this…what’s the response to my two previous points on the matter
1). that legalizing one thing (PEDs) because it’s only as dangerous as another obviously dangerous thing (Corticosteroids, Ritalin, etc.) is backwards thinking…how about making or better controlling all things that are dangerous.
2). The other drugs, foods, etc in question are a personal decision that only affects the abusers health. With PED use you have the opportunity to affect the livelihood of others (of equal training, talent, physio, etc) because you either force them to take the PEDs to keep up or get out of the sport.
All of those studies still dont show a direct relationship with steroids, but an ‘association’. With 2/3 of Americans overweight or obese I dont know that an association is enough to show it was steroids and not something else. And all involve high or inappropriate doses or no not disclose. I think it is very likely that high or inappropriate doses of steroids are bad for you, just by common sense. As you said I’m pretty sure that low, regulated doses would be as safe as some legal drugs out there right now.
Clearly the individuals shown in the movies trailer were not on low doses, but it does show people who are in the movie.
Your response makes me think that 1). you didn’t go through all the articles and 2). you don’t understand the research process.
If you’re looking for a study of any kind to say DEFINITELY that one thing leads to another you’ll have a very hard time doing so. This holds true for ANY topic but even more so when looking at a controlled substance where you can’t get high doses or large sample sizes passed by IRBs very easily if at all.
Also, the dose response of creatine, protein, glutamine, etc. is not dose dependent. For example, you could take 100 grams of creatine in a day and the only thing extra you’ll get from it over taking 3-10 grams is loose bowels and a toilet with some expensive contents. Steroids on the other hand appear to continue to produce results (both beneficial and ill) up to absurd doses. With this in mind, it invalidates your argument again because many athletes who are willing to dope (especially if they’re not without supervision) likely won’t play around with safe doses. They’ll fall for the more is better argument.
I did go through ALL of the articles and I do understand the research process. Most are case studies they are presenting and cannot prove that it was from steroids alone, the most they can say is that it may be related.
I’m aware that the dose response of those supplements are not dose dependent, but they are plenty of legal things that are including caffeine, cortisone shots, cordyceps, enzymes, etc. If people are dumb enough to take absurd amounts of steroids maybe they deserve what they get…
Saw the movie in NYC last week. Thought it was fantastic. Its a must see for everyone. While I’d rather not get involed in this thread as a side note.. am I the only one who is getting letters/words cut off from peoples posts when they quote others?
Saw the movie in NYC last week. Thought it was fantastic. Its a must see for everyone. While I’d rather not get involed in this thread as a side note.. am I the only one who is getting letters/words cut off from peoples posts when they quote others?
I’d love to see the movie but will go in knowing it’s like other recent docu-dramas like Michael Moore’s movies or the Super Size movie (which I think are great but highly dramatized and part fictionalized). Unfortunately I’ll have to wait for DVD or itunes rental since I don’t think it’s a movie my 16 month old daughter would be too fond of sitting through.
As far as the quoting issue I’m not having that problem. Is anyone else?
[Mike, thinking that part of your response was to my post, let me rebutt. First, let me state again that I don’t think PED’s should be allowed in competition, period, and stricter detection, enforcement and penalties should be enacted. Also, full disclosure by any for-profit organization such as the MLB, NBA etc. Second, I don’t think anyone should use PED’s for any reason without doctor supervision. But, there are many PED’s, such as HGH, which taken in proper dosage under a doctors supervision may bea able to do far more good than bad for some patients. My argument is that most people take very polar opposite stances on most issues, such as this one. If they decide they don’t want to, or should not, take PED’s even in non-competitive situations, then they are vehemently opposed to anyone doing it. Do a pub med search on a few over the counter drugs such as asprin, advil, etc. Also do a few on some over prescribed, but perfectly acceptable drugs such as Ritalin. Then do a search on HGH. Compare HGH to the mix, and then justify why it is verboten to even discuss the use of HGH without be labeled a doper. Taken properly, the dangers of irreversible side effects with HGH are not much greater, if greater at all, than these other medications.
I’m not suggesting everyone run out and get some HGH. Rather, I’m just pointing out the inconsitency, and the hippocracy, associated with the use of PED’s in the non-competitve arena. In fact, I’ll bet since a number of your forum members are college age, many use cannabis, and might defend its use more than they would the use of HGH.
It actually wasn’t adddressed to any one poster in particular….just to the general line of thinking. You’ve just stated (using HGH as the example) what Winnesota argued (using AS). I already addressed this…what’s the response to my two previous points on the matter
1). that legalizing one thing (PEDs) because it’s only as dangerous as another obviously dangerous thing (Corticosteroids, Ritalin, etc.) is backwards thinking…how about making or better controlling all things that are dangerous.
2). The other drugs, foods, etc in question are a personal decision that only affects the abusers health. With PED use you have the opportunity to affect the livelihood of others (of equal training, talent, physio, etc) because you either force them to take the PEDs to keep up or get out of the sport.
1)Of course this will never happen. Many drugs and medical procedures pose risks an order of magnitude greater than some PED’s (not all PEDs of course). My argument remains, if a substance (the example I’ve been using is HGH) does have some positive applications for some people, why should it be lumped in with the more dangerous PED’s that have no true benefits other than improved performance? In this case, the answer that has not been discussed yet is…insurance companies don’t want to pay the high prices.
2) Again, I am against anyone using a PED in ac competitive situation and I am strongly in favor of strict testing, enforcement and punishment for cheats.
All of those studies still dont show a direct relationship with steroids, but an ‘association’.
Clearly the individuals shown in the movies trailer were not on low doses, but it does show people who are in the movie.
It’s called writing in the passive voice. Pretty much all studies lean on words like:
may prove, could be, might also, should also be considered, etc…
The problems arise when lay people take these phrases, which are nothing more than the opinions of the authors, and use them as ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’ that x causes y. Only the data within a study that establishes, at a statistcal significance, that x caused y means anything. Anything less is not proof of anything. Even if a statistically significant causal relationship exists within a study, other studies addressing other possible variables have to be considered before x causing y can even begin to be considered ‘proven’. And any study that leans on such vague and arbitrary phrases, such as those listed above, without having statistically significant data that shows a causal relationship isn’t worth the paper its printed on.
