T Nation

Steroids Allowed in Pro Sports

I’m taking a sport sociology course right now, and we’re having a debate on steroid use in pro sports and if it should be allowed. Naturally, I took the “for” side supporting steroid use in pro sports, so I was wondering if any of you guys have any good scholarly articles or links to these articles that disprove the myths of all the dangers of steroid use, roid rage, etc.

I have some pretty good points, and from what I’ve learnt on this site, most of it should be true, but without scientists’ word to “back me up”, all this means moot. Thanks ahead of time guys…

Ask the other side for documentation proving roid rage; they will have none.

I don’t have the info link now, but I had a discussion with a “smart” friend that is anti-steroids because “Lyle Alzado died of a steroid related cancerous tumor”. I impolitely informed him that’s not how Lyle died. He had a rare unrelated to steroids brain tumor that eventually killed him.

Back in those days BB’ers were getting growth hormone from cadavers, and some of them may have been infected with HIV, therefore possibly passing the disease to whoever used HGH in the early days. There are still many different version of how Lyle actually died, and it was a terrible loss.

My point is; even “smart” people believe what the media tells them instead of using “google” to find out what really happened.

If steroids cause brain cancer, we would have a rash of funeral notices on this site. Every day, of every week, for every year this site has been up. Sorry to hijack.

True, a lot of “smart” people have ill informed views of steroids. Look at the majority of doctors. One has to be pretty smart to finish medical school but as we’ve all seen, many of their ideas can be swayed by the media just like anyone else.

Well, if this is for a debate, look at why steroids are banned. It’s not because of health risks, it’s not because of roid rage, it is because they are unfair. As in, they give an unfair advantage to everyone using them over those that don’t.

So this is the point of view that you need to attack. Ask yourself, if there are no steroids on the playing field, are things fair? The Olympics are usually held as the bastien of pure, fair competition so it’s good to attack them. Do any competitors have an unfair advantage over the others? Yes. And nobody cares

First, technology gives certain competitors the advantage. Athletes from the US have an unfair advantage in the equipment they use compared to those poorer countries. Look at the shoes, clothing, etc of athletes from wealthy countries compared to those of the third world. Fair? Not when something can shave time off a race.

Second, athletes in more prosperous nations have better access to quality food, supplements, and the benefit of not having to work, just train. All of which is an unfair advantage to those that don’t. Should we disallow this?

Third, genetics. Based on their bodies, certain competitors have an unfair advantage in certain sports. A taller, long limbed person has an unfair advantage in the high jump compared to someone who is 5’2. Should they be allowed to compete?

I think you see where I am going. When people shoot down steroids in sports, it’s not the substance that is the problem but what it represents. “It’s cheating” “That’s not fair” And this is what you have to argue against.

Your oppositon won’t like you sticking to the matter at hand and will try to bring up any number of pop culture steroid biases. If they want to bring up health concerns, look up the injuries and deaths that come about as the result of just competing in a sport at a high level. Boxing, football, running, etc.

And you can go on pubmed and bring up any numerous studies where they gave a cycle to people and they were none the worse for wear with no side effects.

Anyway, hope it helps…

Good post ^^^

In addition to the legal debate…

What about extremely widely used amphetamines (adderall, ritalin, etc) for performance enhancement. IE to get an A in a class.

Getting amphetamines LEGAL these days just takes money or good insurance. But wait what about the others that are poor or whatever and can’t access them? Is that an unfair advantage? or is it just using legal tools available that are a result modern medical intelligence?

Oh wait, this stuff makes you concentrate more and be more productive… this medication could lead to humans being even more intelligent.

Hold up RB, what about the sides effect of that stuff… it’s called vyvanse. Who ever though tof it is a genius and is making a fortune - but SOO much more healthier than other amphetamines products mgram per mgram.

A little off a rant there but pretty much turn that debate to support steroids… why are those performance enhancers ok but not steroids…

I know why… and I’m fine with them being illegal.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]Dopamineloveaffa wrote:
Good post ^^^[/quote]

x2

[quote]MrZsasz wrote:
Well, if this is for a debate, look at why steroids are banned. It’s not because of health risks, it’s not because of roid rage, it is because they are unfair. As in, they give an unfair advantage to everyone using them over those that don’t.[/quote]

Great point. OP, In fact, take it a step further. Define “unfair.” How did society decide that steroids are unfair? Why are steroids unfair? How about other performance-enhancing stuff like creatine and BCAA? Should those be unfair too?

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
I was considering something related just today, when I saw an advert on TV for laser eye surgery, touted by Jonathan Edwards, UKs leading triple jumper.

Basically, should laser corrective surgery not fit into the same category as PEDs?

After all it is a totally unnatural advantage to those who can affort it.

Many track/athletic events require great eyesight. How can it be justified that this isn’t ‘cheating’[/quote]

I completely agree. I had lasik last year, and my eye doctor’s office was covered in signed sports memorabilia from all the athletes who had it done there. In fact, it was one of the selling points he used - telling me about how much the surgery helped Tiger Woods amongst others.

He specifically talked about how in baseball it helped batters see the spin on the ball earlier, allowing them to react more quickly.

I don’t see how its not an unfair advantage, especially since it generally produces vision greater than 20/20, so it cannot be said that natural vision is being restored.

[quote]Dopamineloveaffa wrote:
True, a lot of “smart” people have ill informed views of steroids. Look at the majority of doctors. One has to be pretty smart to finish medical school but as we’ve all seen, many of their ideas can be swayed by the media just like anyone else.[/quote]

If I could expand on this idea, I shall try.

My friend (seriously, a friend, not me) began a cycle of sus250 without knowing what he was doing, and without my knowledge and advice. He got fucked up emotionally from the test roller coaster, because he was shoooting one ml of sus250 every 8 or 9 days.

His doctor told him that this was due to his cortisol levels. He asked his doctor for a blood test to test his hormone levels. The doctor gave him a blood test, but didn’t check for test and estrogen because “they didn’t matter”

not to hate on the professional medical field, but COME ON

[quote]sapasion wrote:
Ask the other side for documentation proving roid rage; they will have none.[/quote]

I think that pretty much covers it. Ask for proper documented proof for all of the overblown side effects and the against argument will probably crumble pretty quickly.