Athletes today are routinely subject to humiliating, intrusive tests that attempt to determine what they've been ingesting, the idea being that it's OK for athletes to optimize their health and performance ability, but only if they eat and drink what some outside committee (with little medical expertise) says is OK? !

Time to recall two basic facts--

1. All people, including athletes, have a right to privacy
2. The athlete's job is to do whatever it takes to win

The natural argument to 2) is that to win in an athletic event means to win according to the rules, among them being a prohibition on ingesting specific chemicals to help their performance. Trouble is that rule is too ambiguous to mean anything, because there are some effective chemicals that are allowed, some that are prohibited, some on which there is no clear statement on whether it's allowed, and some which would raise suspicions but can't be detected.

(A classic example of the can't-be-detected case is Marion Jones, who was able to squeak by the authorities for much of her career given the detection methods in use, until 2006 when EPO was found in her system)

So, in a nutshell, all the steroid bans do is force athletes to resort to performance enhancing substances, including anabolic steroids, that will squeak by the authorities. With the technology of the day, there are many such substances (in addition to basic vitamin supplements).

One of the most powerful anabolic steroids on the planet is natural testosterone, which is now readily available to men (and maybe even women) with a prescription. Athletes can easily get themselves a pack of Androderm/Androgel, apply it, and the authorities would be hard pressed to say such a person ingested something dubious, lest they complain the dude was producing too much testosterone Furthermore, there are now chemicals on the market which can unnaturally boost natural testosterone levels, such as protodioscin.

Aside from the ambiguity of what's considered legal, the notion that in the absence of a steroid ban, athletes would be taking something bad/disruptive or something that aids short term performance at the risk of long-term health consequences is bogus.

Athletes aren't dumb. They don't train like hell to win one event. They all plan on long-term careers, so they aren't going to take anything that will cause severe long-term damage. The fact is that steroids, when taken in the appropriate doses and with an appropriate training program, do work, and so those that take them go on to live normal lives. I've never seen an athlete accused of doping looking unnaturaly tired or unhealthy. It's true that steroids are oxidants/immunosuppresants, but unless they're abused, they won't cause anyone to become chronically ill.

Lastly, the ban on steroid use can lead to situations in which athletes who don't do anything illegal are stripped of their trophies or medals (possibly because of corrupt committees, bribed lab workers who have an incentive to discredit one or more athletes).

Famed US Tour de France cyclist Lance Armstrong, for example weathered several false allegations of doping before clearing his name.

The best thing is just to end the bans on all substances that an athlete can take, i. e. let them eat and drink whatever they need to win.

__________________
Life only becomes meaningful at its extremes

-- S

from this



to this

__________________
Hope is the opposite of audacity. It's passive, an excuse for inaction.

Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

“What's the difference between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama?”

“One is a well turned-out, good-looking, and let's be honest, pretty sexy piece of eye-candy.

“The other kills her own food.”

Your argument is that the government should stop people from doing things that are bad for them - save them from themselves, if you will?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

No. The governing bodies, leagues and confrences should continue to ban this stuff as they do today. More effectively would be nice as well. The NFL failed Lyle Alzado, not the government.

Obviously there will always be people willing to cheat. Hopefully you catch them before they kill themselves.

__________________
Hope is the opposite of audacity. It's passive, an excuse for inaction.

Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

“What's the difference between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama?”

“One is a well turned-out, good-looking, and let's be honest, pretty sexy piece of eye-candy.

“The other kills her own food.”

Fair enough. I completely agree that it is up to the athletic associations to police what their athletes are allowed to do to enhance their performance. I don't really think the government ought to concern itself at all, personally.

Yes, that is certainly true.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

The government should have no part in this.
However, the leaders of this industry absolutely should prohibit it....my son is a swimmer, competition is high - even at age 13, I mean geez - the boy swims 2 miles 5 days a week - and that is just to warm up for real practice.
Through discipline, commitment, sacrifice, hard work and raw determination he has a wall of trophy's....these same traits will help him succeed in where ever life takes him.
Taking drugs to replace this, or "improve chances of winning" is simply an act of greed.
Athletics for 90% of all who partake in it - is not JUST about winning, but also - how you play.

Only to the extent that the FDA is empowered, which is to say monitoring the protocols that determine safe and effective use and the the supply chain so that it doesn't just hit the streets willy nilly.

__________________
Hope is the opposite of audacity. It's passive, an excuse for inaction.

Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

“What's the difference between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama?”

“One is a well turned-out, good-looking, and let's be honest, pretty sexy piece of eye-candy.

“The other kills her own food.”

Did Alzado use the steroids under the supervision of a reputed trainer as part of a conditioning program, or did he just dose himself whenever he felt like it? If the latter, then Alzado is to blame for whatever negative consequences occurred as a result of his abuse of it.

Also, he didn't cheat--he played by the rules at the time. He did whatever it takes to win, just as many other players in the NFL do (many of whom probably use steroids like him). Third, the NFL didn't fail Alzado. If the NFL had detected and banned his steroid use, he probably wouldn't have played as well, and second, as his own physician stated, the steroids likely didn't cause his tumor.

Steroids' have certain negative side effects (i. e. increased LDL, depressed immune system), but they also have positive effects. It's the responsibility of the athlete to moderate the use whatever he's taking so that its' negative effects don't outweigh its positive ones.

__________________
Life only becomes meaningful at its extremes

-- S

Nobody uses steroids under the supervision of a reputable trainer.

They are an unnecessary shortcut. There are good reasons to allow one's muscles to recoup naturally between training sessions. You will arrive at the same result, it will just take a little longer and without the ill effects.

__________________
Hope is the opposite of audacity. It's passive, an excuse for inaction.

Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

“What's the difference between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama?”

“One is a well turned-out, good-looking, and let's be honest, pretty sexy piece of eye-candy.

“The other kills her own food.”

Anabolic steroids are already legal, with a prescription. For those with hyperplastic or aplastic anemia, they are at least, improving their life or even saving it. However, they should not be available without a prescription. Few doctors will write that prescription for those who want to whack a ball out of the park or be a man like the Berlin wall in football, though.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Well that's the problem, isn't it? You have to jump through hoops or be physically ill to get them. The government should have no say in it. It should be left up to private citizens and organizations to determine whether they want to allow the use or not. Obviously, those who agree to avoid steroids, participate in the associated events, and are proven in the use of steroids should be punished for contract violations.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

I see no problem with it. I'll take a physician's opinion about who should use a drug than the average citizen (and let's all recall that you claim to be intellectually superior to most everyone) who knows little to nothing about its proper use and dosage. I sure don't want some freak having free access to cis-platin for example and injecting it in me because they didn't like they way I looked at them in the grocery checkout line.

I also don't want to run into the freak with roid rage at that store either.

And, don't bother trying to rationalize yourself with me on this topic. I am set in my ways on it.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Err...so your argument against personal ownership of certain drugs is because they might forcibly inject you with them?And I don't want drunk people to assault me with firearms. I guess we better ban both of those. So you're close-minded to the point of preemptively telling me not to debate the topic?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Ah, such lack of comprehension - typical for so many of late. I'm telling you I will not change my mind on this. I stated my opinion. My opinion won't change on it. Find someone else who will be openminded about it. I'm not. If that's not crystal clear to you, I can't help you at all. Go argue something absurd with one who is flexible on this topic. See how straighforward I am?

(Place your bets, folks; he'll keep it up or not?)

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Like I said, close-minded.Oh, I'm looking. I even posted about it on a political Internet forum.My argument is rational. You are rejecting sound reasoning and logic in favor of close-mindedness. Straightforward close-mindedness.If you don't want to argue, stop posting. One would wonder why you posted your opinion and the reasoning (poor reasoning) behind it on a political discussion board if you were not interested in arguing it.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.