T Nation

Steroids in AFL

Any thoughts on the following article?

I think they should have to recover naturally, personally.

http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,20109745-13222,00.html

of course they chould be allowed to take it, it’s their body, it ought to be their decision.

As far as being a competitive advantage, well if you eat right and i eat like crap, you have a competitive advantage over me. Should I petition the league to mandate crappy eating habits?

[quote]KBCThird wrote:
of course they chould be allowed to take it, it’s their body, it ought to be their decision.
[/quote]

Just like it was Floyd Landis’ decision. That worked out well for him!
There is that thing called drug testing in the AFL and most honorable sporting codes.

[quote]
As far as being a competitive advantage, well if you eat right and i eat like crap, you have a competitive advantage over me. Should I petition the league to mandate crappy eating habits?[/quote]

Poor argument. Training correctly is a competitive advantage. Eating and training correctly is hardly the same as legalising banned substances.

Brown makes a good argument. If he knows he’s going to be out for the season anyway, why not use them in the extreme cases where some serious healing needs to be done?

[quote]RagingBull wrote:
Brown makes a good argument. If he knows he’s going to be out for the season anyway, why not use them in the extreme cases where some serious healing needs to be done?[/quote]

When does the healing stop. Round 1 of the next season or when he resumes full training?

It isn’t a bad idea in theory but there would be some dipshit who will try to bring legal action on the club for gearing him up during his career and suffering ill effects from it in the future.

Any ex footballer with a heart complaint, liver problem or etc will try and pin it on the club and seek damages.

As long as it’s only for injuries and it is flushed out of their system before they play I don’t see the problem with it.

Why couldnt it be argued that steroids could be used to top up T-Levels after overtraining as well? If training one’s ass off leads to depleted T-Levels, and the chance of an injury, then could it be considered OK, to top up the body’s T-Levels to prevent injuries caused by overtraining (ie. insufficient recovery)?

I guess we start going down a slippery slope when we OK the use of them for certain reasons.

[quote]Jolt wrote:
As long as it’s only for injuries and it is flushed out of their system before they play I don’t see the problem with it.[/quote]

What if they recover from their injury in the off season? Can they keep using it during the off and preseason and then get it out of the system before they play?

Drug testing is a year round thing.

There are too many grey areas in this case.

[quote]perseng wrote:
I guess we start going down a slippery slope when we OK the use of them for certain reasons.[/quote]

Good point. Once you make them legal for whatever reason, it becomes a case of “Where to next?”

[quote]Jolt wrote:
As long as it’s only for injuries and it is flushed out of their system before they play I don’t see the problem with it.[/quote]

Only for injuries… perhaps. But the idea of having it ‘flushed out of the system’ isnt great. If I trained for 5 years with steroids, then I took a year off before competing to flush my system, does that make me a natural competitor? Is that fair to the guy who spent 5 years training without steroids?

[quote]KBCThird wrote:
of course they chould be allowed to take it, it’s their body, it ought to be their decision.

As far as being a competitive advantage, well if you eat right and i eat like crap, you have a competitive advantage over me. Should I petition the league to mandate crappy eating habits?[/quote]

A substance must meet two of three criteria to be banned in sport.

  1. It provides a significant advantage for the athlete.
  2. It is shown to be harmful to the body.
  3. It throws the sport into disrepute.

So. Drugs such as pot, coke, heroin… they ban on criteria 2 and 3.

Caffeine (in certain doses) and creatine are ok, because they only meet point number 1, but not 2 and 3.

Anabolic steroids are claimed to meet all three points.

So, to allow steroids in sport, it would have to be proven that BOTH points 2 and 3 do not apply.

[quote]perseng wrote:
KBCThird wrote:
of course they chould be allowed to take it, it’s their body, it ought to be their decision.

As far as being a competitive advantage, well if you eat right and i eat like crap, you have a competitive advantage over me. Should I petition the league to mandate crappy eating habits?

A substance must meet two of three criteria to be banned in sport.

  1. It provides a significant advantage for the athlete.
  2. It is shown to be harmful to the body.
  3. It throws the sport into disrepute.

So. Drugs such as pot, coke, heroin… they ban on criteria 2 and 3.

Caffeine (in certain doses) and creatine are ok, because they only meet point number 1, but not 2 and 3.

Anabolic steroids are claimed to meet all three points.

So, to allow steroids in sport, it would have to be proven that BOTH points 2 and 3 do not apply.[/quote]

There will be those who maintain that Anabolic Steroids are actually good for your health.

I used to work under a Mr Universe competitor who has been on the gear for 30 years. He is 60+ and in incredible shape. He maintains that Steroids are obviously good for you if they are taken in controlled amounts and you get constant check ups by the doctor.

Yet in the next sentence he will tell others how many of the guys he competed against died between 50-60 of heart attacks.

Although it still fails on the other 2 points.

[quote]perseng wrote:
A substance must meet two of three criteria to be banned in sport.

  1. It provides a significant advantage for the athlete.
  2. It is shown to be harmful to the body.
  3. It throws the sport into disrepute.

So. Drugs such as pot, coke, heroin… they ban on criteria 2 and 3.

Caffeine (in certain doses) and creatine are ok, because they only meet point number 1, but not 2 and 3.

Anabolic steroids are claimed to meet all three points.

So, to allow steroids in sport, it would have to be proven that BOTH points 2 and 3 do not apply.[/quote]

In this particular case, if used properly, they would definitely do more good to the body than harm. And if the AFL and public were sensible about it, point 3 would be redundant as well.

In regards to the earlier question of when to stop, in a case like Brown/McGuire/Lyon/Boyle’s, when they resume full training, it’s time to end the usage.

[quote]RagingBull wrote:
perseng wrote:
A substance must meet two of three criteria to be banned in sport.

  1. It provides a significant advantage for the athlete.
  2. It is shown to be harmful to the body.
  3. It throws the sport into disrepute.

So. Drugs such as pot, coke, heroin… they ban on criteria 2 and 3.

Caffeine (in certain doses) and creatine are ok, because they only meet point number 1, but not 2 and 3.

Anabolic steroids are claimed to meet all three points.

So, to allow steroids in sport, it would have to be proven that BOTH points 2 and 3 do not apply.

In this particular case, if used properly, they would definitely do more good to the body than harm. And if the AFL and public were sensible about it, point 3 would be redundant as well.

In regards to the earlier question of when to stop, in a case like Brown/McGuire/Lyon/Boyle’s, when they resume full training, it’s time to end the usage.[/quote]

It was goddamn awful what happened to McGuire.

Point 3 is the tough one, because steroids have such a bad rep in the public.

Where are you getting these three points from. Point #3 is based on nothing more than pure opinion. Simply meeting criterion #1 is enough reason for argueing that a substance damages the reputation of a sport. You’re also wrong about creatine and caffiene. You wont find creatine banned because the little edge it gives doesn’t really amount to jack shit. Caffiene however IS banned by the US Olympic Committee and US Cycling Federation to name a couple. Sounds like your just making this shit up.

[quote]RoidEnthusiast wrote:
Where are you getting these three points from. Point #3 is based on nothing more than pure opinion. Simply meeting criterion #1 is enough reason for argueing that a substance damages the reputation of a sport. You’re also wrong about creatine and caffiene. You wont find creatine banned because the little edge it gives doesn’t really amount to jack shit. Caffiene however IS banned by the US Olympic Committee and US Cycling Federation to name a couple. Sounds like your just making this shit up. [/quote]

Caffeine is allowed in smaller doses, like a cup of coffee or a can of coke, it’s when people dose up that it is banned.

The three points are from the olympic committee guidelines, I believe that it is roughly the guidelines that other federations adopt. Yes, they are subjective. Yes, there is more supportive text that comes with these guidelines. There are committees and shit that get together to debate each substance.

How is improving performance in a sport throwing it into disrepute? If anything, I would think that points 2 and 3 are more closely related, because seeing a bunch of athletes hurting themselves to be the best will make the sport be seen as a less than healthy pursuit.

Honestly dude, if you are going to tell someone how wrong they are and how they are making shit up, then you should be getting your facts straight, and not be making up your own crap.

Tell me, o wise one… exactly what are the subjective criteria for a substance to be banned in sports?

[quote]De sleeplijn wrote:
Any thoughts on the following article?

I think they should have to recover naturally, personally.

http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,20109745-13222,00.html[/quote]

Dude, you might as well have written:

“I’d like to argue. I’m against steroids, and I’m going to post my anti-steroid opinions in the STEROID section because I know I’m going to bait guys that are pro-steroid into a never-ending, no-one-wins debate.”

How many of you guys are out there? Don’t you have anything better to do with your time?

[quote]FCFighter wrote:
Dude, you might as well have written:

“I’d like to argue. I’m against steroids, and I’m going to post my anti-steroid opinions in the STEROID section because I know I’m going to bait guys that are pro-steroid into a never-ending, no-one-wins debate.”
[/quote]

Did you read the rest of the thread or just the first section? I also wrote things like this…

[quote] De Sleeplijn wrote:
It isn’t a bad idea in theory but there would be some dipshit who will try to bring legal action on the club for gearing him up during his career and suffering ill effects from it in the future.
[/quote]

So maybe I’m not all against it.

[quote]
How many of you guys are out there? Don’t you have anything better to do with your time? [/quote]

Sweet fucking crap! A debate might break out on a hot topic in Australian Sport at the moment! They call these issues controversial because there are going to be strong opinions both ways.

By the way, show me a thread where everyone agrees with each other, and I’ll show you a boring thread.

You might be right though. Perhaps I should have started a thread like “Weights are good” and we could all go in there and high five each other and pump each other’s tyres up.

Awesome idea. Look for that one in the Building a better body forum.

You idiot.

[quote]G.O.A.T wrote:
KBCThird wrote:
of course they chould be allowed to take it, it’s their body, it ought to be their decision.

Just like it was Floyd Landis’ decision. That worked out well for him!
There is that thing called drug testing in the AFL and most honorable sporting codes.

[/quote]

i didnt say they ought to cheat, i said the rules of the sport ought to allow them to use drugs.

furthermore, how is consistent training and nutrition different from legalizing banned substnaces?

[quote]G.O.A.T wrote:
perseng wrote:
I guess we start going down a slippery slope when we OK the use of them for certain reasons.

Good point. Once you make them legal for whatever reason, it becomes a case of “Where to next?”

[/quote]

i agree that its a slippery slope. What i disagree with you guys about tho, is that you seem not to want to even start down the path, whereas I’m all for tumbluing head over heels down it :slight_smile: