I thought this was about Ethics. Being Legal does not make you Ethical. Being Ethical makes you legal. Ethics takes you one step above legal.
Also you can not talk about Ethics without talking about Morals. Morals change with each generation so they are a moving target, so does this make Ethics a moving target?
I wish the government would get out of the equation. Everytime the government makes a law banning something it makes the product supply go down so the price goes up.
The big issue with steroids in a competitive setting is unfair advantage, as has been mentioned earlier. The only issue I have with this is that (as a has also been pointed out) that other forms of advantage are currently legal and not even considered. To take the olympics as an example, what happens if I’m competing in a cycle event and my country provides me with a carbon fibre, precision engineered racing bike that weighs all of 3 kg? I may be racing against a great, talented cyclist from a poorer nation whose bike weighs a whopping 5kg.
Do I have an advantage, all other things being equal? Yes.
Is that advantage generally considered unfair? No.
The only difference is $$$.
The same argument could be applied to Tiger Woods having LASIK eye surgery which has apparently given him better than 20/20 vision. No-one cares about that though (I’m also not trying to diminish the fact that he is an amazing golfer).
Giving that steroid use is (I believe) much cheaper than some of these other advantages, I’m all for allowing their use in a competitive setting, as at least then that low cost advantage is more accessible to all athletes, and their use then comes down to personal choice.
With regard to health issues or abuse: So what? If someone is going to abuse anything, there is little you can do to stop them generally. I binge drink one or two nights a week usually, but no-one is about to suggest that alcohol be banned. Alcohol is still a controlled substance however, which does increase the difficulty of those who aren’t considered old enough to use it in obtaining it.
I guess the end point of my rant is that if using steroids in a competitive situation is considered unethical, then the correct response is not to punish the athletes, but to change the legal status of steroid use.
[quote]HotGymGuy wrote:
I guess the end point of my rant is that if using steroids in a competitive situation is considered unethical, then the correct response is not to punish the athletes, but to change the legal status of steroid use.[/quote]
Bingo
[quote]AzCats wrote:
ouroboro_s wrote:
AzCats wrote:
It’s kind of like saying whats the difference between Cocaine and whiskey. One is illegal and the other isn’t, but both will get you high. Steroids on the other hand are far more dangerous than creatine. Steroids were given a bad rap because of those who have abused them. I don’t agree with legalizing steroids because there are too many out there that would do just that…Abuse them!
Perhaps then, we should return to prohibition and outlaw alcohol because there are clearly quite a few who abuse that. What about cigarettes? They have been amply demonstrated to have a bad affect and yet many continue to use them. Regardless of the substance, there are those who will abuse it. I find it paternalistic and fueled by sensational media claims to pick and choose what we are allowed exposure to and what we aren’t.
I agree with you completely and I hope they never do go back to Prohibition. I just think if you legalize steroids you would see a much higher death rate and abuse because of it’s AVAILABILTY to those that are not educated enough before taking them. That goes back to the point X was making about regulation. It’s kind of a catch 22 situation that if you legalize them = higher death rate and abuse or make them illegal as they are now and see more crime rate. I’m kind of in the middle of this one, but still tend to lean more towards keeping them illegal and out of the hands of the uneducated. Most are going to get them anyways whether they are illegal or not. [/quote]
I think you need to learn more about the terms you are using (or not using). There is a difference between legal, decriminalized, and illegal. Regulation does not mean illegal. Regulation does not simply mean taxes on sales or production.
Legalizing AAS would not mean that anyone could walk into a store and make bulk purchases.
The biggest problem right now is that a doctor can get in serious trouble he/she prescribes testosterone to someone and it is ‘abused’. If tesoterone was not a schedule III drug doctors would be more inclined to prescribe it to the individuals who are in the grey area of needing TRT. Doctors aren’t as completely retarded WRT to this stuff as most people claim. I agree that far to many are undereducated but there are still plenty who understand that these drugs have legitimate use. If testosterone was not a schedule III drug more doctors would be willing to prescribe it to the 34 year old man with declining T levels (but not ‘below range’) who wants a little boost and is otherwise healthy.
The legal part of this really only has a negative impact on the guys who truly need the stuff. Recreational users will always be able to get hormone powder or finished product. The law doesnt change that.
[quote]GETTODECHOPPAAA wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
DOHCrazy wrote:
I’m not a Philosopher, but steroids are only cheating if used in competition against other people who aren’t using, or in a league where the rules state they are outlawed. (In this instance, them being illegal by law does not make personal use cheating.)
As far as any moral reasons, if one doesn’t believe in god and isn’t competing against tested athletes, then there is no moral reason not to use. Though there is no moral reason, some may choose to stay natural for health, economical, or situational reasons.
Even if one does believe in God, it would not be morally wrong to use steroids unless (like you said) one is competing in a sport which prohibits them.
I don’t know much about religion, but I don’t think anything in the bible stating thou shall not use steroids. If there is, that’d be some damn fine forsight.
Look up “Ronnie Coleman Blasphemes God” on youtube. Its considered SORCERY lol.[/quote]
Wow, he wasnt kidding - YouTube
Mark Cuban recently said he thinks it should be ok for athletes to use to help recovery from injuries.
I was quite surprised to see that on Around the Horn at least one reporter agreed with him and saying we shouldn’t just think negative thoughts because of the word “steroids”.
train wreck. thread is all over the place.
is this really a meaningful discussion? really?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
train wreck. thread is all over the place.
is this really a meaningful discussion? really?
[/quote]
Thanks for your input.
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
GETTODECHOPPAAA wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
DOHCrazy wrote:
I’m not a Philosopher, but steroids are only cheating if used in competition against other people who aren’t using, or in a league where the rules state they are outlawed. (In this instance, them being illegal by law does not make personal use cheating.)
As far as any moral reasons, if one doesn’t believe in god and isn’t competing against tested athletes, then there is no moral reason not to use. Though there is no moral reason, some may choose to stay natural for health, economical, or situational reasons.
Even if one does believe in God, it would not be morally wrong to use steroids unless (like you said) one is competing in a sport which prohibits them.
I don’t know much about religion, but I don’t think anything in the bible stating thou shall not use steroids. If there is, that’d be some damn fine forsight.
Look up “Ronnie Coleman Blasphemes God” on youtube. Its considered SORCERY lol.
Wow, he wasnt kidding - YouTube
LOL. I don’t know how it could be any clearer. The IFBB is trying to lead us all into devil worship and sorcery.
Sometimes, the internet amazes me.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
AzCats wrote:
I understand your point X, but if Steroids were legal there would have to be some High levels of regulation. What types of regulation would keep any teenage kid from walking into a Wallgreens and pulling 3 vials of Deca or test E off the shelf? Age limit? We all know that doesn’t work.
While people abuse prescription drugs everyday, the regulations in place seem to be very well accepted and fine by the general public…so why the major concern when it comes to steroids? I prescribe narcotics almost everyday and no one is complaining about kids getting Tylenol III so easily that it should be banned.
I am all for legalizing marijuana, but marijuana never killed anyone either. I live here in Mexico now after spending 30yrs in the states and it’s much easier to see your point being here. I can and have walked into any Farmacia and said “I will take 10 of those loaded Sustanon 250’s” without any prescription or questions. I’m not sure exactly what it is that makes the USA so much different than down here. Education, Media?
Right now, some underground lab is probably making any steroids being taken by the average underaged kid…yet in the eyes of the country, this is somehow better than having that same kid have to see a doctor?
The blackmarket exists because drugs are illegal. Making drugs illegal does NOT stop the use of them. If anything, it simply makes them less sterile and more harmful as a result. That means those who cry that many of these drugs should remain as they currently are is someone either very clueless…or so self righteous that they think by protesting something, this bypasses the damage done as a result of the protest.
Alcohol prohibition did NOT work. It created an entire illegal franchise in mobs and a growing black market. Why do people think any different about other drugs of high demand?
I have been to 5 different gyms here in the small town I live in and not one person I have trained with or talked to takes steroids or really even knows anything about them. I saw and knew many that took the juice in the states, It was everywhere. So I do see your point that making them legal would put a stop to certain crimes and hunting down those that prescribe for whatever reason. It’s legal here without a script and knowbody wants it and illegal in the USA and many other countries and people want it. It’s really hard to say what would happen if they were legalized there until they actually are, but i don’t think that’s gonna happen anytime soon with the bad rap they get from the media making steroids out to be this BAD BAD drug. Just curious what types of regulations that could prevent anyone from walking into any tienda and buying them OTC if they were legalized?
You can’t walk into a pharmacy and simply get narcotics over the counter so why do you think the rules change with this?[/quote]
When I say illegal, I don’t mean banned illegal such as Meth and Heroin. I’m saying that I think steroids should remain illegal without a prescription. I guess I should have clarified that to begin with. Just like marijuana and Narcotics, they are illegal, but you can acquire them with a prescription.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
This is so full of nonsensical generalizations and a misunderstanding of competing at the top level it’s not even worthy of debate.
This is the kind of response you get, among others, when you create a thread and drop a grenade like “steroids” - providing no parameters for discussion, and then you run for cover and watch everyone attempt to interpret what the heck you wanted to discuss. Seriously, no offense to you Stronghold.
[/quote]
Since you felt inclined to lambaste my post, would you mind taking the time to point out exactly what I was wrong about? As far as my “misunderstanding of competing at the top level”, I am assuming you have experience either as or associating with an elite athlete? I happen to know several and the general attitude is that whatever can be done to win, will be done.
My point was that when you get into the business of trying to create more “fairness” by adding rules, there is no clear line between advantages that are “wrong” and ones that are “right”. Is any advantage wrong? If so, then how does one account for and control naturally occurring advantages? If advantages are only wrong if they are created through “unnatural” means, then where do you distinguish between “natural” and “unnatural” advantages? It is arguable that specific training for an athletic event is “unnatural”. If you distinguish “unnatural” advantages as those obtained through the utilization of chemicals foreign to the human body, then it is arguable that the use of certain steroids is more natural than that Red Bull I drink before heading to the gym. My point is that trying to make things “fair” by creating more rules is an exercise in futility.
I am assuming that the point of this thread is to discuss the ethical implications of steroid use and anti-steroid regulation.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
AzCats wrote:
ouroboro_s wrote:
AzCats wrote:
It’s kind of like saying whats the difference between Cocaine and whiskey. One is illegal and the other isn’t, but both will get you high. Steroids on the other hand are far more dangerous than creatine. Steroids were given a bad rap because of those who have abused them. I don’t agree with legalizing steroids because there are too many out there that would do just that…Abuse them!
Perhaps then, we should return to prohibition and outlaw alcohol because there are clearly quite a few who abuse that. What about cigarettes? They have been amply demonstrated to have a bad affect and yet many continue to use them. Regardless of the substance, there are those who will abuse it. I find it paternalistic and fueled by sensational media claims to pick and choose what we are allowed exposure to and what we aren’t.
I agree with you completely and I hope they never do go back to Prohibition. I just think if you legalize steroids you would see a much higher death rate and abuse because of it’s AVAILABILTY to those that are not educated enough before taking them. That goes back to the point X was making about regulation. It’s kind of a catch 22 situation that if you legalize them = higher death rate and abuse or make them illegal as they are now and see more crime rate. I’m kind of in the middle of this one, but still tend to lean more towards keeping them illegal and out of the hands of the uneducated. Most are going to get them anyways whether they are illegal or not.
I think you need to learn more about the terms you are using (or not using). There is a difference between legal, decriminalized, and illegal. Regulation does not mean illegal. Regulation does not simply mean taxes on sales or production.
Legalizing AAS would not mean that anyone could walk into a store and make bulk purchases.
Correct! I should have made myself clearer to begin with.
The biggest problem right now is that a doctor can get in serious trouble he/she prescribes testosterone to someone and it is ‘abused’. If tesoterone was not a schedule III drug doctors would be more inclined to prescribe it to the individuals who are in the grey area of needing TRT. Doctors aren’t as completely retarded WRT to this stuff as most people claim. I agree that far to many are undereducated but there are still plenty who understand that these drugs have legitimate use. If testosterone was not a schedule III drug more doctors would be willing to prescribe it to the 34 year old man with declining T levels (but not ‘below range’) who wants a little boost and is otherwise healthy.
The legal part of this really only has a negative impact on the guys who truly need the stuff. Recreational users will always be able to get hormone powder or finished product. The law doesnt change that. [/quote]
I should have made myself clearer to begin with(Yo comprendo ahora). Decriminalizing is the word I should have used in the first place. I do not think steroids should be decriminalized, but should be regulated in the sense that you need a prescription in order to obtain them.
[quote]AzCats wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
AzCats wrote:
ouroboro_s wrote:
AzCats wrote:
It’s kind of like saying whats the difference between Cocaine and whiskey. One is illegal and the other isn’t, but both will get you high. Steroids on the other hand are far more dangerous than creatine. Steroids were given a bad rap because of those who have abused them. I don’t agree with legalizing steroids because there are too many out there that would do just that…Abuse them!
Perhaps then, we should return to prohibition and outlaw alcohol because there are clearly quite a few who abuse that. What about cigarettes? They have been amply demonstrated to have a bad affect and yet many continue to use them. Regardless of the substance, there are those who will abuse it. I find it paternalistic and fueled by sensational media claims to pick and choose what we are allowed exposure to and what we aren’t.
I agree with you completely and I hope they never do go back to Prohibition. I just think if you legalize steroids you would see a much higher death rate and abuse because of it’s AVAILABILTY to those that are not educated enough before taking them. That goes back to the point X was making about regulation. It’s kind of a catch 22 situation that if you legalize them = higher death rate and abuse or make them illegal as they are now and see more crime rate. I’m kind of in the middle of this one, but still tend to lean more towards keeping them illegal and out of the hands of the uneducated. Most are going to get them anyways whether they are illegal or not.
I think you need to learn more about the terms you are using (or not using). There is a difference between legal, decriminalized, and illegal. Regulation does not mean illegal. Regulation does not simply mean taxes on sales or production.
Legalizing AAS would not mean that anyone could walk into a store and make bulk purchases.
Correct! I should have made myself clearer to begin with.
The biggest problem right now is that a doctor can get in serious trouble he/she prescribes testosterone to someone and it is ‘abused’. If tesoterone was not a schedule III drug doctors would be more inclined to prescribe it to the individuals who are in the grey area of needing TRT. Doctors aren’t as completely retarded WRT to this stuff as most people claim. I agree that far to many are undereducated but there are still plenty who understand that these drugs have legitimate use. If testosterone was not a schedule III drug more doctors would be willing to prescribe it to the 34 year old man with declining T levels (but not ‘below range’) who wants a little boost and is otherwise healthy.
The legal part of this really only has a negative impact on the guys who truly need the stuff. Recreational users will always be able to get hormone powder or finished product. The law doesnt change that.
I should have made myself clearer to begin with(Yo comprendo ahora). Decriminalizing is the word I should have used in the first place. I do not think steroids should be decriminalized, but should be regulated in the sense that you need a prescription in order to obtain them. [/quote]
So you want them to be classified exactly as they are right now?? Decriminalization would still require a prescription. It just would remove steroid users from the same group as cocaine and heroin users.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
I don’t think we can have a meaningful discussion unless you better define the parameters of your premise. A discussion about steroids in a competitive setting where the presumption is that they are against the rules can only lead to the reasonable conclusion that it is cheating. I think you should better define your question / premise if you want a meaningful dialogue.
I doubt he can better define it because speaking in those terms is the same method the media uses. It is a great way to stifle any truly progressive or scientific discussion due to immediately trying to label it “cheating” or simply “bad”…as if HRT hasn’t helped men the world over.
You have a society that basically praises the use of Viagra but turns around and throws tomatoes at men over the age of 35-40 who would like to still feel like they did in their 20’s.[/quote]
Thank you for understanding, that’s why I didn’t want to add anything more on my opening post.
[quote]JDSoFla wrote:
AzCats wrote:
Not sure what god has to do with taking steroids. One could have great Morals and still take steroids or for that matter not believe in God also. Maybe I missed your point, but God really has nothing to do with it.
Well, morals are a product of the word of God, for some.
Divine Command Theory:
-| Divine command theory - Wikipedia |-
-| http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/christian-ethics/divine-command-theory/ |-
Personally, as a virtue ethicist, I have no problems partaking in something if I see no vices in that activity.
I see no vices in the use of steroids outside of tested and “clean” competitions or any other event/institution.
So, I have no ethical problems with the use of steroids outside of “clean” competitions or any other event/institution.
[/quote]
Bingo. This is exactly the type of responses I was hoping to get.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
DOHCrazy wrote:
I’m not a Philosopher, but steroids are only cheating if used in competition against other people who aren’t using, or in a league where the rules state they are outlawed. (In this instance, them being illegal by law does not make personal use cheating.)
As far as any moral reasons, if one doesn’t believe in god and isn’t competing against tested athletes, then there is no moral reason not to use. Though there is no moral reason, some may choose to stay natural for health, economical, or situational reasons.
Even if one does believe in God, it would not be morally wrong to use steroids unless (like you said) one is competing in a sport which prohibits them.
I don’t know much about religion, but I don’t think anything in the bible stating thou shall not use steroids. If there is, that’d be some damn fine forsight.[/quote]
Injecting ‘gods temple’ with a potentially harmful drug?
Sure, no where in the bible does it say ‘Do not use steroids.’ You can bend what was written any way you like, just another reason the whole thing is so silly.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
When it comes to athletics, a truly “level playing field” is little more than a fantasy. Rules attempt to ensure that all people are equally able, but the fact of the matter is that not all people are equally able. There was a thread on here a while back where there was discussion of creating rules relating to an individual’s test levels and creating a mandatory ceiling on certain hormonal aspects that affect performance, whether naturally occurring or otherwise.
It is arguable that any sort of preparation, be it through training, nutrition, or pharmaceuticals, is a means of gaining an “unnatural advantage”. This can be further extended to innate abilities and physiological advantages that certain individuals have over others.
Because of this, it seems to me that the fairest thing possible is to allow athletes to do whatever they wish in order to win. Those who don’t wish to push the envelope to the same degree as their competition don’t want to win as badly as their competition. Simple as that.[/quote]
agreed
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
This is so full of nonsensical generalizations and a misunderstanding of competing at the top level it’s not even worthy of debate.
This is the kind of response you get, among others, when you create a thread and drop a grenade like “steroids” - providing no parameters for discussion, and then you run for cover and watch everyone attempt to interpret what the heck you wanted to discuss. Seriously, no offense to you Stronghold.
Since you felt inclined to lambaste my post, would you mind taking the time to point out exactly what I was wrong about? As far as my “misunderstanding of competing at the top level”, I am assuming you have experience either as or associating with an elite athlete? I happen to know several and the general attitude is that whatever can be done to win, will be done.
My point was that when you get into the business of trying to create more “fairness” by adding rules, there is no clear line between advantages that are “wrong” and ones that are “right”. Is any advantage wrong? If so, then how does one account for and control naturally occurring advantages? If advantages are only wrong if they are created through “unnatural” means, then where do you distinguish between “natural” and “unnatural” advantages? It is arguable that specific training for an athletic event is “unnatural”. If you distinguish “unnatural” advantages as those obtained through the utilization of chemicals foreign to the human body, then it is arguable that the use of certain steroids is more natural than that Red Bull I drink before heading to the gym. My point is that trying to make things “fair” by creating more rules is an exercise in futility.
I am assuming that the point of this thread is to discuss the ethical implications of steroid use and anti-steroid regulation.
[/quote]
Sorry for attacking your post. Truly, I’m not interested. I do believe the premise of your argument is misguided though…but this thread is all over the place so I don’t feel like stepping on one branch while listening to another branch crack. The thread is all over the place and this is all old ground frankly. There is nothing new here.
Briefly though, creating a “level playing field” as you are describing it is a fools errand. Really, the only level playing field intended is that participants follow the rules in place at the time of competition - as it concerns drugs, equipment, etc etc. Sport is not socialism. Sport is free economy and markets at its best. Sport is capitalism in al its glory. Competition itself exists to demonstrate that we are NOT all equal…so your premise is all wrong. We are looking for the outliers in competition - there is no interest whatsoever in making everyone equal…we are distinguishing the exception - and whether that is demonstrated by superior genetics, training, nutrition, etc. matters not, only that it is within the rules of sport. The rules exist as the only means to keep a level playing field. The variables you discuss were never intended to be equalized and there is no interest in doing so. Golf does that. Serious sport does not. The NBA will never lower the rim. There will never be a six foot and under league. Long jumpers will not be starting from different jumping points. Sprinters will not be handicapped. Need I continue?
And yes, I was an elite athlete and had dozens of others that I associated with. But that has nothing to do with anything though.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
This is so full of nonsensical generalizations and a misunderstanding of competing at the top level it’s not even worthy of debate.
This is the kind of response you get, among others, when you create a thread and drop a grenade like “steroids” - providing no parameters for discussion, and then you run for cover and watch everyone attempt to interpret what the heck you wanted to discuss. Seriously, no offense to you Stronghold.
Since you felt inclined to lambaste my post, would you mind taking the time to point out exactly what I was wrong about? As far as my “misunderstanding of competing at the top level”, I am assuming you have experience either as or associating with an elite athlete? I happen to know several and the general attitude is that whatever can be done to win, will be done.
My point was that when you get into the business of trying to create more “fairness” by adding rules, there is no clear line between advantages that are “wrong” and ones that are “right”. Is any advantage wrong? If so, then how does one account for and control naturally occurring advantages? If advantages are only wrong if they are created through “unnatural” means, then where do you distinguish between “natural” and “unnatural” advantages? It is arguable that specific training for an athletic event is “unnatural”. If you distinguish “unnatural” advantages as those obtained through the utilization of chemicals foreign to the human body, then it is arguable that the use of certain steroids is more natural than that Red Bull I drink before heading to the gym. My point is that trying to make things “fair” by creating more rules is an exercise in futility.
I am assuming that the point of this thread is to discuss the ethical implications of steroid use and anti-steroid regulation.
Sorry for attacking your post. Truly, I’m not interested. I do believe the premise of your argument is misguided though…but this thread is all over the place so I don’t feel like stepping on one branch while listening to another branch crack. The thread is all over the place and this is all old ground frankly. There is nothing new here.
Briefly though, creating a “level playing field” as you are describing it is a fools errand. Really, the only level playing field intended is that participants follow the rules in place at the time of competition - as it concerns drugs, equipment, etc etc. Sport is not socialism. Sport is free economy and markets at its best. Sport is capitalism in al its glory. Competition itself exists to demonstrate that we are NOT all equal…so your premise is all wrong. We are looking for the outliers in competition - there is no interest whatsoever in making everyone equal…we are distinguishing the exception - and whether that is demonstrated by superior genetics, training, nutrition, etc. matters not, only that it is within the rules of sport. The rules exist as the only means to keep a level playing field. The variables you discuss were never intended to be equalized and there is no interest in doing so. Golf does that. Serious sport does not. The NBA will never lower the rim. There will never be a six foot and under league. Long jumpers will not be starting from different jumping points. Sprinters will not be handicapped. Need I continue?
And yes, I was an elite athlete and had dozens of others that I associated with. But that has nothing to do with anything though.[/quote]
So are we acknowledging that the rules of sport are, at best, arbitrary and foolish? Or do they seek to create some sort of integrity within the sport? Do these rules exist in an attempt to further separate the wheat from the chaff? To allow those with the greatest raw athletic ability to shine through the most?
At what point is this integrity violated? The areas between specialized training and nutrition, OTC supplementation, and PED usage are very much grey ones.
Now, in answering these question, remember that PED’s were never a part of the original regulation of sport, and in fact, were embraced quite readily by a number of spots for quite a few years. At some point, rules against these substances were created under the premise that they create an unnatural distortion of innate athletic abilities. The same premise can easily be used in arguments against the other performance enhancing factors listed previously, yet they are still entirely legitimate.
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
JDSoFla wrote:
AzCats wrote:
Not sure what god has to do with taking steroids. One could have great Morals and still take steroids or for that matter not believe in God also. Maybe I missed your point, but God really has nothing to do with it.
Well, morals are a product of the word of God, for some.
Divine Command Theory:
-| Divine command theory - Wikipedia |-
-| http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/christian-ethics/divine-command-theory/ |-
Personally, as a virtue ethicist, I have no problems partaking in something if I see no vices in that activity.
I see no vices in the use of steroids outside of tested and “clean” competitions or any other event/institution.
So, I have no ethical problems with the use of steroids outside of “clean” competitions or any other event/institution.
Bingo. This is exactly the type of responses I was hoping to get.[/quote]
Just doing as I was told. No offense, of course, but I saw this thread train-wrecking from the start.
People, you might believe things, but lets see the empirical evidence concerning your beliefs.
I’m drunk, time for bed.