Steroids-Bret Musburger, ABC/ESPN Sports Announcer

Ask or answer questions, discuss and express your views

Moderators: Ironman, Jungledoc, parth, stuward, jethrof

Kenny Croxdale
Powerlifting Ninja
Powerlifting Ninja
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 10:36 am

Steroids-Bret Musburger, ABC/ESPN Sports Announcer

Post by Kenny Croxdale » Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:52 am

Dr Jose Antonio (Muscular Development/January 2011) goes into Bret Musburger, ABC/ESPN Sports Announcer comment about steriods.

Musburger Statement

"Here's the truth about steroids: They work,"...

While anabolic steroids have no place in high school athletics, "I think under the proper care and doctor's advice, they could be used at the professional level," he said http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-re ... 03286.html

Dr Gary Wadler/World Anti-Doping Agency

"He's categorically wrong, and if he'd like to spend a day in my office, I can show him voluminous literature going back decades about the adverse effects of steroids,"

Dr Jose Antonio

"Show me the bodies!" Antonio correctly refutes Wadler. Antonio states along with others such as Dr Norm Fost, there is no scientific proof to back that backs up Wadler's statement.

Kenny Croxdale


Matt Z
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Posts: 4505
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by Matt Z » Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:20 am

Athletes use steroids to gain an advantage over the competition. Allowing their use under medical supervision won't stop athletes from taking stupid risks, andb trying just about anything for an edge. It may only make the problem worse.

Kenny Croxdale
Powerlifting Ninja
Powerlifting Ninja
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 10:36 am

Post by Kenny Croxdale » Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:04 pm

Matt Z wrote:Athletes use steroids to gain an advantage over the competition. Allowing their use under medical supervision won't stop athletes from taking stupid risks, andb trying just about anything for an edge. It may only make the problem worse.
Matt,

Athletes take creatine, protein power, and employ strength coaches. All to gain and advantage over the competition.

So, your inferance is that anything that gives an athlete and advantage over their competitor should be banned.

That just what the NCAA did.

"It is not permissible for an institution to provide any nutritional supplement/ingredients to its student-athletes, unless the supplement/ingredient is a nonmuscle-building supplement permissible...
http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/ind ... ddrugs.pdf

NCAA supplement you can get busted for include:

Amino Acids
Creatine
Glucosamine
HMB
Protein Power
Ect

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/ind ... ddrugs.pdf

Following that line of thinking, weight training should be outlawed because it muscle building.

Ok, back to the main issue. Taking steriods under medical supervision makes it better for a variety of reasons.

First of all, knowledgeable medical doctors would be able to prescribe them properly and monitor the athlete.

At this time even individuals who are well educated in their use are "flying blind". They are unable to have blood profile run to determine what going on.

Secondly, individuals who are clueless about thier use would be able to have a medical expert who would know how to prescribe their use.

Third, individuals who purchase them at the present time on the black market have NO idea what they are taking. Herein, lies one of the biggest problems.

Fourth, the governement would have much more control over their use by legalizing their use. Legalizing them would put the majority of criminals selling them out of business.

Legalizing them would also enhance all of the reasons noted above.

With that said, steriods are currently legal. Many physicians prescribe them for hormone replacement therapy.

Their use in other area is due to the general publics lack of knowledge and misunderstanding about them.

Kenny Croxdale

strathmeyer
Apprentice
Apprentice
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:55 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Post by strathmeyer » Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:12 pm

Kenny- no, in this context, that's not what "advantage" means.

Kenny Croxdale
Powerlifting Ninja
Powerlifting Ninja
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 10:36 am

Post by Kenny Croxdale » Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:14 pm

strathmeyer wrote:Kenny- no, in this context, that's not what "advantage" means.
Strathmeyer,

LOL...ok, what does it mean?

Kenny


Ryan A
Member
Member
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:41 pm
Location: Davis, California
Contact:

Post by Ryan A » Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:16 pm

I think the argument here is along the following:

Whether or not steroids are "bad" is debatable, at least more debatable than that other list of supplements listed.

Advantage here means that an athlete who uses steroids will have a potential performance ability that is not attainable without the use of steroids. This would force all athletes at the professional level to use a substance which has debatable long term effects. That is bad.

A similar argument could not be made for protein powder, which is merely a convenience facilitating supplement, allowing an athlete to get more protein easily.

With steroids, it's not a matter of more easily, it's a matter of impossibility so no amount of hard work could give a drug free user the same result.

User avatar
Jungledoc
moderator
moderator
Posts: 7578
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea

Post by Jungledoc » Sun Dec 12, 2010 6:34 pm

A couple of points to clarify the discussion:

One should distinguish between steroids in general, and anabolic steroids. Steroid is a very broad class of substances that includes many natural hormones, as well as synthetic substances that are chemically part of the same family. Non-anabolic steroids are prescribed by all kinds of doctors every day for everything from asthma to ectopic dermatitis. Anabolics are a subdivision of the steroid family.

Because law-makers and regulators were convinced that anabolics have a high potential for abuse, and probably partly due to public pressure, they have been legislatively classified as Schedule III controlled substances, although they probably don't meet the usual criteria for that schedule (the FDA and DEA had not put them on that schedule previously--a specific federal law was passed that put them there). This is one step less regulated than morphine and methadone. They can be prescribed legally by any doctor who holds a DEA license (this is separate from a license to practice medicine). A doctor can be licensed for only certain schedules, but most practicing doctors hold a schedule II (allows prescribing everything except schedule I).

So, any doctor with a DEA Schedule III or II license, who feels that he or she has valid reasons to do so can legally prescribe anabolics. But, like most of life, it's not that simple. Although state medical boards don't regulate drugs, they can and do regulate what doctors do. If a state medical board determined that a doctor was prescribing inappropriately, they could restrict his or her scope of practice, or suspend or revoke their license. Boards regularly do review doctors' prescribing patterns of controlled substances. So, this review would be subject to the personal prejudices of the particular medical board personnel at the state level. If they determined the doctor's prescribing to be inappropriate, they could impose a conditional license or take other disciplinary actions.

I think that a doctor with the right credentials (i.e., not me) could establish a legitimate, above-board practice that involved prescribing anabolics. He or she would need to get both state and DEA licensed first, then contact the state medical board and state up front what he or she was intending to do. It could be extremely lucrative for the doctor, because none of the services would be covered by insurance, and so it could be a cash business. No collections, no submitting and re-submitting of insurance claims, no time spent determining the patient's coverage, etc., etc. In short, very little administrative cost. Only people with money would use the service, like professional athletes.

One additional problem for the users would be that only a few specialized pharmacies carry them, so if a doctor gave you a prescription, you still might have a hard time getting the meds. Of course, the doctor could dispense the meds directly, and make a whole lot more money!

That's the medical legal issues. That has nothing to do with the rules of various sports. At that level, I agree with rules against anabolic use. It does give users a clear advantage, and the risks, while not as great as many people think, are not trivial. So many athletes may choose not to take the risks associated with use, and they would be left at a competitive disadvantage. I don't think that's fair.

Kenny Croxdale
Powerlifting Ninja
Powerlifting Ninja
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 10:36 am

Post by Kenny Croxdale » Sun Dec 12, 2010 6:39 pm

Ryan A wrote:I think the argument here is along the following:

Whether or not steroids are "bad" is debatable, at least more debatable than that other list of supplements listed.

Advantage here means that an athlete who uses steroids will have a potential performance ability that is not attainable without the use of steroids.


Ryan,

Advantage is define as "having a superior or more favorable position". http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl ... d=0CBMQkAE

So, would creatine and weight training give an athlete and advantage over and individual who abstains from them?
This would force all athletes at the professional level to use a substance which has debatable long term effects. That is bad.
Would the use to creatine and weight training "at the professkional level to use them?"

Steriod use has been around for decades. They being used in the 1960s, a 50 year period.

Exactly, how long is long enough to determine the "long term effects"?

Precisely, who has encountered documented problems with there use in 50 years?
A similar argument could not be made for protein powder, which is merely a convenience facilitating supplement, allowing an athlete to get more protein easily.

With steroids, it's not a matter of more easily, it's a matter of impossibility so no amount of hard work could give a drug free user the same result.
Does an athlete to who is able to use whey protein, creatine, ect have an advantage over an athlete who doesn't?

The point is that in sports, politics, business...you name in everyone is looking position themselves to have an advantage.

Kenny Croxdale

User avatar
Jungledoc
moderator
moderator
Posts: 7578
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea

Post by Jungledoc » Sun Dec 12, 2010 6:53 pm

While anabolics aren't the terrible, side-effect riddled witches brews that the press and general public seem to think they are, they definitely are more risky than creatine and whey protein. And the advantage is considerably greater than that offered by the supplements that have been mentioned. I don't think it's fair that an athlete would have to use medicines in order to compete on a level playing field with other athletes in his or her sport.

One other point (and y'all are having a hard time being convinced as to what side of the issue I'm on) is that our knowledge of the adverse affects of anabolics comes largely from their unsupervised use. No one really knows what the risks would be if used with medical monitoring.

Matt Z
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Posts: 4505
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by Matt Z » Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:19 pm

There's a pretty substancial difference between whey powder (food) and anabolic steroids (prescription medications). Meanwhile, you seem to be assuming two points.

A) If performance enhancing drugs were legal/permitted, athletes would only take them as directed.

B) If performance enhancing drugs were legal/permitted, doctors would always act ethically.

I have a hard time accepting either point. People abuse prescription drugs every day.

Matt Z
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Posts: 4505
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by Matt Z » Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:26 pm

I think the highly competative environment of pro-sports would encourage athletes to experiment higher dosages and odd combinations of drugs ... anything for an edge.

There's also the question of which performance enhancing drugs would be legal/permitted. Presumedly some drugs are safer than others. Permitting some drugs wouldn't stop athletes from seeking other more dangerous drugs, if they think the latter will give them an advantage.

Ryan A
Member
Member
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:41 pm
Location: Davis, California
Contact:

Post by Ryan A » Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:35 pm

Kenny,

You are using a rigid interpretation of language which really shows your ignorance of actually living in reality and talking with other people or you are just stubborn and want steroids to be seen as safe so you are hair splitting definitions about "advantage". The word advantage and almost all words have a continuum of meanings. You asked to have the meaning clarified for this discussion and I tried to to do so. You haven't added anything new to your previous posts besides throwing out a generic dictionary look-up of the word.

The reality is everyone on the board besides you seems to think there is a clear distinction. Perhaps you should be the one explaining yourself more, rather than asking others to join the "nail down word meaning" debate.

To answer your question again about creatine and weighlifting, yes, they provide an advantage. That advantage is not the same magnitude or does not have the same associated risks as steroids, therefore the "advantage" should not be considered the same.

hoosegow
Veteren Member
Veteren Member
Posts: 2004
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:40 am
Location: Texas

Post by hoosegow » Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:02 pm

I'm actually with Kenny on this one. Legalizing it in sports, I think, would lead to demystifying them. It would also get them out of the back streets and into qualified medical people's hands. If their use is out in the open, the risks of abuse could also be out in the open. If everyone has the opportunity to use them, then there would be no competitive advantage.

Now Matt Z, you have a valid point with athletes looking for a competitive advantage and trying experimental dangerous stuff. As far as I can tell, steroid use (not abuse) is the only things that does work without health issues. You can't say the same thing about amphetamines and cocaine because they cause horrific side effects.

I am a little confused. Is the main issue with this discussion about their competitive advantage - thus if legalizing them it would remove the competitive advantage, or the ethics behind legalizing them? If the question being debated is the first one, then it is a no brainer- legalize it and remove the competive advantage. If it is the latter - things get a little tricky.

Jebus
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:04 pm

Post by Jebus » Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:39 pm

I agree with hoose. I think everything should be legalized, crack, weed, anabolic steroids, heroine. People are going to do them anyway, legal or not. If the people doing them were monitered, it would be a hell of a lot safer than people shooting up in the locker room with stuff they don't even know what it is.

User avatar
Ironman
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3992
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am

Post by Ironman » Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:01 am

I of course think everything should be legal. However I think whatever group controls the rules of a particular sport should be able to decide whether or not steroids are against the rules in that sport.


Post Reply