Toast to Steroids

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Actually, what RoidEnthusiast describes is only Stage 1.

When using enough anabolic steroids, the eyes then change shape and color to be like those of a big cat, e.g. mountain lion. Women like it.

So, just take more to avoid the effect warned about above.

Too much though and you also grow a tail.[/quote]

I wonder if it would help with eyesight? I have been told (not sure if its true) that vision can improve while being on steroids.

BTW, great videos that were posted, except the one that says steroids are bad. Steroid abuse is bad, but so is aspirin abuse or Benadryl.

I watch very little TV, but noticed that on the Montel William Show that a daycare lady gave a baby 1 tablespoon of Benadryl and a few hours later, the baby died. The cause of death was due to an overdose of Benadryl.

My point is that anything can be bad if too much is taken (just like water was mentioned in this thread).

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I would be willing to bet cash money that for every NFL player that is juicing, there are 75-100 regular guys just like me that will also be taking AAS. Why do I need to hear even more bullshit about AAS and pro sport? [/quote]
No good reason, but still compelling and the point you hit on is exactly why the government made anabolic steroids controlled substances.

As absurd as it is – now I enjoy sports, but I’m not talking about enjoyment and participation – there are a lot of people in this country that WORSHIP sports. “Sanctity of sports” is an absolutely real concept to them, not some kind of joke as it would sound to you or me, and the idea of their precious sports being defiled is worse to them than spitting on the pastor and the altar would be considered to most congregations.

Back when Congress was planning to make prohormones illegal, the supplement industry set up a lobbying effort to try to provide correct information on this subject and some reason. For example Dr Tim Ziegenfuss, Rick Collins, myself and some others went to Washington for meetings with Congressional and Senate staffers on this. So I got the opportunity to see first-hand what really motivated them.

The number one reason, far and away, was “Sanctity of sports.” Presenting the viewpoint that sports organizations are certainly entitled to ban any product, drug, or supplement from use in their organization, but that hardly means that it’s proper for them to demand that Congress enforce a ban on the entire country just so they can have their ban in sports, accomplished exactly nothing. The sanctity of sports is just too great. Absolutely it makes sense to pass laws affecting the entire country just so people can imagine that their precious athletes aren’t using steroids either.

So yes, just because people want to think that the athletes of “their” teams don’t have access to steroids and aren’t using them, absolutely that’s enough reason to ban everyone else and even to make it overly problematic to doctors being able to use them for quite legit health reasons either. (Not impossible, but so hard that that field of medicine is virtually not practiced.)

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The number one reason, far and away, was “Sanctity of sports.” Presenting the viewpoint that sports organizations are certainly entitled to ban any product, drug, or supplement from use in their organization, but that hardly means that it’s proper for them to demand that Congress enforce a ban on the entire country just so they can have their ban in sports, accomplished exactly nothing. The sanctity of sports is just too great. Absolutely it makes sense to pass laws affecting the entire country just so people can imagine that their precious athletes aren’t using steroids either.
[/quote]

So let me see if I am understanding this correctly -

The main reason for government intrusion into making certain non-habit forming, non-narcotic, non-hallucinogenic chemicals Schedule III drugs was “Sanctity of Sports”?

They wanted recreational and therapeutic AAS use to be punished like crack whores so they could save whatever their definition of “sanctity” is?

I think this is where the former representative from Ohio would scream, “Beam me up, Scotty”

[quote]RoidEnthusiast wrote:
Yer still not listening to me about the eyes, lol. To the guy who posted above and said “they just ain’t right”, they may look crazed, but that doesn’t neccisarily reflect mental state. Whether users want to deny it or not, you can clearly see in this video what I- and anyone else probably whos been paying attention to their friends while on- have known for a long time: steroids can give you the roid eyes.

Hard looking glaring eyes with pinholes for pupils. Might look intimidating, but it doesnt mean the person isn’t calm or sane. [/quote]

Ok if the eyes don’t reflect mental state, that’s fine. How about the actions?
To sum it all up I wouldn’t want anyone that I care about using. And they would be upset if I did as well. I don’t care about the evidence that it is “harmless”.
But hey…if you don’t have a deep down feeling that it is wrong, besides the fact that you should take into account IT’s ILLEGAL, then go for it. But, again, I’ve never known a person to be mild mannered while juicin’ and I’ve known quite a few that have. And I strongly believe that if you’re a nasty person and/or you have a bad temper and get physical…you’re a piece of shit and you need to adjust your life and whatever is making you that way.

[quote]MJC wrote:
if you’re a nasty person and/or you have a bad temper and get physical…
[/quote]

We sure have a lot of jerks like that in society, and they do not all do gear. No evidence of cause and effect. Most of the prison population has not done gear. When you do put a jerk or bully on gear, you still have the same problem.

yah…you just have jerks or bullys that r bigger and more dangerous

Not to hijack the thread or anything but given the name of this thread it seemed like the best place to post. Anyways just recieved my dbol from a reliable online source used by many T-Nation vets. Anyways ? is ihave never seen heart shaped dbol. Are these legit if not i just wont use them. I appreciate any replies greatly. Thanks

ROBERTS! Bro I haven’t been on this board in quite awhile as lately the steroid section has been…not holding my interest, but that cat eye comment was fucking hysterical. I’m literally tearing up from laughing so hard. GROWWWLLL!! LMFAO.

[quote]HouseOfAtlas wrote:

I wonder if it would help with eyesight?[/quote]

Ive heard from numerous people that eyesight is noticably improved with HGH therapy. That is one reason why alot of people are pissed about the Barry Bonds situation - one can argue all day wether or not the exogenous testosterone cream he was using was significant enough to cause an increase in test beyond supraphysiological levels( I dont think so - I think he was merely restoring baseline levels to overcompensate for a grueling baseball season. I dont see any wrong in baseball players taking proper amounts of test supervised)

But in respects to the GH he was taking, its been known to improve eyesight - and that might have been an even bigger factor in all those homeruns he hit - not his bulging biceps.

I would argue that its plain idiotic for players to be banned from using test, as long as its medically supervised. With a 162 game season, Id be willing to bet that by game 80 these guys are all walking around well below baseline.

[quote]RoidEnthusiast wrote:
Yer still not listening to me about the eyes, lol. To the guy who posted above and said “they just ain’t right”, they may look crazed, but that doesn’t neccisarily reflect mental state. Whether users want to deny it or not, you can clearly see in this video what I- and anyone else probably whos been paying attention to their friends while on- have known for a long time: steroids can give you the roid eyes.

Hard looking glaring eyes with pinholes for pupils. Might look intimidating, but it doesnt mean the person isn’t calm or sane. [/quote]
As the old saying goes, the eyes are the window into a person soul. And I belive it to be true.

[quote]MJC wrote:

Ok if the eyes don’t reflect mental state, that’s fine. How about the actions?
To sum it all up I wouldn’t want anyone that I care about using. And they would be upset if I did as well. I don’t care about the evidence that it is “harmless”.
But hey…if you don’t have a deep down feeling that it is wrong, besides the fact that you should take into account IT’s ILLEGAL, then go for it. But, again, I’ve never known a person to be mild mannered while juicin’ and I’ve known quite a few that have. And I strongly believe that if you’re a nasty person and/or you have a bad temper and get physical…you’re a piece of shit and you need to adjust your life and whatever is making you that way.
[/quote]

I’ve known a number of juicers, and every one of them was a laid back, relaxed dude while on. There’s absolutely no correlation here, other than the fact that it makes a jerk more able to be a bigger jerk. Alcohol does that too. Even if they’re bigger jerks, I don’t count that as sufficient reason to make AAS schedule III banned substances.

Of course, I agree that if you’re a piece of trash in the first place, you need to back away slowly and figure out why you’re an ass in the first place. Then fix it and beg forgiveness from the people around you.

[quote]V R wrote:
HouseOfAtlas wrote:

I wonder if it would help with eyesight?

Ive heard from numerous people that eyesight is noticably improved with HGH therapy. That is one reason why alot of people are pissed about the Barry Bonds situation - one can argue all day wether or not the exogenous testosterone cream he was using was significant enough to cause an increase in test beyond supraphysiological levels( I dont think so - I think he was merely restoring baseline levels to overcompensate for a grueling baseball season. I dont see any wrong in baseball players taking proper amounts of test supervised)

But in respects to the GH he was taking, its been known to improve eyesight - and that might have been an even bigger factor in all those homeruns he hit - not his bulging biceps.

I would argue that its plain idiotic for players to be banned from using test, as long as its medically supervised. With a 162 game season, Id be willing to bet that by game 80 these guys are all walking around well below baseline. [/quote]

In the Bonds case, I don’t care that he was using steroids. I only care that he broke the rules of his league. Steroids are fine as far as I’m concerned, but cheating is cheating and should be dealt with severely. As should perjury. The stuff he was taking before the MLB’s ban is fine in my opinion. If it’s not banned, use it if you want. If it is banned, use it and you should be squashed like a bug by your league (not Congress). I dunno, I tend to think that if you said something like “Ok, if you’re caught using a banned substance without Dr’s prescription, you’ll lose all your records, be banned from the hall of fame, and be banned from competing for 2-5 years” you’d have a lot less cheating :). I don’t know if it would need to be that Draconian thought, that might be a bit far. But under no circumstances should Congress step in and criminalize something for “the sanctity of sports”.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
MJC wrote:

Ok if the eyes don’t reflect mental state, that’s fine. How about the actions?
To sum it all up I wouldn’t want anyone that I care about using. And they would be upset if I did as well. I don’t care about the evidence that it is “harmless”.
But hey…if you don’t have a deep down feeling that it is wrong, besides the fact that you should take into account IT’s ILLEGAL, then go for it. But, again, I’ve never known a person to be mild mannered while juicin’ and I’ve known quite a few that have. And I strongly believe that if you’re a nasty person and/or you have a bad temper and get physical…you’re a piece of shit and you need to adjust your life and whatever is making you that way.

I’ve known a number of juicers, and every one of them was a laid back, relaxed dude while on. There’s absolutely no correlation here, other than the fact that it makes a jerk more able to be a bigger jerk. Alcohol does that too. Even if they’re bigger jerks, I don’t count that as sufficient reason to make AAS schedule III banned substances.

Of course, I agree that if you’re a piece of trash in the first place, you need to back away slowly and figure out why you’re an ass in the first place. Then fix it and beg forgiveness from the people around you.[/quote]

I’ve had the idea of juicing. But not sure if I would turn into a complete dick or not. I can get fired up really fast.

I know I’m a healthy male in the bodily sense…but not sure if I could handle it mentally. Would probablly do short cycles if I ever did. Last time I took some pro Hormones I ran some dude over in my car with good reason, he was trying to break my window out after I kicked his ass. But he and his friends started it. They were harresing a young teenage girl. But it kind of scared me how quickly I was to act with very little thought.

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
MJC wrote:
I don’t care about the evidence that it is “harmless”.

Then you sir, are an ostrich. Keep believing that the world is flat…

bushy[/quote]

LOL

[quote]rainjack wrote:
So let me see if I am understanding this correctly -

The main reason for government intrusion into making certain non-habit forming, non-narcotic, non-hallucinogenic chemicals Schedule III drugs was “Sanctity of Sports”?

They wanted recreational and therapeutic AAS use to be punished like crack whores so they could save whatever their definition of “sanctity” is?

I think this is where the former representative from Ohio would scream, “Beam me up, Scotty” [/quote]

That’s right, Rainjack bro. I thought a veteran like you would have known the real reason why steroids were banned? Back in 2000, I was doing some steroid research for university and came across the type of information that Bill Roberts posted up in this thread. I didn’t know he knows Rick Collins personally - I actually cited Rick Collins in my research as a reference.

Everything mentioned in this video, I wrote in an article for university 6-7 years ago, during my first year of studies. Well it was actually an assignment, meant to be an editorial for a magazine or other media publication.

I’ll post it up here just for interest’s sake because it backs up everything said in the video.

You may have to forgive the writing style. It was my first year at university and it was written in a light conversational tone, to inform the average reader - who is a total ‘noob’ about steroids - that AAS are not the harmful or deadly drugs they are made out to be.

Editorial - The Truth about Steroids
written by J. Ward, 2000
[most relevant parts in bold for emphasis]

 We've all heard the horror stories about anabolic steroids. Shriveled testicles, men growing breasts, liver cancer, heart disease and all other types of ailments have been attributed to the use of these drugs. Across the globe the medical community, the media and national governments have perpetuated a sensationalized, not to mention one-sided, view of the steroid issue that has misinformed the public and generated an air of evil around the very word "steroid". Now it's time to clear the smoke out of the air and show the issue as it really is. 
   
 So, what exactly is an anabolic steroid? Basically, all steroids are a synthetic derivative of testosterone, a hormone which has androgenic qualities. This means that it produces male sex characteristics such as facial hair, body hair and a deep voice. Testosterone also has anabolic, tissue-building properties, and it was originally developed to accelerate the healing of wounds. The anabolic qualities of steroids produce many positive effects upon human physiology, making them desirable for athletic performance or physical enhancement. However, the androgenic effects make them undesirable for use by women.         
   
 Since the discovery of steroids, researchers have been able to produce testosterone derivatives with enhanced anabolic effects and significantly reduced androgenic effects. The main benefits of taking steroids include the development of greater muscular mass and strength, burning of fat, strengthening of bones, elevated mood and enhanced sex drive. These benefits gradually diminish after cessation of steroid use, but many users report keeping some of the gains they have made. [b]The much-publicized risks include death, testicular atrophy, gynecomastia, and so-called "roid rage". But have these side effects been exaggerated? Rick Collins, a criminal defense lawyer who specializes in defending steroid cases in court, has been researching the physical and legal implications of steroids for fifteen years. He has prepared an informative website that includes interviews and facts on steroids that will shed light on this debate. 
   
 According to an interview with Collins, the main reason steroids became controlled substances in the 1970's was that athletes using them had an unfair advantage and were considered to be cheating. He states, 

“Congressional hearings were held to determine whether the Controlled Substances Act should be amended to include anabolic steroids along with more serious drugs like cocaine and heroin. The majority of witnesses who testified, including medical professionals and representatives of regulatory agencies (including the FDA, the DEA and the National Institute on Drug Abuse) recommended against the proposed amendment to the law. Even the American Medical Association repeatedly and vehemently opposed it, maintaining that steroid abuse does not lead to the physical or psychological dependence required for scheduling under the Controlled Substances Act!”

Furthermore, he says,

“A review of the transcripts of the hearings suggests that health risk concerns were secondary considerations to Congress [emphasis added]. The most influential witnesses who testified were representatives from either amateur or professional athletics.”

    Considering the dubious political motives behind this, it is time to examine whether or not the health risks have been exaggerated. First of all, an electronic database search turned up only three deaths attributed to steroid use over the past two decades. A study by scientists Yesalis and Bahrke in 1995 states, 

“Given the high rates of use and dosages consumed (up to ten times greater than the recommended medical doses), the levels of reported adverse side effects and fatal side effects are low.”

     In addition, Drugs in Sport volume 106 has a special section on steroids which contains the following quote:

   "Although there is potential for serious long-term health problems, there is some evidence that the vast majority of users do not experience such problems (Silver 1995).

A longitudinal Australian study of 169 casual athletes who were prescribed low to moderate doses of steroids found that side effects were minimal and reversible (Millar 1994)."
[/b]
In light of these studies, people like Rick Collins are pushing for the decriminalization of steroid use (although they will still be banned in sports). Researchers are looking into making steroids safer and more acceptable for therapeutic use. It may be a long way off, but Collins hopes that one day, steroids may be legally prescribed for male cosmetic enhancement as an alternative to surgery – which is far more costly than steroids and involves a comparable set of risks. Currently, the safest way for people to receive the benefits of testosterone is to raise their natural hormone levels through proper exercise.

     Until the medical establishment approves of steroids, obtaining them from the black market and administering them to oneself without medical supervision is the only option available for most people who have made the decision to use these drugs. Therefore, they risk prosecution by the authorities or even serving jail time for possession of steroids. This is the [i]true risk[/i] of steroid use. Also, some users do not know how to take the correct dosages or how to stop.