Posted In: Blog Discussion
ET Member Winnesota shared a link to what looks like an interesting movie. I think it should be pretty interesting…if for no other reason that it appears to debunk the myth that track guys are not the only ones who are using steroid abuse is just as rampant if not more so in other fields.
ELITETRACK Founder
Movie review for Bigger, Faster, Stronger in the NYT:
Steroid Myth, Scandals and Dreams
By STEPHEN HOLDEN
Published: May 30, 2008
Just when Christopher Bell’s documentary, “Bigger, Stronger, Faster*,” seems content to be an entertaining exploration of his and his two brothers’ use of anabolic steroids, it turns a corner and plunges into deeper waters. It happens when Mr. Bell, who narrates the film in the jocular first-person style of Michael Moore or Morgan Spurlock, reflects on steroid use as a metaphor for modern American life. Are steroids un-American, as Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. is heard to say? Or are they as American as apple pie?
How do you reconcile the imperative drilled into children by parents, teachers and the news media that winning is everything with the increasingly quaint moral injunctions to play fair, exercise good sportsmanship and do the right thing? If your childhood idols are preening supermen like Hulk Hogan and Arnold Schwarzenegger, who preached clean living but revealed their own reliance on steroids, which path are you likely to follow?
To an impressionable boy, the spectacularly muscular superhero is an irresistible role model. What shy youngster confronted with Superman doesn’t fantasize about changing into a skintight blue suit and transforming into the Man of Steel? The movie shows the evolution of the G.I. Joe action figure from a fit soldier into a mountainous, V-shaped hulk, an increasingly achievable ideal, thanks to steroids.
The movie ponders the question of what constitutes cheating when you look objectively at the role of medicine in competitive sport. Is it cheating for a bicycle racer to pump more oxygen into his system by sleeping in a high-altitude chamber? Has Tiger Woods’s Lasik eye surgery given him an unfair competitive advantage? The lines between cheating and fair play, the movie suggests, are hazy to the point of being arbitrary. Pharmaceutical enhancement extends even to the sedate world of classical music, in which musicians susceptible to stage fright consume beta blockers to keep them calm.
In some areas, the film suggests, deception is more the rule than the exception. You have to take on faith the claims of the unregulated food supplement industry, in which a pinch of this and a pinch of that is often added to useless filler. We learn that in fitness industry advertising, before and after pictures are often shot on the same day, then doctored.
The bottom line in the debate is the sprinter Ben Johnson’s rationale for using steroids, which cost him his 1988 Olympic 100-meter title: Everybody does it.
“Bigger, Stronger, Faster*” methodically examines the history of performance enhancement in sports, concentrating on the years since the mid-1950s when a physician for the United States weight lifting team observed Soviet athletes being given injections. Almost immediately the American pharmaceutical industry began work on developing an oral anabolic steroid, Dianabol, for American athletes.
Now and again the movie circles back to the poignant stories of Mr. Bell and his siblings, who, growing up in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., took up weight lifting and strength training to help overcome feelings of inadequacy because of a family tendency toward obesity.
Mr. Bell, a power lifter who is the smallest of the three (and has written television segments for World Wrestling Entertainment), used to take anabolic steroids but, unlike his siblings, has sworn them off. His older brother, Mike Bell, nicknamed Mad Dog, who as an overweight boy was tauntingly labeled Pugsley, took up weight lifting and became captain of the high school football team. In college, when he discovered that he was no longer his team’s biggest and strongest player, he gave up football for wrestling.
Since then Mike Bell has obsessively pursued his dream of becoming a World Wrestling Entertainment star, and once became so frustrated that he attempted suicide. His declaration that he can’t bear the idea of not being a star is the film’s saddest moment.
The youngest brother, Mark Bell (nicknamed Smelly), grew up with a learning disability but developed self-esteem as a power lifter. He gave up pursuing a career as a pro wrestler after marrying and becoming a father. But he continues to take steroids (to his wife’s chagrin) and enter weight lifting exhibitions.
The movie questions stories about the horrors of steroid abuse. The explosive aggression known as ” ‘roid rage” is largely a myth, several experts insist. A hilarious excerpt from a 1994 television movie starring Ben Affleck as a steroid-using high school football player gone berserk is compared to the marijuana scare movie “Reefer Madness.”
The filmmaker interviews a man in Houston who blames steroids for his 17-year-old son’s suicide, and a San Francisco AIDS patient who was wasting away until he began taking steroids. The movie doubts the football star Lyle Alzado’s assertion that the brain tumor from which he died in 1992 at 43 was caused by steroids. Although the movie doesn’t defend steroid use, neither does it go on the attack.
“Bigger, Stronger, Faster*” left me convinced that the steroid scandals will abate as the drugs are reluctantly accepted as inevitable products of a continuing revolution in biotechnology. Replaceable body parts, plastic surgery, anti-depressants, Viagra and steroids are just a few of the technological advancements in a never-ending drive to make the species superhuman.
BIGGER, STRONGER, FASTER*
Opens on Friday in Manhattan and in Irvine, Los Angeles and Pasadena, Calif.
Directed by Christopher Bell; written by Mr. Bell, Alexander Buono and Tamsin Rawady; director of photography, Mr. Buono; edited by Brian Singbiel; music by Dave Porter; produced by Mr. Buono, Ms. Rawady and Jim Czarnecki; released by Magnolia Pictures. Running time: 1 hour 33 minutes. This film is not rated.
ELITETRACK Founder
I went to this movie tonight and have to say it is a very good movie, I actaully want to see it again. It definitely raises some very interesting questions and really makes you think about the whole steroid controversy. Here are some thought I had as I left the theater:
Is taking steroids really that bad for you as far as health effects go? According to the movie, there really isnt anything documented that says steroids are any worse for you than vitamin C. Yes, excess hair growth, acne, smaller testicles, but all are reversible. In fact, Steroids are rated below that of multivitmains for causes of death. You hear all of these stories about steroids causing disease or death, but there is no proof to back it up. You have one or two doctors telling conrgess this, but there really is no foundation for that argument and there are no studies out there concerning harmful effects of steroids because of the ban. I’m not saying steroids cant cause death or disease, we simply do not know and blaming steroids is just picking a scapegoat, who says it couldnt be the poor diet one may have had for decades?
On another note, is taking steroids really any different than taking vitamins or creatine or many other supplements? It gives you an advantage right? Well so does vitamins, minerals, steroids(not all), creatine, etc. which all occur naturally. They all ‘enhance’ oneself to do more than otherwise possible. How about cortizone shots? Those are steroids and they are legal. It was interesting, in the movie they revealed that around 1988 when Ben Johnson tested positive for steroids, the IOC or WADA or whatever committee it was had over 2000 athletes, INCLUDING Carl Lewis who tested positive for PED’s, but covered them up. I would like to know why steroids are illegal? I know that a few doctors have said they are unsafe, but much of this is unfounded? Does anyone know? Why cant someone take EPO to boost t cells, but can sleep in an altitude chamber to do the same thing, or better yet train at the Olympic training center?
And they now know how to mutate genes for cows to have “double-muscle”, should that be legal?
more to come when I remember them lol…
By the way, I am not saying I am for OR against steroids. In fact, I am agaisnt them, but I’m not so sure anymore…
…On another note, is taking steroids really any different than taking vitamins or creatine or many other supplements? It gives you an advantage right? Well so does vitamins, minerals, steroids(not all), creatine, etc. which all occur naturally. They all ‘enhance’ oneself to do more than otherwise possible. How about cortizone shots? Those are steroids and they are legal…
Add to that the fact that it is perfectly acceptable to go into a doctor’s office and have them inject toxins into your muscles just so you can appear younger looking for a few months. You can have silicone implants to make your breasts, pecs, calves, etc. look better. You can have skin and fat surgically removed for purely aesthetic reasons. A man can even have his willy whacked off and take female hormones because he wants to pretend he is a woman. A woman can take testosterone because she wants to me more manly and she’s a cultural pioneer…fine, whatever floats your boat. But why then, can’t a man also take testosterone in order to be more manly without being called a cheat?
I’ve never taken PED’s for competitive reasons, and think everyone should follow the rules of the organizations they compete in, but I think it is the height of hippocracy to castigate a younger, informed man, for wanting to improve his physique or athletic performance, or a middle aged man for wanting to supplement his declining testosterone and growth hormone levels, while applauding a person’s right to have their bodies mutilated for the sake of personal growth.
Winnesota-
Your post is quite uninformed. I haven’t seen the movie but I can tell that they’ve pulled a “Michael Moore” and sensationalized half truths for the sake of making a better more entertaining movie.
Is taking steroids really that bad for you as far as health effects go?
As with any drug the hazzards are completely dose (and variant) dependent.
According to the movie, there really isnt anything documented that says steroids are any worse for you than vitamin C. Yes, excess hair growth, acne, smaller testicles, but all are reversible.
Simply not true. From the ACSM: “Anabolic steroid use has been implicated in early heart disease, including sudden death, the increase of bad cholesterol profiles (increased LDL, lower HDL), an increase in tendon injuries, liver tumors, testicular atrophy, gynecomastia (abnormal enlargement of breasts in males), male pattern baldness, severe acne, premature closure of growth plates in adolescents, emotional disturbances and other significant health risks.” Note that MOST of those affects are irreversible. Also, note that MOST of the studies performed on AS use have been forced to use very small doses to get by IRB’s and the doses prescribed to subjects used in studies likely aren’t what are commonly used by elite athletes…especially in sports like powerlifting, OLing, bodybuilding, football and in some cases track.
In fact, Steroids are rated below that of multivitmains for causes of death. You hear all of these stories about steroids causing disease or death, but there is no proof to back it up. You have one or two doctors telling conrgess this, but there really is no foundation for that argument and there are no studies out there concerning harmful effects of steroids because of the ban.
Do some research on pubmed and you’ll quickly find that you’re buying in to what the movie is trying to sell rather than knowing the facts. Now I’m not damning AS at all because in smaller regulated doses they can actually have plenty of healthy side affects, but to say that there’s no research on them at all or that they haven’t been linked to health problems is just plain false.
On another note, is taking steroids really any different than taking vitamins or creatine or many other supplements?
Yes. At the most simplistic level one is illegal and the other is not.
It gives you an advantage right? Well so does vitamins, minerals, steroids(not all), creatine, etc. which all occur naturally.
The ‘natural’ argument is a ridiculous load of crap that we’ve been sold by pseudo-health practitioners for a long time but doesn’t mean a thing. Tobacco is natural. Arsenic is natural. They’re certainly not good for you.
They all ‘enhance’ oneself to do more than otherwise possible.
The issue is not enhancement. The issue is health. The argument against steroids is that if you take them you force others to take them if they want to compete against you. That means just because you have the potential to force me out of the sport if I do not choose to sacrifice my health over my love for competition. An extreme, over-board example? Maybe, but that’s the issue…not enhancement.
How about cortizone shots? Those are steroids and they are legal.
That’s because they’re corticosteroids. That’s completely different. For our purposes they are really only related to anabolics by name alone.
It was interesting, in the movie they revealed that around 1988 when Ben Johnson tested positive for steroids, the IOC or WADA or whatever committee it was had over 2000 athletes, INCLUDING Carl Lewis who tested positive for PED’s, but covered them up.
This has been made public for some time however it’s important to note that the drug Carl was taking was an OTC stimulant that could be found in many cough suppressants and has since been removed from the banned list. Kinda ridiculous to compare that to AS.
Why cant someone take EPO to boost t cells, but can sleep in an altitude chamber to do the same thing, or better yet train at the Olympic training center?
1) because EPO is a controlled and illegal substance and 2). because when unregulated it will turn your blood to sludge and cause heart failure. This has happened to several elite cyclists.
ELITETRACK Founder
Thanks for the reply. As I said I was raising thoughts I had on the subject of steroids that occurred to me after the movie and the questions I raise do not necessarily reflect my opinion on the matter. As I said I am against steroids. However, I will bring more thoughts to the thread for conversation.
Simply not true. From the ACSM: “Anabolic steroid use has been implicated in early heart disease, including sudden death, the increase of bad cholesterol profiles (increased LDL, lower HDL), an increase in tendon injuries, liver tumors, testicular atrophy, gynecomastia (abnormal enlargement of breasts in males), male pattern baldness, severe acne, premature closure of growth plates in adolescents, emotional disturbances and other significant health risks.” Note that MOST of those affects are irreversible. Also, note that MOST of the studies performed on AS use have been forced to use very small doses to get by IRB’s and the doses prescribed to subjects used in studies likely aren’t what are commonly used by elite athletes…especially in sports like powerlifting, OLing, bodybuilding, football and in some cases track.
Well poor diets and high sodium intake is also associated with heart disease, diabetes, and bad cholesterol among other things. I looked at a few articles on the site and from what I saw have no sources on their data and the closest they get is saying steroids are “associated” with aforementioned things. And it is true that some of those side effects are reversible.
The ‘natural’ argument is a ridiculous load of crap that we’ve been sold by pseudo-health practitioners for a long time but doesn’t mean a thing. Tobacco is natural. Arsenic is natural. They’re certainly not good for you.
Is it? Are they? I did a quick google and pubmed, but couldnt find much. Most of it are articles saying they are harmful with no resources or studies backing up their conclusions. Could you please post some links you have on this? As I said before vitamins in high doses are also bad for you, not to mention other things that are not banned including caffeine (I know in high doses it is).
[quote]How about cortizone shots? Those are steroids and they are legal.
That’s because they’re corticosteroids. That’s completely different. For our purposes they are really only related to anabolics by name alone.[/quote]
I dont have a problem with cortisone shots, but for the sake of argument: Anabolic steroids are for the most part hormones. Corticosteroids are hormones. Side affects ‘associated’ with cortisone shots:
# increased appetite and weight gain
# deposits of fat in chest, face, upper back, and stomach
# water and salt retention leading to swelling and edema
# high blood pressure
# diabetes
# osteoporosis
# cataracts
# acne
# muscle weakness
# thinning of the skin
# increased susceptibility to infection
# stomach ulcers
# psychological problems such as depression
# adrenal suppression and crisis
If we’re banning steroids because they are unhealthful then why arent cortisone shots banned? Or glucocorticoids or prednisone? I already know your response: Side effects are minimized when the doses are low. Well then why not allow low, susceptibly healthy, doses of anabolic steroids then? There are ‘top’ experts in the field of steroids that have said steroids just HAVE NOT been documented by themselves to have harmful side effects. I agree with your comment about low doses having no bad side effects. Do you have studies showing low doses of AS are harmful?
[quote]It was interesting, in the movie they revealed that around 1988 when Ben Johnson tested positive for steroids, the IOC or WADA or whatever committee it was had over 2000 athletes, INCLUDING Carl Lewis who tested positive for PED’s, but covered them up.
This has been made public for some time however it’s important to note that the drug Carl was taking was an OTC stimulant that could be found in many cough suppressants and has since been removed from the banned list. Kinda ridiculous to compare that to AS.[/quote]
Still, you know that those athletes are constantly bombarded with banned lists and are aware that they need to be VERY careful with what they take. I’m not sure that there is much of an excuse for that. The shocking thing is that these failed tests were covered up.
[quote]Why cant someone take EPO to boost t cells, but can sleep in an altitude chamber to do the same thing, or better yet train at the Olympic training center?
1) because EPO is a controlled and illegal substance and 2). because when unregulated it will turn your blood to sludge and cause heart failure. This has happened to several elite cyclists.[/quote]
LOL I did not know that, but how about low doses? I’m sure your heart wont turn to sludge 🙂
Mike, your statements about the side effects are rather sensational it seems–which of those exactly are irreversible? The acne and excess hair growth? 😉 I’ve seen the studies and the incidence rates on the irreversible and very dangerous side effects are very low. The very large case studies they’ve done on heavy users (bodybuilders and powerlifters) show the incidence rate of most of those to be very low as well. While it is nice to look at the person who responded poorly or was ridiculous with use and had a liver tumor, I’m fairly sure the incident rate of that is less than that of people who die taking acetaminophen or a similar, commonly recommended OTC drug.
The use of cortisone shots is ridiculous and to be quite honest, their prevalence at the high school and even middle school level is becoming scary. I don’t know many people who played high level HIGH SCHOOl (let alone college or pro) football without receiving one at some point. And what do you know, studies show that cortisone shots literally destroy the connective tissue in the area, besides the fact that nothing is healed, rather, it is masked.
If Carl Lewis just tested positive for some cough medicine, they wouldn’t have needed to cover it up for so long. You have to also ask yourself how you get such high doses if you just have a cold….
I’m going to play devil’s advocate here.
Here’s what I’m hearing:
Why aren’t all methods of killing / harming / damaging yourself legal if they produce the same end affect.
Perhaps the answer should not be why some things are illegal and why the things that are legal actually legal?
Also, with the other examples (food, cortisone, even tobacco) you’re largely making a decision that affects yourself only (I know we could talk about the affect on public health care costs but let’s not do that). In the case of AS, if we allow all to freely make that decision for themselves, it has the potential to have a profound affect on everyone else they compete against. So a user of equal talent, training and therapeutic means forces their competitors to either use or get out of the sport. In the case of contact sports, this is even more so the case because the enhanced guy could potentially cause serious bodily harm to a natural athlete who isn’t as big or as fast.
If you ever get the chance I’d highly suggest taking a sport ethics class. All your rebuttals are ones that commonly discussed and easily refuted.
ELITETRACK Founder
Still, you know that those athletes are constantly bombarded with banned lists and are aware that they need to be VERY careful with what they take. I’m not sure that there is much of an excuse for that.
This was simply not the case at the time Carl tested positive. I don’t know whether he used intentionally or not but I do know that banned drug lists were NOTHING (either in scope or distribution) like they are today. I agree that today there is no excuse for pro athletes testing positive for OTC drugs but 24 years ago was a different story.
ELITETRACK Founder
I did a pubmed search on AS since you asked and to be quite frank there were more peer-reviewed research articles than I had previously thought. If you just search for Anabolic Steroids you’ll find over 20 articles in the past 2 years alone that show a causal relationship between AS serious health issues (like cancer, liver failure, heart failure, etc.). Perhaps we don’t consider heart failure to be a big deal?
I don’t have the time to cite them all but here’s some eye-opening titles that you may want to check out for yourself:
*A case of a tumorsimulating expansion caused by anabolic androgen steroids in
body building
*Acute clenbuterol overdose resulting in supraventricular tachycardia and atrial
fibrillation.
*Convulsions in users of anabolic androgenic steroids: possible explanations.
*Anabolic steroids causing growth of benign tumors: androgen receptor in
angiolipomas.
*Anabolic steroids induce cardiac renin-angiotensin system and impair the
beneficial effects of aerobic training in rats.
*Anabolic-androgenic steroids and liver injury.
*Illicit drugs and cardiac arrhythmias in athletes.
*Pulmonary embolism associated with the use of anabolic steroids.
*Acute Myocardial Infarction in a Young Man Using Anabolic Steroids.
*Ischemic stroke related to anabolic abuse.
*Androgenic anabolic steroids also impair right ventricular function.
*Detrimental effects of testosterone on post-myocardial infarction remodelling in
female rats.
I’m fully aware that steroids CAN be taken in low doses with minimal health risks but if you think the people that were in the movie (at least what I saw of it in the trailer) were on low doses or that many of the athletes we’re speaking about are on lower doses you don’t have your head screwed on right.
ELITETRACK Founder
[quote author="Winnesota" date="1213147527"] Still, you know that those athletes are constantly bombarded with banned lists and are aware that they need to be VERY careful with what they take. I’m not sure that there is much of an excuse for that.
This was simply not the case at the time Carl tested positive. I don’t know whether he used intentionally or not but I do know that banned drug lists were NOTHING (either in scope or distribution) like they are today. I agree that today there is no excuse for pro athletes testing positive for OTC drugs but 24 years ago was a different story.[/quote]
This isn’t true. I was competing in powerlifting in the late 1980s. We had a long list of banned substances including stimulants. The standard excuse (there was an Olympic rower) was cough medicine, but that was BS even then. Everyone knew what could and couldn’t be taken. People were taking ephedrine plain and simple.
Until WADA / USADA came out and the stuff was distributed through athletic trainers AND the the web, the information may have been available but it wasn’t widely distributed. In fact, that’s why there was such a push several years ago to make sure that athlete’s had no excuse about these types of things.
ELITETRACK Founder
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.
I’m going to play devil’s advocate here.
Here’s what I’m hearing:
[quote]Why aren’t all methods of killing / harming / damaging yourself legal if they produce the same end affect.
Perhaps the answer should not be why some things are illegal and why the things that are legal actually legal?
Also, with the other examples (food, cortisone, even tobacco) you’re largely making a decision that affects yourself only (I know we could talk about the affect on public health care costs but let’s not do that). In the case of AS, if we allow all to freely make that decision for themselves, it has the potential to have a profound affect on everyone else they compete against. So a user of equal talent, training and therapeutic means forces their competitors to either use or get out of the sport. In the case of contact sports, this is even more so the case because the enhanced guy could potentially cause serious bodily harm to a natural athlete who isn’t as big or as fast.
If you ever get the chance I’d highly suggest taking a sport ethics class. All your rebuttals are ones that commonly discussed and easily refuted.[/quote]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.
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.
ELITETRACK Founder
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.
ELITETRACK Founder
[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.
ELITETRACK Founder
[quote author="Winnesota" date="1213285289"]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.[/quote]
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…
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…
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?
ELITETRACK Founder
[quote author="star61" date="1213286532"][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.[/quote]
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.
[quote author="Winnesota" date="1213285289"]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…[/quote]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.
Terry Bradshaw admit to steroid use today.
