$.t.e.r.0.1.d.$-Bret Musburger, ABC/ESPN Sports Announcer

Ask or answer questions, discuss and express your views

Moderators: Ironman, Jungledoc, parth, stuward, jethrof

Velcropop
Apprentice
Apprentice
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 6:59 am
Location: Sydney

Post by Velcropop » Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:38 pm

For the sake of argument:
hoosegow wrote:Um like like it is done so well with alcohol? Actually, I think legalizing it would cut down on adolescent youth. The problem is that it is in the back alleys now because there is a demand for it. You remove the demand by making it legal, the back alley dealers would disappear, thus removing access to it by youths. IN THEORY
I'm not sure I completely understand what you're trying to say here. For one, there was no proposition in the text you quoted from me. For two, I don't agree with your proposition that demand would diminish by making it legal. If anything demand would increase overall, tempered only by taboo (much like tobacco).

It kind of reminds me of the argument propounded by some (however few) for the legalisation of drugs; they reckon that if you legalise some drugs you remove the anti-authoritarian psychological aspect of the decision, i.e. doing something that your told not to do, and thus potential users are less inclined to use them. Absolute horse $h1t. (For the record, I am pro legalisation of many drugs.)
hoosegow wrote:Ah, but steroids use in non-adults hinders future performance so it would be stupid for a kid of 15 to use if he hopes to become a professional.
I won't hold you to account on this and by your own admission you provide no documentary evidence, but I respect your point. I have no clue on the science so your informed assertion, however anecdotal, is better than my opinion. Can anyone shed any further light on this point?
hoosegow wrote:If they are in a pre-scholarship/endorsement stage and they have to rely on steroids, then they will never make it in the first place.
It's not a question of relying on steroids, its a question of how far an individual, team, organisation or whatever is willing to go to make the most of the skill and talent at their disposal. I would agree with you that if somebody had to "rely" on steroids (whatever that means) then they probably would never make it.
hoosegow wrote:This is relevent, I think by saying that if steroids are made legal, people will see that it isn't a miracle drug. Basically it will dispel a lot of myths. If little Johnny isn't good enough to make it in the pros clean, he won't be good enough to make it in the pros while using - if everyone else has the opportunity to use.
I agree with you in part; I don't know enough about steroids to comment at length but I think many people would see that it isn't the paradoxically evil panacea the media and institutional PR makes it out to be. Regarding little Johnny, however, I think the point isn't that he might not be good enough clean, even given the opportunity of using, it's that if he IS good enough it might become imperative that he does use - is this something we want to see? It is on this point that we enter very murky ethical waters.

Oh and Soccer (Football!) is a sport, and it is bigger than me and you will ever be ;P.


robt-aus
Member
Member
Posts: 882
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:07 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by robt-aus » Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:23 am

velcro - on your last comment.
i understand hoosegow requires custom built rollercoasters.
you may not be right.

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

Post by Jungledoc » Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:02 am

Gee whiz! Has there ever been more complete participation by the active people on the forum on a single thread? Well, I haven't seen Helen or Angel yet, but I'm sure that they'll turn up soon. Great.

Civil, too, mostly.

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

Post by hoosegow » Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:04 am

Actually V-pop, my point was that alcohol is regulated, at least in the States, to those over 21. Kids that want it can get it. The same would be said about steroids. My convoluted point was that you get the steroids out of the back alleys by removing the demand of those who could get it legally. The back alley dealers, actually more realisitcally the juice pimp at the gym, would reduce in numbers thus reducing the availability of juice to kids.

The effects of steroids on pre-adult males is actually quite well studied. I don't think you'll find one person here that would advocate the use of them for kids under the age of 25. I just can't cite you any scientific papers. Roids cause pre-mature closing of the growth plates which ultimately effects the overall growth.

I'm wondering if this is the type of discussion Kenny was looking for or if we have gotten way off topic.

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

Post by Jungledoc » Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:53 am

Kenny Croxdale wrote:Unfair Advantage

Now there and oxymoron if I ever heard it. That because "Life's not fair."

If life was fair, Iwould be able to play in the NFL or any other professional organization I want to play in. You get the idea.
Yeah, I know what you mean, but lots of the rules in sports are designed to minimize inequities, to make things as fair as possible.
Kenny Croxdale wrote:With that said, I believe there should be "Clean" sports organizations and "Don't Ask Don't Tell".
That works out well for some sports, like powerlifting. It would be pretty hard to have both clean and DADT football, baseball and basketball leagues.

Kenny Croxdale wrote:Somewhere thing got off track. I never stated that anabolics were just as safe as creatine.
That's true. But you did draw a parallel between the banning of creatine (and some other supplements) and the banning of roids.


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

Post by Jungledoc » Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:56 am

I wonder if there are any bowlers on steroids.

dale2177
Novice
Novice
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:30 am

Post by dale2177 » Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:37 am

This is a great discussion so far and I decided to throw in my opinion for what it's worth.

Making Anabolic steroids legal is a double edged sword, I think that the overwhelming majority of steroid users are recreational gym goers as opposed to athletes, and i personally know of around a half dozen people that are 'on' only one of them is a competing athlete (powerlifter).

Firstly, i agree with what many have said here about legalisation bringing them out of the back alleys, meaning people are more likely to be able to get genuine and clean anabolics. Athough that by no means assures that there won't be any shady "home brewers" making dodgy gear at knock down prices.

However, generally I don't think the general population focus enough on educating themselves with what they put into their bodies. Meaning that the greater amount of people who have access to these powerful substances, the more chance of people doing some irrepairable damage to their endocrine systems.

Currently the means by which most people acquire these agents means that at least some consideration has to go into the effects of each compound and the potential risks involved.

So what's the answer? Personally I think doctors should be given more freedom to prescribe these substances, under certain conditions, ie regular blood work, correct post cycle therapies etc. That way, at least the person can be monitored and the substances can be provided in "safe" amounts and in sterile conditions.

dale2177
Novice
Novice
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:30 am

Post by dale2177 » Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:38 am

Jungledoc wrote:I wonder if there are any bowlers on steroids.
Easiest way to tell would be the size of their balls! :lol:

pdellorto
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Posts: 5252
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 8:43 am
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Post by pdellorto » Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:41 am

Thinking about this more, if anabolic steroids were more available (changed from their very restricted prescriptions) and legal in sports, it wouldn't simplify anything, in my opinion.

If you allow them in professional sports, you then have to have those sports regulating bodies determining what AAS are legal, in what dosage, at what time. You can't just say "AAS are legal under the rules" you have to say what that means in detail - the NHL regulates uniforms, stick length, stick curve and materials, and most other details of equipment that can affect competition on the ice. The NFL regulates supplementation as well as equipment. There is no reason to believe this would be different for steroids. Nor should it be, if they work as advertised.

You'd need to think about when "professional" starts. If AAS are legal in pro sports, what about the amateurs? At what age? If you can take AAS in pro football legally, what about college? You'll want to be on AAS as soon as possible for the football combine, that's for sure, especially since your competitors for the job will be.

Who pays for these drugs? Should it be up to the athlete, or do schools and teams kick in for testosterone shots for their athletes? For that matter, who chooses the dosage - a team doctor, the athlete, a theoretically impartial third party? How does this affect health insurance and health costs, who addresses needle and drug safety? Who covers potentially long-term affects or surgery to address gynomastia or need for supplemental testosterone if natural production doesn't bounce back after extended use? How do you control for side effects and negative reactions, drug interactions with other medicines, deal with overdosing (if X amount is legal under the rules, well, I'll just take 2X and be twice as legal), etc.?

If it's legal in the US, what about abroad? How do you deal with traveling athletes, and different dosage and usage rules in other countries? You'd need to hammer would international standards on usage so athletes from Europe and Asia and Africa and the Americas are all able to compete in each other's leagues.

I'm not under the impression people don't use AAS now. I'm not saying that are bad or will stack up bodies like cordwood if they get used. I'm just saying, making it above-board adds complexity to the discussion, it doesn't take it away. Legalization doesn't mean taking something out of the regulatory process, it means moving it from the judicial system to the rest of the legal system . . . plus in sports, the regulatory bodies. If you want to simplify the process, just cut down on the testing and look the other way. Legalizing it opens up more problems.

Just some thoughts.

dale2177
Novice
Novice
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:30 am

Post by dale2177 » Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:47 am

hoosegow wrote: Roids cause pre-mature closing of the growth plates which ultimately effects the overall growth.
I think it also has a lot to do with the potential risks to the endocrine system which may not be properly developed In younger adults and teens

User avatar
stuward
moderator
moderator
Posts: 6650
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Post by stuward » Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:18 am

Jungledoc wrote:Gee whiz! Has there ever been more complete participation by the active people on the forum on a single thread? Well, I haven't seen Helen or Angel yet, but I'm sure that they'll turn up soon. Great.

Civil, too, mostly.
I haven't said anything yet on the subject. I just want to say that I agree with everybody and I'm enjoying the discussion.

Jason Nunn
Associate Member
Associate Member
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 7:35 pm

Post by Jason Nunn » Tue Dec 14, 2010 1:46 pm

Well, if everyone else is doing it, I might as well add my two cents.

I personally don't care if professionals use. And, by professional, I mean they've signed a contract and are being paid. The guys at the NFL combine are not pros yet. If the pros want to use, then more power to them.

In the amature ranks, I think it would further skew the playing field moreso than it already is. The kids whose parents have the best resources already are at a huge advantage. Why make that problem worse?

As far as legalizing them goes, I don't feel as though I'm educated enough to say either way.

On a personal note, I compete in strongman which is never tested. Actually, they even have open dicussions about them on the message board of the federation I compete in. I personally choose to stay clean, and that's because I can't afford to risk my professional reputation just to be good at something that is just a hobby. Also, it's pretty fun to beat guys knowing that they are "on" and I'm not. :grin:

Rucifer
Member
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:21 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Rucifer » Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:52 pm

Here's an idea- let the sport leaders decide whether or not it's legal to use in sports or not. I think it's been said already and I agree with that.

As for the general public, I don't see how one would think that steroids wouldn't increase aggression in people. That said, increased aggression doesn't necessarily mean acts of violence. If they learn to channel the aggression and commit no foul deeds because of it, more power to them. If they are beating up their wives or kids or flipping out on waiters for bringing them the wrong drink and the like, well, they get a much more serious penalty than those who aren't on steroids (also maybe do this with booze and other mind altering drugs as well). Of course there'd have to be recordkeeping of who has said items. And if it's not "fair" for them to get twice or triple the time as a person not on steroids, it's already not "fair" to those who aren't using steroids to have to compete with those who are. Maybe if someone knows they'd get 20 years for felony assault while using steroids as opposed to 5, it might deter the people who would do such things from using.

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

Post by hoosegow » Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:47 pm

Rucifer, roid rage is a myth.

Rucifer
Member
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:21 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Rucifer » Tue Dec 14, 2010 8:10 pm

hoosegow wrote:Rucifer, roid rage is a myth.
I do agree that "roid rage" claims are overblown, but having all the extra testosterone flooding your system would certainly increase aggression. Do I have any scientific studies backing this? No, but all you have to do is look at puberty, when hormones do flood the system in young males, and their increased aggression at this point in life, to know it would have to have an effect.


Post Reply